Bill C-246

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require that sentences for sexual offences be served consecutively.

Criminal Code

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved that Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is a special delight that every consumer knows when they go into a store and walk away with a deal, that moment when we realize that we are paying a little bit less than what we were expecting to. Maybe it is 15% off of one's favourite boots or favourite shoes. Maybe it is buying one and getting the other one half off. Maybe it is hitting the jackpot and buying one to get the other one free.

Especially at Christmas time, these sorts of deals tend to attract people. They tend to get us into a storefront. We love a bargain. We love getting more value than what we pay for. Discounts are a part of everyday life, and they are especially a part of this season. They bring a thrill when we are able to spot them and take advantage of them.

As great as these discounts are, I would offer that they belong in stores alone. They do not belong in our justice system. The practice of treating serious crimes like they are items on sale is not just misguided but altogether dangerous, unjust and completely detached from the experience of victims who will never receive a discount on the trauma they experienced and live with.

Unfortunately, in our current justice system, discounts are handed out far too often in criminal sentencing. One of the biggest and most troubling discounts granted under Canadian law is concurrent sentencing. In other words, it offers an offender the opportunity to serve multiple sentences under one. Instead of facing real consequences for each act of harm, they serve all sentences at the same time. One sentence for multiple crimes equals drastically reduced jail time.

If this logic were applied anywhere else in life, I think we would be outraged. We would call it absurd, but in Canada's courts, it is somehow common practice. Even more troubling is that this discount is applied to some of the most egregious crimes, including mass murder or serial sexual assault. Today, I will focus on the latter with regard to my private member's bill.

Sexual assault crimes are not minor offences. They are not mistakes. These are acts that rob individuals of their dignity, their agency and their sense of safety and well-being. They can alter the course of a person's life, not just for a few weeks or a few months, but forever. The perpetrators of such deeply violating crimes often walk away with sentences that fail to reflect the severity of the harm they have caused. Concurrent sentencing should never be allowed for such crimes, which is why I am proud to address this issue and stand with victims by presenting my private member's bill, Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act.

The bill is simple, direct and necessary. It would mandate consecutive sentencing, not concurrent sentencing, for those convicted of sexual offences. In plain terms, that would mean no more bundling crimes into one low-price package and no more sentencing discounts. Sexual predators would no longer be able to compress their crimes and walk away with a reduced amount of time in jail. Instead, each crime would carry its own penalty and each victim would receive the full recognition that she or he deserves.

Under this law, every victim would count, and not just in a moral or symbolic sense. They would really count. Their voice counts. What happened to them counts. The crime committed against them matters and should be paid for.

Currently, Canada does not allow for consecutive sentences in these types of cases. It does, however, allow for them when it is to do with children. While that protection for children is absolutely right and necessary, the logic behind that allowance equally applies to adult victims.

I ask members to consider this just for a moment: In Canada, the maximum sentence for a break-in or a violent robbery is life in prison. Life is the maximum sentence. The maximum penalty for sexual violence against an adult is only 10 years. It is 14 years when that victim is under the age of 16. We have to sit with this comparison for a moment. A property crime, a robbery, carries a higher maximum sentence than the violent theft of a person's bodily autonomy.

A home can be repaired, and a stolen phone can be replaced, but what about restoring a person's dignity and restoring a person's sense of security, their trust in the world? Those wounds are far deeper and take far more to heal. Therefore the penalty should also be far more.

The fact that our justice system punishes property crimes more severely than it punishes sexual offences is not just inconsistent; I would say it is altogether an injustice to the people who face these types of crimes. For far too long the scales have been tipped in favour of the criminal, the offender, while victims are left struggling, having to pull the pieces together and find healing for the egregious crimes committed against them.

Years of soft-on-crime policies have left communities less safe and victims increasingly vulnerable. Since 2015, sexual assaults in Canada are up nearly 75%. Offences against children are up an alarming 120%. These are not just abstract percentages or mere data points for academic purposes; these are numbers representing real people with real stories, lives forever changed. Each statistic represents betrayal, fear and lifelong consequences that generally impact not only the victim but also their family, friends and community.

