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.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just reflect on the fact that when we were looking at Bill S-12, if I remember the number correctly, with the sex offender registry, we heard greatly from victims about the context of things like non-disclosure agreements and where their autonomy was vitiated, and we looked at how we could recalibrate that so they could have control over their information. That is important and guides me in the work I do. What I would also underscore is that in the victims fund, we injected an amount of $40 million in 2023-24 to support victim-focused measures.

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

Madam Chair, high-risk sex offenders are obviously a priority of ours. I indicated that we re-established the sex offender registry through the swift passage of Bill S-12.

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

Thank you for your testimony. It was very clear and helpful. However, I have two questions.

First of all, related to proposed paragraphs 264.01(2)(a) and (b), the intent or mens rea section, I think you were saying this wording does not require proof of actual victim fear as an objective test. I accept that on face value, but then I look at proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c) on the next page, in which you use the wording “could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe”. What's the difference? Why are you using the phrase “could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe” in proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), but not also in proposed paragraphs 264.01(2)(a) and (b)? That's my first question, and I'll just throw out my second question.

Following up on what Mr. Moore was saying about having this list of seven items under proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), my fear is that, when you draft a list, maybe you're missing something. Maybe instead of seven there should have been eight, nine or 10 examples, because sometimes by including a list you're limiting the scope of the bill.

This came up in a study earlier this session, in October, on Bill S-12, the sex offender registry. Dr. Roebuck, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, and Professor Benedet were concerned that judges were misunderstanding sexual offences, and were worried about rape myths creeping in. They said that Parliament could respond by setting out a list of factors for judges to consider. We put forward a motion to that effect, and Mr. Maloney had this to say:

I remember the evidence because I think I was the one who actually asked the question, but in my experience, the more you include, the more you exclude, because crafty lawyers...will see a list and then argue that it's exhaustive.

That's a concern. I thought it was a good comment at the time. He almost convinced me to vote against our own motion. He can comment on that if he wants, but that's not the point. As to my question, in taking a look at proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), if we take out the words between the hyphens—“including conduct listed in any of the following subparagraphs”—and then exclude all the subparagraphs, have we completely gutted the intent of proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), or is it still effective?

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to discuss Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Victims who share their contact information with the Correctional Service of Canada and/or the Parole Board of Canada and who meet the definition of “victim” outlined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, CCRA, are entitled to receive certain information about the person who harmed them.

This information includes review and release eligibility dates, which are provided to victims in an initial contact letter. Bill C-320 would require that victims be provided with an explanation of how those dates are determined. Across the country, victims of serious crimes may deserve to know how sentences are administered, including eligibility for temporary absences and parole.

Together, the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada have over 8,000 registered victims. We have heard from them, and they and their families want clarity and transparency. I look forward to supporting Bill C-320 to provide that increased clarity and transparency that victims of crime are asking for.

Additionally, I want to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, for its expeditious study. The committee has returned to this place an unamended bill, which received unanimous support. I look forward to that unanimity continuing in our debate today.

Ensuring that the rights of victims are upheld is important. Our government has passed new legislation to continue to support victims' rights in the form of Bill S-12. That legislation ensures that victims receive ongoing information about the offender after sentencing and would improve the law on publication bans by giving a greater voice and clarity to victims in regard to imposing and lifting a publication ban. Bill C-320 shares similar aims to Bill S-12.

As members know, the CCRA governs both the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. It is the foundation on which people serving federal sentences are supervised and conditional release decisions are made. It also recognizes that victims of crime have an important role to play in the criminal justice system. It provides victims with an opportunity to access certain information and participate in the federal corrections and conditional release process. With the CCRA and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights as a foundation, a variety of government departments, including the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada, work together to provide information services to victims.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights expanded the information available to victims as it relates to hearings by allowing victims who were unable to attend a hearing to request to listen to an audio recording of the parole hearing. At any time, victims may also submit information that details the physical, emotional or financial impact the offence has had on them to the Parole Board for consideration in its decision-making. They may also raise any safety concerns they may have related to the offender's risk of reoffending.

As part of the victim statement, victims can also request that the board consider imposing special conditions on an offender's release. All this information assists board members in assessing risk and determining if additional conditions may be necessary to impose if release to the community is granted. They may also raise any safety concerns they may have in relation to the offender's risk of reoffending. As part of the victim statement, victims can also request that the board consider imposing special conditions on the offender's release.

All this information assists board members in assessing risk and in determining if imposing additional conditions may be necessary if release to the community is in fact granted. The protection of society is the paramount consideration in all parole board decisions. I will also note that Public Safety Canada plays a role in improving victims' experiences with the federal corrections and conditional release systems.

The National Office for Victims engages with victims, their advocates and service providers. It hosts annual round tables, develops information products about victims' rights and services and applies a victim's lens on corrections and conditional release policy development. Victims can also receive information in the format of their choosing, including through the Victims Portal. They can submit information electronically, including victim statements.

These services respect a victim's right to information, and this information serves to engage and to empower victims to make informed decisions in relation to their rights to participation and protection.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on Bill C-320. As we reach report stage of this bill, I would like to express gratitude to the hon. member for Oshawa for bringing this important bill to the House.

Bill C-320 is an important piece of legislation aimed at increasing victims' understanding of corrections and conditional release. According to existing federal law, victims who share their contact details with the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada and who meet the legal definition of victim are entitled to specific information about those responsible for harming them. This information includes key dates indicating when offenders may be eligible for review and release.

Should Bill C-320 be accepted, it would amend the law to ensure that victims not only know when offenders could be released but also, importantly, understand how officials determined those eligibility dates.

The government supports this legislation, and I encourage hon. members to lend it their full support. The purpose of this bill aligns with the government's commitment to upholding victims' rights to information while taking into consideration offenders' privacy rights.

Victims of crime and their families seek clarity, transparency and opportunities to have their voices heard within the justice system. Bill C-320 aims to provide the clarity and transparency they seek, offering victims of offenders more information about crucial eligibility and review dates in advance.

This legislation lets victims know that we hear them. It clearly aligns with our commitments to support victims' rights, including their need for information. This bill builds upon the progress made in recognizing and upholding the rights of crime victims in our country.

Over the years, governments of various affiliations and members from both sides of the chamber have taken actions to advance victims' rights. This evolution began back in 1988. At that point, the House endorsed a statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. Subsequently, federal laws provided victims with a voice at sentencing hearings, emphasizing their rights based on an increasing understanding of their needs.

The enactment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992 first entitled victims to receive information about the offender who harmed them. In 2003, the government updated and re-endorsed the statement of basic principles, and in 2015, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights became law, solidifying victims' rights in various ways.

Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, victims of crime are legally entitled to receive information on inmates' progress towards meeting the objectives set out in their correctional plan, to name a representative to receive information on their behalf, to access a photo of the person who harmed them prior to release and to receive reasons if the Parole Board of Canada does not impose any release conditions requested by victims. Moreover, victims can actively participate in Parole Board hearings, virtually or in person, presenting victim statements and requesting special conditions for an offender's release.

Recent legislative measures, such as Bill C-83, further strengthened victims' rights by making audio recordings of parole hearings available to all registered victims of crime. As well, the National Office for Victims, in collaboration with federal partners, continues to produce informative materials on sentence calculation rules that are available online.

The progress made is a testament to ongoing conversations among victims of crime, elected representatives and government officials. These conversations, embodied not only in Bill C-320 but also in recent legislative initiatives, such as Bill S-12, affirm our commitment to victims' rights. Bill S-12, which received royal assent on October 26 of this past year, seeks to connect victims of offenders with ongoing information and to enhance publication ban laws. In addition, the Correctional Service of Canada and Parole Board of Canada work tirelessly to raise awareness of victims' rights.

In the government's view, Bill C-320 aligns with these sensible, non-partisan and multi-generational advancements. Victims of crime and their families want clarity and transparency. They want a voice, and they want that voice to be heard. This is why I look forward to passing Bill C-320 in the House today, and I encourage other members here to join me.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue that requires a serious response. It is not something that should be highlighted in a negative way in the House of Commons.

The Liberal government has taken steps through Bill S-12, Bill C-3 and Bill C-51. We have taken serious measures to address sexual assault crimes, including sexual assault offenders being included on the sex offender registry.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult moment for me, not because I had to find a new seat near the exit, not because it took me two tries to get to Ottawa because of the fog and not because I come from an Irish family of criers, but because it is really a moving moment for me.

I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for the friendship we have developed in the House. He has a great record of accomplishment, about which he spoke, but I want to point out something someone asked me on the plane last night, and that was how I could go to work in such a negative place. My response was that, unfortunately, all people see is question period, which is theatre, where people have other agendas they are pursuing, but they do not see the hard work that goes on behind the scenes, the co-operation and the friendships that are built. I really meant that, and the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is a great example of this.

I made a quick list, because I had 15-minutes notice that I had this opportunity, on the number of things he and I worked on together and his willingness to take action to ensure we improved the justice system in Canada, in particular for indigenous people and the work he did on Bill C-5 to reduce mandatory minimums, which fall very hard on the most marginalized in our society.

He mentioned the conversion therapy ban. His work with the leader of the Conservatives and all parties meant we were able to pass that ban unanimously, something which I remain very proud of the House for doing.

He worked on Bill C-40, with which we are not quite finished, on the miscarriages of justice commission. Again, miscarriages of justice fall very hard on the most marginalized, particularly indigenous women. My pledge to him is that I will work as hard as I can to get that done, hopefully by the end of this month. We only have a couple of days, but I think we can get that done.

He also helped shepherd medical assistance in dying legislation through the House when I was initially the NDP critic. This was the most difficult issue in my 13 years here because of the very strong feelings on all sides of the issue. The minister always demonstrated his ability to listen, to be empathetic and to try to find solutions that would keep us all together on this very important issue about reducing suffering at the end of life, not just for the person but for the families of people who need that assistance at the end.

One last one is that I approached the minister about the publication ban on survivors of sexual assault and how many of them felt stifled by the publication ban. He asked what we could do to fix it. Eventually he agreed to add the ability to lift the publication ban in Bill S-12, and it came to the House. This was an example of how, when I approached him with an idea and a problem, he always looked for solutions and a way to bring us all together.

I know he will continue to contribute to Canada once he leaves the House, though I am not sure in exactly what way or if he is sure in exactly what way. He is one of the finest members of Parliament I have ever had the privilege to work with, and I thank him for his contributions here.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

I feel as if there has been somewhat of an explanation for my questions about this.

From the testimony we heard and the justice committee's review, I have a greater fear that victims would not be disclosed enough information and be very upset, than I have that they would get too much information. Although it is a possibility that they'll get information they don't want to receive, I think it's far more traumatizing when people feel they're forgotten and not even included in the process.

You spoke about Bill S-12 and how, very early on in the process, you wanted to make it so that people could tell you what information they want to receive.

Is that correct? Would you say there isn't a major threat that people will be disclosed information they don't want to receive, if such an amendment requires proactive disclosure?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for.... It is Bill S-12. I think I referred to Bill S-211 before, but that's what I was referring to.

In terms of the amendment then, again, notwithstanding the fact that it's inconsistent with another piece of legislation and some other work that the justice committee is doing.... In terms of resourcing, I would hate to see a reallocation of resources taken away from this trauma-informed approach to simply send more letters. Are we in a position yet to be able to provide that without taking away from that one-on-one, case-by-case contact?

[Kirstan Gagnon]

Yes, and just to clarify, the first contact letter is for those who wish to come forward and register with us but haven't done so yet, or maybe we haven't processed the registration. It starts, “Further to our recent telephone conversation, here's all of the information that you're entitled to receive. This is how you can receive it. This is how you can sign up for our portal.” It explains everything from location to confidentiality to preferences, etc.

In what you're speaking to, I think Bill S-12 will help with that, because with the courts now being able to convey the victim information to us directly, that will help us ask them if they wish to receive our services. Part of the difficulty is often knowing where the victims are. Sometimes they go to court, and then we don't know how to find them. I think that will help in terms of conveying that information. Then if they don't wish to receive further contact up front, we'll be able to know that.

I think that will be helpful, because for us...and we've increased our outreach over the years, especially to marginalized groups and populations, to be able to make them aware of our services. However, if they don't come to us, we often can't find them.

[Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thanks very much.

The only thing I would add is that Public Safety Canada regularly holds round tables with victims and victims groups. We do hear repeatedly about the need for information, as you pointed out.

However, as my colleague has pointed out, there is the need to respect individuals who do not want that information. The idea of moving to proactively providing that information raises some concerns in terms of the revictimization and retraumatization of those individuals who do not want to receive that information.

I will point out that the recent passing of Bill S-12 sets up a much better approach to ensuring that victims knowingly have the opportunity to register for additional information. I think that goes a long way toward what you're suggesting, while respecting the rights of some victims to decide not to have that information proactively put toward them.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

That's a fancy name.

For the first question, our mandate is limited. We're not able to speak to transfer decisions or how those decisions are made, so I won't speak to that.

Number two is on registration. This is part of what our office advocated with Bill S-12, which has introduced a mechanism whereby at sentencing a judge or the Crown will ask if the victim would like to receive information about the sentence and its administration. A check box is also added to the victim impact statement.

Prior to Bill S-12, nobody had that legal responsibility to even provide that information, so it was haphazard on who would be informed. We've seen kind of systemic racism in who gets access to that information and who doesn't. We're pleased to see some progress on that, but we need to do a lot more.

On resourcing, I do think that's really important. In general, we hear complaints from victims of crime that the people who harm them have access to psychologists or to education and employment skills training, while that same resource isn't necessarily provided to victims.

Right down to the complaint angle, our office hasn't had the capacity to conduct a systemic review since 2017 because of resourcing. That's a core function of an ombuds office that we're unable to fulfill.

I think there's a lot of work to do to provide victims with the types of support that will be more effective in addressing their complaints.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, when I say my heart goes out to this family, I say that on behalf of every member in this chamber. No family should have to experience what this family is currently going through.

We recently passed Bill S-12 in this House, which addresses some of these concerns about online safety. The protection of children in our society is of utmost importance. I have a commitment from this side of the House, and from all sides of the House, that we will do everything we can to make sure they are protected.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question and her commitment.

Gender-based violence is an epidemic in Canada. We recently passed Bill S‑12 to improve the national sex offender registry and give victims more power in the criminal justice process. We also passed a bill that guarantees that judges will receive sexual assault training.

We will continue to fight against gender-based violence so that all Canadians, both men and women, can be safe and feel safe.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

Before I start my questions, I just want to say to you that by taking the terrible experiences you have had.... Most people would not go forward publicly and retraumatize themselves by talking about it again and again in order to help other people. The fact that you're doing this to help others not to have the same kinds of horrible experiences says a lot about your characters, and I just want to commend you for doing that.

I do want to ask a follow-up question.

Ms. Tremblay, you said something that got me thinking because one of my questions....

Mr. Viater, thank you for being back before this committee. I'll let you answer more on the legal side of things, but on the personal side of things, I would ask Ms. Tremblay and Ms. Jeanson.

The current Criminal Code does include a lot of protections for victims. It does include a lot of this, and, of course, Keira's law—I was here when our committee did that—even strengthened that. Obviously though, in your experiences, that hasn't been enough. There has been a failing in the existing system.

You said something, Ms. Tremblay. You said that it's not just about keeping safe, and that one of the things that, for instance, a bracelet could do is allow you in court to prove if somebody broke their conditions, because it's very hard to actually find evidence of that. I wonder if the two of you could talk shortly about what this bill does that is missing in the current laws.

Then I'd ask Mr. Viater to be a little more specific about how it complements Keira's law and even Bill S-12, which is before the Senate now.

I'll start with Ms. Tremblay.

Court Challenges Program Act

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

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

Before I begin, I want to pass on my condolences and recognize the life of Eugene Dery from my riding. He leaves behind a son, who is approximately 20 years old, Dax, and his wife Kim Galloway, whom I met through my sister. I grew up knowing them and have known them throughout the years. I extend my deepest condolences to the family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

On a more positive note, I want to recognize Ethan Katzberg from my riding. Mr. Katzberg took home gold in the hammer throw. Good for him. We are obviously very proud of him. He is the one to beat, following in the line of Dylan Armstrong. We look forward to seeing Ethan at the Olympics doing his best to represent not only Canada but also Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

We are here today to discuss Bill C-316, an act to amend the court challenges program. This is an interesting act when we think about it. In my research to prepare for my speech, I saw that the court challenges program has existed for a great deal of time. I knew that it existed, but I was not sure exactly how it had operated in the past.

One of the things that struck me is that this bill would enshrine the court challenges program into law. I know that my colleague from Lethbridge did an excellent job in her speech on this issue, but I will be addressing some of the points she made and perhaps some of the points that the sponsor of the bill made. I have some concerns.

The reality is that with this legislation, in my respectful view, we would be legislating an undermining of Parliament in a certain way. Parliament passes laws and the courts interpret them; there is no issue there, and frequently the courts will engage in a dialogue. I raised this with Justice Moreau of the Supreme Court of Canada, although I am not sure if she has been sworn in. She is the chief justice for Alberta for the time being if she has not been.

