Bill C-26 (Historical)

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

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

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) increase mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children;
(b) increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds;
(c) clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences;
(d) require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children; and
(e) ensure that a court that imposes a sentence must take into consideration evidence that the offence in question was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence.
It amends the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused are competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases.
It also amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting obligations of sex offenders who travel outside Canada.
It enacts the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act to establish a publicly accessible database that contains information — that a police service or other public authority has previously made accessible to the public — with respect to persons who are found guilty of sexual offences against children and who pose a high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg for his intervention. As usual, it was very precise and well rounded. He gives me an opportunity to build on some of those argument.

I want to start with some experience I had as a teacher advocate on this issue.

One of the things that is deeply disturbing are children who are exploited by people who are entrusted to care for them. They are some of the most troublesome cases to deal with. Yes, there are cases where people are exploited by people they do not know, but there are many documented instances of people who exploit children who are under their care or supervision.

One of the ways this is done is through something called “grooming”. This is where a person of authority, through coaching, et cetera, establishes a trust relationship with the child and uses a reward system, which is called grooming. It is deeply troubling, and many have identified it as a pattern that leads to sexual exploitation. We have to look at this along with the bill, which I agree with my colleague we will support to get it to committee to see if we can improve it, for the reasons he mentioned.

Part of what we have to do is prevent this from happening. The way to do that is to look at the context of these relationships where people are in positions of authority We have seen cases recently in the media, be it coaches or people in other positions of authority. If we look back at how the abuse started, it was because there was really no one around other than the abuser. In other words, we need to better understand how to prevent it.

People can groom others because they have opportunity, and the opportunity arises when there is not a caring community around. There is not sufficient oversight. Usually that is the case where there has not been proper investment in basic community services and community centres where there is robust programming, with people who are trained and where there are protocols to make sure that people who will exploit are not coming into positions of authority.

To be frank, I do not think it is good enough to just have a police check. I think it is a matter of looking at the context, be it in an after-school program or a sports program. We need to have people involved who have the training to spot an abuse of authority and we need a required reporting mechanism.

Often we see that there is an opportunity to prevent these horrific scenarios, and that needs to be looked at as well as the law. After all, on this side of the House, we think it is important to prevent these kinds of situations from happening.

I have talked to people who have gone through this kind of experience, and it is horrific. One does not ever fully repair. One can cope after abuse, but someone who has gone through sexual exploitation as a young person never fully recovers. One cannot go back in time, and we have to understand that.

No one in this House has a monopoly on caring about this issue. On this side of the House, we think it is important that we invest smartly in all of the services we can invest in to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Part of that is just discussion. I discuss these issues with my kids. They have friends, and we talk about these things. We have to have a culture where we are not afraid to talk about these things.

I am glad to have had the opportunity just this past week, during our constituency week, to have had a three-day conference on mental health and suicide prevention. One of the things we talked about with people who are survivors and people who are involved in social services and mental health services is that it is time to change the conversation, or have the conversation.

It is time to have that conversation, where people are not in fear of discussing these albeit sensitive issues. When children feel like someone is abusing that trust relationship, they know who to speak to. Sometimes it is not the parents. As parents, we all wish it would be us, but sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, they cannot come forward. If it is not the parents, there needs to be someone else they can talk to. We need to look at this.

I wanted to start off with that, because as someone who has been a teacher advocate, working with young people and being involved in this issue a little, it is important to understand this and the importance of prevention. I remember working with my colleague from Winnipeg on the whole issue of abuse of hockey players, and doing some work with a well-known hockey player who wanted to ensure that the attention was brought forward and that we dealt with the issue.

We also have to look at how we deal with offenders. My colleague was quite on point with this issue. We have to understand what causes people to behave in this way. We absolutely have to crack down on the exploitation of those who want to take these images and make money from them. I can think of things as heinous as that, but it is hard to think of anything more heinous than taking and selling these images. Every time we hear on the radio that people have been charged with the selling of child pornography, we wonder what goes on in their heads. Sometimes these people are just trying to make a buck.

It is a moral argument about why this happens. We have to crack down on that. As wonderful as the Internet is, having brought us all sorts of opportunities, it has also brought a lot of grief and exploitation of innocent people. We need to look at that.

