44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023
- 03:38:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 78 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of October 5, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed to the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.
Pursuant to the Standing Orders, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. Those attending via the Zoom application have been tested and the interpreters are okay with their sound.
I need to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members, and these are quite important. Some of them are standard and I say them all the time, and others pertain just to clause-by-clause consideration.
First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone to active your mike and mute yourself when you are not speaking. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
For those in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand and I will recognize you. For those of you on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best as we can, and we do appreciate your patience and understanding.
We have justice department officials with us today to provide answers to technical questions throughout our study.
Welcome again, Mr. Matthew Taylor, general counsel and director, criminal law policy section, and Madame Joanna Wells, acting senior counsel, criminal law policy section. Thank you so much for being here. I really value your being here, and I'm sure the members will as well.
We're ready to start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-12. Please listen to this, because we have not done it in a while, and on the committee there are a number who.... I certainly haven't done it as a chair, so I'm going to go slowly to ensure that I recognize everyone I need to and give everybody an opportunity and provide you with the information I have.
This is how the committee will proceed through clause-by-clause study.
As members already know, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.
Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Here, please note the following, and this is really important: Amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.
The chair—that's me—will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have all been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted it, and there's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once you move an amendment, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.
During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing; there are no verbal ones permitted from the floor. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.
Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself.
Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.
Before I start, I want to thank in advance members from the legislative clerk's office, who are here with me. They will be providing support to me on any issue that might arise on the procedure.
Ladies and gentlemen, here we go.
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Clause 1 agreed to)
(On clause 2)
The Chair: I call clause 2.
PV-1 is deemed moved, pursuant to the routine motion adopted by the committee on December 16, 2021.
Shall PV-1 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Moore.
817 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:52:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I was looking at the amendment, and the purpose is to change the language describing the time limit. The Criminal Code stipulates that witnesses and the victim be informed of the order “at the first reasonable opportunity”. Bill S‑12 uses the wording “as soon as feasible”. CPC‑3 would change that to “immediately”.
I understand the idea is to make sure it's done as soon as possible, and obviously, I agree with that. The word “immediately”, however, is open to interpretation. How soon is “immediately”? Is five minutes too late?
Clearly, it doesn't make sense for the prosecutor to interrupt the judge to inform the witness in passing that there is an order. I think “immediately” should be interpreted as being done as soon as feasible, as soon as possible, at the first opportunity.
I don't think the amendment is helpful. I actually think it would have the opposite effect and complicate things by opening the door to contradictory rulings, given that the courts could interpret the word “immediately” in all sorts of ways.
I think the language Bill S‑12 uses, “as soon as feasible”, is reasonable. If we really want to change it, we're going to have to indicate what exactly “immediately” means. We could say that witnesses and the victim have to be informed as soon as feasible, but within 48 hours or something like that. Otherwise, the word “immediately” can't be enforced. It can't be done at the very moment the judge says it.
The French version even says “immédiatement”. It's the same word. I think we need a time period, however short it is.
307 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:04:13 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair, and again I offer my apologies for the technical difficulties.
I am of course bringing forward amendments today based on testimony the committee has heard. I know that my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has spoken on the floor of the House as well of the extraordinary work of the group My Voice, My Choice. This amendment comes from their testimony and their evidence before this committee.
Madam Chair, we haven't been on the same committee together before, so just to explain “PV” for people, this was an old designation chosen by the House because, of course, “Green Party” would be G-3, and then it would look like a government amendment, so it became “Parti Vert”, which leads to PV-3.
The reason I'm putting forward this amendment is to meet the situations that have existed in real life, extraordinary as they are, when victims find themselves subject to publication bans without knowing. Of course, the purpose of Bill S-12 in this section is to fix that, so the amendment I'm putting forward at this point would add after subsection (2) in section 486.4 wording to make it clear that the prosecutor may make an application for an order only after obtaining the written consent of the victim or witness who was the subject of the order or after demonstrating that all reasonable attempts to communicate with the victim or witness have failed. The point is that there must not be a time when a publication ban is applied when the victim has not been made aware of the fact that this is being brought in.
I hope that's a clear and good summary. Thank you, Madam Chair.
297 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:08:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes. I'm very surprised that the last amendment was defeated, because I did think that the committee was aware—as I thought the minister was aware—that Bill S-12 will need amendments in order to meet the goals of ensuring that victims are not subject to publication bans without their knowledge. Therefore, the amendment again here is attempting to ensure, as are others before you, that the rights of the victims are reflected in their advance knowledge of, and permission for, publication bans apply to them.
