44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak about Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. The bill was reported back to us with some modifications by members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights following their careful study of its proposals.
Bill S-12 proposes amendments to both the publication ban provisions of the Criminal Code and the national sex offender registration regime. The bill is an example of the government's commitment to responding to concerns around sexual offending and demonstrating its overall commitment to victims of crime.
The proposed reforms of publication bans aim to increase victim autonomy and control in this area of the law. The changes proposed to the national sex offender registry would ensure the continued operation of this valuable police tool by making changes to bring it in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
First, I would like to discuss the amendments relating to publication bans. These proposals have been informed by the lived experiences of victims of sexual offending, and they have always had the empowerment of victims as their ultimate objective.
I want to give a particular thanks to My Voice, My Choice. This group has worked tirelessly to advocate for improvements to the publication ban regime. I can say with confidence that its members' advocacy has changed the national narrative on publication bans for the better. Without them, we would not be having this important conversation on returning agency to victims and ensuring that they are not silenced against their will.
My message to all victims and survivors is that these conversations are not over. We know that there is always more to be done. We can continue to fight for positive change. It is incumbent on us to see Bill S-12 as a step in the right direction, not an end point.
The amendments in Bill S-12 would improve communication between victims and justice system actors with respect to publication bans and ensure that there is a clear legislative process on how to amend or revoke a ban. Importantly, it is our intent that prosecutors consult with victims before a publication ban is invoked. Prosecutors should ascertain whether victims wish to have a ban in place and act accordingly. Moreover, the accused should not and will not have any say in whether a publication ban should be revoked or modified.
In addition, Bill S-12 would add clarity to the law with respect to the conduct captured by a publication ban. It is only in the rarest cases that a victim or witness should be prosecuted for such a breach. Publication bans are there to protect victims and should not be weaponized against them in the criminal justice system.
Another victim-centric element of Bill S-12 would improve victims' access to information in the criminal justice system. I am grateful to the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, who advocated for this change.
Bill S-12 would ensure that victims are asked whether they would like to receive information on case developments after sentencing, such as appeals or parole. This would be a great improvement on the current system, in which victims must proactively make a request to receive information. In some cases, victims are not told that they must make this request, or they have trouble indicating their wishes.
Every victim is different; some want updates, while others want to move on and not hear about their case ever again. Bill S-12 recognizes that this choice is entirely theirs. Our justice system should ensure that victims are supported to make the best choice for themselves.
I will now turn to the Senate amendments made to the publication ban aspect of Bill S-12. For the most part, these amendments greatly improved the bill by creating a more robust and victim-centred approach to publication bans. However, some of these amendments raised concerns, which were voiced to the justice committee by the minister and were shared by some provincial attorneys general. We also heard testimony from organizations and individuals that represent victims, and they echoed some of these concerns.
In the Senate, provisions were added that would enhance communications with victims about the imposition of publication bans. For example, prosecutors would be required to ask the victim if they wished to have a publication ban that applied to their identifying information, as well as to inform a victim who was the subject of a publication ban about its existence and the right to revoke it. The Senate also amended the bill to propose a more robust process for how a publication ban can be revoked or varied. In addition, the Senate crafted provisions that would clarify what information is captured by a publication ban to ensure that victims could share their own information with friends and family, for example, without fear of any prosecution.
These were positive suggestions that improved the bill, and the justice committee was generally supportive of the intention behind these changes.
However, as I previously indicated, we heard testimony at the justice committee from witnesses who voiced concerns with the effects of some of the Senate amendments. I am grateful to the witnesses who lent their expertise to improve Bill S-12 by pointing out these concerns.
To that end, the justice committee proposes to delete language that would require the prosecutor to inform victims and witnesses who are subjects of a publication ban about the circumstances under which they could legitimately disclose information without facing legal consequences. The committee shared concerns raised by some of the provincial attorneys general that this proposal presented serious questions about prosecutorial independence and conflicts of interest. This is because some of the Crowns who would be giving that advice may also be called upon to prosecute an individual for the offence of breaching a publication ban.
I am confident that removing this language would not impact the objective of ensuring better communications with victims about a publication ban, but ensure our Crown prosecutors could continue to effectively carry out their duties. Further, some witnesses heard by the committee during the study said that they would prefer to see the Criminal Code include a list of professionals to whom victims or witnesses could disclose identifying information without breaching the publication ban.
