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

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved 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. Speaker, I am always pleased to rise in this splendid chamber to be with my colleagues, particularly to speak to such an important bill as Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

The bill, as members know, would touch upon three on three important areas: sentencing reform; the Canada Evidence Act, the evidentiary reforms we believe necessary; and enhancing the practical tracking of sex offenders through our public safety department.

The bill would represent another positive, significant initiative that our government has brought forward to address one of the absolute worst forms of crime: the sexual abuse of children.

As a new father, I must say that in addition to the joy that a child brings to one's life, it is certainly also a stark reminder of the vulnerability of young children and the sacred duty that we all share to protect our youth, particularly, children who are subject to sexual abuse.

It is incumbent upon us to continually assess the current adequacy of the law in that regard. How does our criminal law in fact protect our children and ensure that we are effectively and comprehensively addressing these heinous crimes of sexual abuse?

Sadly, children and youth are far too likely to become victims of sexual offences, more so than adults. For instance, in 2011, police reported that cases had actually gone up. Reported rates indicate that children were five times more likely than adults to be victims of sexual assault. In fact, in 2012, police reported incidents of child sex offences had increased by 3%, and that was up over 3% the year before that. These statistics from Justice Canada indicate, clearly, that the current laws have to be examined and improved. That is what we are attempting to do.

The statistics, of course, do not tell the full story. They do not tell, or speak to, or truly reflect the devastating lifelong impact of a sexual offence on a child.

The amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act set out in the bill would help to ensure that any offenders who have committed sexual offences against children are fully held to account for crimes committed against the most vulnerable members of our society. These amendments would also serve as a deterrent for these heinous crimes.

The bill would also create a high-risk child sex offender database. Practically speaking, this would assist in protecting society's most vulnerable from those who are known to have offended against them and those who are most likely to do so again: a classic incurable pedophile.

To achieve these important objectives of protection, the bill would maintain several different components. First, maximum and minimum penalties for certain Criminal Code child sexual offences would be increased, building upon the recent reforms that were enacted by the Safe Streets and Communities Act, formerly known as Bill C-10.

The Criminal Code already contains comprehensive provisions protecting children from sexual exploitation, including both general and child-specific sexual offences.

The child sexual offence reforms would ensure that anyone who commits any of these offences against a child faces a mandatory minimum penalty. That means jail time, in all cases, if someone sexually abuses a child.

Yet more can be done. The bill proposes, further, to increase the mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties that would apply to child sex offences to better deter and denounce this type of heinous offence. Maximum penalties for breaches of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds, all of which can be described as supervision orders and aimed at protecting those who are most vulnerable again from an individual who has been released who has arguably already been afforded the opportunity to be back in society, albeit with restrictions.

The intent here is to ensure that when people violate conditions imposed by a court, conditions that were aimed specifically to protect a child, there will be accountability. A stay-away order, for example, from schools, pools, and playgrounds is a classic attempt to keep sex offenders away from children. When those violations of probation occur, there would be a specific offence attached.

These tools would authorize judges to impose conditions on child sex offenders or suspected child sex offenders by prohibiting unsupervised contact with children. Again, that would be a protective order made by a court to hopefully pre-empt any further offence. If those pre-emptive orders were breached, the bill would bring about criminal accountability.

A sentencing judge would have to consider imposing a probation order on an offender convicted of a sexual offence on a child, and probation orders could be imposed on an offender sentenced to two years' imprisonment. A peace bond could also be imposed if there were a reasonable fear that a person would commit a child sex offence.

Strict adherence to the conditions imposed by these supervision orders significantly reduces the risk of reoffending. Many breaches of supervision orders do not involve the commission of a new offence that would warrant a new charge, but any breach of a condition imposed to protect children, we believe, would be a significant indicator of risk to children.

Accordingly, the protection of children and the prevention of sexual offences against them demand significant condemnation of all violations of supervision orders. Importantly, this bill would increase the penalties for breaches of the new probation order proposed by Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, so I would describe this as sister legislation. As the Speaker is aware, this new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images very often includes a pre-emptive attempt to stop the spread of the offending material.

We know that in the case of young suicides, it is that devastating feeling of hopelessness that the material on the Internet is being passed around not only in the community but literally around the globe. It has a devastating psychological impact on the individual. This new legislation aims not only to help remove the material but also in some cases to restrict the offender or the accused from having any further contact with that young person, so there is very much a connection between this bill and Bill C-13, I would submit.

This amendment would ensure that penalties for both the new probation order and for child sex offence prohibition orders are consistent. Again, it is important that we have consistency in the legislation.

The bill also proposes sentencing reforms that would clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences, something that there has been confusion on in the past. In general, concurrent sentences are imposed and served simultaneously for two or more convictions that arise out of one continuous act or single transaction, often referred to in the courts as the same event or series of events rule.

Conversely, consecutive sentences are imposed and served one on top of the other for multiple convictions for unrelated offences, as they arise out of separate criminal transactions. The concepts of concurrent and consecutive sentences predate Confederation. Amendments over the years have complicated the statement of the rule contained in the Criminal Code to the point that it sometimes offers little guidance to the courts.

To address this deficiency, the proposed amendments would direct courts to consider ordering, where applicable, that sentences of imprisonment be imposed and served consecutively. That is to say that when the court would sentence 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 would be served consecutively.

This bill also proposes to codify the approach of the courts when one of the offences was committed either while on judicial interim release—or bail, as it is commonly known—or while the accused was fleeing a police officer. In such cases, in order to discourage offenders from committing offences with impunity, courts would usually order that the offences be served consecutively to other offences for which the court would sentence the offender.

The purpose of these proposed amendments on consecutive versus concurrent sentencing is to try to bring about a greater sense of consistency and understanding as to when and why consecutive sentences apply to certain circumstances and to certain offenders. In particular, for multiple child sex offences, including child pornography offences, we believe that sentences should not receive a sentencing discount, as it is sometimes described, whereby a court directs that the sentences imposed are served concurrently, meaning that the offender only has to serve the longest sentence that is imposed for a series of convictions.

Put another way, this proposed amendment would require that sentences for child pornography offences and others would be served consecutive to any sentence imposed at the same time when there has been what is called a contact child sex offence or when there have been multiple victims. Sentences imposed at the same time for contact sexual offences committed against one victim would be served consecutively to those imposed for contact sexual offences committed against any other victim.

This gives individual recognition in the criminal system for each of those victims in the sentence that is meted out. These reforms end the sentencing discount that is sometimes afforded to child sex offenders who are sentenced at the same time for multiple charges. In particular, they ensure that the law recognizes the devastating impact that sexual abuse has on each individual life.

The bill sends a clear message to child sex offenders that there will be no more discount and that they will serve jail time for each and every victim, each and every offence. We believe this is a just result, given the seriousness of the type of offence and the fundamental injustices that have occurred when there have been multiple victims.

Another important sentencing reform included in this bill is to ensure that any evidence that an offence was committed while the offender was 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.

These amendments will ensure that the gravity of committing an offence while subject to one of these more lenient orders is better reflected in the sentence that is then imposed.

The bill will also make it possible to ensure that the spouse of the accused can testify in child pornography cases. Under the Canada Evidence Act and common law, unless spouses are irreconcilably separated, for most offences, the spouse of the accused cannot testify for the prosecution even if he or she so desires. One spouse is not competent to testify and cannot be compelled to testify against the other. The spouse of the accused is not compellable.

The Canada Evidence Act contains statutory exceptions to these rules permitting spousal testimony for most child sex offences and offences of violence against young persons, but not for child pornography offences. Again, we hope to bring about a greater sense of consistency when it comes to spouses and their competency and compellability before the courts.

The amendments proposed in this bill add child pornography to the list of exceptions in the Canada Evidence Act, making the spouse of a person accused of any of the child pornography offences competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution. In child pornography cases, as we know well, 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.

Without this amendment, child pornographers may be able to get away with this very disgusting crime, and we must put an end to this legal loophole. I would submit that the current state of the law on this issue is unacceptable. Any form of child pornography we know is taking advantage of and exploiting children.

This bill also includes amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. These amendments would require registered sex offenders to provide more information regarding their travel abroad and would permit information-sharing on registered sex offenders among officials, those responsible for the national sex offender registry, and the Canada Border Services Agency. All of this reform is aimed to prevent travelling sex offenders from accessing children in foreign jurisdictions and to facilitate holding them to account for their crimes.

My friend the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness will be speaking to this issue. My friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs is a former police officer. I know he shares the desire to break down any barriers to sharing information between agencies to help hold sex offenders accountable. In this day and age, we cannot be seen as a nation that allows those convicted of these heinous crimes in our courts to then go abroad and take advantage of jurisdictions where laws and enforcement may not be as rigorous. We owe a larger duty of care to children in other countries as well. They are equally vulnerable.

Currently, the law as it pertains to registered sex offenders and the reporting of absences of seven days or more for trips within or outside Canada only requires them to report specific designations and addresses for domestic trips. This bill would amend the act to ensure that all registered sex offenders report every address or location at which they expect to stay on a trip for seven days or longer outside Canada, as well as specific travel dates. These amendments would also require registered sex offenders with a child sex offence conviction to report absences of any duration for trips outside Canada and to provide specific dates and locations. These amendments would help facilitate information-sharing with foreign jurisdictions, which I consider to be appropriate.

As well, the bill proposes to authorize national sex offender registry officials to disclose information on registered sex offenders to Canada Border Services Agency officials, particularly in cases of child sex offenders assessed as high risk, who will be placed on their lookout system. CBSA would also be authorized to collect information about these sex offenders upon return from travel outside Canada and to share this information with the national sex offender registry officials.

Given that the national sex offender registry officials and CBSA officials do not currently have the authority to share information on registered sex offenders, we believe these amendments are critical and practical in ensuring that authorities are aware of the activities of sex offenders who travel outside our country. Without this knowledge, it may be impossible to detect and combat this type of criminality.

Last but certainly not least with respect to the importance of this bill, the bill proposes the creation of a high-risk child sex offender database. It would authorize the RCMP to establish and administer a publicly accessible national database of high-risk child sex offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a province or territory.

All of this, I would submit, is in keeping with previous efforts that we have made to improve our criminal justice system to protect our most vulnerable, particularly our children. We have made numerous amendments and brought forward some 30 criminal justice initiatives in the last eight years, including taking such practical measures as increasing the age of protection, putting in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory, and strengthening the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders. All of this is in keeping with our efforts to make this country safer and to make our justice system more just.

We have also put in place the necessary resources to set up child advocacy centres in 10 locations across the country. We have launched the getcybersafe.gc.ca website for public awareness. We have joined in the Global Alliance against Child Sex Abuse Online. I am proud to say that all of this furthers the intent of this bill.

The fundamental message is clear. We must do everything in our power to protect children. I know this is something you share as a father, Mr. Speaker, and we all share as parents and those who care for children. Accordingly, I would encourage all members to support this important legislation.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech on Bill C-26. Finally, we can debate it.

It always makes me shudder to think that there will be a registry for high-risk offenders. I always wonder what high-risk offenders are doing in our streets. To me it signals that there is a problem if the government thinks that a simple registry will keep people safe.

In addition to that point, which we will surely address in committee, I have another question. Bill C-26 is not designed to establish mandatory minimum penalties or mandatory maximums, it is designed to increase both the minimum and maximum penalties.

I am wondering what statistics or study the people at the justice department used to demonstrate to the minister that existing penalties, both the mandatory minimums and maximums, needed to be increased. What evidence does the minister have?

The government boasts about having changed many laws, and perhaps it deserves to be congratulated for doing so. However, is it not a failure that there has been 6% increase in the past two years even though various bills we have seen in the past year have increased sentences? For example, Bill C-10 comes to mind.

How can the minister think that the RCMP, which has a hard enough time updating criminal records, will be capable of keeping its promise regarding the new registry?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I just explained, the intent is to see that information is being shared between agencies, such as the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, and those tasked specifically with tracking convicted sex offenders and those who are released sometimes on court orders. It is to ensure that the information is being shared among officials so they are aware of the movements and potential proximity or opportunity that a convicted sex offender would have with a child, or if they are at designated locations where they are not supposed to be. This is a practical step. It is something I believe my friend would agree further empowers police in particular to monitor and, when necessary, to intervene.

As far as the necessity to do more, the member quoted the statistics back to me. The fact that we continue to see sex offences against children on the rise in and of itself is certainly the greatest motivation there could possibly be to do more and ensure that there is greater deterrence and denunciation in these types of offences. If that means longer sentences, yes. I very much embrace the idea that we keep offenders who reoffend and commit these horrible, sometimes multiple, acts of sexual offences against multiple children in jail longer. Does that deter the offender? Yes. Does it send a message that society abhors this type of offence? Yes, it does.

When I hear from police that 55% of sexual offences committed in Canada are actually committed against children, I am equally motivated to do more.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on that same theme.

The minister would know well that the Safe Streets and Communities Act increased sentences in several areas. In the bill before us, in no fewer than 20 sections, the sentences that were increased either by mandatory minimums or maximum sentences have been increased again.

We see an increase in the sentences from 2012, while at the same time the statistics indicate that the incidence of crime has gone up. Therefore, if the increases that were put into Bill C-10 have resulted in an increase in crime, have we not learned something?

If those increased sentences did not give the desired result of bringing crime down, why does the minister insist on adopting the exact same strategy?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is mind-boggling to suggest that somehow these statistics are going up because sex offenders are getting longer sentences. It really does boggle the mind that the member for Charlottetown would even attempt to make that suggestion and attribute it to a bill that is designed to do a number of things.

Increasing mandatory minimum sentences and maximum sentences are but part of this legislation. I would invite the member to read the whole bill. He pointed to the number of sections. I invite him to read all of those sections to get a full understanding of the intent of the bill.

Clearly, the statistics tell part of the story. The fact that we had more sex offences in Canada cries out for tougher sanctions and more practical steps to put tools in the hands of the police and the court to help protect children. It cries out for innovative solutions that would allow us to put in place a more protective perimeter around children when it comes to their vulnerability.

This is all part of a comprehensive approach taken by the government. I mentioned some 30 justice initiatives, many of which include putting people in jail who offend against children, who sexually abuse children for longer periods of time. This is something that I feel our government is doing in the best interests of children.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, as the chair of the justice committee, to ask a question of the minister, who has been an excellent Minister of Justice. He has been very available to our committee to discuss a number of issues.

Regarding Bill C-26, if I understand from the discussion and reading the bill, its main focus is to ensure that sexual offences against children receive sentences that are appropriate, that we are increasing the mandatory minimum penalties and the maximum penalties for sexual offences against children. The bill would also impose, for the first time, consecutive sentences for consecutive crimes against children. It also includes child pornography and those who commit offences against children by using child pornography as their vehicle.

Could the minister tell the House why it is important to the general public that we have sentences that match the crime, particularly against children?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burlington, the excellent chair of our justice committee, for his work.

He is getting at a very important point, which is the message that it sends to Canadians. It is a message of consistency, a message of concern and compassion for children and a message that reflects Canadians values. The message is that this type of offence holds a particularly grave place in the minds and hearts of Canadians and that we cannot in any way, shape, or form tolerate sexual abuse against children.

The devastating impact that this can have on the life of an individual has been well chronicled. It is a lifelong sentence for that person.

I recall, as a prosecutor, dealing directly with victims and the parents of young victims. It is soul-destroying, and the parent very often carries the guilt of somehow not having protected that child or having left them in the custody or care of somebody who, it turned out, was abusing them.

It is well chronicled, and we have heard about the impact that it has had on athletes and individuals who were abused by those who should have been entrusted to care for them. They were in positions of trust.

The aim of this bill and the approach that we are taking here is to reflect the seriousness of the offence, have it recognized by the courts, and have a period of incarceration that is appropriate.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, “this is about politics, not public safety”. That was Steve Sullivan, the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime, speaking on Bill C-26.

This bill would not do those things that would make children safer. It would only do those things that have been proven to be ineffective, such as maximum minimum sentences and so on. The current administration has failed to provide the funding support for Circles of Support and Accountability, a proven program that has 70% to 83% reductions in recidivism among those most likely to reoffend.

I challenge the Minister of Justice. If he cares about our children, to fund that program and stop pursuing failed policies.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member would know that the Department of Justice does much more than just bring forward legislation that toughens penalties. We have many programs in place that are designed specifically at the front end to prevent this type of offence and also to work with offenders and victims.

We are bringing historic legislation in the first Canadian victims bill of rights. We have a very extensive aboriginal justice program that, again, does a great deal to help deter crimes that occur far too often on reserve against aboriginal women and girls.

It does require a comprehensive approach, and that is exactly what the government is doing. Rather than just paying lip service to these offences, the government is treating them seriously and also treating the victims with respect.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House at 10:20 this evening to discuss Bill C-26.

Much pomp and ceremony accompanied the introduction of this bill in February. More than three months have since passed, and we are just now beginning this first hour of debate on a bill that the government declared was of the utmost urgency and importance and would solve pretty much all of the world's problems.

Like most members on this side of the House, I have some concerns. I would like my colleagues opposite to keep an open mind so that we can take a calm look at this bill and ensure that it really will do what they say it will. This bill is called the 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. The Conservatives like to call it the tougher penalties for child predators act.

The Conservatives like to portray themselves as heroes by saying they are against child sexual predators. It seems to me that everyone in the House is against child sexual predators.

This bill was introduced with great fanfare. However, after reading it, we realize that the cases used to justify this bill during the many press conferences held by the minister and the Prime Minister are eight years old.

I definitely have a lot of questions. We will certainly have the opportunity to ask the minister questions in committee, but I am going to ask him a few in advance. It would be nice if he shows up in committee with some answers.

Essentially, as the minister said, this bill will increase the existing mandatory minimum sentences. It is not as though we were reinventing the wheel or having a great debate on the merits of having minimum sentences or anything else. Some people are more or less in favour of the idea of mandatory minimum sentences.

Sometimes our colleagues at the end of the House like to say that it is absolutely appalling. However, when we look at some of the changes the Liberals made to legislation over the years, we see that they also introduced mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. They are ones to talk.

The bill would:

...increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds; ...clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences.

There is a case currently before the Supreme Court about the legality of consecutive sentences. In the short and medium terms, many decisions made here risk being seen in another light. That is why I was saying that it is good to assess the bill calmly in order to do what we really want to do.

The bill also seeks to:

...require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children; and 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.

What is more:

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.

The following is new:

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....[and] it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

The NDP has always had a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children.

I am saying this a little more enthusiastically than I did in the case of Bill C-10, which was an omnibus bill. The government had lumped in some provisions that applied to sexual predators with a number of other completely unrelated laws. As we did not agree with some of the provisions, we tried to split the bill. The government's petty politics were an attempt to stymie the opposition. The government could thus say that the opposition had voted against provisions to deal with sexual predators.

It seems that it did not work because Bill C-10 is in effect and the tougher mandatory minimum sentences do not seem to have had the desired effect. I would like to hear the minister tell us, in committee, how these new mandatory minimum and maximum sentences will succeed this time when they failed before.

That is one of the serious concerns that I have about this file. Many Conservative bills, whether government bills or backbenchers' bills, do nothing but increase mandatory minimum sentences while claiming to solve the problem of these types of crimes in particular.

Each time we ask the Conservatives why they are making the change. Is it because the sentences are too lenient? Is it because the mandatory minimum penalties they initially put in place were not enough and statistics clearly show that there is a serious problem?

If there is an increase in the number of crimes being committed, is it the penalty that is the problem or is it the services?

Earlier I heard the member talk about the circles program that they cut. This program had a proven track record and it worked. Everything was fine and it had a good success rate. Sometimes, the real problem is with the related services. We need to ensure that these people, who are predators when they are arrested and who are found guilty, serve their sentences and no longer pose a risk when they are released.

The other day I was giving an interview on the radio and I was asked whether I would oppose this bill. I said that I was flabbergasted that they were not offended that the government thinks it can solve the problem of high-risk child sex offenders with a registry.

I do not understand how the government can think that its high-risk child sex offender registry, to be managed by the RCMP commissioner, will solve the problem.

By the way, there is small problem that may also have to be examined in committee, and that is the definition of “high risk”. Under the act, the commissioner seems to have the authority to declare someone to be high risk, but the Conservatives always like to sneak in a few extra little provisions. There is one in this bill that is a bit worrisome to me. It is worth looking at what it says. Clause 11 of the new registry act, under the heading “Regulations”, states:

The Governor in Council [meaning cabinet] may make regulations

(a) establishing the criteria for determining whether a person who is found guilty of a sexual offence against a child poses a high risk of committing a crime of a sexual nature; and

(b) prescribing anything that, by this Act, is to be prescribed.

In this bill, they are also providing for a way to change the manner in which regulations are made. We might look at this more thoroughly here at some point and perhaps in committee as well. When I put all these pieces together, it makes me wonder about this bill.

I was looking at some statistics about the various crimes that are mentioned in Bill C-26. Section 151 refers to sexual interference.

Canada is a big country. I think we now have a population of about 34 million. One sexual predator is one too many. We can all agree on that. I would not want anyone to quote me tomorrow as saying that it is okay if we have 100 sexual predators. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that we have to be realistic.

Here are the statistics on sexual interference: 241 people were charged in 2008, 574 in 2009, 818 in 2010, 918 in 2011 and 916 in 2012.

We are seeing progress. However, that is probably the least serious sex crime, at least in comparison to sexually assaulting a child, for example.

There were 56 cases of invitation to sexual touching in 2008, and that rose to 206 cases in 2012. There were 17 cases of sexual exploitation in 2008, but that increased to 49 cases. It was relatively stable between 2010 and 2012. We do not have any statistics about making sexually explicit material available to a child because it is a new offence that was created in 2012. There were 54 cases of luring a child through the use of a computer in 2008, and 127 cases in 2012.

I remind members that these are years under Conservative power. These are the law and order years, when the government is claiming to have solved all kinds of problems. That remains to be seen. The government has been forced to review some offences, saying that it may have been mistaken in 2010 when it set a range of years for a sentence and that perhaps it should have been harsher. This proves what we often hear at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: offenders do not carry around the Criminal Code when they commit an offence. They do not carry it around thinking that they may have to serve eight years in prison. On the contrary, there are people who are absolutely sick, and we need to focus on getting them off our streets. I am not interested in simply saying that I was harsh and I punished the offender. That is certainly important, but we need to ensure that offenders get the support they need, so that when they are released into society, the public is not left relying on a high-risk child sex offender registry to find out who is in our communities. Programs such as the Circle of Support and Accountability can help these people so that we can provide reasonable assurances to Canadians across the country and so that the public knows that we did our best to limit the potential number of repeat offenders.

There are so many questions. The government often stays silent, especially when it comes to statistics and explanations, aside from their press conferences, where they sell their message.

When I visit my riding of Gatineau, people are happy to know that we are addressing the problem of sexual predators. Everyone agrees with that. There is nothing worse than hurting our children. If someone touches a hair on our child's head, we would obviously be prepared to go to extremes. That is why we must make sure that we do things right.

We do not know if the government got a legal opinion about its registry. In fact, there are some questions about the registry. Information will be circulated and shared. Did anyone think about the possibility of vigilantes? It may not be a big deal to say that a convicted individual lives in Toronto. Toronto is big. However, in a small village, it is a different story. If people know that Mr. So-and-so lives in such-and-such a village, it is easy enough to find out where he lives. We need to take certain precautions and ensure that everything is done properly. No matter how disgusting the crime, I would not want anyone to take justice into their own hands. I would not want our actions to result in a situation like that simply because we did not take the time to fully analyze the issue.

Did the Minister of Justice speak with his provincial counterparts? They are the ones who will feel the impact of this. Consecutive sentences and tougher sentences affect plea bargaining, for both the Crown and the defence. There are not enough crown prosecutors or enough judges in the criminal courts.

That has a serious impact. I asked the minister a question about the RCMP. I did not get a response, but we know that the RCMP is already having a very hard time updating criminal records. That is not insignificant. People are upset when a criminal is found guilty of drinking and driving for the fourth time, but it is because he was never tried for his repeat offences. If the police do not have the resources to keep track of his criminal record, his file is empty.

Even with the toughest laws known to man, and even if the RCMP commissioner is given full authority to create a registry for high-risk offenders, as long as the RCMP does not have the resources it needs to deal with each of those files, there will be problems.

That is why the minister needs to make sure this is bulletproof. Thinking that the bill is charter compliant is not good enough. Thinking that the bill is fine is not good enough. Will the bill pass the test if someone challenges it? Will we end up having to have to start from scratch? The Conservatives might not be too worried about that, but I do not like the idea of starting this kind of trial, especially when the victims have to go through what is probably the most difficult time they will ever have to go through. I always told my clients that there are two kinds of people who like court: lawyers and judges. Nobody else likes the whole business because it is an extremely stressful time, especially if it is a criminal trial.

Sometimes the victim is a person who has been robbed of innocence, someone to whom the most despicable things have been done and who is waiting for the trial and all kinds of things. That person ends up having to start over from scratch because the evidence is thrown out or challenged and the case is appealed.

