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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Shefford will have approximately three and a half minutes and will then be interrupted for adjournment proceedings.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to do something in three and a half minutes on a subject that I am sure everyone understands is in my wheelhouse as the status of women critic for the Bloc Québécois.

I want to mention that this debate is taking place during the 12 days of action to end violence against women, which run from November 25 to December 6, the day when, unfortunately, people will commemorate the tragic femicide that occurred at École Polytechnique 36 years ago. Let us wear the white ribbon proudly.

I will start with some statistics. I will then quickly go over Quebec's demands and close with what the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying.

According to Statistics Canada, since 2015, the number of sexual offences has increased from 57 to 87 per 100,000 population. That is a 52% increase. During that same period in Quebec, the number of assaults rose from 45 to 98 per 100,000 population. That is a 119% increase. Those are big numbers.

Here are some more statistics: 50% of female victims lose their job or have to change jobs as a result of violence. Every year, more than 80,000 women and children use shelters. During these days of action to end violence against women, I would like to recognize everyone who works for a shelter or an organization to help women victims of violence. Their work in the community is essential.

In terms of police and court statistics, in 40% of cases, the violent partner has a prior criminal record involving violence. Less than 20% of domestic violence charges result in a major conviction. During the study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently conducting, we have learned that conditions related to section 810 of the Criminal Code are used in nearly 25% of cases, but in 60% of femicides, at least one prior complaint or report had been made.

As my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj explained so well, we understand that this situation is urgent. We welcome the bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge. We will study it in committee. We need to understand what is behind these statistics. Is it because of the #MeToo movement? We have to see whether that will really help fight this kind of crime. We have some concerns. For example, the Criminal Code already provides for consecutive sentences. We will have to look at that.

In Quebec, we worked hard on the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust. We have been trailblazers when it comes to combatting violence against women. We have specialized courts. We introduced electronic bracelets. I recently had a discussion with the member for Sherbrooke. I have also been in contact with the Quebec minister responsible for the status of women. Although Quebec has made progress on this issue, both of them are calling on Ottawa to do one thing urgently: to recognize coercive control in the Criminal Code. That is the priority request at the moment, because it would give police an additional tool.

Right now, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is looking into concerns related to the justice system. We studied the issue of section 810 conditions, and I agreed, in collaboration with the Conservatives, to also look at bail conditions. Right now, we are studying the causes. I see that as important.

I will conclude on this final point. We need to ask ourselves why the anti-feminist movement and masculinism are gaining so much momentum. This is leading to real violence against women. We need to look at this issue as holistically as possible.

I hope I will have a chance to talk more about that one day.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from December 4, 2025, consideration of the motion 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.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I already had an opportunity to speak about this bill for four minutes. It was at the end of the last hour. I was given four minutes to begin the debate on Bill C‑246, which deals with consecutive sentences for sexual offences.

The bill aims to acknowledge the seriousness of sexual violence. Some sexual offences are among the most serious crimes in our society. They leave deep and lasting scars on victims. Victims experience psychological trauma, relationship challenges, loss of trust and sometimes an inability to get back to a normal life. Yes, indeed, sexual offences are among the most serious crimes in our society.

According to Statistics Canada, level 1 sexual assaults in Canada increased from 57 to 87 per 100,000 population between 2015 and 2022, which is an increase of 52%. I also mentioned a number of figures in the first part of my speech, but I want to start with a few statistics. In Quebec, these offences increased from 45 to 98 per 100,000 population, which is an increase of 119%. In absolute terms, 20,466 sexual assaults were reported in Canada in 2015 compared to 35,956 in 2022.

However, these figures should be interpreted with some caution. The important nuance is acknowledging the effect of the #MeToo movement. A large part of the increase in reports can be explained by the #MeToo movement. This movement, which emerged in 2017, has really raised collective awareness, made victims more willing to report their attackers and improved police practices in classifying complaints. In short, this does not necessarily signify an increase in the number of assaults committed, but rather an increase in the reporting and visibility of these crimes, which is a good thing.