In response, the committee proposed an amendment that would specify that victims or witnesses do not breach a publication ban if they disclose their identifying information in situations where the disclosure is to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person of trust. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Green Party and the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke who suggested this change.
I am strongly in favour of these amendments as I believe they add clarity to Bill S-12 while still respecting the overall objective of empowering and giving a greater voice to victims of sexual violence.
I now turn to the sex offender registry provisions in the bill. The legislation would strengthen the sex offender registry and respond to the Supreme Court decision striking down sections of the registry. Bill S-12 proposes that all sexual offenders must be placed on the registry in cases involving a designated offence unless they can show that the registration would be overbroad or grossly disproportionate to the objective of the registry. Providing this limited discretion to judges responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision while still ensuring a robust registry that would assist police in preventing and investigating sexual offences.
However, in recognition that there are some offenders who will always pose a higher risk of reoffending, Bill S-12 proposes to retain automatic registration for two categories of offenders.
The first category is repeat sexual offenders. If offenders are convicted of a sexual offence and have another sexual offence in their background they would automatically be registered. This is reflective of the social science evidence that indicates that repeat sexual offenders are twice as likely as first-time offenders to reoffend sexually.
The second category is offenders who commit sexual offences against children and are sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment in cases where the offence is prosecuted by an indictment. These offenders would be covered even in the case of a first-time offence. Proposing automatic registration for this category is reflective of the social science evidence that offending against children is a validated risk factor for sexual offending. Sexual offences against children are among the most heinous crimes and I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. Bill S-12 would ensure the police have the necessary tools to prevent and address these crimes.
I would like to be clear that limiting automatic registration to these two narrow categories of offenders is not intended in any way to signal that other sexual offending is any less serious. This could not be further from the truth. All sexual offending is reprehensible, but within the confines of the majority judgment in the Ndhlovu decision, I am confident this was as far as the government could go with respect to automatic registration.
I would like to be clear that this government has faith in the judiciary to make appropriate decisions. The bill also provides a robust appeal mechanism when there is a need to challenge a decision made by a trial judge about whether an offender should have been required to register.
In addition, Bill S-12 proposes to provide judges with a list of factors that are relevant to assessing an offender's risk of sexual reoffending. This proposed list incorporates well-established risk factors based on empirical social research.
In addition to providing guidance to judges, these factors are intended to address the criticisms and concerns reflected in the minority judgment about the possibility that myths about sexual offending will inform any part of a judge's decision.
I would like to close my remarks by reminding members that Bill S-12 also proposes other changes to strengthen the sex offender registration regime. Bill S-12 addresses operational issues that have been identified by our provincial, territorial and law enforcement partners. This includes, for example, creating a new compliance warrant provision that would allow police officers to arrest non-compliant offenders, bring them to a registration centre and give them an opportunity to provide the legally required information.
Bill S-12 would also expand the list of offences that qualify an individual for the registry. The list would include crimes such as non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion. These are terrible crimes that have had serious impacts on Canadians, especially women and children. I am glad to see their inclusion on the list.
The bill would also require registered sex offenders to provide 14 days' notice of any travel as well as specific addresses of their destination. These changes have been lauded by American officials, including Attorney General Garland and Secretary Mayorkas. I know that these measures would contribute to enhanced security on both sides of our shared border.
I am confident that Bill S-12 is a balanced, thoughtful and constitutionally defensive response to the Supreme Court. It also represents our government's ongoing commitment to victims and survivors of crime. Victims and survivors must have full ownership of their own stories; this is critical. I urge all members to support this bill.
1914 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the House to consider giving me unanimous consent to have my vote included in the last round of votes. There were six votes that took place. I had technical difficulties on the first one and then I was able to get four done. I have just found out that my vote was not recorded on the vote on Bill C-278. I would like unanimous consent to have it considered in the negative, voting nay against the bill.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
19 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to recognize one of my former students who was just called to the bar by virtue of the tutelage of his principal Jay Michi. That is Kyle Komarynsky. I wish him a long and fruitful career as a distinguished lawyer.
I listened to my colleague's speech. I have asked the justice minister this question three times. One time he hid behind an official, in my view, who gave wrong information about whether sexual offences could lead to house arrest. They clearly can lead to house arrest in most if not all jurisdictions, especially offences against children.
