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

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to discuss Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

This bill is yet another example of our government's ongoing efforts to make the criminal justice system more effective in the fight against sexual offences and more responsive to the needs of victims and survivors of crime.

The main purpose of this bill is to respond to the Supreme Court decision that found sections of the sex offender registry unconstitutional. If we do not pass this bill by October 28 of this year, judges will not be able to add newly convicted sex offenders to the sex offender registry. I think we can all agree that none of us in the House from any party wants that outcome. Police have told us that this is an important tool for them in their work. We do not want to let police lose this tool.

We hear a lot of rhetoric from members in the House at times, including from the Leader of the Opposition, about ensuring consequences for serious offenders and about keeping Canadians and victims safe. This bill is about doing exactly that. I look forward to collaborating with members on both sides of the aisle to ensure that it is passed and receives royal assent by the court deadline.

I want to start by thanking the Senate for its work on this critical legislation and indeed the many witnesses whose important testimony provided the impetus for the amendments the Senate has proposed. In particular, I want to thank the victims and survivors of sexual violence who lent their first-hand experience to the legislative process. I have listened and I have heard their pain. We need to do better as a nation. I thank them for helping us shape this critical reform. Senate members put in the work to ensure that we got this legislation in a timely manner in the House of Commons, and I thank them for their expeditious work.

Bill S-12 is a fundamental priority for me and for our government. I know it will improve our justice system, particularly for victims and survivors of crime. Along with responding to the Supreme Court decision and strengthening the sex offender registry, this bill also makes victim- and survivor-centric changes to the publication ban regime and to how victims access information. I will explain each of these elements.

First is the response to the Supreme Court decision. The urgency to pass this bill stems from the court's October 2022 decision in the Crown v. Ndhlovu case, which struck down two provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the sex offender registry.

The first provision that the Supreme Court struck down required judges to automatically order an individual to register with the sex offender registry when they are convicted of, or found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder for, a designated offence. The Supreme Court held in that case, from last year, that the law was too broad because judges had to issue an order in every single case, including in cases where offenders do not pose a risk of reoffending. The court gave Parliament one year to respond to the striking down of this provision.

The second provision the Supreme Court struck down required a mandatory lifetime registration for those convicted of or found not criminally responsible for multiple offences within the same prosecution. To that category, the Supreme Court said that because people who are convicted of more than one offence during the same prosecution did not necessarily pose a higher risk in some circumstances, the provision went too far by requiring mandatory lifetime registration when a shorter period might be appropriate. The striking down of that provision was effective immediately upon the decision being rendered last year.

The bill before us now, Bill S-12, responds to the Supreme Court's decision. It does so by improving the approach to mandatory registration. The bill maintains mandatory registration in two circumstances: those involving serious offences against children and those involving repeat sexual offenders. In all other circumstances, the bill before Parliament proposes a rebuttable presumption of registration. This means that individuals convicted of or found not criminally responsible for a qualifying offence will be required to register unless they can demonstrate to the court that registration would unduly affect their rights. Thus, it is rebuttable.

By adding narrow judicial discretion back into the sex offender registration regime, we are directly responding to the court's direction. However, we are also, at the same time, ensuring that we continue to have a robust sex offender registry, the registry that police have asked us to maintain. That means a registry that gives law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate sexual offences and to keep our communities safe. My fundamental job is to do just that.

The approach is essentially what was suggested by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security back in 2009 when it reviewed the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. However, the Conservative government, at that time back in 2009, decided not to heed the public safety committee's advice and proceeded instead down a path that was deemed unconstitutional.

It is not a coincidence that this is similar to what we see today from members across the aisle. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said that he is willing to ignore the charter when he does not like a court decision, and that is something that troubles me. In fact, I will note anecdotally that a few of the petitions that were just read into the record talked about the invocation of the notwithstanding clause because of perceptions and views about certain Supreme Court judgments.

Returning to the bill, I want to highlight the circumstances in which we believe the automatic registration to the national sex offender registry would be justified. These are all for repeat offenders and for child sex offenders convicted of indictable offences and sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment.

The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that automatic registration in all cases is unconstitutional. It violates section 7 of the charter. Our government, nevertheless, believes that it is important to maintain automatic registration in two categories. The decision to retain automatic registration for these two categories is informed by evidence that shows an objectively verifiable risk of reoffending.

The first category, as I mention, is sexual offences against children. They are among the most heinous criminal acts. Based on the evidence, which we have reviewed, sexual offending against children is a known risk factor for sexual recidivism. Second, we know from experts that repeat sexual offenders have a high risk of reoffending, a risk that is five to eight times higher than individuals who have non-sexual criminal histories. For all other cases, other than the two categories I just mentioned, offenders would be required to register unless they can prove to a court why it would be inappropriate in their case based on the criteria I mentioned earlier.

This approach, outlined in Bill S-12, is respectful of the charter. Again, one of my fundamental duties is keeping Canadians safe while all the time respecting charter rights. It is also consistent with upholding public safety.

To respond to the court's decision about the automatic lifetime registration, Bill S-12 would give courts the discretion to order lifetime registration in cases involving multiple offences in the same proceeding where the pattern of offending indicates that the individual poses a risk of reoffending.

In addition to certain aspects that respond to the Supreme Court decision, Bill S-12 contains a number of elements to strengthen the sex offender registration system as a whole.

These elements were developed through ongoing consultation with our provincial and territorial partners, including law enforcement agencies.

Bill S-12 would add new offences to the list for which registration may result, such as extortion for a sexual purpose, or sextortion, and non-consensual distribution of intimate images. These are inexcusable crimes that have inflicted real damage on Canadians' lives, especially those of women and girls. We take them seriously and are ensuring that offenders of these deplorable acts are held to account.

Changes would also require those who are already on the registry to provide 14 days' notice of any travel, as well as the specific address of their destination. When Attorney General Garland and Secretary Mayorkas were in Ottawa in March for the cross-border crime forum, they applauded this very important change to our legislative structure. These changes would strengthen our partnership with our American allies in maintaining safety and security across our shared border.

Furthermore, Bill S-12 would enact a new warrant provision that would allow police to arrest an offender who is in breach of their obligations and bring them to a registration centre.

Essentially, the changes to the national sex offender registry proposed in Bill S-12 will make the registry more effective and will make it easier for law enforcement agencies to investigate and prevent sexual offences. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting these changes.

As I mentioned at the start, Bill S‑12 also includes important and useful reforms of publication ban provisions. These reforms aim to empower victims of crime by ensuring that their wishes are respected when it comes to issuing, lifting or changing publication bans, and that their right to information about their case is fully upheld.

For a long time, these changes have been called for, including more recently by victims' and survivors' groups, such as a group called My Voice, My Choice.

The support for these reforms spans across all parties. I want to thank the member for Victoria in particular for her leadership on this very issue. At an event hosted by My Voice, My Choice this spring, members of the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party all heard heartbreaking stories from survivors of sexual violence.

Across partisan lines, a promise was made to deliver changes to the publication ban regime, as called for by these brave survivors. We now, in this chamber, have the ability to fulfill this very promise. I hope members from all parties will join me in doing so.

One survivor of sexual violence who has spoken out on this issue sought to lift a publication ban on her name to protect her children. She was abused as a child and came forward to tell her story as an adult, after hearing that her abuser was working in the child care sector. It took months, legal fees and a complicated court process to finally get the ban lifted before she could try to protect her children and other children who she feared risked the same abuse as she had suffered.

When someone has the courage to reopen an immensely painful chapter in their life in order to lift a publication ban, I firmly believe our justice system needs to make it easier for them to heal and not retraumatize them. That is critical.

Calls for these changes have been advocated for a long time, including more recently by victims' groups like My Voice, My Choice. Calls for reform were also heard in the December 2022 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. I am proud to be part of a government that finally took action on this matter.

While publication bans can be a useful tool for protecting victims, they can also unduly silence them. I want to assure Canadians, in this chamber, that our government's intention is for victims and survivors of sexual crimes to have ownership of their stories. That is absolutely critical as a priority for our government, and it is a priority for this legislation.

The publication ban amendments in Bill S-12 were the subject of significant discussion in the Senate. There was broad support for the policy objectives grounding these changes, but there was also a belief that more could be done to give them better effect. Our government worked collaboratively with survivors, experts and advocates to make some important changes. The bill was amended in a number of ways.

Generally speaking, I believe these changes have made Bill S-12 better, and I am thankful for that. I am thankful to the witnesses who shared their stories and their insights during the committee study. They also shared their stories with our colleagues in the Senate, who listened and proposed such thoughtful amendments.

What would Bill S-12 do in the area I am describing? First, it makes it clear that if a publication ban has been imposed, the court must, at the first reasonable opportunity, inform the recipient of their right to apply to revoke or vary the order. It is empowering the individual.

The bill also requires the court to ask a victim or witness if they wish to be the subject of a publication ban, if they are present in court. If they are not present, the court would be required to inquire of the Crown if they sought out the wishes of the victim or witness. Again, this is further empowerment.

The bill clarifies obligations that the prosecutor has toward the victim or witness with respect to information on their right to seek, revoke or vary a publication ban.

All of these changes place victims and witnesses at the centre of the publication ban process. The goal is simple: If wanted, a publication ban should be requested.

At the same time, we know it is not always possible to reach the victim or witness in the early stages of criminal proceedings, and it is important to safeguard their interests prior to knowing what they may wish to do. That is why the bill would not prevent a publication ban from being sought in cases where the views of a victim or witness cannot be ascertained. It is my expectation that it would only be impossible to seek the victim's wishes in very rare instances.

The bill would also make important changes to codify and clarify the process for varying or revoking a publication ban once imposed. Again, the perspectives of victims and survivors are at the centre of these changes.

Bill S-12 would create a new section of the Criminal Code to clarify and streamline the process of seeking to change or revoke a publication ban. If the person who is the subject of the publication ban wants it to be revoked, the court would be required to do so without holding a hearing.

The only exception to that rule would be where the court believes that the privacy interests of another person who is subject to a publication ban would be impacted by the revocation or variation. For example, there could be a situation where there are two victims of sexual assault; one wants to have the ban removed, but the other wants her privacy maintained. A hearing should be held in that case to make sure that removing one of their publication bans will not inadvertently identify the other victim against her wishes. That is an important safeguard.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the accused would not have any say in the process of modifying or revoking a publication ban. We are not focused on the accused here; we are focused on victims and witnesses. This is about empowering victims to decide what is best for them.

In response to concerns expressed during the debate on Bill S-12, there are now provisions in the bill that make clearer when prosecution of a breach of a publication ban by the recipient shall not occur. Specifically, the changes make clear that prosecution shall not occur in situations where a person breached their own publication ban, unless they compromised the privacy of another person who is also protected by a ban and where a warning would not be appropriate. These changes are important to me, to our government and to the many victims who have long advocated for reforms in this area.

Earlier I indicated that I believe Bill S-12 was generally improved by the amendments passed in the Senate. I do, however, want to ask the justice committee to consider whether there are any changes that need to be made; it should do so quickly, given the imminent Supreme Court deadline of October 28.

The final piece of the bill for victims responds to calls from victims groups and the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime to make it easier for victims to tell the court system whether they want to receive ongoing information about their case after trial. Under the Victims Bill of Rights, victims can decide whether they want to stay informed about all case developments, such as appeals or parole. They can also decide that they do not want to be contacted about the case. They have the right to move on and not have to hear about it again. It is their decision.

However, as advocates told the justice committee, many victims who want to receive ongoing case information are slipping through the cracks. They do not know that they need to register to receive ongoing information. To address this acute problem, Bill S-12 proposes to significantly simplify and streamline the process for registering by making the judge ask the victim their preference and by making it a simple box to tick on a form. I am grateful to the advocates who brought this to my attention, so we can address it with this important bill.

In conclusion, I would say that Bill S-12 is a tremendously important piece of legislation. It has victims and survivors at its core. It would contribute to public safety and respect charter rights at the same time. I look forward to the debate on this bill, and I am confident we can work together across party lines on both sides of the aisle to ensure and facilitate its speedy passage. This will show the importance not only of the continued operation of the national sex offender registry but also of the continued strengthening of the criminal justice system's response to victims of crime.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and I listened with great interest to the minister's speech. He spoke about sexual crimes. One thing I have noticed here is that a number of sentences have been struck down for sexual offences, as they have been for firearms, yet the government has legislated when it came to firearms but not to sexual offence sentences.

We all acknowledge that sexual offences have a very significant impact on their victims. Sentences should reflect the gravity of the offences of those abusing our most vulnerable, who are serving a psychological life sentence based on the abuse they suffered. Will the minister commit, here and now, to amping up sentences for sexual offenders and reducing the use of conditional sentences?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I would say with respect to sexual offences is that these are some of the most heinous crimes that we know. The specific targeting of sexual offenders, particularly those who would sexually offend a child, is at the heart of what this bill is about.

What we are doing is working to protect victims, to ensure their safety and to ensure they are healing after the fact. That relates to the publication ban provisions I outlined. It also fundamentally relates to ensuring that the sex offender registry is maintained at the end of October of this year.

It is in every parliamentarian's interest to ensure that the sex offender registry is maintained. The registry is what law enforcement wants; it is helping to keep our communities safe and addressing the sexual offences mentioned by the member opposite. I look forward to the member's co-operation and that of his party to ensure that we are able to do so expeditiously.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the new Minister of Justice on his appointment.

I was surprised to hear him talk about My Voice, My Choice in his speech. I attended the meeting of its members on Parliament Hill, and I was particularly struck by a personal story shared by Jessica, whom I invited to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

She was there to speak out against the circumstances surrounding non-disclosure agreements. She also called for an independent public inquiry into sport that the previous minister of sport, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, promised to set up—she publicly stated she would—and a reformed approach to non-disclosure agreements.