We also need to look at some successful programs that have dealt with accountability, in perhaps a different way than the government looks at it. We have to look at the whole approach of communities having accountability and circles of support. Those who have been involved, those who have served their time or those who are serving their time are actually challenged to be accountable for their actions.

It is an interesting discussion in criminal justice. The whole idea of accountability can be seen in different ways. Some will say that accountability should mean people go to jail for however long as they can be kept in there, and that is is. I believe in something where those who victimize someone and have been found guilty should have an opportunity to another way of being held accountable, which is confronting what they have done.

The whole idea of circles of support and accountability have been hugely successful. I know in Ottawa people have been involved. I think of Emmy Verdun, from the Anglican Church of St. John the Evangelist, who is one of the officers for the circles of support and accountability in Ottawa; Rick Keindel, Staff Sergeant, Ottawa Police Service, who is part of the group; Sharon Rouleau, the treasurer; Nicole Bedard, the secretary; and directors Robert Cormier, Alice Doell, James Foord and Kerry Lamming. These people are teachers, police officers and one is a retired pharmacist. They have become involved in the circles of support and accountability. Their work is extraordinary. Their cost is almost nothing. Sadly, the government cut funding to that program.

However, it works. The people who are involved in some of these crimes are told that at some point they have to go back into society. Even when we look at the table of proposed sentencing, at some point people are going to have to return to society. This approach tells them that they have to be accountable. The people involved in this program, often volunteers, are willing to help these people, to ensure they are accountable for what they have done, and they get support.

If we are honest about tackling this issue, then we need to look at preventing it. As I said before, we need to invest smartly in those people who are in positions of authority and trust, and can help kids speak to adults and others in a safe way. We also need to ensure that when people are finished their time, we need to have a program to ensure it does not happen again. If we do not do this, then we fail the kids who we are trying to protect.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker I am in complete agreement with my colleague who spoke about prevention, not punishment.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre also raised a very good point in the speech he gave earlier. That is, a person who commits a sex crime against a child is probably not thinking, during the crime, about the punishment that will be handed out.

Therefore, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the part of the bill that increases penalties.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we want to get the bill to committee where we can ensure we look at the issue in a smart way, which is not only about sentencing and that is it. I did not have a chance in my comments to talk about the mandatary minimum approach only. My colleague from Winnipeg talked about it.

Everyone agrees that this is a complex issue. We need to have nuance in how we respond to it. From the criminal justice point of view, some have said that if we just give mandatory minimums and that is it, then we might, without intent, be undermining the very victims who are looking for justice.

That is why it is important, as we go to committee, that we understand what we are trying to fix. As opposed to just giving a simple response, we need to have a robust response in the sentencing as well as the services that are required to prevent and deal with those perpetrators.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge we are having on this side of the House is not that there is no substantiation for the government's position on mandatory minimums, but it knows that this is not going to work. The government's own officials have told it in writing that this is not going to work.

It is not just Liberals who oppose mandatory minimums for their own sake. Here is perhaps one of the most compelling voices. Former Progressive Conservative MP for Ottawa West David Daubney, who retired only recently as director of criminal law policy in the Department of Justice after a distinguished career there, was quoted as saying this about the government as he was on the way out the door, “The policy is based on fear – fear of criminals and fear of people who are different. I do not think these harsh views are deeply held”. He went on to say at the same time, because he was the subject of so much pressure inside the department, that “somebody has to take the risk of talking”.

Could my colleague tell me what would possess a government or a minister of justice, who swears to uphold the law when he is sworn in as the minister and who has to bring opinions to the floor of the House from his own lawyers to show that the legislation is constitutional and in conformity with the charter, to take action with the deliberate knowledge that it will not work?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague brought up Mr. Daubney, a well-respected citizen of this city and also respected in our country for his work.

The member is asking me to crawl inside the mind of certain people, but I can only observe the outcomes as opposed to what their intrinsic motivations are.

Let me quote the following:

—the experience with mandatory sentencing legislation in a number of countries has shown that these laws do little to promote public confidence in the sentencing process....minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits.