In Toronto, a family doctor was charged with nine counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation, involving three patients over a period of time. These patients walked into his clinic expecting care, compassion and professionalism from this individual; instead they were preyed upon by someone in whom they had placed trust. They left not with healing but with deep wounds, not having been cared for but having been exploited.

The sentence for this physician who committed more than a dozen intrusive and grave crimes was three and a half years. He committed thirteen heinous crimes but was given one sentence because all the crimes were enmeshed into one.

Let us think about the societal message that is delivered. What message is sent to other victims who are terrified to come forward? It tells them that their suffering will be compressed, that their voice does not matter. What message is sent to other potential offenders? Well, it tells them that even if they hurt multiple people, commit multiple crimes, the system will protect them. It will have their back.

What message does it send regarding the societal value we place on making sure people are kept safe in the most vulnerable spaces, such as the medical office they enter? It suggests that even profound violations committed under the guise of care are somehow eligible for a discount, and it reaffirms to victims that the justice system does not stand with them but rather on the side of the perpetrator.

Kashif Ramzan pretended to be a talent agent attracting young people into the modelling industry. Two young women were lured in, and they faced horror instead of opportunity. They were both sexually assaulted numerous times over. At the end of the day, Ramzan pleaded guilty and did not refute any of the accusations brought against him. The sentence he faced was 18 months for the one, and two years for the other. In this country, 18 months plus 24 months equals 24 months, because multiple sentences are combined into one being served.

Again we must ask, what message does this send to society? What message is sent to young women who are already navigating a world where exploitation all too often hides behind charm, flattery and supposed opportunity?

It tells them that if they are victimized, the system does not have their back. It tells them that their dreams can be weaponized against them, that they can be exploited and that it is not as big of a deal if there is more than one of them. It tells the public, especially these young women, that predators may face only a fraction of the punishment their crimes deserve. Meanwhile, they are expected to sort through the pieces of their own brokenness.

This is the opposite of justice, it is the opposite of deterrence and it is the opposite of what a healthy society should signal about the seriousness of sexual violence.

When the system merges multiple victims into a single punishment, it erases the individuality of their suffering and the weight of each of their experiences. It tells victims implicitly, if not explicitly, that their pain is worth less and that the law sees them not as unique human beings deserving of justice but as tally marks on a spreadsheet.

Whether a predator commits repeated offences against one person or single offences against multiple people, justice demands that each of those crimes be paid for. Sentences must be served consecutively, not concurrently. This reflects the extent of the harm done. Anything less is a betrayal of victims.

It is long past time to put victims first. Sexual offences should never be treated like a two-for-one deal at the shoe store checkout. There is no “buy one assault, get one free”, but that is what our current justice system does. There is no bulk discount on human suffering, but that is what our courts reward.

Each offence is in fact a distinct harm. Each victim is a whole person, and each act must carry with it its own consequences. Justice is not something to be discounted or bundled. Justice demands full recognition and full accountability for every crime and every victim.

My bill, Bill C-246, is about restoring that balance. It is about ensuring that the law stands firmly on the side of victims, not with predators. It is about making sure that when a sexual offender is sentenced, the punishment truly reflects the crime. It is about restoring faith in our justice system for the survivors who have so often been let down. It is about sending a clear message to society that sexual violence is serious, that it will not be tolerated, that every victim matters and that predators will face real, meaningful consequences.

My appeal to those in this place, to my colleagues from all parties, is that they support this bill, that they stand on the side of victims and that together we stand for a strong, robust justice system that refuses to minimize the most violating crimes a person can endure. We should be a group of people who instead stand for what is right.

I am asking members to support this bill. Let us send a united message from the House of Commons that we stand with the innocent, that we stand with the victims, that we stand with the survivors and that sexual predators will in fact face the full force of the law. There cannot be the continued practice of discounts for sexual predators. Let us please stand with victims.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on her bill. This is a very important issue that needs to be debated and that requires our full attention. All 343 of us here share the horror of these crimes committed by sexual predators. We all want these crimes to be severely punished in a way that acts as a deterrent.

However, the government has an obligation to act responsibly. It has an obligation to ensure that legislation is constitutional and that it will not be a waste of time. There is no point in wasting time. Considering—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would beg the hon. member to explain what is unconstitutional about standing with victims. What is unconstitutional about ensuring that sexual predators receive the full force of the law? When a member speaks in that way, it feels as though platitudes are being given on the one hand, in terms of a justice system that needs to be strengthened, but then excuses for that weakness in the justice system are being made on the other hand. That is problematic, because ultimately it is victims who are put at risk.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation of the bill she is sponsoring.

