SoVote

Context: Committee Evidence - JUST-75 (JUST) - Oct/3/23

05:13:36 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Mr. Moore, this is where you and I will differ in terms of perceptions. I believe that Bill C-5—and I was the parliamentary secretary at the time that was implemented—was meant to do multiple things, including addressing delays in the court system that were being pointed out by the Supreme Court in R. v. Jordan. It addressed things like reverse onus on bail for intimate partner violence. That is something that we not only believe in as a government but have doubled down on in terms of expanding the scope of reverse onus provisions in the current bail reform bill, Bill C-48. What it also did was entrench certain principles about bail that codified Supreme Court jurisprudence. With respect to Bill C-5, Mr. Moore, again I will categorically disagree with you. Bill C-5 was about easing the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black persons in the Canadian justice system, in the criminal justice system. The effect of some of the mandatory minimum penalties that were enacted by the previous government under Stephen Harper was to overincarcerate indigenous folks on a sixfold basis and Black persons on a twofold basis. On a day on which we've elected, for the first time in Canadian history, a Black Speaker of the House of Commons, I'm going to stand by our efforts to reduce racism in our system and stand by the efforts to reduce overrepresentation.

241 words

Hon. Rob Moore

05:14:47 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Minister, thank you. The decision that we're addressing here.... The Supreme Court stated that someone who is on the registry, an offender, is eight times more likely than the general population to commit a sexual offence. That is why a mandatory listing in the sex offender registry of those who are convicted of sexual offences and a mandatory lifetime listing of those who have multiple offences are so essential. It was a 5-4 decision. In the dissent, it says: It is also clear that it cannot be reliably predicted at the time of sentencing which offenders will reoffend. In the face of that uncertain risk, Parliament was entitled to cast a wide net. Have you given consideration to casting a wider net? What has been carved out in Bill S-12 are some fairly narrow provisions that would result in mandatory listing in the sex offender registry when previously any conviction for a sexual offence was listed. Have you considered casting a wider net?

166 words

S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act

The Chair

05:15:57 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

We're at six minutes. We're out of time, I'm afraid.

13 words

Hon. Arif Virani

05:16:00 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Would you like me to respond to that?

8 words

The Chair

05:16:02 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I'm going to ask Madam Dhillon to start, and I'm going to leave it for her to decide if she would like you to answer that question.

29 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.)

05:16:09 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to congratulate you on your new role. It's my first time speaking in committee in this session. As well, to our minister, thank you so much for coming. Welcome to committee. It's nice to see you here. You may want to briefly answer the previous question or I can ask my own.

61 words

Hon. Arif Virani

05:16:29 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I would be happy to. Thank you, Ms. Dhillon. First of all, to Mr. Moore, the important takeaway from Bill S-12 is that the vast majority of individuals will remain registered. That's the first point. I say that because there's an automatic registration in two categories, and for everyone else you're going to get registered unless you can demonstrate a rebuttable presumption why you shouldn't because it would be overbroad or grossly disproportionate. That's important. Have we given it careful thought? Absolutely, we have, but the most reflection that I gave to the bill was simply the fact that the Supreme Court said, in its majority view, that lacking any judicial discretion is a violation of the charter under section 7, because it's overbroad and doesn't meet the minimal impairment test under section 1. Therefore, we had to make changes, and we've carefully tailored those changes in a manner that I believe conforms to the charter. Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.

169 words

S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act

Ms. Anju Dhillon

05:17:24 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Minister. You spoke about something incredibly important that is long overdue. It's sextortion, which destroys lives not just in that moment but forever. It creates chaos in somebody's life and oftentimes leaves them in a very dark, negative place. I would like you to please tell us if these crimes have impacted Canadians in recent years and how this reform will help Canadians in cases of sextortion. Thank you.

73 words

Hon. Arif Virani

05:18:01 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Ms. Dhillon. That's a really important question, because it shows us, as parliamentarians, demonstrating that we're supple enough to respond to the needs as they exist right now. Sextortion is a very problematic situation that's affecting children and young people and also adults around this country. The statistics that I've been shown from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Ms. Dhillon, indicate that they've received 3,400 reports of sextortion in the last year alone. That's 65 children victimized per week. That is unacceptable. Again, I speak to you as a father as well as a parliamentarian and the Minister of Justice that, with the advent of the Internet and smart phones, a lot of things happen, and sometimes unbeknownst to us. The fact that people are being made vulnerable in this manner is problematic. The acute response in this legislation is that now those who must be registered on the sex offender registry will include offences such as sextortion itself. That's really critical. There is a rebuttable presumption, so you will be included unless you can demonstrate why you shouldn't be. That will help keep those kids safe.

199 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon

05:19:05 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Talk to us a little bit about why it would be detrimental if the deadline of October 28 were not respected.

