9573 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 145 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, November 20, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 20, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 145 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 145 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 145 (Version officielle) 147 145 20 11 2014 2014/11/20 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36.8, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 33 petitions.

Committees of the House Environment and Sustainable Development Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill S-5 ,

an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve of Canada. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment. [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr. Speaker, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, the Government of Canada should keep the “Champlain” name for the replacement bridge that will connect the island of Montreal to its south shore. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

[ English ] Petitions Asbestos Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians who call upon the House of Commons and Parliament here assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. In fact, more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined.

Therefore, these petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for asbestos workers in the communities they live in; end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad; and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions. The first is about cuts to postal services. This petition was signed by more than 700 people in my riding who are completely opposed to proposed federal government cuts and the elimination of home delivery. I fully support them in their efforts and I condemn what is happening with postal services.

Consumer Protection Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about unreasonable ATM transaction fees. This petition was also signed by many of my constituents who oppose these fees. They want the current government to introduce a bill to change this, as it is unfair to taxpayers.

[ English ] Impaired Driving Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are asking the government to change the current impaired driving laws in Canada. In the interest of public safety of Canadian citizens, they are asking for tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of impaired driving causing death.

[ Translation ] Genetically Modified Organisms Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise this morning to present two petitions. [ English ] The first one is from residents of Vancouver, Abbotsford, and Whistler. They are calling on the government to take action to ensure the mandatory labelling of any foods that contain genetically modified ingredients.

Falun Gong Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is primarily from residents of Toronto. The petition sets out in detail very disturbing evidence that prisoners in the People's Republic of China who are Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to organ harvesting. The petition references work by the group Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting. It calls on the Canadian government to condemn this practice and to call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong and Falun Dafa in the People's Republic of China.

Palestine Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition signed by thousands of residents of Surrey who have been very concerned by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. They are asking the government to support the proposal launched by Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish to bring injured Palestinian children from Gaza to Canada for treatment. They want to stress that in order to achieve peace, we must refuse to hate. Only in that spirit can we hope to bring people together to forge a just, secure, and lasting peace for all. Falun Gong Ms.

Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first petition has more than 100 signatures from Canadians calling on Parliament to take action to oppose the systemic murdering of Falun Gong practitioners in China for forced organ harvesting. They are calling on the government to speak out to end the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.

(1010) Animal Welfare Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Albertans calling on the House of Commons to take action to recognize animals as beings that feel pain, to move animal cruelty crimes from the property

section of the Criminal Code, to strengthen the language of animal cruelty laws, and to support the passing of Bill C-592 , which would amend the Criminal Code to protect animals.

Canada Post Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from Canadians across the Prairies calling for the government to return door-to-door postal services to Canadians.

Agriculture Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I met with constituents about the issue of hunger and poverty and third world conditions, and they asked me to provide the House with a petition regarding adopting international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty. This is with regard to the exchange of seeds, particularly in developing nations, where there is a great deal of hunger and poverty. Rouge National Park Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I stand today with the signatures of hundreds of people within the greater Toronto area who are calling for the creation of a Rouge national park that respects and protects the irreplaceable 100 square kilometres of public land assembly within a healthy and sustainable Rouge national park. They want to ensure that the creation of the Rouge national park strengthens and implements the ecological vision, policies, and integrity of the approved and pre-existing legislation, policies, and memoranda of understanding that already exist in the province of Ontario and the municipalities in the area.

The current Rouge park is home to the endangered Carolinian and mixed woodland life zones in Canada, as well as the ancestral home of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat, and Seneca first nations peoples and their sacred burial grounds.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ Translation ] Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act Bill C-26. Second reading The House resumed from June 2, 2014, consideration of the motion that Bill C-26,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, members of Parliament will be engaging in a debate on Bill C-26 that is part of a process to codify aspects of punishment associated with sexual offences against children.

At the risk of being repetitive, I will draw from empirical evidence, namely from my personal experience at the legal aid clinic I joined in 2006 as an intern. I worked at the clinic in Sept-Îles for about two years. Since I was new to the office, I was often given the cases nobody else would touch with a ten-foot pole, if I can use that expression. These were big cases involving clients who were not always the nicest people. I was in criminal defence. I also handled mental health cases. I handled 400 cases in 2007—we had statistics at the legal aid clinic.

It was a real boon to have those statistics every month, and our boss could come and talk to us about our performance. Anyway, in 2007, I handled 400 cases. As it happened, I ended up with several cases involving children, most of them young victims. Even a lawyer would find such clients difficult to like. It is hard to imagine what kind of experience would await them in a penal institution. At the time, there were restrictions in place. There was a very strict framework that applied to crimes against the person involving victims of sexual acts—children in this case. I remember the first such case I handled.

There was no way the accused could have served his sentence in the community. That was called a conditional sentence. By 2006 and 2007, there had been a codification, a change to the Criminal Code that prevented judges from sentencing people to serve time in the community. Sentencing was already getting harsher because that restriction was added. Given the bill before us and its history, it is clear that sentences related to sexual crimes against children have gradually gotten harsher. These offenders usually wound up in prison, depending on the severity of the alleged offences.

This clientele invariably found themselves in protective custody. Protective custody simply means that they have to be separated from the general prison population because even inside the prison walls, they risk being assaulted. Word gets around among the other inmates, and those offenders are really unpopular. They are not accepted. One can imagine, then, how horrible those offenders are in the eyes of the general Canadian population. Basically, as I said, this clientele is unique, and the onus of proof is high. The cases were also unique.

I had to ask for help from my articling supervisor at the time, and later from my boss, on those cases, because the crown was insistent, and more attention was given to those kinds of cases. Considering the social stigmas associated with crimes committed against vulnerable victims, it is important to enact coercive measures that will adequately protect young people and communities. With those goals set out, it is important to apply a filter to the measures proposed by this government in order to prevent possible diversions from issues of identity for targeted political gain.

If this had never been brought to my attention, I would not be mentioning it here today. However, history has shown, as I have learned from being here for the past three years, that too often, bastions of identity and highly contentious issues are often seized upon and given lots of media attention. It is unfortunate, but the Conservatives' trademark is “tough on crime”. There is even a copyright on it. This kind of measure, with harsher penalties, is meant to please a lobby group that has the government's ear.

That is why this kind of issue and the debate around it usually become more about propaganda and electioneering. As I said earlier, this has been brought to my attention several times.

(1015) Given the specific subject matter in this case, we must ensure first and foremost that the goal behind implementing measures that are more draconian and harsher for the accused is not just to pander for votes, since this is about the people on the ground. I will come back to that. It is the stakeholders, the paralegals, the crown prosecutors, and naturally the judges as well, who have to apply these harsher rules on the ground. What is more, these undue measures are being imposed on them without necessarily a supporting budgetary envelope.

Over the past few years, there has been a 6% increase in sexual assaults against children. It is not just the resources, including stakeholders on the ground and crown prosecutors, but also the social workers and paralegals who will have to deal with a larger clientele without necessarily getting more money to do so. We got to this point because some people felt it was necessary to create hype around this issue, and went to great lengths to propose harsher sentences and codified measures, which, if I may say it, are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Based on the findings concerning the dubious effectiveness of measures targeting sexual offences against children that have been brought forward since 2006, a review of the applicability and the hold of these measures on the work of judicial stakeholders must be undertaken in committee. There has to be a real study, so that we can try to see through all the hype and truly consider the impact on the people on the ground in order to understand the consequences and what the workers actually have to contend with. I will go over how sentences and restrictions have gotten tougher since 2006.

The government is: [Making it] illegal for anyone to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence... [Making it] illegal to use computers or other means of telecommunications to agree with or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child; The sex offender registry has been strengthened; the age at which a young person can legally consent to sexual activity has been increased from 14 to 16 years of age. Those are a few specifics. There has been a definite trend to harden the rules and strengthen coercive measures.

Despite these clear changes, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding the supplementary estimates, the Minister of Justice said that sexual offences against children had increased by 6% over the past two years. That is a rather large increase in recent years. This finding raises a number of questions about what the actual impact of the proposed amendments will be and whether they will be adequate, enforceable and effective.

Clearly, we are about to hit a wall since the number of such offences increased despite the tougher regulations that have been put in place since 2006. Is there a connection? A correlation? I submit that for consideration. However, this should still be examined in committee. I want to bring up these questions today so that they can be meaningfully debated and so that experts and people on the ground can be heard. Once again, it is the people on the ground or the front-line workers who will have to deal with these cases. As a result, they need to have their say about whether the proposed measures are enforceable.

Experts who have spoken out about the need to stop the sexual abuse of children have said that our communities need more human and financial resources in order to take a less repressive approach. There is always another way. Sometimes, we have to make sure that we are not wearing blinders. For example, and I will close on this point, the statistics from the Circle of Support and Accountability program are impressive. That is an alternative. According to one study, the rate of sexual recidivism is 70% lower among those who participate in a Circle of Support and Accountability program.

Another study shows that this type of program reduces the rate of sexual recidivism by 83%. Those are promising statistics, which show that there could be another another approach to dealing with this problem. Such an approach would also help ensure that justice is served and victims are protected. I submit this respectfully. (1020) [ English ] Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, when listening to my friend's speech over the last few minutes, I believe that when he quoted the Minister of Justice , he made reference to what I consider a shocking increase in child sexual offences over the last number of years. It is the only crime in Canada that is increasing in the number of offences every year. My recollection was that the Minister of Justice quoted the figure of 6% over two years, which comes from Juristat, but the member said, “You know, it is not as high as you might think.” Perhaps the member could clarify if he said that.

