Bill S-12

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code , the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act to, among other things,
(a) require compliance with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for persons who are convicted of an offence of a sexual nature against a child and for persons who have been convicted on separate occasions of two or more offences of a sexual nature;
(b) require other persons who are convicted of, or receive a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for, an offence of a sexual nature to comply with that Act unless a court is satisfied that doing so would have no connection to the purposes of that Act or that the impact on the person of doing so would be grossly disproportionate to those purposes;
(c) provide that an order to comply with that Act as a result of convictions, or verdicts of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, for two or more offences of a sexual nature that are dealt with in the same proceeding — or an obligation to comply with that Act as a result of convictions, or such verdicts, for two or more offences of a sexual nature — does not apply for life if a court is satisfied that the offences do not demonstrate a pattern of behaviour showing that the person presents an increased risk of reoffending by committing such an offence;
(d) authorize a peace officer to obtain a warrant to arrest a person who has contravened any of sections 4 to 5.1 of that Act and bring them to a registration centre to remedy that contravention; and
(e) clarify the obligations in section 6 of that Act respecting the notice that sex offenders who plan to absent themselves from their residence must provide.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, codify the process for modifying and revoking publication bans, and add a requirement for sentencing courts to inquire into whether the victim of an offence would like to receive information about the administration of the offender’s sentence and, in the affirmative, provide the Correctional Service of Canada with the victim’s contact information.

Criminal Code

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister's weak-on-crime policies, Canada has become a more dangerous place and he is not worth the cost.

Liberal law Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, has unleashed a wave of violent criminals onto our streets and incidents of repeat and violent crime have predictably surged as a result. This increase in crime is particularly true when it comes to sexually based offences. Under this NDP-Liberal government's watch, sexual assaults have gone up 71%. Sex crimes against children have seen an astonishing 126% increase.

Thanks to extreme politicians weakening our laws, those who commit sexual assault can now serve their sentences at home in the same community as their victims.

According to Statistics Canada, only one in five cases of sexual assault reported to police result in a trial. Only 6% of sexual assaults are reported in the first place, due to fear and stigma, the lowest of all violent crime.

I know that when I was sexually assaulted, as a child of 12, by two perpetrators, I was too afraid to tell my parents, even. I did not tell my mother until I was 40 years old. That is the story for many women in Canada.

The Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter points out that only one in nine cases of sexual assault reported to police results in a conviction. Worse, only one in 15 reported cases results in the perpetrator being sentenced to jail. As a mother of three daughters, I find these statistics alarming. As a lawyer and member of the official opposition, I must hold the government presiding over this crime wave responsible. The lack of urgency of the NDP and Liberals to protect women and children is shocking. They must act now to fix the problems they created with this radical ideology that puts criminals first and victims last.

These stats only tell part of the story. The assault is traumatic enough for the victim to live once. The effects last a lifetime. To get justice, they are required to relive the trauma during the rigours of a criminal trial. They are often revictimized, forced to recount their assault through their own testimony and cross-examination. It is understandable that sex crimes and assaults are significantly under-reported, making it impossible to accurately quantify just how widespread this picture is.

It is not just sexual assault. Other forms of sexual violence are also on the rise. Online child exploitation has increased.

According, again, to StatsCan, my province of British Columbia accounted for 54% of Canada's reported incidents of making and distributing sexually explicit images. The RCMP in British Columbia dealt with 9,600 cases of child exploitation last year alone.

This is unacceptable in the extreme and speaks to the NDP-Liberal government's failure to protect the most vulnerable in our society, particularly women and children.

The House must acknowledge that Canada has a problem with sex crimes, as we debate legal changes to the sex offender registry.

In my family law practice, I handled a case where a woman was concerned for the safety of her child during a custody dispute. She expressed concern that unsupervised contact with extended family members on the father's side of the family could put her child at risk of sexual assault. I discovered, through a sex offender registry in the United States, that the family member in question was a known offender. We were able to secure conditions in the custody arrangements that kept the child safe and under supervision.

This underscores the need for a strong, effective sex offender registry, to help law enforcement keep the public safe.

The legislation before us today, Bill S-12, amends the Sex Offender Registration Information Act, following a Supreme Court ruling that determines that sections of this law were unconstitutional.