I asked her about the dialogue between Parliament and the courts. Parliament speaks through its legislation, the courts interpret the law and then Parliament speaks again if it needs to. This bill would essentially fund people to go to court to, in my view, look at ways that Parliament got it wrong. That is not to say the courts need any help. Frequently, the courts strike down legislation passed by Parliament, or they uphold it as constitutional, but those things happen irrespective of a third party like this.

From what I can see, this program costs $5 million at this time. It could be substantially more. By my estimation, about 30% of that alone is bureaucratic costs. We have been talking a lot about heating oil and things like that. How many heat pumps is the government going to buy for people? How many heat pumps would $5 million buy? Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we often talk here in the billions of dollars.

A senior contacted my office not long ago saying they had to choose between putting food on the table and buying shoes. To them, $5 million sounds like a lot of money. I know it certainly was when my family came from Italy. They did not really have two pennies to rub together. Sometimes we lose sight of this.

Not only that, we would create a bureaucratic entity beyond asking people to challenge our laws. There is no issue with the idea that people disagree with what Parliament passes. It happens all the time. That is why the courts will make various decisions. However, this is done routinely when somebody brings an action to the court.

I am going to underscore as well that when we pass legislation here, it goes through second reading debate. Sometimes bills pass with unanimous consent, but very rarely will a significant bill pass that way. I think I have seen it twice so far.

Bills go through second reading debate and then go to committee. Who do we hear from at committee? We hear from witnesses. On the justice file, who are those witnesses? Invariably, they are lawyers, experts who will tell us what is wrong with the bill: “Your bill has this constitutional frailty in this spot and this spot.” Then someone else will come in and say, “Yes, I agree, but I don't think the frailty is here and here, I think it might be over here.” What do we do? We take that and go back, potentially through an amendment. At third reading, we have more debate, and then it goes to the Senate. What happens at the Senate? There is more debate. Then, eventually, we will have royal assent after it has gone through the machinations in the Senate and then it goes to the courts. There is this idea that Parliament does not have ample opportunity to get it right and to hear from the very lawyers who will be making these courts challenges.

However, these challenges are made supplementary to the actual challenge. What I mean by that is, for example, somebody who believes that they are aggrieved by the statute on charter grounds will say, “This offends my section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person”, and they will challenge the law on constitutional grounds. Frequently, I presume, this program will fund somebody to intervene. Well, somebody is already making that challenge in a lot of instances from what I can see, and so I question the efficacy of that.

The other issue I have is that this issue is run through a university. I used to teach at Thompson Rivers University and I will give a shout-out to them, but this is done through the University of Ottawa. Now, we will obviously have in a university faculty, particularly one like law, divides. Some people are going to have one view of the law and some people will have another view of the law. In here, we have Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens and the Bloc. They are going to have different perspectives on how the world works, which is fine; actually, it is more than fine, it is central to a thriving democracy. However, the people who administer this program are going to be, through their perspective, deciding who gets these programs. Invariably, there will be winners and losers, and it does not seem to me that we know exactly how that is going to be administered, especially when it is being administered right now through a third party. That, in my view, does raise some issues.

The importance of people who are writing academically cannot be underscored. It is, in my view, central to anybody who is a professor, particularly a professor of law or political science. We do frequently receive feedback. We, as members of Parliament, are expected to take feedback on our laws. In my view, that is the correct mechanism by which we should be addressing these laws and not funding people who would not otherwise be in court on a matter of their own in doing so.

One of the issues that we have seen about this dialogue is that, in my view, this Liberal government has not necessarily acted well on that dialogue. For example, Bill S-12, the issue of the sex offence registry, was taken literally right down to the last day. It is how the courts work. The courts act and Parliament reacts. Parliament legislates, the courts interpret and it is up to Parliament to react. It took us literally months. We could not actually get this right. That is how things are supposed to be working. We can also look at this when it comes to that extreme intoxication case that we had to legislate on very quickly. However, sometimes, and this is one failing of the Liberal government of many on the justice bill, this Liberal government does not always react.

If we want to look at places where we should be devoting our resources, the courts have said that it is unconstitutional to have back-to-back first degree murder convictions and for parole ineligibility to be served consecutively.

I am out of time and so I will wrap it up there.

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

Very briefly, Madam Chair, I'd say that I believe firmly in the dialogue between Parliament and the court. I think it's fundamental to a constitutional democracy. I appreciate the work of this committee in ensuring that we met the deadline on Bill S-12.

With respect to the characterization of the decision by the court in Bissonnette, I don't share that characterization. I think the constitutional principles that the court stood by in that case are important. They're important for us to reflect on as parliamentarians.

Thank you.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Minister.

I agree with much of what you just said, except for the part about having the meeting chaired by a professor rather than our chair. I have every confidence that the people around this table and our Senate colleagues who serve on the Senate legal and constitutional committee would be able to have a meeting—as we do regularly—where we would have an interview. We do not have a veto. We don't choose who the Supreme Court appointment is; that's your role. You make that choice. Our role is to ask that individual questions and receive responses. I have confidence that our chair would be able to do that.

Minister, I want to ask you now about the dialogue between the Supreme Court—and this has been at the forefront in recent years—and the legislature. In our case, that is the Parliament of Canada.

There have been two recent cases. The Ndhlovu case dealing with the mandatory listing on the sex offender registry of those convicted of sex offenses was narrowly struck down by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. The government responded, and this committee considered Bill S-12.

I'm on record to say that I think it was a tepid response. I think we could have gone further. We had moved an amendment that would have made it mandatory for all child sex offenders, all offenses against children, to be listed. However, that doesn't go to the point of my question. There was a government response.

Similarly, a year and a half ago, the Bissonnette case, which dealt with an individual who went into a mosque and murdered six people, struck down the provision in Canada that if you take multiple lives, you would have consecutive life sentences.

I know as a New Brunswicker that this hits home because of the experience in Moncton, where an individual killed three Mounties. Rather than being given a sentence discount for multiple murders, as was the case before, this individual got a 75-year parole ineligibility.

At our justice committee, the widow of one of the victims said that she took some comfort—

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

I'm not talking about keeping people safe, from the Bill S-12 point of view. I'm talking about keeping people safe generally.

This is a very clear question, with all due respect, Minister. Are you prepared to eliminate house arrest for people who commit sexual offences against children or have images of it in the form of child sexual abuse and exploitation material?

Yes or no? Will you plug that hole?

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

What I would say to you is similar to what I said at the time of that hearing. I appreciate that it was on a different bill, so I don't have all of my notes before me, but, with respect to Bill S-12, what we're trying to do is take a strong step in the direction of maintaining a sex offender registry to keep people safe from sexual predators.

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

Thank you.

It's good to see you in the chair, Mr. Moore.

Hello, colleagues. I hope you're all well. At the outset, I want to say thank you for the quick work on Bill S-12 and making sure that we met a court deadline and maintain the sex offender registry going forward.

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you about Bill C‑40, Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law).

Bill C-40 proposes necessary and long overdue change to our criminal justice system, and it will indeed change lives. I'm grateful for the important work of my predecessor David Lametti in developing Bill C-40. I have every intention of fulfilling the promise that David Lametti made to David Milgaard and his mother Joyce to pass this important legislation.

I think we all, as parliamentarians, owe it to those people who have been wrongfully convicted, like David Milgaard and others. These errors cost them their freedom, their livelihood, their reputation and their time with loved ones. The errors are devastating to victims of crime and to their families.

This bill responds to long-standing calls from wrongfully convicted Canadians and their advocates. This issue has been studied extensively. Over decades, numerous commissions of inquiry have delivered one consistent recommendation to government: the creation of an independent commission dedicated to the review and investigation of cases when a miscarriage of justice that may have occurred is warranted.

Other countries have done this already, so we're not charting new territory here. Independent criminal case review commissions have been established in the jurisdictions of England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in the jurisdiction of Scotland; and in the jurisdiction of New Zealand.

Bill C-40 is shaped by a broad public consultation process that took place during summer 2021, involving more than 200 individuals and groups with experience and expertise in the area of criminal justice. That process was followed by further consultations with the provinces and territories, judicial organizations, national indigenous organizations, organizations from Black and other equity-seeking communities, and various bar associations.

One of the key findings of the consultations is that commissions in other countries are able to process applications far faster than in Canada's current system. This means that countries with an independent commission have fewer people spending time behind bars for crimes they didn't commit. That in and of itself is incredibly significant.

In Canada, our wrongful conviction regime was last amended in 2002.

I'll just note parenthetically that this power has existed in one shape or form in the hands of people, who were my predecessors going back to 1892. We're talking about a change to the executive prerogative in this area that dates back to the time when the first Stanley Cup was awarded over 100 years ago.

Since 2002—I was just referencing the last time this was amended—just over 200 applications for review have been submitted. You've heard Ms. Gazan mention that there have only been 26 successful referrals back to the courts through the ministerial review process.

Let's compare that for a moment with a country that has an independent commission. The United Kingdom is a great comparator. They have referred 822 cases in the same time period, with 559 appeals successfully overturned. With a population that is just about half of the U.K.'s, I think that contrast is very powerful. Further, I would note that in all but five of the 26 successful Canadian applications that Ms. Gazan mentioned, the individuals were white and not racialized. In every single one of the 26 successful applications the individuals were male.

That bears no resemblance whatsoever to our prison populations. Black and indigenous persons, who we all know are overrepresented in our criminal justice system, need equal access to this process, as do women.

An independent commission devoted exclusively to reviewing potential miscarriages of justice will both increase trust in the review process and improve access to justice by facilitating and accelerating the review of applications from persons who may have been wrongfully convicted.

A commission with five to nine full-time or part-time commissioners, in addition to staff, will be able to review applications more quickly. Recommendations for the appointment of commissioners will have to reflect the diversity of Canadian society and also consider gender equality and the overrepresentation of certain groups in the criminal justice system, specifically indigenous and Black individuals.

The bill requires the commission to deal with applications as expeditiously as possible—this was mentioned by Ms. Besner—to provide regular status updates, and to provide notice to the parties, as well as to provide them with a reasonable period of time in which to respond. The bill also requires the commission be accessible and transparent.

It will adopt and publish on its website procedural policies to guide its work. It will have a dedicated victim services coordinator to support victims and assist with the development of procedural policies, especially as they relate to victim notification and participation.

These are essential measures to facilitate the proper support for victims, which I know is a keen concern of yours, Mr. Chair, in terms of the work you and I did on this committee previously.

I think it's important to understand that, obviously, victims can be doubly traumatized by the notion of a miscarriage of justice having occurred and the fact that the actual perpetrator of the crime against their families remains at large.

To help address systemic issues and prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring, the bill directs the commission to carry out outreach activities, such as the ones I mentioned to Ms. Gazan; provide information about its mandate on the miscarriage of justice to the public and potential applicants; and publish its decisions. Commission staff will be empowered to provide applicants with information guidance. The commission will be able to provide reintegration supports to applicants in need. The commission will be able to provide applicants with translation and interpretation services, and to help applicants obtain legal assistance and the necessities of life, such as housing and medical care.

All of these elements are essential. A commission that conducts outreach and assists with applications recognizes the systemic barriers faced by applicants in the current system. It is in everyone's best interest that wrongful convictions be remedied. Indeed, I would posit that there isn't a single one of us, among the 338 occupying the House of Commons, who would advocate for a wrong conviction in any context. Therefore, the proactive nature of Bill C‑40's commission will ensure that no applicant is excluded from accessing this process because of a lack of resources or the inability to apply.

My officials have been briefing you on the technical changes this law reform proposes, but there are a couple that I would like to highlight in particular.

One is with respect to investigative powers. The commission will have the same powers of investigation as I do as Minister of Justice under the existing regime. These powers are found in part I of the Inquiries Act and can be used to compel the production of information or evidence relevant to an application, and to examine witnesses under oath. These authorities will ensure the commission can gather the information it needs to complete a thorough case review.

The second change I want to highlight is this: Bill C‑40 will modify the threshold to proceed with carrying out an investigation. Similar to the existing regime, the commission will be able to conduct an investigation if there are reasonable grounds to believe a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The commission will also be able to conduct an investigation if it considers that it is in the interest of justice to do so. This is the precise approach used in Scotland and New Zealand.

With respect to the final decision—not the investigation entry point, but the final decision—Bill C‑40 introduces a new test. The commission will be able to refer matter to the relevant court of appeal, either for a new appeal or to direct a new trial or hearing when there are reasonable grounds to conclude a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, when the test is conjunctive, and when it is in the interest of justice to do so. It is a test with two criteria, not one. This test replaces the current standard, which is that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.

If the proposed new legal test is not met, the commission must dismiss the application. The remedies in the bill are the same as those currently available in the existing process: a referral for a new appeal or a direction for a new trial or hearing. The commission will not have the power to quash a conviction or determine the issue of guilt. Those are decisions that will always remain with the courts.

Bill C‑40 sets out the factors the commission will have to consider in making its decisions. The factors currently stipulated in the Criminal Code that relate to the administration of justice are reproduced in Bill C‑40, and two new factors are added relating to the particular circumstances of applicants.

That is, it's specifically looking at the personal circumstances of the applicant and distinct challenges they may have faced, with particular attention to the circumstances of Black and indigenous accused.

I believe firmly in our justice system. Its quality is the best in the world. However, we also know that miscarriages of justice occur. Often they are only discovered long after the criminal court process has concluded. These experiences erode the public's trust in a justice system that is meant to protect them. This bill is a significant step forward in restoring that trust and confidence in the system. It is named after David Milgaard, who spent 23 years of his life serving time for a crime he did not commit, and for his mother, Joyce, who never gave up the fight for his freedom.

Bill C-40 honours David and Joyce's legacy by creating a system that will lead to more exonerations of the innocent.

Thank you.

Criminal Code

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act. I am pleased to reiterate the government's support for Bill S-205. This legislation has the important goal of better protecting victims of intimate partner violence.

In light of last week's tragic instance of intimate partner violence in Sault Ste. Marie, we are reminded of the devastating impact these crimes have on individuals and communities. My heart breaks for the senseless loss of life in Sault Ste. Marie, and I am thinking of the victims' loved ones. Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence in general have no place in Canada. I know my colleagues from all parties share this sentiment.

Bill S-205 would make changes to the Criminal Code's bail and peace bond regimes in order to address intimate partner violence. The bill would also make consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. These are important objectives. Today, I will elaborate on some concerns that we have with this bill and how we think it can be improved. I will also discuss our government's most recent complementary efforts to support victims of intimate partner violence and victims of crime in general.

As my colleagues have mentioned, Bill S-205 would require prosecutors to ask courts whether the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs prior to making a bail order for an individual who is charged with an intimate partner violence offence. In addition, Bill S-205 would require courts to ask prosecutors whether victims have been informed of their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court.

The next element of Bill S-205 that I would like to highlight is the expansion of a reverse onus for bail on intimate partner violence crimes. The reverse onus would be expanded so that it applies not only to accused persons who were previously convicted but also to those previously discharged, conditional or absolute, for an intimate partner violence offence. This particular measure is also contained in our government's bill, Bill C-48, which already passed this House and is awaiting third reading in the Senate. We were certainly concerned to see that the senators voted to remove this measure from the bill, and I hope that my colleagues agree that we should reinstate it in Bill C-48. This provision builds upon previous government legislation that enhances our federal response to intimate partner violence, including former Bill C-75. I hope this House rejects the amendments to Bill C-48.

Next, Bill S-205 would require a justice to consider, on request of the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release. I want to point out that this provision would also undo an important change made by Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27. If Bill S-205 is passed, electronic monitoring would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases, and not just in cases involving violence against an intimate partner as is now the case because of the changes enacted in Bill C-233.

Last, this bill would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence with a duration of up to two years, or three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence.

I want to reiterate that I support the objectives of this bill, but I believe that changes should be considered to better align the proposed amendments with its objective. These changes could also minimize the potential for unintended negative impacts on groups who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ensure coherence with existing criminal law.

Next, I want to discuss how Bill S-205 fits into a broader framework of our government's support for victims of crime. I have already mentioned Bill C-48, which passed here on unanimous consent of all members. I want to thank colleagues across the aisle for their support and for recognizing the importance and urgency of Bill C-48. It is a direct response to requests made by the provinces and territories, as well as law enforcement agencies from across our country. This piece of legislation would strengthen Canada's bail laws to address the public's concerns relating to repeat violent offenders in offences involving firearms and other weapons.

Bill C-48 would introduce a reverse onus at bail on the use of dangerous weapons such as firearms, knives and bear spray. Bill C-48 would also create a reverse onus for additional indictable firearms offences, including unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking and entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm.

Through this bill, we are sending a strong message that crimes committed involving a firearm are unacceptable and represent a dire threat to public safety. We have seen too many lives lost to gun crime.

As I have mentioned previously, Bill C-48 would also strengthen the existing reverse onus that applies to accused persons charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence when they have a previous conviction for this type of an offence. Bill S-205 has this same objective, and I am glad to see members from all parties take intimate partner violence seriously.

Another proposal in Bill C-48 relates to what considerations the court must make when deciding whether to release someone on bail. A former bill, Bill C-75, passed in 2019, amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factor, including the criminal record of the accused or if the charges involve intimate partner violence.

