Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-246, which was introduced by my colleague from Lethbridge, Alberta. I commend her. This bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to require that sentences imposed on offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences be served consecutively, that is, one after the other, in cases where multiple offences are committed against one victim at the same time and also where the offender is already serving a prison sentence for another sexual offence.
The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill so that it can be studied in committee. We will then be able to examine this Conservative proposal more closely, but, as members will see, I already have a number of questions and concerns.
I would like to begin by taking a moment to explain how our criminal law currently provides for consecutive sentences, because consecutive sentences are already possible and are imposed practically every day in courts across the country. I will then discuss the merits of the Conservative proposal to reduce judges' discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences.
First, I would like to say a few words about victims of sexual offences. I practised law for 12 years, 10 of them in legal aid, and I had the privilege of representing many victims of sexual assault, particularly when they were involved in litigation against Indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels du Québec, or IVAC. I saw the scars that sexual assault leaves behind, which are all too often permanent. I remember sensing the vulnerability, the feeling of brokenness, the weight that my clients carried around with them. We had to prepare for hearings together, and my clients would tell me how the assault had changed them. Some felt unsafe walking down the street at night, while others experienced flashbacks or found their relationships tainted by distrust. In every case, they carried the burden of injustice, and we fought together against IVAC to get compensation for their lingering pain or inability to work. Although we fought and won together, I never felt that our victories were enough to erase or repair what they had experienced. Their burden may have been a bit less heavy, but their existence was still affected.
Behind today's debate on this bill are those people, those victims whom I am thinking of tonight, yet the bill deals with sentences for offenders. I would like to point out that the victims I represented over the years did not talk to me about the length of their attackers' sentences. They primarily talked to me about their desire to continue living and their need for support, assistance, counselling services and so on.
That said, let us now look at how criminal law deals with offenders who commit multiple sexual offences. In general, sentences are concurrent. Typically, if an offender commits multiple offences, and if there are multiple sentences, they will be served at the same time, unless the law or circumstances justify consecutive sentences, which are served one after the other. As my colleague said, the Criminal Code already provides for consecutive sentences in the case of sexual offences against children, for example. Generally speaking, the Criminal Code says judges must consider consecutive sentences. They are not obligated to go that way, but they must always consider it. It is an exceptional measure, but it is available, and it is one of the tools judges can use to reflect the seriousness of multiple crimes. With consecutive sentencing, an offender convicted of several serious offences cannot get an artificial reduction in the length of time they must serve. This is what the Supreme Court has taught us. This option illustrates the principle that each offence deserves a separate penalty. Judges have broad discretion to decide whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, but they must always respect the principle of proportionality and make sure the overall punishment is not excessive. The current rule of law strives to strike a balance by allowing for consecutive sentencing while requiring the justice system to consider all aspects of a sentence.
In its 1996 ruling in R. v. M. (C.A.), the Supreme Court confirmed that judges have considerable discretion, but that they must respect the principles of proportionality and parity in sentencing. With regard to consecutive sentences, the court reiterated that their use must reflect the multiplicity of offences without leading to an unreasonable overall sentence. Consecutive sentences are therefore already one of the tools available to judges when sentencing defendants who have committed multiple sexual offences. In court, repeat offences are already taken into account, as are aggravating circumstances, for obtaining harsher sentences. The justice system therefore already has the tools to impose consecutive sentences when deemed necessary.
Now let us discuss the merits of the proposal before the House. The Conservative proposal essentially aims to reduce judicial discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences. According to the preamble, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that sentences for multiple offences reflect the gravity of each offence and the distinct harm caused to each victim. We can also discuss this in committee and look into the matter further, but at first glance, based on what I have just said, I think that this goal can already be achieved under the current rules. Personally, I believe that we can trust the justice system to ensure that the sentence is appropriate in each case.
The goal could also be to reduce the recidivism rate by saying that harsher penalties are going to be handed down to repeat sexual offenders. Clearly, reducing the recidivism rate is a good thing. A study on this subject appeared in 2022 in Criminology & Public Policy, a scientific journal published by the American Society of Criminology. The study showed that the recidivism rate for sex offenders has fallen by 60% since 1970. This is a robust study that involved conducting a meta-analysis of 185 Canadian-based studies. The meta-analysis covered more than 50,000 criminals and combined 226 recidivism rates measured at different times and in different locations across Canada.
After controlling for various factors, the study concluded that the recidivism rate for sexual offences has decreased by more than 60% since the 1970s. Every repeat offence is one too many, of course, but the problem of repeat sexual assault is actually diminishing under the current rules. We can dig into this in committee and try to understand what the goal of the bill is, but when it comes to recidivism rates, things seem to be improving.
The goal could also be to reduce crime, and that is a good thing too. However, here again, it has not been proven that harsher sentences reduce crime. In committee, we can also discuss the collateral effects of this bill if it is passed. Longer sentences mean people staying in prison longer, which comes at a cost to the government. Longer sentences also have a negative effect on criminals' chances of rehabilitation. In short, there are serious questions about the usefulness of this bill and its effect on our criminal justice system, but we will nevertheless vote in favour of it at this stage to allow it to be studied in committee.