Debates of Nov. 20th, 2014

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-1001 an act to amend the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Act, , to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

The bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

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.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg for his intervention. As usual, it was very precise and well rounded. He gives me an opportunity to build on some of those argument.

I want to start with some experience I had as a teacher advocate on this issue.

One of the things that is deeply disturbing are children who are exploited by people who are entrusted to care for them. They are some of the most troublesome cases to deal with. Yes, there are cases where people are exploited by people they do not know, but there are many documented instances of people who exploit children who are under their care or supervision.

One of the ways this is done is through something called “grooming”. This is where a person of authority, through coaching, et cetera, establishes a trust relationship with the child and uses a reward system, which is called grooming. It is deeply troubling, and many have identified it as a pattern that leads to sexual exploitation. We have to look at this along with the bill, which I agree with my colleague we will support to get it to committee to see if we can improve it, for the reasons he mentioned.

Part of what we have to do is prevent this from happening. The way to do that is to look at the context of these relationships where people are in positions of authority We have seen cases recently in the media, be it coaches or people in other positions of authority. If we look back at how the abuse started, it was because there was really no one around other than the abuser. In other words, we need to better understand how to prevent it.

People can groom others because they have opportunity, and the opportunity arises when there is not a caring community around. There is not sufficient oversight. Usually that is the case where there has not been proper investment in basic community services and community centres where there is robust programming, with people who are trained and where there are protocols to make sure that people who will exploit are not coming into positions of authority.

To be frank, I do not think it is good enough to just have a police check. I think it is a matter of looking at the context, be it in an after-school program or a sports program. We need to have people involved who have the training to spot an abuse of authority and we need a required reporting mechanism.

Often we see that there is an opportunity to prevent these horrific scenarios, and that needs to be looked at as well as the law. After all, on this side of the House, we think it is important to prevent these kinds of situations from happening.

I have talked to people who have gone through this kind of experience, and it is horrific. One does not ever fully repair. One can cope after abuse, but someone who has gone through sexual exploitation as a young person never fully recovers. One cannot go back in time, and we have to understand that.

No one in this House has a monopoly on caring about this issue. On this side of the House, we think it is important that we invest smartly in all of the services we can invest in to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Part of that is just discussion. I discuss these issues with my kids. They have friends, and we talk about these things. We have to have a culture where we are not afraid to talk about these things.

I am glad to have had the opportunity just this past week, during our constituency week, to have had a three-day conference on mental health and suicide prevention. One of the things we talked about with people who are survivors and people who are involved in social services and mental health services is that it is time to change the conversation, or have the conversation.

It is time to have that conversation, where people are not in fear of discussing these albeit sensitive issues. When children feel like someone is abusing that trust relationship, they know who to speak to. Sometimes it is not the parents. As parents, we all wish it would be us, but sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, they cannot come forward. If it is not the parents, there needs to be someone else they can talk to. We need to look at this.

I wanted to start off with that, because as someone who has been a teacher advocate, working with young people and being involved in this issue a little, it is important to understand this and the importance of prevention. I remember working with my colleague from Winnipeg on the whole issue of abuse of hockey players, and doing some work with a well-known hockey player who wanted to ensure that the attention was brought forward and that we dealt with the issue.

We also have to look at how we deal with offenders. My colleague was quite on point with this issue. We have to understand what causes people to behave in this way. We absolutely have to crack down on the exploitation of those who want to take these images and make money from them. I can think of things as heinous as that, but it is hard to think of anything more heinous than taking and selling these images. Every time we hear on the radio that people have been charged with the selling of child pornography, we wonder what goes on in their heads. Sometimes these people are just trying to make a buck.

It is a moral argument about why this happens. We have to crack down on that. As wonderful as the Internet is, having brought us all sorts of opportunities, it has also brought a lot of grief and exploitation of innocent people. We need to look at that.

We also need to look at some successful programs that have dealt with accountability, in perhaps a different way than the government looks at it. We have to look at the whole approach of communities having accountability and circles of support. Those who have been involved, those who have served their time or those who are serving their time are actually challenged to be accountable for their actions.