That is what I heard, but the acoustics are not very good in this chamber. I find that statement shocking and outrageous. I would suggest that the member speak to any worker at a child advocacy centre across Canada. There is one in Toronto called Boost. It is run by a person by the name of Karyn Kennedy. She has said that the number of clients her organization sees every year is rising exponentially and that it is a real epidemic that has to be faced. Perhaps he could address those issues. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think that some of my remarks may have been lost in translation, because at no point did I say that 6% was not incredibly worrisome. It is very worrisome. Such exponential growth from year to year shows how inadequate the proposed measures are and shows that they will not improve anything. This is 2014, and now is the time to address this issue and look at other potential measures instead of harsher penalties. We have seen a lot of these penalties since 2006, and so far we have hit a wall. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, we hear a great deal about advances through technology, and particularly about the positive impacts the Internet has on society. One of the things that we do not hear enough about or that there is not enough debate about in the House of Commons is the issue of the negative impacts on our society. One of the greatest negative impacts is the exploitation of children through the Internet. There are private members' bills with respect to that from all sides of the House.

All political parties are trying to get a better sense of the need for national leadership with respect to dealing with the predators who are exploiting our children. Could the member provide some comment on the need for us to be diligent in terms of what is taking place on the Internet today that is causing harm to our children? (1025) [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. His comments remind me of the visit I made last week to an elementary school in Sept-Îles, in my riding.

The children spoke a lot about online predators and the realities of social media. This made me realize that when I was their age, these kinds of things simply did not exist. I was 21 years old the first time I had access to a computer. I was almost in university. At 19 or 20, the first few times I saw the Internet, I had a hard time understanding it all. However, in 2014, kids who are 8 or 9 years old were practically born with tablets in their hands. There is a need for enforcement measures and better verification of the content on the Internet.

However, although this is very troublesome, it is outside the scope of this discussion and this study. There are experts who are examining this issue. The teacher I met with was well trained to handle the children's concerns. [ English ] Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I am pleased that our justice critic has brought forward a recommendation to send this bill to committee for study. I also want to thank our member for Manicouagan for his reasoned responses.

In Hamilton a sexual offender was released after he had been assessed as likely to reoffend, which concerned the Chief of Police to the point that the police posted what part of town he was in, his name, and his picture. Ultimately, he could not live within the boundaries of the court order and turned himself in to the police. He is back in custody, and since he has been back in custody, he has caused quite a few problems. My concern, and the concern of my constituents, is this: how do we deal with a situation like that? This is more of a comment than a question.

Hopefully the committee will review that portion of the problem of child sexual abuse and take a good look at how we can manage to ensure that it does not happen and that people will receive proper health care as well. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his intervention. He talked about posting the individual's whereabouts and picture. Those are methods and practices that have been used in the United States and perhaps even here in Canada. However, that may open a Pandora's box because people could become vigilantes. We do not want that.

I can guarantee that if people decide to take the law into their own hands, there will be implications. This is worth considering at committee to determine whether action by the public is a good thing and workable on the ground. As I said in the beginning, this is a distinct group. These criminals and offenders already enjoy a dubious kind of popularity in prison. Their safety is jeopardized because of the circumstances. The other inmates have it in for them. We need to ensure that the same thing does not happen in broader society. It is worth looking into. [ English ] Mr.

Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. However, I must say that although I fully support this bill, I do so with sadness, because like every member of this House, I wish it were not necessary, but unfortunately it is. We discussed earlier the statistics from Juristat , which describe the problem. Over 3,900 sexual violations against children were reported to police in 2012, which was an increase of 3% from 2011, and the same increase was seen from 2010 to 2011.

There were approximately 33,000 sex offenders on the National Sex Offender Registry, of which approximately 22,000 had a conviction for a child sex offence as of October 2013. This is very unfortunate. It is the one type of crime in Canada that continues to increase year by year. I was told by Karyn Kennedy, the executive director of the Boost child advocacy centre in Toronto, an agency that is doing fantastic work to assist child and youth victims of sexual offences, that they cannot keep up with the demand.

They opened a centre a year ago expecting to have about 1,400 cases in that year, and they had almost double that number during that period. It is an endemic problem. It may be fuelled in part by the availability of the Internet and the ease of luring and abusing children over the Internet. Unfortunately, it is a heinous crime that is being perpetrated against the most vulnerable people in our society, and we must all take action to do whatever we can to reduce and eliminate it. This bill reflects the ongoing efforts of the government to protect our children from sexual exploitation.

My remarks today will focus on the bill's proposals to ensure that the sentences imposed for child sexual offences adequately reflect the appropriate level of denunciation and deterrence. We know that children are far more likely to be victims of sexual crimes than are adults. It is worrisome to see that the trend is increasing. One of the factors contributing to this trend in recent years has been the Internet, which has expanded the reach of sexual predators to the globe with a click of a button.

The justice committee heard considerable evidence of the use of the Internet to lure, exploit, and sexually bully children during its study of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. The proposed reforms to our Criminal Code and our new investigative powers in that bill are necessary to protect children, as are the provisions in the bill before us. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection is an impressive organization that has, since 2004, received support from the federal government as part of the national strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet.

It delivers programs to increase the personal safety of children and reduce their risk of sexual exploitation. These programs include education and prevention, research, and the coordination of national efforts on child protection with the private sector, government, and law enforcement. It also operates cybertip.ca, Canada's national 24/7 tip line for reporting online child sexual exploitation. As noted on its website, between September 2002 and June 2010, cybertip.ca received 39,783 reports of online child sexual exploitation, 90% of which were for child pornography offences.

These numbers paint a horrifying picture that clearly demonstrates that we must do more to stop child sexual exploitation, including by online predators. The proposed amendments contained in this bill would assist in achieving this objective by ensuring that sentences handed down would properly denounce and deter all forms of child sexual exploitation. Bill C-26 proposes to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for nine existing child sexual offences as well as increase the maximum penalties for 16 existing child sexual offences. For example, the maximum penalty for

section 171.1 of the Criminal Code, making sexually explicit material available to a child for the purpose of facilitating the sexual abuse of the child, would increase from two years of imprisonment on indictment to 14 years of imprisonment, with a corresponding increase in the mandatory minimum penalty from 90 days to six months imprisonment. The offences of making child pornography, subsection 163.1(2), and distributing child pornography, subsection 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code would be converted from hybrid offences to indictable offences, and the maximum penalties would increase from 10 to 14 years.

(1030) As well, the maximum penalties on indictment for luring a child on the Internet,

section 172.1 of the code, and for an agreement or arrangement to commit a sexual offence against a child through the use of telecommunications,

section 172.2 of the code, will increase from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment. These are serious crimes, and this bill will ensure that they receive serious penalties. This bill goes further to ensure that the objective of these amendments, to impose penalties that properly reflect the seriousness of the offence, is not defeated through sentence discounts for offenders sentenced at the same time for multiple child sexual offences.

Courts have, over time, developed rules to assist sentencing judges in the determination of whether sentences should be served concurrently, at the same time, or consecutively, that is, served one after the other. The general rule is that offences committed as part of the same transaction or same event should be served concurrently. For instance, an offender who sexually abuses a child and also makes a permanent record of that abuse by making child pornography should in theory be ordered to serve two sentences concurrently.

Where an offender is sentenced at the same time for offences that are not committed as part of the same transaction, those sentences are normally served consecutively. However, sometimes it happens that an offender is sentenced at the same time for sexual offences committed against different children, that is, committed as separate events. There have been a number of notorious serial child sex offenders whose crimes have come to light in much later years and were then tried together.

Those offenders sometimes get a sentence discount through sentences that are imposed concurrent to each other rather than consecutively. Such an approach, in my view, sends a message, in the case of multiple victims, that not every victim counts. That is unfortunate. Increasingly, however, sentencing courts are recognizing that consecutive sentences are warranted in certain cases of child sexual exploitation. These situations include, for example, where the offender has sexually abused a child, made child pornographic recordings of that abuse, and then disseminated those images worldwide via the Internet.

Imposing consecutive sentences in these circumstances, as some courts have already done, recognizes the reality that once such images are distributed, they will forever be available on the Internet and that the child depicted in those images will be revictimized every time the images are viewed. For these reasons, Bill C-26 proposes to codify this growing practice by requiring courts that are sentencing an offender at the same time for child pornography and child sexual abuse to impose consecutive sentences for these offences.

The bill would also require a sentencing court to consider imposing consecutive sentences on an offender who is sentenced at the same time for sexual offences against multiple child victims; that is, the sentence imposed for child sexual offences committed against one child would be served consecutive, meaning one after the other, to the sentence imposed for sexual offences committed against another child. Those are all important and welcome steps to ensure that all child sexual offenders are held fully accountable for their crimes. This bill will treat each victim equally and with dignity.

This bill will end volume discounts for serial child sexual offenders. This bill will also look beyond the sentence and seek to enhance community safety where the offender is released into the community under a prohibition order, under

section 161; a probation order, under

section 731; or a peace bond, under 810.1 of the Criminal Code. A sentencing court must consider imposing a prohibition order on an offender convicted of a child sexual assault offence. Probation orders, under

section 731, can be imposed on offenders who are sentenced to less than two years' imprisonment. Peace bonds can be imposed where there is a reasonable fear that the person will commit a child sexual offence, which is under

section 810.1 of the Criminal Code. Many experts tell us that most, if not all, child sexual offenders can never be rehabilitated, that once they have this problem, this issue, this proclivity, there is really nothing that can be done to ensure that they do not have that proclivity in the future. There are people, unfortunately, in our society who must always be under some kind of probation order or watch and must be listed on an offender registry so that Canadians can keep their children safe.

(1035) All of these orders can impose conditions restricting the offender's contact with children and use of the Internet or other digital networks with a view to preventing the offender from committing a child sexual offence. The Criminal Code currently provides for a maximum penalty on indictment of two years' imprisonment for breaches of the supervision orders. Given that they are crucial in protecting our children from sexual offenders, including from recidivists, the bill proposes to increase the penalty for a breach of these orders to a maximum term of imprisonment on indictment of four years.