I am disappointed. I appreciate very much the support from a number of colleagues around the room, but I don't understand why we wouldn't want to ensure that these amendments that go to the issues raised by My Voice, My Choice are all carried.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:12:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
As I see it, there's a problem with G‑1, and the committee heard a lot about it from witnesses: Does it put the Crown prosecutor in a conflict of interest situation when explaining the ins and outs of the order to the victim? Some say no, and others say yes. Personally, I think the Crown prosecutor can't simply inform the victim that a publication ban was issued and say nothing else. If the victim asks what that means, the prosecutor shouldn't be able to tell the victim that they have to look it up and figure it out on their own, because the Crown prosecutor's job is just to inform the victim that a publication ban is in place.
I don't think the amendment says enough. I don't think it's respectful of victims and their rights. The Crown prosecutor should explain to victims what a publication ban is or designate someone to make sure the victim is properly informed. I don't think it's right to give victims so little consideration that they are simply informed in passing of the order's existence with no explanation as to what that means, being told they have to find the information themselves. I don't think the language is comprehensive enough.
I think Bill S‑12 uses better language that is more respectful of the rights of victims and witnesses.
240 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:29:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you.
Again, this business of deeming my motions moved is all because the larger parties didn't like the rights that I do have to put these amendments forward if I chose to do so. If you didn't have this motion in place at your committee, I would be able to move all of these amendments in the House in full session, and then we'd be able to have the debate.
The witnesses from My Voice, My Choice have made it very clear why they feel Bill S-12 needs improvements. This is one of those improvements, and I'm hoping this time.... I know it doesn't seem very likely that the amendment will be accepted, but I do urge the committee to consider this as a minor improvement to the overall scheme of Bill S-12, in the interests of the victims, who otherwise find themselves under these publication bans without their knowledge.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:39:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a problem with PV‑8 for three reasons.
First, proposed subsection 486.41(4) is overly restrictive. It says “the court shall consider” the factors listed. The court already considers a certain number of factors when issuing a publication ban. I think the same factors should be considered when the ban is being varied or revoked. With all due respect, limiting the factors that the court can consider paves the way for decisions that make no sense.
The second problem with PV‑8 has to do with proposed subsection 486.41(5), which reads as follows: “The applicant is not required to provide notice of the application to vary or revoke the order to the accused.” How, then, will the court go about holding the accused responsible for violating the order or the varied order? The accused shouldn't have a say in whether an order is necessary or not, but the accused should be notified of publication bans, so that they can be held responsible for violating a ban where applicable.
Third and finally, PV‑8 would replace a number of provisions in Bill S‑12, including limitation provisions, those stipulating when a publication ban would not apply. Those provisions, which appear under the headings “Limitation” and “Limitation — victim or witness”, are needed, however.
With all due respect to Ms. May, I honestly think PV‑8 would be much more detrimental than it would help victims.
262 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:04:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you.
The new language is that Bill S-12 in clause 3 be amended by replacing line 33 on page 3 with the following:
to the public, including when the disclosure is made to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with the victim, or witness or justice system participant.
59 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
- 05:13:57 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
- 05:18:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, thank you. I just wanted to add something for discussion.
I believe we heard some evidence—perhaps Matthew Taylor or Ms. Wells can weigh in on this—that in practical terms, the vast number of convictions of sex offenders involving children under the age of 18 proceed by summary conviction. As the Criminal Code is set out, if proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is 18 months. In my view, as a former prosecutor, whether it's a history of sexual offending or a one-off involving a child, whether it's a judge with or without expert evidence from the defence or from the Crown.... In my respectful view, a low risk is still a risk, and that's the same language that came from the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let's take a look of the identity of the justices who were part of that dissenting opinion. We have the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. We have Justice Moldaver, who is now retired. Matthew Taylor and Joanna Wells can confirm—because I know my colleague Mr. Caputo can certainly confirm this—that he was considered the expert. He was the dean insofar as criminal jurisprudence was concerned.
I agree it's dissenting and it's not binding, but I take that language very seriously. This particular bill broadens that net to ensure that all of those offenders, whether their cases proceed by indictment as contemplated by Bill S-12 or by summary conviction, will be captured by the Sex Offender Information Registration Act
Am I correct, Mr. Taylor?
274 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
