House of Commons Hansard #179 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was injuries.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Natural Resources.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to begin my speech in the House on Bill C-26 by pointing out the latest attempt by the member for Langley to demonize the official opposition and the second opposition party.
Any time we examine a justice bill, whether it is Bill C-26 or any other justice bill, I look carefully at what the bill says. This bill is An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
I also receive a letter from the Minister of Justice explaining a little about the context of his bill—something I do not always appreciate, but often I do.
In the case of Bill C-26, the main objective is to deter criminals and denounce sexual offences against children. The next step is to examine the bill and see whether that is what the bill actually does.
When I hear the Conservatives say over and over again that we care more about offenders and criminals than we do about victims, I find that rather biased and I take offence to such comments, which add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Obviously we are talking about criminals when we are studying a bill like this. They are the main focus of the bill. Talking about them does not mean that we like them, or support them, or that we are behind them saying, “good job, do it again”, like a bunch of cheerleaders. Not at all.
However, if the government tells me that it is denouncing sexual offences against children in order to deter criminals, then I will look at the bill to see whether that is indeed what the government is doing.
It is rather sad that closure was invoked at second reading stage of such an extremely important and complex file, because we can see from the title of the bill alone that it affects a number of statutes at the same time. It introduces a specific database for offenders who are at risk of reoffending and committing more serious offences than the ones described in the current database.
As I was saying to the Minister of Finance, who was well informed but was perhaps not the person who worked directly on this file, the House has passed many laws regarding sexual offences against children.
In fact, we have to question why, by the Minister of Justice's own admission, there has been a 6% increase in offences in the past two years alone. That still bothers me somewhat because if one of the main objectives of the law is to deter criminals from committing crimes and to report sexual offences against children, there may well be some flaws. I do not want members to tell me that this did not exist before. Minimum sentences did exist.
Bill C-26 does not include any new minimum sentence or any new maximum sentence. All that happened was that the length of the sentences was increased. Both minimum and maximum sentences were increased. Perhaps these types of sentences did not work. In short, we could have done the analysis, but first there was closure in the House, then we went to committee.
I must confess that I was a bit wary in the beginning. We were under the impression that the members sitting on the government benches wanted to work very quickly and take shortcuts. Nevertheless, I admit that we were finally able to call the witnesses that we wanted to hear.
I am not quite so positive when it comes to the amendments. Only the government's amendments were accepted, which is always the case. I think that is unfortunate because one of our amendments was based on the very solid evidence given by a criminology expert.
She told us that the information the government wants to put in the new registry—or high risk sex offender database—that it wants to create and that is mentioned in clause 29 of Bill C-26 might be used to identify some victims. This government claims to be on the victims' side and tells us that we are the mean ones who always side with the criminals.
I presented a very simple amendment but the government decided it was too complicated and unnecessary because the notion was implied. When I studied law at the University of Ottawa I was taught that if it is clear, you spell it out. You write it and that is that. Leaving things open to interpretation is another story. All we were asking was that, “under no circumstances must the information referred to in subsection (1) be used to identify the victims”. The amendment was rejected.
This government likes to introduce all kinds of bills. Sometimes it seems as though it is lacking a plan or a person to make sure that the different bills do not contradict each other or that a bill, like Bill C-13 on cyberbullying, which amended a lot of other laws, is not affected in any way by Bill C-26. Sometimes I wonder whether the government is losing control and losing its way.
We presented a perfectly reasonable amendment, requesting that the minister of justice be required to prepare a report specifying the number of persons whose name has been added to the database and the information specified in paragraphs 5(f) and (g), which have to do with the type of offence. This information could have been interesting to look at with respect to each of these individuals. The amendment stipulated that the minister of justice would have to table the report to each house of Parliament within the first 15 sitting days after the report has been prepared.
Once again, this seems to me like a reasonable amendment. The Conservatives will probably give me the same answer. The answer that was given by the Department of Justice and the Conservatives is that it is a public registry—as if I did not know that. The word itself says it all. Since it is a public registry, it is up to me to find the information I need. Every year, I will have to go and check the registry to find the information. If the government was interested in promoting these things and ensuring that its bills work well, this is the type of work that would normally be done. They want to complicate our lives. That is fine. That is good. We will put that in our pipe and smoke it.
However, that being said, it would have been much simpler to do this the way we are proposing. It could also have been useful for the government, since it could have found some missing information right in this report. The government may well say that the 6% increase could be due to the fact that the minimum sentences were not yet harsh enough. On this side of the House, we think that the increase is more likely related to the fact that the government does not spend much and, even worse, it is making cuts to programs that are working really well and that have been successful. That is also what experts told us in committee.