The bill also proposes to impose consistent penalties for breaches of these orders when prosecuted summarily. There have been many cases, unfortunately, of child sexual offenders who, on release and on some form of probation, then committed a second, third, or fourth subsequent offence, and that is problem we are trying to address with these provisions in Bill C-26 . Currently, breaches of peace bonds and prohibition orders are both punished on

summary conviction by a maximum fine of $5,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both, yet breaches of probation orders are punishable on

summary conviction by a maximum fine of $2,000 or 18 months' imprisonment, or both. To ensure the harmonization of the penalties for breaches of these supervision orders, the bill would provide that the maximum penalty on

summary conviction for breaches would be 18 months' imprisonment or $5,000, or both. The last element I wish to touch upon is the amendment to the proposed Canada Evidence Act. The Canada Evidence Act provides that the spouse of a person accused of most offences can neither testify for the prosecution nor be forced to testify against the spouse. However, there are exceptions to this rule for most child sexual offences, but not, unfortunately, in the case of child pornography offences. In child pornography cases, the evidence of the accused's spouse may be required to prove the guilt of the accused.

That is why the amendments proposed in this bill would make the spouse competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution in cases of child pornography. There are a number of other provisions that I think are very important in the bill that I would like everyone listening to know about. The bill would also establish a publicly accessible database of high-risk child sexual offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. It would assist in ensuring the safety of our communities.

In addition, the bill would provide for legislation to enable information-sharing, on certain registered sex offenders, between officials responsible for the National Sex Offender Registry and those with the Canada Border Services Agency so that foreign nations may be notified when these types of offenders are travelling to other jurisdictions. Finally, Bill C-26 would require registered sex offenders to provide more information regarding their travel abroad.

We want to protect not only children in Canada but children around the world, and unfortunately, there are those in our society who would leave our borders to find victims around the world. Canada will live up to its international obligation to protect children around the world by ensuring that high-risk child sexual offenders notify the Canada Border Services Agency when they intend to travel abroad. The heinous nature of sexual crimes committed against children, especially the online sexual exploitation of children, requires all of us in this chamber to support the proposed amendments contained in the bill.

I was gratified to hear a few moments ago that my friends in the NDP will be supporting the bill to go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for study. I look forward to working with them at the justice committee to study the bill and ensure that it addresses the needs of the children we are trying to protect in Canada. (1040) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill to send it to committee. I think that everyone in the House agrees that this is an extremely important issue.

As everyone knows, the NDP and all parties and politicians have always had zero tolerance for sexual assault or assault of any kind against children. That being said, the devil is often in the details. My colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek raised an interesting point, and earlier, my colleague from Manicouagan gave us a very good overview of the bill itself. Basically, people have kind of forgotten Bill C-26 because the last time we talked about it was in June, when we debated it for a few hours late at night, close to midnight. I remember rising in the House then to discuss this bill.

The Minister of Justice was marketing it as a panacea, with the new database on high-risk sex offenders. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice made it clear in his speech that a few minimum sentences will be increased. Let us not get carried away. Sometimes minimum sentences are increased from six months to one year. It is nothing to write home about. We know through jurisprudence that high-risk offenders are given much longer sentences than that. That is not the problem. I would like the parliamentary secretary to put his notes aside.

How can we keep our communities safe when, essentially, the problem is not knowing that these people are free, but the fact that they are free, period? That is what escapes me. How can we keep our communities safe by being a little tougher, and not with things like Bill C-26 , which seems to be all razzle-dazzle? How can we realistically ensure that a dangerous sex offender does not end up in our communities? (1045) [ English ] Mr. Bob Dechert : Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is right that more needs to be done.

Simply increasing penalties is not the whole answer to the problem, but we must make a very strong statement of our abhorrence as a society of those who would commit these kinds of offences against children. That is what Bill C-26 is attempting to do. The member will also know that there are a number of provisions, which I outlined in my speech, about prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds that could be applied to known child sexual offenders to protect children.

As I mentioned, we are also creating a special high-risk child sex offender registry that will be made available to the public through the Internet. This will be designed in conjunction with the advice of the RCMP and the provincial and territorial attorneys general to ensure it is done in a way that will actually give Canadians the information they need, so that they will know if a sexual offender is in the community and what steps they can take to ensure that their children are safe. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech and the work he does on the justice committee. I want to raise with him a matter that I raised with the minister when he appeared before the committee on the bill. First, I hope it goes without saying that on all sides of the House we absolutely abhor these types of crime and agree that measures that work to reduce them should be taken. In the the Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill C-10 , there were several mandatory minimum penalties imposed for these types of offences. Bill C-10 took effect in 2012.

We heard from the parliamentary secretary that since 2012, incidents of these types of crime have gone up by 6%. I counted eight types of existing offences, and the parliamentary secretary said there were nine. However, we are increasing again the mandatory minimum sentences that were put in place or increased in Bill C-10. If they have not worked, why are we doing it again? Mr. Bob Dechert : Mr. Speaker, certainly by keeping the offender in jail longer, we protect children more significantly. That is one reason we do it.

Obviously we are trying to address the fact that there has been increase, year over year, in these types of offences. Part of it may be because there is better reporting and the fact our government has been investing in child advocacy centres across Canada to assist with that reporting and make it easier for child sexual assault victims to report offences against them.

The mandatory minimum penalties are designed to ensure that anyone who would commit a sexual offence against a child would spend time in jail, an appropriate time in jail, and the longer they are in jail, even if it is a few more days, those are a few more days of protection for the children in that community from that child sexual offender. Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I appreciate both the tone and the content of the speeches made to date. I think it is a reflection of how seriously we all take this issue. My question will be brief and quite specific.

The hon. parliamentary secretary was speaking about the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentencing, which those of us who are not lawyers maybe do not have a full grasp of. However, as I understand the parliamentary secretary, he was saying that in the case of someone making child porn, there would be three offences, perhaps, including the actual abuse of the child, the documenting or the making of a record of that abuse, and then the broadcasting of that abuse.

They may be separate crimes but the problem is that the judge might see fit to impose only one sentence for those three offences, or three sentences served concurrently, rather than consecutively. I would like him to expand a bit further on that. Also, the notion of volume discounts surely is offensive to the sensibilities of anyone in this room, given the nature of the crimes. What in Bill C-26 would stop this notion of volume discounts?

(1050) Mr. Bob Dechert : Mr. Speaker, first, with respect to the child pornography offences, there is a growing understanding that the child is actually re-victimized each and every time that image is distributed or viewed over the Internet. There is the offence of assaulting the child; there is the offence of making the record of that assault in the first place; and then the offence of it getting distributed many times.

There is an increasing understanding at the bar and in the courts that the child is actually being re-victimized a number of times and, therefore, that this requires, and demands, that sentences for each of those offences be served consecutively, rather than concurrently. He is right that everyone here abhors sentence discounts for multiple child sex offenders with multiple child sex victims, but, unfortunately, these things have been happening in our courts. There is a famous case with respect to an individual who committed offences against young men over a number of years at the Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto.

That is a case in point. There is also the case of Graham James, the hockey coach, who sexually exploited many young men over many years in Manitoba and other places. In each of those cases, the offender did not get consecutive sentences for each of those victims. Bill C C-26 would require that the court consider consecutive sentences in each of those kinds of cases. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-26 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. I stand in support of the bill at second reading because I, and I am sure all members of the House whether on that or this side of the chamber, believe that protecting our children should be one of our top priorities. We do a huge range of things in Parliament, but I do not take anything as seriously as the protection of children.

Being a mother and a grandmother and having been a teacher for quite a few decades and worked with thousands of children, I realize the importance of child protection on a personal level. I am sure that every member of Parliament would agree that nothing is more abhorrent or as sick as the sexual assault of children. Even individuals who have not had children would, I think, consider this kind of criminal activity abhorrent and absolutely heinous. As my esteemed colleague from Winnipeg said earlier, I am pleased by the tone of the debate in this room today, and that it is because we want to get this right.

I want to get it right. I want each and every one of us to do whatever it takes to make sure that we do this in a way that would actually protect our children. In order to do that, I am going to plead with my government colleagues not to cut off debate on this legislation, which we have seen done in this place many times. This is too important an issue to be rushed through. The government could have brought this legislation forward a long time ago but it did not. Now that it is here, let us do our job and make sure that we do everything we can to protect children.

As a member of Parliament I am pleading with my colleagues across the way to make sure that at committee we take the time to bring in witnesses, and not just a couple of witnesses. Last week on a piece of legislation I was dealing with, the official opposition was allowed only one witness and then given only five minutes to ask questions of that witness. I want to believe that everyone is genuine when it comes to tackling something as serious as child protection, specifically the sexual assault of children.

With that in mind, it is really critical that when the bill gets to committee, we not only take the time to hear expert witnesses but also that we make decisions that would make things better. All members of Parliament love photo ops. We have them in our ridings all the time when we are making announcements or when a festival occurs, or when we go to a tree lighting ceremony, like I am soon to do in Surrey. These are the kinds of photo ops we should take

part in, but when it comes to the protection of our children from sexual assault, it is not something we want to be rushing through just so that we can say that we are doing something. I do not sit on justice committee, but I have a great deal of trust in our critic and other members of the committee. I trust them to do due diligence on this issue, but in order to do that they need time. They need time to have discussions with the witnesses and to deliberate. Then they need time to put forward thoughtful amendments.

(1055) With this legislation, I hope my colleagues across the way will not say that it is their way or the highway. I hope they will give serious consideration to the amendments the New Democrats put forward, of which I am sure there will be many because my colleague, the NDP critic, is a very experienced lawyer who has a lot of expertise in this area and she takes this file very seriously. I know she will have some great suggestions.