That is in a report from the Department of Justice. It is a telling report and we should be guided by it.

I thought my colleague from Ottawa South was warming up to quote someone who was the champion of mandatory minimums, and that is Newt Gingrich. He said that it was a total mistake and to stay away from it because it had failed completely. It is an odd day, but there are days when I agree with Newt Gingrich.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we continue, I wish to inform the House that in the first round we had more than five hours of debate on this motion. Thus, from now on, there will be a limit of ten minutes for remarks and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to debate Bill C-26, after my two colleagues, the first from Winnipeg-Centre and the second from Ottawa-Centre.

Bill C-26 was introduced by the Minister of Justice. Anyone who has been following the debate for the last few minutes will know that the bill deals with sexual predators who prey on children. It is entitled 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. That is a somewhat technical title.

The short title always reveals a great deal about the government’s intentions. Generally, when I examine a bill, I immediately look at the short title, which appears at the very beginning of the bill. In this case, the bill is called the tougher penalties for child predators act. I have often managed to discover the government’s hidden intentions in the short title, because it often says a great deal about the real purpose of a bill. There are sometimes very sensible bills that often have titles that are more normal or neutral or much closer to the long title. The government often holds press conferences about this type of bill where it claims to champion the issue in question.

Of course, the Conservatives regularly say that they are tough on crime, and this is obviously one of their trademarks. In this case, they drafted a bill and gave it the short title of the tougher penalties for child predators act. The Conservatives want to consolidate their image as being tough on crime. In reality, however, statistics, research, previous bills and results obtained since then indicate that the effects of Conservative legislation have perhaps not been what they were expecting.

We even saw recently—I believe it was on Tuesday—an article in Le Devoir about the increase in the prison population in most provinces of Canada. An increase has been observed in the inmate population in provincial jails, even though our criminal laws have been greatly strengthened and sentences have been increased since 2006. One would think that the ultimate goal was to discourage criminals from committing crimes. That is the logic the Conservatives use. However, statistics show that that is not what is actually happening. In fact, since 2006, there has even been a 6% increase in sex crimes in Canada. Might we then determine that this is a conclusive result, given the numerous changes the Conservatives have made to the Criminal Code? Can we talk about a conclusive result? I would hope that the purpose is to reduce crime in Canada, and I agree with that.

It is thus a question of determining the best way of reducing crime. Is it to impose tougher penalties? Most, if not all, of the experts agree that this is not the solution. A few of my colleagues referred to this when they spoke, after wondering whether more severe penalties were really going to discourage criminals from committing crimes.

The member for Hochelaga put it well just now, when she asked my colleague from Ottawa Centre whether someone intending to commit one of the most revolting crimes, a crime against children, the most vulnerable members of society, thinks about how many years they are going to spend in prison if they are caught. I do not believe that is how they think.

I cannot get inside the heads of such people, because it is difficult to understand, but according to what I have heard, they generally think of themselves as invincible. They believe that they will never be caught, that they are above the law and that they are capable of getting around all the rules. I do not think they wonder which crime carries the lightest sentence before they commit it, whereas they quite obviously have problems with crime and behaviour.

There are experts who can answer such questions and understand how these criminals think. In the end, it comes back to what I was saying at the beginning. We have to find ways of preventing such crimes from being committed in the first place. People often talk about prevention rather than cure. In these cases, it is much better to find ways of preventing such crimes, instead of just seeking to punish them even more severely in the belief that this is the way to reduce crime in Canada.

These are two fundamentally different schools of thought. The Conservatives prefer harsher sentences to crime prevention. This is not the first time we have seen it. We saw it when considering Bill C-10, which was one of the omnibus bills that amended the Criminal Code. We saw what side they were on with respect to these issues. They more or less copied the U.S. model, which has failed to achieve the expected results, according to a number of studies.

The facts show that U.S. states that had the death penalty did not have lower crime rates. It is not because sentences are more severe—the death penalty being the most severe—that things are better. In the states where the death penalty is still in force, crime rates are not lower. This proves that we will not eliminate crime in Canada by legislating 25-year sentences or consecutive sentences to ensure that criminals never get out of prison. There are many other much more effective ways of eliminating crime. We should think about that.