The court gave the Liberals one year to fix the unconstitutional provisions. That was on October 28, 2022. The so-called “feminist government” has dragged its feet yet again, and here we are today at the 11th hour debating the bill with a looming deadline just three days away.

Bill S-12 would change the Sex Offender Registry Information Act that was first passed in 2004 with the support of all parties. It was created to assist law enforcement agencies by requiring the registration of specific information about sex offenders, such as addresses, phone numbers, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of the victims and their relationship to the offender. At the time it was up to the discretion of the judge as to whether a sexual offender should be on the registry.

However, this led to several issues. In 2009, the public safety committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to enrol in the sex offender registry. Conservatives recognized that to be effective and to actually protect women, children, victims and survivors, the national registry had to be enforced consistently across the country. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We support tough sentencing and enforcement against sexual crimes.

The previous Conservative government brought in the law that required convicted sex offenders to be automatically listed on the national sex offender registry to better protect the public, a measure that was also supported at the time by all parties. Conservatives remain supportive of legislation that would protect the public from sexual offenders, including Bill S-12. However, the bill is another missed opportunity to improve public safety.

At committee, the Liberals amended their own bill to further prioritize the interests of the accused in sexual assault cases. Frankly, accused sexual offenders do not need more support in the criminal justice system. It is the victims and survivors who need the support. This was a chance for the coalition government to stand with victims, but once again it abandoned them. Common-sense Conservatives believe all sex offenders must be listed on the national sex offender registry, and we will amend the legislation to ensure this is the case when we form government.

As a family lawyer, I often dealt with custody cases where the sex offender registry was especially used to protect the interests of children. It is an essential tool for police and law enforcement agencies. I am concerned that the court's decision will water down the effectiveness of the registry and make it harder for police to prevent and investigate sexual offences.

At committee, that soft-on-crime NDP-Liberal government opposed our common-sense amendments to strengthen the bill and opposed amendments to publication bans that key stakeholders, such as My Voice, My Choice, which was earlier praised by the member opposite, have advocated for. While the government claims it stands for women's rights and supports survivors of sexual violence, its actions say otherwise.

Victims and survivors welcome stronger penalties and protections like mandatory enrolment in the national sex offender registry. They have asked for increased flexibility and victim input regarding publication bans and access to case information. The Liberals had a year to get the legislation right. Their delayed response has opened the possibility of sex offenders escaping registration if Parliament does not comply with the court-imposed deadline looming close now, something Conservatives will not allow.

We will agree to pass the bill through the House today to avoid putting the registry at risk. However, make no mistake, there is only one party committed to ending the crime wave, keeping vulnerable Canadians safe and fixing the flawed legislation. Only common-sense Conservatives will act with the urgency and the specificity required to keep women and children in Canada safe.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak about Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. The bill was reported back to us with some modifications by members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights following their careful study of its proposals.

Bill S-12 proposes amendments to both the publication ban provisions of the Criminal Code and the national sex offender registration regime. The bill is an example of the government's commitment to responding to concerns around sexual offending and demonstrating its overall commitment to victims of crime.

The proposed reforms of publication bans aim to increase victim autonomy and control in this area of the law. The changes proposed to the national sex offender registry would ensure the continued operation of this valuable police tool by making changes to bring it in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

First, I would like to discuss the amendments relating to publication bans. These proposals have been informed by the lived experiences of victims of sexual offending, and they have always had the empowerment of victims as their ultimate objective.

I want to give a particular thanks to My Voice, My Choice. This group has worked tirelessly to advocate for improvements to the publication ban regime. I can say with confidence that its members' advocacy has changed the national narrative on publication bans for the better. Without them, we would not be having this important conversation on returning agency to victims and ensuring that they are not silenced against their will.

My message to all victims and survivors is that these conversations are not over. We know that there is always more to be done. We can continue to fight for positive change. It is incumbent on us to see Bill S-12 as a step in the right direction, not an end point.

The amendments in Bill S-12 would improve communication between victims and justice system actors with respect to publication bans and ensure that there is a clear legislative process on how to amend or revoke a ban. Importantly, it is our intent that prosecutors consult with victims before a publication ban is invoked. Prosecutors should ascertain whether victims wish to have a ban in place and act accordingly. Moreover, the accused should not and will not have any say in whether a publication ban should be revoked or modified.