Once again, let us ensure, as we tackle the very difficult, sensitive and heart-wrenching issue of the protection of our children from sexual offenders, that we get it right so our children are truly protected. That is the goal of all of us. I have three grandchildren and like every other grandparent would say about their grandchildren, they are most gorgeous grandchildren on this planet. I think grandparents get the right to say that over and over again. As I watch them, I compare their lives to the way my children grew up. They have access to the Internet.

My daughter is one of those moms who has all kinds of filters, and checks and balances that follow where the kids go on the Internet, but not every parent has the knowledge or time to do that. As said, our children are exposed to so much more and no matter how much monitoring a parent does of their children's use and activity on the Internet, we know there are opportunities for those who seek to assault our children, to use the Internet in a way that probably even shocks and surprises many of us in this room who are a little more literate in these areas.

I am sometimes shocked at what pops up when I am on the Internet. There is a lot we need to do to protect our children. It is a different world. I always worry about what my grandchildren and other children are confronted with. If they have a sad moment and write something on Facebook or any other social media, what kinds of predators are waiting to pounce on that? We have heard about all the bullying that takes place on the Internet and the dire consequences of that. Getting back to the legislation, let me make it very clear.

There is no doubt that every NDP member sitting in our caucus has a zero tolerance policy on matters involving sexual offences against children. We absolutely respect the principles of jurisprudence and fundamental laws. At the same time, we have a zero tolerance policy when it comes sexual offences against children. I do not want to keep bringing this up, but sometimes we have to remind ourselves. It was the NDP that offered to fast track parts of former Bill C-10 that dealt with sexual offences against children. We were in agreement on that component.

We were willing to separate that out and have it go through, but, of course, to no avail. The NDP members have also introduced private members' initiatives, which the government ultimately adopted, with a view to preventing the sexual exploitation of children and making it illegal to use a computer to perpetrate an offence against a child. That was long before my time. It was put forward by former NDP member Dawn Black, who is now retired and enjoying a political life in a different arena.

(1100) As I said, our goal is to protect our children. We also know that in order to have child protection, having legislation itself is not enough. We can pass all of the legislation we like, but unless our communities have the resources they need, that legislation is just words on paper. I come from the city of Surrey. As many have heard, we have had some pretty tragic events and murders in our city. My city is still waiting for a commitment that was made by the federal government for additional policing, and it has not lived up to it.

One of my major concerns is that I am from a municipality that is really stretched when it comes to policing, not only to deal with an increase in petty crimes, mental health and drug related crimes, but also to deal with gangs, drug cartels and all of those things. I worry that sometimes, as parliamentarians, we pass legislation because we absolutely believe in it and think it is good, but then undermine our own legislation when we do not provide the resources that are needed by communities. This is one thing I hope the government will keep in mind as we move forward with this legislation.

I cannot remember who it was, but somebody once said to me that if harsher and longer prison sentences, and the death penalty could end crime, the U.S. would have very little crime. However, we know that is not true. We absolutely have to take a very close look at this legislation, but we also have to take a look at it in a way that will achieve our goal. Our goal is to protect our children. I have not had the time to go through the bill in detail, but what I have discovered, with my colleagues across the way, is often the devil is in the details.

That is why we need experts to speak to the potential effectiveness of the proposed changes. I know my limitations. I am not a lawyer, so I need to rely on the justice committee and our critic, who is a very experienced lawyer, as well as the experts who are called before the committee to ensure we make this legislation right. That is our goal, and that is where we should go with this. As other colleagues have said in the House today, on the whole, we are told that nationally the crime numbers have gone down.

Every time that is said in Surrey, the people there do not believe it, because of their lived experience day in and day out. I have been at recent municipal debates where people are very offended when that is said. They have a high level of anxiety around their own safety. What is really concerning is that despite the changes made by the government since 2006 to better protect children, and there have been about nine of them, the Minister of Justice , at committee, stated that sexual offences against children had increased 6% over the past two years. That is a shocking number.

As a parent, I looked at this and wondered how that could be? This is in spite of the fact that since 2006, the tough-on-crime agenda has been worked on or is in place

(1105) We all know, and I worked as a counsellor on a number of different issues, that along with being tough on crime, we also have to keep in mind the rights of the victims, protect them and provide them the resources they need after the crime. I do not know about other provinces, but in my province, beautiful British Columbia, the area of child protection does not work too well. In fact, it is very disconcerting to hear the kinds of cuts that are being made in the area of social workers and other preventative measures.

Therefore, as well as having a tough on crime agenda, we also need support for the victims to help them rehabilitate after the crime. The trauma, especially when it comes to sexual assault, is great. One or two sessions with a counsellor will not to cut it for every child. Therefore, I am looking really hard for resources that would help rehabilitate our young children. I am not saying it is something a child, or any person, could get over. It would be very presumptuous of me to say that. However, without systematic and ongoing support, we will leave our children even more vulnerable.

It becomes really critical that we have the resources to support the children. At the same time, if we are going to ask our police forces to do more monitoring and many other things, then we should be looking at ensuring the RCMP and others have the necessary resources a well. Going back to the children, every time a child is sexually assaulted, we need to look at support for the whole family. The whole family goes through the trauma, parents, siblings and everyone else in the vicinity as well, including grandparents. We have to do much more in that area.

We also need to do much more to protect our communities from repeat offenders. The tragic murder that occurred this year in my riding was a case of a repeat offender. He was on probation and was being monitored, yet in spite of all of that, a young woman in the prime of her life was killed. We have to look at what actually works. I am not saying that we on this side of the House have the answers. What I am saying is we have to rely on experts and those who know far more than parliamentarians do about this whole issue. We have to look at how we deal with those who offend.

The NDP has put forward a valiant fight for the Circles of Support and Accountability Program. Steve Sullivan, former federal ombudsman for the victims of crime, said this: ...the federal government recently announced it was cutting the measly $650,000 in funding that Corrections Canada provides. CoSA also receives funding from the National Crime Prevention Centre; that's also set to end this fall. In total, the program costs $2.2 million a year. He went on to say: Like most community-based victim services, CoSA is a fairly cheap program.

It has 700 volunteers across the country; they meet with offenders after their release, help them find jobs and places to live, meet with them regularly for coffee. They support offenders as they start to live normal lives, ones that don't involve new victims. They hold them accountable.

(1110) Those services have been reduced or cut totally in some areas. Let me finish by saying that we support sending this bill to committee. I am pleading with my colleagues across the way to give us the time that is needed to do our due diligence at committee, to be open to amendments, to be open to expert advice, and to listen to those who know more about this issue than we do so that we end up with good legislation. I am also pleading with them to fund the legislation so we can actually see its effect. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her thoughtful speech.

There were several specific themes that she touched upon that really resonated with me. I certainly appreciate her comments with respect to the need to support victims. We are grappling with that issue right now at the justice committee with the victims bill of rights. The member said we need to adopt measures that will work. What we know is that the go-to, the default tool of the government, is mandatory minimum sentences. We saw a bunch of them imposed in Bill C-10 ; now we hear that there is 6% increase in these horrible crimes after the imposition of these mandatory minimum sentences.

What are we doing in this bill? We are increasing them again. The member referred specifically to two non-legislative initiatives that should be encouraged. That was also something that resonated with me. She talked about increased policing and the circles of support and accountability. In keeping with our mutual wish to adopt measures that work, knowing that mandatory minimums do not, I invite the member to perhaps add some additional comments or thoughts on where our efforts should be focused if we are truly targeted on trying to have fewer victims.

(1115) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, when it comes to minimum sentencing, it is very clear that the leader of the third party is against mandatory minimum sentences. He has been very clear about that, and this bill will not create any more mandatory sentences. However, I want to remind my colleague that it was the Liberal Party that introduced many of the mandatory minimum sentences. Sometimes we want to rewrite history a little, but it behooves us to do our due diligence and know that those originated with that party. The custom has been carried on by my colleagues across the way.

One of the things I know is that if we want to ensure the safety of our children, we do have to look at prevention and we also have to look at support. Even when people are incarcerated behind bars, we have to look at what kind of support we are providing while they are in there. Then we have to make sure that they are only released when they are not likely to reoffend. If there is even an iota of a chance that they may, we have to make sure we have processes in place to ensure our children's safety. I am not an expert on what it would look like on the ground.

I think it needs to be not members of Parliament but experts, including our RCMP and community groups, that deal with this issue. We have to accept the fact that rehabilitation is not always possible. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, from what I gather from the many dealings I have had with people who work in field of sexual offences, I must say that one of the main problems is not the punishment, but proving guilt. Before someone is sentenced to prison, their guilt must first be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is a serious problem.

Far too often, I have seen cases thrown out for lack of evidence. To get valid testimony from a child or someone who is delayed or mentally disabled takes a team of specially trained police officers. That is the real issue when it comes to the bill before us. I would like to see a provision in the bill for training police officers so that they can get the evidence they need to lead to convictions. [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, our colleague has just reminded me, and I do not see how I could have forgotten, that today is actually the UN day of the child.

I thank my colleague for reminding me of that. It is apropos that we are discussing this legislation today. There are many issues when it comes to sexual assault. There are many victim-related issues, and we always have to be careful that we do not revictimize the victims and do further harm. We also need to have processes in place that ensure those victims are protected from further abuse, but as my colleague said, we have a legal system, and I trust the people in the legal system to be able to deal with the issues as they arise.

Our job as parliamentarians is to pass clear legislation that can be interpreted by those who have to implement it. I will go back to this point again. We have to ensure we put resources in place both for victims, for rehabilitation, and for other supports that are needed to protect children. The safety of our children has to be our number one priority. There is nothing more heinous for any of us to imagine than the sexual assault of minors.

(1120) Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for her insightful speech today. I have heard in this House comments about child sexual abuse having gone up by 6% since mandatory minimum sentences were put in place. The question earlier today was that mandatory minimums are not working, so why do we do it? There is one factor that has not been taken into consideration in this House today. The fact is that because of the bills that have been put forth in this House, more victims are coming forward and speaking out.

