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

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

This is an issue that affects all of us. I do not know that anybody in society, as I mentioned before, supports having offenders out there who prey on young people, but sexual offenders actually do not just prey on young people; they prey on all people.

We will support this particular bill at third reading. However, we remain concerned with the type of legislation that the government keeps putting forward without providing proper resources.

As I mentioned before, I worked at Probation and Parole Services in Ontario for 13 years. I must correct the record as well. I mentioned my daughter working at the Brampton youth correctional centre, but she is actually a correctional officer at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. I just clarify that for the record. She has been working there for quite some time. She works mostly with level 1 offenders.

People may wonder what a level 1 or a level 2 offender is. I think we have to look at whether or not an offender is high risk when we look at the prevention and rehabilitation aspect, but it is important that we actually do look at rehabilitation and prevention. Reintegration into society is also important, because at some point in time people do get released.

Our perspective is that we are not opposed to the legislation, but when we put legislation in place, we need to make sure that it is the right legislation and that we provide the tools required to make sure it will actually be effective. We need to make sure that the statistics at the end of the day will show that it was the right thing to do.

When we are look at the crime bills that the government has been putting forward, over and over again we see that the resources are just not there. On this particular bill, it is ironic that the government has tabled legislation dealing with 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 when we have just been advised that over $10 million in funding that was allocated to the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre went unused. The parliamentary secretary basically said that they did not spend all that money because there were human resource challenges stemming from the nature of the work.

If there were these types of challenges, should the government not have acted? Should it not have said, “Let us make sure we have proper staffing.”? It is telling us there is a big demand and that a lot of casework needs to be dealt with on this issue; it is true that we have seen an increase in people being charged, but imagine all the other people out there who are not being charged because the RCMP does not have the proper resources. The government decided to pay down the deficit instead of investing in the protection of Canadians, of our young people, of our children. That is the big problem we see with the government.

Earlier in the debate, Conservatives raised questions with respect to whether sentences should be consecutive and concurrent. As I indicated, the Conservatives can put all they want into the legislation, and I think that is what we need to do as legislators, but we also have to listen to what the judges have to say. We have to make sure that the people hearing the cases have legislation that actually works, but at the end of the day we have to allow them to do what they need to do in the judicial process.

Having worked in the field for quite some time, I know that when a serious crime has been committed, especially when it involves a sex offender, the judge will order a pre-sentence or pre-disposition report that will give the whole story of what actually happened, along with the person's history. Judges make their decisions on sentencing based on that report.

I want to go back to what was said in the House. One of the Conservative members tried to say that there was no rehabilitation for sex offenders, yet the ministry's website talks about rehabilitation for sex offenders. It states:

More than most crimes, sex crimes instill feelings of fear and anger in citizens. When a past sex offender is released from custody, fear and anger can consume a community.

It goes on to say:

Media stories about sex crimes often serve to inflame emotions and rarely tell the whole story about the treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders.

It further states:

Research shows that treatment of sex offenders does make a difference. Sex offenders who receive treatment are less likely to re-offend. Offenders who don't receive treatment are likely to re-offend at a rate of 17% compared to 10% for offenders who have received treatment. Indeed, most sexual offenders do not re-offend after a certain age.

It is important that the conversation we are having is about the need to ensure that the proper resources are in place when we put this type of legislation in place.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing will have three minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

It being 5:39 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 25 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 third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing has three minutes remaining to conclude her remarks.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

I must say that I never thought it would be a full month before I had the opportunity to finish three minutes of my remarks on Bill C-26.

As I stated in February, this is an issue that affects all of us. It is impossible to imagine that anybody in society supports the kinds of offenders we are discussing. I will also remind the House that these predators do not just prey on young people; they prey on all people.

As I mentioned in the first part of my speech, I worked at Probation and Parole Services in Ontario for 13 years. My daughter and her partner are correctional officers at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre and work mostly with level one offenders. I know from first-hand experience the importance of rehabilitation and prevention, and how it allows us to better deal with the reintegration of individuals who are eventually released back into the general population.

New Democrats are not opposed to this legislation, but have concerns that need to be addressed in this process to ensure we are pursuing the right measures while also providing the tools to ensure it will actually be effective. This is important because the government's record to date has given us crime legislation, but has shown a weakness when it comes to providing the resources needed to do the job properly. The bill is a perfect example of that.

As we debated this a month ago, we had only just learned how more than $10 million earmarked for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre went unused. Therefore, we found ourselves debating legislation to better deal with sex offenders, which is extremely important, but also digesting the fact that the money allocated to do some of that for initiatives that were already in place was left on the table by the government.