We are going to support Bill C-26 so that it goes to committee in order to try to make amendments to it, but also to hear from experts on these matters. They will be able to give us more information about the best ways of reducing crime, among other things. After amendments have been made, we will likely support this bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the last couple of members from the official opposition who spoke, and I agree with their comments.

The member for Ottawa Centre said earlier that one of the problems with the penalties and longer incarceration is the lack of preventive programs within prisons for these people, who will eventually be released. One of the programs that was cancelled by the government, which was manned by volunteers to a great extent but funded by government, was the Circles of Support and Accountability. It was an extremely important program, and it no longer exists. Now when individuals come out of prison, they are going to create more danger on the streets.

There are two sides to this coin. One is prevention, to assist individuals in not committing crimes in the first place, and severe penalties do not prevent them from committing crimes. That is for sure. The second side of the coin is to have rehabilitation programs within the prison system that would, to the best extent possible, ensure that when those people are released, they do not recommit a crime of a sexual nature—or any crime, for that matter.

I wonder what the member's comments are on those aspects, because there is nothing in this bill that I can find that addresses either of those issues. There are longer sentences and mandatory minimums, but there is nothing in the bill that deals with the important aspects of prevention on the one hand and rehabilitation on the other.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question. He clearly pointed out the options for truly resolving the issue by showing that the Conservatives have not come up with the best solution in Bill C-26.

In fact, a great deal of work must be done in prisons to stop those who are leaving prison from committing other crimes.

First, we must continue targeting this aspect of prevention and then, when inmates are back out on street, we must also have a good system, with sound financing, to help with their reintegration into society. These people must have a good support system when they are on the outside again.

In Sherbrooke, a number of people work in halfway houses or with groups that help with social rehabilitation, and this is an important aspect of prevention. Someone who is rehabilitated and whose progress has been exemplary—we hope—in prison, will have a much greater chance of recovering and becoming a good citizen again.

There are three important components: prevention in order to stop crime from happening in the first place; monitoring while in prison; and of course, social rehabilitation. I think these three components are extremely important and we must continue providing support for them.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-26.

Each day, in Canada, children are the victims of sexual abuse. It causes unimaginable devastation to their lives and it causes lifelong emotional turmoil that profoundly affects victims well into adulthood.

Our government pledged to protect Canadians and keep them safe, especially the most vulnerable among us: our children. This legislation is one way we are fulfilling that promise.

The proposed new measures would help better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography. Furthermore, they would help ensure that offenders receive sentences that better reflect the serious nature of these crimes.

Over the summer and fall of last year, the Minister of Justice met with Canadians across the country. In those meetings, there was one central theme: victims wanted a stronger voice in the justice system and sentences that truly reflect the crime committed. Today, this legislation illustrates that we listened and that we are delivering for Canadians.

For example, we are seeking an end to sentence discounts for multiple child sexual offences. Sexual predators would receive sentences that take into account each young life that they have devastated.

The legislation would also ensure that those sentenced at the same time for child pornography and for contact child sexual offences, especially those who have victimized more than one child, would serve their sentences consecutively—in other words, one after another.

In general, concurrent sentences are imposed and served simultaneously for two or more convictions that arise out of one continuous criminal act or single transaction. These sentences are based on what is referred to as the “same event or series of events” rule.

Conversely, consecutive sentences are imposed and served one after another for multiple convictions when the offences are unrelated, as they arise out of separate criminal transactions.

The concepts of concurrent and consecutive sentencing predate Confederation. Amendments over the years have complicated the statement of the rule contained in the Criminal Code to the point that it offers little guidance to courts.

To address this deficiency, the proposed amendments would direct a court to consider ordering, where applicable, that the sentences it imposes be served consecutive to a sentence of imprisonment that the offender is subject to at the time of sentencing. Where the court sentences the offender for multiple offences at the same time, the proposed amendments would direct courts to consider ordering that the terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of separate events or a separate series of events be served consecutively.

Bill C-26 would also increase minimum and maximum penalties for certain child sexual offences, and there would be increases in the maximum penalties for violations of supervision orders. Canadians want those who violate the conditions of their probation orders, prohibition orders, and peace bonds held to account.

