Mr. Speaker, I already had an opportunity to speak about this bill for four minutes. It was at the end of the last hour. I was given four minutes to begin the debate on Bill C‑246, which deals with consecutive sentences for sexual offences.
The bill aims to acknowledge the seriousness of sexual violence. Some sexual offences are among the most serious crimes in our society. They leave deep and lasting scars on victims. Victims experience psychological trauma, relationship challenges, loss of trust and sometimes an inability to get back to a normal life. Yes, indeed, sexual offences are among the most serious crimes in our society.
According to Statistics Canada, level 1 sexual assaults in Canada increased from 57 to 87 per 100,000 population between 2015 and 2022, which is an increase of 52%. I also mentioned a number of figures in the first part of my speech, but I want to start with a few statistics. In Quebec, these offences increased from 45 to 98 per 100,000 population, which is an increase of 119%. In absolute terms, 20,466 sexual assaults were reported in Canada in 2015 compared to 35,956 in 2022.
However, these figures should be interpreted with some caution. The important nuance is acknowledging the effect of the #MeToo movement. A large part of the increase in reports can be explained by the #MeToo movement. This movement, which emerged in 2017, has really raised collective awareness, made victims more willing to report their attackers and improved police practices in classifying complaints. In short, this does not necessarily signify an increase in the number of assaults committed, but rather an increase in the reporting and visibility of these crimes, which is a good thing.
The objective of Bill C-246 is to amend the Criminal Code to require that sentences for certain sexual offences be served consecutively rather than concurrently. In other words, when a person commits multiple sexual assaults, the sentences would be served one after the other, rather than at the same time. The offences covered include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault.
Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill in principle and wants it to be studied in committee, because sexual offences are serious crimes that require serious penalties. Consecutive sentences can be an acknowledgement of the seriousness of each offence and of each victim. This acknowledgement is important because victims of sexual assault often show tremendous courage in coming forward to report their attacker. We are well aware of this, but we do have some reservations.
There are several factors that raise concerns. Consecutive sentences already exist. The Criminal Code already provides for the possibility of consecutive sentences. Section 718.3 provides that sentences may be served consecutively when the offences do not out of the same event or series of events. Some judges already have the discretion to impose such sentences when the situation warrants it.
There is also the principle of proportionality. The Criminal Code establishes proportionality as a fundamental principle of sentencing. According to this principle, the sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The bill could potentially limit judges' ability to tailor the sentence to the specific circumstances of each case.
Another thing in the Criminal Code is the totality principle. This principle provides that judges must ensure that combined sentences are not excessive. The totality principle requires that the overall sentence remain proportionate to the overall culpability of the accused. It is clear, then, that mandatory consecutive sentences could, in some cases, lead to sentences that would be considered disproportionate. Another consideration is interaction with minimum sentences. Many sexual offences already carry mandatory minimum sentences. Combining mandatory minimum sentences with mandatory consecutive sentences could result in extremely long sentences that no longer take special circumstances into account.
How would this be viewed by the system? As for case law, there is the Bissonnette case. The Supreme Court ruled on the issue of consecutive sentences in the Bissonnette decision. In that case, a man had murdered six people at the Quebec City mosque in 2017. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that imposing consecutive sentences violated the principle of rehabilitation, so that case law already exists.
Harsher penalties are not the only solution, either. We often hear this at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It is important to remember that increasing penalties is not in itself a solution to reducing crime, because crime is influenced by multiple factors, such as social conditions, inequality, support for vulnerable people and resources allocated to prevention.
In closing, I want to talk about Quebec's example of using specialized courts. Quebec chose an interesting approach after the #MeToo movement. An expert panel drafted 190 recommendations to improve support for victims in the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”.
In 2021, the Quebec National Assembly even unanimously passed a motion to create courts specializing in sexual and domestic violence. Since 2022, these courts have been rolled out in 24 cities across Quebec. They include specialized training for judges and judicial stakeholders, a specialized division of prosecutors and judges, support for victims to help them better understand their rights, and changing the layout of courthouses to ensure victims are welcomed safely and appropriately.
In conclusion, sexual assault is a serious crime that must be denounced and strictly punished. Victims need to feel that their words are heard and that their suffering is recognized. Bill C‑246 therefore raises important issues. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that it can be studied in committee, where its principle will, as always, be carefully reviewed to ensure that the core principles are upheld and, most importantly, that they actually strengthen victim protection.