Cynics will ask if that was intentional. If that is how one builds a surplus these days, I guess that is the way the government likes to go. Surely, being tough on crime should amount to more than just uttering the phrase.

I am reminded of that old TV commercial with the catch phrase, “Where's the beef?” It is important that the Canadian public understands that about the current government and it is probably more important that we look out for that kind of mixed commitment when it comes to dealing with these offenders.

I will close by reminding the House that research shows that treatment of sex offenders does make a difference, that sex offenders who receive treatment are less likely to reoffend. In fact, offenders who do not receive treatment reoffend at a rate of 17%. For those who have received treatment, the number drops to 10%.

While New Democrats will be supporting the legislation, we would like to see the money earmarked for finding offenders spent and we would like to see an honest attempt at rehabilitation that will ultimately help protect potential future victims as these offenders re-enter society.

As I indicated, it is important to invest in resources to ensure that when offenders are actually released into the community, the proper treatment and rehabilitation processes are in place. It is not by cutting those services that we will be able to be successful.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would go right to the Prime Minister's Office, which came up with the name for this particular legislation. The PMO chose to call this piece of legislation tougher penalties for child predators.

The member made reference, in her closing remarks, to millions of dollars that were not spent. When we look at child exploitation, a great deal of it occurs on the Internet, as we know, and yet there has been the underspending of significant amounts of dollars that could have gone a long way in dealing with the issue at hand.

We have the Prime Minister of Canada saying one thing in terms of the name of a piece of legislation, but saying another thing when the Minister of Finance wants to collect money not being spent, at a great cost.

I am wondering if the member might want to expand on that point. In other words, it is tough talk, but there is very little happening in terms of action.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the government has actually saved $10 million, which was allocated to the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. When funding is not used, that is supposed to be used to protect the public, then there is a problem, only because the Conservatives want to pay down their deficit and make themselves look good. That is quite problematic.

The other thing we need to realize is that the federal government also recently announced that it is cutting the measly $650,000 in funding that if offers to Correctional Service Canada. Again, these are dollars that went toward trying to put some offenders back on the right track.

In addition, there is the circles of support and accountability program that receives funding from the National Crime Prevention Centre, which is also set to end this fall. Again, the government is not putting the money where its mouth is, and when it does put money on the table, it quickly pulls it back.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for many members of Parliament and certainly for many of the people I represent in the northwest of British Columbia, this issue strikes at the heart of some of the most grievous offences we can imagine, sexually harming young children.

It is important for a government to take on this issue. It is of public importance. One would think that this importance would carry right through, beyond the announcements, photo ops, and crafting of the title of a new bill into the actual delivery of the program.

On the preventative side, as my friend has pointed out, $10 million would have gone a long way to protecting our kids and going after some of these offenders. Then on the rehabilitation front, unless the government's plan is, and so far it is not, to lock everybody up forever, we need to do the rehabilitation so offenders do not commit the crimes again.

If the government does not spend the money on the prevention and does not spend the money on actual treatment, so that people do not cause harm again, what can it possibly say to the victims, the future victims who are ensnared in one of the traps set by these predators?

If the government simply says that it has decided to put the money into deficit cuts instead and that it does not have any money for treatment as it is for other more important things, what could it say to those families and those kids?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to funding, we need to ensure that we actually spend it in the right direction and that we put it where it belongs. We also need to ensure that it is actually used. The Conservatives can purport to support victims, but at the same time they turn around and do not fund any of the programs properly.

Let us look at the circles of support and accountability program. All in all the program costs $2.2 million a year and it is help rehabilitate offenders. It has 700 volunteers across the country who meet with offenders after they are released to help them find jobs and places to live, or to just catch up over coffee.

This is to provide them the proper support and to keep them on the right track, and here, the government is looking at cutting funding. Is that not shameful?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today 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.

We are talking about a very serious issue. I can tell members that as a parent, mother, grandmother and as a teacher, I take this issue very seriously, as I am sure does every other member in this House. There is nothing that is more offensive or heinous than the impact of sexual exploitation of children. I am sure, whether one sits on this side or that side of the House, all of us are impacted by this greatly.

During my years as a teacher, I had to deal with some pretty sensitive and horrible situations. In that context, there is absolutely nothing that is more gut wrenching then when a child reports a sexual assault molestation. As a teacher and counsellor, I took that very seriously, and the pain stays for a long time. In a similar way, as a parent, one cannot imagine the pain or even the thought of the sexual molestation of one's child. It causes very deep, unimaginable pain.

On this side of the House, as I hope on all sides of the House on this issue, we take this issue very seriously. We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children.

