Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I rise today as critic of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, introduced by the Honourable Marc Gold, Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Honourable senators, this bill is a response to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R. v. Ndhlovu. The court struck down the provisions requiring automatic registration of every person found guilty of or not criminally responsible for designated sexual offences. It also struck down the provision requiring that certain offenders be included, in perpetuity, in the National Sex Offender Registry.

The bill proposes three changes to the Criminal Code. First, it amends the criteria governing the automatic registration of sex offenders, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. According to the government, this amendment ensures that the National Sex Offender Registry remains operational while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Second, the bill changes the rules of law related to publication bans. Judges will have an obligation to ask the prosecutor if victims want a publication ban. The judges will also have an obligation to ask the prosecutor if victims want information about their case to be shared after sentencing.

Finally, the bill imposes certain additional obligations on sex offenders on the national registry. For example, sex offenders intending to travel abroad will have to provide notice of their intentions 14 days before their departure.

Honourable senators, while I commend the Canadian government’s initiative in responding to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision and its intention to improve victims’ rights, I do have some reservations about the scope of Bill S-12.

I question the government’s claim that it is seeking to strengthen the National Sex Offender Registry. I think this is more about ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, with no real objective of more adequately monitoring the many dangerous sexual predators on the loose, who reoffend all too often, as Canadian crime statistics show.

One of the points I take issue with is the new rules for automatic inclusion on the registry. The Trudeau government is authorizing automatic registration, with no possibility of appeal, only for repeat offenders and offenders who have committed crimes against minors. This approach seems limited to me, and seems to totally deny the reality of sexual violence against women.

According to the Research and Statistics Division, women are sexually assaulted more often: There are 37 incidents per 1,000 women compared to 5 per 1,000 men. That is seven times higher. In the Canadian territories, women were about three times more likely than men to have been sexually assaulted at least once since the age of 15. That’s about 18,000 women compared to about 6,000 men. Let’s not forget that women aged 18 to 24 are the most likely to be sexually assaulted.

I would also point out that the majority of sexual assaults are not reported to the police and that many women suffer in silence. Over the past few years, sexual assault has become an increasingly common crime in Canada. That’s why I think it’s simplistic to limit automatic registration without recourse to minors and repeat offenders. This suggests a one-dimensional interpretation of crime that does not take into account sexual violence against women, which keeps going up year after year, as I just said.

Colleagues, I will now turn to the provisions proposed in Bill S-12 relating to the rules of law on publication bans.

First, victims shouldn’t be held legally responsible for telling their own story. This issue must be addressed in Bill S-12 to guarantee that victims can freely express themselves without fear of reprisal. In March 2021, a victim in Kitchener-Waterloo was charged, prosecuted and found guilty of breaching the conditions of a publication ban for emailing a transcript of court proceedings to their family and friends. The sentence was struck down on appeal due to a technicality, but this story very clearly demonstrates that victims of crime are not considered by our justice system, and that they can be revictimized by those who are supposed to defend and protect them.

Second, the victim’s consent must be required before a publication ban is issued in their name. Many Crown attorneys impose publication bans at the start of a court case, at the first appearance of the offender, more often than not in the absence of the victim.

Therefore, victims are not informed or consulted, which fails to respect their rights to information and participation that are enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. They are simply excluded from the court decision and silenced, even though they are directly affected and should be the first to be informed.

To address this, Bill S-12 simply proposes consulting the victim, when it should be clarified that consent is necessary. Victims should have the choice to publicly share their stories if they feel it is in their best interests to do so. No one should have the right to prohibit or limit that freedom under the pretext of wanting to protect them. In cases where consent cannot be obtained for various reasons, the bill should provide that the victim be informed of the consequences of the publication ban and how it can be lifted if the victim so wishes.

In addition, colleagues, the bill should have simplified the process of lifting a publication ban, which is long and tedious. The victim shouldn’t have to go back to a judge to ask that a ban be lifted; a simplified process must be included in Bill S-12.

