Bill C-268 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to include a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years.

Criminal Code

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to commend the hon. parliamentary secretary for giving so much of his speech in French. That takes effort and the results speak for themselves. I want to congratulate him on that.

This bill “amends the Criminal Code to specify what constitutes exploitation for the purpose of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons.” As my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean said a few sitting days ago, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill.

It is imperative that we discuss all of the tools that could help authorities combat this scourge, which is getting worse with population movement and the growing number of refugees. This bill also responds to the demands of several human trafficking survivors' groups and would make the definitions of exploitation and human trafficking more consistent with those set out in the Palermo protocol, which Canada signed at the beginning of the millennium.

The bill is very simple but very important. It removes a phrase from the Criminal Code so that an accusation under these provisions must be based on the fact that the victim believes that a refusal on their part would threaten their safety or the safety of someone known to them.

According to the International Justice and Human Rights Clinic at the faculty of law at the University of British Columbia, asking victims to demonstrate that they have reasonable grounds to fear for their safety may be an obstacle to obtaining convictions for human trafficking.

Elements of the offence of human trafficking are more difficult to prove than those of other similar offences. For example, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which prohibits human trafficking, does not require the person involved to prove that they fear for their safety. This standard is no longer appropriate.

Let us look at the chronology of legislation against human trafficking. In 2002, Canada ratified the Palermo protocol, a “protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”.

Article 3 clearly defines trafficking in persons as follows:

“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs . . . .

That is the definition.

That is how human trafficking came to be added to the Criminal Code in 2005. The Canadian definition, however, is different from the Palermo Protocol definition in that the issue of consent or the victim's sense of safety is taken into consideration. Thus, the victim must prove that they were in danger if they refused to be exploited.

In human trafficking cases, regardless of whether the victims were initially willing or felt safe, victims should never have to justify the circumstances under which they were lured into the situation in order to prove they were trafficked. Human trafficking is not limited to sexual exploitation, as we have already heard. Traffickers exploit their victims in many ways, including for forced labour. It is important to remember, for example, that even if victims did consent to come to Canada, they did not consent to the forced labour or sexual exploitation to which they may have been subjected afterwards, especially if they end up being dependent on someone because of isolation, lack of resources or language barriers.

Section 118 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, passed in 2002, makes it a criminal offence to “organize the coming into Canada of one or more persons by means of abduction, fraud, deception or use or threat of force or coercion”. Although human trafficking and human smuggling are two different concepts, the act also prohibits human smuggling into Canada.

In 2005, Bill C-49 added three offences related to human trafficking to the Criminal Code, as well as a definition. The offences include trafficking in persons; receiving a financial or other material benefit from the commission or facilitation of trafficking in persons; withholding or destroying a person's identity documents, such as a passport, whether authentic or not, for the purpose of committing or facilitating trafficking in persons; and exploiting another person in the context of trafficking in persons offences.

In 2008-09, the first case involving a charge of human trafficking under the new law was ruled on in adult criminal court.

In fall 2008, a 20-year-old woman went to Peel Regional Police to report that a 22-year-old Ontario man named Vytautas Vilutis was using intimidation and threats to sexually exploit her. She said that she made $10,000 for him in just a few weeks through online Craigslist classified ads. She added that he took her phone calls, set up her “dates” and kept track of her appointments, so he knew how much money she owed him each morning. It was not until he threatened her for not leaving all the cash out for him one morning that she reported him to police. Vytautas Vilutis pleaded guilty in April 2009 to charges of human trafficking and receiving a material benefit from human trafficking.

He was convicted under both provisions and was the first person in Canada to be convicted for benefiting from human trafficking. In 2010, another section was added to the Criminal Code, setting out a mandatory minimum sentence for persons charged with trafficking of persons under 18. That was Bill C‑268.

In 2012, the Criminal Code was amended to allow the prosecution of Canadians and permanent residents for the offence of trafficking in persons committed outside Canada, and added factors that judges may consider when determining whether exploitation occurred. That was Bill C‑310.

In 2015, mandatory minimum sentences were imposed for the main trafficking in persons offence, receiving a material benefit from the proceeds of child trafficking, and withholding or destroying documents to facilitate child trafficking. Bill C‑452 was put forward by my political party.

In 2019, the Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, released the national strategy to combat human trafficking 2019‑24. With $75 million in funding over 6 years, this strategy followed the Palermo protocol. The national strategy to combat human trafficking 2019‑24 was adapted from the previous five-year plan.

It was adapted due to some deficiencies identified during policy assessment, namely that most of the resources were being allocated to the fight against sexual exploitation whereas forced labour is a growing issue. This is nothing new, but it is being increasingly recognized and discussed.

Bill S-224 is part of a long legislative quest to combat human trafficking, which is extremely important. In closing, I would like to paraphrase author Ralph Champavert and say that the stigma of human trafficking will disappear when the sun of human dignity rises in all hearts.