Moreover, these measures would ensure that the spouse of a person charged with child pornography offences could also be required to testify in court.

Under the Canada Evidence Act and under common law, unless spouses are irreconcilably separated, the spouse of a person accused of most offences cannot testify for the prosecution, even if they want to, as they are not competent, and they cannot be forced to testify against their spouse, as they are not compellable.

The Canada Evidence Act contains statutory exceptions to these rules, permitting spousal testimony for most child sexual offences and for offences of violence against young persons, but not for child pornography offences.

The amendments proposed through this bill would also add child pornography, section 163.1, to the list of exceptions in the Canada Evidence Act, subsection 4(2), making the spouse of a person accused of any of the child pornography offences compellable to testify for the prosecution. In child pornography cases, the evidence of the accused's spouse may be required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography on a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These changes are necessary and have been long in coming. Statistics tell us so, but more so the stories of victims. A report by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics showed that in 2012 more than 3,900 sexual offences against children were reported to police in Canada. That is an increase of 3% from 2011.

As a society, we must do what it takes to protect our children and help them heal. Today, we are standing up for the vulnerable and showing them that their voices are being heard in our justice system. This legislation is in keeping with our commitments in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to punish those who break the law, to match penalties to the severity of the crimes, and to ensure that the rights of victims come before the rights of criminals. It follows up on our previous actions, through legislation such as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, to better protect our children.

Our government also recognizes that bullying and cyberbullying are serious concerns for many Canadian families and communities, and we are committed to doing everything we can to protect our children. That is why, last year, we acted to protect children and other vulnerable Canadians from this degrading behaviour by introducing Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Our government has also provided funding to create and enhance child advocacy centres across the country to help young victims and witnesses cope with the trauma they have experienced and to better navigate the often-complicated criminal justice system.

Despite our differences in this chamber, I believe we can all agree that nothing is more reprehensible than harming a child. Our government is deeply committed to strengthening the justice system to ensure that sexual offenders who prey on children are punished to the fullest extent of the law. Bill C-26 would send a signal that we as a society do not accept this kind of behaviour in our communities, and it would allow the justice system to better respond to the needs of child victims and their families.

In reviewing speeches from my hon. colleagues across the way, I understand that they have some concerns about mandatory minimum sentences. That said, they have agreed that this bill should go to the committee for further study, and I could not agree more. I hope that the opposition will work with us in giving this bill a thorough examination. I believe, at the end of the day, we can mend our differences for the sake of our children.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the spouse of an accused person who could be compelled to testify in child pornography cases, as well as exceptions to the Canada Evidence Act in this regard.

However, I must admit that I did not really understand what he meant. I would therefore like to ask him to explain to me, in his own words, why an exception is being made for spouses.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the list of exceptions in the Canada Evidence Act making the spouse of a person accused of any of the child pornography offences compellable to testify for the prosecution would help to get the person who commits the crime to receive a sentence and serve the sentence. That is the change in the act that we are introducing.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why are they asking for an exception in this particular case?

The answer that has been given is that it could help in sentencing a person, but that might also be true in the case of a murder, for instance. What is the difference? Why should there be an exception here and not in other cases?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I can give an example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography on a shared home computer is necessary to get the conviction of the accused. Therefore, this is a change we are making.

Child pornography is something that is relatively new, and it has grown over the years since we have had the Internet. It has been growing ever since. This is a crime that was not committed as often before this tool became available for the perpetrators. Therefore, it is important that we go after those who commit that terrible crime and that we use all the tools necessary to get a conviction.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and very good friend from Mississauga East—Cooksville for what I think was an excellent presentation in the House this afternoon.

There is no more important issue for all of us than the protection of our children. I am a father of 15-year-old and 10-year-old daughters. I think about them constantly. I am always worried and concerned about their safety and that they can live, as the member and I do, in the great city of Mississauga. It is one of the safest cities. It has been recognized as the safest city in Canada for more than 12 consecutive years.

However, we do know that there are people who prey on our children. We do know that there are people who act irresponsibly. I would like to ask the member and give him another opportunity to explain why this particular bill is so important to protect children in the city of Mississauga.