Five months on, we see no political will on the part of the new Minister of Sport to take action.

On behalf of My Voice, My Choice, which he held up in his speech as a model, and out of respect for victims, could the Minister of Justice pressure his colleague, the Minister of Sport, to launch this independent public inquiry?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, My Voice, My Choice does tremendous work.

I would like to acknowledge the work that this organization is doing.

The most important, poignant and workable thing about this bill is that, when the representatives of this organization advocated for victims of violent sexual crimes, they asked us to reinstate this registry. They also asked for more autonomy, more dignity and choice regarding their role in the system. This is what this bill will and must do. I think the challenge is clear. We must co-operate and work together in a non-partisan way to get this done before the end of October.

I am very comfortable continuing to work with my Bloc Québécois colleagues. I hope I can count on their support.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech on Bill S-12, and I assure him that New Democrats will do everything we can to move the legislation forward expeditiously. However, we want to take a close look at it to make sure we get it right.

The minister emphasized the Supreme Court deadline, but I would like to emphasize that there are prosecutions of women who have violated publication bans happening in this country. There was a very famous case in 2021, where a woman had been sexually assaulted by a relative. When she made this fact known to other friends and family, to help keep them safe, she was prosecuted and given a fine of $2,000 and a victim surcharge of $600 for violating a publication ban.

I believe there is also an urgency in getting this done so that we do not end up with the gross injustice that happened in this case, of a victim being fined for trying to keep others safe and having to pay a victim surcharge on top of that fine, when she herself was the victim of the crime.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his contribution today and his contributions over many years at the justice committee.

The member is highlighting an important situation. Obviously I cannot comment on a particular case or a particular prosecution, but I think it underscores the points that I was making in my opening remarks. When individuals make an autonomous decision that they want to speak about what has happened to them, we need to enable and empower them to speak about their trauma and not retraumatize them thereby. That is what this bill tries to do.

The bill has two components. The critical component is maintaining a registry that would keep people safe from sexual violence. When sexual offences occur, we have to be focused on the victims and empowering them so that they do not face the type of situation that the member just outlined. That is not a situation we want to replicate. What we want to do instead is empower people to have control of their situation, their own healing and their own path.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, just two days ago, the minister brought forward legislation, the bail reform bill, which is a reflection of a great desire of many Canadians. Today we have yet another justice bill, on just the third day into the fall sitting. It is a bill that has come to us, in essence, because of a Supreme Court decision.

The minister made reference to the need to have this bill pass by October 28. I want to highlight that, when we talk about passing it, we are talking about, from what I understand, it passing through the House of Commons and ultimately receiving royal assent. It is a fairly lengthy process. We also have week-long break, a constituency week, in the month of October, so timing is of the utmost importance.

I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts regarding why it is so important that we meet this deadline.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important because we see who is behind this bill. We have women's advocates such as LEAF behind the bill. We have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police saying these proposed legislative amendments recognize the rights of victims, promote public safety and respect the rights of the accused. We have the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime behind this bill.

I am very proud to say that, in my first week in this role, I have had the ability to address community safety and the protection of victims in two different instances. On the bail reform piece, Bill C-48, I am thankful for the co-operation that we had to get that passed and sent over to the Senate quickly. Today is no less important. In fact, it is critically urgent given the court timeline we have.

It is a proud day when I am able to stand in the chamber to say that we are doing everything we can to work as expeditiously as possible to protect people's safety and respect victims while promoting their protection and their autonomy. That is fundamental to my job, and that is what I will continue to do.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about something the justice minister referenced in his remarks. He chastised the Harper government for bringing forward what he called unconstitutional legislation, but the reality is that every party in the House unanimously supported the Harper legislation in 2011, including the Liberal Party. I believe the reason all parties supported it was that, before the registry was mandatory, when it was left solely up to judicial discretion to have a sex offender added to the registry, as I am sure the minister knows, less than 50% of sex offenders were ever added, which compromised the efficacy of that registry.

I am just wondering if the minister could comment on whether he is concerned that the situation will now return to what it was before, when for that reason, all parties supported Harper's legislation in 2011.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say a couple of things. What is critically important is understanding that, when we have automatic registration, as we are proposing, for child offenders and repeat offenders, and we also have a rebuttable presumption, we are going to end up with the vast majority of individuals who are sexual offenders maintaining to be registered. That is the first point. That is is critical to public safety and to empowering victims.

The second point is a critical one about what happened in Parliament before I was ever elected, and that was that there had been a notion and suggestion coming out of the committee to remove prosecutor's discretion but maintain judicial discretion. That is exactly what we are proposing to do here today in compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada.

As the Attorney General of Canada, my fundamental role is promoting safety, always in compliance with the charter. When the courts give me a directive that says one aspect of our pieces of legislation is not compliant, it is incumbent upon me, on behalf of all Canadians, to ensure that we are enacting new legislation that complies with the charter. This bill would do just that by ensuring that there is judicial discretion guided by important criteria. However, in the main and in the majority of the cases, people will be registered, which is, I think, the important point the member opposite is making.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to quite a heavy topic. We are talking about sex offenders and, of course, when we are talking about sex offenders, we are primarily talking about the very vulnerable people who they assault, the lives they ruin, the children they violate and the women they violate. We know this is primarily a women's issue and a children's issue.

Unfortunately, over the past eight years, under the Liberal government, sexual assaults have gone up 71%, and sex crimes against children have gone up 126%. That is over the past eight years. Under the Liberal Prime Minister's watch, sex crimes against children are up 126%.

This bill from the Senate, Bill S-12, concerns the sex offender registry. I do believe the gravity of the situation is felt by all, but when we talk about this, we are really talking about some very vulnerable people who have been absolutely violated in the most horrific way. That is the reason the sex offender registry was first brought in, and it is the reason that this piece of legislation needs to be given extra care to ensure that it keeps the justice system serving those who most need it. That is, of course, the most vulnerable, particularly the women and children who have been violated.

I would like to ask for unanimous consent, which I hope to receive, to split my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. He will bring excellent discourse to this, so I ask for unanimous consent to split my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is that there is an incredible weight behind the decisions we make. We know most of the laws we pass in Parliament have a lot of weight behind them, but in particular, when it comes to things like this, I think extra consideration needs to be given. I do believe that all parties will do so, but again, we do have a few concerns. I will outline some of them in my remarks today.

Ultimately, we are talking about Bill S-12 which would of course amend the Criminal Code, and notably make changes to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, among other things. I am just going to give some background about how we came to this point and the history of this in Canada and why it was so important that this registry was brought forward in the first place.

The Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA, was first passed by the Liberal Martin government in 2004 with all parties supporting it. That does happen from time to time when there is tremendous gravity in the weight of the decision. It is good to see when sometimes all parties come together.

However, under Prime Minister Martin, the enrolment on the registry was at the discretion of the judge. It introduced the idea that registered sex offenders were required to report annually to registration centres, as well as declare any changes of residence, travel plans or changes in employment. They were certainly also subject to police checks. Failure to comply would result in fines and up to two years in prison. Frankly, this is rightfully so, in my opinion. It really brought in that accountability and that police watch on people who sexually violate other people. That was a very important move forward in Canada back in 2004.

A few years later, an enormous step forward again was made in 2011 under the Conservative Harper government. It introduced and passed Bill S-2. There was with unanimous support yet again in the House with all parties supporting Bill S-2, which made inclusion in the registry mandatory for those convicted of any sexual offence, and made inclusion for life mandatory for those convicted of multiple offences.

Under the Harper Conservative government, of course, an extra step forward was taken to really crack down and hold accountable those who sexually violate other Canadians. That change was very critical in the sense that it made it mandatory. The motivation behind that was because, when it was left to judicial discretion following the 2004 Martin government's initial legislation, nearly half of all convicted sex offenders were not being added to the list. As I just mentioned, basically half of all sex offenders had no accountability mechanism prior to it being built into the registry. That was very concerning and it certainly compromised the efficacy of that registry. If only one in two sex offenders is on there, it really undermines the safety, accountability and tools that police use all the time to ensure that we are kept safe from people like sex offenders and others.

That was a very important step forward. Again, it had unanimous support in the House at the time for those very reasons. However, we can fast forward to a year ago, October 2022, when a Supreme Court decision, R v. Ndhlovu, struck down two sections of the Criminal Code as being unconstitutional. It first struck down the section of the Criminal Code that required mandatory registration to the sex offender registry of anyone found guilty of a sexual offence. That was struck down in a split decision of five to four. I will get to that in a moment.

Ultimately, this means that it was no longer the case that the personal information of every sex offender had to be added to Canada's national sex offender registry. It is important to remember the reason that section was brought forward in the first place, which was that half of all convicted sex offenders were not being added, but the Supreme Court struck that down.

The second area of the Criminal Code that was struck down was the section that imposed mandatory registration for life for those who committed more than one such offence. That was struck down unanimously. Everybody in the court agreed that mandatory registration for life was unconstitutional.

As was outlined previously, the clock is ticking on this. Unfortunately, it took the Liberal government quite a while to get this legislation through. We have about a month to get this through all stages. I am going to guess that is going to be difficult to do. I have been here for four years. It is pretty rare to see that happen, but we will see if the Liberal government prioritizes. We will find out. They may have to ask for an extension because again, if it does not pass, then no one can be added to the registry at all. That is deeply concerning, so hopefully they are doing their due diligence to make this happen. We will find out. Again, the registry is a very important tool for police. It is also very important to hold sex offenders accountable, so we need to have this in there.

Despite the Supreme Court striking down these two areas, Bill S-12 does make registration automatic in a few cases, including child sex offenders sentenced to two or more years in prison and any repeat offender who has previously been convicted of a sexual offence. The bill would also allow judges the ability to impose lifetime registration for sex offenders who are found guilty of more than one offence at the same time if the offender poses a risk of reofffending. That is good. I am glad that is in there.

However, I am going to outline in brief the other cases that would not be automatically added. For example, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability would not be automatically added. Sexual assault with a weapon is another example. If someone sexually assaults someone with a weapon, they would not be automatically added to the sex offender registry. It is very concerning. People should be concerned about that, especially given the courts' record before, where only half were added. Another example is aggravated sexual assault with the use of a firearm, and there is a very long list of concerning circumstances where people would not necessarily be added if they violate someone like this. For me personally, and I know it is the same for our party, it is deeply concerning that this could be the case, given the track record before 2011.

I did want to go into the decision of five to four a bit because I thought that the dissenting arguments were quite compelling. Again, this was respecting mandatory registration. I will read a bit from the dissenting opinion. I do think it is relevant to this discussion. The minority dissent argued that Parliament was pursuing a rational objective in mandating that all sex offenders be included in the registry because this group of people as a whole possess an increased risk to reoffend, and the previous system of judicial discretion had resulted in up to 50% of sex offenders staying off the registry. The dissent, referring to those who struck us down on the court, went on to further argue:

But in substance they cherry pick just one such example: an exceptional case involving an offender who was wheelchair bound. That my colleagues can point to only a single, extreme case where it was clear at the time of sentencing that the offender did not pose an “increased risk” tends to prove my point, not theirs.

The dissent argued:

In finding it unconstitutional, my colleagues fixate on the removal of judicial discretion to exempt offenders who do not pose an “increased risk” to reoffend. But the exercise of discretion was the very problem that prompted Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to provide for automatic registration of sex offenders under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court, at least in the dissent, argued:

Specifically, many judges had exercised their discretion to exempt offenders in a manifestly improper manner, and the Registry’s low inclusion rate undermined its efficacy. The evidence is clear that even low risk sex offenders, relative to the general criminal population, pose a heightened risk to commit another sexual offence. It is also clear that it cannot be reliably predicted at the time of sentencing which offenders will reoffend. In the face of that uncertain risk, Parliament was entitled to cast a wide net.

I thought that was very compelling. I am concerned. I do appreciate that the legislation seems to be doing what it can. I am not convinced it goes far enough. I think it could go further. We are looking to see if we can improve that throughout the stages of legislation in Parliament and in committee.

Just to conclude again, there was a reason this was mandatory. I recognize the Supreme Court decision, but as outlined in the dissent, we are talking about sex offenders and some of the most vulnerable people whom they impact. We want to see legislation that can go as far as it can in light of the Supreme Court decision, and we are not quite convinced that we are there yet. We will be looking at that very closely throughout the stages.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's contribution.

I would say that we are enacting what we believe would be the strongest possible regime against sex offenders in compliance with the Supreme Court's direction. It is crucial that victims and survivors of sexual crimes can feel safe and can have confidence in our criminal justice system.

We must pass this legislation quickly. It must receive royal assent before October 28 or else the national sex offender registry would cease to function going forward. Will my colleague opposite join me in supporting this legislation and preventing this dangerous outcome?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, it really is up to the government. It took it a while to bring this forward. That is on the government; that is not on the opposition. The government did not do its homework quickly enough. We do recognize the deadline, but I know the government has asked for extensions when required. I believe it did for MAID legislation and other things. That is up to the Liberals. They make up the governing party.

Perhaps the minister could ask another question and put his answer in that question, but I am not clear how the two or three circumstances that do require mandatory registration are in the legislation. How are those deemed constitutional despite the ruling, and why could the government not put more circumstances in there? That is really unclear. These are some of the legal opinions that we need to find out through committee and the other process. Again, we are not looking to slow this down, but we want to make it as tough as we can. That is our commitment as opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can already confirm that the Bloc Québécois is pleased with this bill and intends to support it. That said, I look forward to studying it in committee because, as with many bills, questions do arise. I will come back to that in my speech in a few moments.

