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.

[Carole Morency]

One, it's a drafting protocol. In terms of why Bill C-75, as introduced, does not propose to increase the maximum to two years less a day for those over 16, it would have involved repealing the provision that is there now and then re-enacting the provision with the mandatory minimum penalty. In this case, as the minister has said before and as I answered before as well, this bill is not addressing mandatory minimum penalties, pending a broader review of sentencing issues writ large.

In Bill C-46, there were some mandatory minimum penalties that were omitted and that this committee adopted, again, to put back into the package. Those mandatory minimum penalties, including $1,000 fines, are everywhere in the impaired driving provisions and have not been subject to charter challenges in the way that higher MMPs in the other areas are.

This committee may also know that under the previous government, Bill C-26 had increased all of the maximum penalties for all child sexual offences to two years less a day. At that time, that was done knowing that it was at a different maximum than it was for adults as well, in section 271.

The chair is correct in the sense that it's there already, but as a drafting protocol, that would be a factor that influences government bills in terms of how they're prepared and produced.

Opposition Motion—Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those who know me well know I am a man of few words, so that should be more than sufficient to get across what I need to say today.

I rise to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code, specifically the high-risk sex offender database. What is interesting, as was pointed out by my colleague, is that this bill was introduced by the Hon. Peter MacKay back in February of 2014, and because Parliament rose for the summer for the 2015 election, it did not become enacted into law.

Bill C-26 summarized a number of things. It amended the Criminal Code, among other things, and there is a whole list of them there, which are great amendments in the bill. More specifically, it enacted the high-risk sex offender database to establish a publicly accessible database that contains information police services or other public authorities have previously made accessible to the public with respect to persons who are found guilty of sex offences against children and pose a high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature. It is important to realize that what is intended in that specific piece of legislation is not information that will be made up. It is already available to the public.

One of the reasons this database is great is that in my previous life, I, too, as the hon. member across the way pointed out earlier, was involved in ensuring that as a police service, we advised our public when there was a high-risk offender being released in our community. We went through the process of ensuring our public was made aware of it. What was interesting about that process was that not everybody was aware of it at the time we made it public, and they had no other place to go find it unless there was a database available. One of the key aspects of this amendment is that there would be a database available for the public, who missed the police initially advising the public of such an offender, where they could find that information out.

What is interesting is that this piece of information, this publicly accessible database, contains specific information about persons who are found guilty of sexual offences against children and who pose a high risk to reoffend. The only information the database would contain under the legislation would be information that the police officer has previously made accessible to the public. This includes the offender's name, any aliases, date of birth, gender, physical description, a photograph, description of the offender's offences, any condition by which that offender is bound, and the name of the city, town, municipality, or other organized district in which the offender resides. That is information that is rightfully available and should be rightfully available to the public.

As I said, not everyone is available to hear the first pieces of information the police provide in a media release to the public. Some people move into a community after that release is done. It would be great to have a database available so that parents can access it and find out who and where these people might live.

The other interesting thing is that before this information is put into the database, the offender is notified of the intent to do so. That is also a critical component, as we found out in the past. In my previous life, this was something that we did on a regular basis.

What is unfortunate is that this did not receive the royal assent, as the Parliament session ended for the summer and an election was called. No money could be allocated for this, as it was not up to the government at that point in time for the implementation.

My suggestion is that the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the current government to implement this act. It has had two years to do so and we still have no action on it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the previous Parliament. I did work for former MP Jean Crowder as a constituency assistant, so I did have some awareness of what was going on in the previous Parliament. The member is correct that we supported Bill C-26. However, as I identified in my speech, we did have a few issues with the bill. We tried to move some specific amendments to make it stronger, in our view.

As to what has happened since June 2015 until now, I did mention in the conclusion of my speech that Public Safety officials and the RCMP are currently conducting a review. They are studying further the possible merits and drawbacks of such a public database. I think we owe it to those officials who have made a career out of public safety, who study this issue, and who know the best practices to conduct their review and hopefully report those findings back to the House so that we can then proceed with an informed decision.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Niagara Falls and I serve on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights together. In the short time I have gotten to know him, I know him to be a man who treats these issues with sincerity and he cares about them.

The motion before us looks at a bill that was passed in the previous Parliament, Bill C-26, which received royal assent on June 18, 2015. That act created what was called the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act. The motion before us revolves around that act, whether it is operational, has had the funding, etc.

I want to state how important it is for us to protect our children from predators. I am a father of twin daughters and lucky to have a third one arriving later this year. I know all members in the House, whether Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc Québécois, or Green, are very sincere in wanting to protect our children. I take that as a starting point. We want to ensure the policies and legislation coming out of this place are in the best interests of all Canadians and all children.

As long as the sexual exploitation of children continues, we need to come together in this place to find effective ways to prevent and eradicate child sexual exploitation. I will note that New Democrats voted in the last Parliament for the Conservatives' Bill C-26 because of the importance of the issue. However, we were very clear that we were disappointed with the legislation as the Conservative government promised action, but there was no new funding to implement it.

The Conservatives are now in opposition and accusations are being made about the Liberals, that the same problem exists, that there is no funding to implement the law.

The New Democrats have always had a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children, and that has not changed. I speak for my entire caucus when I say that. We are disappointed that the Liberals and Conservatives are stuck in this argument that fails to address some of the key problems.

There have been cuts, followed with years of lack of funding for the prevention of sexual offences against children. The funding has not been there to reduce the risks of recidivism. What is good about this debate is that we now have a chance to discuss how important it is to protect children from sexual predators.

The committee heard from many witnesses in the previous Parliament that tougher sentences would not solve every problem. We need the resources immediately to counter sexual abuse against children.

When the Conservatives moved their omnibus crime bill in the previous Parliament, the NDP helped move the provisions that dealt with sexual offences against children through faster than anything else. Members of the NDP have introduced private members' initiatives with a view to preventing the sexual exploitation of children. One of the major changes was to make it illegal to use a computer to organize an offence against a child.

The NDP also fought for the Circles of Support and Accountability, an organization that works to reduce recidivism. Circles of Support and Accountability's numbers are impressive. One study found a 70% reduction in sexual recidivism for those who participated in the program compared to those who did not. Another study found an 83% reduction in recidivism. The program dramatically improves public safety, while not being prohibitively expensive. Despite the success of such an initiative, its funding was cut by the previous Conservative government.

When the committee did the study for Bill C-26 in the previous Parliament, we brought forward some evidence-based amendments. We asked that it be explicit that the database not be used to identify victims.

We also moved an amendment that would make the minister provide an annual report to Parliament on the effectiveness of the law. As I have mentioned many times in the House, this goes to the ability of this place to hold the government to account for the programs it is operating. We felt that providing this annual report to Parliament would allow parliamentarians to judge the government's effectiveness of the program, to hold it to account, and to possibly provide the pressure to initiate changes that might be needed. We clearly want to know that our measures are effective, and we should see evidence of that fact. Unfortunately, those well-meaning amendments at the time were rejected by the Conservative government.

Some of the initiatives taken by the Conservatives, when they were in government, starting in 2006, included the following. They implemented new mandatory prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code offences. They 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. This is a process that is often referred to as grooming. They strengthened the sex offender registry. They increased the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. They also put in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory.

These were all big steps to stop the sexual exploitation of children. The issue was that in 2014, the minister of justice at the time came to the committee and stated that sexual offences against children had increased by 6% over those past two years. This statistic obviously puts everything that was done into question if we have no resources. It is easy enough to change a law, but if that law is not backed up by the resources, it quickly becomes meaningless.

I will highlight a point here. Over a five-year period, when the Conservatives were in power, the RCMP withheld some $10 million in funds that were earmarked for its national child exploitation coordination centre and related projects. These cuts were made partly because the RCMP had to conform to some of the deficit reduction action plans that were in place. They were made as the number of child exploitation tips from the public was increasing exponentially.

I want to talk a little about the sex offender registry now. Canada's sex offender registry is currently only available to police. Federal prisons are required by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to notify police of the release of a high risk offender, which can result in a community notification. This generally means a police media release that contains basic information about the offender and includes a photograph. Depending on provincial legislation, police can publicly disclose information if there is a significant risk to the public. However, the Conservatives are arguing with today's motion that the public should have access to more information on who is living in their communities.

I want to look at the example that is employed by the province of Manitoba. It has a community notification advisory committee. It is made up of people from the criminal justice and mental health systems who have the expertise to determine whether an offender is likely to commit further crimes. It has representatives from the general public, Winnipeg and Brandon police, Manitoba public prosecutions, Manitoba corrections, Correctional Service of Canada, and Manitoba health. All of these agencies work together.

After a thorough review of each case, the committee recommends measures that can range from no notification to full public notification, all based on the circumstances of the individual. It can even recommend that police take other steps to ensure community safety, such as surveillance.

The Conservatives have been arguing that the public should have open access, but if we look at the measures that have been instituted in Manitoba, we already have an example of where there is an effective program that can institute a wide range of measures, depending on the circumstances.

The Sex Offender Information Registration Act is the act that established the national sex offender registry. As it stands now, the national database containing information on convicted sex offenders is managed by the RCMP. It provides access to current information on offenders to assist in the prevention or investigation of sexual offences. Under the current system, those convicted of certain sexually-based offences have to register with the police, and periodically update their personal information such as their name, address, the type of offence, and a recent photograph.

Police currently notify the public when they deem there is a risk that warrants it. As I have stated, other jurisdictions have drafted their own protocols or legislation regarding public notification, and there are certainly some fine examples that we can be looking at.

As I mentioned in my introduction, the legislation that was passed under the previous government, Bill C-26, made it possible for the government to create an online public database. The Conservatives, with this motion, are pushing the Liberals to go forward with this publicly available database. However, there have been some issues that have come up with the implementation of said database.

An internal memo to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, by his officials, which was obtained recently by the Canadian Press, mentioned that a number of concerns have been raised, and that there was support for dropping the idea of a public database. The memo indicated that officials recommended proceeding with elements of the legislation that impose new reporting requirements on registered sex offenders, and allow for better information-sharing between federal agencies.

Officials suggested Public Safety Canada and the RCMP undertake a review and consult interested parties for a fully informed assessment of the proposed new database, and then to develop options for the government. It is important these issues are dealt with before we go forward with sweeping changes that might not be effective in our fight against the sexual exploitation of children, which I will again repeat in this House is fully the goal of every member here.

Just to look at some of the judiciary impacts, in the province of Quebec its bar has long held the position that a publicly accessible registry could cause many unwanted societal consequences. In 2003, the bar argued that there were risks of vigilante-style attacks, a propagation of fear, and a creation of a false feeling of safety. Another issue with the federal registry is that there is no national definition of a risk of recidivism. The current assessment of risk is different between the provinces, and if we are going to make a national public database, it should be based on a common definition of recidivism rather than a patchwork quilt.

I want to do everything we can to protect public safety, which includes properly funding initiatives to put an end to child exploitation. The issue here is that there is not really any evidence that making the registry public would enhance public safety either by increasing arrest rates or by predicting the location of future offences. The police already have all of the relevant information in the current registry, and they are responsible for protecting public safety by using that information. We await the results of the ongoing review by public safety officials and the RCMP, who are at this moment studying further the possible merits and drawbacks of a public database.

I will conclude by saying this is a good opportunity for us in the House to have a discussion on how to best end child sexual exploitation. I will repeat that the NDP has always had a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children. We need an effective, well-funded regime that is based on evidence, not talking points. I look forward to hearing more from my colleagues from all parties in the House on this issue.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing forward this motion about our government's commitment to protect our communities and especially our children from sexual violence.

I will repeat what I said in the question earlier. There are certain issues that demand the best of us, demand us to rise above partisan rancour and have mature dialogue about an issue close to all of our hearts: the sexual exploitation of children in violent attacks. The devastation it visits upon young lives is something I wish I knew less about. For someone to survive that and get to a healthy place is an enormous challenge.

As government, it must be one of our top priorities to ensure the safety and well-being of our children. It demeans this place when anyone casts aspersions on any member for doing anything other than trying to provide that protection. It is incumbent upon us in this debate, and in any debate on such a sensitive matter, to avoid the temptation to oversimplify issues or to seek an opportunity to gain a partisan point when such matters are happening.

The debate that has been happening today has been much more constructive. Unfortunately, I feel that some of the debate during question period was much less so.

Before I turn the specifics of the motion, it is important to begin with some needed context and a clear understanding of how the current system works when it deals with sexual offenders.

Canada currently has very robust measures in place. The national sex offender registry was established in 2004 under then prime minister Paul Martin's government by former public safety minister Anne McLellan. It was created as part of the Sex Offender Registry Information Act, which is a key element of the current system. Under this act, sex offenders have a legal obligation to register with police so they can be monitored in the community.

The database is maintained and kept up to date by the RCMP. It contains important identifying information about convicted sex offenders across Canada, such as physical description, name, address, and place of employment. Sexual offenders are included in this database upon conviction, and police forces across Canada have access to it. This helps police officers prevent and investigate crimes of a sexual nature. It ensures sex offenders are properly registered and monitored and it serves as a vital tool for identifying high-risk offenders.

When a high-risk sex offender is released from prison, the Correctional Service of Canada notifies local law enforcement and provides police with detailed information about the individual. This information includes a document such as the offender's criminal profile, records of institutional behaviour, and psychological and psychiatric evaluations. Local police can then notify the public.

A key point to highlight in this regard is that most provinces and territories already have legislation or policies in place with regard to public notification about sex offenders. The majority of police forces across Canada already publicize information on any released sex offender whom they consider to be a potential danger to the public. Canada already has a registry the police can use to keep track of sex offenders. Most Canadian police forces already alert the public about sex offenders in their communities.

That brings me to the notion before us and the new database the Conservatives are calling for in accordance with the former Bill C-26.

Most of that legislation has already been brought into force, and our government is currently examining the sections of the law that allow for the creation of this new public database. I should point out that while the Harper government adopted legislation to create the database, it actually never created it. When the previous government introduced it at the end of its 10-year mandate, it never put any money into actually setting it up.

I have heard fears expressed by some hon. members in the House, including in some of the comments made here today, that this database might be dismantled. One cannot dismantle something that has not been set up. The term “cancelled” was used. One cannot cancel something that has not been created.

The question is not whether to take it apart but whether to set it up. Our government is giving the matter careful consideration, taking into account the needs and concerns of victims, the importance of helping parents and communities protect their children, the evidence about the utility and effectiveness of sex offender databases, and the experience in other jurisdictions.

Obviously this move is first and foremost about public safety and protection. When former Bill C-26 was being studied by the justice committee in 2005, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection expressed the view that public notification about sex offenders in high-risk cases could be of great assistance to families and communities, and the victims ombudsman stressed the importance of ensuring that victims have access to meaningful information so they feel “informed, considered, protected, and supported.”

We recognize these concerns, and I specifically share them. The criminal justice system must always keep the needs of victims in mind and we must always do everything we can to prevent further victimization. The best way to do that is by implementing criminal justice policy that has been proven to keep the public safe and is evidence-based.

To that end, we are aware of the questions that have been raised about the effectiveness of public notification systems and whether such systems might have unintended consequences, some of which I referred to in my questions earlier.

One practical concern is that public databases might encourage sex offenders to go underground or be less likely to comply with police registries, which can have an adverse effect on the effective monitoring of these individuals and be quite detrimental.

Sex offenders may also move to jurisdictions where they are not as heavily monitored, and that could be of particular concern with the proposed database we are talking about today, because the law would only allow this new database to include information that has already been publicly released. It would be of no help whatsoever in jurisdictions like Quebec and New Brunswick, which do not have any public notification systems, and it could actually encourage sex offenders to move to these provinces to avoid public exposure and scrutiny.

Another concern is that people may use a public database to access information about sex offenders for the purposes of vigilante action, as has been in the case in certain jurisdictions. There is the possibility that such an action could be misdirected, especially if information in the database was incorrect or out of date.

At the time Bill C-26 was being examined at committee, the Canadian Bar Association noted the possibility of innocent people falling victim to vigilantism if they were mistaken for offenders. Vigilantes have also been known to target the families of people on sex offender registries. These kinds of concerns need to be weighed against the benefit that a publicly accessible database would bring. We need to examine the evidence to determine, based on facts, whether this proposed database would make our communities safer, and that is exactly the work we are undertaking.

One thing we do know for a fact is that treatment and reintegration programs like Circles of Support and Accountability have been proven effective at reducing recidivism among sex offenders.

Circles of Support and Accountability is a Canadian-made, community-based program that is world renowned for its effectiveness in dramatically lowering rates of recidivism and preventing victimization. It was started by members of a Mennonite church in Ontario and involves some truly amazing volunteers who hold sex offenders accountable, support their reintegration, and protect Canadian communities.

Circles of Support and Accountability works primarily with people who have committed one or more sexual offences and who require support to live a positive, crime-free life. This program has shown time and time again that it leads to fewer victims of sexual predation, which is exactly what each and every one of us in the House wants.

The Harper government had research demonstrating that Circles of Support and Accountability reduced the rate of reoffending for sex offenders by almost three-quarters, from 22% to 5.6%. It is truly almost unheard of for programs to have that kind of efficacy.

As a bonus, Circles of Support and Accountability saves money. Again, the Harper government's own research shows that every dollar invested in the program resulted in nearly fivefold savings in costs to the justice system and to victims. The Conservative government unfortunately cut all federal funding for that program despite its efficacy and despite how science proved it was working.

At the time, Barbara Kay wrote a column in the National Post entitled “Ottawa's curious decision to cut funding to successful sex offender program”. In her words, “The cost [of Circles of Support and Accountability] is modest, the process benign, the burden on the community nil, the harm reduction proven.” She concluded that the government's choice to stop funding appears to be an incredibly misguided decision.

We recently reinstated that federal funding, allocating $7.48 million over five years to the national crime prevention strategy. We have also doubled the annual funding for the national flagging system program. The programs was established to track high-risk, violent sexual offenders and to ensure that prosecutors are aware of potential information regarding an offender's likelihood to engage in violent behaviour. It was recently evaluated and shown to be a very effective way of identifying and tracking high-risk offenders.

As members can see, we are investing in programs that have been proven effective in keeping communities safe, and we are carefully examining additional measures, notably the database that is the subject of today's motion, to better understand the benefits and potential unintended impacts. While that examination continues and while the work of making sure we get public safety right continues, particularly when it comes to our children, we are not in a position to support the motion today.

It is our government's intention to consult with communities, various stakeholders, and law enforcement experts to ensure that we have a firm understanding of the potential effectiveness of this initiative before we decide whether to move forward with its implementation.

We also have to ensure that any future database is compatible with systems already in place in some provinces and territories. Different approaches across various jurisdictions may create implementation challenges, especially since the proposed database would capture only those offenders who are already subject to a provincial or territorial notification. That is why we will be consulting with our provincial and territorial partners. These consultations will inform our way forward on this issue and ensure that we are implementing and funding evidence-based criminal justice policies to protect our children and keep Canadians safe.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and officials in the public safety department will be working very hard to that end over the upcoming months. In the meantime, we will continue to support the existing national sex offender registry as well as proven and effective programs like Circles of Support and Accountability and the national flagging system.

The most important consideration is that the programs we fund and the measures we implement must have demonstrated positive impacts on public safety. This is not a matter of who cares more or less about protecting our children. We know we all care. It is a matter of doing what works best to protect them, not based on a gut feeling, not based on what sounds best in a sound bite, but based on where evidence leads us. Right now we are doing the work of getting those facts so that we can decide whether or not to create this new database, and, if we do, how to best go about it.

This is a highly charged issue, but it is important for the public to know that the systems and controls that we have in place now—put in place in part, as I mentioned, by both Prime Minister Martin and Prime Minister Chrétien and by successive governments—established a framework to ensure community safety, and that when police feel somebody is dangerous, they can be used to notify the community. It is hyperbolic in the extreme to suggest that the only thing keeping our kids safe is this particular database, when in fact the database in question is aggregating existing publicly available information.

On that basis, I think we can have a constructive dialogue about the particular utility of this database, but given the very real concerns that were raised around its misuse, it is only appropriate that we take a prudent and appropriate amount of time to get this incremental piece right. In the meantime, there are a raft of things that we know from evidence we can do and are doing to keep our children safe. I know that is a priority for us and I know it is a priority for every member of this House.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has summed it up very well the challenges parents face under the present law. I believe the law previous to Bill C-26 was helpful. I believe these are important steps. All we are trying to do is to increase that protection that will be available to parents, because we have all heard stories, and I appreciate my colleague raising the question of a particular individual. Parents and people have the right to know if their safety is at risk, and particularly the safety of their children.

I should be clear, it is not just confined to children. There are obviously sexual predators who attack people of all ages. That being said, we have passed that law in Parliament, and I ask my colleagues on the other side to have a look at it, study it, but let us get moving on it.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a couple of points for clarification. Under the previous legislation, if there was a belief that a sex offender posed a significant public safety threat, the authority resided with the local police chief to release that information to the public. Quite frankly, I believe that I have probably done that more often than any other police chief in the country, so I have some experience with this.

The question I wanted to ask specifically of the member for Niagara Falls is this. As I read Bill C-26, it states:

The database must contain only information, with respect to any person referred to in subsection 4(1), that a police service or other public authority has previously made accessible to the public...

The only information that would be contained in this high risk database, to which the member refers, would be information which a police chief, or other public authority, would release to the public based on a threat assessment. Therefore, when the member makes reference to all entries in the sex offender registry, as I read it, that is not what Bill C-26 states, so I would seek that clarification from him.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

moved:

That the House:

(a) acknowledge that Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, received Royal Assent on June 18, 2015;

(b) acknowledge that through two federal budget cycles, the current government has failed to fund and implement this Act, as passed two years ago;

(c) agree on the public safety importance of a publicly accessible high risk child sex offender registry database; and

(d) re-affirm that Canadian citizens have the right to know about dangerous and high risk child sex offenders living in their community and neighbourhood for the purpose of protecting their children, families, and loved ones;

accordingly, the House call upon the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to fully implement Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Under our Conservative government, Bill C-26, also known as the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, received royal assent on June 18, 2015. That was just a few days before the election was called.

I rise in this House to address a recent access to information report in which it states that the Liberal government is considering not releasing the publicly accessible registry names of persons found guilty of sexual offences against children to communities where these individuals reside.

Canadians are disturbed and perplexed by this report. Parents across Canada have the right to know if convicted sex offenders are living in their neighbourhood, so that they can better protect their children. Taking away this tool from parents puts children across the nation at a greater risk.

Under our Conservative government, I am proud to say that Canadian children were fully protected. If the Liberals do not make public the names of these high risk child sex offenders, it will increase the jeopardy under which Canadian children can be exposed.

The Conservative government put that law in place to safeguard children. As I indicated, in June 2015, it received royal assent. A day later, the parliamentary session ended for the summer. The Conservative government, though, set in motion a directive to the RCMP to take the necessary steps to implement the program.

It is two years later, and we have yet to see this database made public. Parents across Canada are justified in wanting to know why the Liberals have not acted on this. If a dangerous sex offender has been released or has moved into a neighbourhood, people should have the right to know. Parents, regardless of their political affiliation, want to be informed. It is the only way to ensure we are doing everything possible to safeguard our kids.

The question really is, why has the government not implemented it? Its legislative priorities, I would suggest, are skewed. It has introduced a bill that ensures that individuals do not pretend to practise witchcraft, and it has banned duel challenges. I do not know about other members, but the last time I checked my neighbourhood, fake witchcraft and duelling in the streets were not an issue.

What would be an issue is if a convicted sex offender moved into the house next door, and that information was not made accessible to neighbourhood parents through our high risk child sex offender database.

The Liberals need to explain this to Canadians. I am at a loss. Again, I pose the question to the government, does the government plan to make this publicly accessible high risk child sex offender database public, and if not, why not?

The other day in question period, the Prime Minister cited that the government was not left with any money from the previous government to implement the registry. This is completely inconsistent with its messaging. The government has been telling Canadians for the last 20 months it has billions of dollars to spend on everything. It would have us believe it has been struck by fiscal conscience, and it cannot justify the expenditure?

It would seem the Liberals have plenty of money to spend on staff junkets to Paris, Washington, and other extravagant trips. It does not seem to have any difficulty spending billions of dollars, and running a huge deficit that will ensure the budget will not be balanced until well after 2055.

The argument that it simply cannot afford to spend money on the high risk child sex offender database does not hold water. How is it the government can defend not budgeting these monies which would better protect our children? Is there a price that can be placed on the safety of our most valuable resource? I think not.

Had the Liberals employed the database after they formed government in 2015, how many children would have been spared such a nightmare? This is the whole idea of putting this forward.

We hear stories all the time of somebody having been picked up and, for whatever reason, the police had not made it known to them. I am the first one to compliment the members of the police and support them, but we have to take this added extra precaution. That is what we are talking about, so we are not reading stories in the newspaper about some convicted sexual predator, who has moved into a neighbourhood and the parents did not know about it. That is what we are saying.

I am not saying the police do not often notify communities, but I want parents to have the ability to go right into the database themselves to make sure these individuals are being watched, and they have the opportunity to know exactly who is moving into their neighbourhood. It is a step in the right direction. The database has been around for some time, but to make it publicly accessible was something new under our Conservative government. I challenge anybody in this House to argue that children will not be better protected if they have this. I challenge them to explain how children would not be better protected if people have the opportunity to check the registry.

I am not in the business of criticizing police members. We support them. They have been a tremendous support for everything we have done, and certainly everything we did as a government. However, this is one more protection we want to put in place. With respect to the question of how this would affect those individuals, I want to see those individuals get help. There is no question they should get help, and I am completely supportive of that.

I do not accept what the Liberals have said, namely, that there was no money for this. First, the election was called a couple of days after it passed. Second, the RCMP is given funds to put these things together, which it has been doing over the last couple of years. Perhaps the Liberals have moved on from the argument that they have no money for this. However, I challenge them to answer this question. Would children, the most vulnerable in our society, not be better protected with a public child sex offender database?

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-247, An Act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident—Chapter 15.

Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)—Chapter 16.

Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits)—Chapter 17.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act—Chapter 18.

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act—Chapter 19.

Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 20.

Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act—Chapter 21.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,—Chapter 22.

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—Chapter 23.

Bill C-63, An Act to give effect to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24.

Bill C-66, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 25.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 26.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts—Chapter 27.

Bill C-555, An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence)—Chapter 28.

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 29.

Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act—Chapter 30.

Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act—Chapter 31.

Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act—Chapter 32.

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations—Chapter 33.

Public Safety

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not be further from the truth. As I said earlier, we have cracked down on perpetrators by introducing new, tough laws. As I have already mentioned, this case is still before the courts and of course we cannot interfere in a case that is before the courts.

The hon. member heard already about our government's plans to introduce tougher penalties for travelling child sex offenders in Bill C-26, which is currently before committee in the other House.

Let me add that the bill also proposes the creation of a public website on high risk offenders. High risk child sex offenders would be identified in the national sex offender registry, which is administered by the RCMP. That information would be made available on a publicly accessible database.

High risk offenders are those who have committed offences identified through the public interest disclosure process, which is administered by the provinces and the territories.

Our government will continue to work with the RCMP and partners at all levels to protect Canada's young people from sexual exploitation. I urge that member to finally get on board with any of our tough on crime measures that put criminals where they belong, and stop voting against them. We want to put criminals behind bars where they deserve to be.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ahuntsic for her question.

Crimes committed against children or other vulnerable populations are some of the most deplorable crimes that one can commit.

The question from the hon. member for Ahuntsic is specific to a case that is currently before the courts. I have been advised that the RCMP in British Columbia continues to support various police services of jurisdiction in Canada where the allegations took place as they continue their investigation. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further until such time as this matter reaches its conclusion in the justice system.

