Some Hon. Senators: Now.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on the length of the bell?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Dupuis, did you want to ask a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Ringuette, you have 55 seconds left.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

The Hon. the Speaker: Those in favour of the motion, please say “yea.”

An Hon. Senator: 45 minutes.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Will Senator Ringuette take a question?

We’ve had a good discussion on the issue of omnibus bills. You’ve said that this should be the first item, or we should deal with it pretty soon. I’ll note a few ideas that have been put forward: Senator Tannas suggested that he would launch an inquiry. Senator Shugart suggested that the National Finance Committee should review it. There has been a suggestion for a motion. Senator Cordy talked about having a deadline for when we would accept the bills.

Are these the types of items that you think we can take to reach a conclusion and to make our voice clear in order to let the House know how we want to proceed on omnibus bills going forward?

The Hon. the Speaker: We will return at 5:52 p.m. Call in the senators.

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Tannas negatived on the following division:

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, with amendments and observations), presented in the Senate on June 20, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker: I think the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

Hon. Brent Cotter moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, this is a report on Bill S-12, which proposes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. It is an important bill which is intended to respond to certain provisions of the Criminal Code that were declared invalid by the Supreme Court of Canada and certain other matters of public importance, particularly to victims of sexual crimes.

Your committee actively considered the bill, received four briefs over the course of five meetings and 12 hours’ deliberation and heard from 15 witnesses, including the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General; witnesses from the law enforcement community; witnesses responsible for the sex offender registry; representatives of women’s organizations, victims’ organizations; and victims of sexual violence themselves. The testimony was impressive and powerful and in some cases moving.

As a preamble to this report, I note that this bill was introduced in the Senate, somewhat unusually for this type of bill. It was sponsored by Senator Busson; the critic is Senator Boisvenu.

One of the advantages of this bill coming to us first — turning us, in a way, into a chamber of sober first thought — was that there was a greater degree of freedom and openness in the development of amendments to the bill, including amendments from the government itself, through the good graces of Senator Busson. Many amendments were, in fact, presented by the sponsor with the support of the government. It was as though Minister Lametti was outside our committee room, listening to the witnesses and identifying ways in which he could support a good bill being made better. I don’t think he was actually there, but that’s the way I wanted to think about it.

Senators listened to the witnesses with care and developed amendments responsive to the concerns and ideas advanced in the committee hearings and in the briefs submitted.

Next, let me speak a bit about the bill and about the amendments to the bill that were adopted by the committee. The first is a bit of repetition of remarks at second reading. I’ll try to be succinct, but this is an important bill not just in what it does but in the statements it makes about the place of respect for and agency of victims in the criminal justice process.

A central dimension of Bill S-12 responds to the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2022 decision in R. v. Ndhlovu, which held that two provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada — that relate to the registration of sex offenders in the National Sex Offender Registry — are unconstitutional. Since 2011, the Criminal Code has required the mandatory registration in this registry of anyone who has committed a sexual offence, and it required anyone found guilty of more than one sexual offence to be registered in the registry for life.

The Supreme Court struck down the provision requiring mandatory lifetime registration for repeat offenders with immediate and retroactive effect. The provision relating to mandatory registration for all sex offenders was declared invalid, but the effect of that declaration was delayed by one year to give Parliament time to respond to that decision with legislation. The provision will become invalid in October 2023 unless Parliament responds effectively.

Bill S-12 amends the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act in seeking, in particular, to address the constitutional issues, but it also introduces some other provisions.

With respect to the registration of sex offenders in the national registry, serious child sex offenders and repeat sexual offenders will continue to be subject to mandatory registration. I should say that the nature of this registry is not quite like the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, which you may be more familiar with. This registry is one that is available to police to access in conducting investigations of potentially similar crimes and, I think in some circumstances, to prevent crimes. It is a fairly substantial registry that maintains a significant amount of information about sex offenders, and it is required to be updated; that is, sex offenders are required to submit to provide additional information to keep the registry, including their whereabouts and the like, current.

I mentioned that sex offenders and repeat sexual offenders are required to be mandatorily registered. All other sex offenders will be subject to a presumption of registration in the registry. Certain offenders may be able to rebut this presumption of registration if they can satisfy certain criteria and demonstrate that they do not pose a public risk. In those cases, a judge has the discretion to decide whether to order registration or not. These provisions of the bill — the ones related to the rules around registration and some moderation of the requirement — were adopted by the committee without amendment.