I am going to ask my colleague a question that I would have liked to ask the minister. I was unable to do so because I arrived just a little too late. I see that this bill is in response to a Supreme Court decision handed down on October 28, 2022. The bill, however, was introduced on April 26, 2023, six months later. Furthermore, it was not introduced by the government, but by Senator Marc Gold in the Senate. I have a number of questions because we face a legislative gap in a month. The Supreme Court said that there will no longer be a registry in a month., so we are going to have to rush the parliamentary process a bit to get it passed more quickly, unless we accept the upcoming legislative gap.

How does the minister see this? Why did six months go by between the Supreme Court decision and the bill's introduction?

What does the government intend to do to ensure that the bill is passed before October 29?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have wondered the same thing. Why did the government take so long to table this bill?

I wanted an answer from the Minister of Justice but I did not get one. Now, the government is telling everyone that we have to get a move on, when it was the one dragging its feet. It is telling us that we need to do all the work. I want this bill to be outstanding, and we want it to take a strict approach to sex offenders. A lot of work needs to get done. I want the minister to explain why everything is taking so long.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I found the member for Kildonan—St. Paul's speech a little bit curious in that she made no mention of the other part of this bill, which is the part that allows sexual assault victims to have agency over whether there is a publication ban.

Many of them feel that publication bans restrict their right to help keep members of their friendship groups and families safe, since 80% of perpetrators in sexual assault cases are family or friends.

Does the Conservative Party support those aspects of this bill, which will give that agency back to sexual assault victims?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that I believe it is up to members to decide what they keep in their speeches. We have about 10 minutes. There is a lot to talk about. I can talk at length about the importance of getting tough on sex offenders and crime in general.

What I would say is that the Conservative Party, more than any other party, has the clearest track record of supporting victims' rights. We have brought forward the Victims Bill of Rights in the Senate.

Out of all the parties, we put forward first the rights of victims, not the rights of criminals, unlike the other parties in this chamber.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin, I want to recognize that my wife's nephew, Dustin Dempsey, passed away this week. Obviously, this is quite unfortunate. He was quite young. He leaves behind his father, Rio, who is my wife's brother, and his mother, Vivian. My condolences go out to the whole family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I also want to send my condolences to a high school friend of mine and her family, Stacey Gagnon. Her father, Leslie Gagnon, or Les as he was commonly known, passed away recently. I offer my deepest condolences as well to her family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I find it interesting that I am here talking about this. There is something that I would have likely spoken about with my students when I was teaching an advanced criminal law or sentencing class at Thompson Rivers University in the Faculty of Law. It is a course that has since been taken over by one of my mentors, Judge Greg Koturbash. He is teaching tomorrow, so this may come up.

I would have spoken about the notion of dialogue. That dialogue is between a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada and Parliament. What we have often seen when it comes to criminal matters is that the courts speak and Parliament is supposed to respond. However, it feels as though often, with the Liberal government, the courts speak and Parliament does not respond.

One of the things that I noticed here is that Parliament has not responded when it comes to sexual offences. I put the minister on the spot and I anticipate he is going to ask me a question, and I invite him to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to look directly at him. I asked the minister, in a question, whether he supports restricting the use of conditional sentence orders, that is house arrest or jail in the community, particularly for people who offend against children. Yes or no? I really hope he addresses that question when we have time for questions and answers.

There is something that struck me and stuck out to me. This is the first provision. It is speaking about changing one of the provisions, somehow it got missed, section 153.1(1)(a) from five years to 10 years. I believe that is the sexual exploitation of a person with a disability. It says a person will be liable, on indictment, to 10 years.

Here is what is interesting about that, and it really frustrates me. It is not that we are raising it; it is that we are not raising it high enough. I tabled Bill C-299. I was heckled by the Liberals when I did it, but this is the thrust of Bill C-299. I am going to go through it one more time because I think it is extremely important and it is germane to this discussion when we talk about protecting children, which the Minister of Justice has said is a primary aim of this bill.

We have various offences in the Criminal Code that will end with a potential life imprisonment, as in life is the maximum sentence, and the one I always go to is robbery. Robbery is the deliberate taking of property without consent. Theft plus violence is robbery. It is the most basic thing.

What is sexual assault? What is a sexual offence? A sexual offence is a sexual element, violence and a lack of consent. What is the maximum term here? It is 10 years. The maximum term for sexual assault against an adult is 10 years. The maximum for most sexual offences against children is 14 years, yet we are falling into that same trap here.

We actually are valuing and saying that the taking of property without consent is more serious than taking somebody's sexual dignity without consent. It is only 10 years. That is what someone's dignity, inviolability and consent is worth: 10 years. It is incumbent on this chamber, and I will say to every single person here, that Parliament address this.

I would ask every single person here: Do members prefer to be robbed or prefer to be sexually assaulted? I can tell everyone right now, a hundred times out of a hundred, most people here would say, “I would take the robbery.” Why? It is because there is something about our bodily dignity. There is something about our bodily integrity.

There are victims, like the people with My Voice, My Choice, who spoke so eloquently to me in the past, who I found to be so compelling in their presentation. People in that position are often serving a psychological life sentence. When I ask the Minister of Justice whether he supports house arrest when these people are in a psychological jail themselves, there is a reason for it.

We, as legislators, have not kept up with the research that tells us the pernicious effects, and sometimes the insidious effects, of sexual violence against children. Yes, a registry is one step, but punishment itself is a primary step. I do put it to the Minister of Justice and hope he asks a question. It will just be a simple “yes” or “no”. Does he support the elimination of conditional sentence orders for sexual offences, particularly sexual offences against children?

My message here is not just for all of us here. We talked about a dialogue. Mr. Iacobucci talked about that in one of his decisions from many years ago. This is a dialogue I wish to have with judges, Crown prosecutors, of whom I was one, defence lawyers, and most importantly, victims: that those of us who are in this chamber will stand up for victims every single chance we get.

I have said it before and I will say it again. If we, as Conservatives, if I, myself, as the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, am ever given an opportunity to legislate in this area, I will not take my foot off the gas pedal until the views of every victim in this country are represented and the gravity of offences, particularly offences of a sexual nature against children, are adequately reflected in the punishment received by those who would take the innocence of a child.

I do have some experience with the publication ban end of things. It is something my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke asked my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul after her excellent presentation. I can remember, and it is one of the first times I can ever remember this happening, where a victim set aside her publication ban. We did have a number of people from My Voice, My Choice come forward and say, “I have been a victim. Please leave it to me whether or not I get to speak.” That will debated at committee. My hope is a representative from that group will be permitted to attend.

This legislation also imparts a new application for a victim that they can put an application forward and that the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the order is revoked, and will include the victim's wishes. Far too often we do not incorporate the victims. They are an afterthought.

Sentencing is so often an offender-centred approach, and I understand why. They are the person. However, when we ultimately look at who is impacted, it is not just the offender who is impacted, particularly when we are talking about sexual offences. One of the primary offences, for instance, is section 163.1 listed here as “child pornography”. It is my hope that term will never be used again in this legislation.

Bill C-291, which I drafted and my colleague from the Okanagan put forward, is currently at third reading in the Senate. It would change the name of “child pornography“ to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” to reflect the actual harm done.

I see I am running of time. I hope the Minister of Justice rises right now in questions and comments to indicate whether he does favour eliminating house arrest for those who would steal the innocence of children when those children are themselves abused.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this bill was initiated in the Senate and studied extensively over some months and carefully considered in that chamber. That is the first point.

The second point is I absolutely share my colleague opposite's conviction and commitment to eradicating the scourge of sexual offenders in this country in keeping people safe. What is important is this bill helps to do that by maintaining a sex offender registry.

I have a simple question for him. Given we must pass this legislation quickly or else that registry will cease to operate for convictions that occur from October 29 and following, will the member opposite join me in committing to prevent that dangerous outcome and help to get this bill to royal assent before October 29 or is he willing to lose that sex offender registry going forward?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I gave the minister two chances and he talked about dangerous outcomes.

Do members know what I call a dangerous outcome? I am going to look right at him and say that a dangerous outcome is the potential for somebody to abuse a child, significantly at that. There was actually a case that was overturned on appeal of an eight year old abused by their own parent. It was overturned on appeal because that parent received a conditional sentence order. That was the potential.

I have given the minister a chance. I am really disappointed that he would not answer that very simple question. He asked the same question of my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. He is going to get the same answer.

Here we are, a month in advance. Is the Liberal government asleep at the switch? We know it is asleep on housing. We know it is asleep on inflation. Is it asleep on crime? Clearly. This bill originated in the Senate. The Liberal government did not bring it forward. How long does it take to draft a bill with an army of lawyers and the help of the Department of Justice? However, we are being told it is our problem.

We will look at this bill at committee, and I am committed to doing everything I can, through this bill, to protect children. I just hope the minister answers the question next time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He hit on an important point. The provisions of the Criminal Code pertaining to sexual assault, particularly against children, must be examined more closely.

That being said, I want to again ask him the question that I would have liked to ask the minister and that the minister asked him. The minister asked him if he would support this bill so that the registry does not cease to be on October 29. I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about that.

The minister just told us that the Senate studied this bill for some months. By “some months”, he means two months. The bill was introduced on April 26 and it was passed in the Senate on June 22. Third reading was already complete. Two months is not a lot.

On the government side, there were six months between the time when the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its ruling on October 28, 2022 and when the bill was introduced on April 26, 2023. During the six months of winter when we were sitting, not including the two months of summer when we were not, nothing was done.

At the end of six months, the Senate acted quickly in just two months. Today, we are being pushed and asked to forget about the rules of Parliament because this is behind schedule and needs to get done.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I almost feel like I am talking to my child when I talk about this. They say, “Dad, I didn't do my homework. It's an hour before bedtime and I have two hours of homework to do. Can I stay up a little later?” I sit there and think, “Why did they not prepare?”

Obviously it is of critical importance that we address this. In respect of my colleague's question, I am left with the same question: Why are we here on September 20 with an October 28 deadline? That is 38 days, and the government is putting it on us.

The government knows that the bill has to go to committee. The hon. minister was the parliamentary secretary, and he sat at committee for many months, if not years. He knows the routine. We first have to vote on it at second reading, and then it has to go to committee. Then it has to come back for third reading. The government is putting it on us.

We will scrutinize this bill, and I can say this: I will do everything possible in my power to ensure that we have the best possible bill in a timely manner.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Here is where I will give everyone a little reminder. The quicker we can ask questions, the quicker we can answer them and the more people get to participate in this debate. Now we are out of time and we have to move on to the next speaker, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, these are debates that speak to us and that may be why we end up spending more time on them than on other bills.

That being said, I must say that this bill seems not only welcome, but essential. The sex offender registry helps police officers in their work. It allows them to better monitor repeat offenders and serious offenders.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill S‑12. Are we going to propose amendments in committee? We will see. Essentially, I think that it is a good bill. The first thing I will do is thank Senator Gold for introducing this bill last spring and ensuring that the Senate moved quickly.

Two months can seem like a long time, but it can also seem short. In parliamentary life, bills that are introduced and adopted at third reading at the end of two months are few and far between. I think there was some diligence on the Senate side. I want to commend that diligence and thank the hon. Senator Gold for his work.

After it was passed by the Senate on June 22, the bill is now before us this fall. I spoke about it in the questions I asked earlier. I would have liked to hear from the minister. I understand that that will not be possible today. I hope that we will be able to get some clarification on the timelines over the next few days.

That being said, it is a good bill that will provide better safeguards and strike a better balance between the rights of victims and the rights of the accused. It is important to remember that we have a legal system where people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. We want offenders to be rehabilitated, especially in Quebec, where a lot of legislation has been passed in that regard. We want these people to be able, in many ways, to improve the behaviour and attitude that caused the problem and reintegrate into society. We want them to become or get back to being active members of society. We believe in rehabilitation.

In that sense, one could argue that the sex offender registry could, in some ways, thwart rehabilitation efforts by sending offenders the message that, not only are we going to punish them for the crime they committed, but we are also going to add their name to a registry for a certain period of time. How do we resolve that dilemma? I think that exceptions need to be made for some crimes.

We can see that in the bill, when we talk about sexual assault, we are not talking about someone who drank a little too much in a bar and patted their boyfriend or girlfriend on the behind. We are not talking about a crime that could be described as accidental or even trivial, as some might say. We are talking about repeat offenders who have frequently been convicted of sexual offences, or people who have sexually assaulted children.

I do not know of anyone in society, at least among my friends and contacts, who claims that sexually assaulting a child is not a serious crime. I know people who were sexually abused as children. I can say that it leaves a mark on people for their entire lives. That said, it does not always mess them up. Not everyone ends up on medication for the rest of their lives. Yet it does leave a mark in all cases.

I believe that someone who is unable to control their behaviour and takes the liberty to assault a child deserves an appropriate punishment and also that society protect itself a little better from them. In that sense, the sex offender registry allows police to track and monitor those individuals. I think that is a good thing. That said, not everyone is registered the same way.

The Supreme Court made a ruling last year. In about a month, it will have been a year since that ruling was handed down. The court indicated in that ruling that the automatic registration of all sex offenders contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think that ruling was well founded. Bill S-12 seeks to remedy the problem by saying that offenders will not be automatically registered, indiscriminately, in every situation. Only offenders who have been sentenced to more than two years in prison for this type of crime, including offences against children, and repeat offenders will be subject to mandatory or automatic registration. That covers automatic registration. I think that, in such cases, automatic registration is a good idea.

Now, for the other offenders, we are told there will be a presumption. That means that the Crown will not be asked to prove that an individual needs to be registered. There is a presumption that the individual has to be registered. The individual will be asked to prove that there is no need to register them on the sex offender registry because their offence is completely unrelated to the objectives set out in the legislation that creates this registry or, still, because their registration would be completely disproportionate to the crime they committed.

I will give an example. A person who touches someone else's bottom at a bar has committed sexual assault and could be sentenced for it. Does that warrant adding this person to a sex offender registry for life? I do not think so, but it is debatable. We have to make a distinction between that crime and the crime of raping a 12-year old girl, for example.