In addition, Bill S-12 would add clarity to the law with respect to the conduct captured by a publication ban. It is only in the rarest cases that a victim or witness should be prosecuted for such a breach. Publication bans are there to protect victims and should not be weaponized against them in the criminal justice system.

Another victim-centric element of Bill S-12 would improve victims' access to information in the criminal justice system. I am grateful to the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, who advocated for this change.

Bill S-12 would ensure that victims are asked whether they would like to receive information on case developments after sentencing, such as appeals or parole. This would be a great improvement on the current system, in which victims must proactively make a request to receive information. In some cases, victims are not told that they must make this request, or they have trouble indicating their wishes.

Every victim is different; some want updates, while others want to move on and not hear about their case ever again. Bill S-12 recognizes that this choice is entirely theirs. Our justice system should ensure that victims are supported to make the best choice for themselves.

I will now turn to the Senate amendments made to the publication ban aspect of Bill S-12. For the most part, these amendments greatly improved the bill by creating a more robust and victim-centred approach to publication bans. However, some of these amendments raised concerns, which were voiced to the justice committee by the minister and were shared by some provincial attorneys general. We also heard testimony from organizations and individuals that represent victims, and they echoed some of these concerns.

In the Senate, provisions were added that would enhance communications with victims about the imposition of publication bans. For example, prosecutors would be required to ask the victim if they wished to have a publication ban that applied to their identifying information, as well as to inform a victim who was the subject of a publication ban about its existence and the right to revoke it. The Senate also amended the bill to propose a more robust process for how a publication ban can be revoked or varied. In addition, the Senate crafted provisions that would clarify what information is captured by a publication ban to ensure that victims could share their own information with friends and family, for example, without fear of any prosecution.

These were positive suggestions that improved the bill, and the justice committee was generally supportive of the intention behind these changes.

However, as I previously indicated, we heard testimony at the justice committee from witnesses who voiced concerns with the effects of some of the Senate amendments. I am grateful to the witnesses who lent their expertise to improve Bill S-12 by pointing out these concerns.

To that end, the justice committee proposes to delete language that would require the prosecutor to inform victims and witnesses who are subjects of a publication ban about the circumstances under which they could legitimately disclose information without facing legal consequences. The committee shared concerns raised by some of the provincial attorneys general that this proposal presented serious questions about prosecutorial independence and conflicts of interest. This is because some of the Crowns who would be giving that advice may also be called upon to prosecute an individual for the offence of breaching a publication ban.

I am confident that removing this language would not impact the objective of ensuring better communications with victims about a publication ban, but ensure our Crown prosecutors could continue to effectively carry out their duties. Further, some witnesses heard by the committee during the study said that they would prefer to see the Criminal Code include a list of professionals to whom victims or witnesses could disclose identifying information without breaching the publication ban.

In response, the committee proposed an amendment that would specify that victims or witnesses do not breach a publication ban if they disclose their identifying information in situations where the disclosure is to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person of trust. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Green Party and the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke who suggested this change.

I am strongly in favour of these amendments as I believe they add clarity to Bill S-12 while still respecting the overall objective of empowering and giving a greater voice to victims of sexual violence.

I now turn to the sex offender registry provisions in the bill. The legislation would strengthen the sex offender registry and respond to the Supreme Court decision striking down sections of the registry. Bill S-12 proposes that all sexual offenders must be placed on the registry in cases involving a designated offence unless they can show that the registration would be overbroad or grossly disproportionate to the objective of the registry. Providing this limited discretion to judges responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision while still ensuring a robust registry that would assist police in preventing and investigating sexual offences.

However, in recognition that there are some offenders who will always pose a higher risk of reoffending, Bill S-12 proposes to retain automatic registration for two categories of offenders.

The first category is repeat sexual offenders. If offenders are convicted of a sexual offence and have another sexual offence in their background they would automatically be registered. This is reflective of the social science evidence that indicates that repeat sexual offenders are twice as likely as first-time offenders to reoffend sexually.

The second category is offenders who commit sexual offences against children and are sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment in cases where the offence is prosecuted by an indictment. These offenders would be covered even in the case of a first-time offence. Proposing automatic registration for this category is reflective of the social science evidence that offending against children is a validated risk factor for sexual offending. Sexual offences against children are among the most heinous crimes and I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. Bill S-12 would ensure the police have the necessary tools to prevent and address these crimes.

