44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023
- 03:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Could the officials who are here from the department provide some clarity on what this Green Party amendment would do exactly?
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:50:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:13:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I tend to agree with Mr. Fortin. What we've heard in our testimony around victims of crime and around this legislation is that victims are feeling left out, in the dark, and they are crying out for more information. I will note that My Voice, My Choice, who are people with lived experience, advocated that this provision should remain in the bill, so I will be opposing this amendment. It is important that as much relevant information as possible be disclosed to the victims.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:17:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Having heard the rationale for the amendment, I'm more convinced than ever that either the government needs to withdraw it or we need to oppose it.
What we heard from witnesses is that they're crying out for information. The prosecutor—and we have former prosecutors as resources here on our committee—is in a position to provide that information. We're talking about information related to the publication ban, meaning the effects and the circumstances under which someone may disclose information.
What we heard at committee is that people are relying on the prosecutor for these kinds of information. When we heard that some prosecutors could do this and that some prosecutors who are trained to do it could provide that information...well, that's the exact point.
What we've heard is there's an uneven application. Some people are made more aware than others. Sometimes there's a prosecutor who would provide this information, and sometimes there's one who wouldn't. This bill ensures that Parliament is making its viewpoint known that this information should be provided to victims.
Having heard the rationale for the amendment, I'm more convinced than ever that the amendment should be defeated. I would hope that the government would actually withdraw the amendment.
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:26:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Well, they said “no” and we said “yes”, so I would like a recorded vote.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:05:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, this amendment deletes lines that state the prosecutor's role in informing a victim or witness about the effects and circumstances of a publication ban. That is the exact opposite of what was asked for by witnesses who appeared. They wanted an increased role and an increase in the information provided, so Conservatives will be voting against this amendment.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:07:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
It's no, Madam Chair, for these reasons.
I don't understand how, having Bill S-12, we now see the government making amendments. What this amendment would do would give more consideration to the privacy interests of the accused when contemplating the privacy interests of a person subject to a publication ban. That is not what we heard at committee. That's the exact opposite of what we heard at committee. We had victims who went through the worst possible situations in their lives. They feel revictimized by the justice system.
I don't understand where this amendment is coming from when the government is amending its own legislation.
Conservatives will be voting against this amendment.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:13:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
You asked for unanimous consent to group them, just to be clear. Now we would consider them.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:13:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to move this amendment.
This goes to the heart of our justice system in how it treats the victims of sexual offences and how it protects our communities.
The sex offender registry, prior to the Supreme Court decision, required the automatic registration of individuals who had committed certain sexual offences. There are nine members of the Supreme Court. A five-to-four decision, with a very strong dissent, found that this automatic listing violated the Constitution. They gave the government a year to respond. Now we're up against that deadline. That deadline is at the end of this month.
What has come back with Bill S-12 does not go far enough, in my opinion. For example, for an automatic listing now on the sex offender registry, if you read the dissent in the Supreme Court decision, you see that they said that judges were not properly exercising their discretion by excluding individuals. The federal registry had only a 50% inclusion rate. That was the same as in Ontario, where, when it was left to discretion, there was only about 50% inclusion. The Supreme Court found that an offender on the registry is eight times more likely to offend than someone in the general public. There is a pressing reason to have sex offenders on the sex offender registry. That has been established.
This is what Bill S-12 says, under proposed subsection 490.012(1). In order for someone to be automatically listed, it requires that:
(a) the designated offence was prosecuted by indictment;
(b) the sentence for the designated offence is a term of imprisonment of two years or more; and
—this is key, that “and” word—
(c) the victim of the designated offence is under the age of 18 years.
That is how an automatic listing on the registry would take place. This is far too narrow. That is why I've introduced our amendment, which would delete proposed paragraphs 490.012(1)(a) and (b) on page 11 of the bill, so that all designated offences, regardless, proceeding by way of summary or indictment, if they are committed against a child victim—someone under the age of 18—will require mandatory registration. We heard testimony that suggests that this would meet the decision laid out by the Supreme Court.
I would urge members to consider broadening this piece of legislation so that we can protect child victims of sexual offences, protect our communities against sex offenders and require the mandatory listing in the sex offender registry of individuals who commit an offence against a victim who is under 18 years of age. That is what this amendment does.
456 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