All that to say that I hope the minister will be open-minded enough to listen to the witnesses in committee. The NDP will support this bill at second reading so it can go to committee because that is where the work gets done. This is the kind of offence that the committee should take its time studying.

However, we have a lot of questions and we think that the government has not been completely forthcoming. It has already introduced many similar bills. Either it dropped the ball and started over without telling us, or it had alarming statistics that would give us no choice but to amend the bill. If that is the case here, only the committee's study will tell us what is really going on.

Since the minister is here tonight, and not one of his parliamentary secretaries, I hope he will listen to our suggestions with an open mind. We do not want to pester the government; we just want to make sure the bill will do what it is supposed to do, which is implement tougher penalties for child predators and keep the public safe once a predator is released. Sooner or later, these people get out of prison.

Then we have to wonder what state these people will be in when they get out of prison. I am not a bleeding heart. I am just a realist. I do not want hardened criminals to be back on our streets. I do not want a repeat of what happened in the Outaouais recently.

Last week, a man got out of prison after serving a sentence for voyeurism and attempted sexual touching. The first thing he did was to get caught by the police again. That is not what we want. We want people to be able to reintegrate into society and to no longer be a danger to the public.

I hope that the minister will be open to our suggestions and examine them properly. We will support the bill at second reading.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the justice critic for the NDP, for taking a constructive approach in encouraging this legislation to go forward. I do not consider her a bleeding heart. I consider her a colleague, a practitioner, somebody who brings her very important perspective to this debate.

I do want to pick up just quickly on a couple of points.

I have not heard what I consider to be practical amendments, at least thus far, that would improve the bill. I have heard some of the blanket criticisms. What we are attempting to do, and what she has rightly said we are all attempting to do here, is to prevent further offences, particularly against children. It would be folly to suggest that the bill would in and of itself prevent these offences in the future. It would send a message of deterrence. It would put in place more practical steps that the police can take, provide more practical tools, but it would be in unison with other steps that have already been taken and will have to be taken in the future.

With respect to her suggestion that somehow this legislation is going to answer all of the questions, that is certainly not the intent.

Public confidence is important. She would know that when it comes to these types of offences, almost 80% of Canadians feel that the courts have been too lenient and that the message of deterrence is not getting out.

My colleague is right when she describes individuals who touch children as sick and that she wants to get them off the street. I would encourage her to look closely at these provisions, because that is exactly the intention. The bill would ensure that those who are able to be rehabilitated are treated. However, some forms of pedophilia are not treatable. We are at least taking every possible step to put perimeters around an individual's movement, track that individual's movement, know where the individual is. As a father, I feel I can say that everyone wants to know if a recently released pedophile is living in the neighbourhood. This legislation would enable that information to flow.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never mentioned that I had any amendments at this stage. What I was trying to understand is why, after Bill C-10 and after increasing certain mandatory minimum sentences, the department and the minister felt the need to increase these minimums and maximums yet again. Are we missing some information that would explain whether this upsurge in offences came about after the increase in mandatory minimum sentences and that increasing the sentences did not have the desired effect?

Those are the types of questions that we should be able to address quite calmly in committee, not to destroy the bill, but to ensure that it does what it is supposed to do. That will be our objective in committee to try to address this upsurge.

It is worrisome to hear that offences have increased by 6% over the past two years when we have a law and order government in place.

It is worrisome when the cases mentioned during press conferences date back to a time before the Conservative government came to power.

Is there a disconnect somewhere? Is there something that did not happen that was supposed to? Have we been more concerned about press conferences and less concerned about content? I do not know, but that is what we will find out in committee.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a couple of things.

The member for Gatineau referenced the roles between provincial and federal jurisdictions. Here we have a bill that would increase minimum sentences. To the extent that these sentences are less than two years, these inmates are serving their time in provincial institutions on the nickel of the provincial government that is involved. I would be interested in hearing the member's views with respect to what consultation, if any, has or should have been done, given the impact on the various provincial treasuries.

I would also invite her to comment on the constitutionality of the various provisions and whether she has any concerns with respect to that. The government has been on a terrible losing streak in the courts with respect to the constitutionality of various pieces of legislation, including crime legislation, and the bill certainly brings into play not just security to the person but also possibly mobility rights.

I would be interested in my colleague's view on those two points.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to consultation, that was one of the questions I asked the minister after his speech.

It will be interesting to see how the provinces react to everything that is thrown at their courts, especially since access to justice is not satisfactory across Canada.

With respect to how justice is perceived, it is a vicious circle. The wheels of justice are turning more and more slowly, and this certainly does not help convince the public that justice is served.

Thus, there is a great deal of work to be done. There is no way to be informed because this government does not provide details about its consultations. In any case, for the government, consulting means talking rather than listening.

With respect to compliance with the charter, every time the Conservative government introduces a bill, we are usually given this assurance. In fact, under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the government is required to ensure that its bills are charter compliant.

However, in light of the suit launched by Mr. Schmidt, the public servant who says that that is not exactly the order that the justice department is given, and the government's monumental losses of 7-0, 8-0 and 6-1 on criminal justice issues brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in the past year, we certainly have doubts. However, we will verify these doubts in committee.

If the Conservative government did not make sure that its bill was legal and charter compliant, we will do so in committee because this is a serious file that concerns our children. Let us at least have the decency to study the bill in committee.

I do not claim to be the greatest constitutional expert the world has ever known, so I have some questions. I do not have all the answers just yet, but we hope to get them in committee.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very interesting speech.

Every time an act of pedophilia occurs, we are all affected and angered by it. We all agree that we must crack down on and punish these criminals. However, as my colleague was saying, we also need to make sure that these sorts of crimes do not happen again. The hon. minister said that punishment is a way of preventing these things from happening again, but prevention is just as important. The success rate of the circles of support and accountability program is between 70% and 80%. That means 70% to 80% of people who participate in the program do not reoffend.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. Is this something we should be putting energy and money into?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that excellent question.

Of course, prevention is extremely important. We also have to be realistic about sexual predators and some sexual offences. When I worked as a radio announcer, I did a show following a serious case of pedophilia that received a fair bit of media attention in Quebec.

That day was probably one of the most defining moments of my radio career. During the call-in show, which was mainly about the castration of pedophiles, since experts were considering that issue, I received a call from a pedophile.

He admitted that he had a condition that could not be healed. He had made the decision himself to withdraw from society because he no longer trusted himself in an environment where he would be in contact with children either directly or indirectly. All that I remember was that I was there, with my headphones and microphone, and my producer was begging me not to say anything and to let this man talk. That is what we did and it was enlightening.

We have to act intelligently when it comes to matters of criminal law. It is true that crime does not pay and that we have to punish criminals appropriately. As in labour law, the punishment must fit the crime, but we must not become obsessed with just that. We have to look at the whole picture, and I hope that is what we will do in committee.

The House resumed 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.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to split my time with the member for Ottawa South.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I felt quite confident that the House would certainly want to hear from the member for Ottawa South, and I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues for that.

Today it is my honour to stand to speak to Bill C-26, and I want to state from the outset that I am reluctant to support the bill. However, we will vote at second reading to send the bill to committee, and will do so in order to provide the government with an opportunity to present what evidence, if any, has emerged since 2012 that has prompted the introduction of even more mandatory minimum sentences.

It was just two years ago that many of these same provisions were contained in Bill C-10. In the two years since the coming into force of Bill C-10, child sex offences, as we heard from the minister, have risen by 6%. To repeat, in the two years since the coming into force of Bill C-10, child sex offences have risen by 6%.

The House will remember that when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-10, in 2011, they spoke at length about how these measures would combat child sex offences. I think we are still in agreement that reducing child sex offences is a priority that we all share. The government has made much of the fact that it imposed mandatory minimum sentences, stating that this would somehow reduce incidents against children.

Again, that legislation, Bill C-10, came into force in 2012. Since the coming into force of that bill, and despite the rhetoric from the Conservatives, it must be accepted, and indeed it was earlier in debate this evening, with obvious concern, that child sex offences have actually risen.

I want to make it clear that I do not for one minute believe that the Conservatives planned or hoped for this result, but I do believe that they need to accept the idea of being smart on crime.

At the justice committee this past March, I raised this issue with the minister. It was the same issue that I raised with him in the question and answer period following his speech this evening. I wanted to know why the government would introduce further flawed legislation for these offences when very clearly the evidence suggested that its previous approach had not worked.

The same question was posed at the justice committee when these statistics were introduced by the minister at committee, as they were again this evening. I asked him where the statistics came from, and at that point he did not know. He indicated he would get back to me, and I guess that happened tonight. We now know that these statistics came from Justice Canada.

I asked the minister at committee, on March 6 of this year, “Do you not agree that the stats that show that child sexual offences have increased in the last two years indicate that the increases that you put in C-10 haven't worked?”

The minister responded, and not exactly in the same fashion as he did this evening, but his response was:

I'd answer that two ways. First, I would say that C-10 would hardly have had effect in the time period we're looking at. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it indicates to me that we have more to do. It indicates very clearly that we have to take more steps toward prevention, deterrence, and denunciation.

That was, in part, the exchange that I had with the minister this past March at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a part of which we heard repeated here this evening.

If it were the intent of the government when introducing Bill C-10 to reduce crime as it relates to child sex offences, then it must recognize and accept that its efforts have failed. Some members of the Conservative caucus, including the minister, would argue that not enough time has passed to properly measure the impact of Bill C-10. I assume they believe that with the passage of time, the data will indicate Bill C-10's effectiveness.

If that is the case, why are we here today discussing Bill C-26? Why are we here debating this bill, if, as the minister himself suggested, we need more time to properly assess the impact that Bill C-10 will have in reducing crimes against children? It does not make sense. It has caused many of us on this side of the House to wonder why the government is doing this.

Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”. No one in the House would accuse the Minister of Justice of being Einstein, but the government's behaviour on this issue gives rise to the suspicion that they are playing politics with a very serious issue.

I have said time and again that I find it very troubling that the government would seemingly use sensitive subjects as a potential wedge issue, or worse, to raise money from its base leading up to an election. We have seen this approach to cyberbullying in Bill C-13, presently before the justice committee, where the government is using real victims of cyberbullying to bring in measures that have absolutely nothing to do with cyberbullying. It is using victims to bring in a law that would allow for the widespread invasion of our privacy.

Suffice it to say, though, that on the matter of crimes committed against children, the House is very united. I want to reiterate that no one in this House is immune from heartache when we hear of any child who has suffered because of the actions of an adult. I know that members on all sides share this view.

The Liberal Party remains steadfastly committed to the protection of the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, our children, against the most predatory of practices: child pornography and sexual offences against children. We support concrete measures aimed at the prevention of sexual offences against children as well as appropriate punitive sanctions against those who commit such heinous acts.

I earlier quoted the justice minister, who had indicated in a response to a question I posed that he believed that we need to do more to combat crimes against children. He indicated that we need to do more in the areas of prevention and deterrence and that prevention and deterrence are important elements in reducing crimes against children. This bill, however, includes no measures to prevent sexual offences against children or measures to ensure the treatment, rehabilitation, or reintegration of sex offenders. Again, why this glaring inconsistency?

By increasing mandatory minimums, the bill would reduce judicial discretion and could result in charter challenges.

We need to know that the laws we are passing will be effective in reducing the incidence of sexual violence against children and will not be merely symbolic expressions. That is why we will seek a detailed study and analysis with stakeholders at committee. Liberals will seek to ensure that the policies adopted in this area reflect the best evidence and the latest research available and will not be based on fear and ideology, or worse, on an effort to raise money from a political base using the Criminal Code and this sensitive issue as a way to exploit the fears of Canadians.

We also want an effective law that addresses these issues and not laws that will be met with endless charter challenges defended at taxpayers' expense.

We have some concerns about charter challenges to the sentencing provisions of the bill and about privacy suits that may arise from the offender database. Moreover, travel restrictions may raise concerns as to the mobility rights of Canadians, as guaranteed by the charter. I raise these issues knowing that the government's record on crime legislation is abysmal. Time and again, we see the courts tossing out its legislation, because it is found to be unconstitutional.

Sexual violence, like other forms of violence, is traumatic and devastating. The minister also suggested in committee that along with prevention and deterrence, we need denunciation of those charged and convicted of crimes against children. No one would disagree with that position, but denunciation does not equal deterrence. We must endeavour to find methods of prevention, as well as punishment, while not overlooking the importance of treatment and rehabilitation and the reintegration of offenders.

Evidence-based criminal law policy is a guiding principle of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is through this perspective that we review and critique all legislation.

While we have supported mandatory minimums in this area in the past, we no longer support them as a matter of policy, given that they are ineffective in achieving their stated objectives and may violate the charter. Indeed, mandatory minimums should be the exception, not the rule. Under the current government, they have become the rule, not the exception, despite the fact that mandatory minimums have no basis in evidence pointing to their effectiveness.

There would not be one member of the Conservative caucus who could rise today in his or her place and point to any independent study that would suggest that mandatory minimums work. Indeed, that challenge was advanced to the minister immediately after his speech.

This is not an issue that should divide the House, because we all want to protect children. We in the Liberal Party want to do it in a way that respects the charter, respects evidence and facts, and respects the overwhelming need to be smart on crime.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I have no problem with what he said.

However—and I mentioned this in my speech—there is the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. He lectured us about how these sentences are ineffective. I may agree with the thinking behind that; however, I would like him to tell us whether the Liberals have done an about-face.

From 1993 to 2003, they added a number of mandatory minimum sentences to the Criminal Code. The Conservatives were not the first to introduce mandatory minimum sentences—it was the Liberals. I am thinking about the offences of sexual assault with a weapon and living off the avails of prostitution. All of these mandatory minimum sentences were imposed by the Liberals.

Does this mean that it was not a good idea at the time and that they will no longer do this? Are they changing? Are there offences for which it these sentences are called for and others for which they are not? I am a bit confused about the Liberals' philosophy on this.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague would simply wish for me to repeat part of what I said in my speech, which is that Liberals have supported mandatory minimum sentences in the past. It is no longer a Liberal Party policy. They have been shown to be ineffective. The evidence indicates that they are not effective. We believe that mandatory minimum sentences should be the exception and not the rule. However, they have become the rule and not the exception. I thought perhaps that was clear enough in my speech. That is certainly where we stand.

My colleague would know as well that the Liberal government of Paul Martin, in 2005, as their first piece of legislation, introduced Bill C-2 on Criminal Code amendments to protect the vulnerable, including strengthening child pornography laws, creating new offences against the sexual exploitation of youth, increasing penalties for child-specific offences, facilitating the testimony of child victims, and other measures.

There is no question that the Liberal Party has been consistent in its stand with respect to the measures necessary to protect the most vulnerable. With respect to mandatory minimums, it is well past time they became the exception and not the rule.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite rare that we hear in this place any member of Parliament or an entire political party admitting that they have made a mistake in having supported one policy and have now seen, based on empirical evidence, that the policy has failed.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Charlottetown what kind of evidence it was that finally persuaded—I should not say “finally”—the Liberal Party that mandatory minimum sentences do not work. It is clear that they do not. We are passing many bills that include them in this place. The courts have found them not to be charter compliant. Why are we still passing them?

Specifically to the Liberal Party, what made them change their minds?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in evidence-based decision-making and not in decision-based evidence-making, as we see all too often. Therein lies the answer.

What has changed? The overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that mandatory minimums are not an effective tool in reducing the incidence of crime. Indeed, the very fact that we are standing here in this debate and talking about the increase in the incidence of child sexual offences against these stronger penalties is absolutely proof of that. The weight of evidence over the years, as more mandatory minimums have been introduced, has simply become undeniable and overwhelming.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

It is often said that the test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable of its citizens. Among the most vulnerable are those who cannot always speak up for themselves, namely, our children. In that spirit, the Liberal Party remains steadfastly committed to supporting the protection of children and concrete measures aimed at the prevention of sexual offences against children, as well as appropriate punitive sanctions against those who commit such heinous acts.

Bill C-26 includes no direct measures aimed at preventing sexual offences against children, nor measures to ensure the treatment, rehabilitation, or reintegration of sex offenders. All too often in the debate on these important matters, the opposition is painted as “being soft on crime”. The reality is we need to be a lot smarter on crime. Unfortunately, Bill C-26 just is not a smart bill. In fact, by increasing mandatory minimums, the bill reduces judicial discretion and may result in charter challenges. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that the laws we pass will be effective in reducing the incidence of sexual violence against kids and not merely a symbolic expression likely to be overturned when first implemented.

The last Liberal government made child protection a priority and its first bill, Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, was assented to in 2005. That legislation proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act to provide further protection for children against abuse and sexual exploitation by broadening the definition of child pornography, prohibiting the advertising of child pornography, increasing maximum sentencing for certain offences related to child pornography, and creating new sexual exploitation offences.

Moreover, the Liberal legislation sought to facilitate testimony by child victims and witnesses by better enabling the use of testimonial aids, including screens, closed-circuit television, and support persons for all child victims and witnesses under the age of 18 years. The reforms also allowed children under 14 to give their evidence if they were able to understand and respond to questions. Such measures were far more concrete in securing the protection of the vulnerable than what we see in Bill C-26. The offences therein captured new behaviour unaddressed by the Criminal Code and also made improvements to the trial process. By contrast, Bill C-26, by and large, only increases penalties that were themselves recently increased, with no evidentiary basis to suggest that the current regime is not working, and without any effort of reducing the incidences of crimes against children.

Perhaps it is worth emphasizing this point another way. Penalties only come into play after an offence has occurred: a child has been victimized, his or her abuser has been apprehended, and the trial process has been completed, with a guilty verdict returned. By addressing only the penalty these criminals receive, we ignore all of the other elements at play. We fail to consider whether the police have adequate resources and tools to apprehend abusers. We fail to address issues at trial that might prevent important evidence from being adduced. In other words, by addressing the end of the process, we ignore the very beginning, which ought to be our goal: reducing incidents in the first place.

Perhaps the biggest concern with Bill C-26 is that the mandatory minimum penalties lack an evidentiary basis. If one goes back to the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, one will find that many of these offences had their minimum penalties increased just two short years ago. It begs the question: If these penalties needed to be increased to the lengths in Bill C-26, why did the Conservative government not do so two years ago? Herein lies the problem. With the law amended in 2012, someone imprisoned under the provisions would likely still be serving prison time less than two years later, particularly given the imposition of a mandatory minimum. Thus, we have no idea if Bill C-10's changes were sufficient.

We also have no indication that the changes in Bill C-26 will be beneficial in any way. If anything, we have evidence to the contrary given the constitutional problems of mandatory minimums. Liberals oppose mandatory minimum penalties as a matter of principle and policy. The evidence simply does not support them. Studies show that they are ineffective in deterring behaviour and, indeed, create more problems than they solve.

Indeed, the whole premise that increasing the sentence will somehow cause would-be offenders to change their minds is absurd. When one considers what that entails, it means we seriously think criminals are looking up the Criminal Code online and deciding, based on the number of years indicated in hard-to-read legal provisions, whether they should go forth and do something. This is just not how the world works, and the Conservatives need to wake up to this reality.

It is not only Liberals who oppose mandatory minimums. The former MP for Ottawa West, David Daubney, a Progressive Conservative MP who retired only recently as director of criminal law policy in the Department of Justice after a distinguished career there, was quoted as saying 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 subject to so much pressure inside the department, that “somebody has to take the risk of talking”.

By imposing mandatory minimums, the government ignores several decades' worth of overwhelming evidence from around the world that longer jail terms do not deter crime and in fact may have the opposite effect: in 1990, a study for the justice department found that:

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 any empirical support.

A Massachusetts report from 2004 called mandatory minimums:

...a recipe for recidivism rather than a recipe for effective risk reduction.

Making matters worse, mandatory minimums lead to prison overcrowding. One of the reasons mandatory minimums increase recidivism is that when more people are imprisoned for longer periods of time, prisons become overcrowded and less conducive to rehabilitation.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator has warned the government, documenting an increase in the number of inmates of nearly 7% between March 2010 and March 2012, predicting continued growth in the prison population as the full impact of Conservative policies are felt. The practice of double-bunking is used to accommodate this increase, housing two inmates in a cell designed for one. That practice has grown substantially. In 2004, 6.3% of inmates were double-bunked; by 2012, under the Conservatives, the number had grown to over 17%.

As studies demonstrate repeatedly, mandatory minimums discriminate against aboriginal Canadians and other minorities. The growth of the prison population includes a significant rise in the percentage of aboriginal inmates.

Indeed, mandatory minimums disproportionately impact vulnerable minorities, especially aboriginal Canadians, who have less access to legal counsel and are generally treated more severely by the justice system. For example, aboriginal defendants are often charged with a more serious offence than non-aboriginal defendants who commit the same act. Aboriginal people are already dramatically overrepresented in Canadian prisons, and mandatory minimum sentences exacerbate the problem.

Here is the point: the crime rate among aboriginal Canadians could be reduced much more effectively by education and poverty reduction than by increased incarceration.

Perhaps most importantly, these mandatory minimums are an unjustified attack on judicial discretion. One of the arguments in favour of mandatory minimums is that they remove discretion from judges who are supposedly “soft on crime”; however, there is no evidence, not a shred, to suggest that sentences imposed by judges are unjustifiably light. Serious offenders receive serious sentences already; mandatory minimums serve only to remove discretion from judges in exceptional cases where leniency might be appropriate.

Furthermore, these mandatory minimums do not truly eliminate discussion at all. Rather, they transfer it from judges, whose decisions are public and subject to appeal, to police officers and prosecutors. If a crown attorney feels that the mandatory minimum prescribed by the law would be too severe, he or she might decide to charge for a lesser offence. Such prosecutorial decisions are made behind closed doors, and no appeals process exists to challenge them.

In short, these mandatory minimums waste taxpayer dollars. They invite expensive constitutional challenges on the grounds that they violate section 7, the right to life, liberty and security of the person, or section 9, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, or section 12, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Already several of these sentences enacted by the Conservatives have been struck down. Other challenges are currently before the courts. They clog up the court system and require the government to spend millions of taxpayer dollars defending laws that were constitutionally suspect from the outset. This is in the face of the legal responsibility of the minister to ensure that legislation brought to the floor of this House is constitutional.

I will wrap up--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am afraid the member has been out of time for a few moments now. I did extend him some courtesy to conclude his remarks.

We will move on to questions and comments with the hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found the member's speech very interesting as he is a member of the Liberal Party, which is the party that put almost all of the minimum sentences in the Criminal Code to begin with. Year after year, the Liberals would put minimum sentences. All of a sudden, they are holier than thou, and the whole Liberal Party is against mandatory minimums.

This bill would actually increase some mandatory minimums and maximums on sexual crimes against children. Is the member telling me tonight that the Liberal Party is against minimum sentences for criminals who have sexual intercourse with children, either live or through child pornography? I would like to know the answer from the Liberal Party.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to go back to the parts of my speech I could not finish.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer found a 40% increase in correction costs between 2002 and 2012, even though they had been in decline since 2006. Also, according to the PBO's report, the provinces are on the hook. The Conservative government was found in contempt for the first time in Commonwealth history for refusing to provide the cost of its crime bills, its law and order agenda.

The reality is that it is important that we base our policies on evidence and the latest research available and not on fear, histrionics, and ideology. We want an effective criminal law to address these issues, and not one that will be greeted with endless charter challenges defended at taxpayer expense.

What it really means is that it would not be tough on crime but it would become tough on taxpayers. That is why so many American states are cancelling their mandatory minimums. At the very least, we would expect the Conservative Party to listen to their Conservative cousins south of the border.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, and it seems to me that he is trying to discuss issues of law in a sports bar with all the snickering and laughing. I mean, the Conservatives certainly love when they can get their base all worked up with whatever hot buttons they can push.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the issue of victims, because we have a minister who refuses to meet the survivors of the St. Anne's Residential School. We have a minister who walks away from the mothers and daughters of the murdered and missing women, who takes their information and--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Get out. What about matrimonial rights of aboriginal women? That's bullshit.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has a few seconds left to finish asking his question. If members have other things to say, there is some time left for questions and comments and I would be happy to give them the floor to do so, but I would ask them to hold off until the member has finished his question.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but could you ask people to stop swearing in the House? I know they are acting like drunks at a sports bar, but when the Minister of the Environment uses the word “bullshit” regarding the issue--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Whatever may have been said certainly should not have been repeated while the member has the floor.

I am going to ask members to come to order. It is late at night, and I sense this might be getting off the rails rather quickly.

Order. If members want to have a conversation, they can do so outside the chamber.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

If you don't respect yourself, at least respect this place.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The member for Burlington will not enter the chamber and start hurling heckles out. It is not conducive and certainly does not help the Speaker try to bring the House back to its normal calm.

I would ask the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to very quickly wrap up his question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was asking about murdered and missing women and you saw the outburst and the ridicule.

What does my hon. colleague think when the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women is raised? We see the behaviour of the government with the minister throwing the information of their disappearances on the ground. Why does he think there are two kinds of victims and one kind of victim, aboriginal, does not count?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot divine the reasons that compel this kind of behaviour, either in the House or publicly. I will let Canadians draw their own conclusions about that kind of conduct.