It is an interesting discussion in criminal justice. The whole idea of accountability can be seen in different ways. Some will say that accountability should mean people go to jail for however long as they can be kept in there, and that is is. I believe in something where those who victimize someone and have been found guilty should have an opportunity to another way of being held accountable, which is confronting what they have done.

The whole idea of circles of support and accountability have been hugely successful. I know in Ottawa people have been involved. I think of Emmy Verdun, from the Anglican Church of St. John the Evangelist, who is one of the officers for the circles of support and accountability in Ottawa; Rick Keindel, Staff Sergeant, Ottawa Police Service, who is part of the group; Sharon Rouleau, the treasurer; Nicole Bedard, the secretary; and directors Robert Cormier, Alice Doell, James Foord and Kerry Lamming. These people are teachers, police officers and one is a retired pharmacist. They have become involved in the circles of support and accountability. Their work is extraordinary. Their cost is almost nothing. Sadly, the government cut funding to that program.

However, it works. The people who are involved in some of these crimes are told that at some point they have to go back into society. Even when we look at the table of proposed sentencing, at some point people are going to have to return to society. This approach tells them that they have to be accountable. The people involved in this program, often volunteers, are willing to help these people, to ensure they are accountable for what they have done, and they get support.

If we are honest about tackling this issue, then we need to look at preventing it. As I said before, we need to invest smartly in those people who are in positions of authority and trust, and can help kids speak to adults and others in a safe way. We also need to ensure that when people are finished their time, we need to have a program to ensure it does not happen again. If we do not do this, then we fail the kids who we are trying to protect.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker I am in complete agreement with my colleague who spoke about prevention, not punishment.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre also raised a very good point in the speech he gave earlier. That is, a person who commits a sex crime against a child is probably not thinking, during the crime, about the punishment that will be handed out.

Therefore, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the part of the bill that increases penalties.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we want to get the bill to committee where we can ensure we look at the issue in a smart way, which is not only about sentencing and that is it. I did not have a chance in my comments to talk about the mandatary minimum approach only. My colleague from Winnipeg talked about it.

Everyone agrees that this is a complex issue. We need to have nuance in how we respond to it. From the criminal justice point of view, some have said that if we just give mandatory minimums and that is it, then we might, without intent, be undermining the very victims who are looking for justice.

That is why it is important, as we go to committee, that we understand what we are trying to fix. As opposed to just giving a simple response, we need to have a robust response in the sentencing as well as the services that are required to prevent and deal with those perpetrators.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge we are having on this side of the House is not that there is no substantiation for the government's position on mandatory minimums, but it knows that this is not going to work. The government's own officials have told it in writing that this is not going to work.

It is not just Liberals who oppose mandatory minimums for their own sake. Here is perhaps one of the most compelling voices. Former Progressive Conservative MP for Ottawa West David Daubney, who retired only recently as director of criminal law policy in the Department of Justice after a distinguished career there, was quoted as saying this about the government as he was on the way out the door, “The policy is based on fear – fear of criminals and fear of people who are different. I do not think these harsh views are deeply held”. He went on to say at the same time, because he was the subject of so much pressure inside the department, that “somebody has to take the risk of talking”.

Could my colleague tell me what would possess a government or a minister of justice, who swears to uphold the law when he is sworn in as the minister and who has to bring opinions to the floor of the House from his own lawyers to show that the legislation is constitutional and in conformity with the charter, to take action with the deliberate knowledge that it will not work?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague brought up Mr. Daubney, a well-respected citizen of this city and also respected in our country for his work.

The member is asking me to crawl inside the mind of certain people, but I can only observe the outcomes as opposed to what their intrinsic motivations are.

Let me quote the following:

—the experience with mandatory sentencing legislation in a number of countries has shown that these laws do little to promote public confidence in the sentencing process....minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits.

That is in a report from the Department of Justice. It is a telling report and we should be guided by it.