Bill C-48 would expand this provision to require courts to consider if the accused's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence. Bail courts would be specifically directed to consider whether the accused has any previous violent convictions and whether they represent an increased risk of reoffending, even when the proposed reverse onus does not apply. This change would enhance public safety, and I am again pleased that my colleagues support the passage of Bill C-48.

A second bill I wanted to highlight is Bill S-12. Just this week, we debated this legislation. Bill S-12 would improve our national response to sexual offences by strengthening the national sex offender registry regime. We have responded to concerns raised by the Supreme Court and law enforcement agencies in this legislation. The list of designated offences that qualify an offender to be registered on the national sex offender registry would be expanded by Bill S-12, and this list would include non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion, two crimes that have had terrible impacts on the lives of Canadians, especially women and children. This would be a very positive step forward.

Bill S-12 is a direct product of conversations with survivors and victims of sexual crime. Bill S-12 would reform the publication regime to recognize the diversity of victim experiences and ensure that survivors have agency to tell their own stories if they so choose. Bill S-12 would also change the process for providing victims with information on their cases to better reflect the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Both of these changes are about one key element: choice. There is no one right way to be a victim. Bill S-12 reflects this reality.

I am happy to support Bill S-205, and I hope that the elements I have raised as potential concerns with the bill can be further studied at committee.

Royal Assent of Bill S-12

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

Mr. Speaker, today I stand to highlight the recent passage of Bill S-12, which amends the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. This bill received royal assent yesterday.

I want to express my gratitude to all parties and the Senate for its support and dedicated efforts in acknowledging the significance of this legislation and in ensuring the safety of Canadians today and in the future. More importantly, I want to underscore the efforts and work of survivors of sexual assault in sharing their stories to inform this legislation. This includes representatives from My Voice, My Choice, whose tireless efforts led to these important changes to the publication ban regime.

More specifically, I give a sincere thanks to Morrell Andrews, who is a testament to what can be achieved when we stand up and advocate for what we believe is right. I thank Morrell. Congratulations.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

October 26, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 26th day of October, 2023, at 5:18 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Christine MacIntyre

Deputy Secretary to the Governor General

The Honourable

The Speaker of the House of Commons

Ottawa

The schedule indicates the bills assented to on Thursday, October 26, 2023, were Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), and Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate agrees with the amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, without amendment.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the efforts he has put in within his community to help address the scourge of sexual assault in all communities across the country. I also thank all of the community-based organizations that provide support to survivors of sexual assault in particular but also to victims of crime.

One of the things we concluded unanimously in the justice committee's report on providing better support for victims of crime is that the federal government has to do more to support community-based activities. Coming back to Bill S-12, I think one of the important aspects of allowing sexual assault victims to speak freely about their cases if they choose to do so is that it will help remove the stigma associated with sexual assault. This in itself will help improve reporting rates.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill S-12 today, as it would address one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”, which was tabled in the House in December 2022.

When the justice committee began its study on victims of crime more than a year and a half ago, the member for Victoria brought to my attention the bizarre and unjust situation that survivors of sexual assault face in their current circumstances, which is that survivors regularly suffer from restrictions on their ability to talk about what happened to them and sometimes even suffer penalties for violating court-ordered bans on the publication of information that would identify their own names. It is important to note that these bans are routinely imposed in sexual assault cases across Canada. Anecdotally, we know it approaches 100% of the time. It is also important to note that most of the time, this happens without survivors' being aware that the publication ban is in place.

Bill S-12 would fix that by requiring notification of survivors. There are many reasons a survivor might choose to or inadvertently violate such a ban. Some feel that such publication bans inadvertently protect the perpetrators by the necessity of protecting their identity in circumstances where the publication of the perpetrator's identity would identify the victim. Others feel the idea of publication bans itself is based on an archaic and misogynist idea that sexual assault victims are somehow responsible for what happened to them and should be ashamed.

To be clear, some survivors do want their privacy protected by having publication bans in place, but others believe that public safety requires them to let family, friends and members of the public know of a risk of sexual assault they might face, by identifying the fact they were assaulted and who the perpetrator was.

At this point, I want to express my thanks to the survivors of sexual assault, and in particular those from the group My Voice, My Choice, who risked retraumatization by coming forward to committee and talking in public about their own personal experiences, in order to get the legislative change they need, in the hearings before the justice committee on victims' rights that began in October 22, more than a year ago.

Again, I want to thank the member for Victoria, who brought this situation to my attention and then introduced a private member's bill on the topic in order to try to get the House to act. In addition, I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, the former minister of justice, who decided to include measures to restore agency to survivors of sexual assault by including it in Bill S-12.

The government did not choose a path, using a Senate bill, nor did it choose a timetable, at the last minute, that New Democrats might have chosen. This has left us with little time to meet the deadline for passage of Bill S-12 and therefore with little time to consider all of the important amendments suggested by My Voice, My Choice, without endangering the fate of this bill as a whole by causing a to and fro between the House and the Senate. Now, we have a bill that, had it been on a better path and a better timetable, could have been even better in meeting the needs of survivors of sexual assault. However, we still have a bill before us that, I am assured, would make the necessary fundamental changes to restore agency to survivors and to ensure that there would not be prosecutions for violating bans of those whom they were supposed to protect.

Let me turn briefly now to the other half of Bill S-12, which provided the original impetus for the bill. The Supreme Court of Canada decision requires revisions to the sex offender registry. The Supreme Court found that automatic lifetime registration for those convicted of listed offences was overly broad, and as a consequence, was capturing some who were very unlikely to reoffend. I know some argue that all must be listed, but it is important to remember that if we list people who are at very low risk to reoffend, we waste public resources that might better be used to monitor the higher-risk offenders.

Instead, Bill S-12 would meet the Supreme Court's challenge by implementing the presumption of registration of those convicted. This would mean that a very small number of those convicted of listed offences could ask a judge to use their discretion to exempt them from legislation. The estimates are that it would be probably far fewer than 10% who could ask for that exemption.

The bill would also strengthen the sex offender registry in a couple of important ways. Most importantly, to me, it would add the offences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and so-called sextortion to the list of offences that would result in registration as a sex offender.

In our modern world of overuse of social media, overuse of the Internet and overexposure of everyone to everything, these offences sometimes may seem trivial. However, we must remember that with non-consensual distribution, intimate images last forever on the Internet, and I think those who perpetrate this need to understand that these offences will be taken very seriously and that they will be monitored as sex offenders on the registry to make sure they do not engage in this kind of behaviour again.

I would like to conclude with thanks to all the parties that have worked together to get this legislation here today in time to meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline. I know that some parties still have reservations and I know that some of the victims would like to have had more amendments made to the bill. However, I do believe that we have it in a form in front of us today that will help restore agency to survivors of sexual assault in the future. I think that is a very important reason for us to act promptly.

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying that it took six months for Senator Gold to introduce the bill in the Senate. I do not blame him. It was the government's responsibility, not his.

The Senate passed the bill at third reading in two months, which seems more than reasonable to me. Three months went by between June 22 and September 19, because it was the summer. The bill arrived in the House on September 19, and 36 days later, here we are in the House for third reading of the bill. Thirty-six days is obviously not a lot of time to study a bill of this magnitude in the House. I find that disappointing.

What happened between October 28, 2022, and April 26, 2023? Was the government closed for business? Were there no ministers around who could work on drafting the bill? I guess not. I am very disappointed.

The only reason we are here today, being forced to ram through this bill, jeopardizing our parliamentary duty to listen to every citizen and group concerned about the bill, weigh their positions and arguments, and study the representations made in committee with care and attention, is that the government did not put in a modicum of diligence to satisfy the obligations imposed on it by the Supreme Court ruling. At no point, in the House, in committee, in the media or in a press release, did the government offer the slightest explanation for this delay. We received no explanation, no excuse, nothing. Again, it is disappointing to say the least.

Basically, the bill reinstates the principle of automatic registration, but with better guidelines and subject to certain conditions. Registration will now be automatic only for sex offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more and for repeat offenders. In all other cases, there will be a presumption that the offender will be required to register, but it could be overturned if the individual proves that there is no connection between the order to register and the purpose of registration or that registration is totally disproportionate to that purpose.

Bill S‑12 therefore allows for greater flexibility and provides that judges may use their discretion to order whether those convicted of multiple offences during a single trial should, or should not, remain on the registry for life when their behavioural profile demonstrates an increased risk of reoffending.

The Bloc Québécois unsurprisingly endorses these amendments, which are in line with human rights requirements and respond to the Supreme Court's October 28, 2022 ruling.

With regard to the second component, Bill S‑12 proposes provisions promoting the participation of victims at the publication ban stage, when a ban is to be issued. On numerous occasions, witnesses have come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights asking that we amend these rules and allow victims to intervene before a publication ban is issued.

Publication bans are issued to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses. They are issued for their benefit, not for the benefit of the defendant or the benefit of the courts and prosecutors. The basic principle in Canada, and a cornerstone of our justice system, is to hold open trials. Not so long ago, we heard about hidden trials, secret trials. I do not think anyone wanted them. They certainly should not become the rule. Open legal proceedings are a guarantee of fairness and of trials that comply with the applicable legal provisions. Justice is done in public, not behind closed doors or in secret.

Obviously, the presence of the public and the media in the courtroom is critically important, as is the right to talk about the trial, the evidence presented and the issues at stake. Publication bans should be used only under exceptional and clearly defined circumstances. On several occasions, the courts have heard challenges to their validity, often raised by media representatives.

If these bans are to be issued only on rare occasions, it is quite understandable that the reasons justifying them must be very well defined and clear to everyone. The purpose of the bans must be to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses, or at least seriously strive to achieve that objective. What is the current situation? At present, unfortunately, that is not always the case.

Bill S‑12 seeks to ensure that the people we want to protect are truly protected, and that they know they are protected. It seems to us that, at the very least, before issuing such a ban, the courts must ensure that the victims are aware that a ban is being sought and could be granted, that they understand the details of the ban and, finally, that they consent to it. How else could anyone claim that the ban is in their best interests?

Victims must also have the opportunity to request that the publication ban be modified or lifted. Victims may have consented to a ban for one reason or another but, for a host of other good reasons, they may later decide they want the ban modified or lifted. Logically, victims should be allowed to request such modifications if the ban is indeed in their best interests, as it should be.

However, as things stand, these bans are often issued without the victims' knowledge and, unfortunately, without their consent. Worse still, when they find out that a publication ban has been issued, the victims, whom the bans are intended to protect, are currently unable to request that the ban be modified or lifted. As if that were not enough, victims are even liable to prosecution if they violate a publication ban by speaking out about the assaults they have suffered or about their attacker's trial. The victim we want to protect becomes the culprit we want to prosecute. I agree with what everyone is probably thinking: That is insane and it has to change.

The purpose of Bill S‑12 is therefore to correct these incongruities and greatly improve the situation for victims and witnesses. From now on, judges will have to ensure that victims are notified when a publication ban is about to be issued and that they consent to it. If the victims are not present in the courtroom, the judge will have to ensure that the prosecutor has notified them and obtained their consent. Furthermore, victims will now be able to communicate with a legal professional, a health professional or a person with whom they have a relationship of trust without putting themselves at risk of contravening the publication ban. This is a necessary and welcome improvement. One even wonders how it could ever have been otherwise.

That said, our courts will face challenges. Sometimes, they will have to weigh the interests of the different parties if one victim wants a publication ban revoked or varied but other victims involved in the case disagree. The judge deciding the issue will have to consider the opinions and rights of everyone concerned by the ban. It will definitely take some imagination to word the ban in a way that satisfies and respects each person it needs to protect. This will be no small challenge, but nonetheless, it is a challenge we must meet. While it may not be perfect, I hope that Bill S‑12 will largely and adequately meet our legislative obligations.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for making it possible to pass Bill S‑12 in a reasonable enough time frame that should hopefully allow it to get through the legislative process fast enough for the existing legislation to be amended before the deadline set by the Supreme Court. I think everyone on the committee worked seriously and diligently, and I would like to thank them all.

Having said that, Bill S‑12 has two components. The first is the component required by the Supreme Court pertaining to the national sex offender registry. It is a response to the Supreme Court ruling handed down on October 28, 2022, in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down two provisions of the Criminal Code, namely section 490.012 and section 490.013(2.1).

The court held that registering offenders who are not at risk of committing a future sex offence is disconnected from the purpose of registration. The court pointed out that the purpose of registration is to capture information that may assist the police in preventing and investigating sexual offences.

The Supreme Court gave the federal government one year to remedy the situation, and that time is up next week, on October 29, 2023. If the amendments are not passed by then, then offenders will no longer have to register with the national sex offender registry. Clearly, we all want to avoid that.

Obviously, the House of Commons fast-tracked the legislative process to meet that deadline. What I am wondering is why the government waited until April 26, six months after the Supreme Court ruling, to introduce this bill. I would remind the House that the Supreme Court delivered its ruling in R. v. Ndhlovu over a year ago on October 28, 2022, and ordered that the Criminal Code be amended by October 29, 2023.

On April 26, 2023, Senator Gold introduced a bill in the Senate, six months after the Supreme Court delivered its ruling. Bill S‑12 was passed in the Senate at third reading on June 22, meaning the bill took two months to get through the Senate. Six months elapsed between the time when the government found out that it had to amend the law and the time when the bill was introduced, another two months elapsed between the time when Senator Gold introduced his bill and the time when it was passed at third reading in the Senate, and a further three months passed before the bill arrived here in the House of Commons—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about Bill S-12.

As was said, when we were in government, we brought in changes to have a mandatory listing of all convicted sex offenders put in the registry. We had to respond to a Supreme Court decision, and the government's response has been tepid. One of the amendments that Conservatives put forward at committee would be to require the mandatory listing of all convicted child sex offenders. There is nothing in the Supreme Court decision that would have prevented that step from happening.

The Liberal and NDP coalition voted against the common sense amendment that would have listed all convicted child sex offenders. Can the member tell me what message she feels that sends to Canadians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice and Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Am I correct, Mr. Taylor?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the designated offence was prosecuted by indictment;

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

—this is key, that “and” word—

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

Conservatives will be voting against this amendment.

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Welcome everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ladies and gentlemen, here we go.

Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

I call clause 2.

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

Shall PV-1 carry?

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

Bill C-50—Time Allocation Motion

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 5, 2023, for the second reading of Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, I voted on the voting app. The voting app sent me a confirmation whereas the picture had not gone through. Therefore, I ask the House to give unanimous consent to vote yea.

[Pam Hrick]

Absolutely, and I think you've heard the best kind of evidence on that point from people like Robin Parker and Megan Stephens. I urge you to listen to that, based on their decades of experience representing survivors and also their experiences with Crown and criminal defence lawyers as well.

I think one of the good things about Bill S-12 as it's currently drafted is that it makes it much clearer. A line Crown prosecutor can go to the legislation and see it's not appropriate for them to pursue charges because the three criteria there are not met. It doesn't have to be something that is a matter of discretion as they are figuring it out, in some cases really quite poorly, as evidenced by the examples we have heard about. It's setting it out much more clearly and being very narrow about the circumstances in which it would ever be appropriate to pursue that.

I think that is another good thing about this legislation—that clarifying element of it.

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

The suggestion has been made that we certainly could amend Bill S-12, at least on the prosecution possibility, to add a list of circumstances that would not result in prosecution. That would include things like counsellors, legal advice and trusted individuals for minors. Would you say that it would be an addition that would be important?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Yes. Thank you.

Can you imagine if, in your family, someone was murdered and the federal government didn't think that it was appropriate to let you know that the offender was being released, or if you could participate in a parole hearing but they didn't tell you that it was happening. That's the problem. Nobody has a legal responsibility, prior to Bill S-12, to inform people, certainly on the federal side, about how to register to receive information. That's a major source of complaints to our office.

There are women who participated in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, who have family members who disappeared or were killed, and still, after all of that process, they aren't being told about these hearings and about the release of people back into their communities, so this change has to happen.

I think we need to improve overall information. I'll just highlight why independent legal advice is really important in sexual assault.

We had a complaint recently where somebody said, “I wish that someone had told me to speak to a lawyer before I reported it to the police, because I told them that I had seen a counsellor and that I was journaling.” Both of those things became part of the disclosure and were subpoenaed by the offender. In the end, the complainant stayed their charges because it felt like such a personal invasion.

This is happening across the board, where survivors' experiences are not being protected in the way that we do justice. That is certainly the case with this issue of therapeutic records, which I know has passed through the Supreme Court and has had different perspectives. However, I don't think that a survivor-centred perspective has been fully considered on that, and it could be better protected with independent legal advice.

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

I agree with you, Mr. Roebuck. This is more or less what Bill S‑12 does, whereby Crown prosecutors will have to answer the judge's questions and say whether they have taken into consideration what the victims want. If a Crown prosecutor feels that this puts them in an awkward position, they can produce those documents and simply answer the questions.

There's probably a way of articulating something useful. Publication bans are issued to protect victims, but what the victims want isn't taken into account, which strikes me as absurd, and it makes no sense in our criminal system.