I can, however, speak to some of the many ways that the RCMP works within Canada and with our international partners to investigate and combat sexual offences against children.

Investigations of sexual offences against children are not easy. Offenders commit these crimes and transfer information across borders, both nationally and internationally. That is why this government tabled Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. Should Bill C-26 be adopted, it will bring new obligations for child sex offenders who travel outside of Canada to notify a national sex offender registry registration centre of the date of the departure and return, and of every address at which they expect to stay for any trip of any duration.

The new legislative amendments will also include changes to information sharing between the RCMP and CBSA. These changes will not only help the RCMP in the prevention and investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, but also assist in the verification of registered offenders' compliance to their obligations.

Investigations into sexual offences against children also take a toll on the investigators who see images and videos that can only be described as sickening. Even working in this environment, they do not waver in their pursuit of bringing the perpetrators to justice. These investigators go to work each day, doggedly pursuing some of the world's most heinous offenders, knowing that they are making a difference in the lives of victims, while showing an unbelievable amount of compassion and caring when interviewing or taking statements from victims.

The RCMP ensures that its police officers receive adequate training in sexual assault investigations and have continual access to resource and training material to combat sexual offences against children. The RCMP has developed case management strategies to deal with more complex investigations or offences involving multiple victims, including investigations of sexual offences against children.

The RCMP is the police force of jurisdiction in many different regions of Canada. RCMP divisions have developed directives in consultation and co-operation with their respective attorneys general, health and social service agencies, and child protection workers to ensure that provincial and territorial requirements are fully and accurately reflected in investigational procedures and protocols.

Outside of investigational avenues, individuals applying for employment or volunteer work in positions of trust or authority over children, seniors or other vulnerable persons may have to undergo a vulnerable sector check. These checks verify whether an individual has a criminal record, as well as any record suspensions, formerly known as pardons, for sexual offences.

Our Conservative government wholeheartedly supports the RCMP in its ongoing efforts to find, investigate and bring the perpetrators of these heinous offences to justice. I hope the member will finally get on board and support us with our bill, as well as the RCMP.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment removes the words “if a law enforcement animal is killed in the commission of the offence, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months; or”. The intention of our amendment is to remove the mandatory minimum sentence that this bill introduced. The Green Party is against mandatory minimums on principle and in practice. They subvert judicial discretion, they lead to crowded prisons, and they lead to skyrocketing costs that are inevitably devolved to the cash-strapped provinces. As the Canadian Bar Association has noted quite extensively, they're neither fair nor are they effective judicial policy.

According to the Canadian Bar Association's previous analysis of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, mandatory minimums do not advance the goal of deterrence according to very fair international social science research on the matter. The most dangerous or horrific offenders are already subject to stiff sentences because of the nature of their crimes, and mandatory minimums disproportionately impact minority groups, particularly aboriginal communities, which are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system. I have certainly observed in my own riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North how even now aboriginals are very seriously punished and overrepresented in serving jail terms.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Gillian Blackell]

If a peace bond is taken out against the defendant and the defendant breaches that peace bond, they are currently susceptible to a term of imprisonment of up to two years. This will be changed with Bill C-26, I think it is, which would increase the maximum to four years of imprisonment.

In terms of the new proposed offence of forced marriage, the maximum is five years' imprisonment. Again, that is a maximum. Of course, it would depend upon the discretion of the judiciary, depending on the particular circumstances of the case.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-26.

Like most members on this side of the House, I am a bit concerned. We will support this bill at second reading, but I would like my colleagues across the way to keep an open mind so that we can study the bill calmly and ensure that it does what it claims to do.

This bill 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. It is commonly referred to by the Conservatives as the tougher penalties for child predators act.

The Conservatives always try to make themselves look good by saying that they are against child sex offenders and depicting the members from the other parties as defending the offenders. I would say that everyone in the House is against child predators. It is often the government's approach to things that we disagree on.

This bill was introduced over a year ago with much fanfare. We soon realized that the cases mentioned in the many press conferences held by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister were more than 10 years old. The government is using certain cases that are already quite old. This is yet another bill that will essentially increase the existing mandatory minimum penalties. In recent years, this government has amended a lot of laws by adding mandatory minimums.

Furthermore, Bill C-26 increases the maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds. It clarifies and codifies the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences. I should point out that there is currently a case before the Supreme Court regarding the lawfulness of consecutive sentences. In the short or medium term, a lot of the decisions made here could be looked at from a whole other perspective. That is why we need to examine this bill calmly in order to eventually achieve what the government claims to want to do, which is to reduce the number of crimes committed against children.

The bill 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, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence.

What is more, the bill will amend 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.

What is new about this bill is that 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. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts.

The NDP has always had a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children, despite what the Conservatives would have people believe. One of the tactics they used to colour people's opinions with omnibus Bill C-10 was to refuse to split the bill since we disagreed with some of its provisions. Because we planned to vote against that bill, the Conservatives said that we were voting against a bill that goes after sexual predators. They wanted to make it look like we were defending these individuals, which is completely ridiculous.

It seems that it did not work because the provisions of Bill C-10 to implement several 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 sentences will succeed this time when they failed in the past.

That is one of the serious concerns that I have about this file. Many Conservative bills do nothing but increase mandatory minimum sentences while claiming to solve the problem of a particular type of crime, and this does not have the desired effect.

Every time we debate this we ask the Conservatives to back up their statements. Is it because the sentences are not tough enough? If there is an increase in crime, is it because of the sentence or because of anything related to the services? We are given very few clear answers to these questions.

Canada now has 34 million inhabitants. Let us take a look at some sexual crime statistics. In 2008, 241 people were accused of sexual interference; in 2009, there were 574; in 2010, there were 818; in 2011, there were 918; and in 2012, there were 916. The number keeps going up. Still, this is probably the least serious sexual crime in the Criminal Code compared to sexual assault on a child, for example.

For invitation to sexual touching, there were 56 cases in 2008, and that number rose to 206 in 2012. For sexual exploitation, there were 17 cases in 2008, and that went up to 49. It was fairly stable from 2010 to 2012. Of course, we do not yet have any statistics about making sexually explicit material available to a child because that new offence was created in 2012. Luring a child using a computer rose from 54 cases in 2008 to 127 in 2012.

We must not lose sight of the fact that all of these statistics are from years under the Conservative reign. During that time, we have, on many occasions, instituted or increased mandatory minimum sentences. According to these statistics, that approach has not deterred criminals.

Scientists have shown that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter criminals from committing crimes. I agree with criminologists that the likelihood of getting caught is what deters people from committing crimes, not the remote possibility of being sentenced to 10, 15 or 20 years. That does not deter criminals. It is clear that mandatory minimum sentences have had no effect in this area either.

Moreover, RCMP personnel strength keeps dropping. Commissioner Paulson mentioned recently in committee that he has had to shut down large squads that fight organized crime and assign the staff to other positions. That is completely ridiculous. The government is also not giving the RCMP any additional resources to establish this new data bank that it wants to create. It makes no sense. The RCMP will once again be forced to make cuts to other squads in order to get it done.

We have been raising the problem of updating criminal records for years now. We are not moving in the right direction. Let us give the RCMP the power to carry out its mission and stop moving in a direction that is doing nothing to deter criminals.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

I support Bill C-26 to amend the Criminal Code to do a number of things to deal with the scourge of child predators. It would amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and create a high-risk child sex offender database, as well as make a number of changes to the Criminal Code, which I will discuss during my remarks.

This bill is consistent with the zero tolerance policy that my party, the NDP, has with respect to child sexual crimes. Sexual crimes against children have to be dealt with in the most effective manner possible. The issue then before us is whether this bill will do what it says it is trying to achieve, a goal which we applaud. The question, then, is whether some of the mandatory new minimum sentences and the consecutive sentences provisions will do the job or whether judicial discretion, which has been the case before this, will still be a relevant way to proceed.

It will be my argument that although the bill is useful in some regard, it seems to ignore the evidence in a couple of key provisions, evidence that was brought before the committee that studied the bill, which I will refer to during my remarks.

It would increase existing mandatory minimum and maximum penalties. It would amend the Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused would be competent and compellable witnesses where child pornography would be involved.

It would also amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting requirements when sex offenders travelled outside the country. There is some question as to wether the laudable end goal would be achieved in practice. It would enact a high-risk child offender database to establish a publicly accessible database containing information that police would have previously made accessible to the public in other places. We have that under the legislation in my province and in others, I understand. This would create that kind of accessibility across the country.

As I said at the outset, our party has a long-standing zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children and we therefore wonder whether this bill will do the job, protect children and keep our communities safe. For reasons I will describe, I am not sure it will do so. Simply having a tough on crime rhetoric and building more prisons and the like will be ineffective, as many of the experts said when they testified.

It is a question of having the resources available in the communities to do the job, as well as having legislation, which in and of itself is a partial measure. However, if we give people the tools and they do not have the ability to implement them because they do not have the budget, what good have we done except disappoint Canadians in our response? Therefore, are the necessary resources available? The answer appears to be no.

We have suggested that necessary resources be earmarked for the RCMP registry and budgets be made available to support victims. For example, the NDP fought for the Circles of Support and Accountability program only to find out that the measly $650,000 in funding that Correctional Service Canada offered was simply all and that it would not do the job.

CoSA, which is the Circles of Support and Accountability to which I have referred, receives funding from the National Crime Prevention Centre, which will end this fall. It costs $2.2 million a year. CoSA has been extraordinarily successful in having people settle into normal lives. Just having coffee and ensuring people are on track has proven, as it has been studied, to actually work and make a difference. Will there be money available for such programs? I do not think so, and that is what is so problematic about the bill.

If the government really were tough on crime, aside from getting good talking points, it would put its money where its mouth is.

Let us talk about what some of the experts have said about the specifics of the bill and see whether it is evidence-based or merely populous.

The politics are that we all join in wanting to make our communities safer for children, but one of the ways the Conservatives think they will do so is to have what they call mandatory minimum sentences for various offences. A long list is created.

The law requires, however, that there be a proportionate sentence for the offender and the offence. That is what the Constitution tells us. Rather, the Conservatives have mandatory minimum sentences throughout this. The message from Mr. Michael Spratt, who testified on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers' Association to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, is that it will not work. From evidence on February 16, he said:

—the message that's being sent, that minimum sentences and harsher sentences make us safer. You know that's not true. You've been told that before. You've been told that by me, and you've been told that by other experts. The evidence suggests quite the opposite —minimum sentences don't make communities safer. They don't deter the commission of offences. They impede rehabilitation. They are costly, and they can be unconstitutional.

It looks good, sounds good, but it does not work.

Another witness from the Canadian Bar Association, a former crown attorney, Mr. Paul Calarco, said that there were very significant increases in this statute with respect to minimum offences, but stated:

I believe it is far more likely now that there will be constitutional challenges, there will be a finding of gross disproportionality, and that means the entire sentencing regime must be struck down.

Does that sound like a good way to protect our children?

It is not just these people. The famous Professor Anthony Doob from the University of Toronto testified that, “mandatory minimum penalties of this kind do not deter crime”. “Steve Sullivan testified, not only speaking to the ineffectiveness of minimum sentences but also how they can make the situation worse”. So many experts testified, asking and making the same point, that it would be likely to be held unconstitutional, therefore being a waste of time.

Also in terms of lack of evidence regarding the sexual offence registry, Mr. Calarco talked to the fact that:

There is little evidence to suggest that sexual offender registries, as they are presently constituted, prevent sexual assaults. This can be seen in both the reports of the Auditor General of Ontario and the John Howard Society....

[The] bill does not make the prevention of sexual exploitation any more likely. [Its] reporting requirements are unlikely to have any discernible effect on public safety, or will be unenforceable when they deal with matters outside [the] country....

He goes on to say that so many of the people involved in these horrible crimes are in family situations and that it will do nothing for them. A registry would not prevent these kinds of incidents. One of the most important ways to ensure a safe and just society is by rehabilitating the offenders.

Is that not what we want, to rehabilitate as opposed to simply show society's disgust with the crimes at issue?

If the experts and the evidence are saying that these kinds of measures, minimum mandatory sentences, simply will not work, if they are saying that we need more money to do the job, and if they are saying that the registries are not particularly effective, we need to address why in committee the Conservatives rejected the amendments that were proposed by the NDP to try to improve the bill.

The New Democrats suggested, for example, that the information in the new database could not be used to identify the victims and that it should be clarified. That was rejected. It was suggested to require that the minister report annually to Parliament on whether the bill was working. The Conservatives did not want that either. It is unclear why they would reject that kind of accountability. The Conservatives like to brag about accountability in their rhetoric, but when it comes to actually doing the job, they do not want to take those steps.

This is a position that puts us in great difficulty. Of course we support this bill because we have zero tolerance for sexual crimes involving children. However, we are dubious as to whether it will achieve its objectives. We wish it were more evidence-based because the evidence before the committee and before Parliament is that some of these measures will not do the job.

Nevertheless, we stand in support of the bill, wishing the Conservatives would allow a review, as they have done with other legislation, after a certain period of time so Parliament can assess whether it has been effective.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

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

Before I begin, I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their important study of the bill and for moving it forward in an expeditious manner.

Since our government was elected, we have taken tremendous steps forward to ensure that streets and communities are safe places to live, work, and raise our families. We have worked tirelessly for these changes, especially when it comes to protecting the most precious and vulnerable members of our society, our children.

In 2011, we strengthened the National Sex Offender Registry through the implementation of the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act. This legislation ensures that every individual convicted of a sexual offence is automatically registered with the National Sex Offender Registry and must provide a DNA sample to the National DNA Data Bank. It also added provisions to include on the National Sex Offender Registry those individuals who have been convicted of sex offences abroad and who then return to Canada.

In addition to these key reforms, the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act addressed several important operational issues, such as the inclusion of registered sex offenders' vehicle information in the National Sex Offender Registry and allowing federal and provincial correctional services to notify registry officials when a registered sex offender is admitted into custody or is released into the community, including for temporary releases of seven days or more.

Through the Safe Streets and Communities Act, passed in 2012, we strengthened the Criminal Code's prohibitions against sexual exploitation by creating new mandatory minimum sentences for existing offences related to child exploitation and by increasing the mandatory minimum penalty for other existing offences; by prohibiting convicted child sex offenders from having any unsupervised contact with a young person under the age of 16 or having unsupervised use of the Internet or other digital devices; and by prohibiting convicted child sex offenders from being in public places where children can reasonably be expected to be present, requiring them to remain in specified geographic areas, and requiring them to abstain from drug and alcohol abuse or use.

We have also passed legislation that makes it illegal to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence against that child.

We have increased the age of protection, the age at which a young person can legally consent to sexual activity, to 16 years of age, where previously it was 14.

We also continue to keep Canadians safe at the border with our Canada Border Services Agency officers employing effective border policies that prevent sex offenders from entering Canada. In fact, in 2014 alone, referrals provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection concerning sexual offenders travelling to Canada led to 59 instances when the Canada Border Services Agency was able to refuse entry at the border.

We have reached significant milestones to make our streets and communities safer for everyone, but there is still work to do.

Canadians have the right to go about their daily lives without fear, and that is especially true when it comes to the fear of their children experiencing the emotional turmoil of sexual abuse.

In 2013, police reported approximately 4,200 incidents of sexual violations against children. That is a 6% increase from 2012. I am sure that all members can agree that one child victim is one too many.

We must ensure that our focus is balanced and that it protects the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens. This brings me to why I am speaking today. The changes proposed in Bill C-26 before us would allow our government to strengthen measures to better protect our children from sexual exploitation.

First and foremost, there are a number of amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, including requiring that those convicted of contact child sexual offences against multiple children serve their sentences consecutively, one after another, to recognize the serious nature of the offence against each victim; requiring that those convicted of child pornography and contact child sexual offences serve their sentences consecutively; increasing maximum and minimum penalties for child sexual offences; increasing penalties for violations of conditions of supervision orders; and allowing spouses to provide testimony that is often needed to secure convictions in these important cases.

This legislation will also make vital changes to the National Sex Offender Registry by enhancing law enforcement's knowledge of registered sex offenders who are travelling abroad. For example, a registered sex offender would be required to give advance notice of the dates and every address or location at which they expect to stay for travel of seven days or more outside Canada. Those with a conviction for a sex offence against a child would be required to provide this information for all travel, regardless of the duration of the trip.

As part of this legislation, we would improve information sharing about high-risk sex offenders between officials responsible for the National Sex Offender Registry and the Canada Border Services Agency. As it currently stands, officials in charge of the registry are not authorized to share information on registered sex offences with Canada Border Services Agency.

What is more, officers at the border are not able to provide information to the officials at the National Sex Offender Registry to confirm the date of a sex offender's departure and return and where the person has stayed outside Canada. It is of utmost importance that we give our border services officers the authority and information they need to do their jobs and keep Canadians safe.

Therefore, we are proposing that all registered sex offenders be required to report every driver's licence number and passport number they hold and the name of each respective issuing jurisdiction. This would enable officials to disclose this information to the Canada Border Services Agency with other identifying information about registered sex offenders, particularly in cases of high-risk child sex offenders, and ensure that they are included in the Canada Border Services Agency lookout system.

The final element in this bill would further contribute to the safety of our communities by providing the public with access to a database of information regarding high-risk child sex offenders. The high risk child sex offender database act would authorize the RCMP to establish and administer a national publicly accessible database containing information on high-risk child sex offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. Public safety officials are consulting with their provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss public notifications for high-risk offenders and the criteria to be used to determine which high-risk child sex offenders would be included in the database.

In summary, the bill before us today would ensure that penalties for child sexual offences better reflect the serious nature of these crimes. We believe that all child sex offenders should be held fully accountable for their actions.

These heinous crimes cause unimaginable devastation in the lives of children and their families. This is why, as a government, we must do everything in our power to protect our most vulnerable. I am very pleased to know that all hon. members in this House support this important piece of legislation.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

The Liberal Party agrees with the measures in Bill C-26. It is important to take appropriate measures to combat the growing problem of child pornography and child abuse. We have to do something. We also agree that there should be more penalties set out for these situations.

We still do not know when the next budget will be tabled, but can we expect it to include money and resources to address this situation?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. Bill C-26 seeks to ensure that child sex offenders are held accountable for the horrific crimes they commit against the most vulnerable members of our society, Canadian children.

This bill proposes to achieve this important goal through a range of different measures, which include amendments to the Criminal Code and the Sex Offender Information and Registration Act, as well as the creation of a high risk child sex offender database.

The objective of Bill C-26 should be one that all parliamentarians support, yet some have questioned the necessity of the proposed amendments. These amendments are necessary, sadly, because the incidence of child sexual offences continues to rise.

In 2013, police-reported sexual offences against children increased again, this time by 6%, and 2011 and 2012 each saw a 3% increase. As Statistics Canada noted, “...sexual violations against children was one of the few categories of violent offences to increase in 2013.” These numbers are cause for concern, and we feel compelled to reinforce our response to these serious crimes.

Bill C-26 better reflects the seriousness of child sexual offences by proposing to increase mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for many child sexual offences. I can say from personal experience, from meeting these young children in emergency departments, that these are horrific crimes. These children are damaged for life, mentally and physically, and it is appalling to me that some members of the House may not be supporting these most basic protections and may not be supporting how we propose to treat the individuals who perpetrate these crimes against children.

In addition to increasing the penalties for making and distributing child pornography, which is also included in the bill, Bill C-26 proposes to make these offences strictly indictable to better reflect their severity. Child pornography offences have devastating and long-lasting impacts on victims, particularly when they are posted on the Internet, where they can reside for someone's entire life.

The bill would also ensure that it would be considered an aggravating factor to commit an offence while subject to a conditional sentence, order, parole, or statutory release.

To assist in preventing future offences by known or suspected child sexual offenders, Bill C-26 proposes higher penalties for those convicted of breaching supervision orders. It is our responsibility, once those offenders are released into the community, to ensure that supervision orders imposed on them are observed and that breaches of conditions imposed to protect children result in serious consequences.

To achieve this objective, Bill C-26 proposes to increase the maximum penalties for breaches of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds. These types of orders often contain conditions intended to protect children. Maximum penalties for breaches of conditions of any of these orders would be increased from six to 18 months if proceeded on by summary conviction and from two to four years if proceeded on by indictment.

Our government is committed to ending sentence discounts for child sexual offenders. To that end, Bill C-26 requires courts to order, in all cases, that sentences imposed for child pornography offences be served consecutively to sentences imposed for other contact child sexual offences. Bill C-26 would also ensure that offenders who sexually abuse multiple children do not receive sentence discounts just because they are sentenced at the same time for offences involving multiple victims.

Bill C-26 would clarify the text of the subsection of the Criminal Code that contains the general rules regarding concurrent and consecutive sentences. Its current wording is the result of an amalgamation of rules that predate Confederation and, as such, require clarification and modernization.

Bill C-26 also proposes to codify certain sentencing rules applicable to the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences, such as the imposition of concurrent sentences for offences committed as part of the same criminal transaction, also referred to as the “same event or series of events” rule.

Bill C-26 also proposes to codify certain sentencing rules applicable to the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences. By way of example, one such rule provides for the imposition of concurrent sentences for offences committed as part of the same criminal transaction, also referred as “the same event or series of events” rule.

However, courts have also acknowledged that consecutive sentences should be imposed in certain circumstances even if the offences in question were committed as part of the same event or series of events. Bill C-26 would recognize two of these circumstances. An offence committed while fleeing from a peace officer would be served consecutively to any other sentence arising out of the same event or series of events, and a sentence imposed for an offence committed while on bail would also be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed.

Bill C-26 would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of individuals accused of child pornography offences are compelled witnesses for the crown. In some situations, the testimony of an accused's spouse may be required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. An example would be a case in which child pornography was found on a home computer.

Our government recognizes that criminal legislation alone is an incomplete response to child sexual abuse, and the criminal justice system's response to sexual violations against children must be multi-pronged. Bill C-26 forms an integral part of that response. I must say that I am also particularly pleased that our government has allocated over $10 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime. These centres assist in the recovery of children and youth who have undergone this incredible trauma.

As I can say from personal experience with the children that I have met, these resources that are being made available now through child advocacy centres across the country are needed. We as a government are focused on a multi-pronged approach that uses legislation and enforcement to not only make sure that the perpetrators of these crimes are held accountable but also that these young victims of crime receive the support they require so that they can rehabilitate and have prosperous lives.

I hope that all members of the House will support this important legislation to protect children at third reading.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. It is more than just passing legislation. Bill C-26 has the support, from what I understand, of all members of the House. I do believe that all members recognize the importance of the issue, and we are voting in favour of and passing the legislation.

However, there is a great deal of difference between this side of the House and the government side of the House in terms of what the government is doing to provide the resources that are necessary and demonstrating the leadership that is necessary, if I could focus on this point, to work with the different stakeholders, to deal with the issue of child exploitation, whether on the Internet or in the communities, whether dealing with socially dysfunctional families in our communities to those troubled youth who are having a difficult time because of circumstances that they have found themselves in, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is so much more that we could be doing. That means working with the different groups, the non-profits and others. It means working with the different levels of government at the municipal and provincial levels and developing a more comprehensive plan to deal with this very important issue. This is something that the leader of the Liberal Party is committed to doing and that our caucus and, I suspect, other caucuses are attempting to do. From the Liberal Party's perspective, we take this issue seriously and we challenge the government not only to present the budget but to deal with issues of this nature in the budget, along with middle-class jobs I must say.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to conclude my remarks on Bill C-26. As I indicated, the Liberal Party supports the bill and recognizes that it would have a positive impact in our communities.

We like to think that in addressing the issue of child exploitation, it involves more than just bringing in legislation. We want to see a government that is prepared to allocate the resources necessary to work with the different governments and support our many different non-profit and other organizations in our communities and throughout our country that deal with the issue of child exploitation, especially when we look at the ways it has expanded.

I will conclude my remarks by very briefly commenting on how technology has been used to advance something that is so abhorrent and unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians, and that is the sexual exploitation of our children. This problem is a growing concern. I understand that in the last couple of years we have seen a 6% increase in child exploitation through the Internet. I suspect it is even higher than that.

There is so much more the government could be doing and should be doing to try to resolve an issue that has such a profound negative impact on our children in all regions of our country and in all the socio-economic strata of our children. There are some children who are put in vulnerable positions more than others and we need—

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 a third time and passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House to comment on very important issues facing Canadians today. Certain social policy issues have been there for a number of years. Yesterday we spent a great deal of time talking about ISIL, as an example. Today we have before us an important piece of legislation that deals in a positive way with some steps forward on the issue of child exploitation. Once again, we have an issue before the House that is of critical importance. Canadians have an expectation that the government will do whatever it can to have a positive impact on a very important social issue.

I would like to take a different perspective on the debates and discussions that I have heard thus far on Bill C-26. First I would like to clearly indicate that the Liberal Party does support Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. We see this as a move in the right direction. However, in dealing with the issue, there is a lot more to it than just bringing forward legislation.

They say “the proof is in the pudding” or “actions speak louder than words”. Quite often we find that the government's actions have fallen short in dealing with the important issues that Canadians want the government to deal with.

We hear a lot about child sexual exploitation. There is a great deal of growth in the Internet aspect of child exploitation. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I hope to get some time to reflect on that toward the end of my speech.

For now I want to talk about the social conditioning, what is actually taking place in our communities. The issue of exploitation has been there for many years. We have seen a significant increase in that exploitation as the technology of the Internet continues to expand with access to child videos. These children are being exploited in a way that is absolutely and totally unacceptable by the standards of true Canadian values.

Yesterday we were talking about out heroes, members of the Canadian Forces, whether male or female, who are out there defending us and executing what we, as legislators and as Canadian society, believe is important. They are heroes. We have other types of heroes as well. We talk about the RCMP and the fine work that they do. We talk about other law enforcement agencies. There is a special group of law enforcement agents that I would like to single out. These are the individuals who are at the ground level having to fight child exploitation, in particular sexual exploitation, day in and day out.

I have had the opportunity to personally meet a number of police officers or law enforcement officers who have had to deal with this issue. One in particular talked about having the unfortunate responsibility of having to view literally hours and hours of images and how horrendous these images are, whether in the form of a still picture or a video production. We have law enforcement officers in Canada who have to do this horrendous work in order to ensure that justice is brought to society, in particular for our victims, and that those who are perpetrating this horrendous crime are brought to justice.

I recognize the efforts of those law enforcement officers and others who are engaged on the ground in protecting some of the most vulnerable in society. As far as I am concerned, they should be applauded and recognized as heroes. It is not an easy job, as I have indicated. Other members have made reference to this profession and the responsibilities of it.

I would like to speak to the issue of social conditioning and what takes place in our constituencies. I will cite an example of what I believe is a huge success story. Marymound, which happens to be located in Winnipeg North but has been in Manitoba for about 100 years, recognizes that there are different forms of exploitation and that it has taken place for many years.

On a couple of occasions over the years, I have had the opportunity to visit Marymound. I have toured the grounds and have participated in some discussions on exactly what Marymound does. I would emphasize how wonderful it is to have a special group of people who make a difference in the lives of youth.

I will give members a sense of the responsibilities of Marymound. There are many different types of families, some of which are dysfunctional, where guidance is not provided to children. Often children end up being on the streets and as result, they are exploited. Some individuals are really challenged in accepting what most Canadians would perceive as acceptable behaviour. Marymound is a home that provides an alternative in the short term for many of these challenged young ladies who are trying to get their lives in order.