I would go back to the important words that were spoken by the outgoing director of criminal law policy at the Department of Justice after a 22-year career there. He was the most senior adviser on criminal law policy. He could have gone quietly into retirement, but instead they say that he tried to talk some sense back into our country. In an editorial in The Globe and Mail he said:

The tough-on-crime route has been tried and failed. The government knows what it knows, doesn't listen to evidence and is reluctant to ask for research to be undertaken.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to rise in the House tonight to express my full support for the tougher penalties for child predators act, not just as the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and co-sponsor of this bill, but also as the member of Parliament for Lévis-Bellechasse and Les Etchemins.

I am very proud to represent this region. It includes people in the agricultural, manufacturing and service sectors as well as the insurance world, who, generation after generation, have built their business relationships on trust.

Trust is partly what I want to talk about tonight, not the trust between an insurer and his client, as one would see in my riding, but the trust between a child and an adult that is broken in cases of abuse.

This evening, I saw that everyone in the House supports the principle of this very important bill. This bill would better protect children against people who want to steal their innocence for their own perverse sexual gratification, and it would hold those who commit these heinous crimes accountable for the harm they inflict on society.

Our government is standing up for victims, just as the Minister of Justice is doing tonight by rising to introduce the victims bill of rights, which would implement measures to complement those that we have been putting place since 2006 to protect victims. We want to give them back their voice; their dignity; and the right to information, protection and restitution, as well as the right to participate in the judicial process. We want to put them back at the heart of our justice system.

Last week, our Prime Minister—accompanied by the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who is the Minister of International Development—kicked off a hugely successful summit in Toronto intended to help women around the world, as well as those children who come into this world and are not lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

The initiative announced by the Prime Minister will ensure that, as Canadians, we are proud to help women around the world who are in need.

We have always been clear that when it comes to violent and sexual crimes, particularly those committed against our children, we make no apologies for our push to impose harsher penalties and longer sentences for the monsters convicted of these horrendous acts.

We will not apologize for imposing tougher, longer sentences on people who attack that which we hold most dear—our children. That is why it is important to make changes to existing laws, so that a convicted sex offender is given a sentence that reflects the severity of his crime. That is why we will be moving forward with this bill, which includes many measures to ensure that child predators are punished, and that we are protecting children here in Canada as well as abroad.

The Minister of Justice talked about the changes he wants to make to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, notably to ensure that someone who is found guilty of sexually assaulting several children serves consecutive sentences, and to increase maximum and minimum penalties that apply to offenders convicted of sexual offences against children.

Why should we have minimum sentences for sexual predators? It is a measure that is used when society feels that the crime was abhorrent, unacceptable and intolerable. That is why our government uses minimum sentences with discretion, moderation and, I would say, restraint, for heinous crimes. That is the kind of crime we have, when adults attack our children.

We will increase maximum penalties for offenders who violate the terms of their supervision orders, which is to say, repeat offenders.

This would ensure that committing a crime while on parole and on unescorted temporary absence, statutory release or while subject to a conditional sentence order would be an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

This will ensure that committing a crime while on parole or during an unescorted temporary absence would be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, also indicated that he wished to amend the Canada Evidence Act to permit spousal testimony in child pornography cases.

I would like to talk about the public safety aspect.

For my part, I will focus on the proposed changes that would help front line law enforcement keep track of dangerous sex offenders.

Canadians, even members of the opposition, agree that it is critical that law enforcement agencies are aware of the location of high-risk registered sex offenders. That, in fact, is one of the reasons why the national sex offender registry exists in the first place.

The national sex offender registry helps police investigate sex crimes by providing up-to-date information about convicted sex offenders and the identity of all registered sex offenders living or working in a particular geographic area. These sex offenders have been convicted of serious sexual offences, and the courts have ordered that they be identified to police.

This database has been an essential law enforcement tool since 2004. There are currently 33,000 individuals listed in the national sex offender registry. Two-thirds of those, or 22,000 individuals, have been convicted of sex crimes against children. I cannot overstate the importance of this registry because police need to have quick access to that information when they are trying to locate sex offenders or investigate crimes.

In 2010, our government passed several measures to strengthen the sex offender registry and make it more effective. At that time, we made sure that anyone convicted of a sexual offence would automatically be added to the registry. We also made it mandatory that every convicted sex offender had to provide a DNA sample to the National DNA Data Bank.

At the same time, we also gave police the power to use the registry proactively as a crime-fighting tool, not just an investigative tool.

This meant that rather than having to wait until after a sexual crime was committed, police officers were able to access the registry to help prevent a crime if they noticed a suspicious person or activity near playgrounds or schools, for example.

I have to say that I have met chiefs of police who have told me that police officers have witnessed suspicious activity around our schools. They get calls and reports. When they respond, they see individuals behaving suspiciously. I think that Canadian families need reassurance. They need to know that our government and Parliament are working to implement measures that will keep our streets safe so that our children can run around without having to worry about someone hurting them.

These amendments mark a tremendous step forward for the protection of vulnerable people from sex offenders.

That being said, there are other necessary changes to ensure the effectiveness of the registry and to protect children here in Canada and abroad. Indeed, sometimes people here leave the country to abuse children abroad. That is why it is important to provide better information to police services when it comes to the travel records and the location of registered sex offenders, especially those found guilty of sexual offences against children. As we saw, nearly two-thirds of the individuals on the registry, or nearly 22,000 people, committed crimes against children.

Currently, all registered sex offenders have to declare absences of seven days or more for any trip, regardless of whether the trip is taken domestically or internationally. For any trip a registered sex offender plans on taking in Canada, that offender must provide detailed information on the location he intends to visit and the addresses of where he plans to stay. However, under the current law, he is not required to provide that same detailed information on his destination and addresses if he is travelling abroad.

Take, for example, a registered sex offender who lives in Ontario and is planning to go to British Columbia for two weeks. He has to provide the police with the address and contact information of where he plans to stay, but if he leaves for Thailand for two weeks, there are no rules. That person is not required to provide locations or details. Under the legislation we are debating this evening, this practice would end. The sex offender would have to provide travel details for trips outside Canada lasting seven or more days, and provide the precise dates of departure and return. Unfortunately, sexual tourism exists. It is important to address this practice when it affects children.

Indeed, international travel is a key focus of this bill. We are concerned about child sex tourism, namely those who are leaving Canada without the knowledge of Canadian authorities and being convicted of sexual assault in the past.

We believe the current system creates a loophole that could be exploited. As it stands today, child sex offenders can travel outside of Canada for only four, five or six days and therefore not be obliged to report their absence to authorities.

We will close this gap by making it mandatory for any registered sex offender convicted of a sex offence against a child to report any absence of any duration outside of Canada.

Whether it is a matter of two days, two hours or two minutes, the duration will no longer be an issue. A child sex offender will have to report any time spent outside Canada.

With these measures in place,we will give the authorities the tools they need to acquire more specific information about where sex offenders live, when they leave, where they stay and when they return. The police will be in a position to follow them and exchange this information with police authorities and law enforcement agencies in the countries where these individuals travel. This will be done to protect children around the world.

We all know that there will always be individuals who try to circumvent the rules and avoid informing the authorities of their plans to travel abroad. That is where another agency will step in; the Canada Border Services Agency will play an important role.

Consider that in 2012 almost 100 million people crossed our borders, either at our ports, airports or departure docks.

While Canada Border Services Agency officers have a number of tools at their disposal to determine the admissibility of each traveller coming into Canada, they do not currently have access to information found in the national sex offender registry. Furthermore, Border Services Agency officers are not able to collect certain travel information from sex offenders at the port of entry, nor can they regularly provide information to officials at the national sex offender registry. The left hand needs to speak to the right hand. This is also what this bill is all about.

If we keep an eye on child sex offenders who travel abroad, it goes without saying that border services officers must have access to this vital information; they must also be able to work more closely with those responsible for the registry in order to share pertinent information. The bill will allow us to do that. We propose to improve information-sharing between these two entities, the Canada Border Services Agency and the national registry, in order to ensure the safety of Canadians and of children in Canada and elsewhere.

When the bill is passed, registered sex offenders will be required to include their passport and driver's licence numbers in the information provided to the national sex offender registry. These are concrete and practical measures. However, they must be covered by legislation and it is the reason why we are introducing them.

Furthermore, those responsible for the registry must be able to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with information about high-risk sex offenders who intend to travel abroad, or other registered sex offenders, in order to help prevent or investigate a sex crime.

If the Canada Border Services Agency is made aware of a registered sex offender, border guards will be able to collect the offender's travel information at the border and share it with those responsible for the registry. The people who maintain the registry will know whether sex offenders are leaving the country and where they are going. These strong measures will allow us to keep children safe from dangerous pedophiles both here at home and abroad.

I would like to talk about a third thing, which Canadians feel very passionate about, and that is the right of victims, children and families to know whether there is a high-risk sex offender living in their neighbourhood. That is perfectly legitimate. We can inform them in a safe way in co-operation with local authorities, and that is what we are proposing to do.

Canadians have the right to know the character of the individuals who are near their children. If a dangerous pedophile is within arm's reach of their child, they have the right to take proper actions and precautions. That is why the bill would enact the high risk child sex offender database act, which would allow our government to create a national public database.

We are going to create a public registry of high-risk sex offenders so that parents can take responsible measures to keep their children safe.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for his speech.

He spoke about the public registry of high-risk offenders and said that it would allow parents to take the necessary measures. I would like him to elaborate on what he means by that and what measures parents could take once they know who is in the registry.

Since we are lucky enough to have the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in the House at this wonderful hour and we know that the commissioner of the RCMP will have to decide who will be included in the registry, determine the criteria and so on, I am curious to know whether the minister intends to give the RCMP any additional resources. The RCMP is already having a lot of difficulty keeping the criminal records in registries up to date, which is problematic. Individuals who should be being found guilty of reoffending are not because the Crown does not have that information when entering its pleas for sentencing.

Does the government intend to give the RCMP more resources so that it can fulfill its obligations?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. This gives me the opportunity to give an overview of how the future registry will work.

As my colleague knows, the registry already exists. There have been 33,000 names on the list since 2004. It is important to note that the public registry will target high-risk child sex offenders. These offenders are not determined by politicians; they are identified by the appropriate local authorities, such as provincial and municipal police forces. These authorities generally issue a notification. Some already do so.

The only work that is left to be done is to make this information accessible in a national online database. If, for example, a high-risk child sex offender moves from one province to another, the registry will ensure that our children's safety is not at risk and that parents can have access to that information.

That is how the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will play a role in managing and establishing national standards, to ensure the registry works properly. This registry is an important tool for our communities.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said earlier that the bill contained measures that would make our streets safer so that our children would be safer, but he has produced no analysis, nor has the Minister of Justice, to substantiate the claim.

I want to go back to the comments made by the former Progressive Conservative member of Parliament who chaired the justice committee and led the Conservative government's sentencing reform team at the Department of Justice when he said that the policy the government was proposing “is based on fear—fear of criminals and fear of people who are different. I do not think these harsh views are deeply held”.

Furthermore, in the U.S., there is a bipartisan measure in Congress to roll back mandatory minimums, which were created in the seventies, eighties, and nineties. The smarter sentencing act, put forward by Republican Senator Mike Lee from Utah, has already passed the senate judiciary committee and has the support of the U.S. Attorney General, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, and the chairwoman of the United States Sentencing Commission, who highlighted how mandatory sentences backfire in the fight against crime.

Could the minister, or any minister, tell us why we are moving backward in Canada, when the 25 years of experience in the United States shows us that this is clearly the wrong way to go?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa South for his question.

Facts are stronger than rhetoric. In Canada, since 2006, it is evident that our policies have been working. Crime rates are going down. Whether my colleague likes it or not, their apocalyptic prediction of overcrowded prisons did not come true. The Auditor General's latest report confirms that. Correctional Service Canada is returning hundreds of millions of dollars to the public purse because our prison population is growing at a lower rate than our general population.

However, there are still areas that warrant closer attention. I am talking about people who attack our children, and we will find responsible ways to ensure that our children are safe and that their parents can feel comfortable letting them play outside.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the Liberal members pose questions about this. They talk about imposing mandatory minimum sentences on child sexual predators as though these perpetrators just made a bad decision one day, just woke up and did not do something right today that they really should have rethought about.

The Liberals talk about our policies being based on fear. They are darned right. I think the average Canadian should be fearful, and is fearful, that somebody would prey on their child for sexual purposes.

The fact that the Liberal Party has no interest in imposing a sanction on that will be its problem, not ours, because this government will take those concrete steps.

I do have a question for the minister on this. The Liberals like to drag out all the statistics on the U.S., but they do not tell the Canadian public that over the last three decades, the States have actually been increasing penalties and increasing sentences on child sexual predators. There are five states in the United States that have the death penalty for child rape. Are the Liberals suggesting we mirror our Conservatives cousins to the south? Is that what they are recommending?

The minister has talked to victims. What do they have to say about that?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon is doing outstanding work. I had a chance to visit him. He is a former police officer. He has a long experience in the correctional services. He is a well-respected member and is also an athlete.

That being said, to get back to the core of his question, it is all about the victims. I am proud to stand in a government that is standing up for victims.

I come from Quebec. I sit in the Quebec caucus with members like Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu who has experienced the tragic loss of his daughter. That is why I am so proud to work with the Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation that is bringing a voice for victims into our justice system, and that is making sure that when we are making decisions and taking those inmates out of prison, we take into account the concern of the victims.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister had given a more detailed answer earlier when I asked him the question. We know how important it is for parents and communities to know when a dangerous predator is going to be in their midst. Once they know, what do they do? He stopped there. I am curious about what that information would enable victims and parents to do.

The minister talked about the fact that it was not up to politicians to determine the criteria. However, I would like him to comment on clause 11 of the new registry, which states that the Governor in Council can make regulations establishing the criteria. I would like him to adjust his earlier answer. It is not necessarily the RCMP and its commissioner. The Governor in Council is the one who will be able to establish the criteria for determining whether a person is a dangerous predator.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to repeat that the local authorities are the ones who will notify the public about sexual predators. The registry will include high-risk sexual predators.

I think that a mother is in a good position to know what information she would make use of, keeping in mind the need to be careful. We always need to be prudent and remain vigilant, making sure that we take precautions, as was said earlier. We want to avoid hare-brained initiatives. We will create a reliable process so that parents can get the information.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with another member.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-26. We all agree that it is important to protect our children from any and all forms of violence, particularly sexual abuse.

Given that there are mothers, grandmothers, brothers and sisters who are living in families where there is sexual abuse, it is understandable that the government wants to find ways to prevent these sorts of things from happening and pass bills in this regard. That is not my situation. I have been lucky in life, but I have heard the testimony of families where there has been abuse. We are going to support this bill, but we disagree with the fact that, once again, it refers only to punishment and not necessarily to prevention, training, resources and assistance.

I would like to read a comment that was made by Clayton Ruby, a defence lawyer and author of the textbook Sentencing. He said:

The minimums, especially consecutive minimums, don’t leave room for considering the individual offender and the nature of the offence. Government doesn’t trust the judges. They appoint them, but they don’t trust them. It’s all about control.

I would like to talk about a particular situation. Today, I spoke with Mr. Michaud, the director of the Centre d'intervention en abus sexuels pour la famille. He talked to me more about the guidance and help we can provide to the family than he did about punishment. First and foremost, there are statistics. He said that 90% of the attackers are known to the child. Often, the victim is torn by the affection he or she might have for the attacker, and it is even worse when that person is the father. The family ends up torn apart in this situation. The longer the sentence, the greater the impact it will have on the family. That has to be taken into consideration. All that to say that training, prevention and methods for helping the family are very important.

Mr. Michaud also said that if we want a program to succeed, then we must truly provide support to the entire family. He said that when the mother learns that one of her children was sexually abused, it is doubly hard and often she feels guilty for the rest of her days. That means that if we do not have the means to help them, then nothing will come of it. People have to look for help. Help is available. It can be found.

Stress levels are going up and needs are becoming greater.

What he would like to have is help in the form of tools to assess the aggressive behaviour or what happened and develop a standard protocol for assessing the risk of reoffending . He says that, in general, without providing statistics, the assessment shows that many people do not reoffend. However, if they are taken out of their environment and the family is placed in a difficult situation, the risk of reoffending is higher. That is what the director of the crisis centre deplored.

For society in general, we have to find the means to help people. We must ensure that all the people and families affected receive some assistance. Naturally, there must be a punishment. These people have to realize how they have hurt their families.

However, I would like to come back to what Mr. Michaud was telling me. Victims often feel guilty. They feel twice as guilty when the family is affected and when they wonder what will happen with regard to means of co the situation.

We therefore need to address the overall problem, not deal with it on a case-by-case basis. We need to ensure that sexual offenders receive harsh sentences. We also need to provide support for victims and their families.

All too often we forget that the family is affected, and I am talking here about the extended family. Often family includes friends and everyone around the victim. We need to help victims speak out against their abusers and cope with this very difficult ordeal.

Over the past few years, organizations' budgets have been cut. There is less and less help available in the community. We need to go back to square one.

After all these bills were passed, we saw an increase in delinquency and crime.

I want to ensure that families and organizations get help and that victims feel reassured about everything that is happening in their lives.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have 13 minutes left to conclude her remarks the next time the bill is before the House.

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.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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.

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.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

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.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

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.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

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.

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.

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.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

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.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

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?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

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.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

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 CC-26 would require that the court consider consecutive sentences in each of those kinds of cases.

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

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.

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.

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.

Like 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 thought how could that be? This is in spite of the fact that since 2006, the tough on crime agenda has been worked on or is in place

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.

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.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

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.

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

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.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

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.

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

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.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

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.

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, during second reading debate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Victims, especially children, need our support.

I invite members of all parties to join me in supporting this bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

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.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

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?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

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.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

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?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

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.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

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?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

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 re-offending and will not be attacking the children of Canada.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

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.

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, Conservative, 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.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

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....

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

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.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

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.

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.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

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.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

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.

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.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

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?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

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.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

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.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

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 connected to organized crime are treated automatically as first-degree murders. We have imposed mandatory jail time for drive-by or reckless shootings. We have also established longer periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders. We have abolished the faint-hope clause that allowed early parole for murderers. We ended the practice of giving two-for-one credit for time served in pretrial custody. We ended the practice of granting early parole to white collar criminals and other non-violent offenders. We also removed pardon eligibility for child sex offenders.

We have also worked hard to prevent crime and to support victims. For example, we established the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to provide information on victims' rights and services for victims, to receive complaints, and to raise awareness of victims' concerns among policy-makers and in the justice system. We established the youth gang prevention fund, which provides support for successful community programs to help at-risk youth avoid involvement in gangs and criminal activity.

Our government has introduced legislation to address online criminal behaviour, including cyberbullying. While this legislation is aimed at protecting all Canadians, it is predominantly our youth who fall prey to this type of online crime.

These are just a few examples of what our government has accomplished for the good of all law-abiding Canadians. However, we know that more can be done, especially to protect our most vulnerable, our children. The bill before us today is aimed specifically at doing just that.

Before I expand on the proposed legislation, I will give a bit of background on the national sex offender registry. In 2004, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act came into force, allowing for the creation of a database containing information, such as the physical description, name, address, and place of employment of convicted sex offenders across Canada. The national sex offender registry data base is administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and used by police across Canada to help prevent and investigate crimes of a sexual nature. Indeed, I remember very well using it in my time as a police officer. The registry is a shared initiative with the provinces and territories and is accessible to police forces across the country. Inclusion in the registry is based on conviction for a range of sex offences and not determined by an offender's risk level.

In 2010, our government introduced significant legislative reforms to strengthen the national sex offender registry and the DNA data bank to better protect our children and communities from sexual offenders. These reforms included amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, the Criminal Code, the International Transfer of Offenders Act, and the National Defence Act.

With these amendments, there was automatic inclusion into and mandatory DNA sampling of convicted sex offenders in the national sex offender registry, and an expansion of the registry to include its use for the prevention of sexual crimes, and not just their investigation. In this regard, police were permitted to access the data base for consulting, disclosing, and matching information, and for verifying compliance, and we also included vehicle plate numbers. Registration of sex offenders convicted abroad was included, and parallel amendments to ensure that the reforms apply to those convicted of sex offences through the military justice system were also added.

Those amendments, which came into force the following year, had widespread support from victims' families, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.

As of October 2013, there were approximately 36,000 sex offenders in the registry. Sadly, 24,000 of those individuals had a conviction for a child sex offence. That is why I am pleased to speak to legislative amendments that are aimed at protecting our most vulnerable from society's most heinous.

As I think about Bill C-26, I think about many of the investigations I took part in. If only I had had the strength of the amended sex offender registry when I was in the child abuse unit, some of those crimes might have been prevented. I am so thrilled and so proud to be part of a government that saw wisdom in allowing police officers to use that sex offender registry in a preventative way.

I want to share with members some of the cases I worked on which the proposed act would help with.

One case I worked on had 28 victims, all between the ages of 12 and 17. They were mainly boys who were forced into prostitution and sexually abused for years. Those boys, even though they had to go through the court system and to testify, never felt the justice that they should have been afforded, because the offenders who were found guilty were sentenced to such short time that the kids felt they had been betrayed.

Allowing us now to take every child into consideration, to make sure that every child matters by ensuring that the sentences for offences are appropriate and consecutive, would provide victims with the confidence that my NDP members have mentioned is lacking. I know this would assure our victims that there is hope and that the work they are doing in the criminal justice system to prevent others from being offended against will be improved, and that it will be respected and appreciated.

I speak on behalf of the many police officers across the country who will appreciate these changes. I even speak on behalf of offenders, who cannot bring themselves to get the help they need outside of an institution where they would be able to get the programs necessary to prevent further offences. I speak on behalf of the mothers whose children have been offended against. I speak on behalf of my own children who watched as their mother was heavily affected by many of these cases.

I hope that all members here will live up to their commitments and vote in favour, unanimously, to pass this very important legislation.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily like the fact that I have to stand up right now and tell my colleague that I came to her and said that if she misunderstood what I had said and felt attacked, I was sorry.

It is easy for her to attack me when she has the opportunity to do it, but if every other member of the House who told me to shut up and sit down, came to me afterward as an adult and apologized for saying that I did not deserve to be here and admitted that, yes, they were impassioned and did not understand what I was saying, I would note that I am not a young girl but a member of Parliament who as much right to speak in the House as any other member.

She came in during the latter part of my speech. She did not listen to what I was saying. I will tell her again that if she misunderstood what I said, I am sorry. If she felt attacked, I do feel sorry, but this is not what I meant.

My question for her is how much the government thinks it will spend in the next year to help children and victims through the victims bill of rights. Right now, the government has not promised any money.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will address the question the MP has put to me with regard to the apology. I have done verbatim statements for a long time, and I am disappointed. The member did come to me and say “I realized what I said and I am sorry”. At that point, I thought that she might apologize publicly. Now to have her change her story, I am a little surprised.

Nevertheless, what is important is that the member is going to support this bill. What is important is that the NDP sees the victims of crime in this bill, those who have been offended against in a way that is, frankly, one of the most despicable crimes that exists. I am thrilled that they will be supporting us in that. I am thrilled to hear that they will be supporting us with the victims bill of rights.

With regard to any funds that are being provided by the government, I have already indicated, as have others, that we will be in discussions with provinces and territories for parameters and so on. That will come, but I am pleased to hear that the NDP will live up to its commitment to vote in favour.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her speech. Certainly, as someone who has had a long career in law enforcement, she has a very valuable perspective to offer.

My questions throughout the morning have been on the subject of mandatory minimum sentences. As someone who has worked so closely on these horrible crimes, she undoubtedly shares the goal of all of us here that we should adopt measures that work and that result in fewer victims.

I would like to cite three studies that have commented on mandatory minimums. The Department of Justice, in 1990, found:

The evidence shows that long periods served in prison increase the chance that the offender will offend again.

In 1990, researched commissioned by the Solicitor General concluded the following:

To argue for expanding the use of imprisonment in order to deter criminal behaviour is without empirical support.

A Massachusetts study from 2004 called mandatory minimums:

…a recipe for recidivism rather than a recipe for effective risk reduction.

My question for the minister is whether she is aware of a single contradictory study.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must share with the House that before becoming a police officer, I worked in a jail. I worked at the Stony Mountain Institution and tutored the Native Brotherhood so that they could gain some experiences they could use outside of the jail facility.

While I was there, I realized that many of these offenders did not have the internal fortitude to get the help they needed on the outside. There is a stigma and sometimes there is vigilantism, so many of these offenders do get the treatment and some of the help they need while they are on the inside.

Mandatory minimum sentences protect children from further offences. Many of these offenders admitted to me that they would be reoffending were it not for the fact they were incarcerated. That is all the proof I need. To know that one more child is protected from this kind of atrocity is enough.

The parliamentary secretary has cited a number of reports and so on that back up the evidence that the member is asking for, but I wanted to add to the discussion in sharing some of my personal experience, having participated in a jail prior to being a police officer.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to speak on Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. In particular, I do appreciate the minister's earlier comments on the necessity of mandatory minimums, because even for one child, protecting them from an offender who is behind bars is of paramount importance.

