Bill 13 enacts two standalone Acts and makes wide-ranging amendments to Québec public‑safety laws. The first new Act creates a Comité de divulgation to decide whether information about sex offenders judged at high risk of reoffending should be published; it prescribes what may be disclosed, limits public dissemination to a maximum of three years and gives the offender a 60‑day right to challenge the Committee’s decision at the Administrative Tribunal of Québec.
The text delegates key definitional and evidentiary elements to government regulation and immunizes participating police and Committee members for acts done in good faith.
The second new Act restricts demonstrations near certain elected officials’ homes (50 metres), forbids possession or throwing of listed dangerous objects at protests, allows warrantless searches and seizures where officers have reasonable grounds, and creates a ministerial list of “entities with a criminal purpose” whose identifying insignia or names may not be publicly displayed (subject to limited journalistic, educational, artistic and judicial exemptions). The bill also authorizes Indigenous police management boards, updates information‑sharing rules for victims, adjusts private security board terms, and adds procedural and transitional provisions affecting policing, prosecution and parole hearings.
At a Glance
What It Does
It establishes an administrative Comité de divulgation to consider regulated information about sex offenders and to order public disclosures for up to three years when public‑safety interests prevail. It also creates a statute that: bars demonstrations within 50 metres of certain officials’ residences, prohibits certain objects at demonstrations, empowers police to search and seize on reasonable grounds, and allows the Minister to list entities tied to criminal purposes and ban public displays of their insignia or names.
Who It Affects
Sûreté du Québec and municipal police forces, Correctional Services information flows (including data received from the Correctional Service of Canada), persons convicted of sexual offences, victims (who may be consulted), demonstrators and protest organizers, municipalities and municipal courts, and Indigenous communities seeking to form joint police forces.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts several discretionary decisions from courts or police alone to an administrative committee and ministerial processes, centralizing determinations about public disclosure and criminal‑entity listings. It also broadens police powers at demonstrations and creates a new governance route for Indigenous policing—changes that carry practical consequences for privacy, freedom of assembly and operational policing resources.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The sex‑offender disclosure framework sets up a five‑member Comité de divulgation appointed by the Minister of Public Security (including representatives from the Sûreté du Québec, provincial correctional services, a lawyer, a victim‑services specialist and an offender‑reintegration or sexual‑delinquency expert). Police forces and provincial correctional services must pass regulated categories of information about persons identified as sex offenders at high risk of reoffending to the Sûreté du Québec, which forwards them to the Committee before release.
The legislation leaves the Act’s operational definitions and the factors the Committee must weigh to government regulation, creating a two‑step rule‑making process: statute for structure, regulation for scope.
When the Committee reviews a case it must weigh public‑safety interests against impacts on the offender (safety, liberty, privacy). If it orders disclosure the Committee specifies which of nine categories of information will be published—name(s), year of birth, physical description and distinguishing marks, photo, place of release or residence, release date and sentence served, conviction(s) and circumstances if appropriate, release conditions, and anonymized victim characteristics—and sets a dissemination period capped at three years.
The Committee must notify the offender in writing, allow written submissions, may solicit input from victims whose identities are known, and must provide written reasons. The offender has a 60‑day window to appeal the decision to the Administrative Tribunal of Québec.
Committee deliberations and victims’ written observations remain confidential.The public‑security statute addressing demonstrations defines a demonstration broadly and bars anyone from demonstrating within 50 metres of the grounds containing the residence of a member of Parliament, a municipal officer or a specified warden. During demonstrations it prohibits possession or throwing of objects or substances that could harm people or property (the text lists examples such as tools, pieces of pavement, airguns, bows, knives, chemical agents, pyrotechnics unless authorized).
Where an officer has reasonable grounds to believe a person has such an item, the officer may, without a warrant, search that person and their immediate environment and seize the item. The Act attaches fines for breaches (with defined ranges and doubling on repeat offences) and allows municipalities to prosecute in municipal courts.The bill also creates a ministerial mechanism to identify entities “with a criminal purpose.” A law‑enforcement division designated by the Minister recommends names for a central list; the Minister publishes listings in the Gazette officielle du Québec.
