Debates of Sept. 20th, 2023

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does my colleague think about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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