The obligation imposed on the Crown prosecutor doesn't place them in a conflict of interest, particularly since, in principle, there is no case to win. The Crown prosecutor is there to establish the truth.

There are about two minutes left, and I would like to hear more about the potential conflict of interest a Crown prosecutor might have in answering victims' questions about the ins and outs of a publication ban.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. Their participation is valued.

We're dealing with a subject in Bill S‑12 that I think is important. It's a bit incidental initially, because there's a rush with the sex offender registry part of the bill, but the bill also addresses the issue of publication bans. This seems to me to be a serious matter. Victims who have testified before us on all kinds of bills and situations have often talked about these orders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a number of things will be repeated in every case. What is a publication ban? I know that not everyone will read the part of the Criminal Code amended by Bill S‑12 and be able to understand what it's about or what can or can't be done. It should be possible to produce informational material. In fact, Ms. Dhillon just asked the question. We're all on the same topic. This material could be distributed to victims beforehand. Before victims decide whether they want a publication ban issued in their case, they need to be able to understand the implications of such a ban.

Of course, each case is unique. The Crown prosecutor would probably have to add specific details for each case or answer questions. In addition, courts or courthouses could make resources available to victims to answer their questions. This is already being done in different ways on different subjects. In short, there's surely a way to organize more specific information.

Generally speaking, do you think it would be possible to produce a kind of tutorial, even if it meant that victims would have to enlist the services not only of a lawyer, but also of an educator, to develop materials that would adequately inform them of their rights and obligations in connection with a publication ban?

[Pam Hrick]

I would like to see a plain language explanation of exactly what the law is, once and if Bill S-12 is passed by the House of Commons back to the Senate, with any amendments of course. If the Parliament approves that, I'd like to see plain language resources for survivors to explain exactly what the legislation requires.

I would like to see one-stop shopping, ideally, for resources that survivors can avail themselves of to receive support, guidance and hopefully independent legal advice where it exists.

Those are the kinds of things that I'd like to see housed in one place. Again, the plain language nature of it is so important, especially when people are accessing those resources in a time of intense trauma.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

How do the provisions of Bill S-12 better reflect victims' rights to information under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights?

[Pam Hrick]

I think that Bill S-12 right now centres that issue in ensuring that survivors can exercise choice and agency in determining what choice is best for them in the circumstances.

Bill S-12 allows for publication bans to be put in place right off the bat, which, as acknowledged and heard at this committee, can feel like a suffocating or retraumatizing experience for some survivors. Putting in those mechanisms to easily allow for the ban to be lifted, varied or revoked is an important measure to give effect to those survivors' choices.

Having the discretion or the ability present in the amendments to Bill S-12 to allow for that protection to exist and persist for survivors who wish to avail themselves of the privacy protections of the ban is also something that this bill, as drafted currently, achieves.

I want to also re-emphasize the court resourcing point. It's not just that courts are under-resourced. It is that resources need to be directed in a way that will allow survivors to be supported in the process if they choose to report, and will allow them to make choices about whether to report in the first place.

I could go on and take up most of the committee's time talking about ILA programs that exist for survivors, for example, in Ontario, to help them make those choices and about the need to expand those across the country and properly fund them.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

I'll start with Madam Hrick.

We've talked with very good reason, under Bill S-12, about victims who wish to lift their publication bans. I'm going to ask my question in two parts, if you can answer them, please.

I want to ask you about the victims who want a publication ban to protect their privacy. Are there parts of Bill S-12 that could create barriers or confusion for people who do want a publication ban? How can we balance the interests of both?

[Pam Hrick]

I'd have to give you a blanket answer, and I think the legislation provides for a process that allows those voices to be heard and for courts to consider whether a tailoring of a publication ban could address those various privacy interests. I think it would be a case-by-case determination, and Bill S-12 does give tools to the court to be able to make that kind of decision, one that hopefully, to the greatest extent possible, allows for every victim's or complainant's wishes to be taken into consideration and to ultimately be respected.

[Pam Hrick]

I'd say perhaps a case where there is a very narrow scope of individuals who are covered by the publication ban, such as a single individual, a single victim or complainant, where nobody else's interests are impacted. It juxtaposes, of course, with cases where there are multiple complainants, where there are different privacy interests that may be competing or where you have different desires among those individuals to have the privacy protections of a publication ban and those who do not want those privacy protections. I think that's the kind of case that might be a little bit simpler.

I do think the amendments that have been proposed and adopted by the Senate to simplify the process are a great improvement over what we have now and a great improvement over what Bill S-12 initially proposed.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

You've given very important evidence about one aspect of Bill S-12. Your focus has been on publication bans, which is very important legislation, and we are generally supportive of it.

However, I just wanted to get on the record how profoundly disappointed I am that the government side of the House has delayed this legislation and is now rushing it through. We have a deadline of October 28 in response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision that said that the sex offender registry was unconstitutional, so Bill S-12 intends to fix that.

Now, on top of that, we also have this second add-on of the publication ban. Listening to your evidence today, Ms. Hrick, you say that there are a lot of voices that haven't been heard, and here we are in a big rush with October 28 to get this whole bill passed. I don't feel that we're giving just time to this very important piece of legislation.

That said—that's off my chest now—I want to thank you for your testimony, but we've heard from other witnesses who have said that there should be a simplified process for revoking the publication ban in simple cases. Perhaps you could tell us what, in your mind, constitutes a simple case.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime]

Thank you. It's nice to see you again.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak on Bill S‑12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

I acknowledge that we are on the traditional unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation. I honour the leadership, strength and wisdom of indigenous peoples, and I accept personal responsibility for pursuing justice and reconciliation.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime is an independent federal agency at arm's length from Justice Canada. We provide information to the public on victims' rights, review complaints from victims about federal agencies and advise on criminal justice legislation and policy. Our recommendations are informed by conversations with survivors and stakeholders across the country and around the world, and by our indigenous, academic and service provider advisory circles.

The volume of inquiries and complaints to our office continues to grow. We project a 128% increase in files opened this year versus 2017.

Our office has also prepared a comprehensive response to this committee's study on improving support for victims of crime, which we will submit to you shortly.

To the courageous survivors who have advocated for Bill S-12, thank you. I also recognize survivors who continue to be silenced by publication bans, and I have heard how painful it is to be excluded from this process—not being allowed to speak to Parliament with your own voices and names.

One survivor provided consent for me to share their silence for 30 seconds. Please join them in silence.

[A moment of silence observed]

In June, I appeared before the Senate standing committee to discuss Bill S-12. I am pleased to see how the senators incorporated feedback from survivors and other stakeholders.

I continue to support recommendations from My Voice, My Choice and other survivors who have contacted our office, including on better education for prosecutors and judges on how trauma affects memory and information processing; how important autonomy over identity is for recovery; collecting reliable court data on publication bans; informing sexual assault survivors about their rights, respecting their choices and offering independent legal assistance, where available; treating Criminal Code provisions for victims of crime with the same weight as measures for the accused; and better protecting the therapeutic records of sexual assault survivors who need unconditional safety to externalize and process the violence imposed on their bodies.

Some of these recommendations are addressed in the bill, while others will require more work. We've heard about numerous rights violations, barriers and contradictions in how the criminal justice system responds to sexual violence. Our office is in the early stages of planning a systematic investigation into these challenges in order to propose more comprehensive and trauma-informed remedies to Parliament.

In a recent discussion with Crown prosecutors, we heard that the requirement to consult on publication bans in Bill S-12 occurs prior to their regular first contact with complainants. This raises the concern that the implementation of Bill S-12 could lead to rushed decisions on publication bans. We've also heard concerns that some survivors may choose to reject or lift a publication ban without understanding potentially long-term consequences.

I understand the need to pass Bill S-12 quickly, so I will limit my recommendations to a few key areas that could easily be written into the legislation or included in implementation.

Number one is informed consent. Decisions about publication bans have significant consequences for survivors. The pros and cons should be clearly presented with supporting resources that provide information in plain, easy-to-understand language. Trauma can make it difficult to process and recall information, so having something to review can help with decision-making.

We propose an addition under “Duty to Inform" in proposed subsections 486.4(3.2) and 486.5(8.2) requiring the prosecutor to inform the judge or justice that they have provided a resource on publication bans to explain the law, safety considerations and how to have a ban varied or revoked.

Finally, on victim-centred information.... I can summarize it to shorten my time here.

It's wonderful that we've included a measure for victims of crime to finally be asked whether they'd like to receive information about the sentence and its administration. That's very important, but it still remains offender-centred in the way it's presented. It's not clear that, if a victim doesn't check that box, they will not be told about a parole hearing or about when the person who harmed them has been released. There are consequences to that as well. We need to improve some of those measures.

[Pam Hrick, Executive Director and General Counsel, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon. As has been mentioned, my name is Pam Hrick. I'm the executive director and general counsel of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF. We use litigation, law reform and public legal education to advance the equality of women, girls, trans and non-binary people. We've been at this since 1985.

I'd like to thank you for inviting me here to speak with you today about Bill S-12. I was pleased to also have the opportunity to appear before the Senate committee studying this bill earlier this year. I am going to focus my remarks today as I did before the Senate committee on the publication ban portion of Bill S-12.

We were very encouraged to see the willingness of parliamentarians to improve how publication bans are imposed, varied and revoked. This work has been driven to the forefront of public attention by sexual assault survivors, including those involved with My Voice, My Choice, with support from feminist lawyers, advocates and organizations like LEAF who echo the calls for change to centre survivor choice.

LEAF was very glad to see the Senate amend the legislation in response to concerns that were raised at committee. We had several overarching recommendations for amendments to strengthen the bill in the Senate. These included, first, ensuring victims are not criminalized for failing to comply with a publication ban on their own identity; second, ensuring that people whose identities are protected by a publication ban can still disclose their identity in contexts such as with a therapist or a support group; and third, clarifying and simplifying the process for revoking or varying a publication ban.

These recommendations were put forward by a coalition of organizations and individuals with deep expertise on sexual violence and the legal system. They included LEAF, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Ending Violence Association of Canada, Legal Advocates Against Sexual Violence, Possibility Seeds, Megan Stephens, Pamela Cross and Robin Parker.

Of course, I'm here today speaking for LEAF. We would urge you, by and large, to maintain the amendments to the legislation that were adopted by the Senate, which were responsive to our recommendations.

One modification we would encourage you to consider at this stage was spoken to by Ms. Stephens on October 5, and it was just spoken to by Ms. Parker today. That concerns the requirements the bill places on prosecutors. As you've heard, the current version of the bill requires prosecutors to inform complainants of the existence of a publication ban and their right to apply to revoke or vary it. These are practical and important information requirements that should be maintained. However, the bill goes further and requires prosecutors to share information about the publication ban's effects, and when and how the complainant can disclose information without violating the order. That verges on putting the prosecutor in a position of giving legal advice.

I agree with Ms. Stephens' and Ms. Parker's submissions that the bill should impose a more narrow requirement to inform a complainant of the ban's existence, that they can seek to have it varied or revoked, and that they are also entitled to get independent legal advice to make an informed decision about whether they wish to do so.

As I said before the Senate standing committee, we need investments in independent legal advice and education to ensure that survivors fully understand what a publication ban does, how it can be imposed and how it can be removed. We need these investments to ensure that survivors can make informed choices about what's best for them in their circumstances.

We've heard loud and clear from survivors that they want the ability to speak about their own experiences—or at least some of them do. We also know that some survivors wish to avail themselves of the privacy protections provided by a publication ban. As one expert, Anu Dugal of the Canadian Women's Foundation, said earlier this year, publication bans can serve as “one layer of support and protection for racialized women in a system that does nothing to actually support them or protect them—and in fact goes out of its way to blame them”.

I want to highlight that, unfortunately, it seems like the committee may be moving into clause-by-clause without having heard directly from any racialized survivors or legal experts concerning the impact of the proposed amendments.

I'll conclude though by stressing that both choices are valid—to have a publication ban in place or not. The important thing for this committee to keep in mind is that amendments related to publication bans must seek to give effect to survivors' choices and make it as easy as possible to exercise agency in making those choices.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

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

Could we amend Bill S-12 to maybe put some of that advice into Bill S-12 by saying that, in the case of talking to counsellors or medical professionals or trusted persons—some kind of list of people—it's definitely not a breach?

[Dr. Janine Benedet, Professor of Law, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to take part in this consideration of Bill S-12.

I'm sorry to say, because we're starting just a little bit late, that I do have to teach at 2 p.m. Vancouver time, which is 5 p.m. your time, but I hope I can be here for most of our discussion.

I'm going to focus my remarks today on the proposed changes to the sex offender registry. Not surprisingly, some of the things I'm going to say will track the points that Professor Fehr has made.

I conducted research a number of years ago that was referred to in the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Ndhlovu. While I prefer the approach of the dissent in that case, at this point the decision for you is how to respond in a way that respects the charter, preserves the integrity of the registry and reflects the realities of how sexual offences are committed, prosecuted and sentenced.

The bill, as I read it, proposes making registration automatic in a few cases and strongly presumptive in others. I have two concerns about the current bill that track what you've just heard. One has to do with the trigger for mandatory registration. The other has to do with the factors the judge must consider in deciding whether to grant an exemption when registration is merely presumptive.

The first goes to a point that's already been raised with you, which is that this bill, as I read it, is saying that registration is mandatory for first offenders, and that it is triggered where the offence is prosecuted on indictment, the sentence is two years or more and the victim is under 18. This is a very high bar that is not, obviously, required by the Supreme Court.

The reality today is that major sexual assaults are often prosecuted by summary conviction for various operational reasons. The maximum penalty for sexual assault prosecuted summarily is only 18 months—there's an anomaly in the Criminal Code—unlike two years for other summary offences.

These serious sexual assaults against children will not attract the same mandatory registration, despite the fact that the circumstances of the offence and the risk of reoffence may be identical. Summary conviction offences are not invariably minor offences. I think it's important to stress that point.

The two-year threshold is also high. The resurgence of conditional sentences for sexual offences, including sexual offences against children, means that no offence where a conditional sentence is applied will attract mandatory registration either. You will see the avoidance of mandatory registration becoming a chip in plea bargaining, as well as a reason that some judges may sentence to less than two years to avoid that collateral consequence of conviction.

I would just say that if you are being sentenced to imprisonment for a sexual offence against a child, whether on summary conviction or by indictment, surely it cannot be unreasonable to also expect that you will be placed into the sex offender registry. To me, that trigger doesn't make a lot of sense. I think it could be lowered.

The second point—and it's one that has already been raised—is what happens if registration is not mandatory and only presumptive. Here we see the exceptions, and you've heard some concerns with those.

We know the problem is that, in the past, when judges were given discretion along these lines, they ordered exemptions frequently. My research showed that they did so in up to a third of cases, at least for those for which reasons were available. These exceptions weren't exceptional at all.

This is part of a pattern. When judges exercise unfettered discretion in the context of sexual offences, they fall into stereotypical reasoning. We've seen it in the context of sexual history evidence, private records in the hands of third parties and in the sentencing of offenders for both adult and child victims. There is the myth that opportunistic offenders are not real sex offenders, that men of good standing in the community are not real sex offenders, and that where no additional violence is used or children give de facto consent, these are not real sexual offences.

Bill S-12 does attempt to offer some conditions that must be considered by a judge in deciding whether to grant the order. However, most of them are vague and general and permit myth-based reasoning.

[Dr. Colton Fehr]

Thank you.

I'd like to focus on several of Bill S-12's features that respond directly to the Supreme Court's Ndhlovu decision.

At various points in Bill S-12, a disjunctive test is employed before determining whether an exception from the sex offender registry or a termination order is warranted. The test effectively employs the language of section 7 of the charter, in particular, the overbreadth and gross disproportionality principles. I suggest that this dual exception is unnecessary. Such an approach is only reasonable if there are circumstances where an overbroad law is not also grossly disproportionate.

If a SOIRA order doesn't further the law's purpose, the fact that the order has, per the majority of the Supreme Court, a “serious”, “onerous” and “considerable” impact on the offender's liberty strongly suggests that the effect is also grossly disproportionate. Notably, the original SOIRA legislation only employed the gross disproportionality exception. There's no indication that this exception was too narrow.

This is more than a semantic point, because allowing judges to avoid making a SOIRA order because they think there's no connection between the order's aim and the offender's conduct invites problematic speculation. As the dissent in the Ndhlovu observed, judges have frequently issued exemptions in highly inappropriate circumstances. They have excluded offenders because the judge thought they did not pose a future threat because they sexually assaulted people they knew, were viewers of child sex abuse materials, opportunistic offenders or historic offenders. These types of exclusions demonstrate that judicial bias in sexual offences is present in astonishing ways and with a disturbing frequency, as the dissent demonstrated with its overview of the jurisprudence.

While the proposed amendments provide factors to guide judicial discretion, these factors are stated quite broadly, I suggest. I agree with Professor Benedet, who suggested in 2012 that factors that are irrelevant should also be listed. These should include the fact that the victim knew the offender before the offence, that the act was opportunistic rather than predatory, that the offender has ceased the occupation or activity that brought him in contact with the victims, that he was intoxicated and that the offence did not involve multiple victims or additional bodily harm.