In May 2021, a victim from Ottawa, Morrell Andrews, asked the Crown prosecutor associated with her case for a hearing to lift the publication ban, but the prosecutor said that she wasn’t sure about the procedure or policy in effect or whether the Crown would consent to lifting the ban. After making the same request directly to the judge at the sentencing hearing, Ms. Andrews was told that the judge was no longer in a position to do so.

When a third Crown prosecutor finally asked the court to lift the publication ban, the alleged criminal’s defence lawyer opposed the request and was allowed to present arguments as to why the ban shouldn’t be lifted. That lawyer never gave her consent for a publication ban.

Is it normal for the aggressor to control the victim’s decision? That is unacceptable and Bill S-12 would perpetuate this injustice, which was criticized in Quebec by Justice Guibeault in a similar case.

In 2021, a victim from Victoria, Kelly Favreau, appeared in person before the Supreme Court of British Columbia to ask for her publication ban to be lifted. She discovered the existence of this ban four years after the end of the legal proceedings. She stated that this process again infringed on her freedom and that she felt revictimized by the justice system. The alleged perpetrator in her case was authorized to present arguments explaining why the ban should not be lifted. The victim had never consented to a publication ban.

These publication bans are supposed to be a tool to protect victims and they should never be used against them. When a victim requests the lifting of a publication ban, a process should automatically be put in place by the justice system to study the request and discharge the victim of all responsibility.

In a broader perspective, I deplore the lack of commitment by the Trudeau government to improving victims’ rights.

In Bill S-12, the government seems to have only retained a fraction of what was recommended in the report entitled Improving Support for Victims of Crime prepared by the other place’s Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It completely disregarded the progress report on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights released by the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime.

Bill S-12 shouldn’t be an opportunity for the Trudeau government to claim that it is improving victims’ rights across Canada. It hasn’t done anything for eight years, and Bill S-12 won’t do any more. First of all, the National Sex Offender Registry and improving victims’ rights are two separate issues that should be dealt with in separate bills.

The Minister of Justice needs to introduce legislation that seriously reflects the two reports I mentioned. He should also draw inspiration from my bill, Bill S-205, to do more for victims of crime.

I’m concerned by the Minister of Justice’s response to the report entitled Improving Support for Victims of Crime.

Colleagues, I’d like to quote a passage from the conclusion in the minister’s response letter. It reads as follows:

Given the nature of the Committee’s recommendations and the various agencies who have the authority to implement them, it is our intention to continue to support dialogue, discussion, and partnership-building across all levels of government on the Report’s findings.

This is an empty response from the minister, who hasn’t committed to introducing legislation that would implement the recommendations of these two reports, which, I would point out, are in no way controversial and would improve the rights of victims of crime.

In other words, Bill S-12 should have been an opportunity to strengthen the National Sex Offender Registry, to propose more stringent legislative measures against offenders, to give law enforcement more tools to better identify offenders and to enact bans on offenders being near schools, parks or other places where vulnerable people, such as children, might be.

I challenge the idea that recidivism among these people is low and remains stable. Many women and children across Canada experience sexual assault every day but don’t report it. Sexual assault is part and parcel of intimate partner violence. Over the past four years, 60% more women have been murdered in Canada, and recidivism has gone up just as much. It’s like 1 + 1 = 2.

I said as much at the beginning of my speech. I also hear about this from the many people who share their stories with me every week. I hear from women and men who tell me about their experiences, their plight, their sadness and their frustration with a justice system that fails them all too often, a system in which they have no faith. That, senators, is why they don’t report these crimes.

I would remind you, honourable senators, that the Senate recently passed Bill C-5, which allows sex offenders to serve their sentence at home rather than in prison.

Many cases were reported in Quebec after the bill was passed, and the Quebec justice minister asked the federal government to take action in the interest of protecting female victims of sexual assault or domestic violence by ensuring that offenders are not allowed to return home.

