Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator. The Prime Minister was clear, as was the foreign minister, that they became aware of the specifics from The Globe and Mail article.

When the Prime Minister made his remarks with regard to CSIS to which you referred, at that juncture he had not been made aware that in fact the information, it now appears, was sent to someone occupying the position, albeit on a temporary basis, of the National Security Advisor — not the current incumbent but someone who was there over the summer period. That was made clear and corrected soon thereafter.

The fact is this government continues to act properly, prudently and responsibly with regard to the serious threats of foreign interference and the allegations that have been made through the leaked CSIS documents to The Globe and Mail, and it will continue to do so in the best interests of Canadians.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, Canadians are shocked at the reports that Beijing diplomatic officials in Canada targeted MP Michael Chong and his family in retaliation for his House of Commons motion condemning the Uighur genocide. Even more astonishing was that you repeated Prime Minister Trudeau’s assertion last week that CSIS didn’t think the threats to a sitting member of Parliament were “a significant enough concern in their judgment.”

A CSIS intelligence assessment from July 2021 warned of the potential threats against MP Chong’s family. At that time, Canadian citizens Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig were still held hostage in China. Their sham trials had occurred only three months earlier. In that context, it is unbelievable that CSIS and the PM’s National Security Advisor found threatened intimidation of a sitting MP and his family failed to pose “a significant enough concern” to warrant informing the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety and the targeted MP himself.

Senator Gold, if what the Prime Minister is saying were true — that CSIS didn’t think this threat to a sitting MP was serious enough — why hasn’t anyone been fired for this? Is this because Prime Minister Trudeau has set up his senior security apparatus to treat him as a ceremonial Prime Minister?

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act, proposes the world’s strongest legal protections for captive wild animals. This includes banning unlicensed ownership of big cats and phasing out elephants in Canada. The bill also supports action on wildlife trafficking, including elephant ivory and rhino horn.

As well, with 15 speeches and over four hours of debate spanning 13 months, Bill S-241 is the most debated bill at second reading in the Senate in the 44th Parliament and we await a critic’s speech.

I note that Bill S-241 would fulfill two government election commitments reflected in Minister Guilbeault’s mandate letter, namely, to protect captive wild animals and to curb wildlife trafficking, including elephant ivory and rhino horn.

With Dr. Goodall coming to Canada this month, can you confirm the government would like to see Bill S-241 moved to committee as soon as possible? Otherwise, will the government introduce their own version of the Jane Goodall act to save the bill?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator.

Respectfully, the government is not out of touch, on the contrary. The government’s agenda, which I represent here in this chamber, is focused on helping Canadians and transitioning to a cleaner, sustainable energy future.

Simply put, the government is always aware that problems do exist. It is working closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts on the issue of rising street crime in Montreal and elsewhere. It is working hard on all the issues.

That doesn’t sound like what you described. This is the government’s view, and that’s not what being out of touch looks like. This government continues to work hard for the well-being of Canadians.

Hon. Robert Black: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, Canada’s farmland remains a finite and valuable resource for Canadians and the world. Despite your government repeatedly stating the importance and prioritization of agriculture and food security, I remain perplexed by the agreements and policies that we continue to see which undermine the capabilities and capacities of our processors and producers.

In a recent deal, a foreign company was given the green light for the procurement of 1,500 acres — the equivalent of 1,134 football fields — of prime agricultural land in southern Ontario. Around this deal was $700 million from Ottawa to build a plant along with $500 million from the Ontario government, plus $13 billion in federal subsidies for this gigafactory. Let’s not forget as well, colleagues, the $34 million in tariffs taken from farmers’ fertilizer purchases earlier this year, an essential product needed to feed the country and the world, which was not returned to our farmers.

While the province retains jurisdiction of land use planning, governments at all levels have permitted the land that grows our food to be swallowed up by urban sprawl, damaging valuable soils and reducing our food production capacities, all while subsidizing this destruction and financially limiting those who put food on our tables.

My question is this, Senator Gold: When will this government actually prioritize Canadian agriculture and food, stop financially depriving our farmers and stop giving monies to companies that will actively undermine and take away our crucial farmlands?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

In order to halt the growing global decline of biodiversity, legislation that improves animal protections is crucial. I have been advised that the minister looks forward to hearing the debates around this bill and how it fits within the government’s mandate commitments to protect animals both at home and abroad.

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government.