Discretion is also made available in other questionable circumstances. Amendments to subsection 490.012(1) would require that an offence be prosecuted by way of indictment and there be a sentence of two years, a penitentiary sentence, before a SOIRA order is mandatory for sexual offences against children. Does the available evidence establish that only child sex offenders sent to the most restrictive prisons in Canada are sufficiently likely to reoffend as a category to warrant a SOIRA order?

A review of the sentencing jurisprudence demonstrates that even cases of prolonged grooming with multiple assaults would not require an order, leaving the decision to the discretion of judges, which, again, has proven problematic.

With that said, Parliament likely wants to allow for judicial discretion not only to protect against section 7 challenges but also to keep SOIRA orders outside the purview of punishment under the charter. It's worth considering, though, whether the prior laws would be constitutional, the mandatory provisions, if conceptualized as serving investigative and punitive purposes.

In other words, could SOIRA orders not also and perhaps predominately be imposed as punishment, given the court's conclusion that an investigative model requires judicial discretion? Under such an analysis, it's not sensible to speak of overbreadth, because SOIRA orders will readily further the aims of denouncing and deterring offenders from committing further offences, nor is it clear that SOIRA orders would be grossly disproportionate, as the broader objectives of denunciation and deterrents would need to be given due weight alongside the investigative benefits these orders already serve.

While this approach may engage section 11(i) of the charter, this could be avoided. Retroactive application could be avoided by allowing offenders who committed an offence under the prior legislation to apply for exemptions where the impact on them is not inconsistent with Ndhlovu.

Thank you.

[Robin Parker, Counsel, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to speak on publication bans.

In 2021, sexual assault survivor C.L. was convicted of breaching her own publication ban. Her crime was texting the reasons for her abuser's conviction to her friends and family, a group of supporters. The trial judge described the assault as extremely serious and violent, and her children were in the home at the time it happened. The trial was long and difficult. She had a community of supporters—a network. Some of them were not in court the day the accused was convicted, so she sent them the reasons for judgment via Facebook Messenger. The accused learned of this and complained to the police.

C.L. was charged with violating the publication ban that had been put in place to protect her. The prosecutor reviewed the file and somehow determined it was in the public interest to prosecute her for this. They said they would seek jail if she was convicted. She took money from her savings account and hired a defence lawyer. Her lawyer explained that, if she pleaded guilty, she could avoid jail. Her lawyer would join the Crown in asking the judge to impose a $2,000 fine. Frightened and traumatized, she agreed. As a final insult, on the day she pleaded guilty to something that isn't actually a crime—I will come to that—the judge imposed a $600 victim fine surcharge, even though C.L. was the actual victim.

The law on publication bans is clear and settled. Texting a legal decision to a small group of supporters does not constitute intentional publication, broadcasting or transmission within the meaning of the Criminal Code. C.L. committed no crime, yet every justice system actor who touched the file failed her—the police, the Crown, her own lawyer and the judge.

I reached out to her after reading about her case in the news. With the help of my colleague Karen Symes, we successfully appealed the decision. C.L.'s conviction was quashed and her money, including the victim fine surcharge, was returned to her.

Her case made national news and galvanized a network of survivor advocates who were having difficulties of another kind with publication bans—getting them lifted. These brave women eventually formed the group that testified here, My Voice, My Choice. However, because of the media attention, survivors across the country started reaching out to me—since I happened to have my name in the paper—and my friend and colleague Megan Stephens, whom you met a couple of weeks ago.

In the intervening years, I have assisted many survivors in getting publication bans lifted and advised countless others. Today, I bring this practical experience to the committee, as well as almost three decades as a prosecutor, defence counsel, victims' rights advocate and survivor myself. I have seen the system deal with sexual assault cases from every side.

I share C.L.'s story with you because, in many ways, it was the genesis of these amendments. However, it's important to stress that her ban remains in place because she wants it. The principles underpinning these amendments must be knowledge and autonomy for complainants. These provisions were found constitutional in the Canadian Newspapers' case because of their laudatory purpose of encouraging reporting. It needs to be easy to have the ban imposed and easy to have it lifted. In all cases, there should be a meaningful duty to inform the complainant, so they can exercise their rights.

I welcome and support the amendments in Bill S-12, but I echo the comments of others to stress the need for properly funded counsel for the complainant. Most complainants don't even know there is a publication ban in their case and, I would venture to say, literally none are consulted before it's imposed. This is why, at earlier stages of drafting, together with a network of other lawyers—one of whom is here to testify later, Pam Hrick of LEAF—we are lobbying to impose a duty to inform the complainant of the existence of the publication ban.

A prosecutor cannot provide legal advice to a complainant. Every discussion a prosecutor has with the witness is subject to disclosure obligations. The provision as drafted can put the prosecutor in the position of harming the complainant by having to disclose new information they receive while explaining the publication ban. For example, if the complainant asks, “Can I speak to my counsellor?” or says, “I have told my counsellor the details of this assault”, that may then put an obligation on the prosecutor to disclose to defence something that they might or shouldn't already know, which is that there might be counselling records they could subpoena.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much, everybody, for your indulgence.

I have one more reminder, if I may, on the deadline for Bill S-12. It is simply to let everyone know that, if there are any additional amendments to be distributed, I would remind you to please contact Mr. William Stephenson, legislative counsel, as soon as possible. He will ensure that amendments are properly drafted.

I would remind you that clause-by-clause is happening on Thursday, at the next meeting, and all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk.

Panellists, welcome. Thank you very much. We will have each of the three of you speak for five minutes. Due to the time restraints that we have, I will go with six minutes for each party and then conclude the first panel.

We have three witnesses: Ms. Robin Parker, counsel; Mr. Colton Fehr, assistant professor, faculty of law, Thompson Rivers University; and Ms. Janine Benedet, professor of law, Peter A. Allard school of law, University of British Columbia, by video conference.

I will have Ms. Robin Parker begin, please.

You will have five minutes, and the clerk will help me keep time as I take notes. I've seen it in other committees. If I hold up red, that means that the time is up.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to Meeting No. 77 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Two of our members are virtual today, and most should be in the room.

Pursuant to the order of reference from the House adopted by the House on October 5, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study of Bill S-12.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. I have a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. One witness is virtual and two are in the room for our first panel.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. There is interpretation for those on Zoom. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk is here and will assist me with that in case I miss someone. Thank you for your patience.

I have two very quick housekeeping items before we start with our first panel. A budget was circulated by email from the clerk to everybody, requiring a motion to approve the expenses to be paid to the witnesses for their costs to appear. It is moved by Mr. Housefather and seconded by Mr. Caputo. Thank you very much.

The second housekeeping item is similar. It is in relation to the hospitality expense related to the informal meeting with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights yesterday, Monday, October 16. There were three committees involved in that meeting, and we were all asked to partake in paying part of that cost, which I'm told is less than $200.

Can someone please move a motion that we pay our share?

Thank you very much, Mr. Van Popta. I appreciate that. I think you were there yesterday as well.

Do I have a seconder? I don't need one. Thank you very much, though, Mr. Brock.

Oral Questions

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just informed today that my vote yesterday on Bill S-12, after receiving confirmation from IT that I voted yea, was not recorded. I have contacted IT and they are looking into the matter, and I would like my vote to count.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to start by saying thanks to all the survivors, not just Morrell but the others who are in the room today, and all those who have come forward. It's a very difficult thing to talk about. Some of you may know that I'm also an adult survivor.

I also thank Laurel Collins, the member for Victoria, because when we started our study on victims, Laurel came to me and said, “I don't think they were thinking about this when they were studying victims, so I really want to make sure that you, as the justice committee, include this in your study, and I can tell you whom you need to talk to.” So Laurel Collins, the member for Victoria, was very influential. She had a private member's bill, which is running faster, and I guess I am frustrated by timing.

Both halves of Bill S-12 are urgent, and I think, Morrell, your comments today really underlined that for me when you were talking about how many times.... I've been trying to get somebody to admit how frequent this is in our society, because this is the most under-reported crime, yet we have dozens and dozens of cases before the courts all the time. I wonder if you could say a bit more about the frequency and the number of people who are subjected to the bans, not just subjected to sexual assault—I don't want to skip over that—but subjected to those bans.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I thank the three witnesses for being here. Their testimony is extremely important.

We don't have much time, so I won't waste any more than I have to, but I agree with what my colleague, Mr. Brock, said. I can't figure out why it took six months for Bill S‑12 to be introduced in the Senate after the Supreme Court's decision. We literally wasted six months. Now we find ourselves rushing you to testify, which is just rude, if you ask me. I apologize on behalf of all my parliamentary colleagues. I'm sure they're no happier about this than I am.

That said, we don't have much time, so I won't look at every aspect of the bill. Pretty much everything has been covered. However, there's one thing we haven't really looked at, and I'd like to hear what you have to say about it, Ms. Stephens.

Just a side note, Ms. Andrews, I have your proposed amendments in both French and English. That's good, and I can assure you I'll take them into account.

Ms. Stephens, the issue is publication bans when there are multiple victims. For example, there might be a 14-year-old girl, a 20-year-old woman and a 30-year-old woman. Some want a publication ban for their and their family's peace of mind, but others want to talk about it because that's therapeutic. There are many different points of view, all of them equally valid.

How should a publication ban be set up when different victims have different perspectives and different needs?

I realize that a 14-year-old girl needs to be protected whether she wants that or not.

Would you please comment on that, Ms. Stephens?

[Suzanne Zaccour, Director of Legal Affairs, National Association of Women and the Law]

I'll be brief because I think everything has been said.

My name is Suzanne Zaccour, and I'm the Director of Legal Affairs for the National Association of Women and the Law.

NAWL is a not-for-profit organization that works to advance women's rights in Canada, including in the legislative process.

I'm always happy to come here and talk to you about legal issues that are gendered and that affect women in Canada.

We worked with other feminist lawyers and organizations to submit a brief when Bill S‑12 was in the Senate. We collaborated to highlight three important objectives.

We highlighted the need to ensure that victims are not criminalized for failing to comply with a publication ban. We highlighted the need to clarify and simplify the process for revoking or varying a publication ban. Quite frankly, it needs to be much clearer. These are not necessarily lawyers who are engaging with this process. We also highlighted the need to ensure that victims are adequately informed throughout the process.

Our position is that the Senate amendments are positive and have brought about a lot of progress in this bill to fulfill these three objectives.

I will call to your attention a minor detail. It's the language about a person being “subject to the order” rather than “subject of the order” in the “Limitation” section of the bill. I'm not so concerned, since the French version is correct, but we know how difficult this process is, so perhaps we can avoid litigation or having to do complex interpretation by just clarifying that the limitation applies to people who are “subject of the order”, whose identity is protected by the order, rather than to those who are “subject to the order”, which is everybody, because everyone needs to respect a publication ban.

I have more to say, but I know we're pressed for time, so I'm going to stop here. We'll be happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

[Morrell Andrews, Member, My Voice, My Choice]

Thank you.

I would like to thank the Algonquin Anishinabe people, whose land we gather upon today. I will once again encourage this committee to integrate the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission into your report.

I'll be quick. I'll skip over some things, but I want to make it clear that I do not speak for all victims and cannot come close to encompassing the lived perspectives of those who face a number of barriers in accessing the system and accountability for the crimes committed against them.

I think the Senate did good work on Bill S-12, but we're here to ask you to be even more ambitious. From our perspective, a better bill would feature amendments that do a few more things, like ensuring that prosecutors are directed to immediately inform the victim of their right to request a publication ban before it is ordered. Right now, the bill talks about judges doing that. It's not realistic. It doesn't happen in real life. Someone needs to tell victims before the ban has been put on their identities that they have the right.

You should clarify, in section 486.4, that publication bans are available for witnesses under the age of 18 and victims of sexual offences, because there's still confusion about this in the system.

The bill should also require prosecutors to act in accordance with the wishes of the victim. We like to use the word “consent”, but for some people that might not make sense in the context of the Criminal Code. The wishes of the victim should matter. You need to make sure that this is in the bill and that there aren't justice system actors like judges or Crowns who are acting without the consent or the wishes of the victim being taken into account.

We want to make sure that publication bans are not put on the identities of victims who have made it clear that they do not wish to be subjected to such an order.

We want to make sure that victims are provided a copy of their publication ban. Victim services simply do not give us that information. They don't know about publication bans. They are not equipped to do so. It doesn't happen in real life.

I also want to make sure that the way applications are dealt with for sexual offence victims is separated from section 486.5 of the Criminal Code. Right now, Bill S-12 lumps discretionary bans for any justice system participant with this type of publication ban for sexual offence victims. It doesn't make sense to have them combined. You should separate them and make it clear that there are only limited factors that a judge can consider when someone comes to them and asks them to remove their publication ban if it has to go to a hearing. Ideally, victims should just be allowed to have their publication bans lifted without having to go to a hearing.

Finally, we want to make sure that you expand the limitations section to ensure that trusted people, including professionals who provide support to victims, are not criminalized for communicating. Right now, the bill carves out a limitation for victims sharing their own information, but people who have to converse back and forth with victims when they need support should not be criminalized.

We want to make sure that there are no more egregious delays for victims removing their bans, like what happened to Patty or Maarika. We don't want any more victims having to hunt for and go to the court to try to find their publication ban orders, like what happened to “Deborah Lyn” this very week. We want to make sure that there are no more defence attorneys who are reintroducing publication bans on the names of victims who have already had their publication bans removed, like what happened to “Cassandra” last month, and we want to make sure that Crowns are no longer acting on assumptions without involving victims, like effectively every single person we have been connected to.

These suggestions are crowdsourced. They are based on the lived experience of victims. We have done our very best to consult on these recommendations very widely, but it is literally impossible to capture the nuance of every individual's issues, perspectives and interactions with the legal system.

We've done everything humanly possible to give you amendments on paper and to help you in this process, but the reality is that this should not be our responsibility as victims. We are not lawyers, but we are trying to do our very best to help you. Inevitably, some people will say that it's not good enough, but we're here now and we're doing what we can.

Quite honestly, the last year and this process have left so many of us feeling retraumatized, depleted and extremely tired. We have been placed in the very unenviable position of wondering if tweaking on the margins of the current Criminal Code will be good enough.

For that reason, these recommendations are not a panacea. This Parliament will still be confronted with the fact and the reality that complainants face a shameful amount of barriers throughout the continuum of seeking help and accountability, and long after.

Your police still don't believe us. Your Crown attorneys are not trauma-informed. Your judges don't understand how to properly apply the law, at our expense. You have not invested sufficiently in the resources outside of the system that can be there to provide important support that is culturally appropriate for victims of all different kinds of backgrounds. After Bill S-12 is complete, you will still have work to do, including educating Crown attorneys and judges, implementing guides for the provinces and territories, reviewing legislation to make sure you get it right and producing accessible information for victims, who deserve to know what is happening to them in the system.

The people behind My Voice, My Choice have done everything expected of us—and far beyond that, to be honest. I know you are facing tough deadlines and I know this is not the ideal way to write a bill, but here we are, and this is what we have. I want you to continue to consider our amendments, as many of you have, and I want to know that they matter. I want to know that the stories we've shared with you matter, so please do the honourable work and collaboration across party lines and take this seriously. If you do and if you amend the law so it's at least a bit better, we can finally rest and take some time to do the healing that a lot of us still need to do.

Thank you.

[Megan Stephens, Criminal and Constitutional Lawyer, Megan Stephens Law, As an Individual]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here today.

In my limited time, I want to focus on the treatment of publication bans in this bill.

My view, in relation to publication bans, has been informed by my work over the last two decades in criminal and constitutional law. I was a Crown attorney for more than 10 years. I was then the executive director and general counsel at LEAF, and, in January 2021, I launched my own practice to assist women and gender-diverse people in their encounters with the criminal justice system.

I now routinely represent complainants in sexual assault proceedings, including in relation to the lifting of publication bans—often on a pro bono basis—and also act for criminal defendants, predominately in the appellate context.

Through that work, I have seen first-hand that our legal system really struggles to respond in a trauma-informed way to prosecutions of sexual offences. It's no surprise to me that sexual assault remains among the most highly gendered and under-reported of crimes.

When publication bans were first introduced some decades ago, they were meant to encourage the reporting of sexual offences. Knowing that a publication ban is available does help some complainants come forward to report.

However, not every complainant wants a publication ban. Many find comfort in being able to share their experiences publicly with others. For those complainants, a publication ban that impedes their ability to do that can be retraumatizing—all the more so when those bans are imposed without their knowledge or agreement, or when they realize that the ban could actually lead to their criminalization.

With that in mind, I welcome the spirit underlying the proposed changes that would follow from enacting this bill.

Complainants need more agency when it comes to the imposition of publication bans, and they need more information to exercise that agency. If a publication ban has been imposed but a complainant doesn't want it, varying or revoking it needs to be easy. Perhaps most importantly, a complainant should never be criminalized for failing to comply with a publication ban on their own identity.

I think Bill S-12, as passed by the Senate in June, appropriately targets most of these concerns. It's much improved, but I want to talk about one key problem that I think remains today, and I heard some of this coming out in the questions for the Justice officials.