Bill C-26 is a critical component of our government's commitment to ensuring that children are protected from the most horrible forms of exploitation. Our government, and everyone in the House, is committed to holding those who perpetrate these horrendous crimes accountable for their actions and to be punished accordingly, and and above that, to ensure they are away from their victims so they cannot reoffend.

The proposed amendments would include increasing mandatory minimum penalties. That is why I think the subject is on the top of the radar screen in Parliament today and why we have continued to talk about them and their importance to keeping predators away from children and victims. Minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences committed against children ensure that the serious nature and effects of these offences on a child are recognized.

I note that the proposed amendments in the bill would build upon the reforms enacted by the Safe Streets and Communities Act by ensuring that all child sexual offences prosecuted by summary conviction are punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to two years less a day. I think that is very good.

The bill takes direct aim at and denounces child pornography by ensuring that the most serious forms of this offence are treated more seriously. I want to talk about this because the bill proposes that the offences of making and distributing child porn would no longer by hybrid offences that only result in a maximum provincial term of imprisonment of less than two years if prosecuted as a summary conviction. It needs to be noted that under Bill C-26, which should be passed as quickly as possible, making and distributing child porn would become straight indictable offences and would be punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of one year imprisonment and a maximum of 14 years.

I want to pause for a moment to tell members about a very brave young man, a 10-year-old child, who wrote me a four-page letter about how he was addicted to porn. I remember that when I talked about this in an interview with the National Post, some readers said, “Oh, Mrs. Smith does not have any such child”.

In fact, I have received multiple letters and emails from across this country on this issue, but this one particular child really stood out with me because when the parents read the National Post comments section, they got very angry and phoned the paper. They got in their van, with their children and a couple of neighbours, drove all the way to Ottawa and knocked on my door here on Parliament Hill and spoke with me. They said, “This is a serious issue. It's not only our child, but it's others in school divisions all across this country that are affected”. At that point, they pointed out that the laws on child porn and its effects were very weak in this country. Because what happens out in the real world is that when a child trafficker targets a victim, they often condition them with porn. That is how they teach them. They try to normalize it.

In another case, a young girl—who, actually, I just gave an award to, about four weeks ago, for her bravery—came to see me. Her grandpa, who was a pedophile, had conditioned her while the parents were at work. Grandpa was home, conditioning her with porn, because he was taking care of her. This is so disturbing. He eventually put her out on the streets and raised a lot of money by trafficking his own granddaughter. Years later, terrible things happened to her because her whole world had been turned upside down

We are talking about middle-class Canada. We are not talking about somebody who is addicted to drugs. We are not talking about somebody on the streets. We are talking about middle-class Canada.

This bill is important because it addresses and denounces child porn, and our children are our most vulnerable citizens in this country. They are the little victims who do not speak out, particularly if it is done by a relative or somebody they are supposed to respect and love. More and more cases of pornography being inflicted on our youth population are emerging here in Canada.

Bill C-26 would make child porn an indictable offence punishable by mandatory minimum penalties. If this were not the case, many predators, in the quietness of their dens and homes, would use child porn in the most despicable manner. The penalties are a vehicle at our disposal to address the unlawful conduct of predators and the harm done to victims of crime. In the case of child porn, children are the innocent victims of a horrendous crime.

No one in the House wants to see a child harmed. They are silent victims. In the adult world, we need to have things that adults understand, because the child porn that has been inflicted on children is done mainly by adults, and this legislation is a step in the right direction. The penalties, however, are not the only tools we have.

All too often the denunciatory value of a sentence is diluted because the offender gets a volume discount, and that frustrates me. Multiple offences are all packaged into one, and an offender is given one sentence for multiple offences. I know of one individual who offended 47 children. At that time, years ago, his sentence was packaged into one, but all of those 47 children were left hurt and damaged. Two of them eventually committed suicide. I do not know how many became involved with drugs or alcohol, but I have heard since that several of them have been in addiction programs. Others have been counselled and became better.

When we talk on Parliament Hill about what is important to do, we must remember that it is not about the political landscape. It is not about what each party thinks about what. We are supposed to be taking care of our most vulnerable population. Here we are talking about the children in our country.

Courts will sometimes order the sentences for offences committed against several victims to be served concurrently. We also see this type of order in the case of an offender who has committed several crimes against the same victim. That is why I support the proposals contained in this bill to clarify the rules relating to the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences generally. I support as well the specific proposal relating to offenders who have committed several child sexual offences over a long period. These perpetrators have gotten off scot-free for too long. This has almost become normal in some cases, almost the real world. In Canada, this is not the real world. In Canada, this is what we want to stop.

I will attempt to demystify in a practical, real-world way the current rules contained in the Criminal Code, as well as the proposed new rules.

Consecutive sentences are sentences that an offender serves one after another. On the other hand, concurrent sentences are served simultaneously, and the offender serves the longer sentence. The Criminal Code currently requires that consecutive sentences be imposed for the offences of possession of explosives by a criminal organization, the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, terrorism offences, and criminal organization offences.

That is what the Criminal Code currently requires. For other offences, the Criminal Code provides courts with the discretion to impose consecutive sentences. However, it does not provide clear guidance as to when consecutive sentences are preferred, except to say that their combined effects should not be unduly long or harsh.

Over the years the courts have developed a general approach of ordering multiple sentences to be served consecutively unless the offences arise out of the same event or series of events, in which case concurrent sentences are imposed. The same event or series of events rule, referred to as the continuing criminal transaction rule, requires that there be a close nexus between the offences committed in order to justify the imposition of concurrent sentences. This is so because the moral blameworthiness of the offender relates to the overall criminal conduct, which may include the commission of several offences.

The determination of whether offences are committed as part of the same event or series of events is a fact-specific determination made by the sentencing court. In some instances, the nature of a particular offence calls for the imposition of consecutive sentences. For example, courts will generally order an offence committed while fleeing from a peace officer to be served consecutively to any other offence that is part of the same event or series of events, which is a common phrasing used in the courts. Similarly, the courts will often direct that an offence committed while on bail be served consecutively to the predicate events.

The proposed amendments are aimed at clarifying the existing rules in the Criminal Code and codifying the practices developed by the courts that I have just mentioned. For instance, Bill C-26 proposes to require a sentencing court to consider imposing consecutive sentences when an offender is sentenced at the same time for multiple offences that do not arise out of the same event or series of events, including offences committed while the defendant was on bail or was fleeing from a peace officer.

This bill would also clarify the existing language by directing sentencing courts to consider imposing consecutive sentences when the offender is being sentenced for one offence but is already subject to a term of imprisonment for another offence.

What we see out there in the real world is that parents and families are sometimes frustrated and dismayed at how the court system works and at the lack of clarity within the court system. What is so great about Bill C-26 is it clarifies a lot of things that were not clarified before.

The amendments would also clarify the term of imprisonment. It includes one that results from a failure to pay a fine or something like that, but there are also clarifications of other procedures that the court carries out as well on a regular basis.

All in all, when we look at Bill C-26, we see a clear denunciation of sexual crimes against children. This bill would ensure that each victim counts in the sentencing process. There is nothing as damaging to a young child who has been sexually violated than for the pain, agony, and injustice that the child has gone through not to be recognized. Pornography and the like on the Internet have been rampant in this country, and up until now everybody in this country has said that it is unfortunate and they do not like it, but it is a fact of life. Our government has gone beyond that and is trying to ensure that each child and each individual is recognized and that the punishment fits the crime.

It has also done something else that is very important. I referred to it earlier in one of the questions. Lately I have had many adult women come to talk to me about how they were sexually exploited. They have never talked about it. They never said anything.

The family of an 84-year old grandmother called me to the hospital to talk to her not too long ago because she wanted to tell me that she was trafficked. She wanted to tell me what happened to her and she wanted to tell me that nobody really cared about it. She wanted to tell me that she was so glad that now people were talking at it, and before she died, she wanted to talk about what happened to her.

Four weeks ago, at a big event on human trafficking, another grandmother, who was 64 years old, told me that when she was a child, her father's best friend sexually attacked her on numerous occasions. She said she told her father, but he was a friend of the family and her father was convinced that she was lying. Her parents never took her to a doctor. They never examined the man, who was a financial partner with her dad. She said that has always torn at her heart and that she has been very angry about it. We talked at length about the fact that in Canada, child offences are now being recognized.

These have been the silent victims. The value of Bill C-26 is to give a voice to the silent victims and to take the fear away from them.

A little while ago in Montreal, there was a trafficked victim who went through a second trial and testified against her perpetrators. She has now been taken out of Montreal, but the perpetrators are being brought to justice. One comment she made to me was that nobody seemed to care when her boyfriend became involved in her life when she was 15 and a half years old and separated her from her parents and then trafficked her from the U.S. to Canada. She said, “No one seemed to care.” The relationship between the young girl and her mom had become so bad that the last thing she said to her mom was, “I am leaving this house and I'm never going to see you again.” That was after she came into the house with liquor on her breath at 2 a.m. and the mother just lost it because this had happened frequently.

This was an offence by an older man against a child. He was a boyfriend who wanted to separate her from her parents, and he did. For over seven years she was trafficked in Canada. She served, on average, 40 men a night, and she made money for her trafficker.

She was very deliberately rescued. She thought she was going to die, so she stole things from a store so that the guard would notice her, and she was arrested. I have to give a shout-out to Dominic Monchamp, the head of the vice squad in Montreal, who listened to her story. He rescued her and did many things to help her.

In this country I am proud to support Bill C-26. I am proud that members opposite are supporting Bill C-26.

It is time to stop the long speeches. It is time to listen to the public in Canada. It is time to listen to the victims and get the bill through committee.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate today the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul has been posing questions that would seem to indicate that this seeming contradiction between a two-year increase in sexual offences at the same time that mandatory minimums are being increased can be explained away by the phenomenon of more people reporting.

I would like to invite the member to expand on that. She has a theory that the reason these offences are increasing at the same time as mandatory minimums are going up is that more people are reporting. Is there some empirical evidence to support that statement, or is that simply an impression that she has developed as a result of people phoning and e-mailing her? I would be interested to know whether there is any evidentiary basis for that assertion.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer that by going back to 2004 when I was first elected to this House of Commons.

To be quite honest, when I was a new member of Parliament, many people went beyond criticizing me for what I thought to laughing at me, stating that there was no human trafficking in Canada. Well, 10 years later we know the situation is quite the contrary.

I am sure the member's heart is in the right place, but he clearly seems to be against minimum sentencing. I was trying to explain that, because of the emails, the letters, and the on-the-ground work, so many people are coming out in favour of it. We can look at the court statistics and we can see all the court cases on human trafficking right now. We can listen to what the victims have to say.

If the member had gone to the committee on justice this summer and listened to the stories, he would know that victims are starting to speak out. Minimum sentencing is of paramount importance to have as a tool in place where it is needed for offenders against children. I am totally convinced of that.

Second, I am totally convinced that because of the laws here, we are hearing more and we are getting the real stories. Victims are telling their stories. I get my evidence from those who have that everyday, first-hand experience. I wish there was what the member called an empirical study.

My background is in math and science, and my specialty is stats. I can say that with a lot of these empirical studies, it depends on the sampling, the community, and everything available. The study of human suffering through human trafficking and child exploitation that has been done across Canada shows that everybody knows what the story is. Our real-world studies are definitely there.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, I get the impression that the Liberals are grasping at straws to try to rationalize not supporting this legislation. I hope I am wrong about that.

The member opposite, in a previous question, suggested that there was no point in incarcerating these criminals who engage in this activity because it does not stop them from repeating the offences anyway. I would like my friend to comment on that.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank this very astute colleague, who has spent years as a lawyer and as a member of Parliament, for her very astute question.

The fact of the matter is that, if we take predators who are offending children and we put them in jail for a certain amount of time, first, they are away from the victim; and second, they have an opportunity to go through programs that demonstrate and teach them the seriousness of what they do, whether it be john school or whatever else. To just let them sort of hang out and hope they will not reoffend and hope they will voluntarily go to some program is not appropriate.

If we were to talk to some ICE cops, integrated child exploitation cops—my son was one of them—we would hear that a lot of them believe that these people cannot be rehabilitated. I do know there are some who can be. Mandatory minimums are of paramount importance to get the predator away from the victim.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will just respond to that last comment. All of us here share a goal of there being fewer victims of child sexual violence. We all share that goal.

Where we differ is whether the approach should be driven by evidence or by ideology. As to the suggestion that we are grasping at straws to find a way: no, we are trying to find a way that creates fewer victims.

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul indicated that throughout the summer we heard from many victims on Bill C-26, and yes, indeed, we did. I was in that room. One of the things we heard repeatedly from victims and from those in the system is that the fiscal measures are not adequate to address the problems. As Kyle Kirkup said: “Got a complex social issue? There’s a prison for that.” We need to be much more sophisticated in our approaches.

I have a question for the hon. member. Can she identify non-legislative fiscal measures that the government can and should be doing for there to be fewer victims of child sexual violence in this country?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has now gone from Bill C-26 to Bill C-36. In Bill C-36, the one we worked on this summer, $20 million were put forward for the rehabilitation of victims. That really helped in that area. In Bill C-26, there are multiple tools, which have been mentioned today over and over again, to help protect children from perpetrators.

When we look overall at the laws we worked on this summer, Bill C-36 definitely added significant money and we need input from provincial and municipal jurisdictions to support it as well. Our government provided $20 million for the rehabilitation of victims. When the U.S. first did this, it provided $10 million, so I think Canada has stood as a leader in stepping forward to help victims and help solve this problem in a meaningful way.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the esteemed member for Pontiac.

For a first speech on a bill this fall, there are some subjects that are particularly sensitive and affect us as individuals, regardless of political affiliation. We often work in a collegial manner, but just now, a few hours or barely a few minutes ago, I heard some unfortunate comments. That primarily shows that we are dealing with sensitive subjects and that it is easy to misinterpret such comments. I have friends in every party and we are able to discuss and accept our differences and our opinions. That is how things should always be in the House.

First of all, I am going to look at some technical aspects and also talk about some associated aspects and social implications of the bill. Unlike some of my colleagues, I am not qualified to speak to speak in detail about the legal aspects of the bill, and I would not be so presumptuous as to give the kind of speeches that they do. However, I would like to primarily address the social aspects and the repercussions of such issues as delinquency, especially assaults against minors. I will also talk about the technical aspect.

The bill before us will amend the Criminal Code in order to increase mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children. It will increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds. It will clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences. It will require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children. It will 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.

The bill will also amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused are competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases. I would like to point out that it is difficult to get family members to testify in some areas. The necessary consent is rarely given. I am therefore wondering how a mechanism can be put in place to implement that amendment.

The bill will also amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase offenders' responsibilities when they travel abroad. The bill enacts the high risk child sex offender database act, which would create a publicly accessible database. This database would contain information, previously made available to the public by police departments or any other public authority, on individuals who were convicted of sex crimes involving children and who pose a high risk of committing sex crimes.

In the past, we have heard stories of neighbours banding together to serve their own brand of justice. That is rather disturbing, but it is sometimes the result of a lack of resources or a lack of solutions to certain problems. We will see how this will be enforced.

Of course, this bill will make consequential amendments to other acts. We see this all the time from the Conservatives—all we see are quasi-omnibus bills.

As I was saying, the short title of this bill, the tougher penalties for child predators act, does nothing to simplify such a sensitive topic and especially not the process this bill is going through.

Recently, the Conservatives have been enacting bills and implementing various provisions, but not allocating any resources. As a result, the provinces and territories are left to cope with the collateral damage and the financial consequences. The Conservatives introduce measures but they are not supported by budgets. That is despicable. As I said, measures like these have significant social repercussions if there is no budget for the reintegration of offenders and especially for victims. I am no expert, but I would say that some offenders can be rehabilitated, while others cannot. However, as I said, I am no expert on the subject.

This bill would implement nine important measures. It would require offenders who are convicted of sexual offences and who receive separate sentences to serve them consecutively, and it would require offenders who are convicted of child pornography offences and sexual offences to serve their sentences consecutively.

The government is also increasing minimum and maximum prison sentences for certain sexual offences involving children. We have often heard about people writing in blogs or on social media that so-and-so was convicted of assault, that the sentence was not long enough or that it was unfair. Then the offender is back on the street, in the same neighbourhood. I hope that the provisions in this bill will ensure that these unfortunate situations are not repeated. There is a ripple effect when a bill is implemented. There are consequences that impact society and the communities.

The bill would also ensure that committing an offence while subject to a conditional sentence order, or while on parole, on statutory release or on an unescorted temporary absence is also considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

The government also says that it is important to render a spouse compellable. I said earlier that it is often quite difficult to do that, whether in cases of child pornography or other offences that the spouse, children, parents or friends witnessed. It all depends on the context and their particular lives.

The Conservative government has been destroying our social fabric for years now. We were talking about food banks recently. Some regions are left to fend for themselves. When the social fabric is destroyed and we leave people to their own devices, without hope, all sorts of things can happen in our society. Serious things can happen and people do not know how to react.

Let us look at the principle of sentencing in section 718 of Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. The objectives are to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offender from committing offences, separate offenders from society where necessary by increasing sentences, but most of all—and I want to emphasize this point—assist in rehabilitating offenders. We talked about this before. Some members have made speeches on this. We have to assist in reintegrating offenders. When we make tougher laws in a country like ours, or in any other industrialized, modern country—earlier, members cited examples from elsewhere in the world—it is important to think about the consequences. We must focus not on the type but rather on the root of the problem. What is the root of the problem? It is isolation, drugs, alcohol, child pornography—which has become quite easy to access with today's social media—and family breakdowns, because the deterioration of the social fabric means that both parents have to work. Sometimes they have to take on two jobs. The children are left at home where they can access whatever they want on the Internet.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague worked for a long time in labour relations, and he saw some very unfortunate working conditions.

Could he tell us about the danger of always cracking down on an action rather than preventing it? In labour relations, just as in criminal law, the problem is the same: punishing what needs to be punished does not prevent someone from being victimized. We punish because there is a victim. However, what is important is to ensure that people are not victimized in the first place.

That can be achieved primarily through prevention, and my colleague can talk about that. If there is no criminal, there is no crime. A criminal who goes to jail goes to the school of crime.

Could my colleague speak to that?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The government even had the audacity to cut funding for Correctional Service Canada programs that reintegrate and rehabilitate offenders. That is an insult to Canadians' intelligence. The government does not walk the talk.

In labour relations, you work with the victim and the offending party. Both parties are dealt with separately. However, special attention is paid to the causes of the problem.

Earlier I was saying that Canada's social fabric is weakening. The Liberals began this process before the Conservatives, especially with respect to employment insurance, old age security and social housing.

When dealing with individuals, we always have to consider their background and find a way to reintegrate them, when possible, into a healthy and productive environment so that they can continue to live in our society. Today, we need every person in our society.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment in relation to my colleague's question.

When legislation on serious crimes is introduced, as is the case here, it is important to invest the necessary resources to ensure that the amendments are effective.

We know that the administration of justice falls under the responsibility of the provinces, which are overburdened given the minimum sentences imposed in these bills—a practice that other jurisdictions are gradually moving away from. The various levels of government need to invest in order to have the resources necessary to focus on prevention.

Could my colleague from Compton—Stanstead elaborate on the resources that are currently being invested and the federal government's failure to allocate sufficient resources to the police and other organizations that work to prevent such crimes?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in many places, volunteers run rehabilitation, awareness and crime prevention programs.

With help from underpaid professionals when possible, these volunteers provide awareness and support programs, for example, food banks, for people living in poor areas.

It has come to that because previous governments have failed in their duty. They abandoned the middle class and that is where we are today. We have to crack the whip and impose law and order, when we should be acting methodically to ensure that everyone feels like a contributing member of a modern society such as Canada.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really say that it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to debate this bill. It is never a pleasure to talk about subjects as sad and serious as this one. Still, there are times when, as parliamentarians, we have to talk about difficult subjects. As a father, I definitely find this to be a very difficult subject. I cannot imagine the psychological impact that such acts have on children. They are scarred for life. In aboriginal communities in particular, the after-effects are related to abuse that occurred in residential schools. Studies have clearly shown that our ability to live in the world as adults is directly related to the way we were treated as children and to the presence or absence of various types of abuse.

Today is Universal Children's Day. When we look at the statistics, it is clear that all around the world, children are not doing so well. The other day I was watching a program about slavery and forced labour among children. Unfortunately, this phenomenon still exists in many parts of the world, particularly in countries like India and China where children are the victims of physical abuse, chained to their work sites and used as sex slaves. It is a scourge. The United Nations has identified this as a major challenge. This tough challenge must be addressed.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I tried to have the issue of protecting children around the world taken into consideration in the context of trade agreements. I tried to stress the importance of reciprocity when it comes to defending children's rights in that context. For instance, it is important not to use products made by children in these forced labour situations.

As a society, we need to ask ourselves some questions about how we treat the weakest among us. I think, and no doubt most of my colleagues would agree with me, that we can judge a society on how it treats its most vulnerable members. I cannot think of a more vulnerable group than children. We often focus on the fact that parents are the ones who raise children, and that is true. I am doing it myself. However, we need to recognize that society in general has a responsibility to each child. The socio-economic context must promote the growth and development of every soul that comes into this world.

I commend the government for wanting to talk about the issue of sexual abuse of children and wanting to legislate in that regard. Obviously, I do not at all disagree that we need to examine and assess our laws. We also need to change them when we see that they are not protecting our children. However, we may disagree on how and when to do so and what sort of resources are needed to do so.

I want to let the interpreters know that I will be switching languages, so that they can continue to do the job they do so well.

I note that in 2012 the Conservatives, as part of the federal victims strategy, announced $251,000 in funding over two years for programs to protect children. Budget 2012 includes $7 million over five years to fund new or enhanced existing child advocacy centres, as well as limited funding for victim services organizations. The government should earmark resources for the RCMP registry and budgets to support victims, however.

We have noticed that evidence indicates that circles of support and accountabilities are impressive with regard to diminishing recidivism. For example, one study found a 70% reduction in sexual recidivism for those who participated in circles of support and accountability compared to those who did not. Another study found an 83% reduction. These are high numbers, so obviously this is a tool that should be privileged by the government and there should be resources put into that tool.

The real, serious issue is that we want to reduce cases of abuse and, unfortunately, over the past two years there has been an increase. We would have to look at the research as to why there has been an increase of 6%. Is it because the cases are better documented or are there cases that are occurring in greater frequency? Is it mostly on the Internet? However, it does not seem that the Conservative government's approach is having a fundamental impact on those numbers.

Therefore, like any good legislators, we have to ask ourselves why. That means we need to do research and we need to rely on our researchers and scientists who understand this issue from all sorts of angles to come forward to share approaches and ensure we take the correct strategies.

The Minister of Justice is not introducing new minimum and maximum mandatory sentences, but is rather increasing the minimums and maximums. I am not too sure why and how that makes sense, and what kind of impact that would have on these terrible crimes.

I also wonder why the government waited eight years before introducing provisions to force courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who committed sexual offences against children. That is in spite of the fact that the cases referred to, for example, at government press conferences on the issue, go back to before the Conservatives took power in 2006. Why the hesitation there? It would be interesting to hear why that took so long. That is a relevant issue as well.

Since the RCMP already has trouble updating the registry of previous convictions due to a lack of resources, why does the government think the RCMP will be able to do additional work without additional resources? Of any of the issues and any of the types of crimes I can think of, certainly additional work on these types of crimes should come with additional resources. There does not seem to be a commitment on behalf of the government to do that.

It is clear that our communities need greater resources to counter the sexual abuse of children, so I wonder whether the government will come forward with new money to support concrete measures.

Finally, it is clear that we will support this bill so it goes to committee. This is a difficult conversation to have for our nation, but it is a crucial conversation to have. I hope the whole process will be done with rigour so we can hear from witnesses who know the issue, who know what can reduce cases of abuse and who know what resources we truly need to tackle this crucial problem.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Gatineau for his presentation. I am sorry, he is not from Gatineau.

I wanted to pursue the point about recidivism. I have also been looking at the statistics that suggest the longer someone is imprisoned can actually increase the risk of recidivism. I do not think anyone in the House disagrees that we want to do everything possible to protect children from sexual predators and from crimes perpetrated by these individuals against children. Whether through creating or distributing child pornography or attacks on children, all of these are heinous crimes, and we all agree.

However, when the evidence suggests that the measures in this bill would not protect children, I am troubled. I gather the official opposition will vote to send the bill to committee. Do you think it is possible to fix this bill in committee?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member for Pontiac, I would just remind all members to direct their comments to the Chair, rather than directly to their colleague.

The hon. member for Pontiac.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no offence taken that it is not Gatineau, but Pontiac. However, it is the general area of the country and I actually do have constituents in the city of Gatineau.

This is a fundamental question in the sense that what is important is ensuring that these types of heinous crimes do not continue to happen. To do that, we have to do something about the source of the problem and ensure resources are present to ensure the people involved are truly reformed or under control.

There is not a lot of evidence from the past with regard to bringing bills to committee and improving on them, at least from an opposition standpoint. However, I truly think there is good faith around the table that the government, as well as the various opposition parties, want to strike the correct balance in the bill. Hope springs eternal.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague brought up the topic of children, which is something I wanted to talk about in the rest of my speech. They are our most important assets. We often hear in stories about sex offenders that they were victims themselves as children.