On one of the tours of the facility, which spoke to me in a very loud way, I met a young lady. The social worker taking me on the tour introduced me to her. She indicated that the staff were so proud of her because it was one o'clock in the afternoon and she had not hit anyone. Imagine the condition in which that individual grew up. I would guess she may have been in her late teens, maybe 18. If we were to get a sense of the clients of Marymound, I suspect we would get many horror stories about the many different types of exploitation that happen in our communities today.

We can talk about child prostitution. We can talk about the drugs in our communities. There is a reason why children are encouraged to take drugs, and in good part it is about sexual exploitation. We can talk about individuals who have been exploited over the Internet.

Why do I bring up Marymound? I believe there are many wonderful organizations, some of which have been well established for 100 years, like Marymound. Others have been established over the last five to ten years. There are other organizations that want to establish foundations or support groups so they can be there for the victims of exploitation, to assist them in their recovery and give them a better chance at success in life.

These are the types of groups and associations that government should look at to see how we can invest in the resources to support those young ladies. It is predominately young ladies, but there are also many young boys who are exploited, whether it is through the Internet or on the streets of many of our communities across Canada.

These are the types of things the government should be addressing in a more progressive fashion. We are disappointed that the issue has not been dealt with or received the type of debate in the House. It has not received the sense of co-operation with the different levels of government working together to have the desired impact that Canadians want on such a very important issue.

Let us talk about exploitation. If I wanted to get very specific with the government, one of the greatest, if not the greatest, growth areas in child exploitation takes place on the Internet. There is no doubt about that. In the last couple of years, we have seen a 6% increase in exploitation. This exploitation ranges from the age of four, and I sadly suspect even younger, to young ladies and men aged 17 to 19.

I talked about those heroes, the law enforcement officers. We have a situation where the Government of Canada has an exploitation unit of sorts, which is supported by the RCMP in monitoring and looking into what is taking place on the Internet, tracking down some of these perpetrators, and trying to shut down Internet sites that are promoting child exploitation. They are out there, trying to identify those pedophiles who are causing so much harm to our young people in all regions of our country.

A budget has been allocated for that special unit and it has been constantly challenged to underspend that budget. Depending on who we talk to, I have heard very specific comments about a challenge to all government members and ministers and their departments to underspend their budgets. We know for a fact that the government continues to allocate certain blocks of money, then stands on a pedestal, says that it is committed to fighting x and that it has allocated this kind of money to it. However, in reality, it constantly underspends. There has been no exception, not even when it comes to fighting sexual exploitation online taking place today and is a growing industry in Canada.

The RCMP has underspent its budget by approximately $2 million annually. That is more than $10 million overall that could have been used to shut down the sites that cause the problems and to deal with critically important prosecutions of individuals who mastermind and take advantage of these young children.

The Liberal Party has raised these issues inside and outside the House. It is completely unacceptable. The government needs to recognize that this is an important issue about which all Canadians are quite passionate. They want the government to do what it can.

It is great that we have legislation before us that will have a good, but limited, impact. We support the legislation. However, we want the government to do more than just bring in legislation. This is an election year, and I suspect that is one of the reasons why the government is motivated to bring in some of the legislation it has introduced in recent months.

I and others have cited the RCMP as one issue, but there are others. In committee we had great explanations about the cuts to the Circles of Support and Accountability program. The federal government has cut back on a program that has been very successful. Professionals came before the committee and testified to the degree of its success.

It has been indicated that 240 sexual crimes never happened because of this program. This is according to a government study. When the government talks about dealing with this type of exploitation, legislation is one thing.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

When we come to this place, we all come with certain reasons behind what we want to accomplish. One, of course, is to improve the lives of Canadians. Another is sometimes to fix things that we believe are terribly wrong with our systems. For me, this legislation fits in the latter category of fixing something that we believe is terribly wrong.

Many people have been fortunate, in their careers and their lives, and they have never been touched by this particular issue. They have been spared the heartbreaking view of what happens to these young children when they are violated. In my career, I spent many years working in a rural emergency department. When I rise both to speak to this bill and to vote, it will be with the victims that I will be making that vote. I will give just a few small examples before I actually talk about the technical aspects of this bill.

I remember very clearly the 14-month-old who came in with incredibly bruised genitalia and a fractured femur. I remember three little girls. I remember the day their dad died in an accident. Two years later their mother remarried someone who then began to abuse those little girls. I remember a rape kit we had to pull out of the cupboards for a 12-year-old, barely pubescent young girl who had gone out and had a few drinks for the first time in her life. She had overdone it, and had then been brutally raped.

I remember a nurse who worked the night shift. One day she went home and her daughter revealed that the step-dad had been climbing into the beds at night, and the absolute trauma and the guilt that this nurse experienced as she dealt with the fact that she had married someone who was abusing her most precious possessions.

These are just some examples of what I experienced in my career. However, I was only representing a small area of this country, a small area of the province in terms of providing services. We have to recognize that these things are being repeated across the country many times over. Some are being reported; some are not.

I have witnessed young girls going into the criminal system to share their testimony and not meeting that burden of guilt that was required, and seeing the person who had violated them go free.

I hope this is a personal issue that everyone can stand up and support.

I need to talk about the specifics of this bill. It set out to recognize the devastating impacts such crimes have on the lives of the victims. It ensures that justice is not only done for each victim, but also for each crime by requiring sexual offenders to serve sentences that are proportional to the degree of harm inflicted on each victim.

What is it going to do? It is going to increase penalties for sexual offences committed against children. This includes increasing existing maximum and mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for certain offences, as well as ending sentence discounts for child pornography offences where there are multiple child victims. Bill C-26 also increases the penalties for breach of a number of supervision orders. These amendments are necessary to protect the community from offenders who deliberately persist in reoffending, and this despite having been given the privilege of being conditionally released in the community.

Such amendments are not only integral to the protection of our communities, but necessary to incapacitate repeat sex child offenders who choose recidivism over rehabilitation, and continue unlawful conduct over peaceful reintegration into the community.

Again, there is not one of us who as members of Parliament have not had concerned citizens phoning our offices when there is a repeat child offender released into their communities. In many cases I have seen them go on to repeat their crimes. We are all absolutely horrified that the system that we had in place did not actually address those issues.

These proposed amendments would ensure consistency in punishment for breaches of prohibition orders imposed on child sexual offenders, section 161, breaches of probation orders, section 733.1, and breaches of peace bonds, section 811, imposed on individuals feared to be at risk of committing a sexual offence against a child.

In all these cases, offenders would be liable to a maximum of four years imprisonment on indictment and 18 months imprisonment on summary conviction.

The bill would provide the same penalty for a breach of the new prohibition order, section 162.2, created by Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, which can be imposed for the new offence of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Bill C-13 came into force on March 10, 2015.

Furthermore, Bill C-26 would make it an aggravating factor on sentencing for an offender to commit an offence while on parole, statutory release, or an unescorted temporary absence or while being subject to a conditional sentence order.

The proposed amendments would also ensure that the relevant evidence was available in prosecuting child predators in the case of child pornography.

As a general rule, the spouse of a person accused of most offences cannot testify for the prosecution, even if the person wants to. The exceptions to this rule permit spousal testimony for most child sexual offences and the offence of violence against young persons, but it is important to note that it does not include child pornography offences.

In the case of child pornography, evidence of the accused's spouse is often required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography or a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bill C-26 proposes to amend the Canada Evidence Act to add child pornography to the list of exceptions and to therefore make the spouse competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution.

Bill C-26's proposed reforms also seek to build on existing measures to better protect children in Canada and abroad against sexual abuse by convicted child sex offenders. The bill proposes to establish a new, publicly accessible national database of high-risk offenders convicted of child sexual offences.

Currently, all provinces and territories have the power to advise the public about the release of high-risk offenders. These notifications are made at the discretion of the police, and they contain characteristics about the offender and the nature of the offences committed.

However, such notifications are limited to the jurisdiction and province where they are made. The bill seeks to expand access to all of those local notifications on a national scale. We do not have any boundaries in terms of where people go in Canada. The establishment of such a database would be a great example of a coordinated effort to protect the community against convicted high-risk sex offenders, because it would consolidate existing notifications in one publicly accessible spot.

As I mentioned earlier, a complete and comprehensive response to child sexual exploitation also requires a coordinated effort that encompasses programs, services, and partnerships among key stakeholders, including federal, provincial, and territorial governments, law enforcement agencies, and civil society. In this respect, since 2010, the government has allocated $10.25 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime.

We obviously have existing criminal prohibitions against child sexual abuse. However, the fact that it has been growing in the last few years at an extraordinary rate, as indicated earlier by my hon. colleague opposite, and the fact that children account for 55% of all victims of police-reported sexual offences, even though they account for only 20% of the Canadian population, is a stark reminder that more must be done.

We must stop such heinous crimes. As such, I urge all members of the House to unanimously support the passage of Bill C-26.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to rise to finish the speech that I started on Wednesday about Bill C-26, which is back before us today.

Previously, I was talking about how important it is to punish those who commit sexual abuse against children, and that is why we will vote in favour of Bill C-26.

It is imperative that we eradicate this scourge. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to prevent these crimes from happening. As I said on Wednesday, even a single case of child abuse is one too many. We must therefore take a preventive approach, which Bill C-26 does not do.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has taken steps to protect children, and we commend those measures. Among other things, they made it illegal to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence, strengthened the sex offender registry, increased the age at which a young person can legally consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years, put in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory, and made 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.

I was hoping that those measures could have been effective. However, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning the supplementary estimates, the Minister of Justice said that sexual offences against children have increased 6% over the past two years.

That statistic is extremely troubling. It also shows that the government is taking a rather minimalist approach. One thing is clear: paying lip service is not enough. The lack of financial resources, in terms of both enforcing existing laws as well as preventing these crimes, makes any new legislation pointless.

For instance, the NDP has always supported the circles of support and accountability program, or COSA. However, the government recently announced that it was cancelling funding provided by Correctional Service Canada. This is penny wise and pound foolish, since it will have a huge negative impact on this prevention plan and community services to victims, which are already operating on a very meagre budget of just $2.2 million.

We also learned recently that, over a period of five years, the RCMP did not spend over $10 million that was earmarked for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre and other essential government projects to fight child pornography.

The cuts, made in part as the RCMP's contribution to the deficit reduction action plan, were imposed even as the number of public reports of child abuse was increasing at an alarming rate.

Tougher prison sentences and stricter measures are certainly effective ways of preventing repeat offences, but they do nothing to eliminate the problem in the long term if the necessary human and financial resources are not assigned to prevention programs and efforts to raise awareness among the public and the authorities about this absolutely appalling type of crime.

As I said, we will support Bill C-26, since the NDP has always had a zero tolerance policy when it comes to any type of sex crime. That is another reason why we are disappointed that the bill did not go further and propose truly effective measures for protecting our children and tangible preventive measures to make our communities safer.

In that sense, we are disappointed that Bill C-26 does not include any new funding or financial resources. Tougher prison sentences are a good start, but they are not enough. Our communities need resources to deal with the sexual abuse of our children, and Bill C-26 offers nothing new to that effect.

The other thing we take issue with is this government's lack of co-operation and refusal to do non-partisan work on a bill that we all agree on. All of us, as parliamentarians, could have worked together on this bill and pulled together to eliminate this terrible problem of child sex abuse.

Victims and the general public would have benefited from the government being more open-minded on such an important, non-partisan issue. The Conservatives ignored the recommendations of the associations, experts and professionals who testified in committee. It is sad and shameful to see the government turn such a serious and important issue into a partisan issue.

Nevertheless, in closing, the NDP will support this government's Bill C-26 simply because we believe that the measures proposed in it are a good start.

However, the NDP would have liked to take this further, particularly when it comes to prevention and allocating financial resources to the authorities and stakeholders in the field.

We hope that in future, the government will take expert and stakeholder opinion into account in important legislation like this. This is not about winning an election. This is about the well-being of our children, and political partisanship should have no part in that.

The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debating government Motion No. 17, respecting Canada's military contribution to the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Considering the importance of that debate, we will be continuing it, under an order of the House, until midnight tonight.

ISIL has stated its intention to target Canada and Canadians. In fact, ISIL issued a call to action for people to attack targets in Canada. So far two attackers have responded to that call. That is why we have to take on ISIL, take on the threat it poses and keep it from establishing a geographic foothold from which to operate. We intend to continue to degrade and destroy ISIL.

That is why we are seeking the support of Canadian parliamentarians for our decision to extend and expand Canada's military mission with our allies so we can effectively fight this jihadism which threatens our national security and global security.

We will return to that debate on Monday afternoon and complete it that day.

Tomorrow, we will continue—and, hopefully, conclude—the third reading debate on Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act.

Monday, before question period, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act. This legislation will improve railway safety and strengthen oversight while protecting taxpayers and making the rail industry more accountable to communities. This debate will continue on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, the House will resume the second reading debate of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. The bill meets the government's objective to cut red tape for law-abiding firearms owners and provide safe and simpler firearms policies. Changes to the Criminal Code would enable the government to take steps to ensure the rights of lawful firearms owners would be respected. The debate will continue on Thursday, when we will adjourn for Easter.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that we will be voting in favour of Bill C-26. Based on the questions raised since this morning, the other side is still undecided.

As several of my colleagues mentioned this afternoon, the bill deals with the incarceration of sexual predators. We seem to be forgetting about the children. Children who have been abused are scarred for life. Clearly, incarcerating sexual predators is a good thing. However, the ideal solution would be to prevent sexual predation. As the member who spoke before me said, there is nothing in this bill to prevent sexual predators from committing the abuse. Of course they will not be able to do so once in prison, but there will be other sexual predators, because this type of abuse has always existed. We have to treat these people.

I am in a good position to talk about the damage done to abused children. My sister provides emergency foster care for youth protection services. She fosters children who must be taken away from their families on an emergency basis. Quite often the children she cares for have been taken away from their family because they were sexually abused by their own parents. These children believe that they were taken away from their families because they did something wrong.

This could all be avoided if, instead of introducing a bill to put sexual predators in jail, the government tried to prevent this type of abuse at the source.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am splitting my time with the member for Laval—Les Îles.

The stats are troubling. One out of three girls and one out of six boys will be sexually abused before the age of 18. These statistics mean that right now in Canada there are five million girls who have been sexually abused and 2.8 million boys. That number is too high. That is a statistic that should trouble everyone in Canada.

That is part of the reason why we are supporting Bill C-26 going forward, but we do not believe that the bill goes far enough and I will explain why. Some 95% of child sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator in some way, a statistic from the Badgley commission in the eighties, and 68% are abused by a family member, someone within their family: stepfather, father or an uncle. When we think of these statistics, the problem becomes much more complex.

I am the father of a 10-year-old girl. I have another daughter on the way. She is due to be born in June. These statistics are troubling to me as a father. It is something that is always on my mind. It is always a worry that one day something might happen to my daughter.

New Democrats have zero tolerance for child sexual abuse. I would like to think that zero tolerance for child sexual abuse does not mean that we only get the predator after the perpetrator has abused the child, because that, in effect, is what the bill is addressing. For everything that is addressed in the bill, the sexual abuse has already happened. My hope as a father is that we could get rid of child sexual abuse before it happens, before any child in this country is abused.

There is nothing in Bill C-26 that will stop a child from being abused. I will explain why. The reason is that once the police put a predator in jail, the predator has abused a child. Once a perpetrator's name is in a database, the perpetrator has abused a child already. The abuse has already happened.

My question to my colleague, who may or may not be listening to me speaking about this, is that we have to find the solution to stopping sexual abuse before it happens. We have to reduce this problem that is in our country.

That said, we do support measures to remove child sexual predators from general society to protect the children they may further abuse. We even went to the point during the debates on Bill C-10 to approach the House leader and the minister responsible to say that we would take all the measures for child sexual predators out of the omnibus legislation and fast-track them through the House right away, make them into law right away. Unfortunately, the other side did not accept that. We thought that the need to pass them was pressing and that is why we proposed that. We would agree with putting these predators away so that the abuse stops.

However, we have to start talking about real action and we have to back up this action with actual funding, because tough words will not solve the problem. We also have to keep an open mind when we discuss this, because child sexual abuse is a wicked problem. It does not have simple solutions.

The statistics I cited at the top of my speech should make members think. Often when abuse happens in a family, the child is unwilling to speak because it may be a father or a stepfather. In the children's minds, they are trying to protect their family in one way, and yet they are trying to protect themselves. It is a very confusing experience for a child.

The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute in the U.S. says:

Professionals - physicians and therapists - can never put an end to sexual abuse; neither can the police or the courts. Why? Because they come on the scene too late. By the time they get there, the children have already been molested.

Therefore, the question we should be asking is, how do we prevent child abuse? We need to have frank discussions. The member across mentioned education, but part of the education piece that needs to happen is how to talk within families about abuse. It should not just be talking about the predator being a stranger outside of the family who is somehow going to infiltrate the family to abuse the children. Often the abuser is within the family already. Therefore, we need the tools to have these frank discussions about issues of abuse and issues of consent. As I said, 95% of the people are known to the children and 68% are often a family member.

At the core, sending molesters to jail as a solution to child molestation will always fail our children because in order for a molester to be jailed children will be abused. This is again from the institute. It is the same with treatment. When people who perpetrate child sexual abuse are identified for treatment, they have often already abused the child.

The member across the way also said that what we think of child sexual predators is not always the case. It is not one ethnic group and not one social class. There was actually a study done. It was called the Abel and Harlow child molestation prevention study. It looked at 4,000 admitted child molesters, men from the ages of 18 to 20. They found the following statistics: 77% were married; 93% were religious, men of faith; 46% had college educations; and 65% had normal steady work. After stating that, what does a child sexual predator look like? Physically, it could look like many of the men in this chamber. It is not what we imagine it to be on the outside.

They look like normal men on the outside, but on the inside they have a disorder that has been identified under the DSM as pedophilia. Pedophilia is an awful mental disorder. We do not discuss attacking this disorder enough. Often pedophilia is identified in the teenage years in men. There are signs that appear that can be signals. If we flag them soon enough, we might be able to prevent sexual abuse from occurring. If we could identify in the teenage years the signs of this disorder, then we could actually attack it right at the root.

This is where we have to attack it because then we could actually prevent these men, and sometimes women, from actually committing the sexual abuse. We have to focus on the cause. We have to develop a prevention plan to prevent sexual abuse from ever happening.

Bill C-26 does a wonderful job of looking at what to do after someone has abused a child. We would put them in jail and put them in a database. However, we really need to take action on finding a way to prevent child abuse from ever happening in the first place.

The way we are going to do that is to have a frank discussion. We have to stop portraying this as a stranger that is going to perpetrate sexual abuse on a child. We know the statistics. There have been many studies done. We have to really put the resources toward the root of the problem and start having frank discussions within our families and with our neighbours about the roots of sexual abuse.

We need to start to put our energy into this, so that those seven million children in our country, that I cited as the next generation, will have even less abuse and eventually, hopefully, we can eradicate this problem from our society entirely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to provide some input in this very important bill. It is of paramount importance that it pass through Parliament as quickly as possible.

Our government has had a very strong desire to protect children. When it comes to criminal activity such as sexual exploitation against our most vulnerable, our children, we know we must never back down in our efforts to stop these terrible crimes. When one child is hurt or exploited, it is one child too many. As a parliamentarian and a mother of six children, I am convinced that we need to do more to protect our children against sexual exploitation and believe strongly that the legislation before the House today would do just that.

I feel strongly that Canadians all across the country will pay attention to the speeches today, to the responses and to the positions of everybody on this issue. I am sure every member in the House, whether a parent, uncle, aunt, grandparent or friend, would agree that we must ensure that individuals who sexually exploit children are held fully accountable. I hope every member agrees that we must ensure the laws allow our justice system to hand out appropriate sentences that match the seriousness of the crime.

With Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, we have an opportunity today to take an important step to protect our children from this crime that occurs far too often. As the statistics show and as was mentioned earlier, there is a 6% increase in sex offences against children. I urge all members of the House to support the passage of this bill without delay. Our children are too important, and it affects every family in Canada in one way or another.

Child sexual abuse is a crime of the most heinous nature. It causes unimaginable devastation to the lives of children. Studies have shown that it profoundly affects victims into adulthood and throughout their lives, and I dare say it affects their families as well.

Children under the age of 18 accounted for more than half the victims of sexual offences reported to police in 2012, and these numbers are unacceptable. They call for the kind of tough and decisive measures our government has proposed in this legislation. The bill contains a number of important elements, some of which fall under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, including, as the name suggests, tougher penalties for those convicted of child sexual offences, and that is exactly what they should get: tougher penalties.

Legislation would require judges to impose consecutive sentences when convicted child sex offenders were sentenced at the same time for contact child sexual offences against multiple victims or for child porn and contact child sexual offences. With this legislation, both the maximum and minimum penalties for child offences would be increased, as would the maximum penalties for violating conditions of supervision orders. This is well put when 6% more offences are occurring in our great country.

The bill also includes many practical measures at better safeguarding children against sexual exploitation, both in Canada and abroad. Our government often speaks about the need to ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to do its job of helping to keep citizens safe. That is certainly a key preoccupation of mine and I am proud of our government's record. It is a record upon which we can further build this legislation.

For the purposes of our discussion today, the tool in question is the National Sex Offender Registry, administered by the RCMP and used by police officers all across the country. It goes without saying that law enforcement agencies need to be aware of the location of registered sex offenders, and that is where the registry comes in. As of January 2015, there were approximately 37,000 registered sex offenders on the registry. Of those, approximately 25,000 have a conviction for a child sex offence.

Clearly, the National Sex Offender Registry is a vital tool for police in that it provides officers with rapid access to information on registered sex offenders who are living or working in a given area and can help police in their work to prevent or investigate sexual crimes.

Members in this House know that our government has made some legislative improvements already to enhance the effectiveness of the registry. In 2011, we ensured that convicted sex offenders were automatically included in the registry and were required to give a mandatory DNA sample to the National DNA Data Bank.

However, we could do more to strengthen its effectiveness as a tool to assist police in carrying out their work. To do that, we need to make some important amendments to the legislation that governs the registry, namely the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. As members know, that act came into force in 2004 and authorized the establishment of the data base containing information on convicted sex offenders across Canada. It includes information such as the offender's name, address, place of employment, and physical description.

Let me describe how the proposed amendments in the legislation before us would improve the effectiveness of the registry, beginning with the enhanced reporting requirements that would be imposed on sex offenders.

Obviously, reporting requirements are very important to ensure that police have up-to-date information on the whereabouts of registered sex offenders, including when they travel outside of Canada. As it stands today, registered sex offenders are required to report in person to registry officials on an annual basis and within seven days if they change either their addresses or legal names. They must also notify registry officials within seven days of a change in employment or volunteer activity, including the type of work they do.

All registered sex offenders are required to report the dates of absences of seven days or more for travel either within or outside of Canada. These are critical reporting requirements from the perspective of both accountability and public safety. However, they do not go far enough. At present, these offenders are only required to provide specific destinations and addresses for travel within Canada. Here is where it is obvious that there is a need for increased accountability and reporting.

Canada is one of many countries on the international stage that is gravely concerned about child sex tourism. Our determination to protect children from sexual crime does not stop at our borders. It extends to children everywhere. That is why, with this bill, we are taking measures to increase the reporting requirements for sex offenders who travel abroad and are imposing even more stringent requirements on those who have committed these crimes against children.

Registered sex offenders with a child sex offence would be required to report, in advance, international travel of any duration. This would now include a requirement to provide the address or locations where they will be staying and the specific dates of their travel.

As for other registered sex offenders, that is, those who do not fall into the category of child sex offender, their reporting requirements would be as follows.

They would have to report any trips of seven days or longer, again including the dates and addresses or locations where they would be staying. They would also be required to report their passport and driver's licence numbers. Of note, the new reporting obligations would apply to those currently in the registry and those convicted after the legislation comes into force. Taken together, these changes would have the effect of ensuring that police have better information regarding the whereabouts of travelling sex offenders.

Another critical part is information sharing. The next element in the bill I will highlight is how we would provide for the exchange of information on certain registered sex offenders between the officials responsible for the registry and those at the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA.

As members have heard, under the current legislative framework, there is no specific legal mechanism for this information to be shared at the present time. While the current legislation allows registry information to be shared in certain circumstances, including to police services, there is no such authority for sharing with CBSA. This gap in information sharing obviously inhibits our knowledge about the travel of sex offenders. It is a gap that needs to be addressed.

Given its responsibility for management of our borders, CBSA can and should be one of the authorities involved in receiving and providing information that assists in monitoring the travel of sex offenders.

With this bill we would close the information gap by providing the authority for officials at the registry to regularly disclose information to the CBSA about child sex offenders who are assessed as a high risk to reoffend. The bill would also allow sharing of information between the RCMP and CBSA on other registered sex offenders on a case-by-case basis.

I would note here that the RCMP would implement a risk assessment process to determine those child offenders who present the highest risk to reoffend. The experts in the police forces are the people to do this.

Upon receiving a list of these offenders, the CBSA would then ensure that the sex offenders' names were placed on their lookout system. Border officials would also be authorized to collect travel information from these offenders upon their return to Canada and to share it with National Sex Offender Registry officials, including the date of departure and return to Canada and every address or location at which they stayed outside of Canada.

This type of enhanced information sharing would achieve two very important outcomes. The first is that we would better enable authorities to investigate and prevent crimes of a sexual nature. The second is that we would put the authorities in a better position to address any potential breaches in the reporting obligations of the offenders.

These are reasonable changes that just make sense. If we are going to keep a closer eye on the travel habits of sex offenders, it only stands to reason that our border officials and National Sex Offender Registry officials need to be able to share the information.

The final element of the bill is one that would allow us to further deliver on our commitment to Canadians to protect our communities from sex offenders. This is very important to our government, because Canadians want and deserve access to information they feel could protect their families. They feel that they need to have this information, and that includes information about potentially high-risk individuals who live in their communities. That information should be easily accessible and available to all Canadians, and this bill would pave the way for that.

The proposed public database, the high risk child sex offender database, would be separate from the National Sex Offender Registry, which is accessible only to police. This new high risk child sex offender database would be searchable by the entire Canadian public. It would include information about those high-risk child sex offenders who have already been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. They would be well known anyway to the public.

Our government believes that it is only right that Canadians have the ability to access this type of information with a few simple clicks on the computer. After all, knowledge of the presence of high-risk child sex offenders in the city would empower parents to take appropriate precautions to protect their children.

To that end, I can assure members of this House that consultations are under way with the provinces and territories regarding police notifications and the proposed database. We continue to work closely with these partners to develop further criteria to define the high-risk child sex offenders who would be included in the new publicly accessible database

As members can see, our government has developed a clear path forward to better protect the public from offenders with one of the most troubling forms of criminal behaviour we have to face in society. I am speaking as one who has worked with many trafficked victims and many children who have been sexually violated.

There is an impact on a family, and it is not just poor people, aboriginal people, or girls who are out looking for a boyfriend, or whatever people say. What we are talking about is a predatory kind of crime that looks to prepubescent children for the perpetrator's sexual gratification.

This bill would do much to close the gaps out there now. When we see a 6% increase in child exploitation and child sex offences, clearly, in Canada, there is a problem. That is why our government has taken bold steps to protect children. It has taken bold steps to ensure that we do every possible thing to enhance information sharing and communication between police forces and to protect our children from sexual exploitation and sexual crimes.

We would improve the accountability of sex offenders and better protect those who need safeguarding from crimes of a sexual nature. Those are our children.

I have to say that I am very proud to be part of a government that has taken a very clear stand on this. Today it is particularly interesting to hear some of the comments, because we as parliamentarians have to take a very responsible attitude and make sure that the children throughout our country are protected from sexual predators. It is frivolous to vote against or block anything that would do that. Certainly this particular bill would close many gaps. Even now, a lot of children are at risk without these gaps being closed.