Leader, I was reading the news on the weekend and I saw headlines on Radio-Canada’s website such as, “Judge shortage: ‘The current situation is untenable,’ decries Justice Wagner.” He is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[English]

A headline from The Toronto Star reads, “Bank warns mortgage delinquencies could rise by more than one third as homeowners struggle to make payments.” Further, the National Post states, “Drug fail: the Liberal government’s ‘safer supply’ is fuelling a new opioid crisis.”

[Translation]

A headline in La Presse read, “Beginning of 2023 marked by an increase in crime.” That’s in Montreal.

Meanwhile, at the Liberal Party convention here in Ottawa, the Prime Minister invited Hillary Clinton and Jean Chrétien to attend so they could hear him tell the party membership that everything is just fine and dandy, thank you very much, that there are no problems in Canada, that we are an exemplary country, and we can relax and head off to party in London.

Leader, how can the government be so out of touch with reality and seemingly unaware of all the disasters that are happening, especially in recent years, in Canada?

An Hon. Senator: That’s right.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. The Journal de Montréal has just published a whole section that characterizes the federal government’s immigration goal as a trap for Quebec and an existential threat to the survival of French in America.

I personally reject this perspective, which fuels xenophobia and the fear of immigration in Quebec. That said, I don’t believe that the federal government can simply ignore these alarmist scenarios. Ottawa has the responsibility to rebut these arguments and explain its objectives to reassure people. Senator Gold, what does the federal government intend to do to explain its policies, demonstrate the benefits of immigration and reassure people?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. First of all, it should be noted that Quebec sets its own immigration targets and has exclusive authority over selecting the majority of its immigrants, and thanks to the agreement between Canada and Quebec, the government offers Quebec financial compensation to ensure the francization of newcomers. The government of Canada always respects Quebec’s jurisdiction over immigration.

Ensuring the vitality of francophone communities remains a key priority for the federal government. The government is proud to announce that it has reached its target of 4.4% francophone immigration outside Quebec. In 2022, Canada admitted over 16,371 French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec. That is a nearly 450% increase since 2015, and that is the largest number of francophone immigrants admitted to Canada outside of Quebec since data tracking began in 2006.

The government firmly believes it can grow the economy while protecting the French culture and language.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, in December 2021, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate). According to the Library of Parliament, Mr. Gerretsen is the only parliamentary secretary in Canadian history to hold this title. I’m not entirely sure what this parliamentary secretary does to assist you in your work; I don’t think he helps you prepare answers to our questions. I do know, however, that last week he made false claims about the information provided to Michael Chong about Beijing’s threats against him and his family.

Leader, last year, you told this chamber the following:

Disinformation, in its various forms, is a really serious threat to our society, to our democracy and to all Canadians.

Given these words, do you agree with the false claims made in the other place by your parliamentary secretary?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I am not in a position to comment on the claims to which you are referring. However, I can tell you that Mr. Gerretsen is someone with whom I meet regularly, and who, indeed, is serving as the parliamentary secretary, as well as serving Minister Holland in an exemplary fashion and providing an additional link between the government and our office, which we use in our work.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I will ask my first question. I won’t receive an answer, but at least the question will be on the record.

Leader, it has been widely reported that the official residence of Canada’s Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive is now formally closed, in part due to rodent infestation. In February, an answer provided to one of my written questions on the Senate Order Paper showed that the Trudeau government spent over $800,000 of taxpayers’ money trying to come up with a plan regarding what to do with 24 Sussex Drive.

The Trudeau government has had eight years and has spent over $800,000, and they still don’t have a plan. I can’t think of a more fitting symbol for the entire Trudeau government than this: Even with decaying rat carcasses in the walls, and even after spending more than the average family home costs in Canada, they still don’t know what to do.

How many more tax dollars will be spent before the Trudeau government comes forward with a plan?

Senator Martin: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): It is very regrettable, and I hope all Canadians would share the sentiment that 24 Sussex Drive has been allowed to run into such a state of disrepair that it is no longer fit for human habitation. It is unfortunate, but perhaps part of the political culture, at least in the other place, if indeed not in our country, that the previous prime ministers of both parties have been unwilling — both parties, Senator Plett, as Hansard will reveal. It is regrettable that previous governments and previous prime ministers who were aware of the deteriorating condition chose not to make investments in the ongoing maintenance of 24 Sussex for the benefit of future prime ministers. It is easy to punt the ball, because Canadians are mindful of taxpayers’ money being spent.