21 words

Hon. Arif Virani

05:19:17 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I'll just say, Ms. Dhillon, that this deadline is looming. It's at the end of the month. It would be detrimental, because the law enforcement community has reached out to me about bail, and we've responded with the bail package. They've reached out to me with respect to the sex offender registry. They've said that this registry provides them information that allows them to keep Canadians safe, particularly from sexual predators. If by October 28 we do not have royal assent on this bill, we will lose the ability to add names to that registry. That is detrimental, particularly when you consider the staggering statistic I put before you that between 40 and 70 individuals every week are being added to this registry. It shows you the number of sexual offences that are being committed in Canada. It also shows you the need to make sure that we have a database of information to help law enforcement keep people safe from repeat offenders.

168 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon

05:20:06 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much. Can you talk to us quickly about the compliance warrant? What would it allow? How has law enforcement reacted to this? Thank you.

27 words

Hon. Arif Virani

05:20:14 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

The compliance warrant is an interesting one. The law enforcement community reached out and said that they not only want this registry, but they also want the ability to act on the registry. They said it's sometimes difficult to get offenders to provide the registry with their information or to update their information. Bill S-12 will create a situation that authorizes the police to seek a warrant to arrest an offender who is non-compliant with their registry obligation and to bring them to a reporting centre to facilitate compliance. That's an important step. We don't want to have a situation where people are out there believing they can just flout the law. This compliance warrant measure allows us to provide an additional enforcement tool for law enforcement to maintain the integrity of the registry itself.

140 words

S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act

Ms. Anju Dhillon

05:21:02 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. I think I'm out of time.

9 words

The Chair

05:21:03 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much. Monsieur Fortin is next.

8 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

05:21:07 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Minister. I too would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Minister of Justice. The members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be pleased to work with you. As you mentioned, we are at the pre-study phase with Bill S‑12, because it has not yet been referred back to us. I agree that it's a good idea to proceed in this manner. You were right to point out that the end-of-the-month deadline set by the Supreme Court of Canada would mean that it would no longer be possible to add sex offenders to the national sex offender registry, and that this would be problematic. We agree. However, can you explain why the bill was only introduced in the Senate on April 26, 2023, when the Supreme Court decision dates back to October 28, 2022, almost a year ago? That means there were six months between the time the Supreme Court ruled that the act had to be amended and the introduction of the bill. Can you explain why it took so long, Minister?

195 words

S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act

Hon. Arif Virani

05:22:27 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Fortin, for your kind words and for your very important question. In order to prepare the bill and respond to the Supreme Court of Canada, many groups and organizations had to be consulted. Indeed, we consulted 31 such groups, including police organizations and Crown lawyers, representatives of victims groups, women's groups, defence lawyers groups, child protection groups and groups representing the 2SLGBTQ and other communities. All of these consultations took time. Time was also needed to draft a bill that would not only respond to the Supreme Court, but also broaden the application of current statutes to address issues like sextortion and the non-consensual sharing of a person's images. This was something we added after consulting people.

125 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

05:23:47 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense to me. I'm sure that all kinds of consultations are needed before a bill like this one can be drafted. However, while everyone around the table agrees that it was urgent, it took six months to get around to introducing the bill. The Senate nevertheless managed to do some relatively rapid work on it because the bill was adopted on third reading on June 22, just prior to the summer recess. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights could have been consulted during the summer to speed things up, but it wasn't. My understanding is that it had to go through the House and that this was complicated. What I'm personally most unhappy about is how long it took for the bill to be introduced after everyone across Canada had become aware of the fact that there was an urgent situation. The Supreme Court told us what had to be changed, but six months were spent on consultations. Your explanation strikes me as credible, but I'm not sure that it's enough. In terms of credibility, I think the government was negligent for the first six months. And now, there's a push for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to speed things up and set things right. I'm displeased about it and just wanted to point that out to you. Having said that, as I have approximately two minutes left, I'd like you to explain something to me. You mentioned in your opening address that there might be a conflict of interest if Crown attorneys were to be required, as stated in the bill, to inform victims of the consequences of a publication ban and of any failure to comply with the ban. I find this conflict of interest rather surprising and wonder whether you could take a minute to explain to me why this is a conflict of interest. Isn't the Crown attorney supposed to be making sure that everyone understands what's going on? I had always understood that the Crown attorney had nothing to prove. That being the case, I don't understand why there would be a conflict of interest. I'll let you explain it and even perhaps suggest an alternative solution.

389 words

Hon. Arif Virani

05:25:48 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Okay. There are several aspects involved in answering this, Mr. Fortin. When we talk about conflicts of interest, it's one thing to explain what a publication ban is to a victim or to someone in court, but quite another matter to explain that if you do this or that, you might find that you have failed to comply with the ban. In such situations, the attorney is there not only to provide objective and neutral information, but also to give advice to the victim. It's the same office, and possibly even the same attorney, who may be there during the trial, if there is one, with the same people. Perhaps Mr. Caputo, Mr. Brock or Mr. Mendicino, who have experience in this area, could add further details. In connection with your first point, I would say that in instances where lifting a publication ban is desired in a particular set of circumstances, such as empowering a victim, the situation is rather sensitive. Publication bans are often used to protect the interests of victims, while ensuring that they are empowered and able to make their own decisions. To address contexts like these, more time was needed to draft the bill.

205 words

The Chair

05:27:24 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much, Mr. Fortin. Next up is Mr. Garrison.

12 words

SoVote

House Committee