Bill S-12 also seeks to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to victims, including by providing them with opportunities to have their wishes considered when courts impose, vary or lift publication bans that protect their identity. Under Bill S-12, the victims will have the opportunity to indicate if they want to receive ongoing information about the offender after sentencing as well.

I think you will appreciate that publication bans were put in place — fairly aggressively — with the view of protecting the victim and their privacy from broadly based disclosure, but this bill tries to moderate and be more responsive to the interest of the victims. I’ll focus the remainder of my remarks on this aspect of the bill, as well as the amendments made by the committee to its various provisions. In these remarks, I will not take you through the details of the support for the amendments — other than to say they were generally supported, or urged upon us, by witnesses and their submissions. Modifications were made to these publication bans, particularly by the committee.

Clause 2 and clause 3 of the bill focus on this: The first raises the issue of the scope of the publication bans. The Criminal Code currently provides for a publication ban on information that could identify a victim or witness of a sexual offence, and states that the information cannot be published, broadcast or transmitted in any way.

The original Bill S-12 expanded this publication ban to state that the protected information could also not be “otherwise made available.” The committee removed this addition. The relevant Criminal Code section, then, remains essentially unchanged. Committee members were concerned that the phrase “otherwise made available” was too broad, and could even retroactively capture publications that predate a ban, such as information contained in news archives.

The second dimension of the publication ban in these amendments focus on victim input and information. I think these are critical in the way they try to better respect the wishes of victims. The Criminal Code currently requires a judge or justice of the peace, at the first reasonable opportunity, to inform the victim or underage witness of the right to apply for a publication ban. Clause 2 and clause 3 of the bill amended the Criminal Code to require a judge or a justice of the peace — who orders a publication ban — to inform the victim or witness that they are subject to a publication ban, and that they can apply to vary or revoke the ban. The witness or victim must be informed as soon as it is feasible.

The original bill also required a judge or justice of the peace, before ordering a publication ban — the words are important here — to inquire if the prosecutor had taken steps to consult with the victim before applying for the ban. The committee did not feel that this was a strong enough statement of the victim’s agency with respect to the victim’s position regarding the imposition of the ban. This is important for victims and witnesses because if a publication ban is imposed, it applies to them and severely limits their ability, if they wish to do so, to speak about the case or the experience.

Accordingly, the committee amended the bill to require a judge or justice of the peace to do the following: If the victim or witness is present, they must be asked directly if they wish to have a publication ban imposed, and not just be consulted; and if the victim or witness is not present, the prosecutor must be asked if they have determined whether the victim or witness wishes to have the publication ban imposed.

The amended provisions also now require a prosecutor to inform the victim or witness about the following: when a publication ban is imposed, the effect of the ban, the circumstances under which the information can be disclosed and how to avoid contravening the publication ban. The prosecutor must also inform the witness or victim of their right to revoke or vary the order. The prosecutor must then inform the judge or justice of the peace when they have satisfied this duty.

I hope you will feel that this raises the sense of agency and control over a matter of great importance to victims and witnesses in these circumstances, and that it is a good deal less deferential to the decision-making process of both prosecutors and judges.

Another dimension of this, which is important, is the potential vulnerability of people who might violate the publication ban, and this would be a criminal hardship that would focus, most likely, on the victim or witness. The flip side of publication bans is the potential for criminal liability imposed on people who violate the publication ban, and, in some cases, it feels like being put through the criminal justice mill twice.

The bill provided a degree of protection for victims and witnesses in this regard. The committee expanded this protection by amending the bill so that the victim or witness would not be criminally liable for breaching their own publication ban, as long as they did not intentionally or recklessly reveal the identity of another person protected under the publication ban. Similarly, a publication ban does not apply when a victim, witness or justice system participant discloses information but does not intend for it to be shared publicly.

There is also a dimension of these provisions relating to how one goes about varying or revoking a publication ban in the future. The original bill stated that the victim or witness could apply to the court to have a publication ban varied or removed, and the court was then required to hold a hearing. The committee amended this provision to facilitate the process for the victim or witness who wishes to have a publication ban varied or revoked. The amended bill introduces that obligation on the prosecutor. The amended bill by committee requires a prosecutor, when requested by a victim or witness, to apply to vary or revoke the order on their behalf, as soon as feasible, although it’s also the case that a victim or witness could still make that application on their own if they wish.

Furthermore, a court must vary or revoke the publication ban as requested, again strengthening the agency for victims and witnesses, unless it could affect the privacy interests of another person who is also protected by the publication ban, and, in that case, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the publication ban should be varied or lifted.