I hope parliamentarians on all sides of the House will put aside their partisan concerns. I know that an election is coming soon, but by the same token, Canadians all across the country want these laws. They want their children protected. They want to know where the individuals who have been convicted of sexual offences against children reside.

We cannot heal sexual offences against children. They learn how to be survivors, but the occurrence comes back to them over and over again. The first thing I believe parliamentarians have to do in one voice is protect the most vulnerable in this country.

This is too important for political interference. We need to take the heart of the nation and the heart of the parents and children who are reaching out to the House of Commons today and put these laws into place and ensure that their families are safe.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this debate on tougher penalties for sex offenders. In my professional career, I never stopped advocating for women's rights or for the fight against childhood poverty.

There is nothing sadder than to see children in vulnerable situations, whether because of an unstable family life, family violence, or just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We all have a duty in the House to ensure that we are doing everything we can to keep our families, children and communities safe and sound. Over the past few years, a significant number of children, girls and boys, have been victims of sex crimes in far too many of Canada's communities. This has an adverse effect on many aspects of their lives, on their self-confidence, their ability to trust others, their mental health and so many other things. So many families are wounded, broken and devastated because of these reprehensible crimes.

Furthermore, this bill is part of a complex societal debate because it involves several levels of government—municipal, provincial and territorial; police services such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and provincial and municipal police forces; many advocacy groups; and various professions such as youth protection workers, psychologists, street workers and psychosocial workers.

I am bringing my perspective as a mother, and also as the former president of the Regroupement des groupes de femmes de la région de la Capitale-Nationale to this debate. This bill does not do enough for the women and children traumatized by the horrors perpetrated by sex offenders.

The Conservatives consider themselves to be tough on crime. However, they are mistaken if they believe that the legislative measures proposed in this bill are sufficient. This is not the first nor the last time that I will admonish this government for its wishful thinking. I rise today with the expectation that this government will realize the importance of prevention, understand that simply handing out harsher sentences does not yield the desired results and grasp that we need meaningful action and not just fine words to look good for the cameras. Our children are paying the price for the lack of leadership to search for concrete solutions.

I want to talk about a statistic that shocked me and that could shock many people listening to me today. Sexual offences against children have increased 6% over the past two years. This statistic was shared by none other than the Minister of Justice, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. A 6% increase is cause for concern.

Over the last decade, Canada has seen a significant increase in the number of people charged in cases of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation and luring a child using a computer.

I will use my time today to talk about three important points. First, I will give a critique of the proposal for harsher prison sentences, which do not do enough to fix the problem. Second, I will talk about the cuts made to public protection services. Third, I will talk about how what the public really needs is meaningful, comprehensive action.

First, I would like to emphasize the fact that the NDP has always had a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children. I think it is important to repeat that. We have zero tolerance for sexual offences against children.

When preparing this speech on Bill C-26, I wondered why the Conservatives, who claim to be the champions in the fight against crime, have only one solution for every crime: tougher sentences. Tougher sentences alone do not work. A more comprehensive approach is needed.

Once again, the fact that sexual offences against children have increased by 6% in the past two years shows that the Conservatives are taking a minimalist approach. That is disgraceful. I would not want to be in the shoes of the Minister of Justice, who has to justify that statistic to Canadians, particularly victims and their loved ones.

One of the amendments proposed by the NDP sought to obligate the minister to submit an annual report to Parliament on the effectiveness of the law. That amendment was rejected. Once again, how can the government justify that to victims and their loved ones?

As I have said repeatedly, what I have seen since entering federal politics is a government that is too often reacting instead of being proactive.

They do not seem to think it is important to invest in preventing crime. I do, however, and so do the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and many Canadians.

The government absolutely must invest in crime prevention and other practical solutions to keep our communities safe. I have to say that we are disappointed that this bill does not do more to introduce effective solutions that will do a better job of protecting our children and making our communities safer.

That brings me to my second point, which is about budget cuts and funding shortfalls. If we want to reduce the number of sexual crimes against children in this country, we have to back that up with resources. Disappointment on that front too: there is no new funding in this bill.

Resources on the ground cannot always keep up with the Conservative government's harsher law and order policies. The NDP believes that our communities need resources to combat child sexual abuse.

In regard to funding for police services, police forces are having to do more with less. The RCMP is already having difficulty keeping the criminal records registry up to date, for lack of resources. This bill will only further increase their workload, without adding any trained personnel to protect our children.

That is why I was so surprised to learn recently that the RCMP did not spend the $10 million earmarked for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre and other projects to fight child pornography, even though more and more people are coming forward all the time to report child exploitation. How can this government justify that?

To illustrate my third point, I want to talk about how the Conservatives stubbornly refuse to listen to the questions being asked by people in communities across Canada and by experts. For the NDP, passing legislation is not something we take lightly. We always encourage the relevant committees to examine the bills. We meet with experts, associations and professionals with full transparency in order to understand their point of view. We often propose amendments based on the arguments of workers on the ground who are familiar with the realities facing victims.

This bill is no different; however, one thing that has not changed about the process is that the Conservatives continue to reject our amendments.

We understand the political game they are playing. However, I take exception to this government ignoring the recommendations made by the professional associations and experts who testified in committee. The experts are the ones we turn to for opinions and clarification. So why do the Conservatives ignore their recommendations?

What we want is simple. We want the government to stop turning a deaf ear and understand the scope of the problem. We want it to be open to working in collaboration with the opposition parties and the experts.

In closing, we are here to work in the interest of Canadians. This is not an easy task and we do not have all the answers.

Child sex offences have increased by 6%. We are asking the government to do more to improve those statistics and ensure that children are no longer victims of sexual offences and that communities have more resources to work on preventing and condemning reprehensible acts.

We are voting in favour of Bill C-26, but I want to add my list of concerns.

I encourage the government to get its head out of the sand and stop thinking that tougher sentences will solve the problems, because they will not.

I urge the government to give victims support organizations and the police the resources they need to properly discharge their mandate in view of the growing number of complaints, including those about online practices.

I am asking the government to listen to the experts in order to improve this bill.

What measures will truly help protect the must vulnerable, such as children? How and when will these measures be incorporated in the government's policies?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

It is a honour to speak to Bill C-26, which amends a number of acts that deal with sexual offences against children. I would like to speak as a father, as an uncle, and hopefully someday as a grandfather.

I have two children. Any time the subject of child exploitation comes up, I think all parents across Canada would have zero tolerance for any sort of child exploitation that occurs in our society.

The bill is a good step in the right direction; however, a number of amendments and a number of recommendations from expert witnesses and stakeholders introduced at committee provided very good evidence to amend the bill. As usual, the Conservatives failed to entertain any of them.

That said, when I and all my colleagues talk about our children, there is no doubt that whether one is on this side of the aisle or the other side, every single member of the House is dead set against child exploitation. Not only that, in the last number of years the House has brought in a number of initiatives that have tightened the laws regarding child sexual exploitation, and we were happy to support those initiatives.

Members will remember Bill C-10, an omnibus crime bill introduced by the Conservatives. We actually wanted to fast-track the sections that dealt with child exploitation. One side of the story is to bring in legislation to ensure that our children are safe, and as parliamentarians we should be doing that. I am very proud of the record of the NDP, the official opposition, in supporting initiatives that enhance the safety of our children.

It is one thing to be tough on crime, but we cannot be soft on community safety. That is the record of the Conservative government. The Conservatives have been soft on community safety. If we really want protection, laws alone will not provide it. We need to provide additional resources. Money must be invested into communities to ensure that service providers, other stakeholders, and law enforcement agencies have the tools and resources to ensure that our children are safe from predators. Earlier the member talked about the money that was unspent, and I will talk about that in a second.

I want to quote Steve Sullivan at the committee. He is the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime and he would certainly know something about resources in the community. He wrote:

...the federal government recently announced it was cutting the measly $650,000 in funding Corrections Canada provides. [The Circle of Support and Accountability program] 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:

Like most community-based victim services, [Circles of Support and Accountability] 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 settle into normal lives, ones that don't involve new victims. They hold them accountable.

This program has shown success. Here are some of the statistics that have come out. Circles of support and accountability numbers are impressive. One study found a 70% reduction in sexual offences recidivism for those who participated in circles of support and accountability compared to those who did not. Another study found an 83% reduction in child sexual offences recidivism.

This is the record of the government. If we are really concerned about ensuring safety for our children and safety in our community, why is the government cutting the very programs that have shown success in communities? They provided 700 volunteers. These are Canadian parents that are willing to volunteer their services to ensure that our communities remain safe, yet the government pulled the rug out from underneath this very successful program. We can create all the laws we want. We can say we are tough on crime, but it does not work if we are soft on community safety. That is the record of the government.

We had a couple of cases in Surrey, British Columbia. There was a young lady murdered by a sex offender who was known to the RCMP and who was on the list of those likely to reoffend. My heart goes out to the family. My heart goes out to the parents. What we did as a society, as a government, was let this happen in our community. Where was the support? How are we monitoring these people when they are released into the community?

If we know these people are likely to reoffend, why are they being dropped into the community without some sort of support, whether we provide resources to the RCMP or to the very front line workers who provide these services to monitor these individuals? We had programs in place where the recidivism rates for sexual offences were reduced by 83%, yet the government is cutting these very programs.

In fact, the mayor of the city of Surrey has called for more resources to ensure that once offenders are released, if they are released, that we have proper resources to ensure monitoring and ensuring there is support in place to ensure the safety of our children.

I often talk about this. Facts and research are not something Conservatives believe in because we know where they get their facts from. We have seen them pick their facts from Kijiji rather than relying on science or what works in the community. What works in the community are programs like circles of accountability and support.

I want to talk about the changes. I do not understand this as a parent. I do not understand as a member of Parliament. The government wants to enact a high-risk child sex offender database 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.

If the offenders pose a high-risk of repeating crimes of a sexual nature, why are they being released into the community in the first place? That is how idiotic the government is.

If we are really concerned about ensuring the safety of our children, we need to provide resources. Bill C-26 does not provide any resources to ensure the safety of our communities.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for sharing his time with me today.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. Today I am going to focus the bulk of my remarks on the part of Bill C-26 that creates higher penalties for breaches of supervision orders. However, I want to devote a few moments on the other key features of this initiative.

I am a father of three children, and as such, it is important to me to highlight the end goal of Bill C-26: deterring child predators and focusing on the seriousness of child sexual offences. One way we can achieve that is through higher mandatory minimum penalties and higher maximums.

However, one of the reasons I am supporting Bill C-26 is that the amendments also clarify and codify the use of consecutive sentences in child sexual abuse cases. This would ensure not only consistency in application of the law but also justice for each life devastated by an offender's sexual abuse.

The amendments to supervision orders in this bill are yet another facet of this criminal law initiative that would strengthen the protection of children from sexual predators.

Supervision orders empower judges to impose conditions on child sexual offenders or persons who might commit child sexual offences. There are various orders a court can use to ensure the supervision of the offender in the community. These orders include probation orders, peace bonds, and prohibition orders. It is important to understand how each of these orders operates to fully grasp how they would achieve the underlying objective of Bill C-26. The underlying objective is to protect children from sexual predators.

First, probation orders can be imposed where offenders are sentenced to less than two years of imprisonment. They can also be stand-alone orders, and in all cases, they have a maximum duration of three years. These orders can vary substantially in scope. For instance, some conditions, such as keeping the peace, are mandatory, whereas other conditions are left to the discretion of a judge. These conditions can also include requiring the offender to be under house arrest except for predetermined absences, such as employment. These optional conditions must be reasonable, clear, and most importantly, certain. These conditions aim to protect society by preventing recidivism and facilitating the offender's successful rehabilitation and safe re-insertion into the community.

Peace bonds, on the other hand, can be used where there is a reasonable fear that a person will commit a child sexual offence. In fact, section 810.1 of the Criminal Code allows any person, under reasonable grounds, to lay information before a provincial court judge based on a fear that an individual will commit a certain sexual offence against a young person under 14 years of age. A court will order a person to enter into a peace bond if it is convinced, on a balance of probabilities, that the informant's fear is reasonably grounded. Peace bonds can encompass a variety of conditions, including prohibiting an offender from communicating on a computer with young people or attending public places where children could reasonably be expected to be present.

Lastly, prohibition orders allow courts to prohibit the offender from having contact with children where there exists an evidentiary basis for concluding that the offender poses a risk to young children. This prohibition may take different forms, such as a ban from specified places where children are present, restriction on employment involving a position of trust or authority over children, and access to the Internet.

The Criminal Code requires a judge to consider such orders in every case involving an enumerated offence, and they can last for the offender's lifetime.

Maximum penalties for breaches of probation orders, peace bonds, and prohibition orders, referred to collectively as supervision orders, would be increased under Bill C-26. This would ensure that those who violate conditions imposed by the courts to protect children would be held accountable.

Bill C-26 would raise the maximum penalty for breaches of all supervision orders from two to four years on indictment. In addition, it would increase the maximum penalty for breaching prohibition and peace bonds from six months to 18 months on summary conviction. The proposed new maximums would ensure that offenders who breached these supervision orders were liable to the same penalties, regardless of the type of order, according to whether the breach was a prosecuted indictment or a summary conviction.

Furthermore, fines for breaching probation would increase from $2,000 to $5,000. The supervisory aspect of these orders helps to rehabilitate offenders, but, more importantly, ensures the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society.

According to Statistics Canada, a number of studies with a follow-up period of 15 years noted that the average rate of recidivism among sex offenders is about 24%. However, alarmingly, the highest rate for recidivism found in this review was 35.5% for a sample of offenders who sexually offended against children. These offenders were followed for a 23-year period. The source of that information is the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics in a study called “Police-reported sexual offences against children and youth in Canada, 2012”, which was released on May 28, 2014.

It is, therefore, absolutely crucial that serious breaches of these conditions be denounced and deterred. One way that Bill C-26 would protect children is by ensuring that once child sexual offenders are released into the community, a breach of their conditions will result in serious consequences commensurate with the objective that these types of orders are designed to fulfill—namely, the protection of the most vulnerable members of our communities, our children.

For instance, a key component of the sentencing reform in Bill C-26 would ensure that any evidence that an offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence, on parole, or while on statutory release would be an aggravating factor in their sentencing. Treating such instances as aggravating factors is necessary to denounce, deter, and punish offenders who deliberately persist in reoffending even after they have been placed under varying forms of supervision.

Such amendments are also necessary to protect the community when rehabilitative and reintegration efforts are clearly not working for these offenders. Increased penalties for those who violate conditions imposed by the courts to protect children would serve two very important functions: first, they would hold offenders accountable; second, they would prevent future harm to vulnerable children. This is especially true in the context of child sexual offences, where breaches of supervision orders may indicate a risk that the offender will re-victimize children. Thus, increasing the minimum and maximum penalties for breach of supervision orders is an important tool that courts can use in appropriate circumstances. Not only would these measures dissuade offenders from committing offences, but they would also separate child sexual predators from society before they commit repeat offences.

Breaching a supervision order is not a trivial offence. For instance, persons subject to probation and prohibition orders have already been processed through the criminal justice system and released on conditions that are intimately intertwined with the alleged or previous offences committed. As such, breaching these orders is serious, because it is concrete acknowledgement of a refusal by that offender to be rehabilitated. We must send a clear message. Such breaches require a clear, proportionate, and dissuasive response.

It is important to remember that these supervision orders have not been imposed in a vacuum. Combined, the amendments in Bill C-26 would send a clear message. We will not allow offenders to commit crimes with impunity while being under community supervision, especially when such breaches put children at risk. Additionally, they would achieve consistency in punishment for all heinous sexual offences against children.

These features of Bill C-26 are important and necessary. As a result, I urge all hon. members of the House to support this bill and its swift passage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-26 proposes to improve on this by, among other things, directing courts to consider ordering that the terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of separate events, or a separate series of events, be served consecutively to one another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the high risk child sex offender database act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—the federal government recently announced it was cutting the measly $650,000 in funding Corrections Canada provides. CoSA also receives funding from the National Crime Prevention Centre; that's also set to end this fall. In total, the program costs $2.2 million a year.

Like most community-based victim services, CoSA is a fairly cheap program. It has 700 volunteers across the country; they meet with offenders after their release, help them find jobs and places to live, meet with them regularly for coffee. They support offenders as they start to live normal lives, ones that don't involve new victims. They hold them accountable.

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

The House resumed from February 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I really must correct my friend in terms of government. We are on track to balance the budget. We have the lowest debt of any of the G7 countries as a share of our economy on a per capita basis. In fact, Canadians are very well off, particularly when compared with countries that have had socialist governments and that labour under much more severe long-term debt loads.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, at second reading. As the House knows, this bill confirms that Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to early and forced marriage, polygamy or other similar practices. The debate will continue on Monday, March 23, when we return from the upcoming constituency week.

Tomorrow, before we go back to our ridings, we will complete third reading debate of Bill C-2, the respect for communities act. While the opposition steadfastly refuses to let ordinary Canadians have a say when drug injection sites are proposed in their communities, I am pleased to see our government's legislation to allow for that public input. I know the member was saying that he thinks he values public input, but that is from everybody except Canadians apparently. We will ensure that Canadians do have some input and some say when a request is made to put a drug injection site into their community.

On Tuesday, March 24, we shall have the seventh and final allotted day of the current supply cycle, when the House will debate an NDP motion. I would have been really happy if we could have continued the debate that the NDP brought on Tuesday, where they debated the economy, our family tax cut, and the things we were happy to talk about. Unfortunately the NDP House leader decided, pursuant to Standing Order 81(16)(b), that he wanted to cut off the debate after just a single day, once again time allocating a debate by the NDP far more severely than we have ever seen from the government. For 79 times the opposition has failed to allow more than a single day of debate, despite the fact the Standing Orders allow it. In fact, the opposition has taken advantage of the Standing Orders to limit those debates to a mere single day in every single case. That Tuesday the House will consider what will no doubt be yet another time allocated opposition motion, the 80th since the last election.

That evening, we will consider the necessary resolutions and bills to give effect to this winter’s supplementary estimates as well as interim supply for the incoming fiscal year.

On Wednesday, March 25, we will have the second day of third reading debate on Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act. This legislation, which builds on the government’s efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation and online crime, will strengthen penalties for child sexual offenders. Child sexual exploitation is unacceptable, and we are determined to do more to better protect our youth and our communities and to punish sexual offenders to the full extent of the law.

On Thursday, March 26, we will start report stage for Bill S-2, Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act. After question period, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-12, Drug-Free Prisons Act.

I will give priority on Friday, March 27, to any debates not completed earlier that week.

Second Reading

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. Bill S-7 introduces important legislative measures to protect potential and actual victims of early and forced marriage. These measures would also provide protections against other harmful practices and forms of violence that predominantly and adversely affect women and girls, such as polygamy and so-called honour-based violence.

Bill S-7 proposes to set the absolute minimum age of marriage at 16 in the Civil Marriage Act and codify in the same act the requirements that the marriage involve free and enlightened consent and that all previous marriages be dissolved prior to entering into a new marriage.

The bill also introduces changes to the Criminal Code to criminalize active participation in an underage or forced marriage and criminalize removing a child from Canada for these same harmful purposes.

Moreover, Bill S-7 would expand the peace bond regime in the Criminal Code to provide for a new court order designed to prevent an underage or a forced marriage from taking place in Canada and to prevent a child from being taken out of the country to be forced into a marriage.

Additionally, Bill S-7 proposes to limit the defence of provocation in the Criminal Code so that it could not be raised in cases involving so-called honour killing and in many spousal homicides, for which the alleged provocation often consists of verbal or offensive but otherwise lawful behaviour.

Finally, the bill puts forward important changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, that would specify that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible if they practice polygamy in Canada.

I would like to focus my remarks today on the proposed forced and earlier marriage peace bond provisions of the bill.

The prevention of violence has been a key aspect in our Conservative government's action on violence against women and girls. Expanding the peace bond regime in the Criminal Code by way of the proposed amendments in Bill S-7 is consistent with these important efforts.

Peace bonds are preventive court orders under the Criminal Code that require a person to agree to specific conditions to keep the peace. A peace bond does not require a finding of guilt or result in a criminal conviction unless the conditions of the peace bond are proved to have been breached.

When a peace bond is issued, the court imposes a mandatory condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and may also impose any other reasonable condition necessary to ensure the good conduct of the offender.

The new peace bond would provide guidance to the court and the types of optional conditions that may be imposed. Some of these are the same as the other peace bonds in the Criminal Code—for instance, no contact or communication with a person who fears for their safety—while others have been designed for the types of circumstances that would specifically assist in preventing a forced marriage, such as preventing the defendant from leaving the jurisdiction of the court; preventing the defendant from making plans or arrangements related to the underage or forced marriage, such as booking a wedding venue or a plane ticket to leave the country for the ceremony; requiring the defendant to surrender passports or other travel documents to the court; and requiring the defendant to participate in a treatment program that includes family violence counselling.

The proposed peace bond could last for a period of one year, and up to two years if the defendant had previously been convicted of a forced or early marriage offence. Subsequent peace bonds could be taken out on behalf of a victim should the threat of an early or forced marriage persist.

The new peace bond would play an important role with respect to victims who might be reluctant to engage the authorities because they do not want their family members prosecuted. In some cases, family members may be otherwise law-abiding individuals whose actions are simply misguided and not intended to be harmful.

The availability of a peace bond would encourage potential victims to seek out the support of the criminal justice system without fear of criminally prosecuting family members. However, peace bonds are enforceable through the threat of a criminal sanction. A violation of the terms of the peace bond is an offence under section 811, punishable by a maximum of a two-year prison sentence. Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, proposed to increase the maximum penalties for breaching a peace bond to four years of imprisonment on indictment.

The proposed forced marriage peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code are similar to the highly successful civil forced marriage protection orders available presently in the United Kingdom. Apart from that fact, the U.K. forced marriage protection orders are civil, while the proposed forced marriage peace bonds in Bill S-7 would be under the Criminal Code. However, they are otherwise alike in many respects. For instance, both are preventative court orders that do not constitute a criminal charge. Both are available by way of an emergency application on behalf of the victim, and conditions can be applied against a defendant prior to a hearing on the merits. Both require a hearing before the court and both rely upon a civil standard of evidence, which is the balance of probabilities, as opposed to a criminal one, which requires establishing the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

It should be noted that any individual may make the application, including the victim, relatives, or any other person. The victim would not be required to apply for the peace bond personally. In many cases, it would be expected that a police officer would swear the information against the defendant, although a child protection or victim service worker might also do so.

As members can see, peace bonds are just one essential part of this very important piece of legislation.

It is this government, under this Prime Minister, that is taking steps to strengthen our laws to help ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of an early or forced marriage, polygamy, so-called honour-based violence, or any other form of harmful cultural practices. While the opposition refuses to even call these acts “barbaric”, our government is taking action.

I hope that all members appreciate the importance of this bill, and I encourage all members to give Bill S-7 their full support.

Sex Education

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if anything demonstrates the need for the House to quickly pass Bill C-26, our Conservative legislation for tougher penalties against child predators, it is the decision by the Liberal Party in Toronto to introduce sweeping changes to how grade school children are taught sex education.

This curriculum was written by someone charged with two counts of distributing child pornography, one count each of making child pornography, counselling to commit an indictable offence, and agreeing to or arranging for a sexual offence against a child under 16. As a hand-picked provincial Liberal deputy minister, this powerful party insider was caught only after an international online probe. If withdrawal of this Liberal policy can prevent one child from being groomed for exploitation, it really must be withdrawn.

On behalf of the parents, grandparents, and the vulnerable children of Ontario, we demand that the federal party leader order this outrageous policy to be withdrawn now.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

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

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

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

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

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

When we are look at the crime bills that the government has been putting forward, over and over again we see that the resources are just not there. On this particular bill, it is ironic that the government has tabled legislation dealing with an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the high risk child sex offender database act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts when we have just been advised that over $10 million in funding that was allocated to the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre went unused. The parliamentary secretary basically said that they did not spend all that money because there were human resource challenges stemming from the nature of the work.

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

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

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

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

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

It goes on to say:

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

It further states:

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, now at third reading. This is a critical piece of legislation and we should all support its important objectives.

Bill C-26 would strengthen our existing approach to protecting children from sexual predators by building on numerous recent initiatives in that regard.

I am pleased that our government has implemented a number of important initiatives, including raising the age of consent to sexual activity, also known as the age of protection, from 14-years to 16-years; requiring those who provide Internet services to the public to report when they are advised of an Internet address where child pornography may be available to the public; requiring all of those convicted of sexual offences abroad to report to a police service within seven days of arriving in Canada; and creating two new offences prohibiting anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child, and prohibiting anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including the Internet, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child. Those are just to name a few.

Unquestionably, our government has worked hard to protect children from sexual predators and it continues to do so, as is currently reflected in Bill C-26's proposed reforms. Our children deserve no less.

Available statistics paint a disturbing picture of sexual offences against children, both at home and abroad. Sadly, this type of offence has been facilitated by the Internet, which may play a role in the recent increases in police-reported child sexual offences.

The most recent statistics indicate a 6% increase in 2013 as compared to 2012. This includes a 30% increase in police-reported incidents of luring a child via a computer, an 11% increase in police-reported incidents of sexual exploitation, and a 21% increase in police-reported incidents of child pornography offences.

Furthermore, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which operates cybertip.ca, Canada's tip line for reporting online sexual exploitation of children, provided the committee on justice and human rights with data that also caused deep concern.

Specifically, it has received 125,000 reports from the public since 2004, when cybertip.ca was launched. The majority of these reports related to images that are online and that depict children being sexually abused.

The centre noted that in the 2014-15 fiscal year alone, its child protection analysts assessed and categorized over 6,000 images of child pornography. Disturbingly, 69% of these images depicted children that were under the age of 12.

These numbers are telling us that more must be done. Bill C-26 would do just that.

First, it would increase penalties for certain child sexual offences, including child pornography, which has become a global scourge, as the statistics clearly show. Child pornography does not just harm the children who are abused in the images, it harms all children by sending the abhorrent message that it is acceptable for adults to use children for their own sexual gratification.

To better denounce and deter this crime, Bill C-26 would increase both mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for possessing and accessing child pornography. Moreover, Bill C-26 would make the most serious child pornography offences, making and distributing child pornography, strictly indictable with a mandatory minimum penalty of one year and a maximum penalty of 14 years. This is to reflect the severity of these crimes and the harmful impact they have on children.

The Supreme Court of Canada has commented on the pervasive nature of the harm caused by this type of offending in its 2008 L.M. decision. It said:

Finally, I note that L.M. disseminated his pornography around the world over the Internet. The use of this medium can have serious consequences for a victim. Once a photograph has been posted on the Web, it can be accessed indefinitely, from anywhere in the world. [The victim] will never know whether a pornographic photograph or video in which she appears might not resurface someday.

In addition to its proposed penalty increases, Bill C-26 would also require judges to impose consecutive sentences in cases where offenders are sentenced at the same time for contact child sexual offences and child pornography offences, and where offenders are sentenced at the same time for contact child sexual offences against multiple victims. No more sentence discounts for prolific child sex offenders. Every victim matters.

These are some of the bill's critical messages that serve the important objectives of denunciation and deterrence, which, as our Criminal Code apparently clarifies, are paramount in cases involving the abuse of a child.

That is not all. Bill C-26 also proposes to increase the maximum penalties for breaches of supervision orders, which impose conditions on suspected or convicted offenders, and are intended to prevent offending and protect children. We cannot ignore the fact that all breaches of such orders indicate a risk to children. That is why it is imperative that offenders are held accountable for breaching conditions imposed to protect children.