As I said before on the radio and here in the House at second reading, it is all well and good to have a registry. We already have one. The person responsible for the registry at the RCMP came and told us in committee that the RCMP is already doing this. When a dangerous person moves into a community, the RCMP informs the people living there. The RCMP does not need the government to keep the public safe. The government created this registry saying that it would formalize what the RCMP is already doing.
I will digress for a moment. When we had the minister's press conference after the Prime Minister's presentation, everyone who talked about Bill C-26 made it sound as though it was the ultimate goal and that it would solve all of the world's problems. Finally, the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP answered one of my questions and said that it would affect perhaps a dozen cases a year.
That brings us back to reality. The National Sex Offender Registry already exists for such offenders. The additional “high risk” aspect pertains to about a dozen people. One thing is clear, and I am surprised that the Conservative government has not paid more attention to it. In fact, instead of talking in glowing terms about this type of measure, it should instead be worried about the fact that these high risk offenders are in our communities. That worries me a lot. I sometimes feel that this government works a lot harder on paper, with words, because that goes hand in hand with its rhetoric that makes it appear to be tough and to be doing something. However, in reality, when we look at the resources available to the RCMP and police forces to conduct investigations, that is not the case. I shudder when I hear police services say that some types of crime will have to be ignored because combatting terrorism is now the priority. Perhaps the minister was right to specify the criteria for a sentence. Yes, there is rehabilitation, deterrence and all that, but one of the government's main purposes is to protect its citizens. Putting more eggs in one basket than in another is not necessarily good management.
There is nothing real there. As for minimum sentences—that is what the member opposite was talking about—I am of the same mind as a former Supreme Court justice who appeared before us and said, in the context of another justice-related file, that all minimum sentences are not necessarily unconstitutional. It is simply not a tool that should be overused. First of all, and this is very important, even the witnesses who appeared in committee, whether they were victims or people who work with organizations that support victims, told us that minimum sentences were not the issue. If, for the kind of offence and the seriousness of the crime committed, we were to impose the minimum sentences that the Conservatives proposed in Bill C-26, there is a problem somewhere. However, there could be a case that has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of stereotype we have of that kind of offence. Therein lies the problem. We heard it directly from legal experts. To say that we are against minimum sentences for this kind of offence does not mean we are defending criminals.
The fact is that, ultimately, the minimum sentence may not even be imposed by the court, because the court, as a general rule, will give more than that, and that is what we want. Look at the bill dealing with child kidnapping—it was clear from the case law that was brought before the committee that the average sentence exceeded the minimum sentence that the Conservatives wanted to impose.
Basically, this is mostly just smoke and mirrors; however, in some cases, it can lead to some strange outcomes. This is why there are constitutional challenges. With a constitutional challenge, all you need is one case that is flawed, that does not fit the minimum sentence formula, for the provision to be struck down; it will then be sent back here for us to do over again. That is one of the problems.
Obviously, the NDP supported Bill C-26 at second reading. We took our work seriously and sought the extra information we needed, even though the bill is far from perfect and is not necessarily the type of bill we would introduce. I think our analysis would be more thorough. Indeed, offenders need to be punished, but we must also ensure that the people who leave prison are not a danger to the public. Earlier, the Liberal member mentioned the circles of change program. In committee we learned that the program had a 70% to 80% success rate. Who would scoff at that? None other than the Conservative government, because it does not want to talk about that type of thing.
The government just wants to talk about things that create the impression that it is dealing with criminals. Of course, we are all against criminals.
When I return to my riding at the end of the day and talk to the people of Gatineau, because I like to connect with my community, I tell them I am proud of the work we did that week. In this case, we passed a victims bill of rights and we worked on a bill to deal with sexual predators. I would just like to add, for once in my life, that I am sure that this will be useful.
In any case, I can tell them I tried very hard in committee to have the government listen to reason, not to defend criminals, but to ensure that the bill will withstand the constitutional challenges that will test it in the coming years, that it is consistent with other bills, and that it achieves its objectives.
The government claims to be helping victims with the victims bill of rights, but they need real rights, as I said in my speech. The right to lodge a complaint cannot be hypothetical. The government brings in minimum penalties but it is cutting resources for police officers—the ones who catch criminals and bring them to justice. The justice system is crying for help, and we are in need of judges and crown prosecutors. How does this make any sense?
I weep for victims because they will never get the services they need. That will not change, even in one, two or three years. What is even sadder is that they will have been promised the world. It is even more disappointing when they are told that something will be fixed.