It is important in this context to note that the accused is not considered to be one of the people protected by the ban. The amended bill specifies that the accused cannot make submissions relating to the lifting or revoking of the publication ban. This, in a way, is pretty obvious since the purpose of the publication ban is to protect the privacy interests of victims and witnesses, not the accused. The only part involving the accused is that they’re entitled to be informed if the ban has been lifted, revoked or varied.

Finally, with respect to another clause — clause 5, on publication bans, again, and criminal liability — returning to the issue of criminal liability for the breach of a publication ban, the committee also amended clause 5 of the bill to specify that a victim or witness should not be prosecuted for breaching their own publication ban, unless they knowingly breached the order and, in doing so, revealed information that could identify another person protected by the ban and a warning would not be sufficient in the circumstances.

It’s fair to say at this point that the committee has enriched the respect that the criminal law will show for victims and witnesses in these often very traumatic and life-altering circumstances for victims and witnesses.

Lastly, on the publication ban point, a new clause was —

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill, as amended, be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Busson, bill, as amended, placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Cotter, are you asking for more time?

Senator Cotter: Two more minutes, if I may.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill, as amended, be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Busson, bill, as amended, placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). This bill is a necessary and urgent step to protect the lives and safety of Canadians, especially women and other marginalized groups who are disproportionately affected by gun violence.

I would like to thank Senator Yussuff for sponsoring this bill, and Senator Coyle, the Independent Senators Group’s legislative lead, for her work on this bill.

[Translation]

I want to begin with a story. It is a story that many of you know very well, one that we need to tell over and over again when we deal with issues like those raised by Bill C-21.

On December 6, 1989, engineering students at École Polytechnique in Montreal were studying. At around 5 p.m., a 25-year-old man, later identified as Marc Lépine, entered the building. He was dressed in a military uniform and was carrying a concealed Ruger Mini-14, a lightweight semi-automatic rifle that he had bought at a local sporting goods store three weeks earlier.

[English]

After spending an hour in the lobby, Lépine made his way to the second floor of the building, where he intruded on a classroom of about 60 students, women and men alike.

Forcing the men to leave, he proclaimed to hate feminists, and at 5:10 p.m., he opened fire. Quickly, he left the classroom and shot numerous women as he made his way to the ground floor and to the third floor, where he intruded into another classroom.

Having taken the lives of 14 women and injuring 10 others and 4 men, Lépine fired his last shot at 5:29 p.m., ending his own life.

That day, Lépine left behind him the grieving families and friends of those he killed. Among the confusion that ensued, Lépine was deemed insane by the press and professionals, who chose not to focus on the gender of Lépine’s victims.

The horrific event has become etched in the psyche of Canadians, sparking a national debate on gun control and violence against women. However, it also revealed how much work still needs to be done to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

That is why I believe we need to study Bill C-21. It introduces several measures that aim to reduce the risk of firearm-related violence and death in Canada. Honourable senators, despite this tragic incident, violence against women remains a persistent challenge in Canada.

In 2018, around 600 incidents of police-reported intimate partner violence involved firearms, up from 401 in 2013. In 2020, Public Safety Canada stated that women accounted for almost 8 in 10 victims of intimate partner violence. Furthermore, a 2022 Statistics Canada report revealed that women and girls are disproportionately affected by gun violence, as are visible minorities, LGBTQ2 people, children and youth, lower-income families, those living in poverty and people in northern and remote communities.

Bill C-21 is a safety bill which aims to keep Canadians safe from gun violence. No single solution is ever perfect, but there are measures we can take to mitigate risks of injury or death by firearm.

As you know, gun violence has been on the rise in Canada this past decade. Statistics Canada reported that in 2013, 26% of all homicides involved a firearm. By 2020, that number had risen to 37%.

A 2021 Statistics Canada study revealed a woman in Canada is killed by an intimate partner approximately every six days. The Canadian Women’s Foundation also found that access to a firearm is the best predictor that domestic violence will turn lethal.

Bill C-21 seeks to address intimate partner violence and gender-based violence by enacting red flag and yellow flag laws. The red flag provision would enable anyone to make an application to a provincial court judge for an emergency weapons prohibition that would require the immediate removal, within 24 hours, of firearms from an individual who may pose a danger to themselves or others. This provision is further strengthened by the applicant’s ability to apply for a limitation on access order if the respondent has access to someone else’s firearms.