I would like to be clear that limiting automatic registration to these two narrow categories of offenders is not intended in any way to signal that other sexual offending is any less serious. This could not be further from the truth. All sexual offending is reprehensible, but within the confines of the majority judgment in the Ndhlovu decision, I am confident this was as far as the government could go with respect to automatic registration.

I would like to be clear that this government has faith in the judiciary to make appropriate decisions. The bill also provides a robust appeal mechanism when there is a need to challenge a decision made by a trial judge about whether an offender should have been required to register.

In addition, Bill S-12 proposes to provide judges with a list of factors that are relevant to assessing an offender's risk of sexual reoffending. This proposed list incorporates well-established risk factors based on empirical social research.

In addition to providing guidance to judges, these factors are intended to address the criticisms and concerns reflected in the minority judgment about the possibility that myths about sexual offending will inform any part of a judge's decision.

I would like to close my remarks by reminding members that Bill S-12 also proposes other changes to strengthen the sex offender registration regime. Bill S-12 addresses operational issues that have been identified by our provincial, territorial and law enforcement partners. This includes, for example, creating a new compliance warrant provision that would allow police officers to arrest non-compliant offenders, bring them to a registration centre and give them an opportunity to provide the legally required information.

Bill S-12 would also expand the list of offences that qualify an individual for the registry. The list would include crimes such as non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion. These are terrible crimes that have had serious impacts on Canadians, especially women and children. I am glad to see their inclusion on the list.

The bill would also require registered sex offenders to provide 14 days' notice of any travel as well as specific addresses of their destination. These changes have been lauded by American officials, including Attorney General Garland and Secretary Mayorkas. I know that these measures would contribute to enhanced security on both sides of our shared border.

I am confident that Bill S-12 is a balanced, thoughtful and constitutionally defensive response to the Supreme Court. It also represents our government's ongoing commitment to victims and survivors of crime. Victims and survivors must have full ownership of their own stories; this is critical. I urge all members to support this bill.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

It is in relation to Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you. I just wanted to add something for discussion.

I believe we heard some evidence—perhaps Matthew Taylor or Ms. Wells can weigh in on this—that in practical terms, the vast number of convictions of sex offenders involving children under the age of 18 proceed by summary conviction. As the Criminal Code is set out, if proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is 18 months. In my view, as a former prosecutor, whether it's a history of sexual offending or a one-off involving a child, whether it's a judge with or without expert evidence from the defence or from the Crown.... In my respectful view, a low risk is still a risk, and that's the same language that came from the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let's take a look of the identity of the justices who were part of that dissenting opinion. We have the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. We have Justice Moldaver, who is now retired. Matthew Taylor and Joanna Wells can confirm—because I know my colleague Mr. Caputo can certainly confirm this—that he was considered the expert. He was the dean insofar as criminal jurisprudence was concerned.

I agree it's dissenting and it's not binding, but I take that language very seriously. This particular bill broadens that net to ensure that all of those offenders, whether their cases proceed by indictment as contemplated by Bill S-12 or by summary conviction, will be captured by the Sex Offender Information Registration Act

Am I correct, Mr. Taylor?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to move this amendment.

This goes to the heart of our justice system in how it treats the victims of sexual offences and how it protects our communities.

The sex offender registry, prior to the Supreme Court decision, required the automatic registration of individuals who had committed certain sexual offences. There are nine members of the Supreme Court. A five-to-four decision, with a very strong dissent, found that this automatic listing violated the Constitution. They gave the government a year to respond. Now we're up against that deadline. That deadline is at the end of this month.

What has come back with Bill S-12 does not go far enough, in my opinion. For example, for an automatic listing now on the sex offender registry, if you read the dissent in the Supreme Court decision, you see that they said that judges were not properly exercising their discretion by excluding individuals. The federal registry had only a 50% inclusion rate. That was the same as in Ontario, where, when it was left to discretion, there was only about 50% inclusion. The Supreme Court found that an offender on the registry is eight times more likely to offend than someone in the general public. There is a pressing reason to have sex offenders on the sex offender registry. That has been established.