As for the registry, people from the RCMP have told us that they already have a hard time keeping criminal cases and criminal records up to date. The member for Langley presented a petition earlier regarding impaired driving. I agree that we still have a long way to go. When we hear in the papers that someone was convicted for the sixth time, we have to wonder how that can be possible. However, these situations happen because nothing is written in the records of these repeat offenders, even though everyone knows that they have been to court six times and that this is not their first conviction.
Civil and criminal justice need to be consistent. There needs to be some follow-up. The bill gives the governor in council the power to make regulations by establishing the criteria for determining whether a person who is found guilty of a sexual offence against a child poses a high risk of committing a crime of a sexual nature; and, in subclause (b), by prescribing anything that is to be prescribed by this act. This means that this legislation retains some harmful legal grey areas.
This is moving too fast even for the people at the Department of Justice. I asked them what impact Bill S-2 would have. People like me who follow justice issues know that this was the bill concerning statutory instruments and how to enact regulations. We all know that a law is one thing, but that three-quarters of the obligations are set out in the regulations.
When the government tells us that the Governor in Council, namely cabinet, will be establishing the criteria, that tells us who is going to be making the decisions and that we will not know exactly when and how those decisions will be made. I asked them whether Bill S-2 would apply since we are talking about delegation and regulation by reference. That means that we would not even have a separate list of criteria. The answer that I got from the expert at the Department of Justice was that he did not know and that he would check.
That means that the government is not making connections between its various bills. I got an answer today, just a few hours before I rose in the House for the debate, and I was told that, yes, Bill S-2 would apply.
There are ramifications, and I get the impression that we will be forced to revisit many of these bills. However, as it now stands, Bill C-26 is unfortunately a lot of talk, just like the Canadian victims bill of rights. As one of the victims, Mr. Gilhooly, so aptly stated, even if the bill were passed as it stands, it would not change what he experienced in any way.
Once again, the government is misleading victims by giving them the impression that it is tough on crime and imposing law and order, but in the end, the law will not be enforced.
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member across the way. She definitely is passionate. She is bright. She is a lawyer, and that is not an insult. However, she said a lot.
To summarize, she said that the government has promised a lot. That is true. We have promised to make Canada safer. We have one of the best judicial systems in the world, but it needs to be improved, and that is what Bill C-26 does. She said we are doing a lot, and she is correct. We are doing a lot to make sure we have kept our promises.
One of the key parts of Bill C-26 is to hold offenders to account and to protect the victims. If offenders reoffend during their warrant period, should the sentence for that offence be served concurrently or consecutively? Should it be at the same time they are serving their initial sentence, or should it be added on?
There is another question on concurrent and consecutive sentences in the case of multiple victims. If victim number one was sexually assaulted and then victim number 2, at a different time, was also sexually assaulted, and then victim number 3 was sexually assaulted, would those be three convictions? If there were three convictions, would those sentences be served all at the same time by that person, or should the sentences be consecutive and be served one after another?
I think Canadians want them served one after another. I would ask for the ideology of the NDP on that issue.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are supporting Bill C-26, so I think that speaks volumes to those factors.
The Conservatives talk a lot about consecutive sentencing. The Minister of Finance talked about it also, but I would submit that in the same way the charter of victims rights has been conceived—with a lot of “could”, “might”, and so on—it would still be left to the discretion of the court. I believe that a crime should be punished according to what the crime is.
I have practised labour law my entire life. Thank goodness it is not about crime and it is not the same thing. However, when someone is fired or is brought before a disciplinary board, the same principle has always been applied, and this is the same societal principle that we apply to criminals: the person who commits a crime must pay. However, if their crime is stealing a chocolate bar from a corner store, they will not be put in prison for 10 years, as would the fellow who goes to a bank with a shotgun and waves it in the teller's face. It is all relative. That is how our system works.
The government talks a lot about consecutive sentences, but that is at the court's discretion. That suits the NDP. That is the principle to be retained. However, they should stop talking as if consecutive sentences were automatic because victims are being misled if they are led to believe that, as of now, all sentences will be consecutive. That is not true. There is the principle of totality, according to Mr. Gilhooly, who is a victim. Consecutive sentences will not work because of this principle. People have to stop spouting nonsense.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
She worked very hard during the study of this bill. She proposed some amendments, but they were all rejected. She talked about two of those amendments.
I wonder if she could tell us about the process for proposing amendments in committee and how the government reacted in response to those amendments and all that work.
I doubt that everyone understands the process and the fact that there is no real discussion on the value of each amendment. The member also talked a bit about the circles program. I listened carefully to earlier debates, today's debates and debates in committee. We never received a proper explanation, either here in the House or in committee, as to why cuts were made to that program.
Does the member know why? Does she have any more information about the cuts than what we have before us now?