The objective of Bill C-246 is to amend the Criminal Code to require that sentences for certain sexual offences be served consecutively rather than concurrently. In other words, when a person commits multiple sexual assaults, the sentences would be served one after the other, rather than at the same time. The offences covered include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill in principle and wants it to be studied in committee, because sexual offences are serious crimes that require serious penalties. Consecutive sentences can be an acknowledgement of the seriousness of each offence and of each victim. This acknowledgement is important because victims of sexual assault often show tremendous courage in coming forward to report their attacker. We are well aware of this, but we do have some reservations.

There are several factors that raise concerns. Consecutive sentences already exist. The Criminal Code already provides for the possibility of consecutive sentences. Section 718.3 provides that sentences may be served consecutively when the offences do not out of the same event or series of events. Some judges already have the discretion to impose such sentences when the situation warrants it.

There is also the principle of proportionality. The Criminal Code establishes proportionality as a fundamental principle of sentencing. According to this principle, the sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The bill could potentially limit judges' ability to tailor the sentence to the specific circumstances of each case.

Another thing in the Criminal Code is the totality principle. This principle provides that judges must ensure that combined sentences are not excessive. The totality principle requires that the overall sentence remain proportionate to the overall culpability of the accused. It is clear, then, that mandatory consecutive sentences could, in some cases, lead to sentences that would be considered disproportionate. Another consideration is interaction with minimum sentences. Many sexual offences already carry mandatory minimum sentences. Combining mandatory minimum sentences with mandatory consecutive sentences could result in extremely long sentences that no longer take special circumstances into account.

How would this be viewed by the system? As for case law, there is the Bissonnette case. The Supreme Court ruled on the issue of consecutive sentences in the Bissonnette decision. In that case, a man had murdered six people at the Quebec City mosque in 2017. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that imposing consecutive sentences violated the principle of rehabilitation, so that case law already exists.

Harsher penalties are not the only solution, either. We often hear this at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It is important to remember that increasing penalties is not in itself a solution to reducing crime, because crime is influenced by multiple factors, such as social conditions, inequality, support for vulnerable people and resources allocated to prevention.

In closing, I want to talk about Quebec's example of using specialized courts. Quebec chose an interesting approach after the #MeToo movement. An expert panel drafted 190 recommendations to improve support for victims in the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”.

In 2021, the Quebec National Assembly even unanimously passed a motion to create courts specializing in sexual and domestic violence. Since 2022, these courts have been rolled out in 24 cities across Quebec. They include specialized training for judges and judicial stakeholders, a specialized division of prosecutors and judges, support for victims to help them better understand their rights, and changing the layout of courthouses to ensure victims are welcomed safely and appropriately.

In conclusion, sexual assault is a serious crime that must be denounced and strictly punished. Victims need to feel that their words are heard and that their suffering is recognized. Bill C‑246 therefore raises important issues. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that it can be studied in committee, where its principle will, as always, be carefully reviewed to ensure that the core principles are upheld and, most importantly, that they actually strengthen victim protection.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act, which is legislation rooted in dignity, accountability and respect for people who have survived sexual violence.

Sexual crimes are among the most serious violations a person can experience. The harm reaches far beyond the moment of the offence. The effect goes beyond the physical. It can affect a person's sense of safety, trust and self-worth. For survivors, the impact does not end when the assault ends. It can follow them for years and often for a lifetime. It shapes how they move through the world, how they relate to others and whether they feel safe in their day-to-day life.

In our justice system, sentencing is meant to reflect the gravity of an offence. This principle exists not only to hold offenders accountable but also to ensure that the harm done is fully acknowledged. No sentence can undo what happened, and no verdict can erase trauma, but sentencing sends a signal to survivors and to society that these crimes are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and that perpetrators will be punished accordingly. Tragically, this is often not the reality. We have seen cases where individuals are convicted of multiple sexual offences, sometimes against multiple victims, yet are given sentences that do not reflect the scope of what they have done.

