JUST Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Matthew Taylor answered questions.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The Chair calls Clause 1.
Clause 1 carried.
On Clause 2,
That Bill S-12, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:
“2 (1) The portion of subsection 486.4(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness under the age of 18 years or the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(1.1) Subparagraph 486.4(1)(a)(i) of the Act is re-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
That Bill S-12, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 1 the following:
“(1.1) Before the beginning of proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the prosecutor shall inform any witness under the age of 18 years and the victim of their right to make an application for the order and of their right to apply to revoke or vary the order, if it is made.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 5;
NAYS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Mike Kelloway, James Maloney — 6.
(a) by replacing line 14 on page 1 with the following:
“(2) Paragraphs 486.4(2)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by”
(b) by replacing lines 19 to 21 on page 1 with the following:
“(b) on application made by the victim, by any such witness or by the prosecutor, with the consent of the victim or the witness, make the order; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 5;
NAYS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Mike Kelloway, James Maloney — 6.
“(a) as soon as the proceedings begin, direct the prosecutor to immediately inform any witness under the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on division.
“(c) if an order is made, direct the prosecutor to immediately inform the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Tako Van Popta and it was negatived on division.
That Bill S-12, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 2 the following:
“(4.1) Section 486.4 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.3) The prosecutor may make an application for an order under paragraph (2)(b) or (2.2)(b) only after obtaining the written consent of the victim or witness who is the subject of the order or demonstrating to the satisfaction of the presiding judge or justice that all reasonable attempts to communicate with the victim or witness have failed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 4;
NAYS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Mike Kelloway, James Maloney — 7.
That Bill S-12, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 2 the following:
“(4.1) Section 486.4 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2.2):
(2.3) As soon as proceedings in respect of any offence begin, the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) inquire if any witness under the age of 18 years or the victim wishes to be the subject of an order under subsection (1) or (2.1), as the case may be; and
(b) if the wishes of a witness or of the victim cannot be determined, make an order under subsection (1) or (2.1) that terminates when the witness or victim who is the subject of the order files a written request to terminate the order with the court that made the order or another court of equivalent jurisdiction in the same province.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 4;
NAYS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Yvonne Jones, James Maloney — 7.
“(a) informed the witnesses and the victim who are the subject of the order of its existence;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Yvonne Jones, James Maloney — 6;
NAYS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 5.
That Bill S-12, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 2 the following:
“(a.1) provided them with a copy of the order;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 5;
NAYS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Yvonne Jones, James Maloney — 6.
That Bill S-12, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 2 with the following:
“(b) provided them with a copy of the order; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
That Bill S-12, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 2 the following:
“(3.3) Despite subsections (2) and (2.2), the presiding judge or justice shall not make an order if the victim or a witness indicates that they do not wish to be the subject of the order.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 4;
NAYS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Yvonne Jones, James Maloney — 7.
That Bill S-12, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 to line 13 on page 3 with the following:
“486.41(1) If a witness under the age of 18 years or a victim who is the subject of an order made under section 486.4 requests that the prosecutor have it varied or revoked, the prosecutor shall, as soon as feasible, make an application to vary or revoke the order on their behalf.
(2) If an application to vary or revoke an order made under section 486.4 is made by the witness or victim, or by a prosecutor who is acting on their behalf, the court that made the order or, if that court is for any reason unable to act, another court of equivalent jurisdiction in the same province shall, without holding a hearing, vary or revoke the order, unless the court is of the opinion that to do so will affect the privacy interests of a victim who is the subject of an order made under section 486.4 in the same proceedings.
(3) If the court is of the opinion that varying or revoking the order that is the subject of an application referred to in subsection (2) will affect the privacy interests of a victim who is the subject of an order made under section 486.4 in the same proceedings, the court shall hold a hearing to determine the manner in which the order will be varied or revoked subject to factors in subsection (4). The hearing may be in private.
(4) In order to determine the manner in which the order will be varied or revoked, the court shall consider
(a) the privacy interests of a victim who is the subject of an order under section 486.4 in the same proceedings; and
(b) the impact of the order on the freedom of expression of the victim or witness making the application.
(5) The applicant is not required to provide notice of the application to vary or revoke the order to the accused.
(6) The accused shall not be permitted to make submissions in relation to the application.
(7) If the order is varied or revoked, the prosecutor shall notify the accused.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
At 4:44 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 4:45 p.m., the sitting resumed.