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering the first question about the process in committee and the amendment stage. My colleague also proposed an amendment that made sense to me. It seemed well-thought-out and logical given what we had heard. Once again, the government flat out said no. It is all very sad.
When NDP members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights make speeches, they do not get sheets of paper telling them to say this or that, unless a colleague wants to help out and has a great idea. We are rather autonomous. I imagine the same goes for my Liberal colleague. He is going to give his speech a little later. He will surely figure it out for himself.
To hear the Conservative backbenchers, we get the impression that they do not get much of a say. They seem to be run by some tiresome remote control. I thought that being a member of a committee meant doing this work for our colleagues in the House: coming back after report stage and reporting on what all of us, from all parties, heard and what we think.
On the matter of the circles program, unfortunately, the answer will be brief. It is sad because we had with us the Minister of Finance who holds the purse strings. If he really believes in Bill C-26, then he needs to allocate a bit more money.
Unfortunately, justice is the poor cousin. If we do not have social justice in the country, then that is pretty pathetic.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is up my alley because I worked for probation and parole for 13 years, and my daughter Mindy is a correctional worker at the Brampton youth correctional centre.
One of the questions that was posed a while ago was about whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. I can say that the government and Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that the Criminal Code is clear about what an offence constitutes, but at the end of the day it will be a decision by a judge that will determine whether or not that sentence should be consecutive or concurrent, based on the assessment, the pre-sentence reports, the pre-disposition reports, and whether the offender is an adult or a youth.
As well, it is a bit rich that we are studying a bill about sexual offences right now when the government did not spend the $10 million of funds that were earmarked for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. Maybe my colleague can elaborate on that.
The other thing that I would like the member to elaborate on is the importance of prevention and rehabilitation and how that can help us as a society and ensure that we will all be safe at the end of the day.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her questions, which could well be the topic of a dissertation.
It is disgraceful that the $10 million in question was not spent, since that money was supposed to be used to provide direct assistance to victims. The Conservatives often say that we on this side of the House do not care about victims. Nevertheless, we are talking about many programs that have proven their worth. They do not cost much, but they provide really good value for money. It seems to me that the Conservatives are completely missing the mark on this.
I would also like to thank my colleague for asking a question about prevention. Asking that question has nothing to do with favouring criminals over victims. On the contrary, I would not want any repeat offenders to be allowed to reintegrate into the community. I am not proud to say that such a registry will be created to inform me of the presence of dangerous people in my community. I would prefer that those people not be in my community. We need to work on that. We have to help the people who can be rehabilitated by using programs that have proven their worth. We need to think about other measures to deal with those who cannot be saved.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.
Protecting children from predators is a Liberal priority, as I am sure it is a priority of everyone in the House. For that reason, we will support the bill, though in many respects we view it as a missed opportunity from a policy perspective. I want to be clear. Sexual violence is traumatic and devastating at any age, but even more so for children.
The attempt of criminal sentencing to in some way quantify the impact of sexual violence is a failure from the outset. As with all violent crime, no criminal sentence or civil remedy can undo the wrong that has occurred, though we would hope that healing is possible for every victim.
However, the law can only deliver an imperfect measure of justice. No, consecutive sentence, increased maximum penalty, no order for damages can undo the actions that society would justly have offenders repay.
The hearts of everyone in the House, including my colleagues on the justice committee, go out to the victims of childhood sexual offences. The testimony of victims we heard at committee was gut-wrenching and, frankly, at times difficult to listen to.
I want to say for the record that I was particularly struck by the testimony of Mr. Greg Gilhooly, a victim of the terrible crimes of Graham James. Mr. Sheldon Kennedy also appeared by teleconference, but unfortunately we experienced some technical difficulties into his testimony. In any case, I would like to commend both of them for assisting the committee with its work, along with Mr. Alain Fortier and Mr. Frank Tremblay of Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculi. Their bravery in going on the public record for the benefit of Canadian society is truly admirable and most appreciated.
As to the purpose of Bill C-26, Liberals support the policy objectives of reducing sexual offences against children, denouncing such heinous acts when they occur and separating offenders from society where necessary. However, from the Liberal perspective, the bill should have focused more on reducing crimes in the first place, rather than on punishing offenders once a child had been victimized.
In our committee over the past year we have talked a lot about victims, and rightly so, but we should put more focus on having fewer victims to talk about. Reducing rates of child sexual crime will require making meaningful fiscal commitments instead of these repeated changes to the Criminal Code.
Liberals believe it is crucial for criminal justice policy to be evidence-based. That belief is at the core of our support for the charter, which requires our courts to weigh a law's intended purposes against its actual effects in real life. Unfortunately, the bill is largely a missed opportunity when it comes to reducing sexual offences against children.