However, as I was saying, these are young disadvantaged children. How can we ensure that these children are properly clothed and fed? We need to ensure that our economy is flourishing and that every citizen can be a contributing member of society. We need to give everyone a chance. That is not the case right now, unfortunately.

Why do we need to focus on our children? Could my colleague from Pontiac tell us more about that?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Clearly, children living in difficult socioeconomic situations are more vulnerable. I am not necessarily prepared to say that there is a direct link between these crimes and a child's socioeconomic situation. This is a scourge that affects all walks of life.

However, I think that there is a definite link between a child's vulnerability and his or her socioeconomic situation. There is also a link with minority groups in our country that are marginalized. I am thinking about aboriginal peoples, for example. Aboriginal children and women are much more likely to be abused than non-aboriginal children and women in Canada. That concerns me.

It is fundamental that we keep every child in Canada safe. That takes more than just legislation. They also need to be able to live comfortably in a neighbourhood that will help them thrive and grow in body and mind. We hope to create that kind of society.

It was an excellent question.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate because it is of extreme importance to all of us. The previous member just said how important it is and I would agree with him, although there will be some areas, I suspect, where we may not be in so much agreement.

Today I will focus my remarks on offender accountability, a key part of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. Indeed, our government has always placed considerable focus on improving our criminal justice system in order to shift more accountability onto offenders. The fact is that most offenders will eventually be returned to the community after incarceration. As such, our correctional system is set up to provide offenders with proper treatment and support, as required, to help them work through rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into the community.

The Correctional Service of Canada has a comprehensive program in place that helps guide offenders toward the right pathway to address the needs that led to criminal behaviour, including programs that address substance abuse, violent behaviour, sexual offences and mental health issues, among many others. Ultimately, the bulk of responsibility for successful rehabilitation and reintegration must rest with the offender.

Our government has made a number of changes to respond to the concerns of victims. In particular, in 2012, the Safe Streets and Communities Act put in place a number of measures that focus on offender accountability by expressly requiring in legislation that every offender has a correctional plan. We have created an environment in which offender accountability is placed at the forefront.

From the moment offenders enter the federal correction system, it is made clear that they must follow a well-defined correctional plan that includes expectations for behaviour, as well as objectives for the program participation and for meeting court-ordered obligations such as restitution to victims or child support. This is done in collaboration with offenders, so they take part in building that program.

Before I go any further, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

We have also modernized the current disciplinary system, creating new disciplinary offences for disrespectful and intimidating behaviour either toward staff or inmates. Once outside the institution, offenders are also expected to continue on the right path.

Peace officers can now arrest, without warrant, an offender who they believe to be in breach of a condition related to the offender's conditional release and offenders who receive a new custodial sentence automatically have their parole or statutory release suspended. We have recently taken further steps to assist in offender rehabilitation by supporting amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding vexatious complaints. We now have a process in place that promotes offender accountability by encouraging inmates to resolve problems through appropriate means rather than burdening the complaint and grievance system with frivolous complaints.

We have introduced the drug-free prisons act, which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide the Parole Board of Canada with additional legislative tools to ensure that parole applicants who failed drug tests would be denied parole. Addressing offender behaviour while individuals are incarcerated is critical.

We have also reinstated the accountability of offenders act, legislation that, if passed, will require offenders to pay off any debts they owe to society before receiving any monetary award resulting from legal action against the Crown. Just as important is making it clear that offenders must continue to address their needs and make proper choices once they are released from penitentiary.

The parole system is set up to help offenders do just this, using the appropriate checks and balances and oversight of offenders, depending on their criminal history and risk to society. While we have taken action to strengthen the conditional release system, some gaps remain that need to be addressed. It is critical, particularly when we consider the risk to our children, that we ensure a child sex offender cannot find a loophole in the law that gives him or her an opportunity to commit another such devastating crime.

That brings me to the legislation at hand.

A key tool we have to ensure police are aware of the location and other information on convicted sexual offenders is the national sex offender registry. Administered by the RCMP and accessible by police forces across the country, the registry contains vital information about convicted sex offenders, such as name and address, where they work, their physical description, and absences from their residence for seven days or more.

A number of amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act came into force in 2011 to ensure that the registry is a proactive law enforcement tool that contains the names of all registered sex offenders.

While it is an important law enforcement tool, there are some gaps found within the act that need to be addressed. Specifically, the rules surrounding travel notification must be tightened as they relate to international travel of registered sex offenders who have committed a sexual offence against a child.

As we have heard, Bill C-26 would accomplish this in a number of ways. It would require offenders who have been convicted of child sex offences to report trips of any duration outside of Canada, as well as to provide information about the exact dates of travel and where they plan to stay while abroad. All other registered sex offenders would be required to report all addresses or locations in which they expect to stay, as well as expected dates of departure and return for trips of seven days or more within or outside Canada.

It would allow for information-sharing between the Canada Border Services Agency and officials with the national sex offender registry. This would add a safeguard measure at our borders to ensure offenders are following notification procedures and registration requirements. Further, it could help make investigations of crimes of a sexual nature possible.

The bill would also create a new stand-alone legislation that would create a national database that would be accessible to the general public. That database would contain information about high-risk child sex offenders who have been the subject of public notification in a province or territory.

There are also several amendments proposed to the Criminal Code that would increase penalties for child sex offenders and, particularly relevant to our push for more offender accountability, they would ensure that any crime committed while an offender is on parole, on unescorted temporary absence, on statutory release, or under a conditional sentence order would be considered an aggravating factor in the determination of a sentence for a new crime.

All told, these proposed measures would create a much stronger system that would place another level of accountability on convicted sex offenders; a system in which offenders would live with the knowledge that border services officers would be alerted to high-risk child sex offenders who travel abroad; a system in which high-risk child sex offenders know that any public notifications released about them in a specific province would now be available to the general public right across the country.

All of these measures would serve to emphasize to offenders the importance of following all conditions and making the right decision in order to remain in the community.

They would also build in another layer of safety and security for citizens who worry about registered sex offenders living and working in their communities and travelling throughout the country, as well as abroad.

I am proud to support these efforts and I ask all members in this House to join with me in giving the legislation a swift passage.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a question that those of us on this side of the House regularly ask the government. We have already said that we will support this bill at second reading, but we still have not settled the question of resources allocated to prevention.

Obviously, the government is focusing on repression, not prevention, which is not a bad thing once an act has been committed. However, preventing people from committing such acts will take quite a lot of resources for police forces and organizations that can do a good job of fighting sex crimes, for example. We have repeatedly asked the government what resources it is prepared to make available to organizations such as police forces and civil society organizations to create a solid foundation for the prevention aspect.

I would like to know what the member who just spoke thinks of the current resources allocated to prevention. I would also like to know how much he thinks the government should contribute to ensure that we are not just punishing acts that have been committed, but also preventing most of those acts from being committed in the first place.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I do believe in prevention. However, I believe that prevention for certain criminal offences is more difficult than for others. We can prevent theft by taking certain steps as citizens to discourage people from taking things from our houses.

When it comes to people who prey on our children, they are pedophiles. In my past and present experience, I have talked to psychiatrists who treat people with pedophilia, and there is no real cure for it. How do we prevent a pedophile from engaging in what we consider to be an aberration and a terrible act against the most vulnerable in society?

Most of these pedophiles are what we would consider to be very intelligent, meaning that they know how to gain trust in order to get at their prey, which is our children. They put themselves in positions of authority, so we as a society have brought in measures to make sure we check the criminal background of people like teachers and boy scout leaders, anyone who has access to young people. We could say that this is prevention, somewhat.

The real prevention is letting the people who are pedophiles know that if they commit this crime, there will be consequences and they will be serious consequences. Additionally, if they do commit the crime and go to prison, we will do everything we can. We cannot necessarily cure them of that problem, but we will give them the tools with which to do so, through counselling and having psychologists and psychiatrists do their best to treat them, so that they can subdue these tendencies they have.

However, that takes a long time. That is why we are bringing in this legislation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his intervention and speech today. Obviously, his law enforcement background and his work here in this chamber have done a lot in fighting these kinds of issues.

He explained that we have an environment in which people are becoming more and more comfortable with bringing it up when someone has mistreated a child or they have suspicions of that. Because the Conservative government has taken such a hard stand on making sure that people do serious time for violence and sexual assault crimes, there may be a temptation to go offshore. There are provisions in this bill that would also deal with those kinds of things.

Does the member believe that the government, by introducing this bill and some of the provisions in it, is protecting not just Canadian children but also children outside of our borders?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. As I mentioned in my speech, we would be able to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with the ability to access the sex offender registry, put an obligation on the people who have been convicted, and say that if they are going to travel outside of this country, we can keep an eye on them.

We know that there are certain countries in the world where pedophiles like to go. I will not mention the countries in particular because we do not want to create some problems, but I think most of us know that there are certain Asian countries and other places in the world where it is easier to get access to young children. We are co-operating with those governments, and we want to be able to make sure we can keep an eye on those people leaving Canada.

We need to protect children not just within our country. We have an obligation as citizens of the world to protect those vulnerable citizens, those children, throughout the rest of the world. That is what part of this legislation would do. As the member just mentioned, it would give the tools to the Canada Border Services Agency that it needs to keep track of people who are disposed to want to cause terrible harm to young children.

The House resumed 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.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on debate on the tougher penalties for child predators act.

Although members of the House do not always agree on the best approach to tackle challenging societal problems, I am confident we can all agree on the need to act to better protect children from the heinous crime of sexual exploitation.

Since 2011, children accounted for approximately half of all victims of police-reported sexual assault in Canada. Clearly this is unacceptable, and clearly it is incumbent on us to do everything in our control to better safeguard children from a crime that leaves an everlasting impact. The government strongly believes that further measures are warranted in this regard and that is why it has brought forward this legislation.

The tougher penalties for child predators act is a comprehensive piece of legislation that would allow us to better protect communities and children from convicted sex offenders, both in Canada and abroad. The changes we have proposed in the bill would allow us to move ahead on two different fronts, one that is supported by the Department of Justice and one that is supported by Public Safety Canada.

The first element, broadly speaking, addresses penalties for child sexual offences through amendments to the Criminal Code. The second deals with changes to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, which I will get into in a few moments.

As we heard from the Minister of Justice, when the bill was first introduced our government proposed a number of enhancements that would allow us to ensure that penalties for child sexual offences would better reflect the long-lasting damage inflicted on young victims and further hold offenders accountable for their actions. Members of the House will not be surprised to hear me reiterate our government's firm belief that the punishment should fit the severity of the crime. I trust that members agree with me that, when we speak of the crime of sexual exploitation against children, this is a particularly important principle of living in a law-abiding society. There is no question that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation, so now is the time to act.

The other set of changes we are proposing is with respect to the information available to law enforcement about registered sex offenders and, of course, to the public.

As we have heard, the bill contains proposed amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, amendments that would enhance our knowledge about the whereabouts of registered sex offenders when they travel abroad, as well as increased offender accountability. The act is the governing legislation for the national sex offender registry, the existing federal database that houses the names of convicted sex offenders across the country. As members may be aware, this database is administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and is accessible to police forces countrywide through a provincial-territorial registry centre. It is a vital tool that allows police to obtain a list of convicted sex offenders living or employed in a geographical area, when required for preventive or investigative purposes.

Currently, offenders subject to the registry must comply with a number of obligations with respect to reporting to registry officials. For example, they need to report each year, in addition to anytime they change their address or legal name. Further, they are obligated to notify registry officials if they plan to be away from their main or secondary residence for a period of seven days or longer. They are required to provide the estimated dates of travel, and for any domestic travel, they must provide the address or location at which they expect to stay.

With respect to international travel, registered sex offenders are not currently obligated to report absences unless those absences are seven days or longer. We feel this represents a significant gap in terms of registry officials' authority to obtain complete information on the international travel plans of registered sex offenders.

When it comes to sex offenders with a child offence conviction, they would be required to report any out-of-country absence of any length of time. Again, they would be required to provide specific travel plans, including dates and locations. All registered sex offenders would be required to report their travel dates and the addresses or locations where they are staying for any trips longer than seven days outside of Canada.

We have also proposed a change to address a gap that currently exists with respect to information sharing about registered sex offenders between the officials at the national sex offender registry and those at the Canada Border Services Agency. Some Canadians may be surprised to learn that currently there is no avenue for registry officials to share information regularly with border officials, since they are not a designated police service. In addition, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act currently does not authorize such disclosure. This unnecessarily limits our knowledge of travelling sex offenders.

It stands to reason that those on the front lines, those guarding our borders, could be playing an even more meaningful role in safeguarding our communities than they already do. With this legislation, we could empower them to do just that by giving them the right information. After all, border officials are the ones who will admit convicted sex offenders back into the country. The bill would allow for registry officials to disclose relevant information about certain registered sex offenders to Canada Border Services Agency officials, including the cases of child sex offenders who have been designated as being at a high risk to re-offend.

Such a change would allow them to be placed in a lookout system. This type of information sharing would mean that border officials would then be alerted to travelling sex offenders and that upon those offenders' return to Canada, the officials would then be in a position to collect the offenders' travel information and to share it with registry officials. This kind of exchange could allow for the investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, in addition to addressing any other potential breaches of reporting obligations of the offender. These changes, I propose, would go a long way toward helping us better protect children from this offender group in both Canada and abroad.

Finally, with this legislation, we would allow for the future creation of a publicly accessible national database of high-risk child offenders. Separate from the national sex offender registry, this database would capture those who have been the subject of public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction and would be presented in a searchable format for any Canadians who wish to access such information.

We are pleased with the progress that we continue to achieve in making our streets and communities safer, particularly for the youngest members of our society. The passage of this bill and the implication of its much needed amendments would take us even further in this regard. I therefore call on all members of this place to support the protection of children, on which I have heard many encouraging things today, both at home and abroad, from the horrific crimes of child sexual exploitation.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced many bills that amend the Criminal Code in a number of ways.

Can the hon. member tell us whether the government has done any studies following up on these successive changes to the Criminal Code since it came to power in 2006?

Can the member tell me about any studies on the positive or negative impact of these successive changes to the Criminal Code and whether or not there are solid results that indicate that further bills to amend the Criminal Code of Canada should be introduced? I would like to hear about these studies.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to studies, I would point out what the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice mentioned this morning with regard to correct jurisprudence.

Through the study of case law, we have seen more and more that both the bar associations and judiciary are bringing to light the fact that in cases of sexual exploitation of a child, there is an initial offence, coupled with the recording of images, disturbing as they may be, which is a separate offence, and then the distribution of those, which is is another offence. Oftentimes, previously lasting last six or seven years, concurrent sentences were given. We believe that every time a child is victimized, both at the actual offence and then from the recording and then the distribution, the child is revictimized over and over.

I am pleased to say to the member opposite that in the studies, the courts have started choosing to impose consecutive sentencing, instead of concurrent sentencing, because the former more accurately reflects the heinous nature of these crimes.

I hope that the member opposite will look at some of these cases and see that they are truly horrific. Hopefully, we can all work together to ensure that people who prey on our children will face the full extent of the law.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here to debate this extremely important bill.

The crux of the differences here in the House relates to mandatory minimum sentences. I want to ask if the member could help all parliamentarians understand where the government actually sits on mandatory minimums.

Under the Department of Justice Act that created the department, there is a statutory obligation, which the Minister of Justice is sworn to uphold when sworn in as minister. He must table on the floor of the House of Commons, for any bill that he brings to this House, the legal opinion prepared by his expert 2,500 lawyers on his full-time staff. He must table an opinion showing that the bill he is bringing to the floor is charter proof, in other words that it is compliant with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Has the government tabled that opinion? If it has not done so, when will it do so?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of mandatory prison sentences, I would suggest that the member consult his own Liberal colleague, the member of Parliament for Mount Royal. When he was the justice minister he brought in more mandatory minimum sentences than any previous justice minister in the history of Canada.

In fact, mandatory minimums have been around since the turn of the 20th century. They are used specifically to reflect society's abhorrence of the heinous nature of these kinds of victimization, particularly of our youth. I would ask the member to also consult with his leader, who has said publicly that he wants to take away mandatory minimum sentences, even when they relate to the sexual abuse of another human being. I would ask the member where in the charter that kind of behaviour is allowed.

This particular bill focuses on protecting children both here and abroad. I hope that the member opposite can see past the ideological barrier that he has put before himself and help us to protect Canadian children.

The House resumed 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.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I should say at the outset that I intend to split my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

I am glad to be able to participate in this debate on Bill C-26. I said earlier in the question and comment period that I appreciated both the tone and the content of most of the speeches and remarks made today, given the gravity of the subject matter and the obvious unanimous condemnation, by all parties and all members of Parliament, of this sort of activity. There can be no doubt that we genuinely want to do the best job that we humanly can to stop this kind of activity and to do all we can to pass good legislation.

Much of the bill deals with sentencing and I want to start with that in my remarks. We know that sentencing is an art as much as a science. It is a real challenge for judges to achieve the balance of the three things that sentencing seeks to do. In the first case, it is to punish bad behaviour, obviously. The public demands and is justified in demanding that perpetrators be punished. Sentences usually are and should be crafted and measured in such a way as to accurately reflect the degree of public condemnation for the nature of the offence. In this case, there could be no higher condemnation of the public.

The third and perhaps most critical element of sentencing is to deter and stop the practice. Hopefully, the sentence is significant enough that people will think twice before they risk undertaking this abhorrent practice, for fear of the punishment. However, that is where it becomes really sticky with this particular type of offence, because the psychiatric profession considers pedophilia to be a psychological disorder. I am not sure a pedophile, someone who is engaged in child sexual abuse, makes a rational choice of, “I had better not do this or else I am going to go to jail for 6 months, 9 months, 18 months, 10 years”. I am not sure reason and logic enter into it with a person who has this appalling disorder.

That is not to say that everyone who engages in child sexual abuse is a pedophile or has a psychological disorder. Some do, such as the most offensive types of business people who are selling and marketing the product of child pornography. That, I agree, we not only have to denounce and put a significant deterrent in place, but also punish thoroughly and without reservation.

Part of this bill, as I read it, gives the judge greater direction, I suppose, and in fact takes away the discretion of a judge in dealing with concurrent sentencing versus consecutive sentencing. In thinking this through, and staying with the example of child pornography, there is more than one offence associated with the production and distribution of this product, so to speak.

The actual assault on the child, of course, is a crime and warrants a strict sentence; the documenting of it, making a film of it or taping it, is a crime in and of itself; and then broadcasting and publishing the documented assault is a third crime. Therefore, there are really three criminal offences wrapped into the one act, as the law currently stands. I believe it is section 163.1 in the Criminal Code. These could be treated as one single offence and one sentence or three sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively.

In my view, and we will see if it gets amended or commented on during the committee stage, I do not disagree that it is reasonable to consider all three of these assaults as warranting their own punishment applied. One might say the same if there are multiple children involved. It could be perhaps 10 separate crimes with 10 individual children. I think the argument is warranted to make it a concurrent and not a consecutive issue.

While I have the floor, I want to recognize and pay tribute to a woman from Winnipeg named Rosalind Prober, who is the president and founder of an organization called Beyond Borders. This organization was founded in 1996, and she has been a tireless champion for the protection of children, both domestically and abroad. Her organization, Beyond Borders, is the Canadian arm of an international NGO based in Bangkok called ECPAT, End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes. It was Rosalind Prober who pushed for the first sex tourism laws in 1996, when Lloyd Axworthy was the foreign affairs minister. At the time, she appeared before committees saying that sex crimes of this nature against children, committed by Canadians, should be extraterritorial. In other words, the laws of Canada should and must apply to Canadian citizens as they travel abroad.

That was a breakthrough. That was almost a sea change in the mindset of Canadians, bringing awareness to the fact that sex tourism to exploit children was becoming a growing international problem. I am very proud that it offended the sensibilities of Canadians to such a degree that we expanded our domestic laws to apply to Canadians travelling abroad. It has not always worked. I have a number of examples where even the laws we have in place regarding this have failed to deter some fairly egregious examples, but I will not go into those here today, because there is no benefit.

As Bill C-26 stands, I am glad the NDP's justice critic said at the outset that we are going to support the bill to get it to committee. I think it warrants it. It deserves it. We owe it to our children to pull out all the stops and do all we can to pass the best laws possible to protect them.

I point out that the Minister of Justice, in introducing the bill, when he appeared before the justice committee, pointed out that sexual offences against children had increased 6% over the last two years. This is in spite of a number of measures taken since 2006. This Conservative government, in three parliaments, in 2006, 2008, 2011, implemented the Safe Streets and Communities Act, mandated aggravated assault where the child is under 16 years of age, made it illegal to provide sexually explicit material to a child, and raised the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age. There are about 10 or 15 legislative changes to the Criminal Code regarding the protection of children and doing our best to stop the sexual exploitation of children, yet the minister claims that there is a 6% increase over the last two years.

We really have to look at the efficacy of the efforts made to date, and it is not unreasonable to question, then, the efficacy of the proposals put forward in Bill C-26, because frankly, everything we have done has failed to stop the escalation of these appalling incidents.

I know I am going to vote in favour of the bill to get it to committee so it can be studied more thoroughly. We owe it to our children. It is one of the most important things we can do in this 41st Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech this afternoon on a delicate subject.

I would like to ask him a question about the Conservatives' possible tactics in terms of criminal law and justice. I think the English phrase “tough on crime” captures the idea better than the French equivalent, “dur sur le crime”.

Does my colleague believe that the Conservatives are capable of using questionable tactics such as introducing bills simply so that they can turn around and say that they are tough on criminals and show their strength?

There are many documents and some studies that show that the real effect of these bills is not what was intended. The results are not as good as they thought.

Does he think the Conservatives are capable of such political tactics?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sherbrooke had a valid point. By and large, since 2006, in the previous three Parliaments, we have seen the Conservatives rather cynically exploiting what is a standard neo-Conservative tool across the world, which is the politics of fear. They are building up a straw man and then saying that the only people who can protect us from that straw man is them, because they will get tough on crime. There is an awful problem there. Bill C-26 may be the exception.

Some of the mail-outs into my riding from the Conservative Party show a picture of a man sneaking into a bedroom window with a knife and a mask. It more or less is saying that this junkie will kill people in the night with that knife if they do not vote Conservative, because only the current Prime Minister can protect them from this straw man. The politics of fear are cheap and cynical and only lead to stacking up prisoners in prison like cordwood and passing the burden onto the provinces to pay for those prison cells.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we will somewhat reluctantly be supporting this bill going to committee as well. There are good points and bad points.

The member mentioned the politics of fear and being tough on crime. I would like the member's view on this. There is another approach that should also be taken. We have the laws and can be tough on crime, but a better approach might be to be smart on crime. It might be finding ways to prevent these issues and these serious activities from happening by giving young people a better opportunity in life through some social programming and those types of approaches.

I have travelled on the issue of human smuggling and have seen the individuals who have been abused, both in the sex trade and the slave trade, and how they happened to fall into that trap through those who would exploit them.

I wonder if the member might provide some comments, from his point of view, on preventive measures and taking a different approach and what it might do for society.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about the efficacy of the bill and if we are serious that the goal is to make our streets and our children safer, then we have to be concerned about this, because if locking up more people and mandatory jail sentences led to safer streets, the United States would be the safest country in the world. It has 2.3 million people locked up in prison, and they still have rampant urban strife, violence, and social problems.

We have to question, first, whether stiffer sentences will stop a pedophile who has a psychological disorder and maybe does not use the reason and logic of penalty versus the action he or she is going to take, and second, whether in other situations and other types of crime, locking people up is really going to create safer streets. There is no empirical evidence to have us believe that.

Some states in the United States are going bankrupt because they are locking up so many people, such as Texas, Florida, and California. They are starting to say that their tough on crime agenda is bankrupting their budgets and not making their streets any safer and that all they have is more people locked up.

If we are serious about efficacy and serious about safer streets and safer children, let us make sure we are doing things right.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is the father of two young girls, I am the grandfather of three beautiful grandchildren who live not in Mississauga but in Waterloo, and I also want them to feel and be safe. I do not think that any of us here in this chamber would not agree that we want our children and grandchildren to be safe in this country. This is very important.

I mentioned in my speech that the Minister of Justice did a lot of travelling in Canada, organizing and taking part in round tables and getting information from different groups. He came to Mississauga. We had a meeting with the great police force that we have, the Peel Regional Police. They were very supportive of this bill. We also had a great discussion about how to improve the safety of our children, how to protect them, and how to protect our citizens.

I would like to say that this is a truly great police force that works with the community and works for the safety of the community.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Science and Technology; the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Aboriginal Affairs.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to 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.

According to the legislative summary prepared for this piece of legislation, the bill would amend the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with sexual offences committed against children and young persons by increasing the mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for such offences.

Bill C-26 would also make the following changes to the law: it would increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds; it would set out rules for the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences; it would require courts to impose consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against more than one child; it would amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused persons could be called as witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases; it would amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting obligations of sex offenders who travel outside Canada; and it would enact the high risk child sex offender database act to establish a publicly accessible database containing information 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.