The Prime Minister has never lived at 24 Sussex. By the time he was elected, it was clearly in such a state, and now, some years later, we find it completely uninhabitable.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): It is very regrettable, and I hope all Canadians would share the sentiment that 24 Sussex Drive has been allowed to run into such a state of disrepair that it is no longer fit for human habitation. It is unfortunate, but perhaps part of the political culture, at least in the other place, if indeed not in our country, that the previous prime ministers of both parties have been unwilling — both parties, Senator Plett, as Hansard will reveal. It is regrettable that previous governments and previous prime ministers who were aware of the deteriorating condition chose not to make investments in the ongoing maintenance of 24 Sussex for the benefit of future prime ministers. It is easy to punt the ball, because Canadians are mindful of taxpayers’ money being spent.

The Prime Minister has never lived at 24 Sussex. By the time he was elected, it was clearly in such a state, and now, some years later, we find it completely uninhabitable.

An Hon. Senator: No —

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

Hon. Bev Busson moved second reading of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

She said: Honourable Senators, I am pleased to take the floor today to speak to Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

I’m pleased because I believe — and I hope you agree — that the goals this bill seeks to achieve go to the issue of the protection of the most vulnerable, as well as the quest by the victims of crime to have their rights considered as we strive to find the elusive balance of rights in our living Constitution.

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

The reforms relating to the National Sex Offender Registry proposed in this bill come to us with significant urgency. If Bill S-12 does not receive Royal Assent prior to October 28 of this year, courts will no longer be able to register convicted sex offenders to the National Sex Offender Registry, jeopardizing the police’s ability to investigate and prevent sexual offences.

This bill is of special interest to me as a retired police officer. Early in my career, as a female member of the RCMP, many, if not all, sexual offences in my area were referred to me for investigation and interview. Under these circumstances, one might think you would become accustomed to hearing these heartbreaking details of abuse, but you never do. Any legislation that helps to investigate and prevent these crimes and support the survivors is important.

The National Sex Offender Registry was created in 2004. It provides police with the ability to access current and reliable information on registered sex offenders, including their names, aliases, addresses and descriptions of any distinguishing physical features. Police use the registry as a key tool to identify potential suspects after a sexual offence has been committed and to monitor movements of offenders in order to prevent future sexual crimes.

The registry operates under several federal laws. The Criminal Code outlines the power of the courts to order individuals to register, determines the length of the registration period and the consequences of breaching registration requirements, among other things.

The Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA, lays out obligations of all registered offenders, which include presenting themselves in person to a registration centre every year and providing information to the police on an ongoing basis, including, for example, their address, the make and model of their vehicle and their place of work.

The other place’s Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security completed a review of SOIRA in 2009. The committee’s goal was to strengthen SOIRA as a tool for law enforcement in the face of low registration numbers due to the high degree of discretion accorded to judges and prosecutors.

In fact, many prosecutors did not bother to address the issue at all in proceedings. To remedy this, the committee recommended amending SOIRA to mandate automatic registration but allow judges to use their discretion to deviate from this rule when registration would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest. The committee recommended removing prosecutorial discretion altogether.

In 2011, the government of the day went quite a bit further than the committee’s recommendation by amending the Criminal Code to require automatic registration for all cases, without either prosecutorial or judicial discretion. This meant that registration was to occur in every case when someone was convicted of, or found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for, a designated sexual offence. These amendments allowed no exceptions in the application of the rule under any circumstances. This was one of the key issues that the Supreme Court of Canada considered in R. v. Ndhlovu. Ultimately, the court found that automatic registration in all cases was inconsistent with the Charter because it captured offenders who posed no risk of reoffending. The court concluded that this was disconnected from the purpose of the registry and thus unconstitutional.

The court suspended the effect of its decision with respect to automatic registration for one year to give Parliament an opportunity to craft a constitutionally compliant regime. Bill S-12 strives to do just that.

In the same decision, the court struck down the second element of the Criminal Code relating to the length of time for which an offender was required to register. Specifically, the court invalidated the provision requiring mandatory lifetime registration for all individuals convicted of more than one designated offence in the same proceeding. This provision was struck down immediately with retroactive effect to 2011, the date of its original inception.

In order to meet the court’s one-year deadline, we must move quickly with our study and consideration of this bill. As I noted, if a new legislative framework is not in place before October 29, 2023, the courts will no longer have the power to require sex offenders to register. This would create a dangerous gap, leaving law enforcement unable to rely on the registry for critical information that is necessary to prevent or investigate sexual crimes. We cannot allow this to happen. In this case, unfortunately, the old adage that “your urgency does not create my emergency” does not apply.

