SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Hon. Arif Virani

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 3, 2023
  • 04:58:41 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to begin by congratulating you on being elected chair of this committee. This is my first time here as the minister, but it's not my first time here on the committee. I'm a regular. I'd like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to be here to discuss Bill S‑12, which proposes a series of reforms to the national sex offender registry and to the Criminal Code provisions pertaining to publication bans. The publication ban reforms would give victims of criminal offences more autonomy with respect to publication bans and enhance their right to ongoing information. The reforms with respect to sex offenders would give more teeth to the national sex offender registry and be consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's 2022 decision in R. v. Ndhlovu. I am very pleased to see the committee recognize the urgency of this issue and begin a prestudy of this legislation. I thank you sincerely for doing that and taking that initiative. As you know, we are under a court-imposed deadline. If the legislation before us does not receive royal assent by October 28, sex offenders will no longer be able to be added to the sex offender registry. That is an outcome that I believe none of us wants to see happen. I'll begin by discussing the reforms in this legislation that have been proposed by the victims and survivors of sexual assault and also by their advocates. I'm very grateful for the lived experiences that victims and survivors shared with my office as Bill S-12 was being developed. Very much thanks to their leadership, Bill S-12 will help craft a criminal justice system that better serves the needs of victims in Canada. Bill S‑12 advocates a victim-oriented approach that empowers victims. It accomplishes this by requiring that courts and attorneys verify whether victims wish to be protected by a publication ban, and if so, that they be informed of the impact of a publication ban and their right to request its revocation or alteration. Bill S-12 aims to eliminate the threat of prosecution for individuals when they share their own identifying information. Victims and survivors should not be prosecuted for telling their own stories. That is fundamental to the conception and understanding of this bill. I want to thank committee members for showing leadership on the subject of publication bans. I know that this issue was examined by this very committee during last year’s victims of crime study, and many people in this room right now were participants in that study. I also know that many of you have met with and listened to members of a group call My Voice, My Choice, as well as other advocates. Support for these reforms, thankfully, crosses partisan lines. We now have the opportunity to get this package across the finish line in a timely manner that respects the deadlines imposed by the Supreme Court. Upon further review of Bill S-12, the Senate made amendments to the publication ban reforms to respond to the concerns it heard from witnesses during the bill’s study. While these Senate amendments have generally led to a more robust bill, I am concerned about some of the amendments and would like to draw your attention to two of them. First, an amendment was made by the Senate 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. While I appreciate the objective of a change of that nature, it does raise serious questions about prosecutorial independence and conflicts of interest. Some of the very Crown attorneys who would be providing that advice would be the same individuals who would ultimately be handling a prosecution. I am very conscious of the fact that in this committee we have no less than three former prosecuting Crown attorneys, and I'm sure they may share some of the concerns that I have with respect to this proposed Senate amendment. In fact, I have already received correspondence from some provincial attorneys general raising this very concern. Second, I am also concerned with the amendment to clarify what is or is not captured by a publication ban. As amended by the Senate, Bill S-12 currently specifies that individuals who are protected by a publication ban may disclose information about themselves as long as they do not identify another person who is protected by the same publication ban. The problem here is that sometimes there are victims or witnesses who are subject to different publication bans and who still may wish to keep their identities private. I want to move now to other components of Bill S-12, so I'm moving away from the Senate amendments. Another victim- and survivor-centric element of Bill S-12 relates to information that is received from the courts. Under the Victims Bill of Rights, victims can decide whether they want to stay informed about all case developments, like appeals or parole. They can also decide that they do not want to be contacted about the case. They have the right to move on and to not have to hear about it again. Bill S-12 significantly simplifies and streamlines the process for registering for information by requiring judges to ask victims their preferences and by making receipt of ongoing information a simple box to tick on a form. I am grateful to the advocates who brought this issue to light, and would like to emphasize that this measure is a key priority of the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. I now want to outline the measures in Bill S-12 that relate to the national sex offender registry. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ndhlovu, Bill S-12 proposes to replace automatic registration with a presumption of registration, meaning that an order to comply with the registry must be imposed in all cases involving a sexual offence, unless the offender can show that registration would be grossly disproportionate or overbroad. However, the bill would retain automatic registration for two categories. The first is repeat sexual offenders. The second is those who commit sexual offences against children and are sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment, on indictment, even in the case of a first-time offender in that category. Restricting automatic registration to these situations reflects current social science evidence that these categories of individuals are at a higher risk to reoffend in a sexual manner. This responds directly to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ndhlovu that automatic registration is only justified for individuals who pose an elevated risk of reoffending. The court has called for the tailoring of this provision, and that is the tailoring we have done. It is my view that including these individuals on the registry will always be related and proportionate to the objectives of the registry. Sexual offences against children are despicable crimes that I condemn in the strongest terms, and I presume all parliamentarians would condemn in the strongest terms. I'm speaking to you not just as the Minister of Justice or a member of Parliament from Toronto, but as the father of two young boys. In addition, we know that repeat sexual offenders—that's the second category of those who would be automatically registered—are five to eight times more likely to reoffend than individuals who have non-sexual criminal histories. There is another piece in the Ndhlovu decision that relates to mandatory lifetime registration. What Bill S-12 proposes to do is to allow a court to order lifetime registration for certain individuals. We are talking about people convicted of more than one designated offence in the same proceeding, where the offences demonstrate a pattern of behaviour that shows an increased risk of sexual recidivism. This addresses the concerns of the Supreme Court, while allowing lifetime registration in appropriate cases. In addition to the proposals resulting from R. v. Ndhlovu, there are also some amendments whose purpose is to strengthen the offender registration regime as a whole and to make it more effective. These amendments include a requirement for registered sex offenders to give prior notice of at least 14 days for any travel, as well as a specific destination address. This gives the police more time and information to assess risks, and where required, to alert their international partners responsible for enforcing the act of an individual's travel plans. Other key amendments include the addition of more offences for which an individual could be required to register, including the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and sextortion, and a new arrest warrant to address non-compliance with an offender’s registration obligations. What I'm saying is that we not only revisited the issue of the sex offender registry, making it compliant, in my view, with the Supreme Court's guidance, but we are actually improving the registry, including the number of offences that would be captured by the registry. The new arrest warrant is critical from a law enforcement perspective. Again, this is not a partisan issue but an issue that all of us take seriously. What I would emphasize to you is that many stakeholders have talked to my office about this bill, including law enforcement stakeholders such as the RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. What I will say to you is that they've said they would like the sex offender registry to be maintained. They see it as a very valuable tool for fighting crime, including for repeat sexual offenders. What they said to me—which was quite shocking, and I'll share it with you—is that the stats vary on a weekly basis. Between 46 and 75 times per week in Canada, names are added to the sex offender registry. That is quite staggering, but it would be more staggering to lose the ability to do that and keep Canadians safe. I will conclude by saying that I'm convinced all of the reforms proposed in the bill would strengthen the national sex offender registry, comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and make the criminal justice system more responsive to the needs of victims of crime. I hope that all parties in this committee and all parties in the chamber can work together to pass this legislation in the coming weeks, since time is of the essence. Thank you, Madam Chair.
1795 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:11:24 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Moore, for that question. Thank you for the work you've been doing on this committee for many years. What I'd say to you is that there is a distinct problem with safety and crime in Canada right now. What I would say to you, with respect to the statistics that you've just read, is that I've been briefed on those statistics. I've seen those statistics, including things like the crime severity index, and I agree with you that we have a problem with crime in this country, particularly since the pandemic. What I would say to you is that my fundamental job is to ensure that Canadians feel safe in their homes, in their communities, at work, at play and in their schools. That's one of the reasons I've been very pleased in the first two weeks of Parliament to have two justice bills come up for debate. One deals with bail reform, which all parties gave unanimous consent to and which will help keep Canadians safe, and the second would restore the sex offender registry, which will help keep people safe, specifically from sexual assault and sexual assault against children, which you highlighted in those statistics. Is there a problem? Yes. Will this bill help address this problem? Absolutely.
220 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:16:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Would you like me to respond to that?