It is quite a complicated piece of legislation. The NDP critic for justice, the member for Gatineau, and a number of my other colleagues have risen in the House to indicate that New Democrats will support getting the bill to committee at second reading. As always, we are very concerned that we need to have legislation that truly does protect our children and keep our communities safe.

As we have seen with other pieces of legislation that the Conservatives have presented, the devil is always in the details. Therefore, we think it is very important that there be a comprehensive study at committee, that we hear from witnesses with a variety of points of view, and I was very pleased to hear the member opposite indicate that the government would entertain amendments to this piece of legislation, which from our experience here in the House over the last three years, would be extremely unusual.

New Democrats are so adamant about getting the bill to committee and having a comprehensive study at committee because of these differing points of view. The legislative summary outlines the differences. We will hear that there are people who are strongly in favour and people who have some concerns. Some of these groups are not ones we would ordinarily think would raise concerns.

Under the commentary in the legislative summary it says:

The amendment proposed in Bill C-26 requiring that, in cases with multiple victims, mandatory minimum sentences must be served consecutively has prompted public debate about the “totality principle,” which states that an offender's overall sentence should not be unduly harsh. Lawyer Clayton Ruby, author of the textbook Sentencing, has said that consecutive minimum sentences do not leave room for considering the individual offender and the nature of the offence. However, Sharon Rosenfeldt, spokesperson for Victims of Violence, has stated that reliance on the totality principle allows those individuals who commit crimes against children to repeatedly reoffend.

We can see how important it is we get both perspectives on this before we go forward with a piece of legislation. They also say:

Another subject of debate concerning Bill C-26 has been the proposed creation of a publicly accessible databank containing information about those persons found guilty of sex offences against children who are deemed to be at risk of offending again. The Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec had expressed concern that such a databank will create a false sense of security, as this type of information gives the impression that the danger of a sexual assault comes from strangers, whereas the evidence suggests that the vast majority of sex offences against children are committed by those close to them. The Marie Vincent Foundation has determined that in 85% of the cases of sexual offences committed against those under 12 years of age, the offender was a person known to the victim (father, next of kin, neighbour, friend of the family, etc.).

A number of comments concerning Bill C-26 have mentioned the possibility of vigilantism rising from a publicly accessible database of sex offenders. Detective Constable Stephen Canton, the police officer in charge of the Niagara Regional Police sex offender registry, is also concerned that “[w]hen you start to identify offenders, you start to get less compliance and it pushes them underground.”

Victims' rights groups have expressed support for the changes proposed in Bill C-26, however. Gatineau Police Chief Mario Harel, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has also said that the information-sharing provision is important, as is the ability to compel spouses to testify in child pornography cases. He welcomed Bill C-26, suggesting stiffer penalties could have a deterrent effect.

There is a wide variety of opinions that have been expressed in some of the input gathered in advance of the bill. Therefore, it is important that there is an opportunity not only for the committee to reconcile those different points of view, but also to keep in mind that the ultimate goal is truly the protection of children and communities.

Some of my New Democratic colleagues have referenced the fact that one of the things that has to happen is that we need to put in place programs that assist in preventing re-offences. I want to reference the Circles of Support and Accountability program.

This is a quote from Steven Sullivan, a former federal ombudsman for victims of crime. He said:

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

I want to talk a little about the CoSA, Circles of Support and Accountability. This is a snapshot that was provided in the Ottawa Citizen. It says:

The program pairs newly released sex offenders - known as core members - with three to five volunteers. For at least one year, the volunteers pledge to have daily contact with the core member, helping with such basic needs as finding employment and housing, attending medical appointments and shopping. They also undertake to hold him accountable if he shows signs of slipping.

It goes on to say:

In return, the sex offender pledges to honour any conditions imposed by the court, steer clear of high-risk behaviour and communicate honestly with circle members.

How are the core members selected?

Most are high-risk sex offenders, the worst of the worst. They must want to participate, and are screened and evaluated by CoSA groups before they are accepted.

Some criticism has been raised, including the comment:

Doesn't this amount to coddling people who should be shunned? Not at all, says...a member of the Ottawa CoSA's board. "What we're doing is promoting community safety by engaging with them." It's when sex offenders are isolated or marginalized that they are most likely to reoffend, he says.

He went on to say: "Our motto is 'no more victims'”.

That is an important point. The point of programs like this is to prevent offenders from re-offending, to keep our communities and children safe.

I want to turn for a moment to a publication from back in March 2013, put out by the John Howard Society. It talks about the impact of public notification and says:

When making a decision as to whether a public notification should be issued, the justice system must balance the need for community safety against the offender's right to reintegrate into society. Public notifications are used in hopes of increasing public safety. The threat of a public notification may work to deter the offender from breaching any conditions and to encourage him to participate in treatment. Public awareness may also encourage community members to be aware and to report suspicious behaviour, which may potentially reduce criminal behaviour. Also, they may increase collaboration between all areas of the justice system, like probation, corrections, law enforcement, prosecutors and victims, which may lead to more support for the offender.

It is probably not surprising that there is a caveat here. It states:

However, Public Notifications may discourage offenders from making post-release plans for treatment or from finding housing because they fear that by doing so they will simply identify the potential destination. Once the offender is released, the publicity may lead to job loss, threats, harassment, and housing instability - all which may force the offender in to hiding, which detracts from community safety and may elevate risk.

Evidence shows that programs that assist and support individuals re-integrating in to the community are much more effective than shaming in preventing reoffending. When used in conjunction with effective re-integration strategies, notifications can build community involvement, promote rehabilitation, and prevent the offender from re-offending.

However, public notifications with no community involvement do little to support the community or the offender. The public must be educated not only in what risks these individuals pose, but what can be done to prevent them from re-offending.

I believe there is probably agreement across the House that what is important is that any legislation that comes forward truly does what it purportedly aims to do, that is to protect children and keep our communities safe. It is clear that if we just do it with harsher sentences and removing supports for reintegration into community, we are not going to achieve those aims.

Again, I will support this bill going to committee at second reading. I am optimistic that the Conservatives will actually consider amendments to Bill C-26.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made a very strong presentation this afternoon. I agree with many of the points she has made.

Before I was elected to this place, for many years I was the chair of Safe City Mississauga, a crime prevention organization. I do echo some of the member's thoughts about how we can prevent these things and how we should invest in doing so. In fact, the government has invested in a huge way in crime prevention, supporting organizations that make sure that crimes do not start in the first place.

Today we are debating Bill C-26 and its amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada aimed at ensuring that when people are found guilty of being child predators, they will face stiff sentences that match the crimes they have perpetrated.

It is great to say on one side that we should invest in justice issues and crime prevention, and that is part of it. I completely agree with that. However, I never hear from the NDP why it does not support tough sentences for terrible repeat serial offenders, such as this bill will address. Why does it not support those kinds of sentences?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that in my summary I wrapped up our position on this.

What we have consistently called for as New Democrats is a comprehensive program that looks not just at the appropriate sentences for crimes committed. As I said earlier, we absolutely support legislation and programs that keep our communities safe and that protect our children. I am a mother and a grandmother and would not support something that would put my children and grandchildren at risk.

However, what we often end up dealing with in this place is a piece of legislation that has a very narrow perspective dealing with particular sets of offences, particular crimes. What we do not do a good job of is taking a step back and looking at a comprehensive approach.

The member for Winnipeg Centre rightly pointed out the fact that we could learn a great deal from states like California and Texas, where they have had to revisit their tough-on-crime agenda. It looks at crime in a very narrow way. What Texas in particular has done is that it has recognized that not only must it have appropriate sentences but also that when people are found guilty, there is a need for rehabilitation programs inside and methods to integrate them back into the community.

I would urge the Conservatives to take that more comprehensive approach.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that some of the most despicable crimes in our society are committed by sex offenders.

The government speaks a great deal about victims' rights being extremely important, and we agree. I would like to ask my colleague whether she has identified within this proposed bill any explicit provisions addressing victims' rights.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that some of the cuts outlined by the former ombudsperson for victims highlight the fact that perhaps we are not serving victims well with some of these pieces of legislation. When we do things like cut programs that try to prevent offenders from re-offending, we are not actually supporting potential future victims.

Again, it does speak to the need for a more holisitic approach looking at the prevention of crime to begin with, making sure that we are addressing educational needs, poverty, housing, and drug and alcohol addiction. There are many things that we need to look at in terms of prevention.

We then need a justice system that responds appropriately and has the resources, so that police forces can investigate and so that there are not backlogs in the criminal justice system that would stop us from dealing with crime expeditiously.

We then need a prison system where people are housed appropriately so that they are kept inside when they need to be, but also have rehabilitation and drug and alcohol treatment programs within the prison system.

Then, when offenders are eventually released, we need those systems on the street to help them reintegrate so that they do not re-offend.

If we had legislation that looked at all four of those aspects, I think we would probably find much broader party support in the House for the legislation that comes forward that is purportedly tough on crime.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak on such a serious issue as the subject of Bill C-26.

This bill is a perfectly clear manifestation of the Conservatives' law and order ideology. It also demonstrates the Conservatives' failure to provide the law and order they talk so much about, since sexual offences against children have increased by 6% in the last two years.

We in the NDP have zero tolerance for sexual offences against children, while respecting jurisprudential principles and basic law, an area where the government too often expresses its disdain for judges by reducing their freedom of decision-making and imposing minimum sentences.

I would remind the House that we offered to speed the passage of the parts of former omnibus Bill C-10 that dealt with sexual offences against children. In those parts, the mandatory minimum sentences were more severe. However, today we are debating a bill that would increase the existing mandatory minimums and the maximum sentences for certain sexual offences against children.

This provision gives the impression that the Conservative government is trying to make up for its failures, but I would like the government to tell me how these new mandatory minimum and maximum sentences can succeed when they have failed in the past.

Like the other members of Parliament, I have read the statistics. The number of crimes committed has risen exponentially. As the mother of three children, I find the following figures rather frightening: in 2008, 54 people were charged with luring children by means of the Internet; in 2012 that number was 127; in 2008, 241 people were charged with sexual interference; in 2012 there were 916.

I wonder whether the problem lies with the sentences or with the services provided.

We know that our communities need more resources to combat the sexual abuse of children. The NDP has supported the program called Circles of Support and Accountability or CoSA.

The former federal ombudsman for victims of crime has revealed that funding for this program will end this fall. That is very sad because, like most community services for victims, the CoSA program is not very expensive. Its 700 volunteers across Canada meet with offenders after their release, help them find work and housing, and meet with them regularly over coffee. The former ombudsman said they were helping offenders remake their lives, avoid reoffending and take responsibility.

Harsher prison terms will probably not be enough.

I would like to raise another point I think is dicey in this bill: the creation of a publicly accessible database containing information with respect to persons who are found guilty of sexual offences against children.

A number of elements that need to be clarified come to mind when I read this bill. This database is likely to lead to a false sense of security, as it gives the impression that the threat comes only from strangers, from those sex offenders walking around in our communities and on our streets, even though the vast majority of child molesters are close to the family. The Fondation Marie-Vincent has determined that in 85% of cases of sexual abuse of children under the age of 12, the abuser is a person the child knows.

I am not saying that establishing this kind of database is a bad thing. I am saying that care must be taken and that the database should not be the only tool for making people safer. It has a role to play, of course, but it is not the main way to make our neighbourhoods safer.

There is another point that bothers me: this kind of registry has already been established in the United States, and we can see that the results are not very good. The Chicago-based Journal of Law and Economics conducted a study in 2011 that showed that the highest rates of sex crimes in the United States come from sex offenders who are listed in registries that are available to the public, simply because the offenders whose names are on these public lists have a tendency to hide and comply less with the law. They tend to live in secrecy. They will take longer to reintegrate into society and be rehabilitated. In other words, they will not be monitored as other offenders are by assistance services and they will be more likely to reoffend. I think this is something that should be examined in greater depth, and I am sure that my colleagues will try to raise all of these sensitive issues in committee.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has taken measures that it says are meant to protect children better. We have taken note of this, but considering that the numbers of sex offences against children continue to rise, the government’s repressive measures are clearly not sufficient.

We would like to see measures that will protect children in a tangible way and make our communities safer, not measures that are just intended to make the Conservatives look good in press conferences. We must also examine in depth whether certain of these measures—such as the high-risk child sex offender database, evidence from spouses of accused persons in child pornography cases and the imposition of consecutive sentences on offenders who have committed sexual offences against children—are in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Finally, it is easy to see that the unilateral and essentially repressive approach by the Conservatives is unlikely to be enough in and of itself and that this strategy must be urgently reviewed in order to fight effectively against child sexual molestation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have all wrestled with these issues in a sincere attempt to do the right thing for our children. The issue of sentencing keeps coming up, and Conservative members asked some questions of NDP members about why we do not support longer sentences all the time in every situation, as if that always makes things better.

Would my colleague care to comment on the lack of evidence proving that longer sentences make safer streets or that longer sentences will solve the problem of child sexual molestation?

The medical community agrees that pedophilia is a psychological condition and that reason and logic do not always enter into the mind of the type of predator that preys on children for sexual gratification. The sentence might be a 50-year sentence, but that person might not have the rational capability to weigh the risk of the action he or she is about to take.

Could the member point out the flaw to this notion? Could she point out the lack of evidence that longer sentences in and of themselves, without the necessary treatment, necessarily lead to safer streets or safer children?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

As I mentioned in my speech, I think that repressive measures in and of themselves have never been a solution. We must also allow these offenders to be rehabilitated and to be monitored, because repression alone will not make our communities safer. We must look into prevention and allow these people to be monitored, something that goes beyond punishment.

I will try to say this using a medical metaphor: instead of trying to put ointment on a sore and stop the oozing, it would be better to get to the root of the problem and prevent it from happening. Of course there have to be penalties. However, they must go hand in hand with prevention, reintegration and rehabilitation.

It is therefore important that the agencies providing assistance to these people have stable funding in order to help them.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments that the member made about penalties not being the whole answer. We agree with her that prevention and preventive programs need to be put in place. We agree those are needed, but there is another side to the issue.

The bill clearly states that there would be longer periods of incarceration. There are the mandatory minimum sentences that the government seems to love. There is the issue of programming within the prison system, which at the moment is in disarray. There is also the issue of support for organizations that assist sex offenders when they come out. The one I am thinking of is called Circles of Support and Accountability. That program has been cut. It had an over 90% success rate in ensuring that sex offenders do not reoffend when they come out.

Is that not part of the programming as well? Should the government, beyond increasing the sentencing, not also be increasing the funding and support for those programs that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The time has expired, but we will give the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert 40 seconds to respond.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for asking such a relevant question.

I made that point in my speech when I said that the government should be supporting community organizations that help these people turn things around instead of just punishing the guilty. I therefore already answered his question about what the NDP is advocating.

When it comes to Conservative bills, the devil is always in the details. That is why we want experts to talk about how effective these proposed changes would be.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely pleased to be rising in the House today. It is not because of you, Mr. Speaker. It is always nice to discuss bills in your presence. However, I have a keen interest in this bill. Why? Because it deals with one of the most despicable kinds of crime, namely sexual abuse, and even worse, sexual abuse involving children.

To ensure that the people at home, who are civic-minded enough to watch CPAC, can follow my speech, I would like to specify that I am speaking to 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 currently at second reading stage of this bill. It was introduced by the government and will be supported by the NDP. I believe the Liberals will also be supporting it. It seems pretty clear, then, that this bill will be supported by an overwhelming majority of members in the House at second reading. Again for the people at home, this means that the bill will be sent to committee, where it can be analyzed, and hopefully, perhaps even improved, if there is any good faith on the part of the governing party, which has a majority.

Before I talk about all kinds of considerations, I want to be very clear: the NDP has zero tolerance for sex offences, and especially for sex offences involving minors. I want to be crystal clear on that, as we have been somewhat frustrated in the past regarding the level of debate on these issues on the part of our colleagues across the aisle.

I will give a brief overview of a few of the points in Bill C-26, just to make sure we all understand what we are dealing with here. The bill increases existing mandatory minimum penalties and the maximum penalties for sexual offences against children. It also increases maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds.

Obviously, the main point of this bill is to increase sentences. Now I am going to take a critical look at the bill. Again, it is very important. I am the father of young children, including a 5-year-old little girl. I want all Canadians and my colleagues opposite to understand that if anyone were to hurt my little girl, I would turn into an angry bear, as any father in the country would. Nonetheless, we live in a society governed by the rule of law, and even faced with this obligation to legislate on sentencing for sexual offences against children, we must be able to have an intelligent debate.

A question comes to mind right away when we talk about increasing sentences. The debate has been public for a few days. I wonder what the repercussions will be for our provincial partners, who will end up with larger prison populations. Across Canada, provincial prisons have seen increases of 10%, 12% or 15% in the number of prisoners, and that is because of all the increased minimum sentences imposed by the current government.

Never mind determining which minimum sentences were logical and justified and which ones were not. As a matter of principle, we think that the provincial partners should not be left to deal with the problems caused by federal legislation. That is a problem in and of itself. At third reading—the stage that makes the bill—even if everyone agrees, this type of problem will one day have to be taken into consideration by this Parliament, and above all by the party that is in power, at least for another 10 months or so.

I noted another point in Bill C-26. It seeks to 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.

Too many cases of potential reoffenders have been documented fairly regularly in television reports. These were people who had served fairly long sentences and failed to meet requirements such as staying away from children’s playgrounds. That is an example of a fundamental aspect of the bill. We have to think about it and see if we can improve the situation.

Bill C-26 is based almost totally on a repressive approach. Unfortunately, that is not enough. We also have to ask ourselves how we can contribute to the much broader aspect of prevention, which is essential and an absolute priority.

The Minister of Justice himself admitted that there has been an increase, estimated at 6% over the last two years, in sex offences specifically against children. If I rely on the figures, and if I correctly understand the proportions, that means that dozens of families—parents, fathers, mothers and children—have had their lives affected and terribly damaged by the behaviour of a pedophile predator.

Suppose an individual has abused a six-year-old girl. Admittedly, being able to tell the girl’s mother that he will go to prison not for seven years, but for nine, because of the changes made by the government, may be a form of consolation. However, the only true consolation that should exist in such a horrific scenario is to be able to tell the parents that the person was going to act out against their child, but the resources put in place prevented him from acting out and their child was not abused. That is the only scenario in which we should invest a maximum of resources as a priority, because that is the only scenario for the population of Canada as a whole. I hope I am making myself understood.

I am therefore not opposed to every form of minimum sentence. In some cases, if competent people believe that harsher sentences are required, then I agree. The only thing that counts, however, is to take early action and have a maximum of resources available in the field so that we can tell parents that the worst thing that could happen to their child did not occur. When the worst has happened, it is not a true consolation to families experiencing such trauma to tell them that now that the worst has happened, the offender will spend 12 months longer in prison than if he had been sentenced two years ago.

This leads me to discuss the near-failure of the policies of the last six years, which have followed a tough-on-crime approach in greatly increasing sentences. We are therefore facing two problems: there is nonetheless an increase in the number of children being abused and in the number of people serving long prison sentences, and our provincial partners are going to be short of funding to manage it all.

In committee, our colleagues across the aisle will have to convince us that the path we are on will not add to our social problems, but help decrease such problems. For example, legislative measures have been used in the past six years to increase surveillance. However, we cannot discuss surveillance unless we can ensure that the RCMP and other police forces have the resources they need to do their work.

The government should not take $650,000 away from Correctional Service Canada as it has done, because CSC has been getting results, although they are imperfect. However, these situations are completely imperfect, involving criminals and sick people who commit the most awful acts. Still, if the resources provided make it possible to prevent just five offenders from reoffending, that is a step forward. I do not sympathize with those who reoffend. As a father I have trouble feeling sympathy for someone who committed a revolting act 15, 20 or 30 years ago, even if he has served his time.

No, I am thinking of the victims. If five offenders do not reoffend, there are five fewer victims.

Minimum sentences are not the only thing for us to consider in this debate. We must also think about the essential resources needed to decrease the number of victims.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a little naive for the Conservatives to imagine that criminals are more or less normal people who do a cost-benefit analysis of their actions and consider the severity of the sentence they could face.

Obviously, when a human being gets to the point of committing such monstrous acts, he certainly is not thinking about the consequences. We could put him in prison for 100 years and he would still be just as crazy at the end of the sentence. It will change absolutely nothing.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker I thank my colleague for his question.

Certainly, we have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law in our society, even though both the law and the society may be imperfect.

We cannot take all the people who commit serious, terrible crimes and send them to Mars for 150 years. That will not work.

Two of my colleagues opposite rose to ask, with indignation in their voices, why the NDP was against minimum sentences for child abusers. If my colleagues on the other side of the House could demonstrate, with facts from criminologists, sociologists and the like, that every time the minimum sentence is raised by 12 months, the number of victims decreases by 20%, I would be standing on my desk—not just on my chair—demanding that it be increased by seven years. At seven times 20% there would be no more victims and I would be very happy.

The problem is that things do not work that way, in a black and white fantasy world. More intelligence is required.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to my colleague's remarks.

The U.S. has a great deal of experience with mandatory minimum sentences. This concept was invented and perfected in the U.S., particularly in Texas and California.

However, in the past four or five years, a senator and a congressman have finally concluded that there is no proof or analysis to justify this shift towards harsher and harsher minimum prison sentences.

Can my colleague help us understand why the government continues to push for a concept that even the Republican Party in the United States has given up on?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with my Liberal colleague today, I am reliving one of the biggest problems I have when I am in my riding: people with a completely reasonable point of view on a situation simply cannot understand where the Conservatives are going, and they want me to help them understand. I cannot explain this to my dear colleagues, because I do not understand myself.

I am well aware of the trend in some of the southern American states, which have made extensive use of cumulative minimum penalties, in spite of any kind of case law. That trend has been around a lot longer than this government, so they now have a little distance from which they can look at the results. The results are simply not there.

Reasonable people are asking why the Conservatives are taking a path that has failed time and time again in other jurisdictions. Like my colleague, I see that it makes no sense.

As for trying to explain it, perhaps I could one day, if ever I have a Conservative brain. However, I hope my colleague is patient, because that will probably never happen.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the discussion on 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 would first say, as many of my colleagues have stated in their interventions, that I will be supporting the bill going to second reading for specific reasons.

We believe that at its root, Bill C-26 is an important bill, and we have a zero-tolerance perspective on sexual violence, sexual crimes, particularly those crimes involving children. We want to see the bill go to committee in faith that during the committee hearings, the discussions around certain aspects of the bill will be fulsome and productive.

However, yet again, we see another foray into the world of mandatory minimum sentences. As my colleagues were discussing, the issue of mandatory sentences is a troubling issue, and we have ample evidence from our neighbours to the south and here in Canada that mandatory minimum sentences do not produce the results that my colleagues from across the way expect of them.

My colleague asked earlier whether there was any evidence that an individual who was going to commit such a crime sat down and thought about the mandatory minimum sentence such that, “If I do this, I am going to prison for x amount of time”. That would be a rational discussion for an irrational person.

There is ample evidence showing that mandatory minimum sentences do not produce results. However, more important is the issue of the legislative branch intruding into the jurisdiction of the courts. I have brought this up before. Here one of my colleagues brought up the question of why the NDP is so opposed to harsher sentences.

I do not think there is anyone in the House, on this side or the other, who does not agree with appropriate sentences for heinous crimes. However, there is a difference between allowing for harsher sentences in legislation and dictating to the courts that they must, without any judgment by judges, impose these sentences. This is where we have difficulty with the bill before us.

I hope that we can sit down in committee and explore how we can have appropriate sentences prescribed and available while still allowing the judges to use their discretion and abilities, the reasons they sit on the bench, to impose those sentences.

The bill's going to committee would also allow us to explore the potential of unintended consequences.

In the parliamentary summary, one of the commentaries brought forward about the creation of the database is the concern. It says:

A number of comments concerning Bill C-26 have mentioned the possibility of vigilantism rising from a publicly accessible database of sex offenders. Detective Constable Stephen Canton, the police officer in charge of the Niagara Regional Police sex offender registry, is also concerned that “[w]hen you start to identify offenders, you start to get less compliance and it pushes them underground.”

Ultimately, we want to see a bill enacted into law that does what it needs to do, without the sense of going after a mosquito with a bazooka. We need to ensure that we do it right, and this is the work of the committees. We need to ensure that we do not create situations with unintended consequences, such as the one I just read. That would put us in a situation where otherwise law-abiding citizens, through a mob mentality and their own loss and pain, find themselves in a position where they have information that allows them to exact vengeance in an effort to get rid of their own pain. We do not want to this to happen.

We want to ensure that people are protected from those who may repeat. We want to ensure that people are aware of high-risk offenders, in particular, those people who have for one reason or another continuously been allowed back onto the streets and who run the risk of reoffending for whatever reason. We need to protect our communities in that way. In enacting this bill, we need to ensure it would do that.

One of the other aspects that I would like to touch on is the amendment that would allow for spouses to testify against one another. Again, this is something I hope the committee will explore, because of unintended circumstances. We do not want to find non-offending spouses in a position where they might be held accountable for the actions of their partners. We want to ensure that their rights as individuals are protected and secured, and that they are not swept up in the net of the actions of their partners.