I am so proud of my party that it has taken this position, as it has held this position for a long time. It is because of that, that we are supporting the bill before us, but at the same time acknowledging that it contains deficiencies. It is not perfect. We are disappointed that the bill does not go further by offering truly effective measures to protect children and keep our communities safe.

I am hoping that not all of my colleagues here have had to deal with instances of serious sex offences in their ridings. We had one in September 2014. It shook the city of Surrey when 17-year-old Serena Vermeersch went missing and then she was found. A high-risk sex offender was charged. Surrey RCMP Chief Fordy said:

Serena should be at Sullivan Heights [her school] having a laugh with classmates and thinking about graduation. Sadly that is not the case. These types of crimes galvanize our community and touch them in an incredible way.

Even today, every time I think of Serena, my heart goes out to her family, friends, neighbours, and the whole Surrey community because I know the pain and anguish everyone went through.

As I said, we will be voting in favour of the bill, but once again, it seems that the government is really into optics. Here we have another bill that purports to do something, but then it is missing or lacking the resources that are needed in order to actually implement it.

It is very difficult for service providers when we as parliamentarians pass legislation and want them to carry out and enforce the new laws we make, but we do not give them the tools they need.

I am sure many of them are absolutely sick to death of hearing us or others, like their employers, telling them to do more with less. In the conversations I have had with RCMP members and other front-line service providers, it is very difficult for them to do more with less. They are feeling really stretched.

When we look at legislation like this, which purports to seriously address sexual offences against minors and our children, we really need look at where we were and what we have done. Ever since the Conservatives, and even the Liberals, have been in power, many pieces of legislation have been passed. At justice committee, the Minister of Justice stated that sexual offences against children had increased 6% over the past two years. This is quite staggering. This is after the Conservative government has taken many steps.

We need to listen to experts and informed opinion. We need to ask if some of the repressive measures that have been taken so far are working. Obviously, they are not. Are the resources there? As well as punishment, what are we doing in the area of rehabilitation and healing? What are we doing to support those who are the victims?

This is such a sensitive area. I do not want to politicize it.

We also have to ensure that the RCMP, which we charge with responsibility for much of this area, has the resources for a registry and budgets to support victims. Just having nice words on a piece of paper to say that we are all for victims and that we will provide support for victims does not make it happen.

I can remember the NDP fighting very hard for the Circles of Support and Accountability program, which was real and tangible. It was being used very effectively. Here is a quote from Steve Sullivan:

—the federal government recently announced it was cutting the measly $650,000 in funding 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.

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.

The Conservative government left money unspent when it came to child protection. I get so offended when it calls itself champions of protecting our children.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that the number of cases of abuse has grown in recent years.

Can she go into more detail about why that number has gone up despite the fact that the Conservatives like to talk about how they are dealing with the issue?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since I have been in the House, I often have heard a lot of rhetoric. We pass legislation, but we do not provide the necessary resources. When it comes to sexual predators and sexual violation of our children, we need to provide support for the victims, but there also needs to be punishment and consequences. Also, we know there has to be some level of rehabilitation because if we do not do that, the chances of repeat offences are more likely to happen.

The government had $10 million in funds earmarked for its national child exploitation coordination centre and related projects. Those funds went unspent. That really begs this question. How serious is the government about its anti-child pornography agenda?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune of being a parliamentarian at the provincial and federal levels for a number of years. Through that we have seen significant changes in the exploitation of children in a very negative way. That comes in the form of the Internet. The number of children who are exploited continues to grow year after year, and it is important we do more.

It is more than just legislation. The member made reference to the issue of financing. I made reference to that in the first question I had a few minutes ago in regard to the government's inability to ensure that, at the ground level, the RCMP was equipped to deal with the growth of child exploitation on the Internet.

The government and the Prime Minister need to be more proactive in dealing with it at the ground level. By the ground level, I am talking about getting feet on the ground, providing the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies with the necessary resources to achieve the desired impact that Canadians expect of the government in terms of leadership on this file. Would the member agree?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely need to ensure that our service providers and front line intervention have the resources they need. If we do not give them the tools they need, then we are remiss in our duties and responsibilities when we pass legislation.

On this side of the House, we believe we need concrete and truly effective measures to protect our children from sexual abuse and to make our communities safer. We need more resources to prevent crime and combat sexual abuse against children. Tougher prison sentences alone are not enough. We want the the government to be open and willing to work with the opposition parties and experts to improve the bills it tables in Parliament, especially when they target vulnerable groups such as children, instead of the mantra of the Conservatives, which is “my way or the highway”.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in support of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Macleod.

Bill C-26 is a part of the government's continuing effort to ensure that child sexual offences result in sentences of imprisonment that denounce the heinous nature of these crimes. We hear the opposition members question the necessity of this bill in light of amendments that this government made in the past, especially those enacted by Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act was a good step in the right direction, and Bill C-26 proposes to build on those reforms to fully recognize the devastating impact that these crimes have on the lives of victimized children.