In a similar vein, Bill C-26 would also ensure that evidence of an offence committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order, on parole, or on statutory release, would be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Offenders who reoffend, while subject to conditions imposed to protect those they have harmed, should be held to account, not just for the new offence but also for their violation of the conditions themselves. This is the appropriate way to effectively denounce violations of such conditions.

I am the father of two daughters, 15 and 11 years old, and thank God this kind of thing has not ever happened to them. I could not even imagine going through that as a parent and I could not even imagine what that would do them.

I believe these measures, in addition to the proposed new high risk child sex offender database also proposed in Bill C-26, address the dangers and risks posed by child sexual offenders.

I trust that these reforms will get support from all members of this House. I know that all members of Parliament are committed to protecting children from harm. Toward that end, I urge all honourable members to join me in support of this important legislation.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there actually is a program. It is called circles of support and accountability. It has a 70% to 80% success rate.

My question relates to a comment made early in the speech where the hon. member said that the measures in Bill C-26 build on those taken in Bill C-10. He is right. In Bill C-10 there were several instances where mandatory minimum penalties were increased, and they were increased again in Bill C-26. What happened between the introduction of the mandatory minimums in Bill C-10 and the increase in those mandatory minimums in Bill C-26 was that the rates of these types of crimes went up.

I believe it was Albert Einstein who said the “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. Could the member explain why we are re-increasing mandatory minimums when the ones that were increased in Bill C-10 did not work?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the articulate and passionate member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

Before I begin my official remarks, I would like to say I have never seen an upstream solution or a social program that can cure a pedophile. That is absolutely ridiculous. I have spent 18 years as an educator, over 10 of those as a school principal, and I have seen the victims of child predators. I have seen the victims of pedophilia, and no slap on the wrist, no upstream solution, no social program is going to stop them from violating the rights of our most precious commodity, our children. When they are sitting in a prison cell, predators cannot and will not molest a child. That is the solution for pedophilia in this country.

I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, during third reading debate. Bill C-26 would significantly strengthen our approach to addressing sexual offending against children. The proposed reforms are targeted at deterring these heinous crimes; ensuring that offenders are held accountable for the harm they cause to the most vulnerable members of our society; and enhancing our ability to monitor these offenders to assist in preventing recidivism.

We know that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. In fact, children represent the majority of all police reported sexual assault victims, and 55% of all police reported sexual assault victims in 2012 were children. It is shocking. Moreover, recent increases in police reported sexual offences are of particular concern. In 2013, they increased by 5% from the previous year, in contrast with the decline in recent years of violent crime generally. This is a higher rate than the two previous years in 2012 and 2013, which each saw a 3% increase. So this is a growing problem.

What are these numbers telling us? In my view the message is clear: we need to do more as a society to protect our children from this harm. That is precisely why Bill C-26 builds on recent reforms enacted by the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, including increasing mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain child sexual offences.

Recent jurisprudence reflects the importance of these types of reforms. Judicial consideration of denunciation and deterrence and the imposition of lengthier sentences for child sexual offences have increased following passage of the Safe Streets and Communities Act. These reforms strengthen penalties for child sexual offences. Judges are taking note of Parliament's efforts to recognize the seriousness of these types of offences.

Specifically, the British Columbia Court of Appeal noted: “Parliament has made it very clear that the protection of children is a basic value of Canadian society which the courts must defend”. The Ontario Court of Appeal has also commented on this important legislative objective. That court noted: “...recent amendments to the Criminal Code and decisions of this court have signalled a determination to address, in a more powerful and effective fashion, the need to denounce and deter crimes that involve the sexual victimization of children.”

I believe these are objectives that we can and should support, and they are clearly reflected in Bill C-26's proposed reforms. They are also supported by clear statements of principle contained in the Criminal Code. Section 718.01 clarifies that primary consideration should be given to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a child. In these cases, the protection of children from those who might harm them is the single most important factor.

Bill C-26's proposal to increase minimum mandatory penalties for these types of offences is entirely consistent with those objectives. In fact, they further those objectives. The application of minimum mandatory penalties to child sexual offences is not new. We now have experience in this regard. For example, Mr. David Butt, who testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, noted in respect of minimum mandatory penalties:

...the sky has not fallen, in the sense that we still have responsible sentences; we still have a realistic opportunity to present in a sentencing hearing where the appropriate sentence should fall in the range. This is not eviscerated judicial discretion; it has simply moved the floor.

We have to ask ourselves whether it is appropriate to move the floor.

Mr. David Butt, the legal counsel for the Kids Internet Safety Alliance, made those comments on February 4, 2015.

The answer to Mr. Butt's question regarding minimum mandatory penalties for child sexual offences is an unequivocal yes. I agree that minimum mandatory penalties recognize an appropriate level of moral opprobrium, as he stated, for child sexual offences. Furthermore, I am convinced that these types of sentencing measures contribute significantly to the realization of the Criminal Code's important objectives of denunciation and deterrence with respect to child sexual offences.

These are the reasons why Bill C-26 proposes further penalty increases for child sexual offences, as well as mandatory consecutive sentences where offenders are sentenced at the same time for contact child sexual offences and child pornography offences, or for contact child offences against multiple victims. This is another critical aspect of Bill C-26.

I will be clear. Bill C-26's consecutive sentencing reforms mean that sentencing judges must impose consecutive sentences in these cases, regardless of the totality principle, which maintains that the total length of sentences ordered to be served consecutively should not be unduly long or harsh. Judges would be specifically directed to impose a sentence for each conviction and order that they be served consecutively. This would respect each individual victim.

Importantly, these reforms would ensure that the harm done to each child victim is recognized specifically. There would be no more sentence discounts for offenders who are sentenced for multiple offences against multiple victims at the same time. Bill C-26 is clear on this point: offenders must be, and I repeat, must be held accountable for each and every victim they have harmed.

Recent sentencing cases demonstrate the importance of these reforms. Now, although courts have generally been imposing consecutive sentences in cases where offenders are sentenced at the same time for contact child sexual offences and child pornography offences, often in recognition of the additional harm caused when material is distributed via the Internet, the approach to cases involving convictions for offences against multiple victims is much more inconsistent.

We are seeing judges impose concurrent sentences for offences committed against different child victims. I am concerned that such an approach to sentencing might be seen by some pedophiles, in some sort of perverse way, as an incentive to actually violate the rights of multiple victims. Of course, that is not the intention of sentencing. However, we are concerned about the effect of a particular law or practice, not its intention. Certainly, it could not be said that the practice of imposing concurrent sentences in these types of cases serves the important objectives of denunciation and deterrence, which are enshrined in the Criminal Code itself.

These reforms are clearly needed. The victims who testified before the committee on justice and human rights were very clear on this point. However, Bill C-26's sentencing reforms would not stop there. The bill would increase these penalties for breaches of supervision orders, which could be imposed to prevent future offending. The breach of a condition included in such an order is a factor indicating that the offender is at risk of offending again. 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 a 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 Bill C-26's proposed sentencing reforms, but the bill proposes other important reforms that would assist in ensuring that the evidence of an accused's spouse is available in child pornography prosecutions. Information could be shared between Canada and foreign countries concerning Canadians and permanent residents of Canada who may travel abroad to sexually offend against children. Moreover, the public would be informed of high-risk offenders who might offend against our children.

I see that my time is running out. I will stop there and pick it up in questions and comments.

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 third time and passed.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

Protecting children from predators is a Liberal priority, as I am sure it is a priority of everyone in the House. For that reason, we will support the bill, though in many respects we view it as a missed opportunity from a policy perspective. I want to be clear. Sexual violence is traumatic and devastating at any age, but even more so for children.

The attempt of criminal sentencing to in some way quantify the impact of sexual violence is a failure from the outset. As with all violent crime, no criminal sentence or civil remedy can undo the wrong that has occurred, though we would hope that healing is possible for every victim.

However, the law can only deliver an imperfect measure of justice. No, consecutive sentence, increased maximum penalty, no order for damages can undo the actions that society would justly have offenders repay.

The hearts of everyone in the House, including my colleagues on the justice committee, go out to the victims of childhood sexual offences. The testimony of victims we heard at committee was gut-wrenching and, frankly, at times difficult to listen to.

I want to say for the record that I was particularly struck by the testimony of Mr. Greg Gilhooly, a victim of the terrible crimes of Graham James. Mr. Sheldon Kennedy also appeared by teleconference, but unfortunately we experienced some technical difficulties into his testimony. In any case, I would like to commend both of them for assisting the committee with its work, along with Mr. Alain Fortier and Mr. Frank Tremblay of Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculi. Their bravery in going on the public record for the benefit of Canadian society is truly admirable and most appreciated.

As to the purpose of Bill C-26, Liberals support the policy objectives of reducing sexual offences against children, denouncing such heinous acts when they occur and separating offenders from society where necessary. However, from the Liberal perspective, the bill should have focused more on reducing crimes in the first place, rather than on punishing offenders once a child had been victimized.

In our committee over the past year we have talked a lot about victims, and rightly so, but we should put more focus on having fewer victims to talk about. Reducing rates of child sexual crime will require making meaningful fiscal commitments instead of these repeated changes to the Criminal Code.

Liberals believe it is crucial for criminal justice policy to be evidence-based. That belief is at the core of our support for the charter, which requires our courts to weigh a law's intended purposes against its actual effects in real life. Unfortunately, the bill is largely a missed opportunity when it comes to reducing sexual offences against children.

As we heard at committee, the data shows that a reduction in the incidence of these crimes would require investing in rehabilitation programs. Instead, we heard that the Conservatives had cut programs that successfully achieved reductions.

In addition, some provisions in Bill C-26 that reduce judicial discretion are problematic, though not fatal to our support for the bill. I will explain these conclusions in a minute. However, I would like to go over the provisions of Bill C-26 for the benefit of the House.

Bill C-26 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to increase mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children, including sexual assaults and offences related to child pornography.

Bill C-26 would also increase the maximum penalties for violations of various court orders, including probation orders, peace bonds and so forth. In addition, it would amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that the spouses of the accused would be competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases.

The bill would also amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting obligations of sex offenders who travelled outside of Canada.

Finally, Bill C-26 would enact the high risk child sex offender database act to establish a public-accessible federal database that contains an amalgamation of already public information with respect to high-risk sex offenders.

I want to say a few words about rehabilitation, which I know is a principle of sentencing that the government prefers to ignore. However, from a public policy perspective, it is absolutely crucial. I say that not because anybody wants to put support for offenders above support for victims, but because we want to have fewer victims.

Some in this chamber may recall that at second reading I expressed considerable skepticism about the bill before us. After all, in 2012, many of the criminal provisions in Bill C-26 were amended in Bill C-10 to create or increase minimum penalties or to increase maximums. Since Bill C-10 came into force, the Minister of Justice, as repeated again today by the Minister of Finance, indicated that child sexual offences had risen by 6%. Therefore, it serves to reason that either Bill C-10 was ineffective at reducing the number of offences or that the government is again increasing penalties, without waiting to see whether Bill C-10 was effective.

I understand that maybe the focus here is denunciation and separating offenders from society, but I would plainly ask, why are we not doing more on prevention? Why is reduction not our central policy focus when it comes to child sex offences or at least worthy of equal focus to denunciation and separation from society?

Liberals will support the bill, but we would like a direct answer to this question from the government. Where is the prevention?

I would like to draw the government's attention to some specific testimony from the committee. We heard from two representatives from an organization, which was discussed earlier in debate, called Circles of Support and Accountability, or COSA.

COSA is a community-based reintegration group that holds sexual offenders accountable for the harm they have caused, while assisting with their re-entry into society at the end of their sentences. COSA was started by the Mennonite Central Committee, and there are chapters across the country.

At committee, we heard about the organization's remarkable success at reducing recidivism. Specifically, research indicates that offenders involved with COSA have a reduction of sexual recidivism of 70% to 80% compared to those who are not. The program is also very cost effective. For example, the annual budget in Ottawa, which would work with about 8 to 12 offenders a year, is less than the cost to incarcerate one offender in the federal system for a year.

COSA had been receiving $2.2 million in government money annually for two decades. However, the government ended that funding, which in Ontario, for example, supported 70% of its operations.

From a public policy perspective, how does it make sense to tinker with the Criminal Code, while defunding programs that are proven to reduce recidivism by 70% to 80%? Think of how many fewer victims that means, or maybe do not, because it is too heartbreaking.

Also on this point of prevention, speaking about the proposed federal sex offender registry, the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Daniel Therrien, told the committee:

—evaluations that have been done based on the experience in the United States suggest that there is little or no evidence that registration and notification laws are effective, either in terms of deterring sex offender recidivism or in reducing reported sex offences.

Any government's time and money are limited resources. Is Bill C-26 an efficient allocation of those resources to serve the worthy objective of reducing child sexual offences? Again, I repeat, it is a missed opportunity.

I also want to mention that it remains my view, and the view of the Liberal Party, that some of these changes inappropriately remove judicial discretion from the sentencing process. Perhaps Conservatives look at these changes and think, “Great, higher sentences across the board”.

However, a key point that gets missed here is that discretion is not eliminated. It is simply downloaded to law enforcement and prosecutors. The result, in some instances, might be that we see no charge where we would currently see a relatively minor or moderate charge, because a new mandatory minimum would make an appropriate outcome impossible. Dr. Stacey Hannem, the chair of the policy review committee of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, drew our attention to the particular problem of eliminating summary offence options.

In any event, I want to reiterate that Liberals will support this bill, because we indeed support the denunciation of child sexual offences and separating offenders from society where necessary. None of my criticisms of this bill detract from the gravity of these types of crimes. However, their gravity is why I wish the government would do more to prevent these crimes in the first place, rather than focusing exclusively on dealing with their consequences.

As I said, this is a missed opportunity to prioritize the prevention of these intolerable crimes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering the first question about the process in committee and the amendment stage. My colleague also proposed an amendment that made sense to me. It seemed well-thought-out and logical given what we had heard. Once again, the government flat out said no. It is all very sad.

When NDP members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights make speeches, they do not get sheets of paper telling them to say this or that, unless a colleague wants to help out and has a great idea. We are rather autonomous. I imagine the same goes for my Liberal colleague. He is going to give his speech a little later. He will surely figure it out for himself.

To hear the Conservative backbenchers, we get the impression that they do not get much of a say. They seem to be run by some tiresome remote control. I thought that being a member of a committee meant doing this work for our colleagues in the House: coming back after report stage and reporting on what all of us, from all parties, heard and what we think.

On the matter of the circles program, unfortunately, the answer will be brief. It is sad because we had with us the Minister of Finance who holds the purse strings. If he really believes in Bill C-26, then he needs to allocate a bit more money.

Unfortunately, justice is the poor cousin. If we do not have social justice in the country, then that is pretty pathetic.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are supporting Bill C-26, so I think that speaks volumes to those factors.

The Conservatives talk a lot about consecutive sentencing. The Minister of Finance talked about it also, but I would submit that in the same way the charter of victims rights has been conceived—with a lot of “could”, “might”, and so on—it would still be left to the discretion of the court. I believe that a crime should be punished according to what the crime is.

I have practised labour law my entire life. Thank goodness it is not about crime and it is not the same thing. However, when someone is fired or is brought before a disciplinary board, the same principle has always been applied, and this is the same societal principle that we apply to criminals: the person who commits a crime must pay. However, if their crime is stealing a chocolate bar from a corner store, they will not be put in prison for 10 years, as would the fellow who goes to a bank with a shotgun and waves it in the teller's face. It is all relative. That is how our system works.

The government talks a lot about consecutive sentences, but that is at the court's discretion. That suits the NDP. That is the principle to be retained. However, they should stop talking as if consecutive sentences were automatic because victims are being misled if they are led to believe that, as of now, all sentences will be consecutive. That is not true. There is the principle of totality, according to Mr. Gilhooly, who is a victim. Consecutive sentences will not work because of this principle. People have to stop spouting nonsense.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member across the way. She definitely is passionate. She is bright. She is a lawyer, and that is not an insult. However, she said a lot.

To summarize, she said that the government has promised a lot. That is true. We have promised to make Canada safer. We have one of the best judicial systems in the world, but it needs to be improved, and that is what Bill C-26 does. She said we are doing a lot, and she is correct. We are doing a lot to make sure we have kept our promises.

One of the key parts of Bill C-26 is to hold offenders to account and to protect the victims. If offenders reoffend during their warrant period, should the sentence for that offence be served concurrently or consecutively? Should it be at the same time they are serving their initial sentence, or should it be added on?

There is another question on concurrent and consecutive sentences in the case of multiple victims. If victim number one was sexually assaulted and then victim number 2, at a different time, was also sexually assaulted, and then victim number 3 was sexually assaulted, would those be three convictions? If there were three convictions, would those sentences be served all at the same time by that person, or should the sentences be consecutive and be served one after another?

I think Canadians want them served one after another. I would ask for the ideology of the NDP on that issue.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to begin my speech in the House on Bill C-26 by pointing out the latest attempt by the member for Langley to demonize the official opposition and the second opposition party.

Any time we examine a justice bill, whether it is Bill C-26 or any other justice bill, I look carefully at what the bill says. This bill is 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.

Sometimes I receive a letter from the Minister of Justice, but not always, explaining a little about the context of his bill, which I appreciate.

In the case of Bill C-26, the main objective is to deter criminals and denounce sexual offences against children. The next step is to examine the bill and see whether that is what the bill actually does.

When I hear the Conservatives say over and over again that we care more about offenders and criminals than we do about victims, I find that rather biased and I take offence to such comments, which add absolutely nothing to the debate.

Obviously we are talking about criminals when we are studying a bill like this. They are the main focus of the bill. Talking about them does not mean that we like them, or support them, or that we are behind them saying, “good job, do it again”, like a bunch of cheerleaders. Not at all.

However, if the government tells me that it is denouncing sexual offences against children in order to deter criminals, then I will look at the bill to see whether that is indeed what the government is doing.

It is rather sad that closure was invoked at second reading stage of such an extremely important and complex file, because we can see from the title of the bill alone that it affects a number of statutes at the same time. It introduces a specific database for offenders who are at risk of reoffending and committing more serious offences than the ones described in the current database.

As I was saying to the Minister of Finance, who was well informed but was perhaps not the person who worked directly on this file, the House has passed many laws regarding sexual offences against children.

In fact, we have to question why, by the Minister of Justice's own admission, there has been a 6% increase in offences in the past two years alone. That still bothers me somewhat because if one of the main objectives of the law is to deter criminals from committing crimes and to report sexual offences against children, there may well be some flaws. I do not want members to tell me that this did not exist before. Minimum sentences did exist.

Bill C-26 does not include any new minimum sentence or any new maximum sentence. All that happened was that the length of the sentences was increased. Both minimum and maximum sentences were increased. Perhaps these types of sentences did not work. In short, we could have done the analysis, but first there was closure in the House, then we went to committee.

I must confess that I was a bit wary in the beginning. We were under the impression that the members sitting on the government benches wanted to work very quickly and take shortcuts. Nevertheless, I admit that we were finally able to call the witnesses that we wanted to hear.

I am not quite so positive when it comes to the amendments. Only the government's amendments were accepted, which is always the case. I think that is unfortunate because one of our amendments was based on the very solid evidence given by a criminology expert.

She told us that the information the government wants to put in the new registry—or high risk sex offender database—that it wants to create and that is mentioned in clause 29 of Bill C-26 might be used to identify some victims. This government claims to be on the victims' side and tells us that we are the mean ones who always side with the criminals.

I presented a very simple amendment but the government decided it was too complicated and unnecessary because the notion was implied. When I studied law at the University of Ottawa I was taught that if it is clear, you spell it out. You write it and that is that. Leaving things open to interpretation is another story. All we were asking was that, “under no circumstances must the information referred to in subsection (1) be used to identify the victims”. The amendment was rejected.

This government likes to introduce all kinds of bills. Sometimes it seems as though it is lacking a plan or a person to make sure that the different bills do not contradict each other or that a bill, like Bill C-13 on cyberbullying, which amended a lot of other laws, is not affected in any way by Bill C-26. Sometimes I wonder whether the government is losing control and losing its way.

We presented a perfectly reasonable amendment, requesting that the minister of justice be required to prepare a report specifying the number of persons whose name has been added to the database and the information specified in paragraphs 5(f) and (g), which have to do with the type of offence. This information could have been interesting to look at with respect to each of these individuals. The amendment stipulated that the minister of justice would have to table the report to each house of Parliament within the first 15 sitting days after the report has been prepared.

Once again, this seems to me like a reasonable amendment. The Conservatives will probably give me the same answer. The answer that was given by the Department of Justice and the Conservatives is that it is a public registry—as if I did not know that. The word itself says it all. Since it is a public registry, it is up to me to find the information I need. Every year, I will have to go and check the registry to find the information. If the government was interested in promoting these things and ensuring that its bills work well, this is the type of work that would normally be done. They want to complicate our lives. That is fine. That is good. We will put that in our pipe and smoke it.

However, that being said, it would have been much simpler to do this the way we are proposing. It could also have been useful for the government, since it could have found some missing information right in this report. The government may well say that the 6% increase could be due to the fact that the minimum sentences were not yet harsh enough. On this side of the House, we think that the increase is more likely related to the fact that the government does not spend much and, even worse, it is making cuts to programs that are working really well and that have been successful. That is also what experts told us in committee.

As I said before on the radio and here in the House at second reading, it is all well and good to have a registry. We already have one. The person responsible for the registry at the RCMP came and told us in committee that the RCMP is already doing this. When a dangerous person moves into a community, the RCMP informs the people living there. The RCMP does not need the government to keep the public safe. The government created this registry saying that it would formalize what the RCMP is already doing.

I will digress for a moment. When we had the minister's press conference after the Prime Minister's presentation, everyone who talked about Bill C-26 made it sound as though it was the ultimate goal and that it would solve all of the world's problems. Finally, the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP answered one of my questions and said that it would affect perhaps a dozen cases a year.

That brings us back to reality. The National Sex Offender Registry already exists for such offenders. The additional “high risk” aspect pertains to about a dozen people. One thing is clear, and I am surprised that the Conservative government has not paid more attention to it. In fact, instead of talking in glowing terms about this type of measure, it should instead be worried about the fact that these high risk offenders are in our communities. That worries me a lot. I sometimes feel that this government works a lot harder on paper, with words, because that goes hand in hand with its rhetoric that makes it appear to be tough and to be doing something. However, in reality, when we look at the resources available to the RCMP and police forces to conduct investigations, that is not the case. I shudder when I hear police services say that some types of crime will have to be ignored because combatting terrorism is now the priority. Perhaps the minister was right to specify the criteria for a sentence. Yes, there is rehabilitation, deterrence and all that, but one of the government's main purposes is to protect its citizens. Putting more eggs in one basket than in another is not necessarily good management.

There is nothing real there. As for minimum sentences—that is what the member opposite was talking about—I am of the same mind as a former Supreme Court justice who appeared before us and said, in the context of another justice-related file, that all minimum sentences are not necessarily unconstitutional. It is simply not a tool that should be overused. First of all, and this is very important, even the witnesses who appeared in committee, whether they were victims or people who work with organizations that support victims, told us that minimum sentences were not the issue. If, for the kind of offence and the seriousness of the crime committed, we were to impose the minimum sentences that the Conservatives proposed in Bill C-26, there is a problem somewhere. However, there could be a case that has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of stereotype we have of that kind of offence. Therein lies the problem. We heard it directly from legal experts. To say that we are against minimum sentences for this kind of offence does not mean we are defending criminals.

The fact is that, ultimately, the minimum sentence may not even be imposed by the court, because the court, as a general rule, will give more than that, and that is what we want. Look at the bill dealing with child kidnapping—it was clear from the case law that was brought before the committee that the average sentence exceeded the minimum sentence that the Conservatives wanted to impose.

Basically, this is mostly just smoke and mirrors; however, in some cases, it can lead to some strange outcomes. This is why there are constitutional challenges. With a constitutional challenge, all you need is one case that is flawed, that does not fit the minimum sentence formula, for the provision to be struck down; it will then be sent back here for us to do over again. That is one of the problems.

Obviously, the NDP supported Bill C-26 at second reading. We took our work seriously and sought the extra information we needed, even though the bill is far from perfect and is not necessarily the type of bill we would introduce. I think our analysis would be more thorough. Indeed, offenders need to be punished, but we must also ensure that the people who leave prison are not a danger to the public. Earlier, the Liberal member mentioned the circles of change program. In committee we learned that the program had a 70% to 80% success rate. Who would scoff at that? None other than the Conservative government, because it does not want to talk about that type of thing.

The government just wants to talk about things that create the impression that it is dealing with criminals. Of course, we are all against criminals.

When I return to my riding at the end of the day and talk to the people of Gatineau, because I like to connect with my community, I tell them I am proud of the work we did that week. In this case, we passed a victims bill of rights and we worked on a bill to deal with sexual predators. I would just like to add, for once in my life, that I am sure that this will be useful.

In any case, I can tell them I tried very hard in committee to have the government listen to reason, not to defend criminals, but to ensure that the bill will withstand the constitutional challenges that will test it in the coming years, that it is consistent with other bills, and that it achieves its objectives.

The government claims to be helping victims with the victims bill of rights, but they need real rights, as I said in my speech. The right to lodge a complaint cannot be hypothetical. The government brings in minimum penalties but it is cutting resources for police officers—the ones who catch criminals and bring them to justice. The justice system is crying for help, and we are in need of judges and crown prosecutors. How does this make any sense?

I weep for victims because they will never get the services they need. That will not change, even in one, two or three years. What is even sadder is that they will have been promised the world. It is even more disappointing when they are told that something will be fixed.

As for the registry, people from the RCMP have told us that they already have a hard time keeping criminal cases and criminal records up to date. The member for Langley presented a petition earlier regarding impaired driving. I agree that we still have a long way to go. When we hear in the papers that someone was convicted for the sixth time, we have to wonder how that can be possible. However, these situations happen because nothing is written in the records of these repeat offenders, even though everyone knows that they have been to court six times and that this is not their first conviction.

Civil and criminal justice need to be consistent. There needs to be some follow-up. The bill gives the governor in council the power to make regulations by 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, in subclause (b), by prescribing anything that is to be prescribed by this act. This means that this legislation retains some harmful legal grey areas.

This is moving too fast even for the people at the Department of Justice. I asked them what impact Bill S-2 would have. People like me who follow justice issues know that this was the bill concerning statutory instruments and how to enact regulations. We all know that a law is one thing, but that three-quarters of the obligations are set out in the regulations.

When the government tells us that the Governor in Council, namely cabinet, will be establishing the criteria, that tells us who is going to be making the decisions and that we will not know exactly when and how those decisions will be made. I asked them whether Bill S-2 would apply since we are talking about delegation and regulation by reference. That means that we would not even have a separate list of criteria. The answer that I got from the expert at the Department of Justice was that he did not know and that he would check.

That means that the government is not making connections between its various bills. I got an answer today, just a few hours before I rose in the House for the debate, and I was told that, yes, Bill S-2 would apply.

There are ramifications, and I get the impression that we will be forced to revisit many of these bills. However, as it now stands, Bill C-26 is unfortunately a lot of talk, just like the Canadian victims bill of rights. As one of the victims, Mr. Gilhooly, so aptly stated, even if the bill were passed as it stands, it would not change what he experienced in any way.

Once again, the government is misleading victims by giving them the impression that it is tough on crime and imposing law and order, but in the end, the law will not be enforced.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Justice of the day, the Minister of Finance, for his speech on Bill C-26.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has taken multiple steps to protect children, including implementing through the Safe Streets and Communities Act new mandatory prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code sexual offences, including assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault where the child is under 16 years of age; and making 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; 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; strengthening the sex offender registry; 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.

