Madam Speaker, I was saying that it took six months for Senator Gold to introduce the bill in the Senate. I do not blame him. It was the government's responsibility, not his.
The Senate passed the bill at third reading in two months, which seems more than reasonable to me. Three months went by between June 22 and September 19, because it was the summer. The bill arrived in the House on September 19, and 36 days later, here we are in the House for third reading of the bill. Thirty-six days is obviously not a lot of time to study a bill of this magnitude in the House. I find that disappointing.
What happened between October 28, 2022, and April 26, 2023? Was the government closed for business? Were there no ministers around who could work on drafting the bill? I guess not. I am very disappointed.
The only reason we are here today, being forced to ram through this bill, jeopardizing our parliamentary duty to listen to every citizen and group concerned about the bill, weigh their positions and arguments, and study the representations made in committee with care and attention, is that the government did not put in a modicum of diligence to satisfy the obligations imposed on it by the Supreme Court ruling. At no point, in the House, in committee, in the media or in a press release, did the government offer the slightest explanation for this delay. We received no explanation, no excuse, nothing. Again, it is disappointing to say the least.
Basically, the bill reinstates the principle of automatic registration, but with better guidelines and subject to certain conditions. Registration will now be automatic only for sex offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more and for repeat offenders. In all other cases, there will be a presumption that the offender will be required to register, but it could be overturned if the individual proves that there is no connection between the order to register and the purpose of registration or that registration is totally disproportionate to that purpose.
Bill S‑12 therefore allows for greater flexibility and provides that judges may use their discretion to order whether those convicted of multiple offences during a single trial should, or should not, remain on the registry for life when their behavioural profile demonstrates an increased risk of reoffending.
The Bloc Québécois unsurprisingly endorses these amendments, which are in line with human rights requirements and respond to the Supreme Court's October 28, 2022 ruling.
With regard to the second component, Bill S‑12 proposes provisions promoting the participation of victims at the publication ban stage, when a ban is to be issued. On numerous occasions, witnesses have come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights asking that we amend these rules and allow victims to intervene before a publication ban is issued.
Publication bans are issued to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses. They are issued for their benefit, not for the benefit of the defendant or the benefit of the courts and prosecutors. The basic principle in Canada, and a cornerstone of our justice system, is to hold open trials. Not so long ago, we heard about hidden trials, secret trials. I do not think anyone wanted them. They certainly should not become the rule. Open legal proceedings are a guarantee of fairness and of trials that comply with the applicable legal provisions. Justice is done in public, not behind closed doors or in secret.
Obviously, the presence of the public and the media in the courtroom is critically important, as is the right to talk about the trial, the evidence presented and the issues at stake. Publication bans should be used only under exceptional and clearly defined circumstances. On several occasions, the courts have heard challenges to their validity, often raised by media representatives.
If these bans are to be issued only on rare occasions, it is quite understandable that the reasons justifying them must be very well defined and clear to everyone. The purpose of the bans must be to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses, or at least seriously strive to achieve that objective. What is the current situation? At present, unfortunately, that is not always the case.
Bill S‑12 seeks to ensure that the people we want to protect are truly protected, and that they know they are protected. It seems to us that, at the very least, before issuing such a ban, the courts must ensure that the victims are aware that a ban is being sought and could be granted, that they understand the details of the ban and, finally, that they consent to it. How else could anyone claim that the ban is in their best interests?
Victims must also have the opportunity to request that the publication ban be modified or lifted. Victims may have consented to a ban for one reason or another but, for a host of other good reasons, they may later decide they want the ban modified or lifted. Logically, victims should be allowed to request such modifications if the ban is indeed in their best interests, as it should be.
However, as things stand, these bans are often issued without the victims' knowledge and, unfortunately, without their consent. Worse still, when they find out that a publication ban has been issued, the victims, whom the bans are intended to protect, are currently unable to request that the ban be modified or lifted. As if that were not enough, victims are even liable to prosecution if they violate a publication ban by speaking out about the assaults they have suffered or about their attacker's trial. The victim we want to protect becomes the culprit we want to prosecute. I agree with what everyone is probably thinking: That is insane and it has to change.
The purpose of Bill S‑12 is therefore to correct these incongruities and greatly improve the situation for victims and witnesses. From now on, judges will have to ensure that victims are notified when a publication ban is about to be issued and that they consent to it. If the victims are not present in the courtroom, the judge will have to ensure that the prosecutor has notified them and obtained their consent. Furthermore, victims will now be able to communicate with a legal professional, a health professional or a person with whom they have a relationship of trust without putting themselves at risk of contravening the publication ban. This is a necessary and welcome improvement. One even wonders how it could ever have been otherwise.
That said, our courts will face challenges. Sometimes, they will have to weigh the interests of the different parties if one victim wants a publication ban revoked or varied but other victims involved in the case disagree. The judge deciding the issue will have to consider the opinions and rights of everyone concerned by the ban. It will definitely take some imagination to word the ban in a way that satisfies and respects each person it needs to protect. This will be no small challenge, but nonetheless, it is a challenge we must meet. While it may not be perfect, I hope that Bill S‑12 will largely and adequately meet our legislative obligations.