I just want to draw something to everyone's attention because I get the impression it was not mentioned. I may have missed a word or two. It is already possible to give consecutive sentences in the case of a repeat sex offender or someone who commits multiple sex offences.

Under the current system, with the Criminal Code, arguments can be made to convince a judge to proceed in this manner. I must also say that, in our sentencing principles, the idea of seeking a fair punishment is already enshrined.

Does my colleague have a study or arguments she can share to prove to us that if this bill were adopted, it would either reduce crime or reduce the rate of recidivism for sex offences?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between what is permissible and what is normalized. If we truly want to deter crime, and in this case the heinous crime of sexual assault, then we have to normalize a sentence that is most suitable.

A discount sentence for people who commit sexual assault is not appropriate. It sends a message that the justice system is soft on crime and that those heinous acts matter or count only against the first individual but not against the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth individual. That is wrong. If we are going to find ourselves on the side of survivors, on the side of victims, we must strengthen our justice system.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the bill. Honestly, it could not have come at a better time, when sexual assault is up 76% in Canada. I am the chair of the status of women committee, and we heard disturbing testimony that half the people who are sexually assaulted do not even get a police report. Of the ones who do get a police report, 5% go to court, and only 1% actually get a conviction. The sentence is measured in an average of months, not years.

Are there measures the member would like to see the courts implement in terms of the maximum sentence, along with consecutive sentencing?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad statistic that 95% of victims do not actually take their case to court. Most of them report that their reasons for not going to court are that they feel unsupported by the system, do not want to have to repeat their story and do not want to have to face their perpetrator again. We have to find ways to protect victims and make sure they can come forward with their stories.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning consecutive sentences for sexual offences. It is a private member's bill brought forward by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The bill would replace the existing Criminal Code provision that requires sentencing courts to impose consecutive sentences in child sexual offences cases with one that would require consecutive sentences for all other sexual offences. In cases where an offender is already serving a sentence for a sexual offence, it would require a new sentence for a sexual offence to run consecutively to the sentence the offender is already serving.

I appreciate the sponsor's aim of signalling the seriousness of sexual offences by requiring mandatory consecutive sentences in cases involving multiple sexual offence convictions. I would note, however, that Bill C-246 is the wrong approach. It is unconstitutional and overly rigid, and it would not make Canadians safer.

The bill seeks to force judges to stack consecutive sentences for all sexual offences, including those that already carry mandatory minimum penalties. The Supreme Court, in cases such as Senneville, has emphasized that judges must consider reasonable hypotheticals when determining when a sentence is grossly disproportionate. The Court of Appeal of Quebec, in the Vera Camacho case, struck down part of the existing consecutive sentencing framework for sexual offenders against children because it would result in sentences that are grossly disproportionate and unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, the Conservatives propose to expand this fragile provision to include adult sexual offences. This approach is reckless. It would remove judicial discretion entirely, prevent judges from applying the totality principle, risk grossly disproportionate global sentences, discourage early guilty pleas, lengthen trials unnecessarily and put increased pressure on provincial courts and correctional facilities, all without any evidence that it would reduce re-offending.

This is why our government has adopted a different, evidence-based and constitutionally sound approach. Through Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, we would strengthen the justice system while keeping victims at the centre and core of our focus. How would the bill do that? One way is with tougher bail rules. Bill C-14 would make it harder for serious sexual offenders to be released before trial, and it would introduce a reverse onus for assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocation or strangulation behaviours linked to the escalation to homicide.

Second, it would end house arrest for serious sexual offences. Conditional sentences have been proven insufficient for serious sexual offences, particularly those involving children. Bill C-14 would ensure that offenders serve sentences reflecting the gravity of their crimes. Third, with respect to consecutive sentences for repeat offenders, as mentioned before by the hon. member from the Bloc, Bill C-14 would allow judges to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent sexual offenders while preserving discretion to ensure that outcomes remain proportionate, fair and constitutional.