This type of measure should never have been accepted by the Senate without amendment because it only serves to accentuate victims’ lack of confidence in the justice system. We are partly to blame for the fact that many victims do not report their aggressor. How can you now tell a woman to report her sexual predator when he would now have the opportunity to serve his sentence from the comfort of his own home?

I’d also like to remind senators that the rate of level 1 sexual assault increased by 18% compared to 2020 and that the rate of sexual assault at levels 1, 2 and 3 is the highest it has been since 1996.

I’d like to share the story of a family that I met in Camrose, Alberta, on April 11. It is the story of a 29-year-old man named Cody McConnell, who lost his 24-year-old wife, Erica Busch, and his only son, Noah Lee McConnell, who was only 16 months old. We are talking about two sordid murders committed by a repeat sexual offender while unlawfully at large.

Cody McConnell and his fiancée were happy young parents, overjoyed by the arrival of their new child. They were building a new life together centred around Noah, in the joy and happiness that the arrival of a new child can bring. They had just moved into a new apartment to be closer to Cody’s work. Unfortunately, no one informed them that they had just moved next to a dangerous sexual predator.

The man was a repeat offender, with 24 criminal convictions, including a 2013 conviction in Edson for aggravated sexual assault. He had been incarcerated in a federal penitentiary before being released in 2017. While he was on release, the Edmonton Police Service issued a press release warning the public about the danger posed by this sexual predator and his risk of reoffending against a woman or child.

Even though he was registered on the National Sex Offender Registry, the offender fell off the police’s radar in 2020. No one knew where he was nor whether he was complying with his conditions. He was far from Edmonton and lived near a children’s park and a school. No one in the public justice system was concerned about this dangerous sexual predator anymore.

Ten days after the family moved, on September 16, 2021, when Cody came home from work, there was no news from his wife, his apartment was empty and there was no sign of his wife or child.

A few hours later, after conducting an investigation, the police found the lifeless bodies of Erica and their only son Noah, who, as I said, was 16 months old. Both were murdered by this serial sex offender who had been left without supervision.

This tragedy never should have happened. It is the failure of an entire system and, unfortunately, this is not the only case in Canada. I could provide dozens of examples of other cases.

Does Bill S-12 include measures in the event that a sexual predator doesn’t inform the authorities when they move? The answer is no.

Does Bill S-12 include measures to convict a sexual predator who doesn’t provide their new address and who moves to a location near a school or park? The answer is no.

Could Bill S-12 have prevented this tragedy? The answer is no.

The bill does provide for an arrest warrant to be issued if a justice is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has contravened any of sections 4 to 5.1 of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. However, there’s no provision for the supervision of a sexual offender over an extended period of time to ensure that they abide by the conditions of their order and to ascertain if a sexual offender has moved without informing the authorities.

Honourable senators, one day Canada will have to recognize a fundamental principle that I have subscribed to since the murder of my daughter Julie by a repeat offender who was unlawfully at large. I will share it with you.

When a citizen who has repeatedly committed serious crimes is released and is considered at high risk of reoffending, they can no longer have the same freedoms enjoyed by honest law-abiding citizens who respect others.

One day, a government that really cares about Canadians’ safety, a government that truly wants to take action, will recognize this fundamental principle of social justice and the right to protection. Unfortunately, neither this bill nor this government will make that happen.

In conclusion, honourable senators, this bill is entirely lacking in vision. The government is merely responding to a Supreme Court ruling because it is compelled to act and to do so by the October 28, 2023, deadline.

Earlier I told you about a family that experienced an appalling tragedy that should never have happened. This is not the only case of its kind. In the interest of public safety, the Trudeau government must do its homework and introduce a bill that contains much tougher measures against dangerous sexual predators and repeat offenders.

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs must take the time to study this bill in depth and make the necessary changes to restore the faith of victims of crime, families and the general population in our justice and public safety systems.

Thank you.