Speaker 1: The federal government says it is moving to strengthen the National Sex Offender Registry. Some of the key proposed changes in the legislation, repeat and serious child sexual offenders will be registered automatically. All other sexual offenders would have to be registered unless they can show they pose no risk to the community. And the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and extortion have been added to the list of offenses that could result in registration. The changes come after a Supreme Court ruling in October struck down parts of the National Sex Offender Registry, ruling that mandatory registration of all sex offenders with more than one conviction goes too far. David Lamedi is a Minister of Justice and he joins me now. Minister, thanks for coming in.

Speaker 2: It's my pleasure.

Speaker 1: Thank you. So, these changes suggest that sexual offenders would continue to be registered in most cases. That's right. In almost all cases. So, how does this strike the balance that the Supreme Court was looking for?

Speaker 2: Well, it gives an outlet for those cases where a person can demonstrate that they shouldn't be on the register. We've also given a set of guidelines for judges to look at with respect to when to not register. So, again, the base provision is that everybody will be registered. There's a rebuttable presumption. It's up to the offender to rebut the presumption, with the two exceptions that you've noted in your outline, which is serious child sexual offenses and repeat offenders will still be registered automatically. We feel that that's narrow enough that that can pass muster under the Charter.

Speaker 1: Right. And because of the seriousness, I guess, of the crimes and the repetitive nature of the offenses. So, the issue that the court struck down was that it was automatic. Even if it was one time, one charge type of thing. That's right. And there was no rebuttal except for the person who took it to the Supreme Court and got this decision. So, simply having this ability to object and then go before a judge to argue that you don't have to go on the registry, that satisfies the Charter issues, you think?

Speaker 2: That's right. It lodges the decision-making power in the hands of the judge. Prior to 2010 or 2011, when this legislation came in, there was a system that had both the Crown and the judge making that decision together. And that was deemed to be unsatisfactory, and a parliamentary committee at the time in 2010 recommended effectively the regime that we're going to right now.

Speaker 1: Right. One of the other things you've done here, you've added the distribution of non-consensual images to the list of offenses that could land an individual on the National Sex Offender Registry.

Speaker 2: Why did you make that change? Well, again, this is something that experts have been calling for. It's a way of bolstering the regime and making it more useful to law enforcement and indirectly to victims and others. Right? So, this is a way of allowing another tool, giving another tool to police with respect to the five things that we've added, like the non-consensual sharing of images. And it also sends a message that these are serious enough to be on the register.

Speaker 1: Right. So, this really seeks to crack down and add an extra consequence to revenge porn, or the uploading to a porn site intimate images that are without the consent of a person. I mean, it's sort of trying to keep up with the ugly crimes of modern life.

Speaker 2: That's correct.

Speaker 1: Okay. So, one of the other issues you dealt with here. There's a couple of measures here to help empower victims, really. Victims and survivors of sexual assault cases. One is a change around publication bans, where you would require judges to ask prosecutors if they sought victim input on whether to impose a publication ban. Because normally, this is kind of done almost automatically. What was the issue there?

Speaker 2: Well, in both cases, both with respect to that measure and allowing victims to apply at any point to have those publication bans removed during the trial, after the trial. In both cases, we're trying to empower victims. There's no one way to be a victim. There's no right way to be a victim. Every victim is different, and we're trying to empower victims to be able to tell their stories if that's what they want to do. Be able to enforce a publication ban for as long as they want it enforced, and then have it lifted when they're ready to tell their story, or to have the publication ban abide throughout. The point is that victims need to be consulted from the get-go, and that they then have the ability, with a clear structure, to go to a judge and say, I want that ban revoked.

Speaker 1: One of the other changes, too, is that judges now have to ask victims and survivors in these sex crimes if they want to be kept updated. What exactly would that deal with? Parole hearings? What would that?

Speaker 2: All of the above. All of the above. If, again, a judge will be obligated to ask the victim if they want to stay in touch, and then that information will be shared with Correction Services Canada, so that when there's a hearing, a parole hearing, or other hearing that might affect, or even a notification of release, anything that might affect the victim, they will then be able to be notified. Again, it's a way of empowering victims as time moves on.

Speaker 1: How quickly do you see these changes being enforced? It's a minority parliament, so who knows, but do you have broad, multi-party support on this? How quickly do you think you can get this passed?

Speaker 2: I believe we do have broad, multi-party support. The Conservative members have been calling for a number of months now for us to respond to the Ndlovu decision, which we're doing. In addition to that, I think there's widespread support for empowering victims. Both Murrell Andrews and the federal ombudsperson for victims, Ben Roebuck, were at the announcement today. That's indicative, I think, of support in the community, but I think the NDP has shown support. I can't imagine any party will be against this.

Speaker 1: Okay. Minister, while I've got you here, I'm going to ask you about one other thing, and we've talked about this quite a bit over the years, and that's the Hassan Diab case and the French verdict that came down on Friday. His supporters are now calling on you as the Justice Minister to tell France you will not extradite him to France based on the weaknesses in his case and the fact that France is refusing to extradite a priest that is accused of sex crimes against Indigenous youth here in this country. Will you meet that request from Dr. Diab and his supporters?

Speaker 2: Again, because under the extradition law, this is the same answer you would have gotten last time, and you know that, which is, I may play a role in the process at the end of a determination, and so I really can't say anything about that process, other than the fact that we will make sure that it's fair. I can't say anything about a process or an extradition request or anything else because that might compromise my ability to participate in that process.

Speaker 1: Okay. David Lamedi, Minister of Justice. Thanks so much for your time.

Speaker 2: Thank you.