These measures reflect our commitment to victim-centred, charter-compliant reforms. Unlike the Conservatives, who prioritize ideology over evidence, we are strengthening public safety without creating legal chaos. Let us also remember Bill C-2, which would equip police with the lawful tools they need in order to catch predators before they commit crimes.

Survivors, as well as families of victims, have been telling us that about the need for less-toxic rhetoric around intimate-partner violence, and they urge Parliament to act responsibly. As one example, yesterday the House unanimously adopted Conservative Bill C-225, about fighting intimate-partner violence, as we intend to amend the bill in the justice committee and strengthen it to protect women who act in self defence from being wrongfully charged with first-degree murder. This is the spirit in which we have shown we can work together to protect Canadians and their lives.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to delay critical legislation, wasting committee time debating irrelevant matters while women's organizations across the country have called for urgent action. As such, I ask the member opposite this: Will she support passing these bills before the House rises?

Furthermore, before the House rises, the minister will table legislation addressing gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, child protection and court delays. These measures are crafted with victims in mind, reflecting their lived experiences and the realities they face. We hope the Conservatives will refrain from obstruction and join us in supporting our legislation.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-246, which was introduced by my colleague from Lethbridge, Alberta. I commend her. This bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to require that sentences imposed on offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences be served consecutively, that is, one after the other, in cases where multiple offences are committed against one victim at the same time and also where the offender is already serving a prison sentence for another sexual offence.

The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill so that it can be studied in committee. We will then be able to examine this Conservative proposal more closely, but, as members will see, I already have a number of questions and concerns.

I would like to begin by taking a moment to explain how our criminal law currently provides for consecutive sentences, because consecutive sentences are already possible and are imposed practically every day in courts across the country. I will then discuss the merits of the Conservative proposal to reduce judges' discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences.

First, I would like to say a few words about victims of sexual offences. I practised law for 12 years, 10 of them in legal aid, and I had the privilege of representing many victims of sexual assault, particularly when they were involved in litigation against Indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels du Québec, or IVAC. I saw the scars that sexual assault leaves behind, which are all too often permanent. I remember sensing the vulnerability, the feeling of brokenness, the weight that my clients carried around with them. We had to prepare for hearings together, and my clients would tell me how the assault had changed them. Some felt unsafe walking down the street at night, while others experienced flashbacks or found their relationships tainted by distrust. In every case, they carried the burden of injustice, and we fought together against IVAC to get compensation for their lingering pain or inability to work. Although we fought and won together, I never felt that our victories were enough to erase or repair what they had experienced. Their burden may have been a bit less heavy, but their existence was still affected.

Behind today's debate on this bill are those people, those victims whom I am thinking of tonight, yet the bill deals with sentences for offenders. I would like to point out that the victims I represented over the years did not talk to me about the length of their attackers' sentences. They primarily talked to me about their desire to continue living and their need for support, assistance, counselling services and so on.

That said, let us now look at how criminal law deals with offenders who commit multiple sexual offences. In general, sentences are concurrent. Typically, if an offender commits multiple offences, and if there are multiple sentences, they will be served at the same time, unless the law or circumstances justify consecutive sentences, which are served one after the other. As my colleague said, the Criminal Code already provides for consecutive sentences in the case of sexual offences against children, for example. Generally speaking, the Criminal Code says judges must consider consecutive sentences. They are not obligated to go that way, but they must always consider it. It is an exceptional measure, but it is available, and it is one of the tools judges can use to reflect the seriousness of multiple crimes. With consecutive sentencing, an offender convicted of several serious offences cannot get an artificial reduction in the length of time they must serve. This is what the Supreme Court has taught us. This option illustrates the principle that each offence deserves a separate penalty. Judges have broad discretion to decide whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, but they must always respect the principle of proportionality and make sure the overall punishment is not excessive. The current rule of law strives to strike a balance by allowing for consecutive sentencing while requiring the justice system to consider all aspects of a sentence.

In its 1996 ruling in R. v. M. (C.A.), the Supreme Court confirmed that judges have considerable discretion, but that they must respect the principles of proportionality and parity in sentencing. With regard to consecutive sentences, the court reiterated that their use must reflect the multiplicity of offences without leading to an unreasonable overall sentence. Consecutive sentences are therefore already one of the tools available to judges when sentencing defendants who have committed multiple sexual offences. In court, repeat offences are already taken into account, as are aggravating circumstances, for obtaining harsher sentences. The justice system therefore already has the tools to impose consecutive sentences when deemed necessary.