Will the parliamentary secretary commit here and now to say that they will legislate so that sex offences against children cannot result in house arrest?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend's student. I know what an honour it is to be a mentor to young students who are entering the profession and it is quite something when they reach their goal, so well done.
First off, I was there and the minister was not hiding behind anybody. Let us make that clear, for starters.
This bill is quite clear and we had extensive debate. I really enjoy working with the member. I am relatively new to the committee. I have been on the committee before, but not with my colleague across the way. We have a good working relationship.
I am confident in saying that this bill would go very far in protecting children and making sure that those who are guilty of these heinous crimes that the member is referring to receive the punishment that is appropriate and necessary in the circumstances.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, some victims only found out that their assailant was about to be released through media reports. Can my colleague assure me that this kind of situation will never happen again and that victims will finally receive the concrete information they need to protect themselves?
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the focus of this bill is victims' rights. Every section of the bill and every discussion we had with respect to the bill was with that in mind. The publication ban provisions, in particular, were entirely focused on victims' rights and making sure that they have the information that they need when they are caught up or involved in the legal system. I share the member's concern, and I can assure her again that the bill would do everything possible to make sure that victims' rights are not only acknowledged but information is communicated to the victims at the appropriate time.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister's weak-on-crime policies, Canada has become a more dangerous place and he is not worth the cost.
Liberal law Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, has unleashed a wave of violent criminals onto our streets and incidents of repeat and violent crime have predictably surged as a result. This increase in crime is particularly true when it comes to sexually based offences. Under this NDP-Liberal government's watch, sexual assaults have gone up 71%. Sex crimes against children have seen an astonishing 126% increase.
Thanks to extreme politicians weakening our laws, those who commit sexual assault can now serve their sentences at home in the same community as their victims.
According to Statistics Canada, only one in five cases of sexual assault reported to police result in a trial. Only 6% of sexual assaults are reported in the first place, due to fear and stigma, the lowest of all violent crime.
I know that when I was sexually assaulted, as a child of 12, by two perpetrators, I was too afraid to tell my parents, even. I did not tell my mother until I was 40 years old. That is the story for many women in Canada.
The Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter points out that only one in nine cases of sexual assault reported to police results in a conviction. Worse, only one in 15 reported cases results in the perpetrator being sentenced to jail. As a mother of three daughters, I find these statistics alarming. As a lawyer and member of the official opposition, I must hold the government presiding over this crime wave responsible. The lack of urgency of the NDP and Liberals to protect women and children is shocking. They must act now to fix the problems they created with this radical ideology that puts criminals first and victims last.
These stats only tell part of the story. The assault is traumatic enough for the victim to live once. The effects last a lifetime. To get justice, they are required to relive the trauma during the rigours of a criminal trial. They are often revictimized, forced to recount their assault through their own testimony and cross-examination. It is understandable that sex crimes and assaults are significantly under-reported, making it impossible to accurately quantify just how widespread this picture is.
It is not just sexual assault. Other forms of sexual violence are also on the rise. Online child exploitation has increased.
According, again, to StatsCan, my province of British Columbia accounted for 54% of Canada's reported incidents of making and distributing sexually explicit images. The RCMP in British Columbia dealt with 9,600 cases of child exploitation last year alone.
This is unacceptable in the extreme and speaks to the NDP-Liberal government's failure to protect the most vulnerable in our society, particularly women and children.
The House must acknowledge that Canada has a problem with sex crimes, as we debate legal changes to the sex offender registry.
In my family law practice, I handled a case where a woman was concerned for the safety of her child during a custody dispute. She expressed concern that unsupervised contact with extended family members on the father's side of the family could put her child at risk of sexual assault. I discovered, through a sex offender registry in the United States, that the family member in question was a known offender. We were able to secure conditions in the custody arrangements that kept the child safe and under supervision.
This underscores the need for a strong, effective sex offender registry, to help law enforcement keep the public safe.
The legislation before us today, Bill S-12, amends the Sex Offender Registration Information Act, following a Supreme Court ruling that determines that sections of this law were unconstitutional.
The court gave the Liberals one year to fix the unconstitutional provisions. That was on October 28, 2022. The so-called “feminist government” has dragged its feet yet again, and here we are today at the 11th hour debating the bill with a looming deadline just three days away.