This bill is said to protect our communities. Like most laws, it would be in place to respond after the fact, after the crime has been committed. In that context, we have to ask whether the bill would act to protect communities. We have to ensure that the resources are there for our communities to prevent crimes of this nature and to prevent the repeat of crimes of this nature.

As I said in the beginning, I will be supporting this bill at second reading, with the full faith and confidence that my colleagues across the way will be open to discussion and whatever amendments arise from that discussion.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes consideration of this bill.

The House resumed from November 20 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.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to speak to 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.

To begin, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau, the official opposition's justice critic, as well as the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is the deputy justice critic, for the important work they have done on this bill and for all the work they do as part of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Many people know that I am a young mother with a 19-month-old baby. Anything that has to do with sexual abuse of children affects me deeply as a parent. It really is a pleasure to speak to this bill and have the opportunity to do so, so that I can share my opinion on what is before us today.

On this side of the House, we have a zero tolerance policy on sexual offences against children. We also respect the principles of jurisprudence and the fundamental laws of our country. We cannot have one without the other. It is very important to mention that. That is why the NDP will be happy to examine this bill very carefully.

As we know, with this Conservative government, the devil is often in the details, and we definitely want experts to let us know whether the measures set out in Bill C-26 will be effective.

I also sincerely hope that the government will not move a time allocation motion on such an important subject as child sexual abuse.

That is extremely important. Why? First, we are in Parliament and we have already had a lot of time allocation motions on important bills. Unfortunately, my colleagues do not often have the opportunity to share their opinions or those of their constituents. However, as parliamentarians, it is our duty to rise in the House and assert those rights.

I sincerely hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House who are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are able to take all the time they need to examine Bill C-26 in order to make it the best bill possible and to hear from all of the experts who have an interest in this bill.

It is very important to have a debate and share our opinions here in the House so that we end up with a better bill, which will include suggestions directly related to Bill C-26 from the various experts who are invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I hope that all my colleagues in the House will be able to work together to stop the sexual abuse of children. Regardless of which side of the House we are on, no one approves of the sexual abuse of children. I do not know of any reasonable person in this Parliament who would approve of that. We must address it and we must do it together in order to make sure that we end up with the best bill possible.

As the deputy critic for public safety, I work hard to understand our prison system. I do a lot of work with our partners, including the members of UCCO-SACC, the people who work directly for Correctional Service Canada in the field or in a management role.

I am thinking of our correctional officers in prisons across the country who are going through really disruptive changes right now. At the same time, they are trying to do pretty incredible work with the resources they have.

When I think of those workers, I also think of the various bills that the Conservatives have introduced in the House, many of which have had a very negative impact on our prison system, unfortunately.

In my riding, in Laval, there are now two federal prisons. There used to be three. Unfortunately, the Leclerc Institute was closed following a back-of-the-napkin decision by the Conservatives. The population of that prison, which is now provincial, is growing because of the Conservatives' laws.

There is also the Montée Saint-François Institution, a minimum security institution that specializes in handling sexual predators. The third prison in our riding is the Federal Training Institution. It used to be a medium security institution, but since the Conservatives' reforms of a few months ago, it has become a medium and maximum security facility. New cells were built, and more and more federal prisoners are being sent there. The Montée Saint-François Institution is also accommodating more inmates, and new units have been built there too.

I am saying this because a lot of money has been invested so that more prisoners can be sent to Laval. Even so, the government decided to dispose of the Leclerc Institute, which is an institution in Laval and one of the nicest federal penal institutions in the country. The provincial government got to take over the facility, but unfortunately, data suggest that the institute's population could grow considerably in coming years because of the government's laws.

The sad thing is that the workers still are not getting more resources because cuts to public safety have affected the correctional service. Workers' rights are under attack. I am thinking about the definition of the word “danger” in the Labour Code. What is more, the government is not investing in the reintegration of inmates, which is very unfortunate.

Experts in the prison system and inmate reintegration agree that this is extremely important. The last thing we want, as parents and citizens, is for an inmate to reoffend after serving his sentence, especially when we are talking about sexual abuse against children. We must make sure that we have extremely solid reintegration programs, instead of punitive laws only.

I am not against punitive measures, on the contrary, but we must not have one without the other. As soon as a person is incarcerated, we must initiate the reintegration process and ensure that the person is surrounded by social support. That person has to have the right tools once he has completed his sentence to ensure that he does not reoffend.

We must examine this bill closely and listen to the experts. Are these the right measures? Will they provide solutions to an extremely serious problem in our society? What will this change within our prison system? Will there be more resources? Will prisoners be forced to double-bunk in shared prison cells? What will this change for our correctional officers? What will this change for the people who work on reintegrating inmates? Will they have the resources to ensure that reintegration is done properly? Many questions currently remain unanswered.

I hope the government across the way is giving serious consideration to these concerns regarding the sexual abuse of children. There are some very good programs in Laval, but unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer resources for reintegration.

In closing, I would like to remind the members opposite that we will be sure to study all the details of this bill. We hope to have the time we need to do so. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance for all sex crimes in this country. Let us work together to ensure that we have the best law possible.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we need to keep front of mind when dealing with matters of a criminal nature and the rehabilitation of criminals and the protection of children is the unilateral federal responsibility for the protection of Canada's indigenous peoples.

As the member has pointed out, the government has made many cuts to programs intended to support aboriginal communities in developing social services, housing, and protection for their children. We have seen the commission on residential schools begging the government to continue funding to support the people who suffered through the abuse in the residential schools.

The member speaks of the cuts and speaks of this loss. I am wondering if she thinks the bill and the government's programs reflect its responsibilities in dealing with those important matters for the protection of indigenous Canadians.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona for her extremely important question. I am happy that she mentioned the specific situation facing first nations communities.

I agree that the government is unfortunately neglecting many files. With regard to the schools she mentioned, the government is completely neglecting its duty and is not honouring the treaties it has signed with first nations. It is so sad to see this. I truly hope that this will get the attention it deserves and that it will be included in the bill, because often the reality facing isolated first nations communities is forgotten.

This brings me to a parallel I would like to draw with the bill we voted on. I introduced Bill C-608 in the House of Commons. It passed second reading. Members voted unanimously in favour of a bill to establish a national day of the midwife. That bill is very important to first nations in particular, because the whole birth experience has been altered among first nations. Women often have to fly out of their communities for weeks, if not two or three months, in order to give birth to their child, when instead we could simply sit down with first nations communities and look at what they need for women to be able to deliver their babies in their own communities.

This bill is along the same lines. We need to make sure that we work in partnership with first nations and that the government has an open dialogue with those communities.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comments.

Everyone in this chamber agrees that sexual crimes are among the most horrible crimes in our society and that we definitely have to tackle this problem.

The government is constantly telling us that we also have to protect victims' rights. We all agree on that point, but I would like to ask my colleague if she discovered any measures in this bill that focus on victims' rights.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie for his question.

The government does often speak about victims' rights and singles them out when introducing bills. However, it seldom does so appropriately. I can cite an example for my colleague. The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime often appears before the Standing Committee on Public Safety. She has repeatedly told us in committee that when this type of bill is introduced we must not forget that victims' rights are automatically tied to social reintegration. It is extremely important that we not forget that.

It is sad to see that the government opposite often forgets this notion in the bills it introduces, especially when people like Sue O'Sullivan tell us over and over that we must not forget that there are very important aspects of victims' rights that are often ignored by the Conservative government.

When bills are introduced, we must ensure that all aspects of victims' rights are addressed. There are many and, unfortunately, the government often plays politics with this issue, and that is very sad. We need to listen to what the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has to say and include her recommendations in bills such as this one.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to 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.

The NDP thinks that this bill should be sent to committee to be studied. There are many proposed measures, and we want to ensure that these measures are good ones, that they are constitutional and that they will prevent such incidents. We want to have an in-depth study. We hope to have this discussion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Our NDP justice critics, our colleagues from Gatineau and La Pointe-de-l'Île, will ensure that this bill is properly studied in committee.

This is an extremely important issue. Great care must be taken with bills on topics as important as protecting our children. The committee is equipped to do this and to ensure that we create the best legislation we can to counter this threat. I truly hope that the committee is helpful and that its report shows how effective this bill is.

The NDP is carefully examining the proposals in this bill. We must focus on creating laws that will provide clear ways to protect our children. This means working with experts on the ground and with public safety professionals. I want to point out that we cannot play politics with this kind of bill. Crimes against children are the most heinous of crimes. I think that all members of the House would agree on that. Sex crimes are obviously all heinous, and we are moved by these issues. We want to create good laws to combat these crimes, especially against children, who are some of the most vulnerable members of society. We need to protect them because they are our future.

Unfortunately, crimes against children are not decreasing. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Minister of Justice himself pointed out that sexual offences against children had increased by 6% over the past two years. That is very concerning. There has been an increase despite the many tough-on-crime measures that the Conservatives have implemented since 2006. For example, they changed the age of consent, forced Internet service providers to report child pornography, increased sentences for dangerous offenders, and so on. This clearly resonates with this government. Despite all that has been done, there has been an increase in these kinds of crimes, as the Minister of Justice himself said.

It begs the question as to whether stiffer sentences actually prevent these types of crimes. The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan pointed out that what is needed is not just sentences, but also rehabilitation.

How can Parliament, the government, lawmakers as it were, make that happen? We have to make sure that the necessary resources are being provided to the RCMP and for mental health, rehabilitation and reintegration.

For example, we know that our communities need more resources to fight sexual abuse of children. Obviously, harsher prison sentences are not good enough when police resources and aid organization budgets are being cut. We will have to emphasize that when the committee studies this bill.

I also want to bring up what Steve Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, said. He said that the federal government recently announced plans to eliminate the meagre funds provided by Correctional Service Canada. The funds that CoSAs receive from the National Crime Prevention Centre will also dry up this fall. The total annual cost of the program is $2.2 million. Like most community-based victims' services, the CoSA program is not very costly. It has 700 volunteers across the country who meet with offenders after their release and help them find a job and a place to stay. They meet for coffee and help offenders rebuild their lives and avoid reoffending. They help them develop a sense of accountability.

It is important to ensure accountability and reintegration so that once offenders have gone through the correctional system and are released from prison, they are able to return to society and not reoffend. Furthermore, it is important to know that there is now a publicly available list of offenders who are returning to the community.

It is not that simple, though. Most people alleged to have committed a sexual offence against a child or minor are known to the victim. Indeed, the alleged offender was known to the victim in 44% of cases, and even a family member in 38% of cases. It is important to keep that in mind. It is not just a question of protecting our communities from strangers. Too often, it is someone the victim knows. We must therefore also ensure accountability and protection, which have to do with prevention. To ensure prevention, we need to make sure that police forces, communities and mental health services have the resources they need.

I would also like to talk about the work done by Circles of Support and Accountability, whose budgets have been cut. The mission of these organizations is to make communities safer and reduce the number of victims of crime by supporting and helping people who have committed crimes, as well as holding them accountable, so they can begin to lead responsible, productive lives. They do so in partnership with correctional and police services, in order to make communities safer and help offenders reintegrate into their communities.

It is crucial to point out that, according to studies, the rate of sexual recidivism is 70% lower among those who take part in a Circle of Support and Accountability. According to another study, these kinds of support groups help reduce the rate of recidivism by 83%. What we need, more than this bill, is resources in the community to really protect our children and our communities in the future, as the government claims it wants to do.

We will examine this in committee and see what comes out of that.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

There was one part that she unfortunately did not have time to talk about. By increasing sentences and thus inmates' incarceration, the government will do what the Quebec justice minister deplores: they will incarcerate these individuals in provincial rather than federal prisons. That has been criticized in Quebec and probably also in other provinces. The government is going to offload onto the provinces the additional cost of these prison terms, which are sometimes pointless, as my colleague mentioned, while prevention and rehabilitation are probably the best solutions.

Once again, the federal government is going to wash its hands of the financial implications for the provinces. These federal decisions are going to increase the financial burden on the provinces. What does my colleague think of that?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these are very serious crimes. We have a duty to protect our children and prevent this type of crime in the long term.

It is not enough to pass a bill that will incarcerate more people, because it does not provide the resources. By incarcerating more people in provincial institutions the government is giving more responsibilities to the provinces, but not more resources.

The same thing applies to federal prisons. The government is making cuts to Correctional Service Canada. As my colleague from Alfred-Pellan pointed out, a federal prison was transferred to the province. The government is making cuts to the prison system without providing the necessary resources. It is also making cuts to prevention and rehabilitation.

Thus, this bill is very worrisome because all it does is increase sentences. There are no long-term prevention or rehabilitation measures.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, parents know that at some point, actually at many points, they have to give their kids over to the care of other people, whether it is for sports, education, just plain care, whatever the case may be. It becomes obvious that prevention is an important part of all of this. I appreciated that in my colleague's speech, she referenced concern with the issue of prevention. I also appreciated what she talked about as the specific social circumstances in which sexual abuse crimes occur against children, and it is often by people they trust, being friends, neighbours, et cetera.

Is there anything in this bill that addresses those circumstances? The minister cited the 6% increase in sexual crimes against children, and yet I did not read anything in the bill that addresses the specific social circumstances in which these crimes often take place.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely good point. Indeed, this bill does not address those circumstances at all. There will be a database of previous offenders, but how would that help with reintegration? That would not seem to do anything to make sure that those people do not reoffend. It is essentially just a warning for the community; it does not address that problem. All of the other things are just stricter penalties, minimums, and raising the maximum sentence.

Those things are meant as deterrents, but when we consider the specific social circumstance of the offenders being people that children know in their social circles and sometimes in their families, there is absolutely nothing to prevent these kinds of situations from happening. That is extremely unfortunate, and it is why we need to make sure that there is good funding for organizations, mental health, and society as well.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-26 and its very long title. It is a bill that touches on a number of different pieces of legislation, including the Criminal Code and Canada Evidence Act. It would enact a high-risk child sex offender database act as well, and there would be consequential amendments to other acts. We are at second reading here and it seems that we might as well support this bill's passage to committee so that we can hear from some experts on this subject.

As suggested by its title, this act seeks to do a number of things. It would increase the maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds. It would increase existing mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children. It would clarify and codify rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences. It would require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children. It would ensure that spouses of the accused are considered competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases. As well, it would increase reporting obligations on sex offenders who travel outside Canada and would establish a high-risk child sex offender database act and other things. It is a far-reaching bill.

What we note about this long list of acts and amendments to existing legislation is that it is more of what the current government has done in the past, more of a turning of the screws in the same direction. We note that the Conservative government in this and previous Parliaments has already implemented new mandatory minimums for assaults where victims are under 16 years of age; it has identified grooming activities as a criminal offence; it has made the use of computers and other telecommunications devices for the purpose of making arrangements to commit a sexual offence against a child an offence; it has amended the sex offender registry already; it has increased the age at which a person can consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16; it has required Internet service providers to report child pornography; and it has increased sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders.

Apart from the wisdom of any of this, the problem presented by this bill is that the Minister of Justice has provided information that sexual offences have increased by 6% over the last two years. That statistic is offered by the minister in support of further action in support of this bill. However, at least equally if not more so, that statistic calls into question the approach taken by the current government to date. It seems to suggest that mandatory minimums, longer maximums, increased scrutiny and surveillance via a sex registry and so on may not be effective responses to this issue. This is worrying because of the particular nature of this issue of child sexual assault or child sexual abuse. It is so incredibly harmful and hurtful, leaving lasting emotional and psychological scars on its victims, things that victims have to live with and cope with for the rest of their lives if they can or do in fact live out their lives with the hurt caused.

I am the son of two teachers. When I grew up, chat around the dinner table was always about education and teaching and what was going on in the classroom. However, I married a criminal lawyer who did criminal defence work for 14 years before moving over to the crown side, where she has been for six years. There have been lots of stories brought home about crimes that she has had to be engaged with, either on the defence or prosecution side. They are not happy stories, and for the most part not stories to be talked about around the dinner table.

However, there is a story that I would like to tell that is not related to the many stories I have heard through my wife, but through my own experience as a kid. I had the great fortune of growing up in a lovely, picturesque, and historic Canadian town with a particularly a beautiful downtown in which to live. It is an older and largely more affluent part of the city, filled with old limestone houses, occupied mainly by professionals, doctors, lawyers, professors. As it turns out, it was also the hunting ground of a child sex predator, the choirmaster at one of the local cathedrals. He was a much trusted, highly respected person in the community. He taught music not only through the cathedral but to other kids in town as well. I happened to be a member of one of his non-secular choirs for a very brief time, because I do not have much of a voice.

Things started to come undone for the choirmaster in 1990 when two families in the congregation alleged publicly, in stories in the local paper, that the choirmaster had sexually molested their sons and that the abuse was directly linked to their sons' suicides. Both boys had hanged themselves, one as a teenager and the other as a young man working on his doctorate at an ivy league university. I played tennis with one of those boys as a kid, and I went to nursery school with the other one. It is a small town.

Ultimately the choirmaster plead guilty to charges involving 13 boys over a 12-year period. Over time more victims came forward, making this story much longer and an ever more complicated one. In retelling the story there may be wounds that get reopened, but I want to use the story to the complicated social facts that surround such matters.

The fact that it is a long and complicated story ought to give us all cause to pause and think through carefully our response to this issue. How does someone like this win the trust of both kids and parents? How does a predator like this find support, even from some of his victims? How does he retain the loyalty and support of a significant portion of the congregation? How did he get pardoned, at one point in time? How does he win the support of a new community and congregation?

These are all questions that in the abstract need to be addressed if we are to protect kids from this kind of predatory behaviour. We need to understand better how these things work, because most of this story is about the pain and harm caused to the kids, harm that includes the suicides of two young men full of great promise.

It would seem useful to take this bill to committee so that we can have that discussion and call before the committee witnesses who, based on their expertise and experience, can speak to some of the issues raised in a case like one I referred to today.

Perhaps some parts of this bill will be considered useful by those who testify at committee, but the statistic offered by the minister in support of Bill C-26, that there has been of a 6% increase in sexual offences against children, suggests to me that we ought to be discussing at committee other types of resources to counter the sexual abuse of children, other methods of prevention, other precautions to take, other forms or opportunities for education for both parents and kids.

In the 2011 budget, the Conservatives announced $250,000 in funding over two years as part of the federal victims strategy for programs to protect children. Budget 2012 included $7 million over five years to fund child advocacy centres, as well as limited funding for victims services organizations. This seems paltry in light of the scope and seriousness of the problem.

Can the government tell us whether any of this was effective? We know by way of Steve Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for the victims of crime, that the circles of support and accountability program was very effective. That is being cut through cuts to Corrections Canada and national crime prevention centres.

In a hopeful moment, a moment in anticipation of a good faith response by the Conservative government, it seems to me that it would be useful to put this bill and other thoughts and ideas before committee for the purpose of looking not only at the bill specifically, but also at the issue more broadly with a view to thinking through what we can do as members of Parliament to prevent further stories like that of the sexual predator I told today, and to prevent the harm that predators like him do to kids, to prevent the kind of pain that would cause two young men to take their own lives.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very heart-rending speech. Obviously, personal experience is what this bill is attempting to address.

The member clearly supported the need for criminal provisions where we can deal with those who are detected. However, as I understand it, he and other colleagues mentioned the fact that we sadly have a rising rate of sexual offences against children.

I wonder if the member could expand a bit more on whether or not there is a need for the government to also bring forward a compliance strategy when we have reforms to the Criminal Code so that we can also talk about resources and new programs to prevent these kinds of offences. He seems to feel that it is equally as important as punishment after the fact.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. While I support this bill moving forward to committee for review and study, I am happy that I managed to convey in my speech that this bill is clearly missing an entire response to the issue of child sexual abuse. Clearly, prevention is the critical piece in all of this. It is what one would hope for and think of as any response to criminal activity. First and foremost, this fundamentally has to be be about preventing these things from happening and harming and hurting people.

The story I told is a story about irrecoverable loss, not just for the boy and young man who ended up committing suicide, but for all of the victims, and there were many in this set of circumstances. These are things that people have to live with for the rest of their lives. They have to live with the pain and hurt. To the extent that we, as members of Parliament, can focus our attention on ensuring that young people in this country never have to experience these things and that kind of pain and hurt, and not have to live with that for the rest of the lives, surely we must put our minds to doing just that.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin my speech on 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.

The Conservative government does not have a very good record to start with. We can look at Bill C-10, a piece of legislation that substantially amended the Criminal Code. When that bill passed, the Barreau du Québec said, “Canadian justice is in mourning [and the passage of Bill C-10] is a setback for Canadian criminal law”. Such is the Conservatives' record on changes to the Criminal Code.

If we look at this from a financial perspective, as I was saying earlier, the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs announced two days ago that the cost of incarcerating offenders has increased by 11%. That expense was passed on to Quebec without the federal government assuming any of the additional cost, which ultimately was created by criminalizing certain elements that were not criminal before and likely could have been resolved either through prevention or by providing support to the people concerned, to ensure that they did not reoffend.

Finally, we have a different vision of the fundamentals of society than the Conservatives do. We want to live in a safer society, with less crime, and we want to be able to prevent crime before it happens. That is not the case for the Conservatives, who always adopt repressive policies and think that imposing longer prison sentences will resolve the problems associated with crime in Canada.

That brings to mind something that the member for Gatineau often says. When an offender is about to commit a crime, he does not bring the Criminal Code with him to read up on what the maximum penalty will be, whether there is a mandatory minimum sentence and whether the trial judge will be able to have him serve his sentence in the community or not. That way of thinking is is completely absurd and out of touch with reality.

The crime rate is dropping as a result of a number of factors, including demographics. The population is aging so crime is dropping, which makes sense in any society. If we want to reduce crime, we need to invest in prevention and in rehabilitation when a crime has been committed. However, the ideal would be not to have criminals or crime.

With this bill, the Conservatives are falling into the same repetitive cycle of behaviour that they always fall into, which involves a simplistic and very election-minded approach. This approach consists of convincing Canadians that they are going to do away with crime by imposing longer sentences, criminalizing activities that were not crimes before and imposing minimum sentences, or in other words, by not putting any faith in the justice system.

One of the methods used by the Conservatives involves playing on the public's frustration. It is true that we are all sometimes frustrated when criminal convictions are not in line with what we personally think they should be. We may be angry about verdicts that we think are too soft considering the seriousness of the offence. However, the Conservatives always play on people's emotions and hope that they will not have any faith in the justice system.

Along the same lines as imposing mandatory minimum sentences or increasing existing minimums, the Conservatives also discredit the judiciary and undermine judges' ability to evaluate criminals' personal situation and ability to reintegrate into society. They play on people's sense of fear, as they do with other issues, especially safety-related issues.

We will clearly support this bill at second reading, because it contains a number of worthwhile provisions that should be studied. My colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice will examine the validity of each of these provisions. However, we still need to remember that our objective should be prevention and that the federal government, which is responsible for enforcing and developing the Criminal Code, should also assume the financial costs associated with creating these new crimes.

One recent example was Bill C-36. Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to speak to that bill because the Conservative government yet again limited the time allocated for members of the House to debate this bill. It was the same thing. Bill C-36 created a criminal offence that had never before existed in Canada's history, in order to give the public the impression that the government was fixing a criminal problem. The problem was one that had never existed before. This bill takes us to the next step in the criminalization of society. The government invented a criminal offence that did not exist before. In a few days, in December, we will see whether police forces enforce this new provision of the Criminal Code that now criminalizes activities that were not crimes previously.

Bill C-36 was one specific example. However, we are seeing the same behavioural pattern here. As was the case with Bill C-36, the government is using children to get the public on board. Of course, the NDP has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to crimes against children. That is a no-brainer, and I think that any Canadian in their right mind would condemn crimes against children. That is a no-brainer. Everyone agrees, and no one opposes virtue. However, the Conservatives always use sensitive issues and bring children into the mix so that their bills will pass. After a more detailed study in committee, the hon. member for Gatineau will tell us whether these provisions are constitutional or not. I leave that to the experts. What I have seen, as someone who is not an expert, is that the Conservative government always wants to criminalize and increase prison sentences instead of focusing on prevention and rehabilitation. Above all, it does not want to assume the related costs.

I will end there and leave it to the experts. It is important that Canadians realize that the government cannot always use children as the justification for getting bills passed. These bills are smoke and mirrors, not a real amendment to the Criminal Code that has been deemed necessary by experts and people who work on these issues.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments when debate on this bill resumes.

The House resumed 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.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague from Saint-Jean spoke today about this bill from the Conservative government.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about my earlier comments on reintegration. I know that he cares a lot about reintegrating offenders in this country and protecting the public and our children from any potential repeat offences.

What does my colleague think about the Conservatives' cuts to public safety within our prisons? Since 2012, the government has cut millions of dollars in this area. Furthermore, more and more rehabilitation and reintegration programs are unfortunately being eliminated because the resources are no longer there to run them.

Could my colleague share his thoughts on that?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for her question.