Bill S-12 will in some way balance the process of adding offenders to the registry by making registration automatic for serious crimes, while allowing individuals who commit less serious offences to show the judge that registration is unnecessary for a given reason. If it is shown that this registration would have absolutely no bearing on the registry's objective of assisting the work of police officers or that it would be completely disproportionate, the individual will not be added to the registry. This does not mean they will not be convicted. A trial will be held, and if the individual is found guilty, they will be sentenced. In this case, the offender would be sentenced but not added to the registry.

I think this is an acceptable and honourable compromise that would let us improve the registry provisions. In this regard, I think we can only applaud the Supreme Court's ruling last year, as well as the introduction of this bill by the hon. Senator Gold.

Now, Bill S‑12 does more than that. It also enhances victim participation in legal proceedings. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for some time. We have done studies on this issue, including a review of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Many victims testified that some of them wanted to be more involved in the trial, to be better informed and to be called upon by the Crown prosecutor when there were important decisions to be made. Other victims said they would rather stay home and not be involved in their attacker's trial. Both positions are valid. I think we should respect the victim's right to participate or not. That is what this bill provides for.

I was talking about participation in the broad sense, but there is one thing in particular that victims want a say in, and that is publication bans. A number of years ago, provisions were adopted whereby, in some cases, the judge can order a ban on publication of proceedings. In such cases, the identities of those involved remain unknown so as not to identify the victims. The goal was to prevent victims from being identified if they did not want to be, from being stigmatized and from having to answer for acts that were not theirs, but their attacker's. The intent was to ban publication of proceedings. There is also another point at which in camera proceedings can be ordered, but we are not talking about that right now; we are talking about publication bans.

At the time, that was done in good faith to help victims, and everyone likely agreed it was a good idea. Victims now tell us that, in some cases, they are glad there is a publication ban. In other cases, however, they do not want one. There are victims who want to talk about the crime committed against them, either with journalists, on television, or publicly, through social media and other venues. Then there are victims who feel it is therapeutic to talk about their experience. However, as things stand, if they do so when a publication ban has been issued, they are contravening the ban and could face consequences. Victims have told us we should let them decide. If we are doing this to protect them, as we claim, we should ask for their opinion. If they do not want to be under a publication ban, one should not be issued. If they want to seek a publication ban, then one can be issued.

I think this is a wise approach that will help improve federal criminal legislation, in other words, the Criminal Code. I can only applaud this provision of Bill S-12. This is consistent with the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last December. I can confirm that this is consistent with what we heard from witnesses in committee. I think it makes sense.

What this provision will do is require the Crown to consult with victims before issuing a publication ban. As I think the minister said earlier, if there are two victims, and one of them wants the information withheld but the other wants it published, the court will have to take that into account and ensure that the identity of the victim who does not want to be identified is protected, while allowing the identity of the victim who does want to be identified to be released. There will be a process, with the court having to weigh the best interests of the victims when the time comes. I think there is a way to do it. Victims will then have a say on whether a publication ban is issued or not.

What is more, they will be able to ask to have the publication ban lifted, if one is imposed. Initially the victim may not want to be identified, so a publication ban is a good idea, but after three months, six months, a year or three years, the victim might say that enough time has passed for them to have processed their thoughts and that they feel like talking about the crime that was committed against them. That was not the case before, but now victims will be able to ask for the publication ban to be lifted, which, again, seems reasonable to me.

Lastly, this bill will allow victims to get updates on their attacker's case. Is the offender in prison? Where is the offender? Victims will be able to get information from correctional services and will then be informed about the individual's release date, parole conditions, and so on. This will help victims prepare themselves for the possibility that the offender might be released, enabling them to protect themselves or intervene when the time comes.

I feel these are reasonable, desirable provisions that are consistent with what victims asked for and with the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in December.

I will now come back to the current government's inaction. I do not know how to say it anymore, because I feel like I am repeating myself, and people will think that the member for Rivière‑du‑Nord is like a broken record that just keeps repeating the same thing over and over. That is not it. The member for Rivière‑du‑Nord has been dealing with the same government for eight years, and he feels that the government is dragging its feet on this issue. I say this with all due respect for the Minister of Justice and his predecessor, because I am convinced they mean well, but I have no idea what the holdup is. Nothing was done for six months. My colleague from the Conservative Party was asking earlier what they have done, and rightly so.

I would like to hear a member of cabinet, or even the Prime Minister himself, offer an apology for the delay and the fact that this has fallen through the cracks. I cannot even imagine what excuse they could possibly come up with. I would like an explanation because this has become a nasty habit, one that causes enormous harm, especially to victims. Right now, there is a distinct possibility that we will no longer have a sex offender registry as of October 29. It is going to expire. The Supreme Court said so last year. We cannot blame this on the court. It gave the government a year to take action. That took six months, and even then, it was not the government that took action, it was a senator.

What is going on with this government? Is there anyone still at the controls? I would really like to know.

Earlier, the Minister of Justice said he hopes the opposition will collaborate because the bill needs to pass by October 29. I completely agree. I want to say that we will collaborate in order to once again ram the provisions through so they come into force quickly. This week, the bail provisions in Bill C-48 had to be rammed through. However, ramming things through has negative consequences. The procedural rules and principles we have adopted do serve a purpose.

Do not try and tell me that studying bills in committee is pointless, because I will take it personally. If that is the case, our work over the past eight years has been for nothing. Others have been here longer than eight years. For example, my colleague, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, has been here for almost 40 years. Who is going to tell him that his work has been useless all this time? I doubt it. People worked to draft these rules and have us adopt them. Was their work all for nothing? I do not think so. The rules must be followed.

There are exceptions, of course. This week, Bill C-48 was one of them. It was an exception to the principle of presumption of innocence. The bill would involve keeping someone in prison before they are even convicted. That is far from the presumption of innocence, but we agreed that this was an exception that was justified in certain cases. That is what we did, and the bill was passed.

Now we are being asked to do the same for the sex offender registry. I am not suggesting that the registry is not important. It is very important. We would like the registration requirements to be amended, as proposed in Bill S‑12. However, I am very upset and worried about yet another government attempt to ram things through the parliamentary process.

I do not want to refer to the presence or absence of a member in the House, but maybe the minister could stand up here at some point and explain to us why, for the second time in two days, parliamentary procedures are being rammed through.

How come the government twiddled its thumbs for six months in this case, until a senator suddenly said it needed to be done, and now, we are being told to wake up, agree with him and pass this as quickly as possible?

They cannot be serious. I would like the government to take this seriously because the government is asking us to take it seriously. I feel like saying that we will take it seriously if the government could also take things kind of seriously when it comes to passing bills that are introduced in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Public Safety; the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Democratic Institutions; and the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Small Business.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that always amazes me about this House is how much time we spend debating things we agree on. Today appears to be one of those occasions. We have talked about how long it took to get things done and how this began a year ago.

We are here now and have a good piece of legislation before us, so my question for the member is whether he is going to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on being named Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I can assure him of my full cooperation, as far as Quebeckers' interests permit.

I understand his question. I, too, am often surprised when we spend days debating things we agree on. This debate, however, is not a needless debate. The sex offender registry is serious. I do not want to engage in needless debate. I want to study the bill in committee. I want to listen to the opinions of experts, reread the bill and hear the minister give us explanations.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, may think that examining the bill amounts to needless debate, but I cannot agree.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the speech from my Bloc Québécois colleague on the justice committee.

I obviously share the concern that this bill took a while to get here, but now that it is here and we have a month, I am looking for a commitment from people to work hard together to get this legislation passed. When this gets through second reading, and if the parties do not put up too many speakers that should be soon, will he support making it a priority at the justice committee so we can get to work on it without any delay?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I too very much enjoy working with him at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights. We often have different points of view, but it is always constructive to add them up to create better bills.

That being said, I agree with him. The Bloc Québécois will work to ensure that this bill is passed as quickly as possible, but still in a serious way.

I am willing for us to return to committee this week. We have a committee and there is a free slot tomorrow evening. If we have a chair who is designated by the government and if the other committee members are available, so am I. We will begin tomorrow evening and ask to start working on this bill. If not, it will happen Tuesday or as soon as the fastest members on the government side are ready to go.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord for his work at the Standing Committee on Justice and for the speech he delivered today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been trying to get in, as you know, to ask a question since the minister spoke, so I will speak very quickly.

It may be my only occasion to say that the Green Party will be supporting Bill S-12. My only concern is that I really want to make sure we do the proper consultations. When I last spoke to members of My Voice, My Choice, they had concerns and wanted to see some amendments.

Since my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord also talked about the challenges faced by victims of sexual offences who were not aware that they were banned from disclosing information, I just want to say to him that it is really odd for the system to punish them for talking about their situation and themselves. That is not fair.

I am hoping that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord is also going to be eagle-eyed when we get to the justice committee so that this bill adequately solves the problems facing victims of sexual violence, who are then under a publication ban without their permission.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I totally agree with her that it is illogical and absurd to punish victims of sexual offences for talking about the crime.

That is what I meant at the beginning of my speech when I talked about the second part of the bill, which will probably, at least in my opinion, solve this problem.

I will therefore obviously support this bill, including the part that will let victims have a say in deciding whether or not a publication ban should be issued in their case.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

My colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke just asked a question expressing, as I understand it, that as this bill is before us, we should really get it moving. I am paraphrasing quite a bit here. Another colleague, though, who just spoke to this bill, asked how we got to this point where we have 38 days to get it through the House and then through the Senate. I understand both sentiments.

We have talked about different victims and different victims groups, like My Voice, My Choice. What message does it send to victims and victims groups, in his view, when we say we have to get this done, which everybody is saying, yet the government waited essentially until the last moment to do it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have also worked with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and have always appreciated his interventions. We do not always share the same point of view, but there is always respect there, and that is very helpful.

That said, to answer his question, I have to say that I do not understand either. My answer to these groups is that there are really only two ways to interpret this way of doing things.

It may be that the government considers that the national sex offender registry is not important, as was the case the day before yesterday with Bill C-48, when the bail provisions did not seem important. Indeed, that is how it is with many other bills: just not important. Since it is not important, bills keep getting pushed back and dealt with when it suits them. If it never suits them, it is no big deal.

If it is not because the subject is not important, then it is because the procedural rules are not important. They think the opposition members are not that bright. They know the opposition will say yes to anything, so, at the eleventh hour, they tell us the bill has to be passed. Then the opposition says, oh, the national sex offender registry is so important that we have to set aside the House's procedural rules. That is what the government hopes. Let us call that option B.

Here is my question for the government. Is it A, the government does not give a fig, or is it B, the government does not give a fig about parliamentary rules?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick out one thing. This is my first time rising in the House as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. For colleagues who know my work and advocacy since setting foot in this chamber, it has been about having a trauma-informed lens in everything we do and understanding the lived experience of Canadians, especially with respect to something such as this, the sex offender registry.

I would like to focus on the victims and say that this is an important discussion; we need to get the bill to committee so that we understand the agency. It is so important for victims to have agency in what they have gone through and to be able to feel safe in sharing their story.

As I heard from my colleague from the Bloc in his discussion, he spent some time really talking about that victim-centred lens. That is why I would like to ask him this: In terms of the publication bans and what the government is supporting here with respect to empowering agency in the hands of victims and survivors in their stories, will you support us on that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that she is to address all questions and comments through the Chair. I know that she knows that and it was just a slip.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and I congratulate her on her cabinet appointment.

I simply do not understand why my colleague is telling us that this is so important and urgent when her government let it slide for six months. Now, at the eleventh hour, a month before the expiry of the one-year period granted by the Supreme Court, the government is telling us to get a move on. I do not know what to tell her.

Yes, it is important to us, and I am certain that the same holds true for my NDP colleagues and even my Conservative colleagues. While we may have differing views, we all want Bill S-12 to pass. At least, I believe that is the case.

I do not want to put words in their mouth, but I think we all agree that the national sex offender registry is important and that it is important to allow victims to weigh in on publication bans.

Why am I being told to get a move on? The Supreme Court decision was handed down 11 months ago. Now is an odd time to ask.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I start on Bill S-12, as one of the openly gay members of this Parliament, I will make a brief mention of the events outside the House today.

I was very pleased to see that, in Ottawa, there was a large turnout of counter-demonstration against the wave of anti-trans and anti-2SLGBTIA hate that is sweeping this country. I am pleased to hear a commitment from the government to work with us on a motion that will condemn hatred and the destruction of public events and public institutions, such as school boards, on very misinformed and hateful grounds. I look forward to working on that. However, one of the things it requires is for the justice committee to meet.

One of the pieces of urgency here, obviously, is Bill S-12. However, I have to say that I am a little disappointed that we have had no meetings of the justice committee this week. I would urge leaders of all parties in the House to come together, get the justice committee reconstituted and get it operating as quickly as possible. We not only have Bill S-12, but we also have my motion, which deals with the wave of hate; I would like to get it dealt with in committee.

Turning to the bill itself, we have had lots of comments about why the bill was late getting here. I share the concerns that the bill could have been here earlier, although there is one piece that I will give the Liberals some credit for. People are asking why it went to the Senate first. Actually, that was an attempt by the government to move more quickly by having the Senate do some of this work and get the bill to us. When we are finished with the bill, it will already have been passed in the Senate, and therefore, we can get things going very quickly. However, this requires that we not have what I think a member referred to before, which is a lot of people giving the same speech over and over in support of the same bill. We have some important work to do at committee, and I hope that all parties will make sure that we can get the bill to committee as soon as possible and do that work.

Now, there are two things in the bill. Again, some members have talked about only one part of the bill in their speeches. However, there are two parts, and the part that is most important to me looks at victims of sexual offences and making sure that we change the law to restore agency to those victims, so that publication bans are not imposed on cases against the wishes of the victim.