Once listed, public display of the entity’s insignia, name, acronym or similar sign is prohibited, subject to enumerated exceptions for journalistic, educational, artistic, judicial or clear public‑interest contexts. The Act requires a five‑year periodic review of the list and provides an administrative removal process on application by an entity.Finally, the bill amends existing laws: it revises the Police Act to permit sharing of policing services and to enable Indigenous communities to form management boards (described by agreement, established by government order) to create and operate joint Indigenous police forces; it adjusts access‑to‑information rules to allow limited police disclosure to victim‑service bodies and to notify victims of release conditions without offender consent; it shortens private‑security board member terms to three years with notice obligations for reappointments; and it permits victims to read written representations at certain parole‑related sittings, subject to chair discretion to protect safety.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Committee is a five‑member body appointed by the Minister: a Sûreté du Québec employee, a provincial correctional employee, a lawyer from Barreau du Québec, a victim‑assistance expert and an offender‑reintegration/sexual‑delinquency expert.
If the Committee orders disclosure, it may publish up to nine specific data points about the offender (including photo, physical description, release location and conviction details) but may not disseminate information for more than three years.
A sex offender has 60 days after notification to contest the Committee’s disclosure decision before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec; Committee deliberations and victims’ written observations are excluded from disclosure to the offender.
The Act bans demonstrations within 50 metres of the grounds housing the residence of a member of Parliament, municipal officer or specified warden and penalizes violations with fines ranging from $250–$1,250 for individuals on first offence (higher ranges for organizations and repeat offences).
During a demonstration, police may, without a warrant, search a person and their immediate environment and seize prohibited objects if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person is in possession of such an object.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Committee structure, appointments and internal rules
This division creates the Comité de divulgation and prescribes its membership, appointment terms (up to five years, renewable), quorum and internal by‑laws to prevent conflicts of interest. Practically, the Minister controls composition and leadership, the Sûreté du Québec supplies secretariat services, and Committee meetings are closed and decided by majority vote—an administrative body rather than a judicial panel.
Information flows to the Committee and decisionmaking process
Police forces, the Sûreté du Québec and provincial correctional services must forward regulated categories of offender information to the Committee prior to release; the Correctional Service of Canada can be asked to supply information. The Committee’s analysis uses factors set by government regulation, may request further material, must give the offender written notice and an opportunity to submit observations, and may consult victims. Decisions include reasons, specify what to publish, and are subject to a 60‑day appeal to the Administrative Tribunal of Québec.
Dissemination, warning message, updates and re‑examination
The Sûreté du Québec executes public dissemination in line with Committee conclusions and must accompany it with a statutory warning discouraging vigilantism. Dissemination stops if the offender dies or is no longer subject to the Act, and is suspended while the offender is imprisoned. Police must report new facts for potential updates; the Committee must re‑examine each decision within 90 days after the dissemination period ends.
Demonstration rules, banned items and offences
The Act defines demonstration broadly and makes it an offence to demonstrate within 50 metres of specified elected officials’ residences or to organize demonstrations intended to violate that rule. It lists prohibited items at demonstrations (from weapons to certain projectiles and pyrotechnics) and criminalizes possession or throwing of such items during a demonstration. Police are empowered to search and seize without a warrant on reasonable grounds; penalties are tiered by natural person vs. other entities and doubled for repeat offences, with local municipalities authorized to prosecute.
Ministerial list of entities with a criminal purpose and display ban
The Minister maintains a list of entities judged to pursue criminal purposes based on a designated law‑enforcement division’s substantiated recommendations; publication in the Gazette makes the listing effective. Public display of an entity’s name, symbol, acronym or similar sign is prohibited, subject to narrow exceptions for journalistic, educational, artistic, judicial or clear public‑interest contexts. There is an administrative removal process and a mandated five‑year review of the list.
