(b) that a sentence of imprisonment it imposes for a sexual offence
committed against a child, other than an offence under section
163.1, be served consecutively to a sentence of imprisonment it
imposes for a sexual offence committed against another child other
than an offence under section 163.1.
[ 97] In Inksetter, Hoy A.C.J.O. observed, at para. 24, that
. . . Parliament’s legislative initiatives signal Canadians’ concerns regarding
the increasing incidence of child pornography. Sentencing decisions that precede these amendments must be viewed with some caution.
[ 98] Parliament’s concern is reflected in increasing judicial concern about the sexual abuse of children and the dissemination of
images and films of child sexual abuse on the Internet, inciting
others, like the appellant, to commit both offences.
[ 99] Some 23 years ago, in Jewell, this court expressed concern
about a child pornography subculture that it described as “unset-
tling and repugnant”. Speaking for the court, Finlayson J.A.
stated, at p. 277 C.C.C.:
These appeals confront the court with the pressing issue of how to deal with
offenders such as the appellants who prey on young persons, boys in this case,
for no other purpose than their own sexual gratification. The court must be
responsive to emerging concerns that pornography, particularly child pornog-
raphy, has become an area of criminality that increasingly menaces our young
people and threatens our values as a society. Because pornography now can
be so easily prepared and disseminated through relatively inexpensive means,
such as the hand-held video camera used in the case under appeal, it has
emerged as a very real problem in our society.
[ 100] That case was decided before the Internet was easily
accessible to child pornographers. Even in D. (D.), decided 16 years
ago when the Internet was in its relative infancy, this court could
not foresee that a new category of child sexual abuse was emerging — made-to-order sadistic sexual abuse and degradation of
young children and babies, broadcast into the darkest corners of
the Internet, shared with communities of abusers and consumers,
creating an ongoing cycle in which the publisher feeds not
only a demand but creates his own supply. A single act of abuse is
repeated, violating the victim again and again, promoting new
abuse of new victims.
[ 101] This was expressed in eloquent and moving words by
Ratushny J. in R. v. Lynch-Staunton,  O.J. No. 313, 2012
ONSC 218 (S.C.J.), at paras. 49 and 54:
This [child sexual abuse] is the source of the extreme harm caused by the
possession and distribution of child pornography. It starts with innocent
children who have been physically and emotionally abused by acts of sexual
violence committed by depraved persons interested in satisfying their own
deviant urges and in having their actions filmed and shown to others. This
starts the cycle of abuse and the sexual victimization of these children and of