Publication bans sometimes serve a very important purpose, and some victims will want to have them imposed. However, to me, publication bans are a relic of old thinking that somehow sexual assault victims have done something wrong, and therefore, their names should not be exposed to the public. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, what is more important is what we heard from the My Voice, My Choice group. Often, victims of crime actually want to help prevent there being more victims, and they feel that publication bans end up inadvertently protecting the perpetrators and keeping important information from other members of the community about who might be a perpetrator.

In one of my questions, I made reference to the case in 2021 in Ontario, where a victim of sexual assault was actually prosecuted for violating the publication ban and received a fine of $2,000 and a victim impact surcharge of $600. What did she do? She was assaulted by a friend or family member, as happens in 80% of cases, and she felt that other members of her friend group and her family should know who the perpetrator was. She said the names, against the publication ban, of herself as the victim and of the perpetrator, to help protect other people in the community. Bill S-12 would correct that fault in our law and restore agency to victims of sexual assault. To me, that is the very most important thing in the bill.

I salute the members of My Voice, My Choice who came to the justice committee when we were doing our study on victims of crime. They very bravely retold their stories and, in many ways, retraumatized themselves in order to be of service to other victims.

When we talk to victims of crime, and I know this from my experience in the criminal justice field, the most important thing for almost all victims is that what happened to them not happen to someone else. Their first response is not always what members of another party in the House tend to say, which is to demand punishment. They demand prevention and education so that this does not happen to someone else. The lifting of publication bans will help prevent there being other victims of sexual offences. Once again, to me, that is the most important part of the bill.

The other half of this bill is the part that results from the Supreme Court decision about the sex offender registry. Let me say the obvious: We all support the operation of the registry. However, the court found that, in many cases, we are overly broad in the automatic registration of offenders. While any kind of sexual offender is not a popular person to talk about, there were some cases where people with intellectual disabilities or people who were neurodiverse, who failed to understand the rules of social conduct and properly read social cues, ended up convicted of sexual offences. I know of two such cases in my own community.

I am not going to say it was through no fault of their own, because I do not wish to put it that way. However, it was through a lack of understanding. They are very unlikely to reoffend or to repeat their behaviour, yet they ended up registered as sex offenders for life. What did it mean in those cases? It meant they could not live in social housing and could not get lots of the social supports they needed, because they were registered sex offenders.

What this bill would do is restore the discretion of judges in a very limited number of cases to not register those people permanently as sex offenders. The analysis of this bill that was done by the justice department says that over 90% of the people who are registered now will continue to be automatically registered. Perhaps as many as 10% will be able to apply to a judge and argue why they should not be registered, but 90% will still automatically be registered.

We are preventing an injustice to those who may have intellectual or other challenges preventing them from understanding their behaviour; however, we are also making sure that the resources that the sex offender registry uses are concentrated on those who are most likely to reoffend. That, to me, is a very strong reason for parties in the House to support this bill.

If we do not get this work done and the sex offender registry ceases to function, that is a big problem. While, yes, I will join in saying I wish this had gotten here sooner, I will also point out that the report on victims of crime, which included the material from My Voice, My Choice, was only tabled in the House last December. The material that came forward in that report from committee was taken by the government and incorporated into this bill.

Some of this work was done fairly fast and was done at the request of victims, so we have an obligation now not to spend a lot of time on it. I know I am not going to get the full amount of time today, but that is okay, because we in the New Democratic Party support this bill. We think it is an important bill, and we want to get it to committee without delay.

There are other things we must do. The report from the justice committee on better support for victims of crime has not really been acted on. I think we should all take seriously the recommendations that are there. The federal ombudsperson for victims of crime has also suggested that we can improve support for victims of crime; this bill is one of the ways we can do that.

I urge all members to support this bill and get it to committee without delay, and I urge those on the justice committee to make this bill a priority in our dealings. However, going back to the leadership of the House from all parties, we have missed all our meetings this week. Could we get the justice committee constituted and meeting?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, some time ago, and I hope it is not the situation today, victims of sexual assaults were further victimized in the courts. Their characters were called into question. It was a very tough time to endure that.

Is the hon. member satisfied that the conditions have either changed or are solid enough that the lifting of publication bans will not lead to the person being victimized in society in general?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, here is the important message that I think we got from My Voice, My Choice: It is up to the victims to make the decision about whether they wish to have the publication ban. It is not really up to me, the prosecutors or the judges to make that decision for them.

Yes, I share concerns about the way victims of crime are still treated in the courts, particularly victims of sexual assault. However, sexual assault is the one area where we take away that agency and say that they are not allowed to talk publicly about what happened to them. That is the message we received quite clearly in the justice committee from My Voice, My Choice. It is to give that agency to the victims, to let them make that decision for themselves.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has identified that it would have been better if the bill had been here sooner than later, but it is here now.

What can be done to improve the bill? Are there any other opportunities to make up for lost ground? Can he reinforce some of the potential improvements for this bill?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are two parts that I did not talk about, which I think are significant improvements in the sex offender registry. There would be two more offences added to a list for automatic registration.

One of those is sextortion offences where so-called revenge porn is used by an ex against their partner who has left them and they are angry, so they post intimate images without consent. The second is that any posting of intimate images without consent would result in automatic registration as a sex offender.

I think those are two very important steps. They are already in the bill. I just did not have time to mention them in my speech.

There were some changes made to the original text of the bill in the Senate. I think it is important that we look at those closely. I think it is important we hear from My Voice, My Choice once again to make sure this bill meets their objectives.

The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion that Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I would also like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove.

The last eight years have not been kind to Canadians, since the Liberal government took power, when it comes to safe streets, safe communities and crime. One only needs to look at the recent StatsCan release to see the drastic increase in crime in this country since 2015. The numbers are absolutely staggering. Total violent crimes are up 39%; homicides are up 43%, up for the fourth year in a row; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%, up for the eighth year in a row; aggravated assaults are up 24%; assaults with a weapon are up 61%; sexual assaults are up 71%; and sex crimes against children are up 126%.

That is the context when we look at Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. That is the context by which we, as parliamentarians, addressing the fear in our communities around crime, around keeping Canadians safe, around protecting victims, look at Bill S-12.

Bill S-12 is due to be passed at all stages by October 28. This is a deadline that was put in place by the Supreme Court, when it gave the government 365 days to get this done, in response to a Supreme Court decision. Yet, here we are, with just 24 days left, to make sure that the national sex offender registry continues to be a critical resource for police to investigate and to prevent crime.

The last time the Liberal government had a court-imposed deadline to respond to decisions, around medical assistance in dying, we ended up, tragically, with a bill that would expand medical assistance in dying to Canadians living with mental illness. The government waited too long and rushed through legislation. That is, again, what is happening here.

I am going to focus my speech on amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act as opposed to changes in the publication bans that were brought forward by our Conservative-led justice committee study on the federal government's obligation to victims of crime.

What is the sex offender registry? Conservatives will always stand up for victims and victims' rights. That leads me to these amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The act was established in 2004 to help Canadian police authorities investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information on sex offenders. To help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature, the sex offender registry contains information such as the address and telephone numbers of offenders, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of victims, and their relationship to the offender.

At the time, enrolment on the registry was up to the discretion of a judge. That discretion led to significant problems. The public safety committee review of the implementation of the sex offender registry in 2009 found glaring issues. The committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to register their information. This was happening for a number of reasons. An official from the Department of Public Safety told the committee at the time that with the pressure of time or workload, Crown attorneys would forget to ask for the order. The committee was also told that the order application rate varies widely by province and by territory. One witness stated that the absence of an automatic inclusion on the registry for all offenders convicted of sexual crimes has led to the inconsistent application of the law across the country.

The committee recommended to the government that the automatic registration of sex offenders would fix these holes in the legislation. In order to be effective, the national registry must be enforced consistently across the country.

I was proud to be part of the Conservative government that passed the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, introduced in 2010. That legislation passed with the support of all parties. The bill broadened the purpose of the sex offender registry by adding the purpose of helping police prevent crimes of a sexual nature in addition to enabling them to investigate those crimes.

We made sensible changes to strengthen the sex offender registry. For instance, we made registration automatic for convicted sex offenders. Our legislation also added the obligation to report any person ordered to serve an intermittent or conditional sentence. This is even more important today than it was then, because Liberal Bill C-5 now allows conditional sentences for crimes like sexual assault and Liberal Bill C-75 now allows bail to become more easily obtained by individuals charged with serious offences.

Conservatives also brought in the requirement of registered sex offenders to report the name of their employer or the person who engages them on a volunteer basis or retains them, and the type of work they do. Police should be aware if a sex offender is spending any amount of time with or in proximity to potential victims. We made these sensible amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to protect victims and to prevent crime.

On October 28, 2022, a split decision, five to four, of the Supreme Court found that the mandatory and lifetime registration on the sex offender registry was unconstitutional. The Liberals have simply accepted this decision. We have urged them to respond as forcefully as possible, and Bill S-12 does fall short of that.

I want to read from the dissenting judgment. It was a very strong dissent, in which it says:

...the exercise of discretion was the very problem that prompted Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to provide for automatic registration of sex offenders under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act... The evidence is clear that even low risk sex offenders, relative to the general criminal population, pose a heightened risk to commit another sexual offence.

That heightened risk is, by some counts, eight times the likelihood of someone with a prior conviction to reoffend. That is why incorporating and improving as many offenders as possible in the sex offender registry is so very important. We have seen how this has played out before. When it was left simply to the judges to decide who needs to register with the registry, nearly 50% of offenders were never required to register. This is before we brought in mandatory registration.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We can expect that individuals who certainly should be listed in the registry, even after the passage of Bill S-12, would be left out. We have to take every step to protect Canadians, to protect victims and to ensure that sex offenders are not given the opportunity to revictimize our communities.

After eight years of the Liberal government, the rate of violent crime is up 39%, police-reported sexual assaults are up 71% and sex crimes against children are up 126%. Canadians deserve so much better than this. I can think of no greater obligation for us as members of Parliament to enact laws that protect our communities and protect the safety of the most vulnerable. With legislation like Bill C-75 that has made bail so easy to get, legislation like Bill C-5 that has allowed for house arrest for sex offenders, Conservatives do not trust the government to take the necessary steps to protect Canadians. It has proven an inability to do that.

It is important that we pass Bill S-12, it is important that we respond to the Supreme Court decision and it is important that we go as far as possible to protect the most vulnerable. We look forward to the quick passage of this legislation. It is unfortunate that the government took so long to bring us to this point, but it is also important that we act expeditiously to protect Canadians.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP did a lot of work with groups like My Voice, My Choice, which talked about the rights of victims and having a process that allowed them to retain their power while going through very difficult times.

I wonder if the member could talk a bit more about the study that was done at committee. It had a unanimous report that was supportive of recommendation 11 to amend section 486.4 of the Criminal Code to allow victims of sexual assault to opt out of the publication ban and take back their agency. This has been long advocated for by victims' rights advocates. I wonder if the member could talk about why this is important and if he will support this bill, because it does exactly that.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the work of My Voice, My Choice and its appearance at our justice committee.

As Conservatives, we initiated a study on the federal government's obligation to victims of crime. One of the many issues we heard around publication bans was about victims having the right to have their voice heard and taking back their agency, especially in the context of publication bans.

It was a unanimous finding of the committee that the government had been falling short on its obligation to victims of crime. We support measures that give a voice back to victims of crime. It is important that their voices be heard, and we support that every step of the way.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is very pleased with Bill S‑12. We are pleased with it because it puts the victims front and centre.

Does my Conservative colleague think that the government can and must interfere in parole decisions to move an inmate from a maximum security institution to a medium security institution? I am referring to the Paul Bernardo case, among others.

Is my colleague in favour of the government interfering in parole decisions?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was a needed response to a Supreme Court decision, but I feel it could have gone further. It could have been tighter. There are a number of offences now that will not meet the threshold for inclusion in the registry, and there will be people who should have been included who will not be with the passage of this legislation.

Absolutely what happened with the issue around Bernardo's transfer is a travesty. It should have never happened. A witness came to us in our study on the government's obligation to victims of crime, and she said that in Canada we no longer have a justice system. We have a legal system, but not a justice system. I remember her words because I think of what happened with Bill C-75 to change our bail laws to create a revolving door that puts criminals back out on the streets. I think of the fact that Bill C-5 removed mandatory penalties for serious crimes against individuals. I also think of instances like the transfer that was put in place for Paul Bernardo. The government, by changing legislation, made that transfer inevitable. That is laid completely at the feet of the government. When it changed the law to put in a requirement that minimal holdings be implemented for each prisoner, it made that inevitable.

Absolutely we have a lot of work that needs to be done to protect our communities and to protect victims.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his contributions on justice issues.

I think we all share the perspective that we want to make Canada safer and make sure that the rights of victims are protected, and I think the legislation goes a long way toward doing that. I wonder whether my hon. friend would be willing to share his reflections on the amendments that were made by the Senate and whether he generally agrees with them or has some concerns, as I do, with some of them.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to the justice committee. When we are seized with Bill C-21, we will look at those amendments, as I do share a concern around some of them.

It is one thing to say that we want Canadians to be safe. It is another thing to put in place the legislative measures to make sure that happens. I am committed to working with all parliamentarians, including the hon. member, to pass legislation that allows us to protect our streets, protect our communities and protect victims.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Electoral Reform; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Health.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today talking about a very uncomfortable topic: sexual crimes, the way we deal with offenders and the way we protect victims. We acknowledge as a society that sexual crimes are heinous or injurious and have long-lasting effects, sometimes for the rest of the life of the victim. We recognize that the majority of victims of sexual crimes are women and children. We also acknowledge as a society that, based on the data we have, many sexual offenders will reoffend.