Now let us discuss the merits of the proposal before the House. The Conservative proposal essentially aims to reduce judicial discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences. According to the preamble, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that sentences for multiple offences reflect the gravity of each offence and the distinct harm caused to each victim. We can also discuss this in committee and look into the matter further, but at first glance, based on what I have just said, I think that this goal can already be achieved under the current rules. Personally, I believe that we can trust the justice system to ensure that the sentence is appropriate in each case.

The goal could also be to reduce the recidivism rate by saying that harsher penalties are going to be handed down to repeat sexual offenders. Clearly, reducing the recidivism rate is a good thing. A study on this subject appeared in 2022 in Criminology & Public Policy, a scientific journal published by the American Society of Criminology. The study showed that the recidivism rate for sex offenders has fallen by 60% since 1970. This is a robust study that involved conducting a meta-analysis of 185 Canadian-based studies. The meta-analysis covered more than 50,000 criminals and combined 226 recidivism rates measured at different times and in different locations across Canada.

After controlling for various factors, the study concluded that the recidivism rate for sexual offences has decreased by more than 60% since the 1970s. Every repeat offence is one too many, of course, but the problem of repeat sexual assault is actually diminishing under the current rules. We can dig into this in committee and try to understand what the goal of the bill is, but when it comes to recidivism rates, things seem to be improving.

The goal could also be to reduce crime, and that is a good thing too. However, here again, it has not been proven that harsher sentences reduce crime. In committee, we can also discuss the collateral effects of this bill if it is passed. Longer sentences mean people staying in prison longer, which comes at a cost to the government. Longer sentences also have a negative effect on criminals' chances of rehabilitation. In short, there are serious questions about the usefulness of this bill and its effect on our criminal justice system, but we will nevertheless vote in favour of it at this stage to allow it to be studied in committee.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, I want to recognize someone who has worked in my office since I was elected, Stephanie Rennick. This is her 32nd anniversary of working on Parliament Hill. I am profoundly indebted to people like her. We all are. Most of us are nothing without our staff. I want to thank Stephanie for everything, all the sacrifices, all the help and all the late hours. People like me are nothing without people like Stephanie.

Normally I have a couple of notes, but I am going start without notes. I am going to speak directly to the Liberals here, because I cannot believe what we just heard from the parliamentary secretary. In fact, whoever wrote that speech should be ashamed of themselves, because they just got the law completely wrong. They talked about the unconstitutionality of this provision. Well, if this provision is unconstitutional, then the provision that is identical to it, the one around consecutive sentences for sex offences against kids, is unconstitutional itself. I cannot believe that.

Yes, I am raising my voice, and yes, I am speaking with passion, because victims serve a psychological life sentence. The Liberals are communicating to this House and to all Canadians that this does not need to be changed and that it is okay for sex offences to be cheaper by the dozen. It is wrong.

The Liberals can scoff and snarl under their breath, or they can do something. They can ask the person who wrote that speech or the person who delivered that speech what they were thinking about in regard to Bill C-14, a bill on bail? I consulted with the hon. member on this bill, and I reflected on my life prosecuting sex offences against kids, also teaching a sentencing class at our local law school, and about the totality principle that the member spoke about. The totality principle says that somebody's overall moral culpability should not exceed the length of the sentence, that it should be proportional, yet somehow this is said to offend the totality principle. What?

If this offends it, then what about the provision that this was designed on, to say that everybody who hurts a kid should serve a consecutive sentence? If anybody wants a real-life example, I will talk about the first case that I undertook that really taught me about this. It was a case on Internet luring. The offender was located in Canada, and the victims were in the Philippines. I will just give a warning here. This is graphic, so if anybody does not want to hear it, please beware.

That offender, a Canadian, was paying mothers to offend against their children. Yes, it is uncomfortable, but this is what is happening. He pled guilty to several charges, and because of that, there were consecutive sentences. Now, based on that speech, one would say that that was wrong, that he should have concurrent sentences. The totality principle still applied.