This is what Bill S-12 says, under proposed subsection 490.012(1). In order for someone to be automatically listed, it requires that:

(a) the designated offence was prosecuted by indictment;

(b) the sentence for the designated offence is a term of imprisonment of two years or more; and

—this is key, that “and” word—

(c) the victim of the designated offence is under the age of 18 years.

That is how an automatic listing on the registry would take place. This is far too narrow. That is why I've introduced our amendment, which would delete proposed paragraphs 490.012(1)(a) and (b) on page 11 of the bill, so that all designated offences, regardless, proceeding by way of summary or indictment, if they are committed against a child victim—someone under the age of 18—will require mandatory registration. We heard testimony that suggests that this would meet the decision laid out by the Supreme Court.

I would urge members to consider broadening this piece of legislation so that we can protect child victims of sexual offences, protect our communities against sex offenders and require the mandatory listing in the sex offender registry of individuals who commit an offence against a victim who is under 18 years of age. That is what this amendment does.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

It's no, Madam Chair, for these reasons.

I don't understand how, having Bill S-12, we now see the government making amendments. What this amendment would do would give more consideration to the privacy interests of the accused when contemplating the privacy interests of a person subject to a publication ban. That is not what we heard at committee. That's the exact opposite of what we heard at committee. We had victims who went through the worst possible situations in their lives. They feel revictimized by the justice system.

I don't understand where this amendment is coming from when the government is amending its own legislation.

Conservatives will be voting against this amendment.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

The new language is that Bill S-12 in clause 3 be amended by replacing line 33 on page 3 with the following:

to the public, including when the disclosure is made to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with the victim, or witness or justice system participant.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a problem with PV‑8 for three reasons.

First, proposed subsection 486.41(4) is overly restrictive. It says “the court shall consider” the factors listed. The court already considers a certain number of factors when issuing a publication ban. I think the same factors should be considered when the ban is being varied or revoked. With all due respect, limiting the factors that the court can consider paves the way for decisions that make no sense.

The second problem with PV‑8 has to do with proposed subsection 486.41(5), which reads as follows: “The applicant is not required to provide notice of the application to vary or revoke the order to the accused.” How, then, will the court go about holding the accused responsible for violating the order or the varied order? The accused shouldn't have a say in whether an order is necessary or not, but the accused should be notified of publication bans, so that they can be held responsible for violating a ban where applicable.

Third and finally, PV‑8 would replace a number of provisions in Bill S‑12, including limitation provisions, those stipulating when a publication ban would not apply. Those provisions, which appear under the headings “Limitation” and “Limitation — victim or witness”, are needed, however.

With all due respect to Ms. May, I honestly think PV‑8 would be much more detrimental than it would help victims.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

Again, this business of deeming my motions moved is all because the larger parties didn't like the rights that I do have to put these amendments forward if I chose to do so. If you didn't have this motion in place at your committee, I would be able to move all of these amendments in the House in full session, and then we'd be able to have the debate.

The witnesses from My Voice, My Choice have made it very clear why they feel Bill S-12 needs improvements. This is one of those improvements, and I'm hoping this time.... I know it doesn't seem very likely that the amendment will be accepted, but I do urge the committee to consider this as a minor improvement to the overall scheme of Bill S-12, in the interests of the victims, who otherwise find themselves under these publication bans without their knowledge.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

As I see it, there's a problem with G‑1, and the committee heard a lot about it from witnesses: Does it put the Crown prosecutor in a conflict of interest situation when explaining the ins and outs of the order to the victim? Some say no, and others say yes. Personally, I think the Crown prosecutor can't simply inform the victim that a publication ban was issued and say nothing else. If the victim asks what that means, the prosecutor shouldn't be able to tell the victim that they have to look it up and figure it out on their own, because the Crown prosecutor's job is just to inform the victim that a publication ban is in place.

I don't think the amendment says enough. I don't think it's respectful of victims and their rights. The Crown prosecutor should explain to victims what a publication ban is or designate someone to make sure the victim is properly informed. I don't think it's right to give victims so little consideration that they are simply informed in passing of the order's existence with no explanation as to what that means, being told they have to find the information themselves. I don't think the language is comprehensive enough.

I think Bill S‑12 uses better language that is more respectful of the rights of victims and witnesses.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes. I'm very surprised that the last amendment was defeated, because I did think that the committee was aware—as I thought the minister was aware—that Bill S-12 will need amendments in order to meet the goals of ensuring that victims are not subject to publication bans without their knowledge. Therefore, the amendment again here is attempting to ensure, as are others before you, that the rights of the victims are reflected in their advance knowledge of, and permission for, publication bans apply to them.