Indigenous police management boards and shared policing services
Indigenous communities can form agreements to request government establishment of a management board that is a legal person responsible for creating and managing a joint police force. Agreements must set governance, voting, dispute resolution, financial apportionment and asset allocation. The Government establishes the board by order and may dissolve it in specified circumstances; the board may enter an agreement with the Government to create a police force that, during the agreement, is a police force under the Police Act.
Victim information sharing, private security and parole representations
The Act permits police to share personal information without offender consent for targeted victim‑service interventions after spousal‑violence incidents and to disclose release conditions to victims after an arrest when necessary for safety. It shortens Private Security Bureau board members’ terms to three years with notice requirements, and lets victims read written submissions at certain parole proceedings unless safety is reasonably compromised.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Close contacts and local residents: They gain access to curated, publicized information about certain high‑risk sex offenders released in their area, intended to let them take precautionary measures.
- Victims of sexual offences: The Committee may solicit their written observations and certain access‑to‑information changes allow victim‑service bodies to receive personal information needed for immediate interventions.
- Municipalities and local prosecutors: The Act gives municipalities authority to institute proceedings in municipal courts for demonstration and display offences, creating a localized enforcement route.
- Indigenous communities that choose to participate: They can form management boards to establish joint Indigenous police forces, providing a statutory pathway for locally negotiated policing governance.
- Police forces and law‑enforcement planners: The bill clarifies authorities to share services, search and seize at demonstrations and receive immunity for good‑faith actions, which can streamline operational responses.
Who Bears the Cost
- Persons designated as sex offenders: They face public exposure of detailed personal and conviction-related information for up to three years, with associated privacy, stigma and potential safety consequences.
- Demonstrators, organizers and civil‑liberties groups: The 50‑metre buffer, broad prohibited‑objects list and warrantless search powers raise compliance burdens and criminal‑exposure risks for peaceful protest activity.
- Municipal police forces and municipalities: They shoulder enforcement duties (searches, prosecutions, administering Committee requests) and may need resources for implementation, reporting and court proceedings.
- Indigenous communities seeking policing arrangements: Forming management boards requires negotiating complex agreements, allocating funds, and complying with government order processes; the Government retains dissolution powers.
- Administrative Tribunal and courts: The 60‑day appeal window and expanded municipal prosecutions are likely to increase case loads and require specialized adjudication on disclosure and public‑security matters.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between enhancing community safety—through public disclosure, lower thresholds for police intervention at protests and a ministerial list of criminal entities—and protecting individual rights to privacy, due process and freedom of expression and assembly; the bill resolves risks of harm primarily by expanding administrative and police powers, which creates new risks of overreach, uneven enforcement and collateral harms to lawful speech and reintegration efforts.
The bill concentrates several high‑stakes decisions in administrative venues and ministerial processes while leaving critical definitional elements to regulation. Delegating the statutory definition of “sex offender” and the analytical elements the Committee must weigh to regulation shapes how wide the disclosure regime can reach; a broad regulatory definition could sweep in persons who would not otherwise face public identification, while a narrow one could leave genuinely risky individuals outside the scheme.
The Committee’s closed‑door decisionmaking, combined with non‑disclosure of its deliberations and victims’ written observations to the offender, speeds decisions but limits transparency and judicially reviewable fact‑finding to appellate review after publication decisions are made.
On demonstrations, the 50‑metre buffer and the enumerated prohibited items aim to reduce intimidation at officials’ residences, but the rules create unclear lines in dense urban settings (how to measure grounds, mixed‑use blocks, or public thoroughfares). The warrantless search power tied to “reasonable grounds” is standard phrasing, but in a demonstration context it risks discretionary, place‑based policing that may chill lawful expression.
The ministerial list of criminal entities centralizes labeling authority in the executive branch and a designated law‑enforcement division; although the Act provides exceptions for journalistic, educational and artistic contexts and a five‑year review, the potential for overinclusive listings or uneven application is real and enforcement will require municipal and police resources that may not be budgeted.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.