Bill S-12 would amend the code to impose a duty on prosecutors to inform the judge, after a publication ban has been ordered, that they have taken steps to inform the complainant or witness of a number of key things: currently, the existence of the order; its effects and the circumstances in which they may disclose information without being in non-compliance of the order; determining whether the person wishes to be the subject of the order; and informing them of their right to apply to revoke or vary the order.

I agree 100% that a prosecutor is well placed to inform a complainant about two key facts: that the publication ban has been imposed and that they have the right to apply to revoke or vary that order. That information isn't currently being shared routinely with complainants, even though a publication ban is routinely being imposed on almost every single sexual assault case that happens in this country. They need that information.

I'm concerned that the current language goes beyond a duty to inform by blurring the lines between a discussion about factual issues and an update and a discussion that requires them to dispense legal advice. The prosecutor is not the complainant’s lawyer, and they are not in a position to give a complainant independent legal advice. I’ve worn both hats, and one is not the same as the other.

Requiring a prosecutor to explain the effects of the ban or the circumstances in which they can speak without risking liability is crossing the border into legal advice. A complainant may have questions before deciding whether they want the ban to remain in place. They really need independent legal advice to weigh those competing considerations. They can't get it from a prosecutor. A discussion like that would be risky, not just for prosecutors but also for complainants. It could trigger disclosure obligations on the part of the prosecutor, and it could put complainants and prosecutors into a potential conflict of interest, since choices a complainant might make could affect the strength of the prosecution.

The bill really needs to be amended to impose a more limited duty to inform, which would require prosecutors to inform complainants that the ban exists, that it can be varied or revoked, and that they are entitled to get independent legal advice to make an informed decision about whether they want it to continue.

That brings me to my final point: You must accompany this bill with meaningful funding to improve access to free independent legal advice for complainants and better resourcing of organizations that support them. Complainants who can access independent legal advice from trauma-informed lawyers and community supports are much better equipped to manage the stresses of criminal proceedings.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

What we will probably do is have a steering committee meeting—and we'll decide that on the 17th, because we haven't gone beyond Bill S-12 at the moment—so that we can decide on what needs to happen.

Are you okay with that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Maloney, thank you very much.

Please take a look if you have not; I think this was sent to you. Also on your desks there is a calendar. We really worked very hard in anticipation of this coming so that we don't waste any time, because we kind of foresaw that we might be starting late.

If you take a look, we have a break week—happy Thanksgiving, by the way, to everyone. When we return the week after that, on the 17th, the deadline will be noontime to submit amendments for Bill S-12. Then, on October 19, we will have our study of Bill S-12, our clause-by-clause. On the 17th, we'll have a meeting as usual, with witnesses on Bill S-12. Does that work for everyone?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Thank you so much to both of you for coming. We really appreciate that.

You're free to go—subject to anybody contacting you outside of the committee.

I have probably only 60 seconds, given what just happened in the House and the bill now coming to our meeting.

I need someone to move a motion that all testimony received in our study on the subject matter of Bill S-12 be deemed heard in our study of the said bill.

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

In terms of the requirement that victims be informed when there's a publication ban, does the current text of Bill S-12 require that victims be informed if they have a right to request a publication ban, if they should so desire, or is this simply an after-the-fact notification?

[Matthew Taylor]

There are amendments in Bill S-12 that were passed by the Senate and that speak to the issue of the accused.

The concern that was discussed in the Senate when those amendments were debated was whether that would suggest to the courts or the criminal justice system that an accused currently has an interest in these proceedings and that Parliament is presumed to be acting for a reason. The counterpoint was made that this was really meant to reflect the status quo of the law.

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

Would the text of Bill S-12 do anything to clarify that situation?

[Matthew Taylor]

Thank you for the question.

In essence, you explained the Crown prosecutor's role. There are a number of ways to inform victims about the criminal justice system. I think the government recognized that it's important to strike a balance between adequately informing the victim and respecting the Crown prosecutor's role.

When Bill S‑12 was in the Senate, there was debate about the connection between disclosure of information and the Crown prosecutor's role.

I think the issue has more to do with a phrase that appears in three different places in the bill.

The text reads, “in which they may disclose information that is subject to the order without failing to comply with the order”.

I think the issue is whether, for the Crown prosecutor, this phrase is compatible with the kind of information that can be disclosed to the victim.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Happy birthday, Mr. Taylor.

My Conservative Party friend didn't have that information, or I'm sure he, too, would have wished you a happy birthday.

Mr. Taylor and Ms. Wells, I, too, am concerned about that aspect of the information to be disclosed to victims, which I see as essential. Obviously, Bill S‑12 covers more than just that. It also covers registration on the National Sex Offender Registry, which I believe almost everyone agrees on, so I don't want to waste time discussing that.

However, with respect to disclosure of information to victims, yesterday I heard the minister raise questions about conflict of interest. You even talked about that earlier with my Liberal party colleague.

I listened to the answer you gave Mr. Mendicino about the Crown prosecutor's role. My understanding is that the Crown prosecutor represents the public interest but that they're a disinterested party. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their role is to ensure that the facts are clearly and fully established before the court so that a just decision may be rendered. As such, I don't see how there could be a conflict of interest.

I can see that there might be a role conflict and the Crown prosecutor might wonder how to ensure that the victim has a good understanding of the situation so that, six months, a year or two years down the line, if they charge the victim for violating a publication ban, the victim can't say the Crown prosecutor or their colleague misinformed them at the time.

That seems like a legitimate concern to me, but I humbly suggest that there must be a way to guard against that kind of situation. I think the information the Crown prosecutor discloses to a victim is essentially the same in every case. It might have to be adapted depending on the case, but there's probably a way to standardize the information to be disclosed to victims.

Can you comment on that? What do you think? Is there a way for the Crown prosecutor to make sure victims are properly informed without placing themselves in a conflict of interest?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Happy birthday.

I'd like to take a brief moment to thank the survivors and victims who are present here to testify. On behalf of the members of this committee and all parliamentarians, thank you for your advocacy. I can tell you that, in my experience—not only in this job on the Hill but also before, as an actor in the criminal justice system—your work is incredibly important to this legislation. We thank you very much for bringing forward the ideas you're going to articulate later today.

Colleagues, we know Bill S-12 proposes to do three things: strengthen the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, make certain amendments to the International Transfer of Offenders Act and, finally, strengthen some of the rights that ought to be afforded to victims in the context of criminal justice proceedings. I think we can all agree there is still a lot of work to be done there.

I want to zero in on the concerns that have been expressed by victims' advocates and survivors themselves about how we can ensure they are provided with timely and accurate information on applications that involve publication bans. A couple of days ago, we heard from the minister, who expressed concern about one of the amendments that were put forward by the Senate, which would require that Crown prosecutors communicate directly with victims about said publication bans.

Before I get into those concerns, I'm going to give the officials an opportunity to elaborate on that, Madam Chair. I think we can all agree that it is important for victims to be treated with professionalism, courtesy and, more importantly, sensitivity—in particular, taking a trauma-informed approach. That's regardless of who is communicating with them, whether it is a Crown prosecutor, a member of the law enforcement branch, a member of the profession, or any of the social service providers in the system. I think we can all agree we have to do better there.

That said, the minister said he was worried the Senate amendment as expressed would infringe on prosecutorial independence. I'd ask you—very briefly, in a matter of seconds—to tell us what the job of a Crown prosecutor is. I'll then come back to you and ask a follow-up question.

[Joanna Wells]

They will be presumed to be registered under the proposals in Bill S-12. That is the answer. They're all presumed to be registered.

What the bill does is list risk factors, as well, for judges to use to exercise their discretion. Those factors were intended to counter the criticisms and concerns raised by the minority judgment to curb the risk they saw in judicial discretion.

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

I want to zero in on sexual offences against children.

Bill S-12 requires it to be mandatory that a person's name be listed in the registry if they are convicted of a sexual offence against a child, but only if it was prosecuted by way of indictment and the sentence was at least two years.

Why is it not for offenders—child molesters—who were prosecuted by way of summary conviction? Aren't they equally dangerous?

[Joanna Wells, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for your question.

I think I will start answering the question by reiterating what the minister said when he was here, which was that if Bill S‑12 is enacted, everybody who receives a conviction for a sex offence will be required to register, unless they can demonstrate that the registry is overbroad or grossly disproportionate. It's a very strong presumption of registration for those offenders.

The data you cite, which the minority articulated, was the arguments that the Attorney General of Canada made before the Supreme Court when he intervened to defend the legislation when the Supreme Court heard arguments on that. That data was not sufficient to uphold the law. The data that is now being relied on for the two categories of automatic registration relates to repeat sex offenders. Those individuals pose an even higher risk of reoffending than first-time offenders, which was the target of the original legislation.

For the other category of automatic registration for children—victims under 18—a sexual interest in children is a very well-validated risk factor for sexual recidivism. Coupled with the two years or more on indictment, it is expected that this constellation of factors will provide the evidence that the government would use to justify those two automatic categories.

However, everyone will be presumed to be registered.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here.

On behalf of all of us, I apologize for the delay. We had very important work in the House of Commons today, voting on precisely the bill we're discussing here, Bill S‑12. Thank you for being here and thank you for lending your expertise to this very important discussion.

Bill S‑12 is about amending the Criminal Code as it relates to the national sex offender registry. That discussion was instigated by a Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Ndhlovu.

I just want to quote from the minority. It was a split decision of five to four. The minority cited evidence that was apparently before the trial judge. In their opinion, “offenders convicted of a sexual offence are five to eight times more likely to reoffend than those convicted of a non-sexual offence.” They also said that “it cannot be reliably predicted at the time of sentencing which offenders will reoffend.” Then the minority came to this conclusion: “In the face of that uncertain risk, Parliament was entitled to case a wide net.”

We had the Minister of Justice here just the other day. He made reference to social science data that, in his opinion, supported this current legislation, Bill S‑12, which I would say has a lower standard when it comes to making it mandatory to have people registered on the sex offender registry.

Are you aware of the data he was referring to? Does it contradict the evidence that apparently was before the trial judge and that the minority judges refer to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

No. That's a fair point.

We will have a four-minute round with the witnesses. We'll start with that. Our apologies for the delay.

Welcome to meeting number 76 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 5, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study on the subject matter of Bill S‑12.

After the first panel, I'll ask for a motion on Bill S‑12, but I think right now, due to the fact that we're so delayed, we'll simply start with questioning the witnesses for four minutes each.

I will start with Mr. Van Popta, please.

Criminal Code

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

It being 3:55 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-12.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from October 4 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

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

I would say to you, Mr. Housefather, it's duly noted. I think it's important to take a close reading of the legislation.

I share a concern if there's any ambiguity insofar as the target of this regime under Bill S-12 is meant to be the victims or witnesses, but to the exclusion of the accused. We are not concerned with the privacy interests of the accused here. Any Senate amendment that would purport to raise that issue is unnecessary ambiguity that doesn't conform to the objectives of the bill.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to your new role, Minister, and congratulations on your new role.

Minister, you said at the outset that sex offences against children are despicable and you condemn them in the strongest terms. I think we all would at this point. You've also spoken about Bill S-12 and its role in the protection of children.

I take it that you would support the elimination of house arrest as a sentencing option for those who are convicted of sexual offences against children.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd certainly like to welcome you to your role as chair in our first public meeting.

Of course, I'll echo the comments about welcoming the minister here today. With his previous experience on the committee, I'm sure he'll be willing to come back and speak to us many more times. As he's a new minister, there are several things I'd like to talk to him about, such as decriminalizing HIV non-disclosure, decriminalizing sex work, reforming our extradition laws and the bill that's before the House, Bill C-40, on the miscarriage of justice. However, I do accept the urgency with which we're dealing with Bill S-12, so I will limit my comments and questions to Bill S-12 today.

I fully accept the urgency of maintaining the sex offender registry, but I thank you, Minister, for emphasizing that Bill S-12 not only preserves the registry but also improves the registry. We have had some cases in my riding where people have been added to the sex offender registry and no one in the community would reasonably believe that they should have been added. Sometimes those are people who are neurodiverse or who have intellectual disabilities and have ended up in the sex offender registry. I have spoken with advocates and those people. This bill will provide an opportunity, or that's the way I see it, for a judge to decide whether all those people should automatically be added.

I just wondered if you were aware of those kinds of cases.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister. I too would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Minister of Justice. The members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be pleased to work with you.

As you mentioned, we are at the pre-study phase with Bill S‑12, because it has not yet been referred back to us. I agree that it's a good idea to proceed in this manner. You were right to point out that the end-of-the-month deadline set by the Supreme Court of Canada would mean that it would no longer be possible to add sex offenders to the national sex offender registry, and that this would be problematic. We agree.

However, can you explain why the bill was only introduced in the Senate on April 26, 2023, when the Supreme Court decision dates back to October 28, 2022, almost a year ago? That means there were six months between the time the Supreme Court ruled that the act had to be amended and the introduction of the bill. Can you explain why it took so long, Minister?

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

The compliance warrant is an interesting one. The law enforcement community reached out and said that they not only want this registry, but they also want the ability to act on the registry. They said it's sometimes difficult to get offenders to provide the registry with their information or to update their information.

Bill S-12 will create a situation that authorizes the police to seek a warrant to arrest an offender who is non-compliant with their registry obligation and to bring them to a reporting centre to facilitate compliance. That's an important step. We don't want to have a situation where people are out there believing they can just flout the law. This compliance warrant measure allows us to provide an additional enforcement tool for law enforcement to maintain the integrity of the registry itself.

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

I would be happy to. Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.

First of all, to Mr. Moore, the important takeaway from Bill S-12 is that the vast majority of individuals will remain registered. That's the first point.

I say that because there's an automatic registration in two categories, and for everyone else you're going to get registered unless you can demonstrate a rebuttable presumption why you shouldn't because it would be overbroad or grossly disproportionate. That's important.

Have we given it careful thought? Absolutely, we have, but the most reflection that I gave to the bill was simply the fact that the Supreme Court said, in its majority view, that lacking any judicial discretion is a violation of the charter under section 7, because it's overbroad and doesn't meet the minimal impairment test under section 1. Therefore, we had to make changes, and we've carefully tailored those changes in a manner that I believe conforms to the charter.

Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Minister, thank you.

The decision that we're addressing here.... The Supreme Court stated that someone who is on the registry, an offender, is eight times more likely than the general population to commit a sexual offence. That is why a mandatory listing in the sex offender registry of those who are convicted of sexual offences and a mandatory lifetime listing of those who have multiple offences are so essential.

It was a 5-4 decision. In the dissent, it says:

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.

Have you given consideration to casting a wider net? What has been carved out in Bill S-12 are some fairly narrow provisions that would result in mandatory listing in the sex offender registry when previously any conviction for a sexual offence was listed.

Have you considered casting a wider net?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to begin by congratulating you on being elected chair of this committee.

This is my first time here as the minister, but it's not my first time here on the committee. I'm a regular. I'd like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to be here to discuss Bill S‑12, which proposes a series of reforms to the national sex offender registry and to the Criminal Code provisions pertaining to publication bans.

The publication ban reforms would give victims of criminal offences more autonomy with respect to publication bans and enhance their right to ongoing information. The reforms with respect to sex offenders would give more teeth to the national sex offender registry and be consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's 2022 decision in R. v. Ndhlovu.

I am very pleased to see the committee recognize the urgency of this issue and begin a prestudy of this legislation. I thank you sincerely for doing that and taking that initiative. As you know, we are under a court-imposed deadline. If the legislation before us does not receive royal assent by October 28, sex offenders will no longer be able to be added to the sex offender registry. That is an outcome that I believe none of us wants to see happen.

I'll begin by discussing the reforms in this legislation that have been proposed by the victims and survivors of sexual assault and also by their advocates. I'm very grateful for the lived experiences that victims and survivors shared with my office as Bill S-12 was being developed. Very much thanks to their leadership, Bill S-12 will help craft a criminal justice system that better serves the needs of victims in Canada.

Bill S‑12 advocates a victim-oriented approach that empowers victims. It accomplishes this by requiring that courts and attorneys verify whether victims wish to be protected by a publication ban, and if so, that they be informed of the impact of a publication ban and their right to request its revocation or alteration.

Bill S-12 aims to eliminate the threat of prosecution for individuals when they share their own identifying information. Victims and survivors should not be prosecuted for telling their own stories. That is fundamental to the conception and understanding of this bill.

I want to thank committee members for showing leadership on the subject of publication bans. I know that this issue was examined by this very committee during last year’s victims of crime study, and many people in this room right now were participants in that study. I also know that many of you have met with and listened to members of a group call My Voice, My Choice, as well as other advocates. Support for these reforms, thankfully, crosses partisan lines. We now have the opportunity to get this package across the finish line in a timely manner that respects the deadlines imposed by the Supreme Court.

Upon further review of Bill S-12, the Senate made amendments to the publication ban reforms to respond to the concerns it heard from witnesses during the bill’s study. While these Senate amendments have generally led to a more robust bill, I am concerned about some of the amendments and would like to draw your attention to two of them.