I am disappointed. I appreciate very much the support from a number of colleagues around the room, but I don't understand why we wouldn't want to ensure that these amendments that go to the issues raised by My Voice, My Choice are all carried.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and again I offer my apologies for the technical difficulties.

I am of course bringing forward amendments today based on testimony the committee has heard. I know that my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has spoken on the floor of the House as well of the extraordinary work of the group My Voice, My Choice. This amendment comes from their testimony and their evidence before this committee.

Madam Chair, we haven't been on the same committee together before, so just to explain “PV” for people, this was an old designation chosen by the House because, of course, “Green Party” would be G-3, and then it would look like a government amendment, so it became “Parti Vert”, which leads to PV-3.

The reason I'm putting forward this amendment is to meet the situations that have existed in real life, extraordinary as they are, when victims find themselves subject to publication bans without knowing. Of course, the purpose of Bill S-12 in this section is to fix that, so the amendment I'm putting forward at this point would add after subsection (2) in section 486.4 wording to make it clear that the prosecutor may make an application for an order only after obtaining the written consent of the victim or witness who was the subject of the order or after demonstrating that all reasonable attempts to communicate with the victim or witness have failed. The point is that there must not be a time when a publication ban is applied when the victim has not been made aware of the fact that this is being brought in.

I hope that's a clear and good summary. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I was looking at the amendment, and the purpose is to change the language describing the time limit. The Criminal Code stipulates that witnesses and the victim be informed of the order “at the first reasonable opportunity”. Bill S‑12 uses the wording “as soon as feasible”. CPC‑3 would change that to “immediately”.

I understand the idea is to make sure it's done as soon as possible, and obviously, I agree with that. The word “immediately”, however, is open to interpretation. How soon is “immediately”? Is five minutes too late?

Clearly, it doesn't make sense for the prosecutor to interrupt the judge to inform the witness in passing that there is an order. I think “immediately” should be interpreted as being done as soon as feasible, as soon as possible, at the first opportunity.

I don't think the amendment is helpful. I actually think it would have the opposite effect and complicate things by opening the door to contradictory rulings, given that the courts could interpret the word “immediately” in all sorts of ways.

I think the language Bill S‑12 uses, “as soon as feasible”, is reasonable. If we really want to change it, we're going to have to indicate what exactly “immediately” means. We could say that witnesses and the victim have to be informed as soon as feasible, but within 48 hours or something like that. Otherwise, the word “immediately” can't be enforced. It can't be done at the very moment the judge says it.

The French version even says “immédiatement”. It's the same word. I think we need a time period, however short it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Welcome everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 78 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of October 5, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed to the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. Those attending via the Zoom application have been tested and the interpreters are okay with their sound.

I need to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members, and these are quite important. Some of them are standard and I say them all the time, and others pertain just to clause-by-clause consideration.

First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone to active your mike and mute yourself when you are not speaking. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For those in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand and I will recognize you. For those of you on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best as we can, and we do appreciate your patience and understanding.

We have justice department officials with us today to provide answers to technical questions throughout our study.

Welcome again, Mr. Matthew Taylor, general counsel and director, criminal law policy section, and Madame Joanna Wells, acting senior counsel, criminal law policy section. Thank you so much for being here. I really value your being here, and I'm sure the members will as well.

We're ready to start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-12. Please listen to this, because we have not done it in a while, and on the committee there are a number who.... I certainly haven't done it as a chair, so I'm going to go slowly to ensure that I recognize everyone I need to and give everybody an opportunity and provide you with the information I have.

This is how the committee will proceed through clause-by-clause study.

As members already know, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Here, please note the following, and this is really important: Amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair—that's me—will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have all been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted it, and there's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once you move an amendment, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing; there are no verbal ones permitted from the floor. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Before I start, I want to thank in advance members from the legislative clerk's office, who are here with me. They will be providing support to me on any issue that might arise on the procedure.

Ladies and gentlemen, here we go.

Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

I call clause 2.

PV-1 is deemed moved, pursuant to the routine motion adopted by the committee on December 16, 2021.

Shall PV-1 carry?

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.