The Liberal government under Prime Minister Martin back in 2004 brought in a new tool for law enforcement to give it investigative and preventative tools. The 2004 Sex Offender Information Registration Act created the national sex offender registry and gave the courts the power and authority to order that people convicted of a sexual crime have their name and further particulars added to this registry. It was intended to be an enforcement tool. It was not available to the public, only to police agencies. The bill passed through the House of Commons unanimously.

However, there was a problem with that legislation, as it left it to the discretion of judges to decide whether or not a person had to have their name added to the registry; it was not done automatically. Some more lenient judges felt that the sentence itself was enough punishment and that the offender did not have to have their name added to the registry. However, of course, the mistake there is that the registry was never intended as punishment but as an investigative and preventative tool. The result of leaving this to the discretion of the judges is that up to one-half of all convicted criminals did not have their names added to the national registry, which completely undermined the efficacy and usefulness of it as a tool. If half the data is missing, what good is the registry?

In 2011, the Harper government remedied that gap with legislation that would make registration to the national sex offender registry mandatory. The registration was to be tied to the duration of the sentence, and for people who were repeat offenders or who were charged with and convicted of more than one offence, it was a lifetime registration. That legislation passed unanimously.

Now fast-forward a decade to October 28, 2022, or 11 months and one week ago. In 2015, Eugene Ndhlovu was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and sentenced to six months in prison with three years of probation. His name was entered into the registry for life because of the two convictions. However, he challenged the validity of these two provisions of the Criminal Code, and the Alberta trial court agreed with him and declared those two provisions to be unconstitutional. The Alberta Court of Appeal reversed that decision, and it then went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which reinstated the original finding of the trial judge, with a declaration of invalidity.

It was a split five-four decision of the nine judges sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada. The majority had this to say about section 7 violations: “registration has a serious impact on the freedom of movement and of fundamental choices of people who are not at an increased risk of re-offending.” In other words, if even one person who was not a threat to public safety ended up on the registry because it was automatic, the whole regime was unconstitutional.

The minority of four judges took quite an opposite view. They said that the mandatory registration in the 2011 legislation “is appropriately tailored to its purpose of helping the police prevent and investigate sexual crimes”. They noted that the evidence before the trial judge was clear and that even low-risk sexual offenders, compared to the general prison population, posed a heightened risk of reoffending, at five to eight times more likely.

That was the data the SCC had. Based on that, the minority said this: “It is also clear that it cannot be reliably predicted at the time of sentencing which offenders will reoffend. In the face of that uncertain risk, Parliament was entitled to cast a wide net.” I am thankful to the Supreme Court minority for respecting and deferring to Parliament and the hard work we do in response to what we hear from the public.

It is often said that judicial review of legislation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not undemocratic, in that it does not attack parliamentary supremacy. Rather, academic scholars say that the judicial review process is better viewed as a dialogue between Parliament, which makes the law, and the courts, which review the law. Sometimes, as in this recent Supreme Court of Canada case, it feels very much like one-way dialogue, with the courts speaking and Parliament listening and obeying.

It is unfortunate that the four judges in the minority could not have convinced at least one more to come over to pay deference to Parliament. However, here we are having to deal with the majority decision, and we need to respond to that. We need to fix the law. We have been given one year to do it.

That brings me to the bill that is before us, Bill S-12, which has already been through the Senate. The Minister of Justice presented this bill to the House last week, saying it is Parliament's response to that court's decision. In reply to a speech given by my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, the Minister of Justice said, “we are enacting what we believe would be the strongest possible regime against sex offenders in compliance with the Supreme Court's [decision]”. In other words, our hands our tied and this is the best that we can do.

He might be right, but that leads me to another issue and that is the rush with which this is being pushed through Parliament. We have a deadline of October 28, which is 24 days from now or three and a half weeks, one week of which will be a constituency week. We will not even be here in Ottawa. How are we going to deal with such an important issue in that amount of time? It is urgent, of course, but we also have to get things right.

At committee yesterday, the Minister of Justice told us that social science supports the legislative intention of the drafters of this legislation. He might be right, but I would very much like to see that social science data. I would like to hear from experts in the field. I would ask the experts whether those convicted of a sexual offence are indeed five to eight times more likely to reoffend, as the minority had said in the Supreme Court decision.

Will there be time? This is important legislation, but it is also important that we get it right. We cannot miss the October 28 deadline, or the police will lose a very important investigative and preventative tool. If we are serious about being charter dialogue partners with the courts, this should have been before Parliament months ago. I blame the Liberal government for dragging its feet on this. It put us in this very difficult position.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to make a brief announcement. The help centre for victims of sexual assault, or CALACS, in Longueuil helps women move forward following a sexual assault. The centre also works on prevention.

On October 15, I will be running 10 kilometres to raise money for CALACS, to help fund a prevention campaign in schools. CALACS staff want to go into high schools and CEGEPs to talk to young women and explain how to prevent this. I just wanted to make that brief announcement. I think it is important.

I have a question for my colleague. Unfortunately, women are still afraid of the justice system. In Quebec, it is estimated that only 5% of women who are victims of assault file a complaint. Even worse, out of 1,000 cases that do go to court, only three result in a conviction. That is appalling. The justice system is scaring women away. Even when cases do go to court, people are not convicted.

Does my colleague have any solutions to put forward?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am going to donate to the cause, so I thank the member for that. It was good work.

The member is absolutely right that the vast majority of victims of sexual assault are women. He is also absolutely right that, as the member for Fundy Royal said, witnesses have told us that the justice system is a legal system and not really a justice system. We heard from witnesses at committee in our victims-of-crime study that they feel like they are on trial. When they are giving evidence under cross-examination about the sexual assault that happened against them, they feel like they are on trial. That is unfair and needs to be fixed.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member and I have an unfortunate situation in the Lower Mainland, which we represent, which is sextortion of children. Therefore, the timeliness of this could not be better, and it is important that we protect victims now to make sure that there are not victims in the future.

There was a study. The member said that they would like to see some data, but I understand that there was a study that came out of the justice and human rights committee, and that there was a unanimous recommendation, number 11 of that study, to amend section 486.4 of the Criminal Code to allow for victims of sexual assault to opt out of a publication ban and take back their agency. Given that this is an ask that has long been advocated by victims' rights groups, will my colleague in the Conservative Party vote to support the passing of this bill?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are good things in this bill. One of them is to give more voice to victims in publication bans, so we completely support that. However, we need to study the bill. It is too bad that it is going to be so rushed, but our committee is soon going to be seized with this topic. We have already started the investigation into the bill, and we will do the best that we can with it.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current Liberal government, sex crime has nearly doubled to 82.5%. I would like to remind my colleague of an incident that happened in Alberta on September 16, 2021. Michale Busch and her toddler son Noah McConnell were murdered by a sex offender who was in some strange way permitted, even though he was on the registry, to live anonymously and unknown in the apartment right next door in an apartment complex. They were killed on September 16, 2021 by that sex offender.

I would also like to remind him not only what the risk would be from the government's getting it wrong when it comes to the implementation of the sex offender registry, but also how important it is to get the legislation and the implementation right. This is about lives and about protecting people who are otherwise revictimized all the time. If we do not get it right, there are serious consequences.

Does my colleague have any suggestions for the government regarding what it should change when it comes to this legislation, or should the changes actually be in how it is implemented?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question that would take a lot of conversation to fully answer, but it goes to show us how important the sex offender registry is. It is a very useful tool for the police. It is not perfect, but it is another tool.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. I will be splitting my time.

This bill makes extensive changes to Canada's sexual assault legislation and the role of the national sex offender registry, or NSOR, particularly those sections of the Criminal Code that were struck down by the Supreme Court, which ruled that they were unconstitutional. These sections required the mandatory registration of anyone found guilty of a sexual offence on the sex offender registry and the registration for life of anyone who committed more than one sexual offence. The bill was introduced in the Senate, and it has made its way through to second reading here in this place.

After eight years under the Prime Minister, sex-related crime has nearly doubled. In 2021, under the current government, the rate of sexual assaults went up by 18% from the year prior. With this pressing public safety concern, it is more important than ever for Canadians to be safe and protected from sexual offenders.

The national sex offender registry plays a key role for law enforcement to stay up to date regarding convicted sex offenders across the country. It also allows proper tools of investigation if an offender reoffends.

Although this legislation is a step toward protecting victims and the public, it needs to be strengthened with amendments. We must consider the fundamental issue at the heart of this debate: the safety and security of our citizens. We believe that, to protect our most vulnerable people, all sex offenders, regardless of the specifics of their cases, must be listed on the national sex offender registry.

Historically, the Conservative Party has taken a strong position regarding sentencing and enforcement related to sexual crimes. Our previous Conservative government introduced and passed Bill S-2, making it mandatory for those convicted of any sexual offence to be placed on the registry and for those convicted of two or more sexual crimes to be registered on the offender's list for life.

This was a significant change from the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA, put in place by the Liberal government under Paul Martin, in that enrolment on the registry was no longer at the discretion of the judge. This change was made to address concerns at that time that the registry's effectiveness was being compromised, given that nearly half of all convicted sex offenders were excluded.

At that time, the bill garnered support from all parties, enhancing public safety across Canada. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the law in the Ndhlovu case ruling, deeming it unconstitutional.

In 2015, Eugene Ndhlovu pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault against two women, which took place at a house party in Edmonton in 2011. Prior to the ruling, with Harper’s bill, Ndhlovu was automatically registered on the national sex offender registry for life.

After the Supreme Court deemed the ruling unconstitutional, he was dropped from the list. The courts gave the government one year to change the affected provisions. That was a year ago, and the deadline, which is the end of October, is fast approaching.

Sexual violence is a heinous and degrading form of violence that has devastating impacts on the victims. More specifically, we know that sexual assault is a gendered crime, with the majority of sexual crimes being committed against women and girls.

It seems to me that a so-called feminist government would have acted quickly in response to the Supreme Court's ruling. However, the Liberal government continued to drag its heels when protection for vulnerable victims was needed the most.

It no longer comes as a surprise, though, that we see the Liberal government repeatedly fail to act on measures of public safety. For example, and most notably, the Prime Minister did absolutely nothing to reverse the decision to transfer one of the worst serial killers in Canadian history, Paul Bernardo, to a lower-security prison.

If this legislation is not passed before the affected provisions expire, this could open the possibility of sex offenders escaping registration, all thanks to the Liberal government's incompetence. Unregistered sex offenders would not have to report annually to registration centres or declare changes in their residence, leaving the surrounding residents in the dark. Without proper identifiable provisions for previous sex offenders, they would be able to go back to life as normal. Survivors of these crimes would suffer as they live in fear, knowing their abusers are not being held accountable.

Conservatives believe all sex offenders must be listed on the NSOR and will work to ensure mandatory registration is in place for as many individuals convicted of sexual offences as possible. Four justices of the Supreme Court agree with our position, highlighting the pressing public safety concern that justifies this move.

In their dissent on the Ndhlovu case, they stated that the law was constitutional and accused the majority of cherry-picking examples to rationalize their flawed reasoning. In their minority written opinion, they stated, “The evidence is clear that even low risk sex offenders, relative to the general criminal population, pose a heightened risk to commit another sexual offence.”

The previous system of judicial discretion, which was brought in 2004, already showed it was tremendously flawed, with data resulting in up to 50% of sex offenders staying off the registry.

Based on these justices' expert opinion, we recognize this is a pressing public safety concern, but our concerns extend beyond mandatory registration. There are other aspects of Bill S-12 that require careful consideration and potential amendments.

As my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul highlighted in her excellent speech, while there are some cases or circumstances where enrolment on the NSOR would be automatic, those that would be discretionary include, but are not limited to, sexual assault with a weapon, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability and aggravated sexual assault with the use of a firearm. Knowing there will be cases such as these that would not be automatically added, but would be discretionary, is deeply concerning given that the system, prior to 2011, resulted in up to half of sex offenders never being registered.

Furthermore, while the costs associated with increased sex offender registration may be negligible, we must also allocate the necessary resources to support law enforcement agencies in effectively monitoring and managing the registry.

In conclusion, Bill S-12 represents a significant step forward in responding to the Supreme Court's ruling and improving the criminal justice system's responsiveness to the needs of victims. However, it falls short on what is necessary to protect our communities adequately.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes all sex offenders must be listed on the national sex offender registry. The safety of our citizens, particularly women and children, who are disproportionately victimized by sexual offenders, must be our top priority.

I look forward to this bill going to committee, where I am sure all members will work together to strengthen Bill S-12 so victims of sexual crimes can have confidence in our justice system and to ensure the safety of our communities. Only through collective effort can we ensure our justice system serves the best interests of all Canadians.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I want to recognize a veteran in my riding who is 100 years old. I wish a happy birthday to Zack Bourque, who bravely fought for Canada and has recently celebrated his 100th birthday.

I am not allowed to point people out in the gallery, so I will not, but I also want to recognize that My Voice, My Choice is likely listening to this debate with great eagerness.

I thank my colleague for her speech. The unfortunate thing is that people who suffer sexual offences are often in a psychological life sentence, yet I do not believe we have seen the Liberal government act quickly with respect to sexual offences. I wonder if my colleague agrees with this, and what message that is sending to victims.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member, with tongue in cheek, said that people might be here or might not be here. I just need to remind all members that we should not be mentioning those who might be here watching. That is a full reminder to all members of the House of Commons.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on this issue. I listened to the speech he gave recently on this very topic.

I would simply say that the government has shown that it is not really taking this issue seriously. It waited six months to present this legislation. There was a Supreme Court ruling in October. The government introduced the legislation in April, and now here we are, in the eleventh hour, trying to quickly get this bill passed.