I find the mandatory minimum sentences extremely helpful. They protect the child. The tenor in this parliamentary chamber today is so gratifying. I hear my colleague across the way speaking from her heart for the safety of children and I hear my other colleagues saying that it is of paramount importance that children be protected. However, we have to look at the whole picture when it comes to mandatory minimums. They are of paramount importance because of the increase in the number of people coming forward.

I want to ask my colleague across the way if she has looked statistically at how many people, and how many children, are coming forward now in comparison to three and four years ago? I think she would be quite gratified to see the change in those numbers. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I have a great deal of respect for the work she has done around trafficking issues. I know her heart is in that work and I have had the privilege of enjoying conversations with her on those issues, so I know how seriously she takes legislation like this.

For me, the 6% increase in sexual offences against our children is a horrendous figure. Even one child who is sexually assaulted is one child too many, in my books, and no amount of statistics is going to make me think any differently about that. I think I was very careful not to single out minimum sentencing in my speech. I generally referred to all the tough-on-crime agenda components, and I want to stress that again. This is not about throwing darts and arrows. For me, it is about getting something right.

If we as parliamentarians cannot put aside our darts and arrows when it comes to children's safety and to protecting children from sexual predators, or if we make the kinds of comments that members made in this House when I made a comment a few minutes ago, it diminishes us in the public domain. We need to rise above all of that and focus on doing this right. Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-26 , the tougher penalties for child predators act, during second reading debate. [ Translation ] In order to support the Canadian government's commitment to stand up for victims of crime, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced a bill to better address the problem of sex offences committed against children in Canada and abroad. [ English ] The bill builds on the government's concerted efforts to protect children from those who would prey on their vulnerability.

Some examples of what this government has done to better protect children from sexual predators include the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, which established new mandatory minimum penalties for seven existing child offences, increased the mandatory minimum penalties for nine existing child sex offences, and increased the maximum prison sentences for four existing child sexual exploitation offences to better reflect the serious nature of these offences.

It also created two new offences to prevent anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of sexual offences against that child, which is

section 171.1 of the Criminal Code, and to prohibit anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including the Internet, to agree or to make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing sexual offences against a child, which is

section 172.2. It also requires judges to consider prohibiting suspected or convicted child sex offenders from having any unsupervised contact with a young person under the age of 16 or having any unsupervised use of the Internet or other digital network. There was also the law called “An Act Respecting the Mandatory Reporting of Internet Child Pornography by Persons Who Provide an Internet Service” in 2011, which requires those who provide Internet services to report when they are advised of an Internet address where child pornography may be available to the public.

As well, the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act of 2011 required all those convicted of sexual offences abroad to report to a police service within seven days of arriving in Canada, and the Tackling Violent Crime Act of 2008 doubled the duration of peace bonds and protective orders for persons convicted of child sexual offences or suspected of committing such an offence in the future, and of course raised the age of sexual activity, known as the age of protection, to 16 years. This last amendment is significant.

It brought Canada in line with other like-minded countries to ensure a higher level of protection for children in Canada by preventing Canadian children from being targeted by foreign pedophiles, who used to view Canada as a safe haven to pursue sexual activity with 14- and 15-year-olds. (1125) [ Translation ] Our government has also taken broader measures to help young victims of crime. We have provided over $10 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres, or CACs, since 2010. So far, CAC projects have been funded in 20 cities or municipalities across Canada.

Teams of professionals at these centres help young victims and witnesses cope with the trauma they have experienced and navigate the criminal justice system. We also launched www.getcybersafe.gc.ca, the Government of Canada’s public awareness website on online safety. The site contains information for parents on how to protect their children from people who go online for the purpose of exploiting, manipulating or abusing children. We joined the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online in June 2013.

The goal of the global alliance is to strengthen international efforts to fight Internet predators and child abuse images online. It focuses on identifying and helping victims, prosecuting offenders, increasing public awareness and reducing the availability of child pornography online. There was also consultation with the public and stakeholders in order to better understand the different opinions on which rights should be recognized and protected by a federal victims bill of rights. These consultations are crucial to determining how best to enshrine victims' rights in a single federal law.

Since 2006, the government has allocated more than $120 million to meet the needs of victims of crime through programs and initiatives delivered by the Department of Justice. [ English ] This is only a sampling of the measures that this government has undertaken to strengthen the criminal justice system's protection of children from such heinous crimes, but these measures are the foundation on which Bill C-26 's proposed reforms are built. I believe that the import of Bill C-26's reforms can only be truly appreciated in this context.

First and foremost, sentencing reforms in Bill C-26 would ensure that those who prey upon children receive the sentences they deserve. [ Translation ] In Canada, more than 3,900 sexual offences against children were reported to the police in 2012. That is a 6% increase over 2010. We must take action.

This bill proposes nine new measures that reflect the commitment the government made in the 2013 throne speech to re-establish Canada as a country where those who break the law are punished for their actions, where penalties match the severity of the crimes committed, and where the most vulnerable victims—children—are better protected.

The measures are as follows: requiring those convicted of contact child sexual offences against multiple children to serve their sentences consecutively, one after another; requiring those convicted of child pornography offences and contact child sexual offences to serve their sentences consecutively; increasing maximum and minimum prison sentences for certain child sexual offences; increasing penalties for violation of conditions of supervision orders; ensuring that a crime committed while on house arrest, parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence is an aggravating factor at sentencing; ensuring that spousal testimony is available in child pornography cases; requiring registered sex offenders to provide more information when they travel abroad; enabling information sharing on certain registered sex offenders between officials responsible for the national sex offender registry and at the Canada Border Services Agency; and establishing a publicly accessible database of high-risk child sex offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction to assist in ensuring the safety of our communities. (1130) [ English ] The bill proposes to increase the mandatory minimum penalties for 9 existing child sexual offences as well as to increase the maximum penalty for 16 existing child sexual offences.

The offences cover the full range of conduct engaged in by child sexual offenders. Some offenders engage in conduct that is preparatory to a contact sexual offence. This process is sometimes referred to as “grooming”. For example, some offenders may show children sexually explicit material to normalize the sexual activity in which they wish to engage. Others may attempt to make an agreement with another adult who has control over a child to sexually abuse that child. Still others may directly contact a child through the Internet to prepare the child for sexual abuse.

I stress that all this contact is specifically prohibited by the Criminal Code, sections 171.1 to 172.2. Bill C-26 would ensure that the penalties for engaging in this conduct are commensurate with the severity of the crime. Applicable mandatory minimum penalties would be increased, and a maximum penalty of 14 years on indictment would be imposed for all these preparatory child sexual offences. The Criminal Code also prohibits sexual contact with children through child specific sexual offences, sections 151 to 153, and general sexual offences, sections 271 to 273.

Maximum penalties for child specific sexual offences as well as for the general sexual assault offences,

section 271, where the victim is under 16 years, would increase from 18 months to 2 years less a day on

summary conviction and from 10 years to 14 years on indictment. The maximum penalty for sexual assault with a weapon where the victim is under age 16 would increase from 14 years to life imprisonment. Bill C-26 would also strengthen the child pornography provisions, which prohibit making, distributing, possessing, or accessing child pornography,

section 163.1. First, the bill would make the offence of making and distributing child pornography strictly indictable and increase the maximum penalties from 10 years to 14 years to reflect the particularly heinous nature of these crimes. It would also increase the mandatory minimum penalties for possessing and accessing child pornography from 90 days to 6 months on

summary conviction and from 6 months to a year on indictment. In addition, it would increase the maximum penalties for these offences from 18 months to 2 years less a day on

summary conviction and from 5 to 10 years on indictment. However, Bill C-26 does not stop there. The bill would also increase penalties for breaches of supervision orders. These orders can be imposed to prevent future offending. Therefore, it is critical that penalties for breaches of such orders act as a deterrent. Accordingly, Bill C-26 would ensure that anyone convicted of breaching a probation order, peace bond, or prohibition order would be subject to a maximum penalty of 18 months on

summary conviction rather than the existing 6 months, and 4 years on indictment rather than the existing 2 years. I have focused on the reforms Bill C-26 proposes that would increase penalties for child sexual offences, but the bill also proposes other important sentencing reforms, including to require that offenders who offend against multiple child victims, or commit child pornography offences and contact child sexual offences, serve their sentences for these offences consecutively rather than concurrently if they are sentenced for such offences at the same time. This means no more sentence discounts.

Bill C-26 would also ensure that committing an offence while subject to a conditional sentence order—that is, a sentence that was served in the community or while on parole or while on statutory release—is also considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. All of these sentencing reforms taken together would assist in strengthening the criminal laws' intricate web of protection for children. In short, these reforms would send a message: Canada will not tolerate sexually offending against children. We must do everything we can to prevent such offending, protect children, and hold offenders to account.

I am also pleased that this bill contains some important reforms that would assist in ensuring that the evidence of an accused's spouse is available in child pornography prosecutions; that information could be shared between Canada and foreign countries concerning Canadians travelling abroad to sexually offend against children; and that the public would be informed of high-risk offenders who may offend again against our children. I will quote Sharon Rosenfeldt, president of the Victims of Violence.

She said: We need to protect the vulnerable and make sure they have the tools to get help, heal and move forward with their lives—especially our children. We at Victims of Violence welcome the federal government’s move to strengthen laws surrounding sexual abuse, so children are protected from abuse and exploitation, victims are heard and our communities are made safer. There is no doubt in my mind that Bill C-26 is a critical piece of legislation that would serve to protect our children and our communities and keep them safe.

Accordingly, I encourage all hon. members to join me in support of Bill C-26 . (1135) [ Translation ] Victims, especially children, need our support. I invite members of all parties to join me in supporting this bill. Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice , whom I have the pleasure of working with in committee. We will certainly have some interesting discussions about Bill C-26 . This bill looks good on paper.

