44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2023 02:00PM
- Sep/20/23 4:30:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about something the justice minister referenced in his remarks. He chastised the Harper government for bringing forward what he called unconstitutional legislation, but the reality is that every party in the House unanimously supported the Harper legislation in 2011, including the Liberal Party. I believe the reason all parties supported it was that, before the registry was mandatory, when it was left solely up to judicial discretion to have a sex offender added to the registry, as I am sure the minister knows, less than 50% of sex offenders were ever added, which compromised the efficacy of that registry.
I am just wondering if the minister could comment on whether he is concerned that the situation will now return to what it was before, when for that reason, all parties supported Harper's legislation in 2011.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 4:33:05 p.m.
- Watch
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.
264 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 4:34:46 p.m.
- Watch
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.
1591 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 4:43:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, it really is up to the government. It took it a while to bring this forward. That is on the government; that is not on the opposition. The government did not do its homework quickly enough. We do recognize the deadline, but I know the government has asked for extensions when required. I believe it did for MAID legislation and other things. That is up to the Liberals. They make up the governing party.
Perhaps the minister could ask another question and put his answer in that question, but I am not clear how the two or three circumstances that do require mandatory registration are in the legislation. How are those deemed constitutional despite the ruling, and why could the government not put more circumstances in there? That is really unclear. These are some of the legal opinions that we need to find out through committee and the other process. Again, we are not looking to slow this down, but we want to make it as tough as we can. That is our commitment as opposition.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 4:46:10 p.m.
- Watch
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.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 4:47:36 p.m.
- Watch
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.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