I thought my colleague from Ottawa South was warming up to quote someone who was the champion of mandatory minimums, and that is Newt Gingrich. He said that it was a total mistake and to stay away from it because it had failed completely. It is an odd day, but there are days when I agree with Newt Gingrich.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we continue, I wish to inform the House that in the first round we had more than five hours of debate on this motion. Thus, from now on, there will be a limit of ten minutes for remarks and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to debate Bill C-26, after my two colleagues, the first from Winnipeg-Centre and the second from Ottawa-Centre.

Bill C-26 was introduced by the Minister of Justice. Anyone who has been following the debate for the last few minutes will know that the bill deals with sexual predators who prey on children. It is entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. That is a somewhat technical title.

The short title always reveals a great deal about the government’s intentions. Generally, when I examine a bill, I immediately look at the short title, which appears at the very beginning of the bill. In this case, the bill is called the tougher penalties for child predators act. I have often managed to discover the government’s hidden intentions in the short title, because it often says a great deal about the real purpose of a bill. There are sometimes very sensible bills that often have titles that are more normal or neutral or much closer to the long title. The government often holds press conferences about this type of bill where it claims to champion the issue in question.

Of course, the Conservatives regularly say that they are tough on crime, and this is obviously one of their trademarks. In this case, they drafted a bill and gave it the short title of the tougher penalties for child predators act. The Conservatives want to consolidate their image as being tough on crime. In reality, however, statistics, research, previous bills and results obtained since then indicate that the effects of Conservative legislation have perhaps not been what they were expecting.

We even saw recently—I believe it was on Tuesday—an article in Le Devoir about the increase in the prison population in most provinces of Canada. An increase has been observed in the inmate population in provincial jails, even though our criminal laws have been greatly strengthened and sentences have been increased since 2006. One would think that the ultimate goal was to discourage criminals from committing crimes. That is the logic the Conservatives use. However, statistics show that that is not what is actually happening. In fact, since 2006, there has even been a 6% increase in sex crimes in Canada. Might we then determine that this is a conclusive result, given the numerous changes the Conservatives have made to the Criminal Code? Can we talk about a conclusive result? I would hope that the purpose is to reduce crime in Canada, and I agree with that.

It is thus a question of determining the best way of reducing crime. Is it to impose tougher penalties? Most, if not all, of the experts agree that this is not the solution. A few of my colleagues referred to this when they spoke, after wondering whether more severe penalties were really going to discourage criminals from committing crimes.

The member for Hochelaga put it well just now, when she asked my colleague from Ottawa Centre whether someone intending to commit one of the most revolting crimes, a crime against children, the most vulnerable members of society, thinks about how many years they are going to spend in prison if they are caught. I do not believe that is how they think.

I cannot get inside the heads of such people, because it is difficult to understand, but according to what I have heard, they generally think of themselves as invincible. They believe that they will never be caught, that they are above the law and that they are capable of getting around all the rules. I do not think they wonder which crime carries the lightest sentence before they commit it, whereas they quite obviously have problems with crime and behaviour.

There are experts who can answer such questions and understand how these criminals think. In the end, it comes back to what I was saying at the beginning. We have to find ways of preventing such crimes from being committed in the first place. People often talk about prevention rather than cure. In these cases, it is much better to find ways of preventing such crimes, instead of just seeking to punish them even more severely in the belief that this is the way to reduce crime in Canada.

These are two fundamentally different schools of thought. The Conservatives prefer harsher sentences to crime prevention. This is not the first time we have seen it. We saw it when considering Bill C-10, which was one of the omnibus bills that amended the Criminal Code. We saw what side they were on with respect to these issues. They more or less copied the U.S. model, which has failed to achieve the expected results, according to a number of studies.

The facts show that U.S. states that had the death penalty did not have lower crime rates. It is not because sentences are more severe—the death penalty being the most severe—that things are better. In the states where the death penalty is still in force, crime rates are not lower. This proves that we will not eliminate crime in Canada by legislating 25-year sentences or consecutive sentences to ensure that criminals never get out of prison. There are many other much more effective ways of eliminating crime. We should think about that.

We are going to support Bill C-26 so that it goes to committee in order to try to make amendments to it, but also to hear from experts on these matters. They will be able to give us more information about the best ways of reducing crime, among other things. After amendments have been made, we will likely support this bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the last couple of members from the official opposition who spoke, and I agree with their comments.