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:29:01 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Let me say, first of all, thank you for your kind words, Mr. Garrison, and thank you to you and your colleague Laurel Collins for the extensive work both of you did in addressing the publication ban piece. Absolutely, I've heard about those cases, and I think that's why it's important. It dovetails a bit with Mr. Moore's earlier question and the idea of judicial discretion being an important backstop. I found it a bit troubling that the public safety committee study in this Parliament in 2010 suggested that there were two types of discretion at the time—prosecutorial and judicial—and suggested getting rid of prosecutorial, while maintaining judicial. The government at the time under Stephen Harper decided to get rid of all discretion altogether, and we now see the Supreme Court's response to that decision. Safeguarding the discretion but providing guardrails and criteria that surround it is really important, and one of the guardrails in the legislation is the age and personal characteristics of the victim. A judge needs to turn their mind to exactly that type of situation to determine whether the presumption should be rebutted and a person should not be added in a given context.
207 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:31:07 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I absolutely am, and I'm informed by some of the work that was done at this committee. Perhaps you were here when Morrell Andrews testified at this committee in October, last year. Her quote was: Begging for my right to speak was humiliating. The court's dignifying the offender with an opportunity to argue why I should be permanently silenced was infuriating, dehumanizing and traumatizing. I told myself to remember what it felt like to be shattered by the legal system, and that one day—for myself, for others I have met and for those who would come after us—I would try to do something about it. I think this bill is doing something about it. Being a victim is never easy. We don't need to revictimize victims. What we're doing through this legislation, I believe, is empowering victims to take control of their own narrative. There are some guardrails surrounding that issue, and they're required when a publication ban being lifted might affect another individual, but fundamentally, this is about empowering victims and other witnesses who have already been traumatized and ensuring that we no longer traumatize them again.
197 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:32:16 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I don't have that, and Mr. Taylor is whispering in my ear that he doesn't have that either.
20 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:32:58 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I would agree with you, Mr. Garrison, on the urgency of addressing publication bans. As I mentioned to Monsieur Fortin, if you take a nuanced view of how publication bans have operated, sometimes they're an overly blunt instrument that disempowers a victim. What we're trying to do is ensure—in the case of therapy or speaking with friends, for example—that the victim has the ability to pierce through the publication ban without being subject to the threat of potential prosecution. I think that's what this bill fundamentally does, and that's really important in the provisions.
102 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:34:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you for the question, Mr. Caputo. What I would say is that it's really important that we have different tools available to ensure that judges have the ability to impose sentences that meet the crime, so to speak, or that are proportionate to the crime. I think what's important is that in instances of.... I believe where you're going is this notion of a conditional sentence order. Conditional sentence orders are available in only very rare situations. One would have to be sentenced to incarceration of less than two years. Most importantly, they only apply to offenders who do not pose a threat to public safety. In the context of a child sex offender, if a judge believes that the person poses a threat to public safety, the notion of house arrest is not on the table pursuant to legislation that's been passed by Canada.
150 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:35:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
That is not my position. I want to make sure that the record is clear. A person who has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child is actually subject to a mandatory minimum penalty. Therefore, a conditional sentence order is not available to them. The possibility of house arrest doesn't exist. I'm advised of that by my officials.
62 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:36:31 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Child-specific sexual offences are subject to a mandatory minimum penalty, which renders them ineligible for a conditional sentence order. That's my position.
24 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:37:35 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I'm going to defer to Mr. Taylor with respect to the two provisions you just cited. The broad-scale proposition about child sexual offenders is that people who are convicted with respect to a sexual offence against a child are subject to a mandatory minimum penalty. Anyone who is subject to a mandatory minimum penalty is not eligible for a conditional sentence order, such as house arrest. I think the important aspect, to respond to you, Mr. Caputo, is that I share your concern about anyone who would commit a sexual offence against a child. That is why I want the sex offender registry restored. That is why we've made sure to double down on the idea of an offender against a child being subject to an automatic registration and not subject to the judicial discretion.
138 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:38:37 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I think it's important to...and if you're making an oblique reference to your private member's bill, I'd be—
24 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 05:38:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I would be open to looking at any aspects that will help keep children safe in this country, yes. I would invite Mr. Taylor to perhaps respond to the specific provisions cited by Mr. Caputo.
35 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border