Summary#

Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences), proposes to amend the Criminal Code. Its stated goal is for sentences to reflect the gravity of each offence and the harm caused, and to denounce and deter sexual violence. The supplied text is a proposal; it does not establish that the change is in force.

• When a court imposes imprisonment for a sexual offence, it would have to order that sentence served consecutively (one after another) to imprisonment for another sexual offence imposed at the same time.
• It would also have to order the sentence served consecutively to any other sexual-offence imprisonment sentence the person is already subject to when sentenced.
• The rule would be mandatory for the sentences it covers; the text gives no exception.
• The bill does not itself require a prison sentence. It applies when a court imposes one.

What it means for you#

• People sentenced for sexual offences: If the court imposes imprisonment for a sexual offence, the covered sentences could not run at the same time under this proposed rule. This may increase the total time served compared with concurrent sentences (sentences served at the same time).
• Courts: A court would have to order the covered sentences to be consecutive.
• Victims and the public: The bill creates no new service, right to compensation, or other direct benefit for victims. Its preamble says the change is intended to recognize the harm caused by sexual offences.
• The supplied text does not change the definition of an offence, set a minimum prison term, or specify how non-sexual-offence sentences relate to these sentences.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The text gives no estimate of government costs, including any costs linked to longer periods of imprisonment.

What is unclear#

• The Criminal Code provision being replaced is not supplied, so the current rule and the exact change from current law could not be verified.
• The supplied text does not define “sexual offence”; its scope would depend on the Criminal Code and other applicable law.
• It gives no start date or commencement rule.
• It does not explain how this mandatory rule would interact with other sentencing rules or constraints.
• The text does not describe any exception or decision process for cases where consecutive sentences may produce a particularly long total sentence.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to ensure that each covered sexual-offence prison sentence adds to the total, rather than being served at the same time as another covered sentence.
• A possible argument for the bill is that this would make the sentence reflect each offence and the distinct harm to victims, as the preamble says.
• The same rule for sentences imposed together and sentences already being served could make the treatment of multiple sexual-offence sentences more consistent.

Case against#

• One concern is that the mandatory rule removes the court’s choice to make covered sentences concurrent, even when the circumstances of a case might support that approach.
• Consecutive sentences can increase the total time in prison. The bill provides no estimate of the possible effect on prison costs or length of sentences.
• The bill’s preamble refers to proportionality, but the operative rule includes no stated exception or process for balancing that principle against mandatory consecutive sentences.