It all sounds good, but the Minister of Justice stated at committee that sexual offences against children had increased 6% over the past two years. Is Bill C-26 an admission of failure on the part of the government to really better protect children?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

moved that bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, during third reading debate. This is critical legislation that addresses concerns that I believe we all share.

Bill C-26 reflects the ongoing efforts by this government to combat all forms of child sexual exploitation and denounce the grave and reprehensible nature of such heinous crimes. The bill is another concrete example of our commitment to protect Canadian families, communities and, above all, to protect the most vulnerable and valuable members of our society, our children.

We know that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation, and are far more likely to be victims of sexual crimes than are adults. Our violent crime rates are trending downward in Canada. It is very worrisome that the number of child sexual offences reported to police continues to rise.

In 2013, police reported some 4,200 incidents of sexual violations against children, a 6% increase in the rate from the previous year. As noted by Statistics Canada, in its report on police reported crime released in July 2014, sexual offences against children was one of the few categories of violent crimes to increase in Canada in 2013.

I think we can all agree that these numbers are a cause for concern. Let me assure the House that the troubling reality behind those numbers is exactly what the tougher penalties for child predators act aims to address.

One of the amendments to criminal law proposed in Bill C-26 seeks to deter people from committing such horrific crimes by ensuring that offenders are liable for the harm they cause children and by improving our capacity to monitor these offenders and prevent recidivism.

More specifically, Bill C-26 proposes increasing mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for many sexual offences against children.

For example, Bill C-26 will ensure that anyone who commits any hybrid offence involving sexual contact is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day when the person is found guilty on summary conviction and a term of 14 years when the person is found guilty on indictment.

Bill C-26 also proposes to increase the penalties for making and distributing child pornography and to make these offences strictly indictable to better reflect their seriousness. Child pornography offences can have long-lasting and devastating impacts on victims, particularly when images and videos are posted on the Internet. Once on the web, child pornographic images can quickly be disseminated around the world and might be accessed indefinitely, with the result of re-victimizing the child victim at every click.

This bill would also ensure that committing a child sexual offence while on a conditional sentence order, parole, or statutory release would be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes to assist in preventing future offences by convicted child sexual offenders.

Bill C-26 proposes to increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds. Canadians are rightly concerned about the mobility and conduct of known child sexual predators once they are released into the community. Stricter measures are needed to ensure that supervision orders are observed and that breaches of conditions result in appropriate consequences. These conditions, which may include refraining from being in contact with a victim or staying away from a specific household or prohibitions around the use of weapons, alcohol, or drugs, are imposed to protect the children. A breach of these conditions generally means that there is an increased risk that the offender may commit further sexual offences. Therefore, Bill C-26 would increase the maximum penalties for breaches of conditions of any of these orders, from six to 18 months if preceded by summary conviction, and from two to four years if preceded by indictment.

Bill C-26 not only sends a strong signal that the protection of children is a paramount value of Canadian society but also communicates the important message that every victim matters.

The reforms in Bill C-26 would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of individuals accused of child pornographic offences would be compellable witnesses for the crown. The testimony of an accused spouse may be required to facilitate the prosecution of a child pornography offence when the pornographic material is found on a home computer, for example.

However, the amendments set out in Bill C-26 do not stop there. In order to further address the risk that sex offenders pose to children, Bill C-26 proposes amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act that would require sex offenders to notify authorities of any absences of seven days or more for any trip within Canada or abroad, as well as the dates of their travel and the locations where they will be staying.

It is important to note that child sex offenders will be expected to meet these obligations regardless of the duration of their trip.

The proposed amendments would also increase our knowledge of sexual offenders by authorizing the sharing of information on registered sexual offenders between National Sex Offender Registry officials and the Canada Border Services Agency. In particular, this would assist in preventing and addressing offenders who travel abroad to commit sexual offences against children.

Bill C-26 also proposes to create a national, publicly accessible database of high-risk child sexual offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. A centralized database would help to ensure that law enforcement and the public had greater access to information about high-risk child sex offenders.

Our government recognizes that the issue of child sexual exploitation is not one dimensional and requires a multi-pronged or holistic approach. Although the criminal law reforms proposed in Bill C-26 are a critical part of the overall response, I am pleased that our government has dedicated over $10 million since 2010 for 21 new or enhanced child advocacy centres to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime and to assist with the recovery of victims who have suffered significant trauma as a result of those heinous crimes.

The bill aims to further protect the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, from exploitation by providing measures designed to deter and denounce crimes of a sexual nature committed against them.

The sentencing amendments proposed in the bill include mandatory consecutive sentences, which would ensure that in cases of multiple crimes, including in instances where offences were committed against multiple victims, offenders would not receive what is commonly coined a “sentence discount” at the time they were sentenced.

Before describing the specifics of these amendments, allow me to provide some background with respect to the existing sentencing principles that are applicable to multiple offences. I will then focus my remarks on the proposed amendments to the sentencing regime with respect to child sexual offences.

Generally, the Criminal Code provides that a court has the discretion to order that a term of imprisonment be served consecutively to any sentence the offender is already serving or to any other sentence of imprisonment the court imposes, whether it is a result of the non-payment of a fine or not. If this provision sounds confusing, it is because it represents an amalgamation of sentencing rules that pre-date Confederation. Moreover, amendments over the years have further complicated the statement of the rules contained within the Criminal Code.

In addition to these Criminal Code rules, case law offers guidance with respect to the circumstances in which consecutive or concurrent sentences are imposed on an offender.

In general, courts will order that the sentence for two or more offences arising out of one continuous criminal act or single transaction, also referred to as the “same event or series of events” rule, will be served concurrently, or if members prefer, simultaneously. In these cases, the offender will serve the longer of the sentences imposed.

Offences or multiple convictions that arise out of a separate criminal transaction generally will garner consecutive sentences, which are served one after the other. The imposition of concurrent sentences for offences committed as part of the same event or series of events usually reflects the fact that the guilty mind of the accused is the same throughout the event or events, as opposed to offences arising out of separate criminal transactions. That said, courts will be reluctant to order that offences committed as part of the same event or series of events be served concurrently when it would allow the offender to commit subsequent offences with impunity, especially where the subsequent offence is particularly serious in nature.

For example, courts will order consecutive terms of imprisonment for an offence, the first offence, that is committed while fleeing from the police, the second offence. They will also order that an offence committed while on bail be served concurrently to the term of imprisonment for the predicate offence. The determination of whether sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively, therefore, is a fact-specific inquiry as to whether the connection between the two offences is sufficiently close to warrant concurrent sentences.

It is important to outline the relevant sentencing principles at play, especially when discussing concurrent and consecutive sentences. The Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing fit sentences that have one or more of the following objectives: denunciation, deterrence, separation of offenders from society, rehabilitation, reparation for harms done to victims, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders.

A fit sentence is one that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Criminal Code explicitly directs that a fit sentence must focus on the objectives of deterrence and denunciation.

The last step a court must take before deciding whether to consider that any terms of imprisonment it imposes be served consecutively or concurrently is to consider the totality principle.

Pursuant to subsection 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code, a court that imposes consecutive sentences must determine whether the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh. In other words, the totality principle requires courts to determine whether the totality of the sentence adequately reflects the overall gravity of the offender's conduct. Where the court is of the opinion that the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh, it may order that some of the offences be served concurrently instead of consecutively.

However, where the Criminal Code prescribes mandatory consecutive sentences, a court may impose shorter sentences on some or all of the individual offences in order for the combined sentence to be a fit sentence.

This will be the case for the offences of possession of explosives for a criminal organization, the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, terrorism offences, or criminal organization offences.

In these cases, the Criminal Code requires judges to order the term of imprisonment for these offences be served consecutively to terms of imprisonment imposed for other offences, whether they arise out of the same event or series of events or not.

The proposed amendments clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences, which I outlined earlier in my remarks.

The amendments would also require courts to order in certain cases consecutive sentences on offenders who commit certain sexual offences against children. This would be similar to the current requirement of consecutive sentences for offences that I mentioned earlier: terrorism, criminal organization offences, the use of a firearm.

Specifically, the bill proposes that sentences for child pornography offences be served consecutively to any sentence imposed at the same time for a contact child sexual offence.

It also proposes that in cases of multiple victims, sentences imposed at the same time for contact child sexual offences committed against one victim be served consecutively to those imposed for contact child sexual offences against any other victim.

These amendments recognize the increasing tendency of courts to direct that a sentence for possession or making of child pornography be served consecutively to a sentence for a contact child sexual offence, in recognition of the heinous nature of sexual offending against children, especially where the child pornography material is distributed via the Internet.

Furthermore, requiring child sexual offenders to serve sentences imposed for offences committed against different victims consecutively would address the so-called “volume discounts” given to child sexual offenders sentenced at the same time for multiple child sexual offences. This direction is also valid in cases of multiple child sexual offences, especially where there is more than one victim.

These proposed amendments will reinforce the continued efforts of this government to protect children against sexual offences by ensuring that these crimes are denounced, that child predators are deterred, and that every child victim counts.

In closing, I would encourage all members to support these important amendments that seek to protect our most vulnerable members of society, our young children.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation 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 committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and take part in what is obviously a very important debate on Bill C-51, the government's comprehensive counterterrorism package. This bill, which is titled the anti-terrorism act, 2015, deals, first and foremost, with public safety and efforts by our government to embrace methods that would improve and enhance safety for all Canadians.

The bill builds upon concrete legislative steps this government has already taken to combat terrorism, including through the Combating Terrorism Act, the Nuclear Terrorism Act of 2013, as well as more recent proposals found in Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Therefore, members can see there is a litany of legislative action already demonstrated by this government.

We can make no mistake about it, these are real dangers, not theoretical or hypothetical scenarios. As we have seen in places like Paris, Australia, Brussels, and in Canada, these acts have deadly effects. This is why there is simply no denying the existence of the threat and the necessity to take practical steps to improve the way in which our security forces operate, coordinate and respond to acts of terrorism. This is also to increase our capacity to learn from international examples. The ability for CSIS to operate outside of our borders is the security capacity that is found in most of our allies, certainly most of our Five Eyes partners.

The government is involved in broad-based efforts to counter domestic and international terrorism in order to protect our country, our citizens and our interest in our allies. This is consistent with our counterterrorism strategy, which is to build resilience against terrorism. Therefore, clearly working through partnerships, including with all levels of government and community leaders, is key to effectively implementing this strategy.

As the Speaker may know and members may be aware, we have an outreach effort at the Department of Justice that involves a cultural round table where we regularly consult and receive input from various communities around the country. This is an effective way to gain insight and understanding of how Canadians perceive this issue of terrorism.

As well as implementing this strategy, we are including our efforts to counter violent extremism. Engaging with the cross-cultural round tables on security-related issues is of great benefit in getting the balance right. There is also significant collaboration with international partners in addressing the terrorist threat.

As the Minister of Justice, I am responsible for ensuring that Canada's laws remain robust, fair and just. This is particularly important in the area of criminal law. Canada, like its friends and allies, must ensure that our laws remain responsive and effective in combatting the scourge of terrorism, while at the same time ensuring our laws respect our fundamental rights and freedoms.

Bill C-51 contains a suite of criminal law reforms that will do just that by amending the Criminal Code to strengthen terrorism recognizance with conditions and peace bond provisions; create a new criminal offence for abdicating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general; provide courts with the powers to seize, forfeit and remove terrorist propaganda, including from web sites located inside our borders; and to better protect individuals participating in national security proceedings and prosecutions.

These steps, in addition to those discussed earlier by my colleague the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, will go a long way to closing any real or perceived gaps in our ability to respond to terrorist acts.

I would like to take a closer look at each of the four pillars of criminal law reform in this bill. However, I would like to begin by pointing out that these four pillars of reform have common denominators.

The Criminal Code reforms individually and collectively seek to provide law enforcement agencies with appropriate tools to thwart the activities of terrorists who actively engage in terrorism. Within these reforms, and with these in place, police officers will now be able to intervene sooner, more effectively, and achieve better results before the matters get more serious. This aims to provide our protection for all Canadians through enabling the police to pre-empt and prevent acts of terrorism.

I want to emphasize here that judicial oversight is the backbone of these criminal reforms consistent with Canada's values and principles, including, as the Supreme Court of Canada has often repeated and I will emphasize again today, the values of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law. This is the type of oversight that should provide considerable comfort and relief to those who have criticized the bill at its early stage.

I would suggest that this type of insight that comes from the courts in enabling our security agents to make those types of interventions prior to acts of terrorism is at the very crux of what we are attempting to do. It is not just to be responsive; it is to be pre-emptive in protecting Canadians from acts of terrorism.

The first area of criminal law reform found in Bill C-51 would strengthen the existing provisions on the recognizance with conditions and terrorism peace bonds contained in sections 83.3 and 810.01, respectively, of the Criminal Code. Let me go further. This Criminal Code recognizance with conditions is already a tool that can be used. It is designed to disrupt and prevent terrorist activity from occurring in the first place. For example, this provision allows a peace officer, with the consent of the Attorney General, a prosecutor acting with delegated authority, to bring an individual before the court with evidence to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to require the individual to abide by specific conditions designed to prevent terrorist activity from occurring.

It bears noting that the individual in question would not necessarily be the person who might carry out that activity. In other words, the person could be a party to the offence or enabling the offence. It is important to note here that the provisions currently require that the court be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism activity will occur and that there be reasonable grounds to suspect that the recognizance with conditions is necessary to prevent that activity from occurring.

To move to the reforms, those introduced in section 83.3 of the Criminal Code found in Bill C-51 would lower the threshold required to obtain the recognizance from reasonable grounds to believe that terrorist activity will be carried out to the test of may be carried out. This threshold is also lowered from reasonable grounds to suspect that conditions are necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity to are likely to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.

These changes have the practical effect of making it easier to disrupt terrorist plans before they are executed. Therefore, going before a judge and making the case, based on evidence collected, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the terrorist activity may be carried out lowers the threshold, thus allowing police to act more efficiently and, in many cases, quicker.

In the bill, our government would also increase the possible maximum period of preventive detention from a total of three days to seven days, with safeguards, including periodic judicial review of the detention, to ensure that it is still required. Again, if we look at international examples, in the United Kingdom, it is twice that period of detention. As it currently stands in Canada, it is three days. We would extend that to allow the police agencies to ensure that they are doing everything in their power to prevent the terrorist act from occurring on Canadian soil.

The bill, through the Criminal Code, would also provide similar measures with respect to preventing the commission of terrorist offences. Terrorism peace bonds, as we know, are preventive tools used to disrupt and prevent individuals from committing terrorism offences. Peace bonds and recognizance are used in the domestic criminal justice system as well, but here there are specific provisions found in this bill that expand the use of recognizance and peace bonds. An application to impose a peace bond can be brought even where there has been no criminal charge or no prior conviction, but enables a judge to impose any reasonable conditions in order to prevent the commission of an offence.

What we are talking about here is enabling the judiciary, the police and the prosecution, to put in place preventive measures, such as requiring the person to forfeit their passports, requiring them to report to police or authorities, or staying away from certain individuals, staying away from certain public places, for example, like a military base.

All of these might be seen as extraordinary in normal circumstances, but I would suggest that in the context of this entire debate, we are talking about an elevated threat assessment based on what occurred here in October, 2014, based on what is happening around the world and based on the assessment of our security forces. These are practical steps that allow our security forces, with judicial oversight, to take preventative steps.

Currently, the Criminal Code provides that any person who fears on reasonable grounds that the individual will commit a terrorism offence, with the consent of the attorney general or a prosecutor in his or her stead, can apply to the court to have a terrorism peace bond imposed requiring the individual to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, or to comply with any other reasonable condition that the court believes necessary to ensure their good conduct, some of the provisions I mentioned. These conditions can be for a period of up to one year or, in the case of a person who has previously been convicted of a terrorism offence, up to two years.

These amendments would strengthen the terrorism peace bond by lowering the threshold to obtain that peace bond to where a person believed an individual “may” commit a terrorism offence, instead of the current “will” commit a terrorism offence. The bill would extend the duration of a terrorism peace bond from two to five years for those previously convicted of a terrorism offence.

More generally, in respect of both recognizance conditions and terrorism peace bond conditions, the bill would authorize the imposition of sureties, which is someone who agrees to take the responsibility of ensuring that the person subject to the court order complies with the conditions imposed. The bill would also require judges to specifically consider the desirability of imposing geographic limitations. I mentioned earlier surrendering passports or other conditions that the judge deems appropriate.

Moreover, these reforms would increase the penalty for breaches of these court ordered conditions from two to four years of imprisonment, consistent with similar conditions imposed found in Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

Finally, I suggest that these reforms would have the added benefit of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of recognizance with conditions and peace bonds across the country by allowing for the use of video conferencing when necessary and interprovincial transfers of any peace bonds on the consent of the appropriate attorney general.

The proposed reform with respect to recognizance with conditions and recognizance to keep the peace relating to a terrorist offence would also apply to adolescents in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

In short, the proposed amendments, which I have just referred to and described, seek to facilitate the use of the provisions to make them easier to obtain and to make them more effective in preventing terrorism, all with the backdrop of judicial oversight.

It is important to emphasize that the improvements we want to make to our terrorism prevention tools are compatible with what like-minded countries have in place.

For example, the United Kingdom uses similar measures to protect the public by subjecting individuals believed to pose a threat to public safety to conditions.

Australia also uses these control orders to prevent terrorist acts from occurring, which is to help enable the imposition of conditions on individuals. It is important because it shows that countries with strong democratic conditions, such as ours, and strong institutions which respect the rule of law, like ours, have also recognized that they can take measures that are firm in their response to terrorism, but fair in their approach to citizens, respecting the rights of those who are subject to these preventative tools.

Let us remind ourselves again of what we are trying to prevent: mass casualties, attacks on our institutions and the planting of bombs. What we see in other countries on the nightly news is no longer something that we are protected from merely because of our geography.

There are individuals who have sworn to cause us harm and who continue to make very pointed and prescribed threats against Canadian citizens. That is the backdrop in which we must remind ourselves this bill is rooted.

I pause here to emphasize that we are mindful of the concerns expressed by many stakeholders about these changes. Some have suggested that these proposals pose an unjustified and unnecessary infringement on fundamental charter rights. In response, I would note that there are many safeguards associated with the tools I have just described. I mentioned judicial oversight, the discretion exercised by our judiciary, and the requirement of the Attorney General's consent in their use. We have prosecutors now specifically trained in the use and application of this type of legislation.

In addition, there are reports to Parliament from our security agencies that refer specifically to recognizance with conditions. In addition, there is the requirement of a mandatory parliamentary review in 2018 and a sunset clause with respect to the recognizance with conditions I mentioned. This would all result in an ability to have eyes on and insight into the way the legislation would be applied.

Let us remember the objective of these tools: namely, the imposition of reasonable conditions on persons by the courts with a view to preventing terrorism activity and the commission of terrorism offences.

Our government takes the position that these measures are necessary to protect public safety. They are not to be used arbitrarily, and they are based on genuine concerns that put the public at risk.

The second area of the Criminal Code reform contained in Bill C-51, which would indicate a new indictable offence for advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general, is again an area of the law we think is necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are done with Bill C-26.

Thank you to all our guests today, from the Department of Justice, Department of Public Safety, Canada Border Services Agency, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As a reminder to the committee, we will be dealing with a private member's bill on parole starting on Monday.

We will have the witnesses in, and if there are any changes to that, let us know. We'll be spending all next week on that particular bill, starting with the mover of the bill.

We will see you on Monday.

This meeting is adjourned.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

The database of Bill C-26 is to cover about 12 people. Is that what you're saying to me today?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

This government often seems to indulge in wishful thinking, but we have to wonder about the practical aspects, as I mentioned to the witness who was here just now.

Paragraph 11(a) of the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act states that the Governor in Council may establish “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 paragraph 11(b) states that it may make regulations “prescribing anything that, by this Act, is to be prescribed.”

There is a lot of uncertainty in Bill C-26. The minister himself admitted that, after almost 10 years of tougher legislation on sexual offences against children, there has been an increase in the rate of those crimes.

All that remains to be pinned down properly. No studies have been done. Most experts who have appeared before the committee told us that there are not a lot of Canadian studies on the issue and that they often had to refer to American studies, where the systems are not necessarily the same.

My colleagues seemed to accept the idea that an annual report be prepared, while still increasing the number of years before being required to do so, which I think is entirely appropriate in this context.

I have asked that Bill C-26 be amended as follows:

The Minister of Justice must, within one year after the coming into force of this Act and every year after that, prepare a report specifying the number of persons whose name has been added to the database and the information specified in paragraphs 5f) and g)...

That might allow us to have statistics on the types of offences committed and to identify them. I was not able to ask for the criteria because they have not been drafted yet.

My amendment also asks that the Minister of Justice submit the report to Parliament. I think that is prudent given that the circumstances are even greyer than Fifty Shades of Grey. At any rate, it would be worth having those statistics.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I am not sure I follow you.

Mr. Churney, are we creating a new database or are we simply saying that the current sex offender database is public and accessible to everyone?

I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but my understanding was that the database includes individuals convicted of sexual offences who are at high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature. It is not the same thing as the existing database that the RCMP and other police forces are used to working with and that includes all sex offenders.

A new database with information is being created. Section 5 of the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act refers to the database in section 4. In that light, I am not sure I can follow your reasoning that the information is already published. We are going around in circles.

In my view, before making the information public, we should make sure that the information mentioned in section 5 will not make it possible to identify a victim. I don't think anyone would want Bill C-26 to help identify victims.

You are talking about a database, but I would like that to be clear. Are you referring to the existing database? I don't think so, because there would be no point in what you are doing right now.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are studying Bill C-26, which is a government bill and is quite important. With that in mind, I would like to repeat something so that we at least consider it in the future. When we know that this is being studied, I think we should be able to inform our colleagues on the committee so that we can increase the time for witnesses as required to be able to ask them questions.

Otherwise, we feel that we come after the fact. That bothers me. I am not saying that the content is bad, but I don't feel that we have done an in-depth study.

I keep saying that it won't be easy to meet the criteria of clause 29 for someone who commits an offence outside Canada. I wonder whether this won't be a complete waste of time.

I have no idea how the poor RCMP commissioner will enforce all that. No one gave me a specific example of an offence abroad or of how it would be handled here and how it would correspond to this wording. It is because this issue has not been studied in depth.

We would have liked to be advised earlier. The government might miss something and then we would have something to talk about, which would be better than rushing to pass the provision as fast as we can.

[Daryl Churney, Director, Corrections and Criminal Justice Division, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I think the answer, Mr. Chair, is that really it was no more than a drafting oversight. It was always the policy intent of the government to include the capture of these two provisions within the scope of the act.

In respect of the first item, the issue there is that as a sexual offence against a child is defined in the Criminal Code, it essentially includes two broad subsets, under new proposed paragraphs 3(1)(a) and (b). Whereas (a) is a list of clearly sexual offences, (b) includes offences that on the face of them are not sexual offences but where the crown has to prove sexual intent behind a particular offence in order to secure a conviction. An example of that would be something like trespassing at night, under section 162 of the Criminal Code, or voyeurism, for example.

On the face of those two examples, those would not be sexual offences unless the crown had proven intent. We wanted to be absolutely certain that we were not, by consequence, including those convictions where there is no sexual intent whatsoever. It's really just a matter of clarity, to make sure that we're not over-capturing people within the definition.

On the second issue, again with respect to foreign convictions for a sex offence, I would reiterate that this was always the government's policy intent to ensure capture of that group. Those persons who return to Canada, whether at the end of sentence with already an existing obligation to register under SOIRA, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or who are transferred through an international transfer of offenders application under the International Transfer of Offenders Act and then also have the same obligation to apply under SOIRA, would still be under the broad capture of SOIRA writ large, but we want to also make sure that those persons with a foreign conviction are included in the information-sharing provisions under Bill C-26. Basically it's with respect to the information-sharing provisions between the national sex offender registry and CBSA.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment is technical in nature. It would alter the definition of “sexual offence against a child” in clause 21 to (a) clarify that a designated offence as defined in subsection 490.011(1) of the Criminal Code applies where it is committed against a person under 18 years of age and the offender is required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act; and (b) it would specify that it applies to an offence that is committed in a foreign jurisdiction against a person who is under 18 years of age where the offender has been served with a notice to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

The current definition refers to subsection 490.011(1) of the Criminal Code, which includes non-sexual offences under paragraphs 490.011(1)(b) and (f). The proposed amendment clarifies that the definition applies to offenders who are required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, which excludes offenders convicted of a non-sexual offence where it had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender had intended to commit a designated sexual offence.

The proposed amendment would therefore ensure that there is no incorrect interpretation that non-sexual offenders would be among those subject to the proposed new provisions in the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for child sex offenders, such as, for example, reporting obligations regarding travel and information sharing with the Canada Border Services Agency. Also, the current definition does not specifically address sexual offences that are committed outside of Canada against a person under the age of 18 years where that person subsequently returned to Canada and is on the national sex offender registry.

The proposed amendment includes foreign sex offence convictions in the definition, which would ensure that these child sex offenders would be subject to reporting obligations regarding travel and information sharing with the Canada Border Services Agency in accordance with the proposed new Sex Offender Information Registration Act provisions in Bill C-26 for child sex offenders. Similar amendments are also being proposed to clause 29 of the bill in the definition used for “sexual offence against a child” with regard to the proposed new high risk child sex offender database that's contained in this bill.

For those reasons, we're proposing the amendment and will support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting to order. We're at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are televised today. There was a request to televise this meeting, and of course we make that happen when we can.

This is meeting number 62. As per our orders of the day, our order of reference of Monday, November 24, 2014, is 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.

Committee members, we are joined by a number of witnesses to do this clause-by-clause study. We have witnesses from the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Department of Public Safety, the Canada Border Services Agency, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

If you have questions on clauses or amendments, we'll call on these people to answer them.

Let's go right to the clause-by-clause study.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 7)

Committee members, just so you know, we have about five amendments here. They're all in order. You should have received them in advance. For clause 7, the first amendment is from the Liberal Party.

Mr. Casey, the floor is yours to discuss your amendment.

[Paul Calarco]

No, it's those proposed in Bill C-26—

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

That's not what's proposed in Bill C-26. It's just those who are high risk to reoffend.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

But isn't it included in the charter of victims rights that they will automatically know that their sexual predator is getting released?

There is a rule of law which says that Parliament does not speak in vain. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights already states that there will be more communication with victims and that they will be kept informed. This is not what is being discussed here. With all due respect to Mr. Fortier and Mr. Tremblay, we are not talking about their case here. We are talking about informing the public that a dangerous person presents a risk. This is what the part of the bill that deals with the new database is discussing.

In that context, my question is whether we are not deceiving ourselves into thinking that communities will become safer in that way, while we have no criteria. There has not been any national discussion with people who are used to dealing with this issue.

The debate has been at an intellectual level, among lawyers and people who have their own experience, but we are not necessarily discussing what Bill C-26 aims to accomplish.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The discussion is very interesting.

What worries me is that bills are always presented as the panacea for all problems, but once passed, there is not much follow-up.

From the beginning, there is something that has been bothering me enormously. I remember the first interview I gave to a radio station in Quebec—which I am not going to name—after the Conservative government introduced Bill C-26. People felt that all sensitive-hearted people would oppose this bill, would play at being lawyers, and so on, although it had been introduced to protect our children.

I am worried that the bill that has been introduced aims to create a database to make information accessible to the public on persons who have been found guilty of sexual assaults against children and who are at high risk of committing sexual offences. My concern is not exactly the same as that of certain witnesses who are here. This has made me shudder from the beginning, because it means that someone will be back in society whereas we know, because it has just been determined, that he is at high risk of committing sexual offences. What is wrong with that picture? There is a problem somewhere.