First, an amendment was made by the Senate that would require the prosecutor to inform victims and witnesses who are subjects of a publication ban about the circumstances under which they could legitimately disclose information without facing legal consequences. While I appreciate the objective of a change of that nature, it does raise serious questions about prosecutorial independence and conflicts of interest.

Some of the very Crown attorneys who would be providing that advice would be the same individuals who would ultimately be handling a prosecution. I am very conscious of the fact that in this committee we have no less than three former prosecuting Crown attorneys, and I'm sure they may share some of the concerns that I have with respect to this proposed Senate amendment. In fact, I have already received correspondence from some provincial attorneys general raising this very concern.

Second, I am also concerned with the amendment to clarify what is or is not captured by a publication ban. As amended by the Senate, Bill S-12 currently specifies that individuals who are protected by a publication ban may disclose information about themselves as long as they do not identify another person who is protected by the same publication ban. The problem here is that sometimes there are victims or witnesses who are subject to different publication bans and who still may wish to keep their identities private.

I want to move now to other components of Bill S-12, so I'm moving away from the Senate amendments.

Another victim- and survivor-centric element of Bill S-12 relates to information that is received from the courts. Under the Victims Bill of Rights, victims can decide whether they want to stay informed about all case developments, like 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 to not have to hear about it again.

Bill S-12 significantly simplifies and streamlines the process for registering for information by requiring judges to ask victims their preferences and by making receipt of ongoing information a simple box to tick on a form. I am grateful to the advocates who brought this issue to light, and would like to emphasize that this measure is a key priority of the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime.

I now want to outline the measures in Bill S-12 that relate to the national sex offender registry.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ndhlovu, Bill S-12 proposes to replace automatic registration with a presumption of registration, meaning that an order to comply with the registry must be imposed in all cases involving a sexual offence, unless the offender can show that registration would be grossly disproportionate or overbroad. However, the bill would retain automatic registration for two categories. The first is repeat sexual offenders. The second is those who commit sexual offences against children and are sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment, on indictment, even in the case of a first-time offender in that category.

Restricting automatic registration to these situations reflects current social science evidence that these categories of individuals are at a higher risk to reoffend in a sexual manner. This responds directly to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ndhlovu that automatic registration is only justified for individuals who pose an elevated risk of reoffending. The court has called for the tailoring of this provision, and that is the tailoring we have done.

It is my view that including these individuals on the registry will always be related and proportionate to the objectives of the registry. Sexual offences against children are despicable crimes that I condemn in the strongest terms, and I presume all parliamentarians would condemn in the strongest terms. I'm speaking to you not just as the Minister of Justice or a member of Parliament from Toronto, but as the father of two young boys.

In addition, we know that repeat sexual offenders—that's the second category of those who would be automatically registered—are five to eight times more likely to reoffend than individuals who have non-sexual criminal histories.

There is another piece in the Ndhlovu decision that relates to mandatory lifetime registration. What Bill S-12 proposes to do is to allow a court to order lifetime registration for certain individuals. We are talking about people convicted of more than one designated offence in the same proceeding, where the offences demonstrate a pattern of behaviour that shows an increased risk of sexual recidivism. This addresses the concerns of the Supreme Court, while allowing lifetime registration in appropriate cases.

In addition to the proposals resulting from R. v. Ndhlovu, there are also some amendments whose purpose is to strengthen the offender registration regime as a whole and to make it more effective. These amendments include a requirement for registered sex offenders to give prior notice of at least 14 days for any travel, as well as a specific destination address. This gives the police more time and information to assess risks, and where required, to alert their international partners responsible for enforcing the act of an individual's travel plans.

Other key amendments include the addition of more offences for which an individual could be required to register, including the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and sextortion, and a new arrest warrant to address non-compliance with an offender’s registration obligations.

What I'm saying is that we not only revisited the issue of the sex offender registry, making it compliant, in my view, with the Supreme Court's guidance, but we are actually improving the registry, including the number of offences that would be captured by the registry.

The new arrest warrant is critical from a law enforcement perspective. Again, this is not a partisan issue but an issue that all of us take seriously. What I would emphasize to you is that many stakeholders have talked to my office about this bill, including law enforcement stakeholders such as the RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

What I will say to you is that they've said they would like the sex offender registry to be maintained. They see it as a very valuable tool for fighting crime, including for repeat sexual offenders. What they said to me—which was quite shocking, and I'll share it with you—is that the stats vary on a weekly basis. Between 46 and 75 times per week in Canada, names are added to the sex offender registry. That is quite staggering, but it would be more staggering to lose the ability to do that and keep Canadians safe.

I will conclude by saying that I'm convinced all of the reforms proposed in the bill would strengthen the national sex offender registry, comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and make the criminal justice system more responsive to the needs of victims of crime.

I hope that all parties in this committee and all parties in the chamber can work together to pass this legislation in the coming weeks, since time is of the essence.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment, even though it is temporary, but I would also like to thank you, on behalf of the government, for agreeing to serve as interim Speaker to ensure an smooth transition while we await the next Speaker of the House of Commons. Thank you for taking on this role as dean of the House.

Tomorrow, we will begin the second reading debate on Bill C‑50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. On Monday, the House will stand adjourned to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. When we return on Tuesday, the first order of business will be the election of a new Speaker. When we resume our work that day, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C‑56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. On Wednesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill S‑12, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. If the debate on Bill C‑56 is not completed, we will resume second reading debate on Thursday. On Friday, we will proceed to second reading of Bill C‑49, an Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and make consequential amendments to another act regarding interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders. I know that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul spoke about the incredible work Senator Boisvenu has done with regard to this work throughout that senator's career, but to have this bill brought forward through the Senate really shows the passion that the senator has with respect to this.

I would note that the bill originally goes back to 2021. It followed through the Senate process and went through committee in 2022, report stage at the Senate and, finally, third reading, before it made its way over to this chamber earlier this year. Of course, we are debating it this evening in hopes that we can get this through to committee, so we can have a more fulsome discussion about how we can advance the objectives that are set out in the bill.

I should state at the outset, as the parliamentary secretary did prior to me, that the government is certainly in support of the legislation. There are some slight concerns, and we are interested in a couple amendments. These primarily stem from the fact that some of the proposals that are put forward in the bill were actually already addressed in the bail reform bill that was debated in the chamber earlier this week. That bill ultimately passed on a unanimous consent motion at all stages and was sent off to the Senate.

As such, while we are seeing legislation here being sent to the Senate, at the same time, we are getting legislation back from the Senate, specifically with respect to the same issue. Nonetheless, I think it highlights the importance of the particular initiative set out in Bill S-205. I think we can all work together in a collaborative, non-partisan manner for the safety of women, in particular, throughout our country. That is exactly what we are going to get through a collaborative process that leaves the partisanship out of it and really focuses on protecting some of the most vulnerable in our community, as we saw this week with the unanimous motion to pass the bail reform bill at all stages.

Bill S-205 specifically addresses the issue of intimate partner violence through changes to the bail and peace bond regimes in the Criminal Code and making consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In particular, Bill S-205 would first require courts, prior to making a bail order for an offence involving actual, threatened or attempted violence against an intimate partner, to ask prosecutors if the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs. The courts would also be required to ask the prosecutor whether victims have been identified in their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court. It would also expand the existing partner violence reverse onus for bail so that it applies not only to accused who were previously convicted but also to those previously receiving a conditional or absolute discharge for intimate partner violence offences.

It would also require a justice to consider, on the request of the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release. Electronic monitoring devices would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases, not just cases involving violence against an intimate partner, as is now the case because of changes enacted in Bill C-233.

Finally, it would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence. This would have a duration of up to two years, or up to three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence.

That outlines what the bill seeks to do, and as I indicated, some of these steps have already been covered in the bail reform bill that left the chamber earlier this week, particularly around the reverse onus provisions.

It is important to emphasize that our government remains unwavering in our commitment to ensuring that victims of sexual assault and gender-based violence are treated with respect and dignity. We will always fight to better protect victims of intimate partner violence, which is the most common form of police-reported violent crime against women. As we have heard, including from the sponsor in this chamber, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, a number of incidents have occurred that could have quite possibly had different outcomes had better supports, as proposed in this bill and other legislation, been in place.

We have taken steps to clarify and strengthen sexual assault laws to ensure that victims are treated with the utmost respect and are protected with an improved legal framework. We have demonstrated our commitment to bringing forward Bill S-12, legislation that gives more agency to victims and survivors of sexual crimes, in response to the Supreme Court to ensure that the national sex offender registry remains in operation.

As I indicated, we are supportive of this bill. We think it is extremely laudable in the sense that combatting intimate partner violence is absolutely in line with the objectives of not just the government, but indeed the entire House. However, through many of its proposed reforms, we are largely seeing duplicates of existing provisions in the Criminal Code. Nevertheless, it proposes additional targeted criminal law reforms that would help to reinforce the ability of the criminal law to address intimate partner violence and improve victim confidence in the criminal justice system.

Accordingly, the government supports this bill, as I indicated, with amendments to ensure its coherence with existing criminal law and to address legal, operational and policy concerns within the bill.

[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?

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

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 first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Justice and Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for highlighting recommendation 11 in this report. It is now in Bill S-12 in the Senate.

I wonder if she shares the optimism that I feel. A lot of the matters dealt with in Bill S-12 have already been discussed multiple times in this chamber. When that bill eventually arrives here, does she believe that all parties can work together to get its provisions enacted quickly?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I came in here this morning expecting to be dealing with Bill C-35. I certainly agree with the recommendations in this report. As my hon. colleague indicated, we should stay very focused on these recommendations but move forward.

The amendment that my colleague moved for in the concurrence report is just another effort to politicize another terrible issue that we are concerned about, injuring the very victims who we are talking about in the recommendations from the Standing Committee on Justice and its recommendations to be more sensitive to the victims. With the amendment that was moved earlier, it is exactly the opposite.

I do want to speak today on this and talk about Bill S-12, which is the government's commitment to victims of crime. I will highlight different parts of Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Bill S-12 has three main objectives: first, to respond to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last October in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down elements of the national sex offender registry; second, to strengthen the effectiveness of the registry; and, third, to empower survivors and victims of crime by changing the rules governing publication bans and a victim's right to information; all three very important.

Today, I want to explain some of the proposed reforms that aim to ensure that the registry continues to be an effective and efficient tool for law enforcement. The RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have lauded Bill S-12, and we are pleased that the legislation would ensure that the police agencies have what they need to do their jobs to better protect victims of crime and to prevent future crimes.

Bill S-12 would add to the list of offences that qualify a convicted offender for registration. Of particular note, the bill would add the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to the list. The bill would also target so-called “sextortion” by adding extortion to the list when shown that it has been committed with the intent to commit a sexual crime. This is an important step forward in helping the police identify perpetrators of offences, which are becoming far more prevalent in the digital age with which we are dealing.

The bill also proposes a new arrest power in the Criminal Code to address the issue of non-compliance with registration obligations. Currently, it is estimated that up to 20% of individuals with obligations related to the national sex offender registry are non-compliant. This is not acceptable to any of us as parliamentarians and it is not acceptable to Canadians.

The only legislative mechanism to facilitate compliance with the registry under the current law is to arrest an individual and lay a charge under the Criminal Code. However, laying a distinct charge does not necessarily result in compliance, which is the goal. The bill would create a compliance warrant to allow police to seek arrest warrants to bring non-compliant sex offenders to a registration centre to fulfill their obligations under SOIRA.

Another important change is that the bill would newly require registered sex offenders to provide police with 14 days advance notice prior to travelling, as well as a list of the specific addresses where they will be staying during to course of their travels. This will allow police sufficient time to conduct a risk assessment and to notify appropriate law enforcement partners, if necessary, in accordance with their existing powers under the SOIRA.

Next, I would like to discuss the publication ban and the victims information measures. These are critical steps to respond directly to victims' requests of our justice system, which is much of what the report that we have from the Standing Committee on Justice refers to, to ensure that we are listening to the victims.

Bill S-12 proposes publication ban reforms that respond directly to calls from survivors of sexual violence. Victims deserve more agency in the criminal justice process and the ability to tell their own stories if they so choose. They clearly are not being given enough priority and enough opportunities to share their stories.

The various publication ban provisions in the Criminal Code are intended to shield witnesses and victims from further harm by concealing their identity. A publication ban can encourage the testimony of victims and witnesses who may otherwise be fearful of coming forward. As we have heard many times over the last several months about publication bans, people who agreed to them for various reasons actually want them removed. Some survivors and victims of crime have found that publication bans have had the effect of silencing or restricting them. Again, we heard that several times in the last week or so. In fact, I recently saw a news report saying that eight women who were all subject to these publication bans wanted them removed so they would be able to speak about the situation that affected them and use it as an opportunity to educate other people.

Under the current system, we have seen victims convicted of violating a publication ban intended to be for their sole protection and benefit. This is clearly unacceptable. These survivors deserve to share their own stories if they so choose, and it is important that it be their choice and their choice alone, not a condition of some degree of settlement that will restrict them forever. One by one, many of the publication bans being removed are being removed at the request of the victims, at the request of the women who are still suffering as a result of some incident in their lives some years back.

To address this issue, Bill S-12 proposes that judges must ask prosecutors to confirm if reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that a victim has been consulted on whether or not a publication ban should be imposed. This proposal is in line with recommendation 11 of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. In addition, Bill S-12 would clarify the process to modify or revoke a publication ban after one has been imposed by codifying the process that currently exists only in common law, which is to say through judicial decisions.

The bill would also ensure that publication bans are applicable to online material, an area that is of extreme importance to us as we move forward. Our young people are exposed to a tremendous number of things on our Internet systems, and we are having to deal with more and more issues, as young people are seeing and participating in things that they should not be. However, much of this online material may have been published before a ban was imposed.

Both of these measures recognize that victims and survivors should benefit from the right to change their minds. Choice to revoke or modify a publication ban should be dictated by the wishes of the victim or the survivor, not an employer or some other organization. However, the bill proposes that a residual discretion be given to the judge to refuse such a request if it would, for example, possibly identify a second victim involved who wishes to remain anonymous. It is expected that these types of scenarios would be extremely rare and that, for the overwhelming majority of cases, a publication ban would be lifted in cases where the victim clearly does not want it in place.

There is no good or right way to be a victim. This legislation recognizes the choice of victims and survivors and provides them with decision-making power. Returning power to victims and survivors of sexual violence can be essential for the healing process and can prevent retraumatization in the criminal justice process. Recently at the standing committee on women, many individuals were talking about their experiences and how difficult it was, and how little support there was, for them to talk about the issues they were facing.

It is important that we get this right. I suspect that many members have already heard from survivors while working on this issue, as I have. I am sure that many of my colleagues from all sides of the House have listened to and heard from many people, men and women, who have been victims.

Survivors are looking to us to fix the publication ban regime to better empower them and to treat them with dignity and respect. With a publication ban in place, they are not able to speak with anybody about the pain and suffering they went through. Removing the publication ban, which is what Bill S-12 is suggesting, would allow them to do that.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure that we get this delicate balance right. This is an area that we can review at committee to see if the language can be strengthened further.

I want to take a moment to speak about a victim's right to information about the case of an offender who has harmed them. This right is enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in sections 6, 7 and 8. Bill S-12 would make it easier for victims to access information about their case after sentencing or after an accused is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

To achieve this goal, the bill proposes several measures. First, it would require that the judge ask the prosecutor whether they have taken reasonable steps to determine whether the victim wishes to obtain this information. Second, the bill would allow victims to express this interest through their victim impact statement. Finally, the bill would require the court to provide Correctional Service Canada with the victim's name and the information if they have expressed a desire to receive this type of information. It is an extremely important part of this bill to give victims the option if they want to receive this information. Not everyone would want it because very often it revictimizes the victims.

Once again, this approach is respectful of the needs of victims and seeks to provide the flexibility required to obtain the information at a time of their choosing. I note that this proposal received particular attention and support from the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime.

The changes contemplated by this bill would meet an urgent need to make the laws governing the national sex offender registry compliant with the charter. At the same time, it would make the registry better able to accomplish its vital purpose of providing police with current and reliable information to investigate and prevent crimes of a sexual nature. It would also take an opportunity to make the criminal justice system more responsive to survivors and victims of crime, including victims of sexual offences.

These reforms are targeted, measured and sensible. They will make a tangible difference for victims of some of the most serious crimes under our law. They align with our government's firm support for victims of crime. We will never leave victims behind, and we are constantly working to improve our justice system to better accommodate victims.

The report that was tabled this morning, on which concurrence has been moved, is from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and it has 13 excellent recommendations very focused on how we can make life better for the victims and how we can better respond to the needs of victims. I look forward to discussing those recommendations as we proceed with the hearing today.

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

Madam Speaker, I am of two minds about this debate this morning, because a concurrence debate about a unanimous report, which is on a very important topic, is a good thing, but I am also concerned if the real intent behind this debate is a diversion from others business of Parliament rather than actually talking about the important recommendations of this report.

Certainly, we heard from a wide range of people in the committee on this report. Many individual victims of crime came at a great personal cost and retold their stories of what had happened to them and the effects of being a victim of crime. We heard from many organizations that provide services to victims of crime. I want to pay particular thanks to the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has a very active victims' advocacy program.