As we heard at committee, the data shows that a reduction in the incidence of these crimes would require investing in rehabilitation programs. Instead, we heard that the Conservatives had cut programs that successfully achieved reductions.
In addition, some provisions in Bill C-26 that reduce judicial discretion are problematic, though not fatal to our support for the bill. I will explain these conclusions in a minute. However, I would like to go over the provisions of Bill C-26 for the benefit of the House.
Bill C-26 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to increase mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children, including sexual assaults and offences related to child pornography.
Bill C-26 would also increase the maximum penalties for violations of various court orders, including probation orders, peace bonds and so forth. In addition, it would amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that the spouses of the accused would be competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases.
The bill would also amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting obligations of sex offenders who travelled outside of Canada.
Finally, Bill C-26 would enact the high risk child sex offender database act to establish a public-accessible federal database that contains an amalgamation of already public information with respect to high-risk sex offenders.
I want to say a few words about rehabilitation, which I know is a principle of sentencing that the government prefers to ignore. However, from a public policy perspective, it is absolutely crucial. I say that not because anybody wants to put support for offenders above support for victims, but because we want to have fewer victims.
Some in this chamber may recall that at second reading I expressed considerable skepticism about the bill before us. After all, in 2012, many of the criminal provisions in Bill C-26 were amended in Bill C-10 to create or increase minimum penalties or to increase maximums. Since Bill C-10 came into force, the Minister of Justice, as repeated again today by the Minister of Finance, indicated that child sexual offences had risen by 6%. Therefore, it serves to reason that either Bill C-10 was ineffective at reducing the number of offences or that the government is again increasing penalties, without waiting to see whether Bill C-10 was effective.
I understand that maybe the focus here is denunciation and separating offenders from society, but I would plainly ask, why are we not doing more on prevention? Why is reduction not our central policy focus when it comes to child sex offences or at least worthy of equal focus to denunciation and separation from society?
Liberals will support the bill, but we would like a direct answer to this question from the government. Where is the prevention?
I would like to draw the government's attention to some specific testimony from the committee. We heard from two representatives from an organization, which was discussed earlier in debate, called Circles of Support and Accountability, or COSA.
COSA is a community-based reintegration group that holds sexual offenders accountable for the harm they have caused, while assisting with their re-entry into society at the end of their sentences. COSA was started by the Mennonite Central Committee, and there are chapters across the country.
At committee, we heard about the organization's remarkable success at reducing recidivism. Specifically, research indicates that offenders involved with COSA have a reduction of sexual recidivism of 70% to 80% compared to those who are not. The program is also very cost effective. For example, the annual budget in Ottawa, which would work with about 8 to 12 offenders a year, is less than the cost to incarcerate one offender in the federal system for a year.
COSA had been receiving $2.2 million in government money annually for two decades. However, the government ended that funding, which in Ontario, for example, supported 70% of its operations.
From a public policy perspective, how does it make sense to tinker with the Criminal Code, while defunding programs that are proven to reduce recidivism by 70% to 80%? Think of how many fewer victims that means, or maybe do not, because it is too heartbreaking.
Also on this point of prevention, speaking about the proposed federal sex offender registry, the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Daniel Therrien, told the committee:
—evaluations that have been done based on the experience in the United States suggest that there is little or no evidence that registration and notification laws are effective, either in terms of deterring sex offender recidivism or in reducing reported sex offences.
Any government's time and money are limited resources. Is Bill C-26 an efficient allocation of those resources to serve the worthy objective of reducing child sexual offences? Again, I repeat, it is a missed opportunity.
I also want to mention that it remains my view, and the view of the Liberal Party, that some of these changes inappropriately remove judicial discretion from the sentencing process. Perhaps Conservatives look at these changes and think, “Great, higher sentences across the board”.
However, a key point that gets missed here is that discretion is not eliminated. It is simply downloaded to law enforcement and prosecutors. The result, in some instances, might be that we see no charge where we would currently see a relatively minor or moderate charge, because a new mandatory minimum would make an appropriate outcome impossible. Dr. Stacey Hannem, the chair of the policy review committee of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, drew our attention to the particular problem of eliminating summary offence options.
In any event, I want to reiterate that Liberals will support this bill, because we indeed support the denunciation of child sexual offences and separating offenders from society where necessary. None of my criticisms of this bill detract from the gravity of these types of crimes. However, their gravity is why I wish the government would do more to prevent these crimes in the first place, rather than focusing exclusively on dealing with their consequences.