That is something that we have a tendency to neglect because when we talk about safety and protecting children we tend to look only at the punitive side, and that is the trap that the Conservatives are trying to have us step into.

In fact, my colleague is right. There is a financial aspect to this problem. Increasing the number of people who go to jail, as she mentioned, increases incarceration costs, not just for the federal government in the case of sentences of more than two years, but also for the provinces for sentences of less than two years. We have seen that. An MP asked a question today about the 11% increase in prison costs.

It is our duty to speak out against the cuts made by the Conservatives to federal prisons and the fact that not only are these cuts not warranted, but the federal government is also not investing the money it should in prevention and rehabilitation. These are two things that will allow us to have a safer society.

We cannot live in a society where there are more people incarcerated. We want to live in a society where everyone has their place, where those who commit a crime, however horrible, can reintegrate into society and participate in and contribute again to the economy and our society. That is the society we want to live in.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising again to ask a question because I love to hear the hon. member for Saint-Jean. I know that he is very familiar with a number of files and speaks very eloquently in the House. I am pleased that he is speaking to Bill C-26 today.

I would like to mention another topic that is related to Bill C-26 and many other bills as well, unfortunately. I am talking about the fact that there are so many time allocation motions. Debate is often limited for various bills in the House. I am also thinking about committee work, which is very difficult at times, particularly, and oddly enough, when we are talking about bills that have so many important details to discuss with experts.

Can my colleague talk about his experience in committee, namely how it works, and the wish list he is hoping to take to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when this bill is studied?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Yes, time allocation motions are a problem that we have had in connection with many bills. There have been so many that I have lost track.

In the committees that I belong to, the Conservatives have always tended not to give us enough time to study bills. That was especially true in the case of Bill C-377 at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, but it happens in other committees too.

There is another technique the Conservatives use often: meeting in camera. Anytime they want to discuss something and use their majority, but they do not want the conversations to be public and available to Canadian citizens, they go in camera.

My colleague is absolutely right: we have to condemn this situation because we are here to discuss serious bills that will have serious consequences for the lives of people in jail and for the public purse. That is true not only at the federal level, but also at the provincial level.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this government bill, the short title of which is the tougher penalties for child predators act, which does not make Canadians any safer but does make the penalties longer and more arduous for those who commit these crimes.

I would say at the outset that we support this bill and will be supporting it at second reading in order to study it at committee. We need the ability at committee to determine whether the provisions in this bill would make Canadians safer. We need the ability to hear from experts in the criminal justice system, experts on sexual crimes, and experts in the medical and psychological systems to determine whether this kind of approach is an effective way to deter crime and treat criminals and to make sure that this kind of crime goes down and becomes less of a burden on Canadian society.

Since this Parliament began, we have noted that when the Conservatives become tired of something or when they determine, for some reason unto themselves, that they wish to end debate, they institute time allocation. As this bill was introduced first in February, nine months ago, we hope that time allocation will not be necessary. It is entirely within the government's control to determine when this bill will be debated. The government controls that agenda. To suggest that we have had enough time, when we have only debated it on a couple of occasions since it became a government bill, is a phoney and unbelievable approach, so we hope that will not happen.

Because this is an important measure and issue, we also hope that at committee, there will be lots of time to hear from lots of witnesses who can talk to us about what changes to this bill may be necessary. We also hope the Conservatives will listen to those witnesses at committee and to the opinions of the experts in the field about what needs to change in this bill.

We have also noticed an alarming tendency on the part of the Conservatives to suggest that only changes they agree with are changes worth making and that any changes proposed by any member of any opposition party are absolutely not to be included in any bill. Their tendency in everything, unless there is a clerical error, is that they are right, without any kind of criticism on the part of the opposition parties.

The NDP has a zero-tolerance policy for crimes of a sexual nature against children. That goes without saying. That has been our policy and our practice. What we would rather do is prevent them. Prevention of crimes against children is obviously the most important thing we should be doing. If it can be shown that increasing penalties, which is what this bill essentially does, would somehow prevent crimes against children, that would be great. I would love for that to be the case. I would want to hear what the experts have to say, but up to this point, that has not been the case.

Clearly, we have seen a government whose approach has been to increase penalties, to increase jail time, to introduce mandatory minimums, to introduce longer maximums, and to introduce a period of time spent in jail as a way of protecting Canadians.

All the people who are convicted of these crimes will get out. They will all be released into society. Unless and until appropriate medical and psychological treatment is given to these individuals while in prison and beyond, we will have done nothing to make Canadian children safer by introducing mandatory minimums.

The facts speak for themselves. Since 2006, there have been new mandatory minimum prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code offences, including assault, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault where the child is under 16. The government has made it illegal for anyone to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence against that child; made it illegal to use computers or other means of telecommunication to agree with or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child; strengthened the sex offender registry; increased the age of protection, the age at which a young person can legally consent to sexual activity, from 14 to 16 years of age; put in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory; and strengthened the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders.

These are all acts that have been taken up by the government since it came into power in 2006. What is the effect of longer sentences and more minimum sentences and of introducing new crimes to the Criminal Code? The effect has been that the crime rate has actually gone up for these offences.

The Minister of Justice stated, on supplementary estimates, that sexual offences against children has increased 6% over the past two years. According to Statistics Canada, that is pretty much the only category of crime that has gone up in the past years. In fact, in the case of sexual violations against children, luring with a computer rose 30% in 2013. Sexual exploitation rose 11% in 2013.

I am not the expert who needs to testify at the committee on what these effects will be, but I can see with my own eyes, from the evidence the minister brought to the supplementary estimates and from the evidence that appears to be in the Statistics Canada reporting, that the Conservatives' actions to date have had a negative impact on the number of crimes of a sexual nature being reported by children.

If one bashes one's head against the wall and it hurts, does one keep doing it? Does one actually keep taking the same wrong-headed approach every time, thinking things will be different? Does one keep introducing more mandatory minimums or longer jail terms and think it will be different? That is one of the things we hope to discuss at committee. One of the things we expect the experts will tell us is that it is not necessarily so.

What is necessary, both in prison and after, is treatment, both psychological and medical, of the individuals to properly return them to society, because they are going to be returned to society. It is not good enough to just say that we will keep watching them. That may make the Conservatives feel good. It does not make me feel good to know that individuals who need treatment are not getting it.

I am the father of seven children and the grandfather of four. The four grandchildren are young Canadians under the age of 15. I do not want them facing an increase in child exploitation. I do not want them to feel less safe in Canadian society as they get older. I want them to feel more safe. If the actions of the government do not do anything to make them more safe, then we are doing something wrong.

We have seen the government do other things that make Canadian children less safe. We want to make sure, when we study and debate this bill, both here and in committee, that we are doing things to it to correct the mistakes the Conservatives have made in the past. We want to actually make a world in which children can feel safe and are safe, not one in which the Conservatives can go to a fundraiser and say, “Look at me, I have just increased the mandatory minimums for sexual offences”, if, in fact, the rate of sexual offences goes up.

No one wants to be a victim. No one wants their children to be victims. If we cannot prevent the crimes in the first place and prevent recidivism by treating these people once we have found them, then we have not done our society a justice, and we have not done our children a justice. We will not have corrected the wrongs to our society.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for York South—Weston for his reasoned and effective speech on the bill.

Beyond the bill is the lack of resources, under the Conservative government, that actually counter criminal acts, whether it is the abuse of children or others. We have seen the government slash the National Crime Prevention Centre. It has severely cut back on crime prevention programs generally across the country. It has cut back on addiction treatment and on community resources to protect children from abuse. All of these areas where it has slashed resources have resulted, as we have seen and as the Minister of Justice has admitted, in an increase in the overall level of abuse.

The government is now providing another bill, which we will support and certainly will look at. However, beyond that, everything else that would lower the rate of abuse against children has been slashed and destroyed by a government that either does not understand or that thinks that somehow tax cuts are more important for the rich than protecting children.

With all the cuts to crime prevention and the ending of the National Crime Prevention Centre, does the member for York South—Weston think the government has an overall approach that would contribute to doing what I hope we all share, which is lowering the rate of abuse against children?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. Sex crimes are driven not by greed or financial gain but by impulse, and those impulses need to be watched and controlled and treated. By removing the resources from our communities, from our prison system, and from our corrections system generally, those individuals who could be helped are not being helped. They are not being corrected. Just putting them in jail does not change their behaviour. Announcing to the world that the penalties will be higher is not going to change behaviour. What are needed are more resources than the government has put forward and a return of the kinds of resources that are required to prevent these crimes in the first place.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He talked about the fact that the Conservatives have acknowledged in recent years that incarcerating various types of criminals for longer periods does not reduce crime rates. I would like to know how he interprets that.

Does he believe that the Conservatives are simply thinking that if they leave criminals in prison longer, at least they can delay the day when the criminals come back and reoffend in society in the absence of any help or support, or does he think that this is purely about electioneering and they are using children because they know that people are sensitive to that subject? Is this simply a way to win votes, because they know that everyone is incensed at the thought of children being abused?

I wonder whether he could share his opinion and what he thinks of the Conservatives' strategy. Is it a question of delaying criminals' release from prison or is this an electioneering strategy that exploits people's emotions?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the tough-on-crime agenda of the Conservative government belies the fact that it is not smart on crime. We on this side of the House want to be smart on crime. We want to prevent crime before it happens instead of merely announcing that we are going to punish people for longer.

I, as a Canadian, would rather that there were fewer crimes against children than more, but the evidence is there in front of us, and the minister agrees, that sexual crimes against children have gone up. As Statistics Canada reports, it is one of the very few crimes in the entire ambit of crimes against Canadians that has actually gone up in the past few years. The overall rate of crime is going down generally, but somehow, we have it wrong, and I mean “we”, because we are all parliamentarians. We have not successfully managed to find a way to treat the crimes in such a way as to prevent their happening in the first place or to prevent the recidivism that goes on when these criminals are eventually released.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-26. As members know, the NDP will be supporting this bill at second reading to send it to committee. We believe that legislation can play an important role in preventing child sexual abuse, as it can help to deal with and counter crimes in a whole range of areas. However, where we disagree with the Conservatives is that this is all that it does. I will be pointing out in the 10 minutes I have that a number of other actions that the Conservative government has taken actually contribute to a rise in certain criminal rates.

Legislation can certainly help to deal with it in part, but when the resources are no longer available, there can be a counter effect. As the justice minister has admitted to, the government, which has been in power now for almost a decade, in this case has put in place a range of things that have tragically contributed to an increase in the rate of sexual offences against children.

New Democrats will be supporting the bill going to committee. As we always do, we will be bringing forward reasoned amendments, after listening to witnesses who come before committee, to make sure that the bill is as good as it can possibly be. That is our responsibility as parliamentarians. We would all agree on that.

This bill is important, and we hope that the government will consider amendments at the committee stage. We certainly hope that government will take a very thoughtful approach on this bill. This is an extremely important issue, one that all Canadians feel parliamentarians should be working together on to achieve and resolve, which is lowering the rates of child sexual abuse in Canada. There is no doubt about that.

To do that, the government can offer legislation, which is what it has done. New Democrats have responded by saying we will support this legislation going to committee, and now it is back to the government side to accept the amendments that will be offered. New Democrats work very hard in committee. We thoroughly examine the evidence and bring forward the best possible amendments. However, tragically, we have seen in case after case that the government has refused those amendments. It has simply said that it is not going to accept any amendments on bills.

As a result, so far this year, we have seen that half a dozen pieces of legislation have been rejected by the courts. If the Conservative government had accepted the amendments offered by the NDP, the legislation would not have been recalled. However, because the government has an “our way or the highway” attitude on so many pieces of legislation, the courts have said that legislation does not hold water and cannot undergo the careful scrutiny that courts require.

New Democrats hope that this will not be the case on Bill C-26. Since we are supporting it going to committee, we hope that the government will say it will look at the reasoned amendments that can make a difference to improving this bill.

However, it is not just a bill and not just legislation that will lower the rates of child sexual abuse in this country. The rise of 6% over the last couple of years is a very disturbing trend.

What are the other decisions that the government has made that may have contributed to that rise? I mentioned earlier, in speaking with my colleague from York South—Weston, about the ending of the National Crime Prevention Centre, a centre that did good work across the country in seeking to achieve a lowering of the crime rate. That is something that has happened over the last few years, and I have risen in the House before to speak to it. It is a slashing of funding. There have been tens of millions of dollars that have been taken out of crime prevention funding. This is wrong-headed, for the simple reason that for every dollar invested in crime prevention programs—and other countries have seen this, the Scandinavian countries, and countries in Europe—we save $6 in policing costs, courts costs, and incarceration costs.

Let us look at that formula. As a society, we had $100 million in crime prevention funding slashed by the current government, and yet for every dollar that was invested in crime prevention, we saved $6 as a society in policing costs, court costs, and incarceration costs. However, even more, the greater benefit is the fact that the crime is not committed in the first place. We are not only investing our money prudently, as a society, to reduce the crime rate, but we are also avoiding having the victims in the first place. That has to be the result that all members of Parliament share. Certainly on this side of the House, the NDP has been the foremost proponent of investing significantly in crime prevention programs. We see the benefit of not having the victims in the first place, and we see the benefit of investing that $1 to save $6 in policing, court, and incarceration costs.

For the government to slash crime prevention, as it has over the last few years, has been simply wrong-headed, and I believe we are seeing some of the results. There is a 6% rise in child sexual abuse when crime prevention is slashed. I believe there is a connection between those two things.

That is not all that has been slashed under the current government. The government side may say that it is a question of resources, but the reality is that we all know what the government is investing in heavily right now: tax cuts for the very wealthy in society. We believe that veterans deserve services, that costs to veterans should be paid, and that crime prevention should be invested in. Those are choices on the part of the government. We also make choices as a society. However, rather than investing billions of dollars in tax cuts for the very wealthy, we say that it makes a lot more sense to put that money into things like supporting services for veterans, as we saw earlier today, or putting crime prevention programs in place.

It is not just crime prevention; it is also addiction programs that have been slashed under the current government. That is another tragedy. The government is slashing both crime prevention and addiction treatment. At the same time, the Conservatives are asking why child sexual abuse rates are rising. However, that is not all. The community resources that are supposed to counter the abuse of children have largely been cut as part of the overall cuts to crime prevention programs.

As well, the whole issue around policing is something on which we disagree with the government. The government promised to put more police officers on the streets of the cities across the country, and the current government has manifestly failed in providing that kind of support. When I talk to my local police officers, a problem that they continually raise is the underfinancing of policing.

On that note, there is the issue of the public safety officer compensation fund, an NDP initiative that I brought forward in 2006. The Conservatives voted for it. It is now 2014, yet we still do not have a public safety officer compensation fund in place to support the families of fallen police officers and firefighters who die in the line of duty. The Conservatives voted for it before they became government, and they have now waited for eight years and have still not brought that in. On this side of the House, we say that is a shame. The public safety officer compensation fund needs to be put into place, and the families of fallen firefighters and fallen police officers need to be taken care of.

The record of the current government goes beyond the concern that the Conservatives seem to have expressed in bringing forward Bill C-26. They brought forward the bill, which we support, but they are not doing the other things that could do much more, along with the bill, to reduce the child sexual abuse rates in this country. The current government has put in a number of pieces of legislation on a wide variety of issues, and yet it is not having the impact that was obviously intended. That is because legislation is only a small part of how we combat crime, reduce crime rates, and put in place an effective crime prevention strategy.

We are going to be in an election in less than 11 months. In fact, the election date is already set for October 19, 2015. Canadians will be putting the current government aside and looking for a change of agenda in Ottawa. That is what the NDP offers. We will be investing in crime prevention programs. We will be investing in and keeping commitments around policing. We will be putting in place addiction treatment programs. We will be providing community resources to counter abuse of children. That is the kind of platform that people can get around, to ensure that we lower the rates of abuse against children.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the wide-ranging remarks of the House leader of the New Democratic Party, which were often not on the child predators act that is before the House.

This shows the fundamental difference between that side of the House and this side. They cling to only one element of sentencing and criminal justice principles in Canada, which is rehabilitation. That is important, but as the Criminal Code also outlines, principles like deterrence, denunciation, and public safety are also very important to our criminal justice system. I find it shocking that those principles, particularly when we are dealing with crimes directed at children, would not be paramount to principles of rehabilitation and the sorts of things that are the traditional areas for the NDP in criminal justice.

When it comes to crimes against children, I would ask the House leader of the NDP whether it is not more important to ensure public safety, denunciation of the actions, and those elements of our sentencing and criminal justice system.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary obviously did not listen to a single word that I said. This is why Canadians are so put off by the government. He did not listen to a single word. He has his talking points that respond to something that the Conservatives thought the NDP might say.

We have had a very thoughtful discussion and statements from this side of the House, yet the parliamentary secretary went back to his talking points rather than listening to what we have been saying.

What we have been saying, of course, is that legislation is a part of dealing with that, but if the Conservative government had actually taken effective measures, the child sexual abuse rate would be going down, not up.

Why is it going up? As I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives have cut and slashed crime prevention funding. They have not kept their funding commitments to police officers across the country. I hear about it often in my riding from police officers themselves. They have cut community resources to counter abuse of children. They have slashed addiction treatment. They have repeatedly taken actions that are not helpful to what should be our common goal.

I am sure that he shares the ultimate goal. I have no doubt that reducing child sexual abuse rates is something that all parliamentarians share. However, when the Conservatives then say, “All we need to do is this. We don't need to do anything else. We can slash crime prevention rates. We can opt not to keep our commitments to police officers. We can reduce resources available that counter sexual abuse of children—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has more than exceeded his time for reply to that question.

The hon. member for Alfred—Pellan.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster is passionate about this issue. Unfortunately, there are a number of things this bill does not address.

My colleague mentioned the Conservative government's chronic underfunding, which leads me to what happened at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during a study on social finance. The government's idea was to offload some of its responsibility for funding community organizations and relegating it to private organizations. It is ridiculous.

In committee, we heard from representatives of a very effective support agency that works with people who are at risk of reoffending in our communities. They gave us a good example of their work.

Among other things, they ensure that there is social support for the people who seriously reoffended in the past, including committing sexual offences against children. Funding helps the agency to reduce, even completely eliminate, the rate of recidivism. Unfortunately, the Conservative government decided to stop funding that agency.

Beyond the fact that the agencies working to prevent recidivism are underfunded, what does my colleague think of the government's decision to stop funding these agencies?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan does excellent work in the House and I very much appreciate her question. She focused precisely on what I have been arguing for the past several minutes.

The Conservatives made cuts to all the programs that help reduce the rate of abuse against children in Canada. The bill is not really going to change much. The government must change the other measures it has taken and it should start by restoring funding for these programs.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to 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. As we can see, this bill affects a number of laws and amends many sections in those laws. It is rather complex and therefore it is vital that it be properly studied by experts in committee.

The NDP will support this bill at second reading stage so that it goes to committee. We hope that the Conservatives will be open-minded enough to listen to the testimony of experts and the many people—I hope—who will come and speak about the important subject of protection for our children and families. Consequently, I hope that the Conservatives will open their ears and are receptive to what they have to say.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am not qualified to speak about the technical aspects of this file, but I do want to say that it is important to understand that this bill must be amended and improved in committee and that we must sit down with experts on the subject. My colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who does an excellent job, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and other NDP members have clearly explained this.

We will study these proposals carefully. We hope to see measures that will protect our children in practical ways and make our communities safer, not measures that just sound good at news conferences. That is not the goal. We also know that our communities need more resources to deal with the sexual abuse of children. Increasing prison sentences is not enough. That is the direction we hope to take in our discussions. Of course, the devil is in the details. When it comes to the Conservatives' laws, it is important to listen to the experts in the field.

I am the member for Drummond, and I represent, to the best of my abilities, the people who voted for me and all the other residents of Drummond. It is very important to focus first and foremost on prevention, as other members who spoke before me also mentioned. Obviously, we need to prevent crime. That is very important. Many organizations and stakeholders in the greater Drummond area are doing excellent work. I would like to name a few to show what a dynamic community Drummond is, and to give members an idea of what the Conservative government could do to support these organizations.

CALACS La Passerelle de Drummondville was one of the first organizations to work on addressing sexual violence. It provides free and confidential assistance and outreach services. These services fall under three main categories, namely help and outreach, advocacy and prevention. I am mentioning this organization because it also does prevention work. It informs victims of the recourse available to them, helps them deal with the consequences of a recent or past assault, helps them take back control of their lives, and supports them in whatever steps they decide to take, whether it be medical, legal or some other type of action. This organization also visits schools—which is wonderful—to teach children and youth about verbal, psychological and sexual abuse. Boys often learn how to behave toward women and girls at a young age. It is all about prevention, learning and education. This Drummondville organization and its staff are doing excellent work. I am very proud of them and wanted to mention the contribution they make to my region.

CAVAC is another organization that is doing excellent work in Drummondville, in central Quebec. It provides assistance to victims of crime, their loved ones and even people who witnessed a crime, whether it is a break and enter or any other crime. The staff at the Centre-du-Québec CAVAC can help people cope with what they are going through and the physical, psychological and social effects. They can also help people seek compensation for damages.

The CAVAC in Drummondville has an excellent team that provides amazing support to the public. The team is made up of a criminologist and three forensic social workers, and we are proud to have them there. They are able to provide excellent follow-up for victims. It is important to be there to support them.

Another important organization is Commun Accord, which focuses on alternative justice. Traditional justice is not needed in all cases, and that is where Commun Accord comes in. Its mission is to foster the development and practice of alternative justice and educational activities to promote harmonious relationships within the community. This is another organization that focuses on education and prevention among young people and the general public.

We can certainly look at how to bring people to justice, but we also need to look at prevention and education. The Conservative government does not do that at all, unfortunately. All it cares about is its criminalization policy.

I would like to mention another organization, since there are so many in Drummondville. La Rose des Vents conducts prevention and awareness activities in schools and the community in order to demystify and condemn violence and show how it affects both the victim and the aggressor. The workers answer people's questions, tear down prejudices and support caregivers. They also try to identify victims before it is too late.

That is another important organization that works very hard and stresses the need to break the taboos surrounding sexual violence, for example. There is currently a campaign encouraging people to talk about incest and break that taboo. We need to support these organizations, which do incredible work in our communities. I am proud of these organizations, the workers and all of the volunteers.

I would be remiss if I did not mention one last Drummondville organization and highlight the diversity and significant contributions of these organizations. L'Envolée des mères is a new organization that started up in Drummondville in early 2014. It is an 18-unit housing project that will give young single moms and their children access to housing, support, employment and education, and to a nearby day care centre. This support will help young moms with all kinds of problems who want to take control of their lives.

I am proud to say that l'Envolée des mères asked me for a personal donation and I was delighted to oblige. It was my pleasure. One of those units will be named after Jack Layton, and I am very happy to support it for young mothers. Social housing was a priority for Jack Layton.

I am very pleased that one of the units will be named after Jack Layton thanks to my personal donation and my contribution to the community. I made a small contribution to that community, and I am very proud of that. I would like to thank all of the organizations in Drummondville for the hard work they do in the name of prevention and education.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I heard from my colleague across the floor that it is all about provincial program funding for rehabilitation. To put it simply, I come from an RCMP background where we had to study, know, and enforce the Criminal Code. In Parliament, and as parliamentarians, we create laws that go into the Criminal Code to protect young children. I have had to investigate many sexual assaults. It is not pleasant to see young children who have become vulnerable to the predators on the Internet who are going after them. It is great that my colleagues want to support this going to committee stage, but what they should be doing is supporting it throughout by unanimous consent. This is a good bill for all the kids out there. For once, let us do something right. Will my colleagues support it unanimously?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am sure he has seen some pretty nasty things, since he has had to investigate crimes of a sexual nature. I completely agree that we will be supporting this bill at second reading to send it to committee.

Why send it to committee? As I said at the beginning of my speech, this bill amends many sections of existing laws. I am not an expert in criminal matters, far from it. I therefore do not want to pass judgment on the fundamental principles of this bill. However, I do want the experts to have a chance to do so. It is important that the bill go to committee so that the experts can analyze it.

The member is quite right; it is important to take action once an offence has been committed so it does not happen again, but prevention and education are also important to stop crime before it happens.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond. I was especially touched by what he said regarding community involvement in dealing with these issues. He also told us about the excellent work being done by community organizations in Drummondville. That is so important.

This brings me to a question I had about the community aspect of the reintegration of offenders after they have served their sentence.

What does my colleague think that offenders need in order to reintegrate into society? Does he agree with the approach taken by this government, which has been making cuts to the very important funding needed by communities to support reintegration?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan who is doing excellent work on her files. I listened to her speech earlier, and she has a very good grasp of this issue.

Of course, we need to do this one step at a time. We must first ensure that prevention and education are being offered in our communities and in our schools, and then make laws after that. I definitely understand the need to have strict laws. However, once offenders have served their sentences, they must be reintegrated. It is therefore important that they have proper support from the time they enter the correctional system. There needs to be training and programs in place that facilitate social reintegration and follow-up. This will help keep people safe. Indeed, that is what we are talking about here—keeping our children and our families safe.

I fully support the position of my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who knows this file very well.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, November 24, 2014, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would request consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.