The member for Ottawa Centre said earlier that one of the problems with the penalties and longer incarceration is the lack of preventive programs within prisons for these people, who will eventually be released. One of the programs that was cancelled by the government, which was manned by volunteers to a great extent but funded by government, was the Circles of Support and Accountability. It was an extremely important program, and it no longer exists. Now when individuals come out of prison, they are going to create more danger on the streets.

There are two sides to this coin. One is prevention, to assist individuals in not committing crimes in the first place, and severe penalties do not prevent them from committing crimes. That is for sure. The second side of the coin is to have rehabilitation programs within the prison system that would, to the best extent possible, ensure that when those people are released, they do not recommit a crime of a sexual nature—or any crime, for that matter.

I wonder what the member's comments are on those aspects, because there is nothing in this bill that I can find that addresses either of those issues. There are longer sentences and mandatory minimums, but there is nothing in the bill that deals with the important aspects of prevention on the one hand and rehabilitation on the other.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question. He clearly pointed out the options for truly resolving the issue by showing that the Conservatives have not come up with the best solution in Bill C-26.

In fact, a great deal of work must be done in prisons to stop those who are leaving prison from committing other crimes.

First, we must continue targeting this aspect of prevention and then, when inmates are back out on street, we must also have a good system, with sound financing, to help with their reintegration into society. These people must have a good support system when they are on the outside again.

In Sherbrooke, a number of people work in halfway houses or with groups that help with social rehabilitation, and this is an important aspect of prevention. Someone who is rehabilitated and whose progress has been exemplary—we hope—in prison, will have a much greater chance of recovering and becoming a good citizen again.

There are three important components: prevention in order to stop crime from happening in the first place; monitoring while in prison; and of course, social rehabilitation. I think these three components are extremely important and we must continue providing support for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-26.

Each day, in Canada, children are the victims of sexual abuse. It causes unimaginable devastation to their lives and it causes lifelong emotional turmoil that profoundly affects victims well into adulthood.

Our government pledged to protect Canadians and keep them safe, especially the most vulnerable among us: our children. This legislation is one way we are fulfilling that promise.

The proposed new measures would help better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography. Furthermore, they would help ensure that offenders receive sentences that better reflect the serious nature of these crimes.

Over the summer and fall of last year, the Minister of Justice met with Canadians across the country. In those meetings, there was one central theme: victims wanted a stronger voice in the justice system and sentences that truly reflect the crime committed. Today, this legislation illustrates that we listened and that we are delivering for Canadians.

For example, we are seeking an end to sentence discounts for multiple child sexual offences. Sexual predators would receive sentences that take into account each young life that they have devastated.

The legislation would also ensure that those sentenced at the same time for child pornography and for contact child sexual offences, especially those who have victimized more than one child, would serve their sentences consecutively—in other words, one after another.

In general, concurrent sentences are imposed and served simultaneously for two or more convictions that arise out of one continuous criminal act or single transaction. These sentences are based on what is referred to as the “same event or series of events” rule.

Conversely, consecutive sentences are imposed and served one after another for multiple convictions when the offences are unrelated, as they arise out of separate criminal transactions.

The concepts of concurrent and consecutive sentencing predate Confederation. Amendments over the years have complicated the statement of the rule contained in the Criminal Code to the point that it offers little guidance to courts.

To address this deficiency, the proposed amendments would direct a court to consider ordering, where applicable, that the sentences it imposes be served consecutive to a sentence of imprisonment that the offender is subject to at the time of sentencing. Where the court sentences the offender for multiple offences at the same time, the proposed amendments would direct courts to consider ordering that the terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of separate events or a separate series of events be served consecutively.

Bill C-26 would also increase minimum and maximum penalties for certain child sexual offences, and there would be increases in the maximum penalties for violations of supervision orders. Canadians want those who violate the conditions of their probation orders, prohibition orders, and peace bonds held to account.

Moreover, these measures would ensure that the spouse of a person charged with child pornography offences could also be required to testify in court.