If the Liberals truly believed that this was a pressing issue, they would not have waited so long to present this legislation to address the Supreme Court's decision.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned about the somewhat partisan aspect of this. I will provide an example. In 1988, young girls were assaulted by a man who was known to be violent and to have assaulted his own children. Those crimes still happened. That was in 1988. A lot of time has passed since then. Many governments have come and gone. Bills have been brought before parliamentarians, and yet here we are in 2023, still discussing this. We could put an end to partisanship and finally move things forward.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and simply say that I reject the premise of the question about partisanship. We demonstrated, back in 2011, that we were taking this issue seriously when we introduced legislation to ensure that mandatory registration was in place.

I see the current government responding to the Supreme Court's ruling, and we are simply encouraging it to make sure that as many convicted sex offenders as possible are on that registry to ensure that victims can rest assured that their community is safe.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for her intervention. I would be remiss to not acknowledge the great work that the member for Victoria did in addressing some of the issues in this bill.

Does the member agree that Bill S-12 balances the constitutional guaranteed rights of all Canadians and the need to maintain public safety?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is absolutely the responsibility of all of us here in this place. It is to ensure that individual rights are balanced with the overall public safety of Canadians.

I suggest that this legislation, which is in response to a Supreme Court ruling, goes a long way, but I would also suggest that there should be amendments to this bill, as many of my colleagues have already pointed out. Those serving on the committee are going to have the opportunity to study this bill once it gets there, and make amendments to make it even better to ensure the very things she raised.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to speak to a bill on behalf of the fine residents of Brantford—Brant.

I know there are many victim advocacy groups that are watching this particular debate, not necessarily me, but certainly the debate itself. I know one such passionate group, My Voice, My Choice, would also be watching this and taking an active interest.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, sex-related crime has nearly doubled up to 82.5%. This so-called feminist government has dragged its heels on this issue, and this legislation may not be passed before the effective provisions expire, which is 24 days from now, on October 28, 2023. The impact of that is that sex offenders could escape registration because of the Liberal government's complete incompetence.

Canada's Conservatives are supportive of this legislation, and I will say that at the outset, that would protect the public from sexual offenders, but the bill does not go far enough. Conservatives believe that all sex offenders must be listed on the national sex offender registry, and we would amend the legislation to ensure this. We know that women and children are disproportionately victimized by sexual offenders, and this bill would make it harder for law enforcement to prevent and investigate sexual offences.

It is important that I give a brief historical overview of this particular legislation in this area. The legislation known as SOIRA was first passed by the Liberal government in 2004, with all parties supporting it. It introduced the idea that registered sex offenders were required to report annually to registration centres, as well as declare any changes of residence, travel plans or changes. However, the enrolment on the registry was at the discretion of the prosecution, and the registry's efficacy was compromised by the exclusion of nearly half of all convicted sex offenders.

As a result, the Harper government, in 2011, introduced and passed Bill S-2 with unanimous support, which made inclusion in the registry mandatory for those convicted of any sexual offence and made inclusion for life mandatory for those convicted of multiple offences.

All of this was changed by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 28, 2022, in the R. v. Ndhlovu decision, which struck down two key sections of the Criminal Code. By way of facts, the accused, the offender, was 19 when he sexually assaulted two women at a party, resulting in two separate sexual offences for which he served six months in jail. He was added to the sex offender registry for life.

Now, by a five-four split decision, the court struck down the provisions that anyone found guilty of a sexual offence would be automatically registered. By a nine-zero decision, they also struck down the mandatory registration for life for those who commit more than one such offence.

What does Bill S-12 do to correct this? Bill S-12 would create judicial discretion to add offenders to the registry, one, in cases where child sex offenders are sentenced to two years or more in prison where the Crown proceeded by indictment, and, two, for any repeat offender who has previously been convicted of a sexual offence. The bill would allow judges the ability to impose lifetime registration for sexual offenders who are found guilty of more than one offence at the same time, if the offender poses a risk of reoffending, but that is with judicial discretion.

The bill focuses squarely on the offence of sexual assault. It is important that I spend a little time talking about the unique challenges of this offence. Sex assault is the most unreported violent crime in Canada. People with disabilities are at greater risk of victimization and are even less likely to engage with the criminal justice system. Class, ethnicity, religion, nation of origin, community, age, sexual orientation and gender identity may make reporting more difficult.

Sex assault usually occurs in private. It is a profound invasion of its victims' physical and psychological boundaries. In most cases, the perpetrator is known to the victim. The attack often leaves no outward injury, but can devastate its victims, who may suffer in isolation and often in silence.

Sex assault complainants and victims have long felt a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system's ability to protect them and to hold offenders accountable. Conviction rates have not improved, and the fear of revictimization during the course of the prosecution remains.

Reporting rates of sexual offences to police hover around 5%, with 41% of those cases resulting in a charge being laid. Data for the last 35 years suggests that there is a significant statistical decline in conviction rates during the last 15 years. In Canada alone, that conviction rate went from 26.5% to 14%.

Another key feature of the bill relates to the rights of victims. Specifically, I am going to draw upon some material that I received from the victims advocacy group My Voice, My Choice:

Victim-complainants of sexual offences have the right to request a publication ban under section 486.4 of the [current state of the law].

The purpose of this type of publication is to encourage reporting and has the effect of providing victim complainants with protection from being publicly identified. There are considerable issues with respect to how victims and complainants are informed of their pub bans under that section and whether they are provided the necessary information about how to comply with the terms of the ban and eventually have it removed should they desire.

The material continues:

In reality, many prosecutors [, such as myself during my time as a prosecutor,] ask the judge or justice for a section 486.4 publication ban upon the first appearance of the accused in court, long before a victim-complainant is involved and participates in proceedings.

I also want to share with the House the frustration many victims have with respect to this particular provision and also the penalties they are experiencing currently because of the publication ban.

In March 2021, a victim in Kitchener–Waterloo was charged, prosecuted and convicted of breaching the terms of her publication ban for emailing a court transcript to her close supporters. The conviction was later overturned on appeal due to a technicality, but this example shows how prosecutors do not understand the purpose of a section 486.4 ban.

Here is another case. In May of 2021, a victim in Ottawa asked her Crown attorney in court to remove the ban, but the prosecutor said that she was not sure of the process or policy, or if the Crown would consent to the removal. After asking the judge directly herself while in the sentencing hearing, the complainant was told that the judge was no longer functus and could not help. When a third Crown attorney eventually applied to have the publication ban removed, the defence attorney opposed the application and was permitted to make submissions as to why the ban should not be removed. She never consented to having a publication ban.

These are just a few examples of the frustrations victims have had across this country not only when trying to get advice and information from the Crown so they can participate in the process, but also when trying to remove the ban.

Lastly, I wish to talk about the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court of Canada decision, because I think the language is really illustrative of the problem we have here. I am quoting from the dissent, which states that:

But the exercise of discretion was the very problem that prompted Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to provide for automatic registration of sex offenders...(“SOIRA”). Specifically.... The evidence is clear that even low risk sex offenders, relative to the general criminal population, pose a heightened risk to commit another sexual offence. It is also clear that it cannot be reliably predicted at the time of sentencing which offenders will reoffend. In the face of that uncertain risk, Parliament was entitled to cast a wide net.

It is in that particular wide net that we are asking for, by way of amendment, to include all those who are convicted of sex offences, particularly against children. There ought not to be a discretionary exercise by way of a justice.

Canada's Conservatives are supportive of legislation that will protect the public from sex offenders, but the bill does not go far enough. We believe all sex offenders must be listed on the registry and we would amend the legislation to ensure this. Conservatives would end the government's soft-on-crime approach and bring home safe streets for Canadians and particularly for the victims of sexual assault across this country.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brantford—Brant for bringing forward all of the knowledge he has and for supporting women who have been victims of violence. I had the opportunity to take him to the London Abused Women's Centre and do round tables with him. I really appreciate his advocacy on behalf of all victims of crime.

One of the biggest things when looking at victims of crime, and the member talked about this near the end of his speech and it was one thing that we really worked on at the status of women committee, is ensuring there is justice training. I am thinking of Keira's Law. We saw 53 different court orders and unfortunately still lost this young life because there was not really an understanding.

My question is this. There is a concern that things might slip through the cracks—I guess I answered my question—so why should there be mandatory reporting onto the sex offenders list?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend has hit the nail on the head. Mandatory training applies not only to judges who clearly need it. Clearly we have judges who do. I need only cite a number of cases from across this country where judges, particularly more experienced judges, have often relied upon some rape myths to try to establish the rationale as to why an individual was acquitted. Too many judges follow through with that trapped line of thinking, which is archaic, which is wrong and which completely revictimizes the victims. As such, training is essential, not only for justices, but Crown attorneys, defence counsel and all participants in the criminal justice system to ensure that victims are treated as fairly as the accused.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the speeches from my hon. colleague. It is a pleasure to join him in the justice committee.

I have a question related to his articulation of the argument for automatic registration for all sexual offenders. While I think we might agree with that proposition, did the court not strike down exactly that requirement in a recent case? How does the member propose to accomplish that to make it charter-compliant?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple: It is the notwithstanding clause. If I had a full 20-minute speech and an opportunity to share all the relevant details of the dissenting report, I would encourage my colleague to actually spend some time, because the language is so instructive on that particular question.

All sex offenders, particularly against children, pose a heightened risk to reoffend. The concern that we Conservatives had is that now, where Crowns can proceed by way of summary conviction as opposed to indictment, we would be giving that power to judges to do the right thing in the exercise of their discretion. We would be giving an opportunity for the sexual offender to justify why he ought not be registered, because his privacy may be invaded in some fashion, at the expense of the victim.

As such, I would encourage my friend to actually read the dissenting opinion. I am sure his opinion would be the same as mine, that all individuals convicted of sex offences, whether by indictment or by summary conviction, ought to be placed on the registry for the protection of the public.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I agree with the member that protecting victims is so important, and judges' discretion is not to be taken lightly. I wonder if the member can share more ideas on how we can ensure that judges' discretion is not too wide, so that we are ensuring a proper way to make sure that there are better protections for victims for public safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is all about the supremacy of Parliament. The language in the dissenting report from the Supreme Court of Canada made it abundantly clear that this was the rationale behind the amendments made by Prime Minister Harper in 2011. To reflect upon that, it took the better part of 12 years before there was a successful charter challenge, which made its way all the up to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is quite telling, and I would again encourage my friend and colleague from the NDP to also review the dissenting opinion, because perhaps some of the answers she seeks are found in that opinion.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

There has been a lot of debate on this topic. I would like to present something to all political parties that has not been discussed in this House, which I really feel needs to be considered at committee. This topic has not been addressed whatsoever and I fear that we are creating a loophole that could victimize a lot more women and a lot more public officials. I really hope that the government and the justice committee give consideration to this issue.

It was sort of addressed by my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke when he started talking about additional offences that would cause somebody to be mandatorily added to the national sex offender registry, where he said that there would be two more offences added to a list for automatic registration. The first is sextortion offences, where so-called revenge porn is used by an ex against their partner who has left them and they are angry so they post intimate images without consent; the second is that any posting of intimate images without consent would result in automatic registration.

I am happy to be corrected, but I do not think in this bill that type of offence is automatic registration. I believe it is discretionary enrolment. That might be something in and of itself, if that's true, that the justice committee needs to correct. However, there is a bigger problem here. The definition that the Criminal Code would use to define “intimate image”, I believe, is stated as follows:

(2) In this section, intimate image means a visual recording of a person made by any means including a photographic, film or video recording,

(a) in which the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts or is engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) in respect of which, at the time of the recording, there were circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy; and

(c) in respect of which the person depicted retains a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offence is committed.

The definition of “intimate image” would not change in this act, but the circumstances under which intimate images are produced have dramatically changed in the last year. I would like to draw the attention of all of my colleagues of all political parties to a brief that was written by the University of Western Ontario's violence against women and children unit. Brief 39, written in April 2021, talks about policy options for something called “non-consensual deepnudes and sexual deepfakes”.

If members are not familiar with these terms, every person in this House needs to be. In lay terms, what this means that if they or their children post something to social media, post a picture of themselves, there is now technology that is essentially like X-ray vision. Therefore, if they google something called “deepnude”, they see that it is a technology that actually scrubs the clothing off persons and posts that. That is problem number one. There is also software that superimposes an image, like someone's face, on top of somebody else's body. These are super convincing, incredibly real and hugely problematic.

In the U.S. in August, there were several articles that were posted; one called “Revenge Porn and Deep Fake Technology: The Latest Iteration of Online Abuse”. Some jurisdictions in the United States have enacted some form of revenge porn legislation. However, when they put this legislation through their respective legislatures, it did not consider deepnudes or deepfakes because of the definition of an intimate image.

Going back to the definition in the Criminal Code of what an intimate image is, “there were circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy” and, going forward, “the person depicted retains a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offence is committed.”

I can just see legions of lawyers working on behalf of deepnude apps and people who are generating these for profit, arguing that somebody, by posting their image online, abandons their right to privacy; and, therefore, because the definition of intimate image in the Criminal Code does not articulate specifically images that were generated using this new technology, they did not have a reasonable right to privacy.

I can guarantee that this is what is going to happen. Sometimes I feel like I am standing in the House and I am like Cassandra, doomed to know the future and nobody believes me. However, this is an instance where Parliament should not be rushing through legislation that has such an incredibly profound impact on women. This is how women are being abused now and this is how children are being abused, and our laws have not caught up.

Going back to the brief that I mentioned, I draw colleagues' attention to some of the policy options that Western University outlines. I will read the entire section:

1. Criminalize the production and distribution of non-consensual deepnudes and sexual deepfakes.

Currently, Canada has no law criminalizing non-consensual deepnudes and sexual deepfakes. There are other legal responses that individuals may be able to utilize like defamation...depending on the context.

