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.

[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.