Under the Canada Evidence Act and under common law, unless spouses are irreconcilably separated, the spouse of a person accused of most offences cannot testify for the prosecution, even if they want to, as they are not competent, and they cannot be forced to testify against their spouse, as they are not compellable.

The Canada Evidence Act contains statutory exceptions to these rules, permitting spousal testimony for most child sexual offences and for offences of violence against young persons, but not for child pornography offences.

The amendments proposed through this bill would also add child pornography, section 163.1, to the list of exceptions in the Canada Evidence Act, subsection 4(2), making the spouse of a person accused of any of the child pornography offences compellable to testify for the prosecution. In child pornography cases, the evidence of the accused's spouse may be required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography on a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These changes are necessary and have been long in coming. Statistics tell us so, but more so the stories of victims. A report by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics showed that in 2012 more than 3,900 sexual offences against children were reported to police in Canada. That is an increase of 3% from 2011.

As a society, we must do what it takes to protect our children and help them heal. Today, we are standing up for the vulnerable and showing them that their voices are being heard in our justice system. This legislation is in keeping with our commitments in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to punish those who break the law, to match penalties to the severity of the crimes, and to ensure that the rights of victims come before the rights of criminals. It follows up on our previous actions, through legislation such as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, to better protect our children.

Our government also recognizes that bullying and cyberbullying are serious concerns for many Canadian families and communities, and we are committed to doing everything we can to protect our children. That is why, last year, we acted to protect children and other vulnerable Canadians from this degrading behaviour by introducing Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Our government has also provided funding to create and enhance child advocacy centres across the country to help young victims and witnesses cope with the trauma they have experienced and to better navigate the often-complicated criminal justice system.

Despite our differences in this chamber, I believe we can all agree that nothing is more reprehensible than harming a child. Our government is deeply committed to strengthening the justice system to ensure that sexual offenders who prey on children are punished to the fullest extent of the law. Bill C-26 would send a signal that we as a society do not accept this kind of behaviour in our communities, and it would allow the justice system to better respond to the needs of child victims and their families.

In reviewing speeches from my hon. colleagues across the way, I understand that they have some concerns about mandatory minimum sentences. That said, they have agreed that this bill should go to the committee for further study, and I could not agree more. I hope that the opposition will work with us in giving this bill a thorough examination. I believe, at the end of the day, we can mend our differences for the sake of our children.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the spouse of an accused person who could be compelled to testify in child pornography cases, as well as exceptions to the Canada Evidence Act in this regard.

However, I must admit that I did not really understand what he meant. I would therefore like to ask him to explain to me, in his own words, why an exception is being made for spouses.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the list of exceptions in the Canada Evidence Act making the spouse of a person accused of any of the child pornography offences compellable to testify for the prosecution would help to get the person who commits the crime to receive a sentence and serve the sentence. That is the change in the act that we are introducing.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why are they asking for an exception in this particular case?

The answer that has been given is that it could help in sentencing a person, but that might also be true in the case of a murder, for instance. What is the difference? Why should there be an exception here and not in other cases?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I can give an example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography on a shared home computer is necessary to get the conviction of the accused. Therefore, this is a change we are making.

Child pornography is something that is relatively new, and it has grown over the years since we have had the Internet. It has been growing ever since. This is a crime that was not committed as often before this tool became available for the perpetrators. Therefore, it is important that we go after those who commit that terrible crime and that we use all the tools necessary to get a conviction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and very good friend from Mississauga East—Cooksville for what I think was an excellent presentation in the House this afternoon.

There is no more important issue for all of us than the protection of our children. I am a father of 15-year-old and 10-year-old daughters. I think about them constantly. I am always worried and concerned about their safety and that they can live, as the member and I do, in the great city of Mississauga. It is one of the safest cities. It has been recognized as the safest city in Canada for more than 12 consecutive years.

However, we do know that there are people who prey on our children. We do know that there are people who act irresponsibly. I would like to ask the member and give him another opportunity to explain why this particular bill is so important to protect children in the city of Mississauga.

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

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

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

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