How is it possible that anybody in this House could disagree that if somebody sexually assaults one person and sexually assaults somebody else in 90 days and sexually assaults another person in 90 days, and so on, they should serve consecutive sentences? Those sentences can be fashioned in accordance with the totality principle to reflect the overall moral culpability of that person.

Are the Liberal members okay with this? Are they okay with signalling and getting behind the content of that speech? I challenge every single one of them to go back and reflect on that in their caucus.

I texted an advocate for sexual assault survivors, somebody who herself was sexually assaulted and speaks about it publicly. Sometimes I joke around in this House and have more fun, but I have always believed politics is about timing. There is a time to have fun, there is a time to be righteously angry, there is a time to be serious, there is a time to be loud and there is a time to be quiet. If ever there was a time to be loud in this House, this is it.

This is the time for the Liberals present in the House to ask if they are sure they want to say they do not want to tie judges' hands. Is that what I heard, that they do not want to tie the hands of judges when it comes to consecutive sentences for sexual assault? Did I hear that? Are the Liberals okay with it? I ask because victims are going to be watching.

That speech will be dissected. Let us not forget that our words in here mean something. If we cannot agree on that, what the heck can we agree on?

What I find even more reprehensible is that somebody said we should not throw the full force of the law against sexual offenders. Those victims are serving a life sentence, a psychological life sentence, and I just heard someone say why we should not apply the full force of the law to offenders. However, the Liberals want us to support Bill C-14 because, boy, is it tough on crime. What a joke.

We are debating whether people should serve an appropriate sentence for sexual assault. I am thinking to myself, “Well, duh.” Of course they should. I do not care if I am heard on Wellington Street saying this.

We have come to the point where people serve more time on a maximum sentence for property crimes. Robbery is taking property by force, and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Sexual assault is taking sexual dignity by force, sexual inviolability by force, sexual integrity by force, and the maximum sentence is 10 years.

What do we hear from the Liberals? They did not say whether they would vote for or against this bill. To those watching at home, I say to contact my office. Contact every Liberal and tell them there should be proportionality in sentencing, because for far too long, we have measured sexual assault sentences in months instead of years.

I was obedient to the rule of law and the rule of precedent as somebody who practised law. I may not have agreed with them, but I was obedient to precedents. Does anybody here know, speaking rhetorically, about the range of sentences for a sexual assault involving intercourse in British Columbia? It starts at two years. The Liberal position says that if it is done again to another victim, it should not necessarily be consecutive. It is two years for the violation of somebody's sexual integrity. Yes, there is a bit of awkwardness in the House right now, because there should be.

When we allow stuff like this to be said in this House and do not stand up for victims in this House, we should all hang our heads in shame. I hope every single Liberal goes back to caucus and asks why that speech said what it said. Why are we allowing this to happen? I say shame on every parliamentarian who does not fight for victims of sexual offences in this country.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in response to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Criminal Code. It is private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The bill would change the Criminal Code so that, when someone is convicted of two or more sexual offences at the same time, their sentences would have to be served one after the other. If that person was later convicted of another sexual offence, their new sentence would automatically be added on top of the sentence they are already serving for the earlier sexual offences.

Sexual offending is a profound violation that leaves lasting physical, emotional and psychological harm. These are not crimes that can be minimized or treated lightly. They require our justice system to respond with clarity, strength and accountability. The grave harm caused by sexual offending is one of the reasons the government is seeking to advance important criminal law reforms, including the recent bail and sentencing reform act, or Bill C-14, which has a view to reinforce community safety and strengthen Canada's justice system.

Bill C-14 represents a significant step forward in updating Canada's criminal justice framework to make bail law stricter and sentencing law tougher. The bill includes more than 80 targeted changes to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other relevant acts, and all are directed toward delivering firm and fairer outcomes for everyone in Canada.

Bill C-14 includes an amendment that would require judges to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders, including repeat sexual violent offenders. A consecutive sentence means multiple prison sentences are served one after the other, with the total length of the sentence being the sum of the individual sentences imposed for one offence. This is different from a concurrent sentence, where multiple prison terms for different offences in a single sentence can be served at the same time.