However, since we are both lawyers, the member and I both know that when you factor in the provisions, the Criminal Code and reality, there may be major obstacles standing in the way of what looks good on paper. Reality is catching up with the Conservatives. I would like to believe that they have a good reason for enacting tougher legislation. However, doing so will not increase the number of police officers to deal with these cases, the number of probation officers to monitor the offenders or the number of crown prosecutors to prosecute these cases. Therein lies the problem.

We can impose harsher sentences and say that a person is liable to 14 years in prison, but that does not mean that the court will come to that conclusion. In reality, crown prosecutors—and he knows this as well as I do—have to deal with a hundred cases and a hundred defence attorneys who are coming to them to say that their client will plead guilty to such and such a charge. This is why people sometimes get the feeling that justice is not easily served. Sometimes, the system becomes bogged down because there are so many cases and they all take time. However, Bill C-26 does not seem to reflect that reality.

I would like the government to specifically address the discrepancy between what is written down on paper and the resources that are available to all of the stakeholders. There is still a serious shortage of judges in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and other provinces. The government is dragging its feet. There is a saying that “justice delayed is justice denied”. The government can create all the laws it likes, but that will not improve access to justice and ensure that cases are resolved quickly so that victims can recover from these incidents. I do not see anything in Bill C-26 that will speed up the process.

Will the government introduce a more comprehensive solution to the problems with Canada's criminal justice system? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. Clearly, we should not let perfectionism stand in the way of something that is already fundamentally good. This bill protects the most vulnerable members of our society: children. Throughout Canada's history, there have been numerous amendments to the Criminal Code.

There have been many occasions where the justice system—meaning prosecutors, defence lawyers and victims' rights groups as well—has had to adapt to changes and modify how it works. However, how could anything be more motivating for stakeholders in the justice system to change how they work than making child protection the ultimate goal? Is there always enough money to ensure that every bill is absolutely perfect? No. However, this is a step in the right direction. Protecting our most vulnerable, Canada's children, is a very commendable goal. (1140) [ English ] Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I believe, on all sides of the House, it is fair to say that we abhor these terrible crimes and we should all seek to have fewer victims. I would like to have an adult conversation about mandatory minimum penalties. We believe in evidence-based decision-making. In 1990, the justice department said, in a report: The evidence shows that long periods served in prison increase the chance that the offender will offend again. In 1999, research commissioned by the Solicitor General concluded that: To argue for expanding the use of imprisonment in order to deter criminal behaviour is without empirical support.

In 2004, a Massachusetts report called mandatory minimums “a recipe for recidivism rather than a recipe for effective risk reduction.” Would the parliamentary secretary point us to one study that shows that mandatory minimum sentences would create fewer victims? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, probably the most important study that a parliamentarian could observe, read, and study is the sentiment of the public that the justice system was really shortchanging them.

The reason there are mandatory minimum sentences, the reason why they increased the sentence in the case of child sexual offences, is that the public abhorred the fact that people were committing absolutely heinous crimes and were getting off scot-free. The public, in consultations that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness had, has given us a resounding response: look, crimes of this nature will no longer be tolerated. We have acted in accordance with those wishes. We feel that those wishes are definitely in line with what all of Canada wants, and our values.

That is why we have mandatory minimum sentences. That is why we have increased maximum sentences. They reflect the gravity of the crime. Even in the Bible, there are 10 commandments. Let us just say that maybe murder is more serious than, perhaps, stealing. They are both crimes. However, not every crime is of the same magnitude in the Criminal Code. We feel that offences against children, the most vulnerable, are the ones that must be penalized most severely. That is the message we are conveying. Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very insightful and very knowledgeable speech. Regarding what was said in this House a few minutes ago about mandatory minimums, anybody can have the feeling, philosophically, that mandatory minimums are not useful. However, in actual fact, in Canada right now, because of the mandatory minimums that were put in for human trafficking offences, because of the mandatory minimums that are being put here, there is a difference. Again, I say something that a lot of parliamentarians across the way are not addressing in this House today.

The fact is that more and more people are speaking out. That is why we are having an increase. The victims are feeling safer. I even have a lot of older men and women coming to me, saying, “You know, this happened to me as a child. I couldn't say anything. There was nothing. No one would stand by me.” Would my colleague please comment on the fact that our government has done much in the protection of children, and this is why we are hearing about so much of this in this day and age? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and her help on this file.

The justice system is a means to an end. Certainly, the justice system is there to protect children. In the past, we always respected the fact that a husband and wife were married, that they would not be able to testify against one another and that they were sometimes reluctant to do so. This bill would bring an amendment to subsection 4(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to render an individual compellable against their spouse in the case of child pornography. It is the case of many child sexual offences. In criminal law, it is a question of public order.

It is all a question of balancing the interests of the citizens. Sometimes there is an intrusion on one right in favour of another, and we have to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each one's rights and values. However, in this case, the government has thought so strongly about protecting the rights of children that it has done something that is unusual in common law. It has gone so far as to make a spouse, a husband and wife, compellable against each another in order to produce evidence of offences against their very own offspring. That is the sentiment.

That is the depth of our commitment to trying to protect children. It is not that we do not respect married life, but that first and foremost, the most vulnerable, the children, must be protected.

(1145) Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the parliamentary secretary is based on his legal experience and from someone who has about 30-plus years of policing experience. We are dealing with child sexual offences. Generally, although not always, they are committed by pedophiles. To the best of my knowledge, pedophilia has no cure.

To the best of my knowledge, all we can do is to empower a person who has this distorted sense of sexuality, shall we say, and give them the tools to be able to subdue it somehow, whether through chemicals or other types of training or education. We know that this takes a substantial amount of time, having spoken myself to people who are trying to working in our prison system to do those very things. The parliamentary secretary talked about our most precious resource, our children. These are our children and anything inappropriate that happens to them will have lifelong effects on them.

Therefore, would mandatory minimum sentences not give the perpetrator of these crimes sufficient time in our prison system to be able to at least subdue those urges, which are totally and entirely inappropriate? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, finally, someone has grasped one of the essential points of mandatory minimum sentences. Quite frankly, I agree with the comment that, regretfully, pedophilia is not an illness that can be cured—and it certainly is an illness.

While the aim is not so much to take those who are afflicted with this disease, put them in jail and throw away the key, the evidence, regretfully, proves that it does not appear that it can be cured. In the case of mandatory minimum sentences, in the case of longer sentences, and in the case where people afflicted with this sort of disease have a chance to get some treatment, there is a hope that they will be cured. There is a hope, but there is also certainty that when they are behind bars, they will not be reoffending and will not be attacking the children of Canada. [ Translation ] Ms.

Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-26 as it also gives me an opportunity to talk about our justice system more generally and the approach the Conservatives have been taking since 2006, when they were elected to government for the first time with the current Prime Minister as their leader. It is hard to know where to start. We have talked about mandatory minimum sentences, about how to make our streets and communities safer, and about how to address issues that our communities are facing.

I would like to point out that the Conservatives' policies are a far cry from what we have known in Canada, historically speaking. This is a complete 180. It is more than a 180, it is more like a 360, but that would put us back where we started, so I will stick with 180. Bill C-10 is a perfect example of the Conservatives' approach to criminal justice issues. I would like talk about what we do in Quebec since my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île, is located on the Island of Montreal in Quebec.

We have a long-standing, deep-rooted tradition of working with victims, in accordance with the reintegration and rehabilitation principles that have guided our criminal justice policies. These are principles that do not rate for the Conservatives, values they may not care about. I am being the devil's advocate here. Is one side more right than the other? I do not think that this debate should be about who is right and who is wrong. It should be about what works on the ground. That is what I am going to talk about in my speech.

This debate is not about adding mandatory minimum sentences, but since my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice , talked about that, I feel I can talk about it too. Adding such sentences not only takes away judges' discretionary power, but also makes the system we cherish, a system based on rehabilitation rather than repression, completely ineffective. That might be something we could debate. Some experts will say that it works, and others will say that it does not. If we want to talk about a system that focuses on repression, we can look at statistics from the United States.

We know that the American system is one of the most repressive in the world. I did some research on the Internet. I found articles and speeches given in American legislatures in extremely conservative, Republican states such as Texas, South Carolina and Ohio. These states have adopted the kinds of policies that the Conservatives are trying to sell us. The Conservatives are trying to force Canadians to abandon the fundamental values and principles that we have fought so hard for in favour of an almost biblical vision—the parliamentary secretary actually mentioned the Bible—of the justice system.

I would like to quote a few remarks by some extreme right-wing governors in the United States. (1150) [ English ] In one article, the following is said: Conservatives in the United States' toughest crime-fighting jurisdiction—Texas—say the Harper government's crime strategy won't work. The judge in question went on to say: "You will spend billions and billions and billions on locking people up," says Judge John Creuzot of the Dallas County Court. "And there will come a point in time where the public says, 'Enough!' And you'll wind up letting them out [without any support whatsoever]." The

article continues: Adds Representative Jerry Madden—a conservative Republican who heads the Texas House Committee on Corrections, “Its a very expensive thing to build prisons and, if you build 'em, I guarantee you they will come. They'll be filled. OK? Because people will send them there.” He was referring to the American people. These comments are in line with a coalition of experts in Washington, D.C. who attacked the Harper government's omnibus crime package, Bill C-10 -- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order. I would just remind the hon. member the convention is that we do not name other members.

That also falls true in the case where an hon. member is mentioned in a citation. When members are reading a citation, I would just suggest that they use the hon. member's title or constituency name to replace that particular word in the citation, and then I am sure we will stay within the bounds.

(1155) Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, I duly apologize. I am talking about the Conservative government's omnibus crime package, Bill C-10 .

The executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute has said the following: Republican governors and state legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs.... [ Translation ] When the Conservatives start talking about facts on the ground, they should listen closely to the Americans, who have already used this type of policy, a policy that unfortunately did not work.

Speaking of statistics in the United States, a lawyer who heads an anti-tax, civil rights group said the following: [ English ] We've seen a double-digit decline in the last few years in Texas, both in our prison incarceration rate and, most importantly in our crime rate. [ Translation ] According to that lawyer, since the State of Texas adopted a rehabilitation policy, its crime rate dropped dramatically. According to him, and the FBI, the crime rate in Texas fell by 12.8% between 2005 and 2010.

He commends Canada's criminal justice system and implores the Conservatives and the government not to fall into the vicious circle of repression, which did not work in the United States. A number of states, including Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas are currently trying to imitate the Canadian system with the goal of reducing their crime rate. I just wanted to add that. Experts have experienced the mandatory minimum sentencing system. They tried it and they are telling us, Canadians, that it does not work.

They are asking us not to follow their example because our costs will increase and our communities will not be as safe. They are asking us to keep using our current system because they have started using it and it works. As my colleagues, including our justice critic, the hon. member for Gatineau , said, we will support Bill C-26 . Everyone here agrees that sexual offences against children are horrible and I know that we must crack down on them.

However, as the hon. member for Gatineau said in her speech, the minister told us in committee that there has been a 6% increase in sexual assaults against children since his party adopted minimum sentences for these kinds of offences. This creates a dilemma. Does introducing or increasing mandatory minimum penalties really work? According to the statistics the minister presented in committee, there has indeed been an increase of 6%. I will not draw any conclusions because we do not yet have enough information to determine the actual effectiveness of these kinds of sentences.

It would be nice if the minister could appear before our committee again and present any studies that have been conducted and explain the conclusions that can be drawn from the use of these new minimum penalties. In my view, we do not yet have enough information to determine what kind of policies we should be implementing. Furthermore, American states that did introduce a system of mandatory minimum penalties are telling us not to make the same mistake they made.

I look forward to discussing this bill with the minister and with experts, to see exactly what we should be doing to prevent sex offences against our children.

(1200) The federal government has announced that it is going to abolish the Corrections Canada program, which will save about $650,000. That is a pittance. It is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions poured into the judicial system every year. Furthermore, there is proof that the program works and that it decreases the rate of recidivism by up to 70%. I realize that criminals must be held responsible for their actions. That is a fundamental principle. However, victims in our communities do not go to jail. They need to feel that they are supported by government programs.

However, the government wants to abolish the program that makes our communities safer, as people have told us. We cannot embrace the Conservative agenda, which consists of putting people in jail and not considering anything else. What will we do when these people are released? Will we simply leave them to their own devices? The hon. member for Gatineau told us about someone in her riding who was released from prison, was left to fend for himself and was then re-arrested by the police. What do we do with these people?

They need support, not just for their own sake, but also to ensure the safety of their community and our children. It is not right to say that we will protect our children by sending people to jail. Perhaps we will protect them for a while, but children grow, get older and remain in the community. So what do we do in order to protect them not just for five years, but for 10, 15, and 20 years? I would like to point out that under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a person is a child until the age of eighteen. Children are entitled to be protected by their government until they are eighteen years old.

Then they become adults. Adults are also entitled to be protected by their government, but we are currently debating sexual offences against minors. Why then abolish programs that work? I would also like to talk about the problem with the registry. This bill would give the minister the discretionary power to make regulations on who is considered a high-risk offender. We know very well that giving a minister discretionary powers without any oversight body is never a good thing, since this power can be abused. This poses a problem: what are the regulations?

How will the minister make them, and will he have to report to parliamentarians? We are not just talking about a registry here. We are also talking about enabling parliamentarians to do their job. If the minister gives himself discretionary powers without any transparency, I have some concerns. It is also important to ask whether the minister consulted the provinces. Even though it is Parliament's role to enact criminal legislation and amend the Criminal Code, the provinces are often responsible for enforcing this legislation and administering criminal justice.

(1205) Did the minister consult the provinces? Does the minister understand what the provinces will be forced to adopt or dismantle? The provinces will have to adapt. How will the minister consult the provinces and support them in lowering the rate of sex offences against children? We are legislating here, but the provinces are the ones that will suffer the consequences. Once again, the government is shirking its responsibility to the provinces. We often hear that prisons are full. My colleague from Gatineau just asked the parliamentary secretary a question.

We are short of criminal lawyers, crown prosecutors, and judges. The criminal justice system works as a whole. It is not just about crime and punishment. There are lawyers, social workers, victims' assistance workers, and judges. This system needs to be coherent, and if we do not ensure that the system is coherent, then we have missed the boat. I would like to talk about another problem. Once again, by asking the minister a question about the RCMP's resources, my colleague from Gatineau was able to discover that the RCMP was having a great deal of difficulty updating criminal records.

People are often outraged to learn that a criminal is being set free even though he is a repeat offender. Criminal records are not updated on a continual basis because the RCMP is having hard time staying on top of that task. How are crown prosecutors, lawyers, and judges supposed to be able to do their jobs if the RCMP does not have enough resources? How can the government implement a predator registry if the RCMP cannot even keep offenders' criminal records up to date? That does not make sense. The police, lawyers, and judges will not be able to do their jobs.

I hope that we will pass the best bill to protect our children and ensure that people know that they can count on their government to put an end to sexual offences against children once and for all and protect their communities. Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île , who has been a hard-working fellow member of the Standing Committee on Justice for some time now. I congratulate her on her speech. She pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the Conservatives' vision on paper of law and order.

They talk tough, but actions are also very important at times. There is a saying about walking the talk. At the Standing Committee on Justice, we often try to make it clear that the Conservatives can increase sentences as much as they want and they can create all kinds of offences, but at the end of the day, if they are unable to get guilty pleas or verdicts, keep people locked up or monitor them once they are out of prison, then there is a problem. A number of times this morning, since this debate began, I have heard the hon. member for Kildonan—St.

Paul say that we should be pleased that more victims of sex crimes are reporting these crimes. Of course I am pleased to hear that. The more victims who come forward, the better. However, the system is letting these victims down. Satisfaction with the justice system is still at an all-time low. I find that somewhat surprising. Could the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île speak to that? In her opinion, why does the general public, including victims, have the impression—despite all of the Conservative government's efforts—that the justice system does not meet people's needs?

(1210) Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for her question, which allows me to talk a little more about the notion of coherence, which I touched on in my speech. Often in the House of Commons, the Conservatives pass bills regarding certain offences to increase minimum or maximum sentences, without looking at the big picture or confirming that there is a problem. We are talking about

part V of the Criminal Code and increasing minimum and maximum sentences. The problem is that victims, whom we heard from at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, are feeling abandoned. We can send an offender to prison, but at the end of the process, victims are not getting the support they deserve. Passing a bill every so often to increase penalties is great, but if we do not make sure that the justice system is coherent, if we do not shorten the delays, if we do not listen to victims and if we do not help those who go to prison in order to make our communities safer, then we are missing the mark.

Coherence in the justice system goes beyond the Criminal Code. It extends to many other laws and systems. The provinces play a major role, but once again, the Conservative government is passing bills at their expense, without providing any additional support. Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to take

part in this discussion, but I had to rise because I cannot believe what I am hearing. [ English ] What I have heard is because the system is not perfect, the NDP thinks we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because the system is not perfect, the New Democrats think we ought to forget that these children are being sexually abused, and that I cannot tolerate. Having worked in the child abuse unit for many years, having seen these horrific crimes, having seen the horrific injuries to these children, I implore NDP members to think about what they are saying.

Process is not what is most important in this discussion; it is the protection of children. We have the victims bill of rights. Would the member please tell us that she is in favour of balancing the system and giving that confidence to the victims by supporting the victims bill of rights, which will help them to have confidence that we will protect these children better? I hope she will stand in her place and agree that is what our victims need and that she will support that bill as well. Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr.

Speaker, with all the respect that I have for the minister, I am disappointed she adopts the same attitude of her colleagues who will attack me and any member of the NDP by saying that we do not support victims. If she had listened to my speech, I said that we would support Bill C-26 to increase penalties for child offenders and that we would support Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act . If the member cares about what I have to say, she would find that I have been advocating for victims rights and for child protection since becoming deputy critic for justice.

All I am saying is that we need to do better, and we can do better. If the member disagrees with me, I am sorry, then she does not deserve to be in government. That is all I am saying. (1215) [ Translation ] Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, clearly, subjects such as crime and sexual assault against minors get us really fired up. People get very passionate about this, but there can also be a degree of misunderstanding. The Conservative government just cannot seem to walk the walk.

One of the issues we have raised most frequently since the Conservative government started calling itself the law-and-order government is the need to walk the walk and put up the money, the human and financial resources, for both victims and offenders. Both categories are in the same boat. If there is no rehabilitation, either for the victim or for the offender, regardless of the crime that was committed, and if no money is allocated, no human resources, no means or infrastructure to enable this system to work, then this whole process is pointless. Why does the government have to walk the walk?

Why does it always offload the work onto community groups and the provinces? I would like my colleague to comment on that. Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It will allow me to come back to a few points that I raised. In fact, the United States are doing exactly the opposite of what we are about to do right now. They are reducing minimum sentences and instructing their judges to customize sentences in order to reduce the crime rate. I have here a report by the U.S. administration that makes the distinction between the Canadian and U.S. budgets and the crime rate.

The report says that the Americans are reducing their spending on prisons and turning to alternative solutions and community options. They have seen their crime rate go down. The report says that Canada has almost doubled its spending on prisons, which has gone from $1.6 billion to $2.9 billion, and that the funding allocated to alternative solutions has been reduced. I do not have Statistics Canada's data on the impact this has had, but I can point out that a number of U.S. states that adopted this repressive system have indicated that it did not work.