Bill S-12 would change the Sex Offender Registry Information Act that was first passed in 2004 with the support of all parties. It was created to assist law enforcement agencies by requiring the registration of specific information about sex offenders, such as addresses, phone numbers, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of the victims and their relationship to the offender. At the time it was up to the discretion of the judge as to whether a sexual offender should be on the registry.
However, this led to several issues. In 2009, the public safety committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to enrol in the sex offender registry. Conservatives recognized that to be effective and to actually protect women, children, victims and survivors, the national registry had to be enforced consistently across the country. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We support tough sentencing and enforcement against sexual crimes.
The previous Conservative government brought in the law that required convicted sex offenders to be automatically listed on the national sex offender registry to better protect the public, a measure that was also supported at the time by all parties. Conservatives remain supportive of legislation that would protect the public from sexual offenders, including Bill S-12. However, the bill is another missed opportunity to improve public safety.
At committee, the Liberals amended their own bill to further prioritize the interests of the accused in sexual assault cases. Frankly, accused sexual offenders do not need more support in the criminal justice system. It is the victims and survivors who need the support. This was a chance for the coalition government to stand with victims, but once again it abandoned them. Common-sense Conservatives believe all sex offenders must be listed on the national sex offender registry, and we will amend the legislation to ensure this is the case when we form government.
As a family lawyer, I often dealt with custody cases where the sex offender registry was especially used to protect the interests of children. It is an essential tool for police and law enforcement agencies. I am concerned that the court's decision will water down the effectiveness of the registry and make it harder for police to prevent and investigate sexual offences.
At committee, that soft-on-crime NDP-Liberal government opposed our common-sense amendments to strengthen the bill and opposed amendments to publication bans that key stakeholders, such as My Voice, My Choice, which was earlier praised by the member opposite, have advocated for. While the government claims it stands for women's rights and supports survivors of sexual violence, its actions say otherwise.
Victims and survivors welcome stronger penalties and protections like mandatory enrolment in the national sex offender registry. They have asked for increased flexibility and victim input regarding publication bans and access to case information. The Liberals had a year to get the legislation right. Their delayed response has opened the possibility of sex offenders escaping registration if Parliament does not comply with the court-imposed deadline looming close now, something Conservatives will not allow.
We will agree to pass the bill through the House today to avoid putting the registry at risk. However, make no mistake, there is only one party committed to ending the crime wave, keeping vulnerable Canadians safe and fixing the flawed legislation. Only common-sense Conservatives will act with the urgency and the specificity required to keep women and children in Canada safe.
1292 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about Bill S-12.
As was said, when we were in government, we brought in changes to have a mandatory listing of all convicted sex offenders put in the registry. We had to respond to a Supreme Court decision, and the government's response has been tepid. One of the amendments that Conservatives put forward at committee would be to require the mandatory listing of all convicted child sex offenders. There is nothing in the Supreme Court decision that would have prevented that step from happening.
The Liberal and NDP coalition voted against the common sense amendment that would have listed all convicted child sex offenders. Can the member tell me what message she feels that sends to Canadians?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for all the work he does with respect to justice for victims and with respect to criminal law reform in Canada.
Our children are our most precious resource. I am sure this is felt around the world, but it certainly is true here in Canada. If we cannot move to protect our children, then what is it exactly that we are accomplishing with any legislation in this place?
An amendment that would require registration of those who are convicted of sex offences against children is one of the few ways to protect them. I know that in my own case, I was lured away from the safety of my home and my family by older people, older teenagers, in fact. I was not even a teenager yet. Children are powerless against predators who would do them harm. If someone is accused of doing harm to a child in Canada, they should be on the registry.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a question about a possible shift in the Conservative Party's current stance compared to that of Stephen Harper, the former prime minister of Canada, regarding section 7 and the Ndhlovu decision, which sought to enrol all sex offenders in a registry. This time around, the judge will have the discretion to decide which names are entered on the list.
I would like to know whether the current Conservative Party, unlike its predecessors, agrees with this shift?
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think perhaps I did address this in my speech. When the sex offender registry was originally brought in, with the support of all parties at the time, it was discretionary for judges as to who would be put on the registry. However, it seemed to be taken up only about 50% of the time, so the Conservative government of the day, again with the support of all parties at the time, took the next step to make it mandatory because it simply was not being taken up enough to fully and thoroughly protect women and children in Canada.