As I said, this is a missed opportunity to prioritize the prevention of these intolerable crimes.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we start questions and comments, I just wanted to indicate to hon. members that I know that this is an important and complex question. However, I do notice that in the period allowed for questions and comments, even when it is 10 minutes, we have scarcely been getting three interventions into that 10 minutes.
I am appealing to hon. members, for their colleagues who may wish to participate in that period, to the extent members can, to keep those interventions as brief and as succinct as they can.
The hon. member for Gatineau.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I take the message to heart. I know that I am one of the guilty people on that front.
The question that I would like to ask my colleague, who is the Liberal justice critic, is as follows.
We spoke about the work that was done in committee. In committee, I was concerned about the only two amendments that the government accepted. They were presented as technical amendments, but in the end, people from the department said that those amendments actually addressed fundamental errors and omissions.
This is the second bill where the government has introduced new provisions and new topics that were not examined by the committee on the very day that we were studying the bill clause by clause. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
What she mentioned is exactly what happened a few times in committee. Unfortunately this shows a lack of respect for those participating in the committee. It would absolutely have been possible to present these amendments and to discuss them with the witnesses during the study in committee.
The fact that these amendments were received after all of the testimony, during the clause-by-clause study, was unfair and truly showed a lack of respect for all of the participants, who are there to try to improve the bill. That is what I think. There is no problem with presenting amendments like that at the last minute. However, when the government knows about an amendment, it should present it as soon as possible. It is best to discuss these amendments with the witnesses.
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Charlottetown for his intervention on this bill this afternoon, and I want to thank the members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party for indicating their support for this bill. It is an important bill.
I am the father of two daughters, 15 and 11, and God forbid that anything should ever happen to them in any way that would be covered under this kind of legislation.
One of the reasons this bill is before the House is that we have seen many instances when this type of criminal conduct has not been taken seriously by the courts. The name of this bill is the “tougher penalties for child predators act”. It speaks for itself.
I want to ask the member if he believes that in the past we have seen lenient and unacceptable sentences. Does he believe that victims have not always been fully respected by the courts? Does he agree that this bill is designed to do just that?
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, it strikes me as passing strange that we have a question that would indicate a lack of faith in the judiciary when it comes to imposing sentences in criminal matters, when over the last few days, we have heard that it is only members of the judiciary, and not parliamentarians, who are the appropriate ones to oversee national security in this country.
My answer for my colleague would be that very capable people are appointed to the bench. We trust judges, and judges should have discretion. That discretion should not be unduly fettered in the manner it has been. It results in a whole panoply of unintended consequences, mostly at the lower range of the scale. It does not result in our having fewer victims, and that should be our focus.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech, once again. He shows the distinction in his background as a career lawyer. However, I want to go back to the notion of mandatory minimum sentences.
My colleague now knows this. In the United States, there is a bipartisan effort among Republicans and Democrats to do away with mandatory minimum sentences, because the Americans have decided in Congress that they are not working. Whether it is in Texas, California, or New Jersey, there is a movement to do away with them, because they are extremely expensive. As the Americans like to say now, mandatory minimum sentences are all about being dumb on crime and tough on taxpayers.
I would like to ask my colleague to comment a bit more on the fact that these mandatory minimums the government is shoving down the throats of judges are not working. Also, could he just help us understand why it is that the director of criminal law policy at Justice Canada, Mr. David Daubney, who was a Conservative member of Parliament before moving on to that distinguished career, held a press conference just before his retirement two years ago and slammed the Conservatives for not listening to the evidence or the good work being provided by the criminal law policy unit at Justice Canada?
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I know that you wanted the questions and answers to be short, but indeed, a 20-minute dissertation would not be time enough to point out all of the weaknesses of mandatory minimum sentences. Allow me to give the House the Coles Notes.
The academic research and the testimony at committee were unanimous that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter crime. They contribute to prison overcrowding. They discriminate disproportionately against aboriginal Canadians. They are an unjustified attack on judicial discretion. They do not eliminate discretion at all, but as I indicated in my remarks, simply pass it down to the prosecutorial and police-enforcement level, and they are a waste of taxpayers' dollars. That is the Coles Notes.
We need to be seeking more upstream solutions. Our goal should be for there to be fewer victims. Mandatory minimum sentences do not work. The members opposite would not be able to point to a single study that contradicts that. The evidence is absolutely uncontradicted. Upstream solutions is where we should be.
The answers are not in legislative measures. They are not in tinkering with the Criminal Code. The answers are in making investments on the front end in things like poverty reduction and mental health and addiction services. Also, I cannot stress enough the wrong-headed move by the government to cut the rehabilitation and reintegration program, Circles of Support and Accountability, which it has been shown works with a success rate of 70% to 80%. Those are the answers, not mandatory minimum sentences.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Charlottetown. The only difference is that I feel so strongly that mandatory minimums are the wrong way to go and unconstitutional that I probably will vote against this bill. As much as I want to do whatever it takes to protect children from child predators, I do not see that this bill is going to be effective.