In Toronto, a physician was convicted of nine counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation, taking place over nearly a decade. His patients came to his practice with the expectation of professionalism and care. Doctors swear an oath to do no harm. Instead, his patients were betrayed and victimized by someone who held a position of authority and trust. What was the penalty for this doctor? Despite the number and seriousness of the offences, this total sentence was just three and a half years.

In British Columbia, young women were deceived by a man posing as a talent agent and were assaulted after being lured to so-called auditions. Even with multiple survivors, the sentence amounted to just 18 months.

Unfortunately, these are not isolated examples. Sexual offences are increasing across the country. Since 2015, reported sexual assaults have risen significantly, and women account for the vast majority of people harmed. Offences against children have also increased sharply over the same period. So many lives have been permanently changed.

In my own community, I have spoken with families, advocates and frontline workers who support women and girls as they rebuild after sexual violence. These are not distant stories. They involve real people who were harmed by someone they knew, someone in a position of trust or someone they were supposed to feel safe with. What I hear repeatedly is not a call for vengeance; it is a call to be fully seen and understood by the justice system.

When survivors see that offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences serve sentences nearly identical to those imposed for a single offence, despite multiple convictions involving multiple acts of harm, it can feel as though their individual experience disappears into the process. The perception of being reduced or overlooked can deepen the harm long after the courtroom doors close.

For survivors and their families, the journey through the justice system already requires extraordinary courage: reporting the assault; reliving it in court, often multiple times; and facing scrutiny and disbelief. What is sometimes less visible is how long that process can last and how much it demands. Court proceedings stretch over months or years. Survivors are asked to recount the most painful moments of their lives over and over again in unfamiliar, intimidating settings. They are cross-examined and wait for decisions that will shape their sense of justice and closure.

When that process ends with a sentence that appears disconnected from the number or seriousness of the offences, it can undermine faith not only in the outcome but also in the system itself. Sentencing should reflect what the court has found to be true. When convictions establish multiple sexual offences, the sentence should reflect that multiplicity.

Bill C-246 would align sentencing outcomes with judicial findings, ensuring that repeated criminal conduct would be treated as such. Bill C-246 would address a loophole in the Criminal Code that allows concurrent sentencing, meaning that sentences for multiple sexual offences can be served at the same time. In practice, concurrent sentencing can result in offenders' serving nearly the same amount of time whether they commit one sexual offence or several, even when the number of offences and victims is greater.

The law recognizes the convictions as separate, but the sentence often does not meaningfully distinguish between them. It can create a perverse kind of discount, where additional crimes do not meaningfully increase accountability for each offence or each person harmed. For people carrying the impact of sexual violence, this can feel as though the law is counting time rather than harm. It leaves the impression that additional violations are absorbed into the process rather than recognized as separate acts of violence. When the law treats multiple sexual offences as one, survivors are left feeling that only part of what happened to them truly counted.

Consecutive sentencing corrects that imbalance by ensuring that each offence is treated separately, because each act caused its own harm. This approach also speaks to public confidence in the justice system. Canadians expect that when serious crimes occur repeatedly, the law responds in a way that reflects that reality. When sentences appear compressed or reduced, it can erode trust and raise questions about whether the system is equipped to deal with repeat sexual offending. Clear, proportionate sentencing helps reinforce the idea that the justice system recognizes patterns of harm and responds accordingly. It supports deterrence, not through harshness but through certainty and accountability.

Bill C-246 would require consecutive sentencing for sexual offences, ensuring that each offence carries its own penalty and that each survivor's experience is treated individually. This approach already applies when sexual offences are committed against children. The bill would extend that same principle to adult survivors, recognizing something fundamental, which is that sexual violence causes profound harm regardless of age. Age should not be the discerning factor, as everyone deserves the same clarity and protection from the law, whether the abuse occurs in childhood or adulthood, whether it happens once or repeatedly and whether it takes place in a home, a workplace or a community setting.

Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect the lived realities survivors face, not just the technical structure of the Criminal Code. The bill would not change definitions or create new offences. It would simply ensure that when harm occurs more than once, the response of the law reflects that reality.

Consecutive sentencing affirms that each act of sexual violence stands on its own and that each survivor's experience is acknowledged fully, not absorbed into a legal calculation. This is not about retribution. It is about responsibility. It is about affirming that every survivor is a whole person, not a fraction of a case filed, and that sentencing should reflect the full scope of the harm inflicted. This is about the standards we set for our justice system.

This should not be a partisan issue. It speaks to dignity, respect and restoring confidence in a justice system that too many Canadians feel has fallen short when it comes to sexual violence. To survivors, the bill would send a clear message that they are seen, that their experience will not be minimized and that the law will recognize the full reality of what they endured. To the people who commit these crimes, it would send another message: Each act of sexual violence carries consequences, and each offence will be answered in full.

I want to thank my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, for bringing forward this important legislation. I encourage members on all sides of the House to consider what the bill seeks to correct, and to work together to ensure that our sentencing laws reflect both the seriousness of these crimes and the dignity of the people who survive them. Justice should never be reduced, bundled or discounted.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to maybe provide a bit of a different perspective and, at the same time, to recognize that sexual violence in all forms is, in fact, a horrific crime. The victims of this particular crime all deserve justice. That is one of the motivating factors in regard to why, over the last number of months, the government has brought forward a series of legislative initiatives that are, in part, dealing with the types of issues that are being raised with Bill C-246.

The primary difference is that the legislation we are proposing is constitutional. There is a strong, valid argument that if we take a look at Bill C-246, we will find that it is in fact unconstitutional.

I can appreciate that all members of the House would recognize the desire and the need to act on the issue of sexual violence. There are opportunities for us to be able to do that. In some legislation, what we have seen is movement in the same sort of direction that is being suggested in Bill C-246. I would cite, for example, Bill C-14. I will go over all aspects of the legislative agenda, but if we take a look at Bill C-14, as an example, that is the bail reform legislation. It took a little longer than I would have liked to ultimately pass through the House, but we did get it passed through the House, and it is in the Senate.

It actually takes a look at sexual violence and says that we are going to be eliminating conditional sentences for sexual offences. It is a positive measure in terms of bail reform. It also ensures that a judge will have constitutional authority, for repeat sexual offenders, to impose consecutive sentences. This is something I would encourage members opposite to recognize.

I say that in a very encouraging way, in the sense that we were finally able to deal with Bill C-14. It is currently in the other place. We are hoping they will pass it as it is, so that we can ultimately give it royal assent, but at the end of the day, there is reason for members to say that on the issue of sexual assault, there is something very tangible there.

It is more than that. We take more of a holistic approach in terms of what the Prime Minister and the government have actually brought forward to the chamber for debate. We are hopeful, as we have a substantive crime agenda, of being able to pass it all.

We can talk about Bill C-2 and how Bill C-2 has the potential to empower our prosecutors to potentially even prevent some sexual assaults from happening. That is one of the reasons we see a great deal of commentary that comes from the government benches, asking for the official opposition to recognize the value of Bill C-2, much in the same fashion as we saw value in the bail reform legislation.

For me, I think we should take a look at Bill C-16. Bill C-16 is legislation that I would argue is just as important as bail reform. Bail reform is very important. Let us just say I would not want to have to decide which one is more important than the other. Bill C-16 is before the House in second reading. When we talk about a private member's bill, Bill C-246, we know there is a cap. The debate will end today. It is programmed.

I would love to see Bill C-16 advance because, when we look at it, there are some new initiatives dealing with coercive control. The idea of femicide has been around for a long time. I would suggest that Bill C-16 really raises the bar, and not just here in Canada. I suspect other nations would take note of that because there are significant things within it. I can say that it ultimately brings back mandatory minimum sentences for sexual interference, in particular and as an example, with respect to the sexual touching of a child. That is something for which these mandatory minimums could receive support from all sides of the House. The bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for the sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in positions of trust. That is a very positive aspect of the legislation.