The fact of knowing that offenders have been released and that they are at high risk of reoffending should help us all to sleep better, including previous and future victims. It seems to me that there is something wrong with that concept.

Is there someone among the witnesses who has thought about the criteria that will allow authorities to determine if a person is at high risk of committing a sexual offence? If there is a witness who is intelligent enough to help us provide guidelines to the government in that regard, we would appreciate it. According to Bill C-26, the governor in council will by regulation establish the criteria that will allow people to decide whether someone who was found guilty of a sexual offence against a child is at high risk of reoffending.

Ms. O'Sullivan, I would be tempted to throw that ball in your court, even though I am sure you do not want it. What should those criteria be? Should they not be established in advance, rather than leaving the whole topic open and saying that they will be established through regulations? Moreover, the context is such that there now seems to be a lot of overlapping legislation.

Not that long ago, we studied Bill S-2, which allows delegation through regulations. We may never see it again and we will suddenly realize that there is a regulation that establishes criteria and that we did not even know it.

Can someone suggest guidelines for these criteria? Is there someone among the witnesses who is concerned about the fact that a database will be created, while we know that an offender is being released who is at high risk of reoffending?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to each of our guests for joining us today.

I want to start with the question of sentencing, both the mandatory prison sentences and the consecutive sentencing provisions in the bill. Unfortunately Mr. Kennedy is no longer with us. I would have liked to have heard his comments on those sections, but I do see that we have Mr. Fortier and Mr. Tremblay with us.

Mr. Tremblay, I believe it was you who said that Bill C-26, in your opinion, would better protect children and recognize the harm done to victims. You may know that in our last session we heard from Mr. David Butt who was here on behalf of the Kids Internet Safety Alliance and is a former crown prosecutor, and currently I think is a defence counsel. I'll just go to the bottom of his remarks about mandatory minimums. He said the mandatory minimums as proposed don't go too far. They recognize an appropriate level of moral opprobrium for the offence and they preserve judicial discretion.

We heard from the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers' Association, and others that they don't think that the minimum sentences contribute to deterrence, but they didn't say anything about public denunciation, the abhorrence that society feels about a crime of this nature committed against a child.

You mentioned the harm done to victims, and Mr. Butt mentioned the moral opprobrium concept, as I said, and I think it's kind of strange that we don't hear anything about that from the Canadian Bar Association or the Criminal Lawyer's Association. What's your view of mandatory prison sentences for people who commit these kinds of heinous offences against children, who are proven to have done so? What is the impact on the victims when they see both a minimum sentence that's meaningful and consecutive sentencing in a situation where the accused has committed similar offences against several children or multiple times against the same child?

Mr. Tremblay, can I hear from you and then Mr. Fortier as well?

I'd also like to hear from Ms. O'Sullivan on those issues.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Now to all my friends, lawyers like me, who don't like

minimum sentences. When I read Bill C-26,

Most of the clauses are stating minimums that already exist, so they're not even in contention in C-26. There are a few, maybe two or three, that are just upgraded from maybe 90 days to six months, but nothing really.... I know we all share big doubts about the efficiency of it. We had Mr. Gilhooly, and he's been one of the big victims of such crimes, who came and said he doesn't think it will do anything because of all types of concepts.

You spend a lot of time on the minimums and the maximums, but the maximums are rarely where the tribunals go. There's not that much change to the minimums, so is that really the biggest problem you see with Bill C-26?

I'll start with Mr. Spratt.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you for taking part in today's meeting.

I will start with Dr. Hannem because I think you pinpointed something really important.

The database you are talking about worries me considerably. It may mean that the victim will be identified. I don't think that is the intended objective. There seem to be two problems with this database: this matter of identification, and the issue of determining who will identify the person who is at high risk of recidivism.

If I understand correctly, we should perhaps include in clause 5 of the part of Bill C-26 that deals with the database a sentence specifying that none of this public information should be used to identify or contribute to identify the victim.

Would that be an acceptable caveat?

As for determining what should be included in this new database, should this responsibility not be given to the court rather than the RCMP? The governor in council could intervene first, in accordance with what is specified in the bill, which reads as follows:

11. The governor in council 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;

Clauses 3 and 4 refer to “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.”

Would this not be a better way of framing this database?

[Dr. Stacey Hannem, Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association]

Thank you.

I'm Dr. Stacey Hannem. I'm the chair of the policy review committee for the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, and I'm also an associate professor of criminology from Wilfrid Laurier University. I do have some research background in released sex offenders and reintegration.

As criminal justice professionals, the members of the CCJA certainly are sympathetic to the public's desire to be protected from people who would commit acts of sexual aggression and exploitation. We've carefully read and considered the proposals within Bill C-26, and we want to highlight a few aspects of the bill that we have some concerns with.

The CCJA is on record many times as being opposed to the creation of mandatory minimum sentences. Of course there is a range of increases to the mandatory minimum sentences contained within this bill. I won't belabour the issue, I think my colleague Michael Spratt quite nicely covered the issues with mandatory minimum sentences.

However in particular in relation to this issue, we do want to highlight clause 7, which amends subsections 163.1(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code to remove the summary conviction option from the offences of creation of child pornography and the distribution of child pornography.

The issue that we see with this is that given the lack of clarity around our definitions of child pornography in a digital age, and given some of the cases coming out of the United States where children have indeed been charged with creating and distributing child pornography for taking photographs of themselves and sending these via text message or via other digital means to boyfriends, girlfriends, and peers, our concern with this clause is that any young person in that kind of grey scenario around child pornography would be subject to the mandatory minimum provisions of the indictable offence—the one-year mandatory minimum. Given the increasing prevalence of that kind of behaviour among young people and given the role of peer pressure, we would want to caution Parliament and the government against placing those kinds of restrictions on prosecutorial discretion by removing that summary conviction option.

The second issue I want to highlight concerns the increased maximum sentences. Across the board this bill raises the maximum sentences on summary convictions to two years less a day for a range of offences against children.

By setting that maximum at two years less a day, the offenders remain in provincial custody. The issue that we want to highlight around this is the fact that effective sex offender programming is not universally available in provincial systems across the country. Ontario has some quite good programs; Alberta has none. There is absolutely no treatment specifically for child sexual offending in the provincial system in Alberta, for example.

When you're considering these types of offences and you're thinking about this as an offence that is worth two years less a day, you might want to consider ensuring that the provinces have the capacity to effectively treat these kinds of offenders and to make those programs available across the country, both while in custody and also in our communities.

The third issue I want to talk about is around the issue of the publicly accessible high-risk child sex offender database. I'm going to preface these comments by telling you that the longitudinal research on sex offender registries coming out of the United States—we have no research on it in Canada—tells us that these registries are of limited use.

A study published in 2008 looked at the sexual offence rates during the 10 years prior to and the 11 years following the creation of the sex offender registry in New York state. It found that it had absolutely zero impact on arrest rates and charge rates for sexual offences. Of all people charged with sexual offences during that time period—10 years before, 11 years after—95.9% were first-time offenders. They would not have been on the registry anyway. Again, that suggests that this registry itself is of limited use.

When you make a registry like that public and you put that information into the public domain, it does have a range of unintended consequences. The first one I want to point to is lowered compliance. Ontario has a compliance rate with its sex offender registry between 95% and 97%. It's very effective in terms of compliance, whether or not you think it makes a difference in actual change.

The provinces that have public information available—Alberta and Manitoba—have considerably less effective compliance. They are at 84% and 88% respectively at the last available data. So assuming you think sex offender registries are a useful tool for police investigations, then you should be concerned with the implications of lowered compliance.

The second issue is the identification of victims. One of the things is that, if you take a look at the publicly available information from Manitoba in particular, you will see that in talking about the nature of the offence, it often identifies the child or the spouse of the offender as the victim, for example, which makes these people publicly identifiable. That is a problem.

The public nature also impedes reintegration. There's a range of issues we encounter around harassment of offenders and their inability to reintegrate effectively, and I would suggest to you that, if you actually care about reducing the risk to children, you would consider groups like Circles of Support and Accountability, which has a 70% effectiveness rate in reducing recidivism and is currently being defunded here in Ottawa. It's going to have to close while there are people coming out of prison wanting to have the support to reintegrate, wanting to be able to work with people to help create safer communities.

I would urge you to consider funding these kinds of programs with proven effectiveness, rather than funding longer sentences of incarceration.

Thank you.

[Frank Tremblay, Vice-President, Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin]

Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone.

Our unqualified support for Bill C-26 is not only ideological, it is also based on a series of painful personal experiences. Our objective is not to punish the abusers more severely, but to offer better protection to the victims, to see appropriate sentences imposed on child sexual predators, and to see provisions that will mean that they will really serve their sentences. Children who have been assaulted have to be given greater consideration and respect. The protection of children is both the spirit and the letter of Bill C-26. It is not simply a matter of months or years.

I would like to give you a personal account. Twenty- three years ago, the person who assaulted my colleague Alain Fortier was given a 90-day prison sentence. The person who assaulted me, who had abused 13 victims, was given a 3-year prison sentence. The case was appealed by the Crown, and the Appeal Court reversed the judgment unanimously and imposed a 5-year prison sentence.

At first glance, one may believe that it is good to see some evolution. People have understood that the sentences should vary according to the cases. My aggressor had assaulted 13 victims and was give a 5-year prison sentence. As for Mr. Fortier's aggressor, he received a 90-day sentence.

Things are not quite what they seem, because in the past 20 years, there was no evolution whatsoever. The devil is in the details. Let's go for a brief visit to hell, so to speak. As I already said, my abuser was given a 5-year sentence after assaulting 13 victims. He was released in March 2014, after having served only 26 months of his prison sentence. If you divide 26 months by 13, that is equivalent to two months of prison time per victim.

I launched a class action suit against my abuser and his organization. During the civil trial, he mentioned that he had assaulted me at least 80 times. In Canada, that is not how the justice system works, I know. However, in my head and heart of abused child, Raymond-Marie Lavoie, my sexual abuser, was given 60 days of detention for having imposed 80 nights of love on me. That is the sentence Raymond-Marie Lavoie received.

How have sentences evolved in the past 20 or 30 years? To my way of thinking, my abuser was given 60 days of prison for having imposed 80 nights of love on a child of 13. Do we want to keep things the way they are? Is that what Canadians want?

Bill C-26 would allow for a recognition of wrongs, in order to protect children. Our support for Bill C-26 and its reforms goes beyond the simple mathematical proportion between the sentences and the harm inflicted. It is based on the recognition of a disaster experienced by the victims during their childhood and the immense efforts these people have to make to free themselves.

Bill C-26 finally recognizes the harm inflicted on abused children by showing greater consideration when the motion is dealt with, when their abuser is being sentenced, and by ensuring better protection through the creation of a public database on child sex offenders.

I will conclude by saying that all of us still have an inner child. That is the case for all of us. However, when that child was violated when young, this makes the victim, male or female, a broken person.

VASAM was created to come to the assistance of these people who were destroyed when they were children. By passing Bill C-26, you will be telling society that you want to protect the children that are still within us, even if we have grown up.

Vote in favour of Bill C-26.

Thank you.

[Alain Fortier, President, Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for allowing us to testify before you today. My name is Alain Fortier. I am the president of VASAM and I am accompanied by Mr. Frank Tremblay, the vice-president. So as to respect the time I have been given, I will begin my presentation. Afterwards, Mr. Tremblay will continue.

VASAM is the only organization in Quebec that offers support to men who have been sexually assaulted. After less than a year of existence, we have already accomplished a great deal for male victims. We already have several hundred individual and corporate members.

It should be noted that even though we only work with male victims of sexual assault, we also cooperate with organizations that help female sexual assault victims.

The mission of the organization is to raise the awareness of the population and of political bodies regarding the sexual assaults that are committed against men during their childhood, and to encourage men of all ages to break out of their isolation and to regain control of their lives.

Regarding the rights of victims, our association reacts to any legislative change by working tirelessly to demand a reaffirmation and strengthening of the rights of victims.

We are very happy to have the opportunity today to share with you the reasons behind our unqualified support for Bill C-26. Among the provisions in the bill and the measures proposed, two of them were of particular interest to us.

The first are the longer minimum and maximum prison sentences for certain sexual offences committed against children.

The second is the obligation imposed on the convicted child sex offender who has been found guilty of offences against several children, and has received separate sentences, to serve them consecutively, that is to say one after the other.

Mr. Tremblay, I now yield the floor to you.

[Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Thank you very much. I think out of deference to everyone else, I'll skip some of the intro. You've heard from our office about what we do. I'll go right into the comments on the bill.

Bill C-26 seeks to make a number of changes to the Criminal Code and other legislation to address some issues related to sexual offences against children. We know that these changes include an increase from minimum to maximum, making it mandatory to impose consecutive sentences, increasing the reporting obligations, and creating a new national public database.

Over the years, we have had several victims contact our office expressing frustration and concern with issues regarding offenders who have committed sexual offences against children. As with all victims of crime, they have a need to be informed, considered, protected, and supported. We have heard from victims who are frustrated by the lack of meaningful information they are able to access about offenders being released into the community. We have also heard from victims who did not feel considered and protected at different stages of the criminal justice system, including at sentencing and in setting release conditions. As well, we have heard from victims about the need for supports throughout the entire criminal justice process, starting at the time of the crime, through the courts, and through to post-conviction and conditional release; and as you have heard from other witnesses before the committee, these needs can also be lifelong.

Bill C-26 seeks to make information available to victims through a publicly available database of information on high-risk child sex offenders. Our office has found that most communities across the country have processes in place related to public interest notifications for high-risk offenders. In some provinces, these notifications are posted on public websites. The proposed public database should provide victims and communities with more consistent access to information about high-risk child sex offenders.

Legislative changes to sentencing and to the sharing of information should also be supported by resources to assist victims in reporting and recovering from the crimes committed against them. As for sharing information between law enforcement officials, I support changes to the sex offender registry act that would allow police and the Canada Border Services Agency to share more information in combatting child victimization abroad.

Under Bill C-26, the minimum and maximum sentences for sexual offences against children would increase, and the sentences for multiple victims would need to be served consecutively. We have heard from victims who support consecutive sentencing because it acknowledges and recognizes the harm done to each victim. Although sentencing may be an important issue for some victims, alone that would not address the concerns and needs of victims. When having conversations about such sensitive issues, it is important to keep in mind that every victim's experience and needs are unique. Cases of child sexual assault are complex and often involve someone known to the victim.

I would like to emphasize the importance of having community resources and supports in place, not only for when a victim comes forward about abuse but also to deal with the lifelong and sometimes intergenerational trauma that can come from this type of victimization.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee for its consideration of this bill and the work in examining this important issue. I believe that Bill C-26 would provide a measure to better inform and consider the needs of victims of crime.

I thank you for your time and look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call this meeting back to order. We are dealing with Bill C-26 here at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I want to thank those who hung around for 45 minutes or so for the voting, and we are off to our second panel.

I want to thank Ms. O'Sullivan for her kindness. She's the federal ombudsman for victims of crime and she offered to step down her time to start off this panel. So we'll do the panel—five minutes each for those who haven't spoken yet—and then we are going to a question and answer period. There has been an agreement amongst our colleagues here that if you're willing to stay till six o'clock, they're willing to stay till six o'clock to ask questions. We completely understand if you have flights or other things to go to, but if you're here, you may get asked the questions.

With that, we'll call on Ms. O'Sullivan from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to start us off.

[Gaylene Schellenberg, Staff Lawyer, Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

Hi. I'm Gaylene Schellenberg, a lawyer with the law reform directorate of the Canadian Bar Association. The CBA is a national association of over 36,000 members with the mandate of seeking improvement in the law and the administration of justice.

Our submission on Bill C-26 was prepared by our national criminal justice section, which represents a balance of crown and defence lawyers from across the country.

With me today is Mr. Paul Calarco, a member of the section, and a defence lawyer from Toronto.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

This will be out of the ordinary, ladies and gentlemen. Because we have a vote and the bells will ring at a quarter to four, I thought we'd start a few minutes early, since we have enough people here for that.

This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is meeting number 61. We are dealing with the order of reference of Monday, November 24, on Bill C-26.

We have a number of witnesses with us. You've all been given a five-minute heads-up. That's what you're going to get. We're going to try to hear all of you, and then, unfortunately, the bells will ring and we'll have to go and vote, and that'll it be it for you for today. But committee members will be coming back here for about 4:30 to get started with the second panel, and we'll have a full round with the second panel.

Yes?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, witnesses.

Things are a bit jumbled, but your participation is most appreciated.

One aspect of Bill C-26 is the creation of a high-risk sex offender database, but I didn't hear you talk about it. Under clause 11, the Governor-in-Council may make regulations 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.

How would you define this exactly? Does this database reassure you? Does knowing that it will be created and will be different from the existing National Sex Offender Registry make you feel safer?

I suggest we go by order of your presentations. We can start with you, Mr. Gilhooly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to call the meeting back to order.

I want to thank our guests for their patience.

This is the second panel for our orders of the day, pursuant to order of reference of Monday, November 24, 2014, 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 have, appearing as individuals, Mr. Gilhooly, who has been here before, and Mr. Steve Sullivan, who is a former federal ombudsman for victims of crime. From Circles of Support and Accountability, we have Susan Love and James Foord.

Thank you for joining us.

You each have five minutes to do a presentation. We'll go in the order on the agenda.

Mr. Gilhooly, the floor is yours.

[Monique St. Germain]

Mr. Chairperson and distinguished members of this committee, thank you very much for giving our agency the opportunity to provide a presentation on Bill C-26.

My name is Monique St. Germain, and I am representing the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, a registered charity providing national programs and services related to the personal safety of all children.

I am here today to provide support for Bill C-26. My testimony today is based on our role in operating our many programs and services aimed at reducing the sexual exploitation of children.

Our agency was founded in 1985 as Child Find Manitoba, and for the last 30 years we have been actively engaged in efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse. We operate MissingKids.ca, a national missing children's program. We also have two important prevention programs: Kids in the Know, which is an interactive safety education program delivered in schools, and Commit to Kids, a program to help organizations prevent sexual abuse before it occurs.

We also operate Cybertip.ca, Canada's tip line for reporting online sexual exploitation of children. Since launching nationally in 2004, we have received over 125,000 reports from the public, the majority of which pertain to online images that depict children being sexually abused. In the 2013-14 fiscal year alone our child protection analysts assessed and categorized over 6,000 images of child pornography. Of the images so categorized, 69% depicted children under the age of 12.

Through the operation of our programs and services, we have daily interactions with child welfare workers, educators, and child-serving organizations. We also regularly consult with experts on child development and offender behaviour and we pay very close attention to media reports related to court cases involving the sexual abuse of children. As well, over the last few years we have been monitoring reported case law involving child pornography offences.

We do all of this to help ensure that our public education, awareness, and prevention materials reflect current risks and trends, and also help us to better understand the criminal justice system as it relates to the protection of children.

Through our operations we have a unique lens into understanding the distinctiveness of child sexual abuse. We are acutely aware that the vast majority of victims do not disclose abuse and that abuse can go on for years without being detected. It is well established that children are most often sexually abused by those closest to them and that abuse occurs in secrecy.

Even if the abuse is disclosed by a child or uncovered by an adult, it may not be reported to police. We know that not all abuse that is reported results in charges, and that not all charges lead to prosecution, and a prosecution may not result in conviction.

For these reasons, we support Bill C-26. I would like to highlight and speak to some key components of the bill.

First, we believe that sentences need to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the conduct. They must be meaningful, not only to prevent the person from committing additional offences but also to address the risk that an offender poses to children, and to deter others from offending. We support sentences that more accurately reflect the trauma that is experienced by each individual child victim and that properly account for the culpability of the offender for each offence that has been committed.

A concurrent sentence tends to diminish the overall effect of the sentence, making it seem as though the experience of each victim is not relevant. Individualizing the sentencing analysis by victim and by offence will greatly increase the precedential value of individual cases since subsequent courts will more readily know what portion of the sentence applies to what offence.

Second, changes to the reporting requirements for sex offenders are targeted toward better protecting children in other countries from being exploited and abused by Canadians, an objective we support. We also believe that these provisions will strengthen the protection of Canadian children as they will assist in enabling authorities to more readily identify problematic travel and investigate breaches under the act.

Third, the creation of a publicly available high-risk sex offender database is an initiative that we support. The provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia already perform public notifications in high-risk cases. It is our view that providing such information to the public can be of great assistance to families and communities that wish to better protect children.

In conclusion, our agency supports the changes being brought forward through Bill C-26. The crimes addressed by this bill are extremely serious and are perpetrated against society's most vulnerable people, our children.

It is our view that this bill helps to rebalance the scorecard and sends a clear message about the seriousness of sexual offences against children.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have quorum so I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 60 of the Standing Committee on Justice and and Human Rights.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, November 24, 2014, we are dealing with 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.

Just so my colleagues and our guests know, there is a half-hour discussion and there will be a bell at 3:55. When that bell starts ringing, we will adjourn this first meeting. We have time to hear our witnesses and have maybe a really quick round of questions of a couple of minutes each from the three parties. The vote will take place at 4:25. We have another panel coming, so here's my recommendation. The vote should take about eight minutes, so we should be back here in our seats at about a quarter to five. Then we'll have their five-minute presentations and another quick round of discussions with the second panel.

With that, for our first panel, we have with us, from the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance, Mr. Butt, their legal counsel. Mr. Gillespie has phoned in to say he cannot make it.

By video conference from Winnipeg, Manitoba, we have Monique St. Germain from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.

Can you hear me okay?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Calkins.

I'd like to follow up on the question that Madam Boivin put to Ms. Morency, who mentioned that Ms. Levman might be able to tell us a little bit more about some case law.

My question has to do with the totality principle and how in your opinion it has been applied by the courts to the types of offences we see in Bill C-26. My understanding is that some of the cases we're talking about are just very recent cases. I notice that some of them are 2014 decisions, for example. I believe some of them might actually touch on legislation that was previously passed in Bill C-10 or perhaps other legislation.

I'd first like you to comment, Ms. Morency, and then perhaps Ms. Levman might want to take us through some of the cases.

Can you tell us whether or not the courts have been consistently applying penalties in all of these cases, or is Bill C-26 actually addressing some of those issues?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I want to move to the RCMP, but I take note that there are some good cases that are showing, before Bill C-26 even came into effect, that the courts are taking the cases more seriously.

RCMP—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Why is this in Bill C-26, but it was not thought of in Bill C-10?

[Carole Morency]

I'll just add on that point another important thing that Bill C-26 is proposing to say. If you look at the case law and how courts are dealing with sentencing now in cases where you have child pornography, as well as contact sexual offence, Bill C-26 is ensuring that those are imposed consecutively. We're seeing that happen in some cases now. It's a matter of codification in many respects, but it's saying to do that in all cases. That's an important change that we don't have at this point.

Similarly, there is another reform that Bill C-26 is proposing. If you have one offender before the court at the same time with multiple victims, again it gives very clear direction to the courts on how to deal with sentences between those multiple victims so that, as the minister said, each victim feels that their victimization is reflected in the sentence that is imposed on that offender.

[Carole Morency]

Again, I can just point to the commitments that the government has made. The minister has clearly stated that the overarching concern and intention is to ensure that in all cases, all forms of child sexual abuse are treated more seriously. Some reforms were enacted through the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Bill C-26 takes that and goes further to achieve that objective. One thing I'll note in particular is that Bill C-26 increases the maximum penalties for quite a number of offences. You have a bigger range for courts to look at, which is different from what you saw in Bill C-10.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I understand all that. My question is more about what types of studies or constats we have seen that have led to the need for the creation of Bill C-26. If we're not yet even able to see the effects, good or bad, of Bill C-10, how can we need Bill C-26? For example, I'm hearing from the legal community that last weekend in my region in Gatineau, 50 cases of drunk driving were thrown out of court. Why? They were thrown out because of time, because according to certain people the crown didn't understand the case, because of the shift that happened with the new infraction, because of the new burden, and so on and so forth.

Do we take the time to inform all the courts of all the changes so that they apply them before we come up with some new section or new clauses? I'm just not seeing the logic behind it all, because you're not giving me the meat. From your answer, I don't see exactly what was used to create Bill C-26.

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

As the minister just mentioned, the idea was to increase penalties, both minimum and maximum penalties.

The package, in terms of Bill C-26, also proposes some other related reforms looking at the implications of consecutive or concurrent sentences in these cases as well. As you've noted, with Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, those reforms came into force August 9, 2011, and yes it is a bit early to see the progress of some of those cases as they start to work through the criminal courts. We were seeing courts beginning to note, for example, even before Bill C-10 came into force, that Parliament was considering the importance of ensuring that the penalties in these cases, not just minimums but maximums, adequately reflect the serious nature of these cases, and that courts should be treating these more seriously.

So it is a bit of a combination of things. First, it's looking at how the courts are dealing with this. We're starting to see some of that, but it's certainly in its early days. Second, if you look at Bill C-26, there's a combined approach of trying to increase penalties overall; it's not just minimum penalties and the approach that Bill C-10 had.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

Since we have some time, this is directed to the officials from both departments and the RCMP representative.

We've talked a lot with the ministers about the harsher penalties, among other things.

Ms. Morency, prior to drafting Bill C-26, did the Department of Justice conduct a jurisprudential review of cases going back a certain number of years?

In their comments promoting Bill C-26, both ministers often pointed to the fact that offences against children had gone up by 6% in the past 2 years. The media has often cited that statistic, as have both ministers.

Was any research done? And if so, what did it entail? What findings did department officials come to, and how? Was there a trend among courts indicating that the sentences being imposed were not harsh enough?

I'm trying to understand what motivated the decision to create Bill C-26. What kind of analysis and research was done to warrant the measures in the bill?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Further to that, Bill C-26 would heighten accountability by changing procedures related to the method of notification of absences abroad by registered sex offenders. Can you please elaborate on this portion of the bill? How does this reporting system work now? How would Bill C-26 change the status quo? Would this amendment have implications with regard to our responsibilities to cooperate in international investigations?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thanks for that.

Carrying on with the same theme, Bill C-26 authorizes disclosure to the CBSA of information from the sex offender database. Among other things, the CBSA will be authorized to provide to the database the following information regarding the sex offender who is the subject of disclosure: the date of their departure from Canada, the date they returned to Canada, and every address or location at which they stayed outside of Canada. This provision will enable the CBSA to flag high-risk offenders in its surveillance system and to help police ensure respect for traveller identification requirements.

Can you please describe how the system currently works as it pertains to sharing of information between the national sex offender registry and the CBSA? Can you use an example of how changes in this bill will help keep Canadians safe?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I thank the ministers for being here today. My questions are for Minister Blaney.

In order for law enforcement to track child sexual predators, there has to be a certain level of coordination between CBSA and the national sex offender registry. Bill C-26 would heighten accountability by changing procedures related to the method of notification of absences abroad by registered sex offenders.

Could you please elaborate on this portion of the bill? What information will be shared between the national sex offender registry and CBSA officials as a result of the amendments to this bill?

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

Before I turn to the ministers, Mr. Chair, I'd like to refer to something my colleague Madam Boivin mentioned.

She took the time to ask Minister MacKay about the amount of time this committee would take to study Bill C-26, this bill we're studying today. Of course, she will know that at our committee we had a discussion on the agenda for this bill and how many days we would have to study the bill. In fact, it was the NDP that suggested four days, which is the time we have allotted for the study.

I just think that because there are people watching today, they should know that this is the kind of nonsense we often get from the opposition. They actually set the time that they think we should study a bill for—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

C'est bien. I have just five minutes, so I'll proceed. It's a big bill.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has taken a myriad of measures to better protect children. You introduced the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which sets out new mandatory prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code offences related to child sexual exploitation and abuse, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault.