I would love to hear more from the member for Charlottetown as to what he sees as those upstream solutions. What more could we be doing in prevention? As a mother and grandmother, I cannot find words adequate to express my contempt and loathing for anyone who commits these kinds of crimes. We want to protect our children. What is the best way?
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, the answers lie in social programs that are designed to address the root causes for many of the troubled individuals who find themselves in conflict with the criminal justice system. We have seen those social programs under attack and falling at the altar of the obsession with balancing the budget. They include things like mental health and addictions. They include things like poverty reduction. All these sorts of programs require a collaborative approach with stakeholders within communities, and indeed with provincial governments, because there is absolutely an overlap.
That is why I believe it is so difficult for the government to make a serious investment in upstream solutions. As Kyle Kirkup said, if you have a complex social problem, we have a prison for that. Anything that is nuanced, sophisticated, a bit complex, or cannot be fixed with an amendment to the Criminal Code seems to be, sadly, beyond the government's comprehension.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I would compliment hon. members. On such a topic, we got in four interventions in 10 minutes. That was much better.
Bill C-2—Notice of time allocation motionRespect for Communities ActGovernment Orders
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.
Bill C-2—Notice of time allocation motionRespect for Communities ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I am sure that the House appreciates the notice from the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
Tougher Penalties for Child Predators ActGovernment Orders
Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia
Conservative
Scott Armstrong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the articulate and passionate member for Mississauga—Streetsville.
Before I begin my official remarks, I would like to say I have never seen an upstream solution or a social program that can cure a pedophile. That is absolutely ridiculous. I have spent 18 years as an educator, over 10 of those as a school principal, and I have seen the victims of child predators. I have seen the victims of pedophilia, and no slap on the wrist, no upstream solution, no social program is going to stop them from violating the rights of our most precious commodity, our children. When they are sitting in a prison cell, predators cannot and will not molest a child. That is the solution for pedophilia in this country.
I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, during third reading debate. Bill C-26 would significantly strengthen our approach to addressing sexual offending against children. The proposed reforms are targeted at deterring these heinous crimes; ensuring that offenders are held accountable for the harm they cause to the most vulnerable members of our society; and enhancing our ability to monitor these offenders to assist in preventing recidivism.
We know that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. In fact, children represent the majority of all police reported sexual assault victims, and 55% of all police reported sexual assault victims in 2012 were children. It is shocking. Moreover, recent increases in police reported sexual offences are of particular concern. In 2013, they increased by 5% from the previous year, in contrast with the decline in recent years of violent crime generally. This is a higher rate than the two previous years in 2012 and 2013, which each saw a 3% increase. So this is a growing problem.
What are these numbers telling us? In my view the message is clear: we need to do more as a society to protect our children from this harm. That is precisely why Bill C-26 builds on recent reforms enacted by the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, including increasing mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain child sexual offences.
Recent jurisprudence reflects the importance of these types of reforms. Judicial consideration of denunciation and deterrence and the imposition of lengthier sentences for child sexual offences have increased following passage of the Safe Streets and Communities Act. These reforms strengthen penalties for child sexual offences. Judges are taking note of Parliament's efforts to recognize the seriousness of these types of offences.
Specifically, the British Columbia Court of Appeal noted: “Parliament has made it very clear that the protection of children is a basic value of Canadian society which the courts must defend”. The Ontario Court of Appeal has also commented on this important legislative objective. That court noted: “...recent amendments to the Criminal Code and decisions of this court have signalled a determination to address, in a more powerful and effective fashion, the need to denounce and deter crimes that involve the sexual victimization of children.”
I believe these are objectives that we can and should support, and they are clearly reflected in Bill C-26's proposed reforms. They are also supported by clear statements of principle contained in the Criminal Code. Section 718.01 clarifies that primary consideration should be given to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a child. In these cases, the protection of children from those who might harm them is the single most important factor.
Bill C-26's proposal to increase minimum mandatory penalties for these types of offences is entirely consistent with those objectives. In fact, they further those objectives. The application of minimum mandatory penalties to child sexual offences is not new. We now have experience in this regard. For example, Mr. David Butt, who testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, noted in respect of minimum mandatory penalties:
...the sky has not fallen, in the sense that we still have responsible sentences; we still have a realistic opportunity to present in a sentencing hearing where the appropriate sentence should fall in the range. This is not eviscerated judicial discretion; it has simply moved the floor.