We heard from the victims ombudsman, and I want to pay respect at this point to both the previous victims ombudsman, Heidi Illingworth, and the current ombudsman, Benjamin Roebuck, for the important research and advocacy work they do on behalf of victims in this country.

I hope what we can do in this debate is maintain the focus on what we heard from those victims and those victims' advocates and the recommendations that were unanimously approved in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. An important function of this debate today could be to encourage the government, in the many different departments involved, to make progress on these recommendations.

There are other mechanisms available in this House for holding government ministers to account. I know the hon. members of the Conservative Party know that, they have been using those, so again I will stress my concern that we are not actually doing this debate for some other purpose when there are other mechanisms available. No matter what one thinks about that issue, they are there, they have been used and they can continue to be used. I hope the impact of this is not going to focus on another issue, which is important, yes, but another issue rather than the issues that were raised in this report. Again, I am concerned we keep that focus on moving forward on the recommendations in this report.

There are a number of chapters in this report, and it kind of amazed me that in the end, on a topic that has often been contentious in Parliament, we were able to reach a consensus on 13 recommendations. That is a bit of a miracle, especially in a minority Parliament and especially on an issue that has previously been so contentious.

I bring attention to chapter 4, which talks about services for victims of crime, and I will come to that in just a minute. There is a whole chapter on the right to information about the legal process in this report. There are recommendations on the rights of victims to participate in the legal process and how we meet the challenges victims face when they try to participate in this legal process. There is a chapter on the right to protection of victims while they are participating in the process, and I will return to that one a little later on.

There is an important chapter on the idea of restitution, on how often victims of crime cannot be made whole again in both financial and circumstantial areas. There is a final chapter on complaint mechanisms and remedies, so when the system goes wrong for victims what they have available to them to make that known to the system and to those who have the power to change that.

If we talk about services, one of the important things I learned from this is that in the Victims Bill of Rights there is no right to access to services for victims of crime. I think that is an oversight, and this committee, in recommendation 2, says that we should fix that. We know it is going to be a challenge. The federal government shares the justice field with the provinces and administration of justice belongs to the provinces.

That is why in recommendation 3 in this report it talks about working together to set some minimum standards of what is available to victims, in terms of support services and participation in the various parts of the legal process. I was very pleased to hear my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois agreeing we do need to work together to achieve some minimum standards. Again, that is part of the miracle of this report, which is that even on contentious federal-provincial issues we were able to reach agreement on how to better serve victims.

What do victims really need? There is a whole range of things, but the thing we heard most often is they need support services that are tailored to their needs and that quite often those needs are different.

Victims from different backgrounds have different needs to support them participating in the process and also to recover as a victim of crime. Lots of times, the services that we have available do not actually take into account the different circumstances, especially of those who are most marginalized in our society and especially of indigenous people. Having culturally relevant and culturally appropriate services available to victims is something we often fall down on and we do not do such good job.

When we are talking about services for victims of crime, we have tended to ignore mental health services. Again, my colleague from Comox has been a great advocate for mental health services. This report acknowledges that victims quite often need very specific kinds of therapy in order to get back to full participation in society, after having been victimized by criminal activity. I commend that chapter to everyone in the House. It is a very important chapter on the gaps in our approaches.

I was surprised to learn that is legal aid is generally not available, in any form, to victims of crime. Even though I taught criminal justice for many years, I had not really thought about this from the perspective of victims. We provide legal aid to defendants, and of course we have prosecutors who are paid for by the public. However, when it comes to victims of crime participating, legal assistance is generally not available to them. We depend on advocacy organizations to provide that advice and that assistance to victims of crime.

That brings me to the chapter on the right to information. Again, we did something peculiar when we established victims' rights and we said that the victims have rights to ask for information about the system. What we heard, again and again, from victims and their advocacy organizations is quite often victims do not even know what to ask. The system is so unfamiliar, so complex and so unforgiving. In particular for people who suffered trauma, it is so difficult to navigate that they do not even know what rights they have or to ask how to access those rights.

An important recommendation in this report, recommendation 4, is that we change the onus of providing information to an automatic provision of information to victims. Some jurisdictions do a better job than others in making sure victims understand what their rights are and what services are available to them. Again, we largely depend on those volunteer organizations to inform victims of their rights. However, if someone is not in touch with one of those organizations, they are left in the dark about how this very complex legal system of ours actually works.

Let us change this from saying that it is on victims to request information to it is on someone specific. We have not tried to solve that problem in this report, but we have indicated that it needs to be someone specific. We cannot just say there is right to information without saying who is actually going to deliver that information. It is up to the governments, again, because we have a justice system that is split over jurisdictions. It is up to those jurisdictions to work together to figure out who is going to make sure that victims actually do get the information.

One of the things we could do is provide core funding to victim organizations that are actually already doing this work. If we provided better funding to those organizations, they could make sure that victims were getting the information that they need on how to participate in the legal system, how to make sure their voices are heard in our legal system, but also on the very services that might be available to them in the community.

Now chapter 7 deals with the right to the protection of victims' identity and the right to privacy of victims. Again, this is probably one of the most surprising parts of the report. We heard very moving and effective testimony from victims of sexual assault, like Morrell Andrews, who talked about something we did many years ago in our legal system. We set up a system of publication bans so that the identity of victims of sexual assault would not become public.

Over the years our understanding of sexual assault has changed, and many of those victims of sexual assault were surprised to learn that they were subject to a publication ban, that they were not allowed to talk about what had happened to them in any way. Many of those victims of sexual assault also felt the publication ban, by protecting their identity, ended up protecting the identity of the perpetrator.

What we heard quite clearly in the testimony that was before us, and it was very eloquent, very difficult testimony for people to give on their personal assault experiences, was that the current arrangements take away agency from victims of sexual assault.

Therefore, in recommendation 11, the committee has recommended: first, that those who are subject to publication bans need to be informed and consulted before that publication ban is put in place; and second, that they need to have the right to opt out of that publication ban.

Many members know that I have spoken several times in the House about being an adult victim of child sexual assault. The veil of secrecy that was put around me at that time was helpful, but it was most helpful to the perpetrator, who had eight other victims. It would have been quite important for me, though as a minor I probably could not make that decision, for someone to make the decision that it was information the public needed to have. We have heard quite clearly from adult victims of sexual assault that they want their agency back. They want the ability to talk about their experience, they want the ability to warn others and they do not want to be treated as if they are minor children when it comes to the issue of sexual assault.

Those are just a few of the highlights in this report.

When I talk about trying to keep our focus on those recommendations so we can move forward, I want to talk a bit about one step forward that the government has taken as a result of this report.

We have Bill S-12 currently in the Senate. The last time I checked two days ago, the Senate justice committee was just about finished its consideration of Bill S-12. It would take recommendation 11 from this report and put it into law. When that recommendation is finished in the Senate, it will come back to the House and we will have the chance, in approving Bill S-12, to give that agency back to victims of sexual assault, to give them the right to know about publication bans before they are imposed and the right to have the ability to opt out of those publication bans.

When I say that focusing on these recommendations is important to make progress, there is a very specific example of the many things that are in this report so that, if we keep the focus on the unanimous support for those recommendations, I believe we will be able to make progress on victims' rights and services for victims.

Again, this is a minority Parliament and often fractious. However, in the justice committee, somehow, on very many issues we have been able to work together to achieve unanimity. The report on improving support for victims of crime is my best example of how Parliament can work, Parliament can be very functional and we can make recommendations that are important to the lives of everyday Canadians.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I salute the member's empathy and the good place from which the question came.

Our sympathies go out to Cody McConnell and his family and friends for his loss. I tabled in the Senate Bill S-12, whose intention is precisely to preserve and strengthen the sex offender registry. I have undertaken publicly, and I will do it again now, to look at the proposed Noah's law to see if it is in conformity with what we are trying to do and to work with members across the floor to see what we can do.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Madam Speaker, as a New Democrat, I am pleased to rise in the House and say that we do support this bill as part of our commitment to the protection of victims' rights. Also, we encourage all members of the House to support the attempts to provide victims with the services they need in terms of rehabilitation or to compensate for losses they have suffered as a result of being victims of crime.

We conducted hearings in the justice committee, where we heard from victims, and we heard very clearly that one of the things they want is accurate and timely information about the parole process. For that reason, I am quite happy to see this bill come forward and to support it. One of the additional things we heard from victims was on the specific case of sexual assault victims, who asked to be consulted and to be informed about publication bans, and have the right to opt out of publication bans on their assaults. Many of them felt a publication ban without their consent denied their agency and their ability to speak about their own experience, and often it inadvertently protected the perpetrators when their names were suppressed. That is in a bill that is before the Senate, Bill S-12. It was in committee in the Senate today, and I think most of us look forward to that provision getting here to the House very soon.

There are other important measures, and I thank the member for Shefford for talking about the attempt to move coercive and controlling behaviour into criminal law. That was originally in a private member's bill I sponsored, but it is now being brought forward by the member for Victoria as Bill C-332. I hope we will be dealing with that this fall. Again, by making coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence, we can prevent victims of violence in the future, since coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner relationships is almost always a precursor to actual violence in that relationship.

I spent 20 years, before I came here, as a criminal justice instructor, and one of the things I know from working with and talking to victims is they are concerned about public safety, and in the very specific sense that almost every victim wants to make sure we take measures to make sure the same experience they had does not happen to others. That concern for public safety is always front and centre with every victim I have met with.

It is unfortunate when rhetoric around crime, punishment, parole and bail veers off into what I would call an ideological position that tougher, longer sentences actually keep people safe. It really misunderstands the purpose and function of our parole system. We know that, in Canada, people are eventually going to be released from jail, except for a very small number of them. The parole system does not provide a “get out of jail free” card or earlier release; it provides incentives for good behaviour in the corrections system and it provides incentives for people to participate in rehabilitation, to take drug and alcohol counselling and to take anger management courses. It is hard to get parole if one does not engage in good behaviour in the system and does not engage in those rehabilitation activities. A person will not actually get parole and will not get the privileges of a phased release, being in a halfway house or any of those other things that are seen somehow as privileges. Those things are actually the phased reintegration of people into the community.

We know that people who successfully complete a parole process have a much smaller chance of reoffending. If we make parole almost impossible to get and if we insist on very long sentences, we actually have a negative impact on public safety, in that those who have committed crimes will serve their sentence in the institution, will not participate in rehabilitation activities and will be released at the end of their sentence with no supervision, no access to public services and no monitoring of what they are doing in the community. Parole is a way of keeping people safe; it is a way of promoting public safety. It is a way of encouraging rehabilitation. It is important we not lose sight of that. Having said that, victims obviously need to have accurate information about how this works and what is happening at each stage of the process. In that sense, of course, I am still supportive of this bill.

At this point, it is important to mention what I will call the unsung heroes of public safety, who are not as high profile as the police or as corrections workers. Those are the parole officers in this country. Parole officers work very hard with those who are being phased back into the community, to make sure they are successful. In doing so, they help promote public safety. I salute the more than 1,600, I think it is now, parole officers who work for Corrections Canada and belong to the Union of Safety and Justice Employees.

They have recently released a report, within the last year, that points out the challenges they face. Parole officers have very high levels of operational stress injuries in their occupation. That has to do with the stress of dealing with the offenders and the lack of resources in our system.

One of the things they have called for is the hiring of additional parole officers. This would help each of them do their job in a healthier manner, but also reducing caseloads would mean there is more time for those parole officers to spend on the people who are being released, so they can provide better supervision, more monitoring of things like curfews, or more monitoring of whether they are actually where they are supposed to be while they are on parole.

In addition, they called for increased mental health services for parole officers. One of the things they pointed out was that this, in actual fact, saves money. If we provide better mental health services, we avoid the burnout that leads to long-term operational injuries and long-term sick leave.

The other thing they asked for, and I think this is interesting because it shows their professionalism, is increased funding for more mental health professionals working inside our correctional institutions and as part of the parole system. Quite often what we see now, unfortunately, is offenders who have very complex psychological and substance abuse problems to deal with. We need those highly skilled professionals to help design the programs that would help rehabilitate them into the community with the least risk possible to the public.

Again, it is important, whenever we are talking about probation, parole or bail, to remember that things like parole and bail are designed to help keep the public safe—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, my apologies.

Across the country, victims of serious crimes may be surprised to learn how sentences are administered, including eligibility for temporary absences and parole. We have heard that victims of crime and their families want clarity and they want transparency, and that is why I look forward to debating Bill C-320 in the House.

I will provide an overview and some context from a federal public safety perspective.

As members will know, we are discussing this bill just weeks after the Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. Victims deserve to be treated with respect and compassion and to be provided with accurate and timely information, so let us look at what is in place.

As I mentioned, the eligibility dates for reviews and releases are currently provided to registered victims in an initial contact letter. We have also very recently moved forward with new legislation to continue to support victims' rights, in the form of Bill S-12. That legislation would ensure that victims receive ongoing information about the offender after sentencing and would improve the law on publication bans by giving a greater voice and clarity to victims in regard to imposing and lifting a publication ban.

Let me delve a bit further into the topic.

As members will know, the CCRA governs both the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. It is the foundation on which people serving federal sentences are supervised and conditional release decisions are made. It also recognizes that victims of crime have an important role to play in the criminal justice system. It provides victims with an opportunity to access certain information and participate in the federal corrections and conditional release process. With the CCRA and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights as a foundation, a variety of government departments, including the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada, work together to provide information services to victims.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights expanded the information available to victims as it relates to hearings by allowing victims who were unable to attend a hearing to request to listen to an audio recording of the parole hearing. At any time, victims may also submit information that details the physical, emotional or financial impact the offence has had on them to the Parole Board for consideration in its decision-making. They may also raise any safety concerns they may have related to the offender's risk of re-offending. As part of the victim statement, victims can also request that the board consider imposing special conditions on an offender's release.

All this information assists board members in assessing risk and determining if additional conditions may be necessary to impose if release to the community is granted.

The—

Criminal Code

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-334, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Judges Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act (orders prohibiting publication of identifying information).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table my private member's bill on publication bans this afternoon. This bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Judges Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to better support survivors of sexualized violence.

Tabling this bill was made possible by the phenomenal work of My Voice, My Choice, a group of women who courageously advocated to make sure that other survivors have a choice when it comes to publication bans. Currently, there is no obligation to get consent from victim complainants when a ban has been placed on their name, and if they choose to speak out about their own experiences, they can face criminal charges. This is appalling, and I strongly believe that, as MPs, we have a responsibility to reform these systems.

I know that Bill S-12 was recently introduced in the Senate, which I was very happy to see. However, there are gaps in this government bill. I look forward to working with MPs from all parties when it comes to the House to make it better. I hope that my bill can act as an example of how Bill S-12 can and must be strengthened, to ensure that all survivors are given a choice.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Granville for his question and his French.

We recently introduced Bill S-12 in the Senate to strengthen the national sex offender registry. Offenders will have to register, unless they can prove that they do not pose a risk to public safety.

Bill S‑12 also gives victims more choice over publication bans by clarifying the process. Some victims want to protect their identity, others want to tell their stories. It is their voice and it should be their choice.

My Voice, My Choice

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the phenomenal work of My Voice, My Choice. The women of My Voice, My Choice have courageously sought justice through a system that we know is retraumatizing. They have continued to courageously advocate to make sure other survivors have a choice when it comes to publication bans.

Currently, there is no obligation to inform or get consent from a victim-complainant when a ban has been placed on their name. If they choose to speak out about their own experiences, they can face criminal charges. This is outrageous.

I stand with them today as a sexual assault survivor who chose not to go through the legal system, knowing that this system is not kind to victims. As MPs, we have a responsibility to listen to survivors and to reform these systems. My Voice, My Choice advocates have fought tirelessly, and their work has led to the introduction of Bill S-12.

They are here in Ottawa with a clear message that we must amend and strengthen this bill to ensure that survivors never face criminal charges for sharing their own story and that they are always given the choice.

Public Safety

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have long been working with the provinces to strengthen the bail system. I hope that we will see results soon.

I also note that the provinces are themselves in the process of strengthening the administration of their systems. We are seeing that in British Columbia. We are seeing that with the investments being made in Ontario.

Last week, we introduced Bill S‑12, which will strengthen victims rights in cases of sexual assault.

We are working together on problems to improve Canadians' lives.

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Skyview for his hard work in his community.

We just introduced Bill S-12 in the Senate. It would strengthen the national sex offender registry by requiring all offenders to register, unless they can prove that they do not pose a risk to public safety. Bill S-12 would also give victims more of a say in whether a publication ban is ordered and gives survivors a clearer pathway to modify or revoke a ban. Some victims want to protect their identity, others want to tell their stories. It should be their choice.

We look forward to the support of all of our colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure that Bill S-12 is passed quickly.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times, serious crimes deserve serious consequences.

Our government has taken action on several fronts to ensure that victims of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect.

Yesterday, I tabled in the Senate Bill S‑12, which will strengthen the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and will also give victims more powers. I hope that all parties in the House will support it.

This is in addition to other measures we have introduced such as Bill C‑3 and Bill C‑51, which will protect victims of sexual assault.