From my point of view, I understand the court's decision and where that decision was coming from, but I think the Liberals and the NDP in their coalition government could have done a much better job of looking at that decision while still protecting women and children to the maximum within the parameters set out in the decision.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment to thank the member for South Surrey—White Rock for sharing in the House her personal experience as a sexual assault survivor. This is a scourge in our society that is too often treated as a source of shame for victims. It is very important that we all stand with those victims. One of the ways of doing that is by sharing personal experience.
The member will know that I also have shared in the House my own experience as an adult survivor of child sexual assault. I think that whatever our opinions about what the proper solutions are, it is important to acknowledge all those victims who came forward to the House of Commons justice committee, shared their experiences and risked retraumatization in order to get the legislative changes that they think are important.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to come forward. I am able to come forward in the House in a public way at this time in my life only because of the passage of time. At an earlier time, I simply could not have stood publicly and disclosed what I have disclosed.
The effects of sexual assaults last a lifetime. I applaud all those who came before the committee and told their personal stories, shared them in order to enlighten us all on the difficulties faced by victims.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for making it possible to pass Bill S‑12 in a reasonable enough time frame that should hopefully allow it to get through the legislative process fast enough for the existing legislation to be amended before the deadline set by the Supreme Court. I think everyone on the committee worked seriously and diligently, and I would like to thank them all.
Having said that, Bill S‑12 has two components. The first is the component required by the Supreme Court pertaining to the national sex offender registry. It is a response to the Supreme Court ruling handed down on October 28, 2022, in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down two provisions of the Criminal Code, namely section 490.012 and section 490.013(2.1).
The court held that registering offenders who are not at risk of committing a future sex offence is disconnected from the purpose of registration. The court pointed out that the purpose of registration is to capture information that may assist the police in preventing and investigating sexual offences.
The Supreme Court gave the federal government one year to remedy the situation, and that time is up next week, on October 29, 2023. If the amendments are not passed by then, then offenders will no longer have to register with the national sex offender registry. Clearly, we all want to avoid that.
Obviously, the House of Commons fast-tracked the legislative process to meet that deadline. What I am wondering is why the government waited until April 26, six months after the Supreme Court ruling, to introduce this bill. I would remind the House that the Supreme Court delivered its ruling in R. v. Ndhlovu over a year ago on October 28, 2022, and ordered that the Criminal Code be amended by October 29, 2023.
On April 26, 2023, Senator Gold introduced a bill in the Senate, six months after the Supreme Court delivered its ruling. Bill S‑12 was passed in the Senate at third reading on June 22, meaning the bill took two months to get through the Senate. Six months elapsed between the time when the government found out that it had to amend the law and the time when the bill was introduced, another two months elapsed between the time when Senator Gold introduced his bill and the time when it was passed at third reading in the Senate, and a further three months passed before the bill arrived here in the House of Commons—
449 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 5:41:53 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask the member not to put his phone on his desk because it causes problems for the interpreters.
The hon. member for Rivière‑du‑Nord.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was saying that it took six months for Senator Gold to introduce the bill in the Senate. I do not blame him. It was the government's responsibility, not his.
The Senate passed the bill at third reading in two months, which seems more than reasonable to me. Three months went by between June 22 and September 19, because it was the summer. The bill arrived in the House on September 19, and 36 days later, here we are in the House for third reading of the bill. Thirty-six days is obviously not a lot of time to study a bill of this magnitude in the House. I find that disappointing.
What happened between October 28, 2022, and April 26, 2023? Was the government closed for business? Were there no ministers around who could work on drafting the bill? I guess not. I am very disappointed.
The only reason we are here today, being forced to ram through this bill, jeopardizing our parliamentary duty to listen to every citizen and group concerned about the bill, weigh their positions and arguments, and study the representations made in committee with care and attention, is that the government did not put in a modicum of diligence to satisfy the obligations imposed on it by the Supreme Court ruling. At no point, in the House, in committee, in the media or in a press release, did the government offer the slightest explanation for this delay. We received no explanation, no excuse, nothing. Again, it is disappointing to say the least.
Basically, the bill reinstates the principle of automatic registration, but with better guidelines and subject to certain conditions. Registration will now be automatic only for sex offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more and for repeat offenders. In all other cases, there will be a presumption that the offender will be required to register, but it could be overturned if the individual proves that there is no connection between the order to register and the purpose of registration or that registration is totally disproportionate to that purpose.