We are making sure, to the nth degree, that when we bring forward the legislation, it is charter compliant so that our courts can look at the laws being proposed and understand the severity of them. Bill C-16 does just that, as does Bill C-14. If we think of intimate partner violence and the issue of coercive control, it is something that I would say does not get enough attention when we talk about sexual violence in our communities today. However, it is very real and being dealt with.

The bill deals with issues such as stalking. What about the emotional and psychological abuse that takes place, not to mention the economic abuse? These are substantial and very real. There is also physical abuse and a lot of cyber violence. These are the impacts of sexual violence. If we add in the issue of femicide, we have elevated that to first-degree murder in certain situations. That is where I think the legislation really puts justice for victims of violence upfront and makes our communities safer. It sends a very strong and powerful message.

I look across the way and ask members to put some of the partisan politics to the side. I would suggest that the legislative crime agenda the government has brought forward since the last federal election is substantive. There are many aspects of several bills that deal directly with the issues of sexual violence and justice for victims. The biggest barrier for legislation ultimately passing is the political will of the chamber.

On the bill before us, the opposition bill, we have two hours of debate and then it would go to committee. I would love to see some of the other issues dealing with sexual violence also advance to committee sooner as opposed to later. The reason I say that is that the bail reform legislation could be law today had we done it back in December. Therefore, I encourage members to look at the government agenda to see that the legislation being proposed would arguably be unconstitutional.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and grateful to support and second Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act, brought forth by my very strong, principled Conservative colleague, mom of a sweet baby girl and a fellow Albertan, the MP for Lethbridge. I want to thank her for her advocacy on so many issues and for her leadership on this serious one.

Sexual violence shatters lives. These cruel, pervasive crimes strip victims of dignity, security and trust with physical, psychological and spiritual harm, devastating consequences that for many survivors last a lifetime. Predatorial violence like rape, sexual exploitation and sexual assault leaves deep scars. Frankly, these crimes often impose life sentences of trauma on victims, yet today, the system that is supposed to prosecute criminals and protect victims hinges on a glaring, dangerous flaw. It is yet another reason so many people in Lakeland say it is not a justice system in Canada.

Right now, sexual predators who commit multiple sexual offences can serve all of the sentences at the same time. That is concurrent sentencing. What that means in practice is simple. Sexual predators who commit multiple sexual offences can get discounts on their punishments. No matter how many lives they destroy or how many victims they traumatize, the time those criminals serve can remain almost the same. It seems to me this is a basic principle of justice. Multiple crimes with multiple victims should mean multiple punishments.

Let me share a case that shows systemic injustice clearly. In Ontario, someone posed as a talent agent to lure young people into modelling. Two young women accepted the offer, but instead of offering opportunity, he inflicted repeated sexual assaults. He pleaded guilty and got one sentence of 18 months and another of 24 months, a total of 42 months, but due to concurrent sentencing, those two separate punishments were merged into one sentence of 24 months. That is two crimes, two victims, one sentence. That is wrong. Sexual predators who destroy lives must be held accountable to the full extent of the law. Their sentences should reflect the seriousness of every crime they commit and the sanctity and value of every victim they harm, yet today, too many offenders walk free far too soon.

This is why people in Lakeland call it a catch-and-release or revolving-door criminal system, not a justice one. Too many victims struggle in a system that does not protect them. Too many families watch predators return to the streets or into their own homes while the trauma of the crime lasts a lifetime. The worst part is that it has not just happened this way. People elected to stand and pass laws in this very place, the Liberals, made it that way. Over the past decade, they have weakened penalties for serious crimes; let criminals, gangsters and terrorists run free; put law-abiding, innocent Canadians at risk; and retraumatized victims.

The same Liberals passed Bill C-75, which introduced the concept of the principle of restraint, which outright directed judges to make it easier for repeat offenders to walk free on bail “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”. Let us be straight here. This so-called principle says Canadians should trust criminals to follow the rules, like the law, and their bail conditions. Yeah, that works well. The Liberals also passed Bill C-5, which allowed house arrest for serious crimes, like illegal drug trafficking and illegal drug importing, and major gun crimes, like drive-by shootings and illegal gun trafficking, while they target law-abiding firearms owners.