That Bill S-12, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 36 on page 2 with the following:
“any of the following circumstances:”
(b) by replacing lines 38 to 40 on page 2 with the following:
“of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known to the public;”
(c) by replacing line 7 on page 3 with the following:
“that order without their consent; or
(c) the disclosure of information is made for the purpose of providing support to the victim or witness by legal professionals, counselors, medical professionals or persons in a relationship of trust with the witness or victim.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 4;
NAYS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Yvonne Jones, James Maloney — 7.
“who is the subject of the order and is about that person”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to on division.
“an order prohibiting the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify that other person.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to.
“make the information known 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.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, carried.
On Clause 3,
James Maloney moved, — That Bill S-12, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 23 on page 3 with the following:“who is the subject of the order and is about that person”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to on division.
“an order prohibiting the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify that other person.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to.
“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.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to.
“istence;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Yvonne Jones, James Maloney — 6;
NAYS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 5.
Clause 3, as amended, carried.
On Clause 4,
James Maloney moved, — That Bill S-12, in Clause 4, be amended by(a) replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 5 with the following:
“do so may affect the privacy interests of any person who is the subject of any order prohibit-”
(b) replacing line 22 on page 5 with the following:
“person who is the subject of any”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Yvonne Jones, James Maloney — 6;
NAYS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 5.
Clause 4, as amended, carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 5 and 6 carried severally.
On Clause 7,
Rob Moore moved, — That Bill S-12, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 10 to line 5 on page 11 with the following:“Act if the victim of the designated offence is under the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rob Moore and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 4;
NAYS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Yvonne Jones, James Maloney — 7.
(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 2 on page 11 with the following:
“linquants sexuels si, selon le cas :”
(b) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 11 with the following:
“(b) the designated offence was prosecuted by way of summary conviction and the sentence imposed includes a term of imprisonment of twelve months or more;”
(c) by replacing line 6 on page 11 with the following:
“age of 18 years; or
(d) the victim of the designated offence is a person with a disability.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Larry Brock, Frank Caputo, Rob Moore, Tako Van Popta — 4;
NAYS: Élisabeth Brière, Anju Dhillon, Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Randall Garrison, Anthony Housefather, Yvonne Jones, James Maloney — 7.
(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 2 on page 11 with the following:
“linquants sexuels si, selon le cas :”
(b) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 11 with the following:
“(b) the designated offence was prosecuted by way of summary conviction and the sentence imposed includes a term of imprisonment of twelve months or more; or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Larry Brock and it was negatived on division.
(a) by replacing line 1 on page 12 with the following:
“(4) Subject to subsection (4.1), in determining whether to make an order under sub-”
(b) by adding after line 16 on page 12 the following:
“(4.1) In determining whether to make an order under subsection (3) in respect of a person, the court shall not consider
(a) the offence being considered opportunistic rather than predatory;
(b) the offender ceasing the occupation or activity that brought them into contact with the victim;
(c) the offender being considered to be of otherwise good character or to be an otherwise upstanding member of the community;
(d) the offender having been intoxicated at the time the offence was committed; or
(e) the offence not involving multiple victims or additional bodily harm.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Tako Van Popta and it was negatived on division.
Clause 7 carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 8 to 32 inclusive carried severally.
After debate, Clause 32.1 was negatived.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 33 to 48 inclusive carried severally.
On new Clause 48.1,
James Maloney moved, — That Bill S-12 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 49 the following:“48.1 (1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply if Bill C-291, introduced in the 1st session of the 44th Parliament and entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material) (in this section referred to as the “other Act”), receives royal assent.
(2) If section 8 of the other Act comes into force before subsection 6(2) of this Act, then subparagraph (a)(xi) of the definition primary offence in subsection 490.011(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
(xi) section 163.1 (child sexual abuse and exploitation material),
(3) If subsection 6(2) of this Act comes into force before section 8 of the other Act, then that section 8 is replaced by the following:
8 Subparagraph (a)(xi) of the definition “primary offence” in subsection 490.011(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(xi) section 163.1 (child sexual abuse and exploitation material),
(4) If section 8 of the other Act comes into force on the same day as subsection 6(2) of this Act, then that section 8 is deemed to have come into force before that subsection 6(2) and subsection (2) applies as a consequence.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Maloney and it was agreed to.
Clause 49 carried.
The Title carried.
The Bill, as amended, was adopted, on division.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
At 5:34 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.