Bill S‑12 therefore allows for greater flexibility and provides that judges may use their discretion to order whether those convicted of multiple offences during a single trial should, or should not, remain on the registry for life when their behavioural profile demonstrates an increased risk of reoffending.
The Bloc Québécois unsurprisingly endorses these amendments, which are in line with human rights requirements and respond to the Supreme Court's October 28, 2022 ruling.
With regard to the second component, Bill S‑12 proposes provisions promoting the participation of victims at the publication ban stage, when a ban is to be issued. On numerous occasions, witnesses have come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights asking that we amend these rules and allow victims to intervene before a publication ban is issued.
Publication bans are issued to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses. They are issued for their benefit, not for the benefit of the defendant or the benefit of the courts and prosecutors. The basic principle in Canada, and a cornerstone of our justice system, is to hold open trials. Not so long ago, we heard about hidden trials, secret trials. I do not think anyone wanted them. They certainly should not become the rule. Open legal proceedings are a guarantee of fairness and of trials that comply with the applicable legal provisions. Justice is done in public, not behind closed doors or in secret.
Obviously, the presence of the public and the media in the courtroom is critically important, as is the right to talk about the trial, the evidence presented and the issues at stake. Publication bans should be used only under exceptional and clearly defined circumstances. On several occasions, the courts have heard challenges to their validity, often raised by media representatives.
If these bans are to be issued only on rare occasions, it is quite understandable that the reasons justifying them must be very well defined and clear to everyone. The purpose of the bans must be to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses, or at least seriously strive to achieve that objective. What is the current situation? At present, unfortunately, that is not always the case.
Bill S‑12 seeks to ensure that the people we want to protect are truly protected, and that they know they are protected. It seems to us that, at the very least, before issuing such a ban, the courts must ensure that the victims are aware that a ban is being sought and could be granted, that they understand the details of the ban and, finally, that they consent to it. How else could anyone claim that the ban is in their best interests?
Victims must also have the opportunity to request that the publication ban be modified or lifted. Victims may have consented to a ban for one reason or another but, for a host of other good reasons, they may later decide they want the ban modified or lifted. Logically, victims should be allowed to request such modifications if the ban is indeed in their best interests, as it should be.
However, as things stand, these bans are often issued without the victims' knowledge and, unfortunately, without their consent. Worse still, when they find out that a publication ban has been issued, the victims, whom the bans are intended to protect, are currently unable to request that the ban be modified or lifted. As if that were not enough, victims are even liable to prosecution if they violate a publication ban by speaking out about the assaults they have suffered or about their attacker's trial. The victim we want to protect becomes the culprit we want to prosecute. I agree with what everyone is probably thinking: That is insane and it has to change.
The purpose of Bill S‑12 is therefore to correct these incongruities and greatly improve the situation for victims and witnesses. From now on, judges will have to ensure that victims are notified when a publication ban is about to be issued and that they consent to it. If the victims are not present in the courtroom, the judge will have to ensure that the prosecutor has notified them and obtained their consent. Furthermore, victims will now be able to communicate with a legal professional, a health professional or a person with whom they have a relationship of trust without putting themselves at risk of contravening the publication ban. This is a necessary and welcome improvement. One even wonders how it could ever have been otherwise.
That said, our courts will face challenges. Sometimes, they will have to weigh the interests of the different parties if one victim wants a publication ban revoked or varied but other victims involved in the case disagree. The judge deciding the issue will have to consider the opinions and rights of everyone concerned by the ban. It will definitely take some imagination to word the ban in a way that satisfies and respects each person it needs to protect. This will be no small challenge, but nonetheless, it is a challenge we must meet. While it may not be perfect, I hope that Bill S‑12 will largely and adequately meet our legislative obligations.
1243 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
From the proposed changes, we can see that the courts will be able to exercise discretion in ordering lifetime registration in cases where an offender's risk of reoffending is high.
Is my colleague confident that the courts will be able to use this discretion wisely to make decisions that better protect victims and the general public?
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for her question.
Yes, I am confident that the courts will be able to accomplish that task in an effective, fair and reasonable manner. To be honest, I have often said in the House that I believe we have a high-quality court system in Quebec and Canada that is likely the envy of many states, many countries.