Parliament deliberately put mandatory minimum sentences in place to deter such severe crimes, but the truth is that time and again, the Liberals directly legislated favour for criminals and punishment for victims and innocent Canadians. That has to change, so that is exactly what our Conservative Lethbridge MP's Bill C-246 aims to do. If passed, her bill would require courts to impose consecutive sentences for individuals convicted of multiple sexual offences, so each crime would carry its own penalty, each victim would be honoured and each predator would serve the full weight and time for their crimes.

This law is needed now more than ever because while the Liberals like to talk about standing with victims, the reality is different. Since 2015, sexual assaults reported in Canada are up nearly 75%. Sexual offences against children, and this is almost unimaginable, are up by nearly 120%. Between 2015 and 2019, there were more than 27,000 sexual assault charges and over 33,000 sexual offence charges.

These numbers are shocking alone, but all MPs must recognize the truth and never forget that each of those numbers is a victim, a person, a human being, violated. Each number is a young adult who no longer feels or is safe in their own home, a woman who checks her locks at night and still cannot sleep, a man who suffers in silence because stigma still stops many male victims from speaking out, and a survivor who carries invisible and, at times, literal physical trauma into every part of their life.

The numbers do not lie, but they are not just statistics. They are Canadians whose dignity, security and sense of self-worth were stolen on top of horrific physical violation and the damage and harm of long-lasting fear. That is why they are called survivors, and that is why we here owe them our greatest duty.

Criminals can serve sentences that do not reflect the severity of their crimes. When that happens, victims are erased, unseen, unheard and devalued, which is reprehensible. If we are all to stand here with straight faces and say that there is a justice system in Canada, then it should punish those who prey on the vulnerable and ensure effective corrections to prevent recidivism. However, today, the max penalty for sexual assault against an adult is 10 years. If we compare that to property crimes like robbery or breaking and entering, which are also out of control under the Liberals, the max penalty can be life in prison. If this was sexual violence, it would be like robbing three banks but only being jailed for one, or breaking into six homes and only being punished for two. How does that make any sense at all?

No Canadian should accept that. The people of Lakeland certainly do not, but it is exactly what happens today with sexual offences. It sends a clear message to sexual violence victims that their sanctity and suffering does not count. It tells predators that their crimes may carry fewer consequences. How the heck are the ones who committed the crimes getting the better end of the deal around here?

It also sends a clear message to the many indigenous people in Lakeland and across Canada, who are disproportionately harmed by sexual violence and other violent crimes. Culturally sensitive approaches are important, but Canadian law should show without a shadow of a doubt that every single victim's life matters and every single criminal will be held to account.

In 2021, the ethics committee investigated the exploitation of victims of non-consensual or child sexual assault material of rape, sexual assault and human trafficking on platforms run by MindGeek. The survivors' words seared me, as did the clarity that the laws already exist to combat this but were not enforced. Just as it was then, it is true today that the laws exist for all of those crimes and predators can be held accountable, but that does not happen. A senior counsel at the justice department said, “I am not sure it's the problem of the law. The problem...is the application of the law”. Therefore, the tools exist, but the problem is that they are not being used. That is a fact, and this is the loophole for convicted sexual predators that can be closed, which is what the MP for Lethbridge wants to do.

I say to all MPs to ask themselves and really reflect on this: What message does not enforcing laws and discounting sentences really send to women and girls and to men and boys across Canada who have been victims of sexual violence? What message does it send to those who are recently recovering, afraid to speak out, because they fear their abusers will be out of jail?

MPs can get up here and make speeches on days like Red Dress Day, International Women's Day and the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, but without action, it is just words on paper and hot air out of our mouths. Liberals have a chance to act by voting for this bill.