We have heard criticism particularly directed at the effectiveness of mandatory minimum penalties in achieving this objective. A brief discussion about the current sentencing regime in the Criminal Code is warranted in order to explain the necessity of the proposed reforms.

The Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

In order to achieve this fundamental purpose, a sentence may have the following objectives: denunciation, deterrence, separation of the offender from society when necessary; rehabilitation of the offender; providing reparation for the harm done to the victim or community; the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders; and the acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

It is important to note that a just sentence does not have to reflect all of these sentencing objectives, but only those that are essential to achieve the fundamental purpose of sentencing.

In sentencing offenders for sexual offences committed against children, section 718.01 of the Criminal Code directs courts to consider denunciation and deterrence as the paramount sentencing objectives. How can we as legislators ensure that primary importance is also given to these objectives for these types of crimes?

Both social denunciation of a crime and the deterrence of criminals are achieved in our laws in two ways. First, maximum terms of imprisonment send a clear signal of what punishment is proportionate for the worst offender who commits a crime in the worst circumstances. Second, mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment represent the lowest punishment that we as a society consider important for certain serious crimes.

By increasing both minimum terms of imprisonment and maximum terms of imprisonment for certain sexual offences committed against children, Bill C-26 focuses on denunciation and deterrence and thereby ensures that sentences imposed contribute to a just, peaceful and safe society.

The fundamental objective of a sentence can only be achieved if the sentence imposed is just. According to the Criminal Code, a just sentence is one that is proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the gravity of the offence. In determining a just sentence, a court must consider the sentencing principles described in the Criminal Code. For example, a sentence must be increased to account for any aggravating factors relating to the offender or the offence.

Two of the listed aggravating factors in subsection 718(a) of the Criminal Code play an important role in child sexual cases.

First, paragraph 718.2(a)(ii.1) of the Criminal Code directs courts to treat the fact that an offender, in committing the offence, abused the person under the age of 18 years of age as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Second, paragraph 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code directs the fact of the offender in committing the offence abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim also be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Both these aggravating factors further indicate that the significant punishment as proposed by Bill C-26 is justifiable for child predators.

Another important contribution of Bill C-26 rests with the proposed reforms that relate to the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences. These amendments would clarify and codify applicable rules in situations where an offender would be sentenced for multiple offences, whether committed against the same victim or not.

Apart from the explicit reference to mandatory consecutive sentences in the context of terrorism acts, criminal organization offences and the use of a firearm in the commission of the offence, the general sentencing principles found in subsection 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code regarding consecutive and concurrent sentences only offer limited guidance to courts.

Bill C-26 proposes to improve on this by, among other things, directing 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 to one another.

This represents a codification of the rules developed by courts over the years. Courts will generally order that sentences be served consecutively unless they are committed as part of the same event or series of events, or as some have described it, as part of a criminal transaction. Where several offences are committed as part of the same criminal transaction, the courts will generally determine what is a proportionate sentence for the most serious offence committed and order that the other offences be served concurrently. However, where an offence committed as part of the same criminal transaction is gratuitous or dangerous, courts will generally consider ordering that the sentences be served consecutively to discourage offenders from committing serious offences with impunity.

This approach is codified in Bill C-26 by directing courts to consider ordering consecutive sentences in situations where one of the offences was committed either on judicial interim release or while the accused was fleeing from a peace officer.

The totality principle represents the final step in the determination of whether sentences of imprisonment should be served consecutively. This sentencing principle, described in paragraph 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code, prevents courts from ordering that terms of imprisonment be served one after the other if the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh. Where the combined sentence is, in the court's opinion, unduly long or harsh, it may order that certain terms of imprisonment be served concurrently instead of one after the other.

I understand that in ordering concurrent sentences in such cases, courts intend to craft a combined sentence that is proportionate to the overall responsibility of the offender. However, in the context of sexual offences committed against children, this approach translates into a sentence discount for the offender.

To address this problem, Bill C-26 proposes that sentences of imprisonment for child pornography offences be served consecutively to any sentence imposed at the same time for a contact child sexual offence, and in cases of multiple victims, that sentences imposed at the same time for contact child sexual offences committed against one victim be served consecutively to those imposed for contact child sexual offences committed against any other victim.

Requiring that these terms of imprisonment be served consecutively to one another would send a clear message that every sexual offence committed against children is serious and is clearly unacceptable. These amendments will also send a clear and unequivocal signal that a proportionate sentence is one that acknowledges that every child victim counts.