Bill C-246 Sex Offense Consecutive Sentences
C-246 An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Consecutive Sentences for Sexual Offenses)
Bill Type: Private Member’s Bill
Bill Sponsor: Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge)
This Bill was defeated at second reading in the House of Commons on Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Status: Defeated — March 25, 2026.
How would YOU have voted? Scroll down to vote and comment below.
WHO GAINS POWER
- Victims of sexual offences gain stronger sentencing recognition — each offence against each victim is treated as a distinct harm requiring a separate sentence
- Courts lose discretion in one specific area — consecutive sentences for sexual offences become mandatory, not optional
- Parliament signals that sexual violence patterns must be addressed cumulatively, not collapsed into a single sentence
WHO LOSES POWER
- Judges lose discretion to order concurrent sentences for multiple sexual offences — the Bill removes that option entirely
- Defence counsel loses a sentencing argument — concurrent sentences for multiple sex offences are no longer available
- The principle of judicial discretion in sentencing takes a direct hit in this category of offence
WHO GAINS MONEY
- No direct financial beneficiaries named in the Bill
- Longer sentences mean longer incarceration — corrections costs increase, not addressed in the Bill
WHO LOSES MONEY
- Federal and provincial corrections systems absorb higher costs from longer cumulative sentences — not costed in the Bill
- No fiscal analysis provided
THE CATCH
- ⚠️ No definition of "sexual offence" in this Bill — the term refers to existing Criminal Code categories, but the Bill doesn't list which offences trigger mandatory consecutive sentences. Scope depends entirely on how courts have defined "sexual offence" elsewhere in the Code
- ⚠️ No cost analysis — mandatory consecutive sentences mean longer prison terms. The Bill adds no funding for corrections capacity
- ⚠️ The Bill contradicts itself— the preamble says sentences should be proportional, but the Bill removes the judge's ability to make them so. That gap is a likely target for Charter challenges in court.
- ⚠️ Defeated despite broad public support for the stated goal — protecting victims of sexual violence is not controversial. The defeat signals disagreement about method, not intent — but the Bill doesn't explain what method Parliament prefers instead