Some victims will spend their lives trying to rebuild safety. Some will move. Some will never rebuild it. Some will struggle to trust again. Anxiety for some will be so great that they leave their jobs. Families and friends will watch loved ones change because of their trauma. Some will end their own lives. The truth is that just one person can change entire lives in horrible ways, but it does not have to be this way. Each person here has the power of just one vote, and we can change entire lives for the better.

I urge MPs to protect survivors and support this bill. It is not partisan. It does not matter if a member wears blue, red, green or orange, every MP holds the same duty to defend survivors and real justice. Parliament together can send a message to both survivors and to predators that sexual violence is never okay and that those who perpetrate it will be punished, because every survivor matters and every crime must count.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I recognize the member for Lethbridge for her right of reply.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have said it here before, but I will just say it again: There is a type of discount that is reasonably exciting for us, like a sale, a two-for-one or 15% off. These are reasonable discounts, but these types of discounts in our court system do not belong, and it should alarm us when they do. That is exactly what concurrent sentencing allows, and in particular with regard to sexual assault, it should be disheartening and even alarming for all of us in this place.

Since introducing Bill C-246, I have heard from dozens and dozens of Canadians who have taken the time to write to me, give me a call or meet with me in person. I believe that their voices are urgent, I believe that their pain is real, and I believe that their calls for justice are unmistakable.

Rudy contends that predators, especially those who repeatedly prey on the innocent, should never, ever get easy passage.

Marilyn wrote to the justice minister and copied me on the correspondence. She asked where the minister's morality was. Where was his humanity? Where was his justice? She said the most vulnerable members of our society were counting on him, and he should stand with the victims, not with the criminals.

Leah urged that we act now to resolve reduced sentencing for perpetrators.

Bill summed it up very plainly, saying that sex offenders should not receive reduced sentences, full stop.

We have many examples throughout years of history and throughout different provinces, different cities and different communities, of teachers who are committing abuses, of doctors who are committing abuses, and of uncles, aunts, friends, neighbours, boyfriends and spouses. All of these individuals are given a place of trust, a place of prominence and a place of respect in the lives of those they then go on to violate, and this violation is not something small. It is something big, and it goes to the heart of a person and is carried with them for their entire life.

These crimes are shattering, yet the so-called justice system gives predators a discount, while victims will carry the trauma for the remainder of their lives. My private member's bill would change that. It would mandate that consecutive sentences would be given for sexual offences, ensuring that each crime carries its own penalty, that each victim is recognized and that voices matter.

As Cait Alexander, the founder of End Violence Everywhere, has said, “Concurrent sentencing tells survivors that what happened to them counts less.” She goes on, “Every victim is a whole human being, and every crime deserves its own consequence.”

Kelly Favro from Beyond the Verdict contends that “Consecutive sentencing admits that each offence caused real harm. That gives survivors confidence to come forward because it tells them the system will not automatically minimize what they went through”.

This is so important. Victims must have confidence in the system if they are to come forward.

The Liberals have signalled that they will oppose this legislation. They claim that it fails to comply with the charter, but I would offer that the hypocrisy in that statement is quite palpable. The Liberals have imposed consecutive sentences, under Bill C-14, for certain crimes. The inconsistency is stark, because consecutive sentencing is perfectly acceptable when it serves the Liberals' policy agenda, but suddenly it is problematic when it confronts an issue that they would rather ignore or turn a blind eye to, like sexual assault. The charter is being invoked selectively rather than consistently in order to defend political choice rather than the principle of justice and standing with victims. It is disheartening to watch as the Liberals turn this into an opportunity for gamesmanship rather than working collectively with other parties to benefit Canadians.

I will end with this: Every sexual assault that is committed is a distinct harm, and it is against a distinct individual, and every crime must carry weight. We cannot afford to be a society that sends the message that somehow one victim matters more than another, and we cannot be a society that sends a message that somehow says that criminals get off the hook easily. This type of messaging must stop, and that is what this legislation seeks to do.

I urge the House to stand with victims and vote yes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from March 11 consideration of the motion 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.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:16 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-246, under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.