The bill proposes to retain automatic registration in two important circumstances: first, for repeat offenders; second, for those who commit child sexual offences and are sentenced to two or more years by indictment. These are two situations in which the government believes the automatic registration is justifiable as being directly related to and proportionate with the objectives of SOIRA. In this respect, these changes reflect the guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Canada and will promote public confidence in the criminal justice system’s approach to sexual offences.

In all other cases, Bill S-12 provides that registration must be ordered unless an offender can demonstrate that registration would be overly broad and grossly disproportionate. This would create a presumption of registration or, in essence, a reverse onus on the offender, which would be displaced in certain narrow circumstances where it can be justified. I note that this new regime follows the Public Safety Committee’s recommendation from their review of SOIRA in 2009.

The proposed reforms would also allow a court to order lifetime registration for individuals convicted of more than one designated offence in the same proceeding where the offences demonstrate an increased risk of recidivism. This allows courts to continue to order lifetime registration in appropriate cases, while also addressing the concerns of overreach expressed by the Supreme Court decision.

Colleagues, this brings me to the second objective of this bill, which is to strengthen the National Sex Offender Registry regime. I would like to highlight some of these proposed reforms that aim to ensure that the registry continues to be effective and efficient in law enforcement.

Bill S-12 adds to the list of offences that qualify a convicted offender for registration. Of particular note, the bill would add the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to the list. This is also called “revenge porn” or “cyberharassment” and can have devastating effects on those targeted by this crime. The bill would also target so-called sextortion by adding extortion to the list when shown that it has been committed with intent to commit a sexual crime. This is an important step towards helping police identify perpetrators of offences which are becoming more and more prevalent in the digital age.

The bill also proposes a new arrest power in the Criminal Code to address the issue of non-compliance with registration obligations. Currently, it is estimated that up to 20% of individuals with obligations related to the National Sex Offender Registry are not compliant. This is not acceptable. The only legislative mechanism to facilitate compliance with the registry under the current law is to arrest the individual and lay a charge under the Criminal Code. However, laying a charge does not necessarily result in compliance. This bill would create a compliance warrant and allow the police to seek an arrest warrant to bring a non-compliant sex offender to a registration centre to fulfill their obligations under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA. If the offender provides the required information, they will not be charged. This will give police the tools to bring offenders into compliance more effectively.

Another important change that the bill would accomplish would be to require registered sex offenders to provide police with 14 days’ advance notice prior to travelling as well as a list of the specific addresses where they will be staying during the course of their travels. This would allow the police enough time to conduct a risk assessment and notify appropriate law enforcement partners if necessary and allow the Canadian authorities to better fulfill their obligations, both domestic and international, under SOIRA.

I must tell you all that on a very recent visit to the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre, I, along with colleagues from both the Senate and the other place, heard accounts of registered offenders calling from the airport, advising of their travel plans, technically fulfilling their requirement under SOIRA but leaving no time for the police to offer effective warning to their policing partners that this potentially dangerous individual was on the way to their jurisdiction. This issue was on their wish list of changes needed and would be a welcome change to the sex offender registry regime.

This brings me to the third and equally important objective of this bill, designed to empower survivors and victims of crime through changes to the rules that govern publication bans and their right to information.

Bill S-12 proposes publication ban reforms that respond directly to calls from survivors of sexual violence, who are disproportionately women and girls. Victims deserve more agency in the criminal justice process and the ability to tell their own stories if they so choose.

The various publication ban provisions in the Criminal Code are intended to shield witnesses and victims from further harm by concealing their identity. On the one hand, a publication ban can encourage the testimony of witnesses and victims who may otherwise be fearful of coming forward and make them more likely to come forward. Some survivors and victims of crime, however, have found that publication bans have the effect of silencing or restricting them. I have been honoured to meet with victims of sexual offences who want to regain their own right to their own names. One group, called My Voice, My Choice, represented by Morrell Andrews and other survivors, put it this way:

Out of respect for the many victim-complainants who will go through the legal system to seek accountability for the harms committed against them, please remember that this is not a political issue.

We have an opportunity to be ambitious and create a better process that recognizes the inherent right of victims of sexual offences to share their stories without fear of being criminalized. It is their voice, and it should be their choice. These victims would seek consent rather than consultation in considering the publication ban, but this, I believe, is a focus for committee to consider.