In such a situation, the judge can decide to immediately remove firearms from that individual as well. The temporary prohibition would last 30 days. However, a longer prohibition is possible — up to five years if a judge decides that there are reasonable grounds to deem that the firearm owner continues to pose a risk to their safety or the safety of others.

Furthermore, the bill protects the safety of red flag applicants by allowing judges to close red flag hearings to the public and media, seal court documents for up to 30 days or remove identifying information for any period of time that the judge deems necessary, including on a permanent basis.

The yellow flag provision is an administrative process through the Chief Firearms Officer. It allows any member of the public, including medical professionals, to notify a Chief Firearms Officer of a situation or behaviour that may affect someone’s firearms licence eligibility. If the Chief Firearms Officer determines that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is no longer eligible to have a firearm licence, they will suspend the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for up to 30 days while conducting an investigation.

If through the investigation the Chief Firearms Officer decides that the individual is no longer eligible to hold a gun licence, they will issue a revocation and the firearm owner will need to surrender all firearms to the Chief Firearms Officer, firearms officers or a peace officer within 24 hours of notification.

These provisions, though not perfect, are well-received by a majority of women’s organizations who foresee positive impacts on reducing gender-based violence, intimate partner violence and family violence in Canada.

Senators, these are good provisions, but there is still an issue that I have in mind. The government has great laws, and there are many laws for violence against women in this country, but there are no resources to prosecute them, and some violence that is on the books has had no prosecutions at all. So I urge the committee that will be studying this bill to ask: What resources will be provided? Otherwise, the red and yellow flags will mean nothing if the government is not willing to give resources.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I believe that all senators will agree that armed violence is a real and urgent problem. However, some may disagree on how to solve this problem.

[English]

Bill C-21 plans to enhance background checks and further expand the $250‑million fund to address root causes and social determinants of gun crime such as poverty, racism, mental illness and gang involvement. This will help prevent crime before it happens, and offers positive alternatives and opportunities for vulnerable youth. I ask the committee to study whether this money will really be applied to what it is set out to, and how it will be applied.

Nevertheless, there has been a sufficient amount of misinformation and disinformation spread about this bill, which has caused fear among firearms owners. However, I would be remiss if I did not speak to the valid criticisms and weaknesses of the bill. I hope these issues will be comprehensively studied in committee.

To start, there is a widespread misconception that the main purpose of Bill C-21 is to target lawful firearms owners, including hunters, and that it does not focus on criminal activity and gang members who tend to use illegal arms. Indeed, the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal claimed that 95% of handguns used in violent crimes come from the black market, and that there’s a strong correlation between the drug trade and firearm violence. This is something that needs to be studied at the committee stage.

This leads to a second point that Parliament should be addressing the U.S.-Canada gun trafficking problem. Indeed, illegal guns often arrive in Canada by boat, train or drones, which is why we should make more resources available that enable border service officers to patrol our borders between our official border crossings.

[Translation]

Third, some have said that Bill C-21 will have negative repercussions on sport shooting and airsoft, which have nothing to do with the increase in crime.

Finally, some maintain that our government should invest more money and resources into mental health, because some of our young people are being radicalized or joining gangs for several reasons.

[English]

Honourable senators, I believe these concerns should all be studied in committee, and I call on those who study this bill to take these issues seriously.

I will close this speech with another very sad incident that is very close to my heart and to my faith. I’ve had the possibility to go to the Quebec mosque in Quebec City many times, from the second day this incident happened. The last time I visited this mosque was with the Human Rights Committee, and I had the privilege of meeting Imam Boufeldja Benabdallah of the Quebec mosque last summer when we took part in the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights’ study on Islamophobia.

He had a kind smile and an open mind. He welcomed us into the mosque where a nightmare had taken place to the congregation and held a service in our presence. On that day, the imam took us to the main praying hall. Slowly, we were shown where his fellow members — his brothers in faith — were shot and killed in 2017 by Alexandre Bissonnette.

We were told that six men had tried to cram themselves in a small opening in the wall to protect themselves from bullets. We were told that someone had died in the corner and someone else on the ground. These victims had families, wives and children, and one man had not seen his mother for six years, and she had just come from Gabon.

When I first went there and saw that woman who just saw her son for two days before he was shot, I will never forget that. That was the deep and profound tension in the air — fear, anger, pain, devastation mixed with a sense of dignity and even hope.

During our visit to the mosque, a man stood up and asked a question. I still think about that question often. I have tried to answer it myself ever since. This man asked us — senators — how our visit would be any different from the previous ones, and how our hands would be different than those he shook last month.

May I have five more minutes? I have one page of my speech left.