We have to ask ourselves whether it is appropriate to move the floor.
Mr. David Butt, the legal counsel for the Kids Internet Safety Alliance, made those comments on February 4, 2015.
The answer to Mr. Butt's question regarding minimum mandatory penalties for child sexual offences is an unequivocal yes. I agree that minimum mandatory penalties recognize an appropriate level of moral opprobrium, as he stated, for child sexual offences. Furthermore, I am convinced that these types of sentencing measures contribute significantly to the realization of the Criminal Code's important objectives of denunciation and deterrence with respect to child sexual offences.
These are the reasons why Bill C-26 proposes further penalty increases for child sexual offences, as well as mandatory consecutive sentences where offenders are sentenced at the same time for contact child sexual offences and child pornography offences, or for contact child offences against multiple victims. This is another critical aspect of Bill C-26.
I will be clear. Bill C-26's consecutive sentencing reforms mean that sentencing judges must impose consecutive sentences in these cases, regardless of the totality principle, which maintains that the total length of sentences ordered to be served consecutively should not be unduly long or harsh. Judges would be specifically directed to impose a sentence for each conviction and order that they be served consecutively. This would respect each individual victim.
Importantly, these reforms would ensure that the harm done to each child victim is recognized specifically. There would be no more sentence discounts for offenders who are sentenced for multiple offences against multiple victims at the same time. Bill C-26 is clear on this point: offenders must be, and I repeat, must be held accountable for each and every victim they have harmed.
Recent sentencing cases demonstrate the importance of these reforms. Now, although courts have generally been imposing consecutive sentences in cases where offenders are sentenced at the same time for contact child sexual offences and child pornography offences, often in recognition of the additional harm caused when material is distributed via the Internet, the approach to cases involving convictions for offences against multiple victims is much more inconsistent.
We are seeing judges impose concurrent sentences for offences committed against different child victims. I am concerned that such an approach to sentencing might be seen by some pedophiles, in some sort of perverse way, as an incentive to actually violate the rights of multiple victims. Of course, that is not the intention of sentencing. However, we are concerned about the effect of a particular law or practice, not its intention. Certainly, it could not be said that the practice of imposing concurrent sentences in these types of cases serves the important objectives of denunciation and deterrence, which are enshrined in the Criminal Code itself.
These reforms are clearly needed. The victims who testified before the committee on justice and human rights were very clear on this point. However, Bill C-26's sentencing reforms would not stop there. The bill would increase these penalties for breaches of supervision orders, which could be imposed to prevent future offending. The breach of a condition included in such an order is a factor indicating that the offender is at risk of offending again. Therefore, it is critical that penalties for breaches of such orders act as a deterrent.
Accordingly, Bill C-26 would ensure that anyone convicted of breaching a probation order, peace bond, or a prohibition order would be subject to a maximum penalty of 18 months on summary conviction, rather than the existing 6 months, and 4 years on indictment, rather than the existing 2 years.
I have focused on Bill C-26's proposed sentencing reforms, but the bill proposes other important reforms that would assist in ensuring that the evidence of an accused's spouse is available in child pornography prosecutions. Information could be shared between Canada and foreign countries concerning Canadians and permanent residents of Canada who may travel abroad to sexually offend against children. Moreover, the public would be informed of high-risk offenders who might offend against our children.
I see that my time is running out. I will stop there and pick it up in questions and comments.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I listened to a good part of the member's speech in highlighting the current government's agenda when it comes to crime and, loosely, the concept of justice.
What we have seen, not just in this bill but also in a series of other bills in this area, is problematic doublespeak. The government claims to be committed to fighting child sexual offences. It seems committed to throwing people in jail. Yet, we know that over a five-year period, the RCMP withheld some $10 million in funds earmarked for its National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. The cuts, made partly as an RCMP contribution to the government's deficit reduction action plan, have occurred even as the number of child exploitation tips from the public increases exponentially.
We are hearing from government members that they are taking tough action, and yet we know that the RCMP itself did not spend the money allocated, and instead returned it to government coffers so that the government could make it work, supposedly.
I would like to ask what this doublespeak is all about and why this took place.
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Mr. Speaker, these funds were intended to support very difficult and challenging jobs. If we cannot find people who are qualified or capable of delivering those services, we do not want to spend the money on people who cannot do the job or are not qualified to do it. We have to find qualified, trained people.
This is an opposition distraction technique to try to distract from the fact that they do not really support mandatory minimum penalties for people who commit child sexual offences. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there is no social program, no upstream solution, that can stop pedophiles from committing sexual offences against children. This is an absolute fact. We need to put policies, laws, and penalties in place that would actually protect our children.