The act also prohibits anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence, and from making an arrangement or agreement with a third party by means of a computer or other form of telecommunication to commit a sexual offence against a child.

The legislation also seeks to strengthen the National Sex Offender Registry, raise the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age, legally require Internet service providers to report child pornography, enhance the monitoring of dangerous offenders and subject them to harsher sentences.

And yet, nine years later, here you are telling us that sex crimes against children have increased by 6%.

Does Bill C-26 represent your government's realization that its approach to tackling sex crimes against children has failed? If not, what research did you use to arrive at Bill C-26, to determine that these issues needed specific attention?

Mr. Blaney, my last question is for you. You talked about the registry for high-risk offenders. Who will determine whether an offender is high risk or not and how will that decision be made? Is the public supposed to be content knowing that the name of a dangerous offender roaming their streets is listed on a registry? Shouldn't the government work to get dangerous offenders off the streets, instead of putting so much emphasis on a registry?

I'll start with Minister MacKay; seniority, I'd say.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, ministers.

Mr. MacKay, you said this was your 51st appearance before the committee. And this is your first appearance, Mr. Blaney. I hope you are going to give us the time to properly study Bill C-26, which we were very happy to have referred to the committee. I would expect that you will give the committee the time it needs to study the impact of these measures. It's an extensive piece of legislation that requires two ministers to appear before the committee. Clearly, it has a number of different consequences.

By no means do I think you want us to do a comprehensive study of the bill, despite the fact that it deals with extremely serious subject matter and that we must do our due diligence.

There will be no time allocation on this committee, I hope, on the part of both ministers.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Colleagues, I am pleased to be before you here at the justice committee to discuss Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. This is my 51st appearance before committee.

This particular bill and its proposed amendments seek to ensure that child sexual offenders are held accountable for the horrific crimes they commit against the most vulnerable and valuable members of our society, namely children. This bill proposes to achieve this important goal through a range of different measures. What we're attempting to do here, of course, is bring forward legislation that further supports our government's effort to protect vulnerable members of society.

This bill proposes to achieve this important goal through a range of different measures, which include amendments to the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information and Registration Act, as well as the creation of a high-risk child sex offender database.

I'm here with various departmental officials as well as the Minister of Public Safety, Steven Blaney, who shares responsibility for this legislation and in particular for the amendments that will result in a new database. I'll let Minister Blaney speak to those sections of this bill. The objective though, to be clear, is one which all parliamentarians should support. This is clearly a very non-partisan issue, yet some have questioned the necessity for the proposed amendments before us. I want to address some of those questions.

These amendments are necessary because of the sad reality that the instance of child sexual offences continues to rise. In 2013 police reported that sexual offending against children had actually increased again, this time by 6% in 2012 and 2011. Each calendar year saw a 3% increase. As Statistics Canada noted, sexual violations against children was one of the few categories of violent offences in Canada to increase in 2013. This comes from Juristat 2013, which was released in July last year. These numbers we can all agree are cause for concern. We feel compelled to reinforce our response to these serious crimes, and I believe Canadians share these concerns.

Bill C-26 better reflects the seriousness of child sexual offences by proposing to increase mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for many child sexual offences. For example, this bill would ensure that maximum punishment for all hybrid sexual offences against children would be two years less a day for a summary conviction and 14 years on indictment.

In addition to increasing the penalties for making and distributing child pornography, Bill C-26 proposes to make these offences strictly indictable to better reflect their severity. Child pornography offences have devastating and long-lasting impacts on victims, particularly those that are posted on the Internet, where they can reside for someone's lifetime. We have seen in particular how this intersects with the cyber legislation and how often these types of images are used to bully young people in particular to a point where they take their own lives.

Chair and colleagues, this bill would also ensure that it would be considered an aggravating factor to commit an offence while subject to conditional sentence, order, parole, or statutory release. These are long overdue changes that will assist in preventing future offences by known or suspected child sexual offenders. Bill C-26 proposes higher penalties for those convicted of breaching supervision orders. It's our belief, and our responsibility to ensure, that supervision orders imposed on these offenders once they are released into the community are actually observed, and that breaches of conditions imposed to protect children result in serious consequences. The types of conditions, as we know, are that there be no contact, that a person stay away from a certain household, and that there be certain conditions around possession of weapons, alcohol, or drugs.

Those are the types of conditions, Mr. Chair, which, if breached, can and often do result in further offences. Therefore, to achieve that objective, Bill C-26 proposes to increase the maximum penalties for breaches of prohibition orders under section 161, probation orders found in section 733.1, and peace bonds, sections 810 to 810.2. These types of orders often contain conditions intended to protect children, as I referenced earlier. Maximum penalties for breaches of conditions of any of these orders would be increased from six to eighteen months if proceeded by summary conviction, and from two to four years if proceeded by indictment.

Mr. Chair, our government is also committed to ending what are sometimes called sentence discounts for child sex offences. This is to ensure that we recognize each and every child and the offence that has affected their life. To that end, Bill C-26 requires courts to order in all cases that sentences imposed for child pornography offences be served consecutively to sentences imposed for other child sex offences. This bill would also ensure that offenders who sexually abuse multiple children do not receive sentence discounts just because the sentences are at the same time for the offences involving multiple victims.

Further, Mr. Chair, Bill C-26 would clarify the text found at subsection 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code, which contains the general rules regarding concurrent and consecutive sentences. Its current wording is the result of an amalgamation of rules that predate Confederation and as such, requires clarification and modification, so we are taking this opportunity to do so.

Bill C-26 also proposes to codify certain sentencing rules applicable to the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences. For example, one such rule provides for the imposition of concurrent sentences for offences committed as part of the same criminal transaction, also referred to as the "same event or series of events" rule.

However, courts have also acknowledged that consecutive sentences should be imposed in certain circumstances even if the offence in question was committed as part of the same series of events or separate events. This bill would recognize two of these circumstances. An offence committed while fleeing a police officer would be served consecutively to any other sentence arising out of the same series of events, and a sentence imposed for an offence committed while on bail should also be served consecutively to other sentences imposed. There is a precedent to proceed in this fashion.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-26 will also amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of individuals accused of child pornography offences are compellable witnesses for the crown. The testimony of an accused spouse may be required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, such as, for example, where child pornography is found on a home computer.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair and colleagues, and just before I turn it over to Minister Blaney, our government recognizes that criminal legislation alone is an incomplete response to child sexual abuse and that the criminal justice system's response to sexual violations against children must be multipronged or holistic.

This bill, Bill C-26, forms an integral part of the overall response, but I'm particularly pleased that our government has allocated over $10 million for 21 new or enhanced child advocacy centres now to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime. I've visited a number of these centres, as I'm sure many on this committee have, to see how these centres and these programs are assisting in the recovery of victims, in particular young victims who have in many cases undergone considerable trauma as a result of sexual offences.

That is just another example of the overall response we're taking as a government. In particular, I commend all those who are working with young victims on the special needs that they require.

With that, I will turn it over to Minister Blaney.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It's meeting number 59. We are televised today.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, November 24, 2014, we're going to discuss 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.

Ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, we have two ministers with us. We have the Minister of Justice, Mr. MacKay, and the Minister of Public Safety, Mr. Blaney. They're both going to give opening statements. Then we'll go to discussion rounds. Before we go to the second hour with officials, we need approval for the subcommittee on agenda, to discuss the rest of the meetings we'll have on this particular topic.

Without further ado, I want to call on the Minister of Justice, Minister MacKay, for his opening remarks.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-26.

The House resumed from November 21 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.

[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 daycare 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.

[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.

[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?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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 extensive 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.

[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 five-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.

[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.

[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 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 reoffences. 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 reoffending, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP House leader for his usual Thursday question, his optimism, and his hope. We are happy to see optimism and hope over there. I can assure members that on this side of the House we share some of that optimism and hope, and we look forward to better days for the NDP.

I also want to thank him for his program of daily concurrence motions this autumn. It has meant that practically every day we have had a chance to have a say on the hard work our committees do and specifically on the report the NDP tabled between the throne speech and the summer adjournment. In just the last five sittings since my last Thursday statement, this House has considered and adopted reports prepared by the Canadian heritage committee, the veterans affairs committee, the finance committee, and even the procedure and House affairs committee.

As a former international trade minister, I took great joy in seeing our debate and vote on the agriculture committee's report on the Canada-Europe free trade agreement. The NDP's concurrence motion allowed my colleague, the agriculture minister's parliamentary secretary, to bring forward his own motion reflecting the developments that followed the committee's work calling on the House of Commons to endorse this free trade agreement. In the past, the committee and the NDP had expressed concerns that they could not commit to a position until the agreement's text was available. Now that the agreement's text is available, they had an opportunity to endorse it right here in this House. Having seen the text of that agreement, I was disappointed that the NDP voted against it. It would be the single largest boost to the Canadian economy in a generation, one that would produce billions of dollars annually to the economy.

That being said, we have other business to attend to in this House.

With respect to the business of the House, let me acknowledge the co-operative and productive conversations we and our teams have had this week with the other parties. This afternoon and tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading. Monday, we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act.

Tuesday morning we will consider Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, at report stage and third reading. In the afternoon, we will switch to the third reading debate on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, which I hope will be passed quickly given the apparent support for it.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act.

Next Thursday will be the sixth allotted day when the NDP will bring forward a proposal for debate.

Wrapping up next week, on Friday we will have the fourth day of second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, which is known more affectionately as Quanto's law.

Finally, for the benefit of all of the committees of this House and their planning, following some consultation with my counterparts, I am currently looking at Wednesday, December 3, for the final allotted day. However, I will formally confirm that sometime next week, I expect.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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 database 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 database 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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--

[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, 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.

[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.

As other colleagues have said in the House today, on the whole, we are told that nationally the crime numbers have gone down. Every time that is said in Surrey, the people there do not believe it, because of their lived experience day in and day out. I have been at recent municipal debates where people are very offended when that is said. They have a high level of anxiety around their own safety.

What is really concerning is that despite the changes made by the government since 2006 to better protect children, and there have been about nine of them, the Minister of Justice, at committee, stated that sexual offences against children had increased 6% over the past two years. That is a shocking number. As a parent, I looked at this and wondered how that could be? This is in spite of the fact that since 2006, the tough-on-crime agenda has been worked on or is in place

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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as my friend has observed, the House of Commons has had an eventful week, but the event that gave me the most satisfaction was seeing the House vote on Tuesday to adopt Ways and Means Motion No. 16. Some watching on TV at home might ask what Motion No. 16 is. That motion enables our government to proceed with the family tax cut and it supports our increase to the $100 a month universal child care benefit, an increase that would see up to $1,920 per child, per year going to support Canadian families.

As exciting as that vote was, I was disappointed to see the position of the members of the NDP and the Liberals in particular, who voted against that support for families.

Now, on to the business of the House. This afternoon we will resume and hopefully conclude debate on second reading of Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

Tomorrow, we will finish third reading debate of Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act.

Next week, of course, is a constituency week, when we will be able to connect with our constituents, as well as have a chance to join them at Remembrance Day ceremonies, in our home communities. This is especially important this year, for many reasons.

When the House returns on Monday, November 17, we will start the report stage of Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, and after question period, we will start the report stage of Bill C-27, the Veterans Hiring Act. Both of those bills have been recently reported back from committee.

On Tuesday, November 18, we will have the third day of debate on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Since all parties support committee examination of the bill, I would expect that the opposition will agree to let that start after next Tuesday's debate.

Also on Tuesday night, we will complete the concurrence debate on the first report of the agriculture committee.

The following day, we will debate Bill C-18 again.

Finally, on Thursday and Friday of the next sitting week, we will resume debate on Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, at second reading.

I was asked directly when the remaining two opposition days will be scheduled. Some time in those remaining four weeks, before we rise for the Christmas break, we will hold those two opposition days.

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

As you know, the government has introduced another bill, the strengthening of penalties for child sexual offenders act, which is Bill C-26. It will be before the House of Commons very soon. Hopefully you'll come back and appear before the committee when we study that bill.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, after this proceeding, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, the Red Tape Reduction Act. I know that my hon. friend, the President of the Treasury Board—a man with firm views on paper documents—is very keen to get this debate started.

Tonight, after private members' hour, the House will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act. Once that is done, I look forward to picking up where we left off this morning with second reading of two bills to create new parks: Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, in the greater Toronto area, and Bill S-5, which will establish a new national park reserve in the Northwest Territories.

If we have time left before midnight, we will continue debating Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, or Quanto's law); Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act; Bill C3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; and Bill C-21 if we do not finish that by 5:30 today.

Tomorrow will be the sixth and final day of second reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, a bill that, despite lengthy debate, all parties agree should be studied by our hard-working justice committee.

However, the highlight of this week will of course come later this afternoon. The Usher of the Black Rod will knock on the door and summon us to attend the Governor General in the Senate chamber where, with the three constituent elements of Parliament assembled, we will participate in the ancient ceremony of royal assent.

Based on messages read from the other place, and messages I anticipate later this afternoon, 14 new laws will be made upon His Excellency's imperceptible, or barely perceptible, nod. This will mark a total of 25 bills passing through the entire legislative process since October's Speech from the Throne. Of these, 20% are private members' bills, further underscoring the unprecedented empowerment of members of Parliament under this Prime Minister's government.

Speaking of the time passing since October, we are also marking the end of the academic year. This means the end of the time with this year's fine class of pages. Here I know that some in the chattering classes have concerns about the length of my weekly business statements, but I hope they will forgive mine today.

As we all know, the pages work extremely hard and do some incredible work, both in the chamber and in the lobbies. They perform many important duties, which in some cases go unnoticed, or at least so they think. They show up before the House opens each morning and stay until after it closes at night. We all know that over the past few weeks, it has meant much longer days than usual, but even then, the pages have remained professional, respectful, and have started each day with a smile, and ended it with one too, although that occasionally required a bit of encouragement on my part.

I would first off like to thank them for their service. Without them and their support, members of Parliament would not be nearly as effective and efficient in performing the duties that Canadians sent us to Ottawa to undertake.

I do have some insight from being married to a former page, from the class of '87 actually, and she often refers to her year as a page as the best year of her life. Here I can say that the experiences the pages have had at the House of Commons is something they will remember for the rest of their lives.

In addition, I know that in my wife's case, some of the friends she made in the page program are still good friends to this day, including, in fact, the chief of staff to the current leader of the Liberal Party. I hope that will be the same for all of you, that is being friends for life—not that other thing.

I am sure that the pages are looking forward to the summer break so they can all take their minds off of school and visit with friends and family to share their many stories and experiences, some of which are even funny, with us here in the House. I will not be surprised one day if we find some of them occupying seats in this chamber, something that happened for the first time in this Parliament with the hon. members for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Mississauga—Brampton South, both having been elected to sit here in this Parliament.

Some of the pages may also find employment on Parliament Hill working for members, and I know that I have, without fail, been impressed by the high calibre of ambitious young people who have worked in my office during stints as page.

Over the past three years, the House has worked in a productive, orderly, and hard-working manner, and this has not been possible without the help of the pages. I believe it is safe to say that I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I thank them for their dedication and service, and finally, give them our best wishes for success in all their future endeavours.

Bill C-26—Notice of Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at the second reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to respond to the Thursday question from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I know how proud he claims to be about showing up to work. In fact, though, the New Democrats seem to have a spotty record on that. Last evening, that very member rose to speak to our government's bill to protect our communities and exploited persons—that is Bill C-36—and after one whole minute he moved to adjourn the House. He said we should all go home. Maybe that is the parliamentary equivalent of taking one's ball and wanting to go home when one is unhappy with how things are going in another meeting.

In any event, we did all dutifully troop into the House to vote on that at 6 p.m. However, what was very revealing was that only 61 of those 98 New Democrats stood in their places to vote. A few of them were missing their shifts, oddly. We did not find that on the Conservative side. In fact, we just had two votes in the House, and the number of New Democrats who were not standing in their places was very similar to that.

Therefore, when I ask myself who is not showing up for work, I can say it is not the Conservatives not showing up; it is, in fact, the New Democrats.

However, following the popular acclaim of last week's Thursday statement, I would like to recap what we have actually accomplished in the House since last week in terms of the legislative agenda.

Bill C-37, the riding name change act, 2014, which was compiled and assembled through the input of all parties, was introduced and adopted at all stages.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan, act no. 1, was adopted at both report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was concurred in at report stage.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was passed at third reading. Of course, the NDP tried to slow down its passage, but Conservatives were able to get around those efforts, as I am sure the 50 New Democrats on vigil in the House last night fondly appreciate, and we were able to extend our hours because there were, again, not even 50 New Democrats here in the House to stand in their places to block that debate as they wanted to, so we did finish the Canada-Honduras bill that night and were able to vote on it.

The government's spending proposals for the year were adopted by the House, and two bills to give these plans effect, Bill C-38 and BillC-39, were each passed at all stages.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, was reported back from committee, and several other reports from committees were also tabled. As I understand, we will see Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, reported back from the health committee in short order.

Finally, this morning we virtually unanimously passed a motion to reappoint Mary Dawson as our Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Sadly, though, the New Democrats did not heed my call last week to let Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, pass at second reading. We were treated, sadly, to only more words and no deeds from the NDP.

Turning to the business ahead, I am currently anticipating the following debates. This afternoon and tonight, we will finish the debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, at second reading. That will be followed by third reading of Bill C-24 and second reading of Bill C-35, Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law).

Tomorrow morning, we will debate Bill C-24, if necessary, and Bill C-18, Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading. After question period, we will get back to Bill C-32, and give the NDP one more chance to send the victims bill of rights to committee.

The highlight of Monday is going to be the report stage of Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Tuesday’s feature debate will be Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, at second reading. Wednesday will see us finish third reading, I hope, of Bill C-6. During the additional time available those days—in addition to Thursday and Friday of next week—I will schedule any unfinished debates on Bill C-18, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

I will also try to schedule debates on Bill C-22 and Bill C-17, as well as other bills, such as Bill C-3, Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-8, Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-12, Drug-Free Prisons Act, at second reading; Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill S-2, Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, at second reading; and Bill S-4, Digital Privacy Act—which I understand we will receive shortly from the other place—at second reading.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[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.

[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--

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House leader of the official opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, that impassioned speech just proves to everyone what a great member of Parliament the member for Richmond Hill is and how passionately he feels about all this legislation before the House. He made a very good case for the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, showing why that is so important for the people of Canada and why we need to get that measure passed soon.

The member also mentioned Quanto's law, the justice for animals in service act that he was instrumental in bringing forward, and we all need to commend him for that.

I wonder if the member could tell us about some of the other important criminal justice legislation that is before this House today, such as Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, and Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which we hope to debate later this evening.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low-tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, I am delighted to be here with you this morning.

I'm pleased to appear before this committee to answer your questions regarding items in the main estimates. I note this is my 45th appearance before a parliamentary committee, which is a very important part of our parliamentary accountability process.

Mr. Chair, joining me today eventually will be Brian Saunders, George Dolhai, of course my deputy minister, William Pentney, and Marie-Josée Thivierge.

Chair, in my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada I'm responsible for helping and in some cases shepherding our justice system through various iterations of our efforts to remain relevant, fair, accessible, and of course, to support Canadians in many ways. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, as the old well-worn legal maximum says. This is what Canadians expect.

The items that the Department of Justice has submitted to be tabled under main estimates will further our work to ensure just that—that our justice system continues to evolve, to be fairer and more inclusive, and enhances the personal safety and security and confidence of Canadians through our criminal laws, policies, and programs.

To turn to the numbers, the Department of Justice is estimating net budgetary expenditures of $630.6 million in the year 2014-15. Of these slightly more than half is allocated to grants and contributions, 38% is allocated to operating expenditures, while the remainder is allocated to statutory expenditures.

This spending will support the wide-ranging and important services that the government provides to all of government. That is to suggest that the Department of Justice provides those legal services across many departments, which includes a large number with respect to litigation, legislation, and advisory services.

These figures also represent a net spending decrease of $26.9 million from the 2013-14 main estimates. The decrease I can note is mainly attributable to the cost savings found through the strategic operating review as well as sunsetting of several initiatives.

Mr. Chair, while the choices that facilitated the cost saving required the prioritization of programs, it illustrates the department's commitment to supporting the government's economic action plan and to achieving savings for Canadians, where possible, through innovation and modernization to ensure that we better meet the needs of today, never losing sight of the importance of providing meaningful support and access to justice for Canadians.

One important area of expenditure, representing an increase of $1.4 million, enhances the victims fund and expands the reach of the federal victims strategy, specifically for time-limited operational funding to non-governmental organizations serving victims of crime and in particular the child advocacy centres. These centres, which now span the country, are one of the most innovative, compassionate, and important contributions that I have seen in my time as both a practising lawyer and as Minister of Justice. These centres provide crucial services to young victims of abuse and their families. I believe their contribution is offering front-line services day to day that make a real difference in the lives of youth.

Mr. Chair, there has also been an increase of $3.98 million, in addition to the initial funding of $40.17 million under the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2013-2018 for Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.

The initiatives described earlier will enable the Minister of Justice to build a justice system that is more equitable, that will improve access to justice in both official languages and that will meet the ever-changing needs of Canadians across the country.

In addition to our current success, the future is promising. The Government of Canada has taken action with respect to a number of criminal justice priorities in order to guarantee rights and make communities safer for us to live in, thrive and raise our families.

Mr. Chair, on April 3 of this year, the Prime Minister and my predecessor, Mr. Nicholson, announced historic legislation that would transform the way victims of crime are treated in our country's justice system. After extensive cross-country consultation with numerous individuals and stakeholder groups, I had the honour to table in the House of Commons the victims bill of rights.

This is intended to establish statutory rights for information, protection, participation, and restitution, and to ensure that a complaint process is in place to deal with breaches of these rights. This legislation would entrench the rights of victims of crime at the federal level. Protecting victims and providing them with a more effective voice in our justice system is a key priority for our government. Victims of crime deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion, inclusion, and respect—basic rights, in my view, necessary for public confidence and trust in our justice system.

Chair, colleagues, above all Canadians expect that their justice system will keep them safe. Public safety is a fundamental and foremost responsibility of any government. The government understands this expectation and is committed to protecting Canadians from individuals who pose a high risk to public safety. Our laws and current legislation reflect our commitment to this responsibility.

To that end, the government introduced Bill C-14, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, which received royal assent on April 10, 2014. The bill helps protect Canadians from persons who are found to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, and who pose a higher risk of committing violence if released. This, I should note, is a very small percentage of individuals who are actually deemed not criminally responsible, and is somewhat akin to the dangerous offender applications and findings in our Criminal Code.

The legislation enhances the safety and confidence of victims specifically by considering them when decisions are being made about mentally disordered accused persons, making sure victims are notified when accused are being discharged, and where they intend to reside, if the victim desires, and allowing for non-communication orders between the accused and the victim.

In addition, Mr. Chair, our government will continue to take action to protect the most vulnerable through the tougher penalties for child predators act, as well as Bill C-13, the cyber bill. We are working to maintain the safety and security of our communities and our streets by ensuring that legislation responds to the evolution that naturally occurs, and that includes, of course, the Supreme Court's ruling in Bedford, which struck down Criminal Code sanctions as they pertain to prostitution.

So to conclude, Mr. Chair, our government is committed to maintaining the integrity of our criminal justice system. We are strengthening that commitment with the level of funding that the Department of Justice portfolio has received, and the funding that Justice has received delivers concrete results for Canadians. I'll continue to do my best to see that those taxpayer funds are spent wisely, while ensuring that Canadians have a fair, relevant, and accessible justice system.

I want to thank you and the committee members for the essential work that you do for providing our department with the opportunity to make these comments and to interact in a way that I hope is meaningful for all.

I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Motions in Amendment

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just started. It is a 10-minute speech, and I will certainly get there.

As I was saying, we knew that we had to move forward with comprehensive legislative changes and create policies and programs that would help victims of crime rebuild their lives.

Using a comprehensive approach, we have accomplished a great deal in a very few short years, including targeted investments of more than $120 million in crime prevention and victim services.

We have also changed laws to support victims. For example, we have strengthened the national sex offender registry and introduced Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, which will better protect children from sexual offences and exploitation both here in Canada and abroad.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

That is a very difficult question to answer, Mr. Dechert, because I can't imagine any world where this type of offence could be seen as the slightest bit appropriate. Touching a child, touching an innocent person who in many cases is relying on the very person, the perpetrator, for protection is the ultimate breach of trust. We have seen far too many of these cases where it was a family member, a coach, a religious person, an individual who had greater access to that child. Why we are seeing an increase in these offences defies logic.

But what I do know is that I suspect you and others on this committee, and certainly those in the policing community, those who are victims' advocates, those who are tasked to protect, fully embrace all efforts to increase our protection of children, to increase the accountability within the justice system when it comes to the treatment of offenders who breach that trust. I believe that is found in Bill C-26.

I believe there are important steps in that direction. Is there more we can do? Yes, I believe there is always more that we can do, and some of that important work is being done thankfully across the country by child advocacy workers and victim services. Certainly police, front-line policing, is far more attuned. I think of the incredible work that is done by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

We can touch on the subject of how much more information and offensive information, quite frankly, is now available on the Internet. The ability to lure children into certain vulnerable positions is also something we're looking at and is contained in the cyberbullying bill.

But I think it's incumbent upon all of us to try to do more to protect Canadian children.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you mentioned in your opening statement today that Canadians need to feel that the justice system is working for them and need to feel safe in their communities. You've also referenced several justice initiatives, including the cyberbullying bill, Bill C-13, and the tougher penalities for child predators act, BillC-26.

Can you tell us a little bit more about those particular measures and how you feel they will help to build confidence in the Canadian justice system?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Surely, Mr. Casey, you've done more than just read one of the nine sections of the bill. C-26 goes well beyond just increasing sentences and, by the way, it makes them consecutive. It makes it possible for them to be served back to back for separate offences and separate victims, which is an important component of the bill. It also goes further: it now also allows a spouse to be competent and compellable, and able to testify. It delves into the area of child pornography, which in itself is exploitive of children and very harmful in communities.

Perhaps one of the more important components is a Public Safety lead, which allows for greater sharing of information on those who have been convicted of child sex offences. It allows us to ensure that some of our allies are also provided with information about convicted child sex offenders who are travelling outside Canada. Perhaps one of the more important, if not controversial, sections refers to public access to high-risk convicted sex offenders. Individuals can now find out if a pedophile is living in their neighbourhood or near their school.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Bill C-26 increases penalties for child sexual offences and other sexual offences, and in 13 different sections these are increases over and above increases that you made in Bill C-10, I expect you're aware of that.

Given that you increased penalties in Bill C-10 and your figures indicate that child sexual offences over the last two years have increased, why are you increasing them again? It strikes me that if the goal of increasing them is to have fewer offences, your increases in Bill C-10 failed.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, you recently introduced Bill C-26 into the House and in response to a question in question period you referenced an increase in child sexual crimes over the last two years.

Were the figures that you cited the Juristat figures for the period ended March 2012?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, every day in Canada, children are the victims of sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse of children causes unimaginable harm and may have serious consequences that affect victims into adulthood and throughout their lives.

Yesterday, the Minister of Justice introduced comprehensive legislation to crack down on predators who exploit and abuse children.

The tougher penalties for child predators act will ensure that offenders receive prison sentences that better reflect the serious nature of these crimes.

A key aspect of this legislation is not only mandatory sentencing but consecutive sentencing for those who victimize more than one child. This means no more discounts for those who are convicted of multiple offences.

This is in stark contrast to the Liberal leader, who said that he would not rule out repealing mandatory sentences for anyone.

On this side of the House, we believe that people who sexually abuse a child should go to jail. I call upon all members, and especially the Liberal leader to support this vital piece of legislation, and further protect our children and communities.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)