However, it is not certain. In fact, my analysis shows that the tort of public disclosure of embarrassing private facts would not cover this situation. If we take this lack of law in Canada, which is hugely negligent and hugely behind the world, and add that the Supreme Court ruling has basically eliminated the mandatory listing of somebody on the registry, how are we disincentivizing people from creating deepfakes and deepnudes of their exes and putting them online? There is virtually no guarantee of criminal repercussion and no guarantee that they will be on the sexual offence registry. In fact, somebody might even be looking at creating a business off of this for those who are not smart enough to figure out how to do it themselves, and it is shockingly easy.

I want members to picture themselves for a moment, just to drive this point home. We are in the middle of the next election campaign, and a member who is out door knocking looks at their phone and sees that they have been scrubbed by X-ray vision. It is all over the Internet for the next week. The member will not have any recourse because we have a legislative gap and we do not have the incentive to put someone on the national offender registry afterwards. Someone could have cost that member their career because of this information, and there is no repercussion for them afterwards. I am relating this to try to twig members' interest using self-interest, but we all understand the bigger implication here, which is the exploitation of children and women.

This is a powerful tool for abusive men to victimize women and their spouses. Women and spouses will very quickly, if they are not already, be under threat of this: “I am just going to scrub your clothes off”, or “It doesn't matter if you don't send me your nudes; I'll just make them anyway.” We know that is happening right now, and we know that it is happening to our kids with Snapchat and all of these other things. Half the time we do not even know what app our kids are on anymore. It is tough.

The other thing that this lack of law does is it makes it less possible for people to teach consent properly. We have to be able to educate our children and ourselves on what consent means. If the law has a giant gap in what artificial intelligence images are creating, then we have a problem.

This legislation and the review at the justice committee present our Parliament with an opportunity to address this issue in a meaningful way for the first time. Colleagues, I implore you, particularly members of the justice committee, that when the bill goes to committee, invite people who have expertise in this area so that we understand the prevalence of this situation and what some other jurisdictions are doing. Also, think about amending the definition of “intimate image” so that it specifically deals with deepfakes and deepnudes. We should be talking about it being illegal and immoral and saying that someone should end up on a sexual offence registry just like any other offender. I almost think it is worse for people to do this, just to be fair.

I am putting this on the record for future court challenges that might be looking at this parliamentary debate: The intent of this legislation should be to ensure that people who use artificial intelligence deepfake and deepnude technology to victimize women and children are on the sex offender registry. We should make that absolutely clear.

I will close by saying that this is why we need to review legislation. No member has talked about this. I hope the justice committee spends adequate time looking at all of these perils before this legislation is rammed through.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my friend from Calgary Nose Hill, who I have to applaud for founding the emerging technology caucus, which I am proud to co-chair with her. She calls herself Cassandra. I do not think that anybody believes that nobody understands or believes the prophecies she tells. I think she has a lot more credibility than that.

Can the hon. member give us an example of a couple witnesses she would ask us to call to committee to better understand the potential AI ramifications and the amendments we should be making in this area?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Western University's brief has a pretty good outline of what some of the definitions of these are, and I would go back to it, as it has been thought about. I think there are two dozen references of other literature in there that I would draw my colleague's attention to.

I would ask colleagues on the justice committee to intersect with some of the work that is being done on the industry committee regarding Bill C-27, the artificial intelligence and data act, to ensure that our laws are harmonized as we move forward and make sure that is done in a way so women, others, people in public life and children are not victimized.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my friend and colleague from Calgary Nose Hill has also thought about this notion. We all know that a lie can spread around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on in the morning.

What I am getting at here is that it is not just the potential victimization of women and children, which is a horrible thing, but each and every one of us in this room has been seized with the conversation of foreign interference, especially in our electoral process.

Can members imagine a foreign state actor doing something like this during an election campaign to discredit or humiliate us in our democratic process? Does she have any thoughts on that?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a comfortable topic for me to discuss, but I have been victimized online. I try not to make debates about me in the House because I represent 120,000 other people.

However, if I saw something like this of me spreading and going viral online, through Telegram channels, WhatsApp or whatever, I think it would victimize me. It would devastate anyone in this place.

Certainly, there are people and agents who would like to undermine our democracy. This is war, and our legislature, our Parliament, has a chance to close the door to the actors on this. I encourage a rationed amendment to ensure that we are closing this loophole and that people who utilize technology to do this are not, as you say, Mr. Speaker, able to do indirectly what they cannot do directly.

It is up to Parliament to ensure that the spirit of this act captures that with regard to deepfakes and deepnudes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I only had a chance to look at our House notes and not the bill specifically, so I am not understanding the bulk of what the member spoke about on AI and consent, and why it is not mentioned or has not been discussed during the debate so far.

I do see that Bill S-12 talks about discretion being given to judges for those who are at risk of reoffending. Could the member speak more to what Bill S-12 needs to do to make sure that discretion is not widened so much so that public safety is made a concern? This is so we can do a better job at making sure that we are protecting victims.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's sentiment.

Many colleagues in here have talked about how the bill does not have an adequate and comprehensive enough list of what should be included, in terms of convictions or areas of conviction, from a mandatory perspective on the national sex offender registry list. This is why it is so imperative for the justice committee to have a fulsome study. I think the area she mentioned is deeply important.

I would apply what she said to the concept that I brought forward. It is so easy to make these images. Somebody could do it thousands of times and never be put on a sex offender registry. It is not even a loophole. We could drive a bus through it. Let us patch that up at the justice committee to keep our kids and women safe.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the passing last night of a passionate constituent of mine, Gilles Laperrière. He was a great hockey enthusiast, a volunteer, a founder and a builder. He was a recruiter for the Montreal Junior Canadiens back in the day. Largely thanks to him, Réjean Houle was able to get on the ice at the Montreal Forum, as were many other hockey players who have helped put Rouyn‑Noranda on the map as a major incubator for the National Hockey League.

Gilles Laperrière was highly engaged. He was instrumental in forming the As de Rouyn‑Noranda and the Citadelles de Rouyn‑Noranda. For about 50 years, he looked after the Dave‑Keon centre, Rouyn‑Noranda's arena. He was the driving force behind the École du hockey du Nord‑Ouest, which he co-founded with Laurent “Pit” Laflamme, someone I would also like to commend. When I was young, Gilles made it possible for me to see the Stanley Cup for the first time. It was brought there. He was also behind the arrival of the Huskies, who will be in Gatineau tonight. To honour him and show how important he was to the community, we named our mascot “Lappy”, which was Gilles' nickname. I would like to recognize Gilles and offer my heartfelt condolences to his family, especially Émilie, Kevin, Zachary and Eliott.

I would also like to thank a new member of my team. I am fortunate to have a parliamentary intern here with me, Ahdithya Visweswaran, and I want to acknowledge her contribution.

I will now turn to Bill S‑12, which aims to strengthen the national sex offender registry system and respond to last year's Supreme Court decision. The Bloc Québécois's commitment will go much further. We are prepared to work very hard to include provisions that protect victims's rights.

This bill tries to reinstate the automatic registration provisions that the Supreme Court struck down, while including certain conditions that allow judges to use their discretionary authority to order whether or not an offender should remain on the registry for life. The bill also addresses publication bans, sometimes imposed without the victims' knowledge, which currently prevent victims from publicly sharing their stories and messages. That is why I felt it was important to rise and speak today. I thank my colleague for Calgary Nose Hill for sharing her time with me. Although these publication bans are sometimes intended to protect the identity of the victims, they often have the opposite effect by protecting the identity of the assailants.

This afternoon, I was very fortunate to meet representatives from My Voice, My Choice: Kelly, Morrell, Brandy, Carrie and Jessica. I find these courageous women, these survivors, very inspiring because they are agents of change in areas where it is not often easy to speak out. They advocate for victims, asking that their wishes be prioritized and central to the decisions being made. It should be up to victims to choose whether or not to lift a publication ban under the current provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.

While the Senate has taken an admirable first step, it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to build on the work already undertaken. To that end, we must consider the amendments proposed by survivors of sexual violence who are represented by My Voice, My Choice. Their personal experiences with sexual violence, the legal system and publication bans form the basis of the amendments they wish to see incorporated into this bill.

Survivors' calls to action are simple: Clarify that only victims of sexual offences and witnesses under the age of 18 are covered by a publication ban under section 486.4; ensure that prosecutors are directed by the judge to immediately inform the victim or witness of their right to request a publication ban; require prosecutors to present requests with the consent of the victim or witness and on their behalf; provide the victim or witness with a copy of the order once a publication ban is in place; prevent unwanted publication bans from being imposed on a victim or witness when the prosecutor or judge has been made aware of their wishes; allow for interim publication bans that can easily be lifted until the victim or witness makes their wishes known to the prosecutor or judge; clarify the process for modifying or revoking a publication ban, separate from the discretionary bans under section 486.5, by ensuring that the victim's interests take priority and that their freedom of expression is respected; broaden the limitations section to ensure that trusted persons and professionals are not criminalized for communicating information related to the identity of the victim or witness when providing support.

Over the past year, I have met and heard from many victims of abuse and mistreatment, including some victims of sexual assault. I want to thank the athletes for the trust they placed in me. Their very moving accounts enabled us to give a voice to these athletes who, through no fault of their own, were victims of these toxic environments in sport. Their courage must absolutely be met by concrete action from parliamentarians in the House of Commons.

The culture of silence in the world of sport is often perceived as a given, which can have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, it can strengthen athletes' concentration and foster a strong team spirit, since excessive communication can disrupt performance. On the other hand, this silence can sometimes mask problems such as harassment, discrimination and injuries.

It is essential to strike a balance between respecting this tradition and promoting a safe and fair sport environment where the athletes feel comfortable expressing themselves without fear of reprisals. Publication bans for the victim complainants line up with everything found in the sports community to deal with reports by whistle-blowers, who are often the victims themselves. We need to measure the harm done to the victims and that is often what justice underestimates. We need to give the victims the choice to participate in this choice. We also need to ensure that the information is made available for making these choices.

The government gave the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, or OSIC, within the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, or the SDRCC, the mechanism for handling complaints in sport. There too, unfortunately, they rely on the status quo, voices are silenced and investigations are not launched when national sports organizations are suspected of using strategies for silencing the victims who are key to their organizations.

Need I mention the numerous independent investigations that have been conducted in the world of sport? I could list Hockey Canada, Canada Soccer, Gymnastics Canada, Volleyball Canada, Canoe Kayak Canada, Canada Artistic Swimming, Water Polo Canada, Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton, Athletics Canada, Cycling Canada and many more. How many more victims need to come forward to demand an independent public inquiry into the world of sport? I call on all of my colleagues to continue their hard work.

At a press conference on May 11, the Minister of Sport publicly expressed her government's commitment to an independent public inquiry into abuse and mistreatment in sport. Five months later, things seems to have stalled. Is the work of two parliamentary committees—whether the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage or the Standing Committee on the Status of Women—and the approval of the MPs who sit on those committees enough to ensure that this public inquiry will go ahead? The aim is to shed light on important aspects of the issue and give a voice to all those concerned about the future of sport.

All parliamentarians here in the House agreed to investigate the matter. The harm being done to victims and athletes must stop immediately. That is one of the things that Bill S‑12 will accomplish, but we have a responsibility to go even further.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and his work on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and its study of safety in sport.

Does he think that there are strong enough measures in this bill to discourage crimes against athletes?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her question and for her committee work.

The work of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, like that of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, was done in collaboration. I think that shows what is best about Parliament, namely when all parliamentarians from each party come together because they have a desire for justice and a desire to improve sports. Sports are an important symbol in our culture. As such, we must go even further.

As part of this study, I was told about non-disclosure agreements. In my opinion, sport organizations abuse them. When we are presented with a particular situation, an independent organization, a so-called third party, is asked to investigate. They are told that a particular coach has allegedly abused a particular athlete. However, that athlete is not the only one who was abused and other victims are named. Those names are noted. The result, based on testimonies heard in committee, is that non-disclosure agreements will be reached with each of those individuals. Why? It is to protect the image of a sport federation instead of putting justice first. We will never be complicit in that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, today being the national day of action for MMIWG, we know all too well that indigenous women, girls and two-spirit victims who have been taken or murdered do not get to tell their stories. When the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights supported the NDP's proposal to make a recommendation allowing victims the right to opt out of a publication ban, this was an important way to make sure victims can tell their story.

I wonder whether the member agrees that this kind of recommendation, which would help increase the understanding of how they got to that situation, is what would help make sure we have fewer victims of this nature.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her sensitivity to this issue.

Indeed, people cannot remain silent. Being a victim a first time is a tragedy, but what we see in the patterns is that victims are often victims a second time because they lose their name and their voice. That is totally unacceptable.

I think, if progress is to be made in this Parliament, it must also be possible to identify those victims. It must be possible to hear from them, to recognize them and to do all the upstream work to move toward true reconciliation.

Yes, the member can count on my support and that of the Bloc Québécois because there must be justice.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful, researched and thoughtful speech. It is nice to see that he has also heard from people who are very concerned by this issue.

I spoke earlier about something that affects me. I will ask my colleague a question because, clearly, women are still afraid of the justice system.

In Quebec, sexual assault help centres have published figures showing that only 5% of victims of sex crimes file complaints. Of the cases that go before the courts, only 3 of 1,000 lead to charges.

The justice system still scares people. Charges are not laid. Clearly, people are not paying for their crimes.

Does my colleague have any possible solutions that could be proposed to address this problem?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member to give a brief answer.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to be brief, but our system does have to be fair.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of this bill and of giving a voice to people who have been silenced. In my opinion, it will lay the foundation for a renewed justice system, because we will be renewing trust in our justice system. That is the foundation of democracy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Thursday, October 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. deputy House leader has a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it looks like we are really close to Private Members' Business, but if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:43 p.m. to start Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:43 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:43, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.