The courts will be able to do that, even if it is not always an easy task. As I was saying at the end of my speech, problematic situations will arise, such as when there are multiple victims and they do not all agree on whether there should be a publication ban or not. However, I believe that our courts will be able to deal with such challenges appropriately.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill S-12 today, as it would address one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”, which was tabled in the House in December 2022.
When the justice committee began its study on victims of crime more than a year and a half ago, the member for Victoria brought to my attention the bizarre and unjust situation that survivors of sexual assault face in their current circumstances, which is that survivors regularly suffer from restrictions on their ability to talk about what happened to them and sometimes even suffer penalties for violating court-ordered bans on the publication of information that would identify their own names. It is important to note that these bans are routinely imposed in sexual assault cases across Canada. Anecdotally, we know it approaches 100% of the time. It is also important to note that most of the time, this happens without survivors' being aware that the publication ban is in place.
Bill S-12 would fix that by requiring notification of survivors. There are many reasons a survivor might choose to or inadvertently violate such a ban. Some feel that such publication bans inadvertently protect the perpetrators by the necessity of protecting their identity in circumstances where the publication of the perpetrator's identity would identify the victim. Others feel the idea of publication bans itself is based on an archaic and misogynist idea that sexual assault victims are somehow responsible for what happened to them and should be ashamed.
To be clear, some survivors do want their privacy protected by having publication bans in place, but others believe that public safety requires them to let family, friends and members of the public know of a risk of sexual assault they might face, by identifying the fact they were assaulted and who the perpetrator was.
At this point, I want to express my thanks to the survivors of sexual assault, and in particular those from the group My Voice, My Choice, who risked retraumatization by coming forward to committee and talking in public about their own personal experiences, in order to get the legislative change they need, in the hearings before the justice committee on victims' rights that began in October 22, more than a year ago.
Again, I want to thank the member for Victoria, who brought this situation to my attention and then introduced a private member's bill on the topic in order to try to get the House to act. In addition, I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, the former minister of justice, who decided to include measures to restore agency to survivors of sexual assault by including it in Bill S-12.
The government did not choose a path, using a Senate bill, nor did it choose a timetable, at the last minute, that New Democrats might have chosen. This has left us with little time to meet the deadline for passage of Bill S-12 and therefore with little time to consider all of the important amendments suggested by My Voice, My Choice, without endangering the fate of this bill as a whole by causing a to and fro between the House and the Senate. Now, we have a bill that, had it been on a better path and a better timetable, could have been even better in meeting the needs of survivors of sexual assault. However, we still have a bill before us that, I am assured, would make the necessary fundamental changes to restore agency to survivors and to ensure that there would not be prosecutions for violating bans of those whom they were supposed to protect.
Let me turn briefly now to the other half of Bill S-12, which provided the original impetus for the bill. The Supreme Court of Canada decision requires revisions to the sex offender registry. The Supreme Court found that automatic lifetime registration for those convicted of listed offences was overly broad, and as a consequence, was capturing some who were very unlikely to reoffend. I know some argue that all must be listed, but it is important to remember that if we list people who are at very low risk to reoffend, we waste public resources that might better be used to monitor the higher-risk offenders.
Instead, Bill S-12 would meet the Supreme Court's challenge by implementing the presumption of registration of those convicted. This would mean that a very small number of those convicted of listed offences could ask a judge to use their discretion to exempt them from legislation. The estimates are that it would be probably far fewer than 10% who could ask for that exemption.
The bill would also strengthen the sex offender registry in a couple of important ways. Most importantly, to me, it would add the offences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and so-called sextortion to the list of offences that would result in registration as a sex offender.
In our modern world of overuse of social media, overuse of the Internet and overexposure of everyone to everything, these offences sometimes may seem trivial. However, we must remember that with non-consensual distribution, intimate images last forever on the Internet, and I think those who perpetrate this need to understand that these offences will be taken very seriously and that they will be monitored as sex offenders on the registry to make sure they do not engage in this kind of behaviour again.
I would like to conclude with thanks to all the parties that have worked together to get this legislation here today in time to meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline. I know that some parties still have reservations and I know that some of the victims would like to have had more amendments made to the bill. However, I do believe that we have it in a form in front of us today that will help restore agency to survivors of sexual assault in the future. I think that is a very important reason for us to act promptly.
1037 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