Almost inconceivably, under the current system, we have seen victims charged with violating a publication ban intended for their sole protection and benefit — imagine! This is clearly unacceptable. These survivors deserve to be able to share their stories if they so choose. It’s important that it be their choice, and their choice alone. Their right to choose has been violated once by the crime itself and again by the ban, taking away their choice and their right to use their name.

In order to address this issue, Bill S-12 proposes that judges must ask prosecutors to confirm if reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the victim has been consulted on whether or not a publication ban should be imposed. This proposal is in line with Recommendation 11 of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled Improving Support for Victims of Crime.

In addition, Bill S-12 will clarify the process to modify or revoke a publication ban after one has been imposed by codifying a process that currently exists only in the common law. The bill will also ensure that publication bans are applicable to online material that may have been published before a ban was imposed. Both measures recognize that victims and survivors should benefit from their right to change their minds.

The choice to revoke or modify a publication ban should be dictated by the wishes of the victim or survivor. However, the bill imposes a residual discretion to be given to the judge to refuse such a request if it would, for example, possibly identify a second victim involved who wishes to remain anonymous. It is expected that these types of scenarios would be extremely rare and that, for the overwhelming majority of cases, a publication ban would be lifted in cases where the victim clearly does not want it in place.

There is no handbook on a good or right way to be a victim. The legislation recognizes the choice of victims and survivors and provides them with some decision-making power. Returning power to victims and survivors of sexual violence can be essential for the healing process. It can, in some victims’ minds, prevent retraumatizing these people in the criminal justice process. In others, taking control of their names and identities is essential to their path to empowerment.

It is important that we get this right. I suspect many of you have already heard from survivors working on this issue, as I have. Survivors are looking to us to fix the publication ban regime to better empower them and treat them with dignity and respect. I look forward to working with you all to ensure we achieve this delicate balance. This is an area I think we can review at committee in consultation with these survivors to see if the language can be strengthened.

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

To achieve this goal, the bill proposes several measures. First, it would require the judge to ask the prosecutor whether they have taken reasonable steps to determine whether the victim wishes to obtain this information. Second, the bill would allow victims to express an interest through their victim impact statement. Finally, the bill would require the court to provide Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board with the victim’s name and information if they have expressed a desire to receive this type of information.

Once again, this approach is respectful of the needs of victims and seeks to provide the flexibility required to obtain information at the time of their choosing. Note that this proposal received particular attention and support from the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.

To conclude, colleagues, the changes contemplated by this bill will meet an urgent need to make the laws governing the National Sex Offender Registry compliant with the Charter. At the same time, the bill will make the registry better able to accomplish its vital purpose of providing police with current and reliable information to investigate and prevent crimes of a sexual nature. It will also take the opportunity to make the criminal justice system more responsive to survivors and victims of sexual offences.

These reforms are targeted, measured and sensible. They will make a tangible difference in the prevention and investigation of some of the most difficult offences under the law and will support the rights of victims who continue to struggle to recover from these life-changing crimes committed against them.

Some may suggest that the measures do not go far enough. Others will say that they go too far. However, I submit this bill will serve to help strike the balance between those two tensions and move the pendulum in a positive direction. I urge you, colleagues, to act with exigency in getting Bill S-12 to committee, where further study and survivor consultation can take place on the record. Thank you, meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Would the senator agree to answer a question? Senator Busson, I have some experience with victims of sexual assault, particularly those who were murdered.

A few weeks ago, I was in Camrose, Alberta, where I met a family whose mother had been killed, as well as her four-year-old child, who was murdered a few hours later by a neighbour two doors down.

That neighbour was a criminal who had a lengthy record — he had already sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in the 1980s. He was in the system. He lived in an apartment building in town. In four and a half years, he changed locations four or five times; he never notified the authorities, which was part of his release conditions. What’s more, his neighbour was a police officer.

I understand that the bill will continue to add sex offenders to the registry, but does it include a mechanism to monitor these criminals once they are in the system? The problem is that, even if we add thousands of men to the registry, once they’re in the system and then released, if they aren’t monitored, they will continue to assault children and women.

Does the bill include a mechanism to monitor these dangerous men?

[English]

Senator Busson: Thank you very much, senator. I heard that story on the news, and I was incredibly touched and offended by the fact that this was a repeat offender who victimized this woman and her child.

I believe that the new provisions of the sex offender registry will empower police to do more to make sure that they track these offenders. There is provision for stricter registration and powers that allow the police to track and register offenders who are non-compliant. I do believe this would be an impetus for police to spend more time making sure these offenders are complying with their restrictions and their conditions.

[Translation]