If passed by Parliament, Bill C-14 would send a strong signal to the courts that longer sentences may be warranted in cases of repeat violent offending, while still allowing for individualized circumstances to be considered by the sentencing judge. Bill C-14 would capture a broad range of offenders, including anyone with a record for violent offences in the last five years, as well as a broad range of offences, such as any offence involving violence or threats of violence. It would include, but not be limited to, offences involving sexual violence. As a result of this proposal, courts would be required by law to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders, and failure to do so would be an error in law that could be appealed.

Bill C-14 would also make it more difficult for those accused of serious, violent and sexual offending to be released on bail. The general rule for bail is that, when a Crown prosecutor seeks the detention of an accused person, they must demonstrate to the court that there is just cause to detain the accused. This means the Crown has the responsibility to show the accused should not be granted bail.

However, in certain cases, the accused must show why they should be granted bail. This is referred to as reverse onus. In a reverse onus situation, an accused must be detained while awaiting their trial, unless they can demonstrate to the court that they should not be denied bail by showing that there is no just cause for their detention, meaning they are not a risk to public safety. A reverse onus demonstrates Parliament's intention that bail should be more difficult to obtain in cases where the accused might present heightened risk if released on bail.

Right now, the Criminal Code sets out reverse onus for several criminal offences, including for offences where the allegations involve violence against an intimate partner if the accused had been previously convicted or discharged of an offence where violence was used against their intimate partner. This reverse onus recognizes the fact that violence against intimate partners unfortunately tends to happen more than once, so those who have been previously convicted of such offences may pose increased safety risks to their victims if released on bail.

Building on this foundation, Bill C-14 includes a proposal to create a new reverse onus bail provision for assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocating or strangulation. Evidence suggests this behaviour is indicative of potential escalation to homicide, particularly in the intimate partner context. The proposed reverse onus recognizes that those accused of such offending may present—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to remind the member that we are dealing with a particular topic, Bill C-246, which deals with consecutive sentencing. I wonder if you could call on the member to follow the rules and discuss the provisions of the bill that is currently before the House. It is a very important one.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the member for the reminder. As members know, wide latitude is given to members, and I am sure the member for Pickering—Brooklin was coming back to the matter at hand as she was giving examples.

I invite the member to continue.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed reverse onus recognizes that those accused of such offending may present heightened safety risks to their victims if released on bail.

The bill currently going through Parliament would also significantly strengthen sentencing, including for sexual offending. It is proposed that conditional sentence orders, also known as house arrest, be unavailable for serious sexual offences, including those against children.

Protecting children from sexual exploitation and abuse is a top priority for the federal government. The government has taken significant steps to strengthen laws, enhance its law enforcement tools and support victims. Canada's approach reflects the belief that every child has the right to grow up free from harm and that those who violate that trust will face the full force of the law. These amendments respond to concerns from provinces and territories, many of which have observed a troubling rise in conditional sentence orders being ordered in response to sexual offences, including child sexual offences, noting that these sentences were not sufficiently reflective of the gravity, nor sufficiently protected victims.

These concerns have prompted calls to restrict conditional sentence orders for those offences and to ensure that the use of conditional sentence orders remains consistent with the principles of denunciation and deterrence and promotes public confidence in the justice system. These targeted reforms reflect the government's commitment to addressing the serious harms caused by sexual offending and its profound impact on victims.

Bill C-14 also proposes adding a new aggravated factor at sentencing for repeat violent offending, which would include repeat violent sexual offending. An aggravating factor is a circumstance or detail about an offence that makes a crime more serious. Aggravating factors send a message to our courts that certain conduct justifies harsher sentences. These amendments would respond to ongoing calls to denounce and deter all repeat violent offending.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments have been actively collaborating on measures to strengthen the bail and sentencing regime for many months at the ministerial, deputy ministerial and officials' levels. The proposed amendments were developed in close co-operation with the provinces and territories, and reflect a collective agreement to support safer communities.

These changes are being advanced within the federal areas of responsibility and reflect commitments to bringing forward law reform in this area. However, a well-functioning criminal justice system requires action from the provinces and territories that are responsible for the administration of justice, which includes the conduct of the majority of prosecutions in Canada. Building on the bail and sentencing reform act, the Government of Canada has further committed to bringing forward additional legislative changes to address court delays, to strengthen victims' rights, to better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence and to keep children safe from crimes.