They are tyring to adopt a rehabilitation system, a system that we are now completely destroying. [ English ] Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to participate in the second reading of Bill C-26 . I will be sharing my time with the hard-working Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages , and I want to thank her for her work on these important files. She has a huge heart. I got to know her a number of years ago, and she is one of the most compassionate people.

The minister actually has a police officer background, so I can only imagine her caring and how much good work she did when she was a police officer. I also want to thank the NDP and Liberal opposition colleagues for their commitment to support Bill C-26 , demonstrating a concern to protect the victims of sexual assault and their commitment to support our victims bill of rights. It is the right thing to do as a House, to come together on these important pieces of legislation. It is very encouraging for me and all Canadians.

Bill C-26 is another concrete initiative of our government to combat all forms of child sexual exploitation. It aims to guarantee that sentences imposed for sexual offences against children reflect the gravity and reprehensible nature of these offences. One of the ways that this bill proposes to attain this objective is to ensure that those who have committed sexual offences against children do not receive a sentence discount for cases where there are several victims. To better understand these proposed amendments, it is important to consider how sentencing is carried out in cases involving multiple offences.

Subsection 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code contains the general principles with respect to the nature in which sentences imposed in multiple offences are served, and that is, when they should be served concurrently, which is at the same time, or consecutively. Unfortunately, that provision is an amalgamation of legislative provisions, most of which have existed since the first Canadian Criminal Code. The text itself is difficult to read. As a result, that provision provides little guidance to the sentencing courts. This bill proposes to clarify its content.

When sentencing an offender at the same time for several offences, courts have the discretion to order that the sentences be imposed and served one after another, and that is called consecutively, or at the same time, called concurrently. Over the years, the Canadian courts have developed an approach whereby they will generally order that the sentences are served consecutively, unless the offences arise out of the same event in a series of events in which case concurrent sentences are usually imposed.

In assessing whether the offences arise out of the same event, the courts will consider, for example, whether the offences have a real or temporal connection, or whether these offences have any logical connection to one another. This rule is not absolute, though. Courts acknowledge that in some cases the sentences imposed for offences committed as part of the same event or a series of events are such that they should be served consecutively. An example of this approach is reflected in situations where an offender tries to evade police after committing an offence, such as an armed robbery.

The general rule is that in such a situation the sentences imposed on those offences would be served concurrently. However, courts will generally impose consecutive sentences in such situations in order to reflect the reprehensible nature of an offence committed in such situations. Courts will generally follow the same principle in situations where an offender who is on judicial interim release, otherwise known as bail, commits another offence, for example, the offender is serving an offence, is out on bail and recommits another offence.

Courts generally agree that a sentence for an offence committed while the offender is on bail should be served consecutively to the sentence for the offence for which the offender is initially on temporary release. To do otherwise would send a message that there would be no consequence for the offence committed while on bail. This bill proposes to codify these sentencing approaches by directing the courts to consider ordering that the term of the imprisonment imposed be served consecutively to any other sentence of imprisonment, particularly when the offences do not arise from the same facts.

It is also important to note that the totality principle, which is found in paragraph 718.2(

c) of the Criminal Code, requires that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.

(1220) Where this is the case, the principle provides courts with the discretion to impose concurrent sentences where consecutive sentences would otherwise be unwarranted. Although there is a great level of flexibility provided to the courts in determining whether it will be concurrent or consecutive sentences, the Criminal Code directs courts to order that the sentences imposed for certain serious offences be served consecutively in all cases.

This is the case for the offences of possession of explosives by a criminal organization; the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence; terrorism offences, other than where the sentence of life imprisonment is imposed; and criminal organization offences. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the main purpose of this bill is to ensure that people who commit sexual offences against children receive sentences that reflect the gravity and reprehensible nature of these crimes.

In addition to the proposed higher mandatory minimum penalties and higher maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children, this bill proposes to add sentences for multiple child sexual offences to the list of mandatory consecutive sentences in order to ensure that there are fit sentences. The proposed amendments would also direct a court to order that the sentences imposed for child pornography offences be served consecutively to sentences imposed for other contact sexual offences against a child.

For example, let us consider an offender who is sentenced, at the same time, for accessing and making child pornography and for the sexual assault of a person under the age of 16. The proposed amendment would mean that the sentence for child pornography and the sentence for the sexual assault would be served consecutively.

This approach aims to recognize, in part, the courts' practice of imposing sentences that effectively recognize the heinous nature of sexual offences against children, and particularly child pornography, especially when it is distributed over the Internet and is thus made permanently accessible around the world. The proposed amendments also target situations where there are several victims and would require that sentences imposed, at the same time, for offences involving the sexual abuse of one child be served consecutively to sentences for sexual abuse offences committed against another child.

In many respects, the proposed amendments would bring greater uniformity and certainty in future sentencing practices, particularly in the context of child sexual abuse cases. The bill proposes an approach that clearly reflects the government's commitment to ensuring that sentences for sexual offences against a child better reflect the gravity of these offences and that they make all child sexual offenders answer for the exploitation and sexual abuse they have committed.

The proposed amendments would particularly end volume discounts in sentences given to offenders who have committed multiple sexual offences against a child and would ensure that each victim counted in the sentencing process. I encourage my colleagues in this House to unanimously support this bill, without reservation. I think that is coming, and I look forward to that vote.

(1225) Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we share the goal of there being fewer victims of child sexual offences. We all share that goal in this House. It is therefore critically important that we seek ways to reduce the number of victims who are affected. The mode of choice for the current government is mandatory minimum sentences. There were mandatory minimum sentences introduced in Bill C-10 , which came into effect in 2012, and since then, the incidence of child sexual offences has increased. The answer in Bill C-26 is to take those mandatory minimums we had in Bill C-10 and increase them.

Given that this has not worked, would the member agree with me that we must be more creative in trying to cause there to be fewer victims rather than doing over and over again what is not working? Mr. Mark Warawa : Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Charlottetown . I know he has a legal background, and I appreciate his commitment to participating in the debate and sharing his concerns about children being sexually exploited. I also appreciate his goal, which is the same as the government's, which is to reduce the number of victims of sexual exploitation in Canada.

We may not agree about when mandatory minimum sentences are appropriate. We have consulted with Canadians, and we continue to consult with Canadians. The fact is that Canadians want more mandatory minimum sentences than what our government is proposing. We have to reach that balance. I look forward to continuing to work with my friend across the way to find that balance, make Canada safer, represent our constituents, and amend the Criminal Code where appropriate. Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, repeatedly this morning I have heard the question, “What is the use of mandatory minimums?” Repeatedly I have heard that because there has been an increase in child sexual exploitation, mandatory minimums are not working, and repeatedly I have said that they are working. They keep perpetrators away from victims. Also, there are more and more victims coming forward. Why? It is because now the laws are in place and victims and the parents of victims know that they can be protected.

I want to thank my colleague for his unending support for the protection of young children, especially on the human trafficking file. I want to ask him what he can tell me he feels is the most important point in this bill, because it breaks the ice in a lot of areas in terms of the protection of children.

(1230) Mr. Mark Warawa : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who I consider a dear friend. She has been recognized around the world for her work on protecting children and women who are being exploited and for her fight against human trafficking. We applaud her, thank her for her work, and know that she will continue to do that important work in Canada. Mandatory minimums are very important. The courts must maintain discretion, and they do. If we pass legislation asking for mandatory minimums that does not meet the charter test, it will not stand.

However, many of the mandatory minimum sentences we have now, to toughen up the Criminal Code, are supported by the charter, and when warranted, they are needed. There is another issue I have been asked by constituents to work on, which is to get mandatory minimum sentencing for people convicted of killing someone while driving impaired. They want mandatory minimums. They believe that the Criminal Code needs to be changed in that respect. I believe that there are appropriate times to make these changes, and I hope we can find that balance in this Parliament. Hon.

Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely pleased to be here to speak to Bill C-26 . I want to take a moment before I begin to say that I know that many of us in the House are passionate about these very difficult subjects. As I was asking a question earlier of the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île , there were some unkind things said by her about whether I deserve to be in government. I have almost 19 years of police work behind me. I intend to go back to police work. I spent four and a half years in the child abuse unit.

I assisted with more autopsies of children than I ever want to remember. I have seen horrific injuries that these children, those who lived, will live with for the rest of their lives. I have worked on every single one of the crime and justice bills put forward by our Conservative government, and I am proud to say that these are measures that will continue to protect Canadians. I believe that my voters are the ones who decide whether I belong here in government, just as her voters decide. At the point where this young MP realized that what she said was inappropriate, she did come over to me and apologize.

I believe it is a measure of character, when people say something publicly they want to retract, that they actually do so. I challenged her to do so publicly so that my voters understand that what she said was not very kind and that she did not mean it, at which point she refused to do so. I am offended by the fact that a young girl who has come to this place to help her constituents would attack other members when we are talking about a bill that we are all passionate about. I want to mention that, because I want to give her the opportunity to show her sincerity in apologizing.

Now I want to talk about the bill, which will, in fact, get the support of many members in the House, including members of the NDP, the Liberals, and some of our independent members. For that, I want to thank them sincerely, because it is probably one of the most important bills we will see passed through the House in my time here. One of the highest priorities of our government has been made clear since we were elected in 2006, and that was to tackle crime. We all know that law-abiding Canadians expect and rightfully deserve to live in a country where they feel safe in their homes and in their communities.

Canadians want to know that their children are protected from sexual offenders, whether online or in the streets of their communities and neighbourhoods. While law-abiding Canadians believe in the importance of rehabilitation for offenders, as do I, they also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Our government agrees. This is what has guided our strong actions since 2006. Since that time, our government has put forward a number of important measures to protect the vulnerable and to hold offenders accountable. We have toughened sentencing and bail for things like serious gun crimes.

We have strengthened the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous, high-risk offenders. We have ensured that murders co