[Joy Smith, Founder and President, Joy Smith Foundation Inc.]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of this committee.

I want to recognize and acknowledge that our offices are located on treaty territory, the original lands of the Anishinabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and on the homeland of the Métis Nation.

I am a former member of Parliament. I worked hard during my time as an MP to bring the human trafficking issue to the public radar screen here in Canada. The Joy Smith Foundation was founded in 2011 to combat human trafficking. Since then, I volunteer every single day at my foundation to continue the work to bring awareness about human trafficking in Canada and to help survivors and their families restore their lives.

Last October, we launched the National Human Trafficking Education Centre, the first of its kind in Canada. The centre provides free education for parents, teachers, law enforcement, service providers and others. We have 64 instructor-led modules that are currently being put online so that Canadians can receive much-needed information about how traffickers operate and what they can do to protect themselves from these predators.

We have worked on over 6,000 files of victims and their families, to restore their lives and help the victims reintegrate into the communities and back into their families. Our prevention and intervention programs at the NHTEC will be online for easy access for Canadians as soon as we get the translations completed in French and English and into some indigenous languages.

A five-minute presentation at committee today does not give justice to the complex issue of trafficking in persons and how important Bill C-36 is to the safety of our youth. It was the catalyst that set the groundwork for so many victims of human trafficking to be able to speak out and bring their perpetrators to justice. It helped me, when I was a member of Parliament, to bring the survivors' voice to the public radar screen.

When I was in Parliament, I had two bills passed to combat human trafficking: Bill C-268 and Bill C-310. They are embedded in the Criminal Code of Canada today. I had widespread support from all sides of the House at the time I was passing these bills, and I give credit to the survivors for telling their stories.

Members from all sides of the House supported these bills, and that was critical, because it opened a nationwide conversation about human trafficking and how its victims were suffering. More than that, Canadians, including the survivors themselves, started their own organizations to combat human trafficking.

Bill C-36 must remain, and parliamentarians must do more to protect their constituents from these predators, because the traffickers are in every constituency in our country. Victims of human trafficking are the recipients of horrid abuse and often lose their lives. To legalize prostitution would be a travesty of massive proportions against our most vulnerable populations, our LGBTQ, our immigrants and our youth.

I see it over and over again every single day: the suffering of young victims of human trafficking and what they endure at the hands of human traffickers, traffickers who seek to make copious amounts of money off their victims, as much as $260,000 to $280,000 per victim per year. That is why they do it. Most of the victims enter the sex trade at a very young age, as young as 12 to 14 years, and some even younger.

Before Bill C-36 came on the scene, there was nothing that effectively reduced the demand for the exploitation of underage girls and boys from traffickers, and in criminalizing the johns who create the demand for sexual services, Bill C-36 has helped curtail the human trafficking.

Human traffickers are the third parties who promote and capitalize on the demand for sex by facilitating this practice. They initially pose as benevolent helpers, providers or protectors to those innocent victims, who are lured into the modern-day slave trade. Bill C-36 addresses this issue as one of the objectives that has helped greatly in bringing these perpetrators to justice: It recognized trafficked victims as individuals who are lured and live through the horrid human trafficking experience with horrendous physical and mental traumas on their shoulders.

For the first time in Canadian criminal law, the purchase of sexual services is illegal. This helps in bringing traffickers to justice, because this offence makes prostitution itself an illegal practice, but this is a balanced law, because these adults who choose to sell themselves for sex are protected by law and can do so with no ramifications.

Recently, in Winnipeg, we were able to lobby to shut down the licensing of massage parlours and strip clubs. This is where human traffickers often place their victims.

Thank you so very much for this time today, because I have to say loud and clear, Bill C-36 is very helpful and very successful in doing these kinds of things.

In conclusion, parliamentarians must strive to keep Bill C-36 and do so much more to ensure trafficking in persons is no longer a factor in Canada.

Meegwetch.

Status of Women

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

moved:

That the second report of the Standing Committee on Status of Women presented on Thursday, February 4, 2021, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

I am pleased to rise today to voice my support for declaring February 22 as national human trafficking awareness day. Human trafficking is the recruitment, transportation, harbouring and/or exercising control, discretion or influence over the movement of a person in order to exploit that person, typically through sexual exploitation or forced labour. It is often described as a modern form of slavery.

Human trafficking is not something Canadians think of often, if at all. When we do, we often think that this horrendous and dehumanizing crime is being committed elsewhere in the world: somewhere that is less fortunate and that lacks effective law enforcement. However, as the Conservative shadow minister for Women and Gender Equality, I have learned from several of my colleagues, including the member for Peace River—Westlock, and from stakeholders and organizations across the country just how vast the human trafficking network is in Canada.

Statistics Canada's 2018 report on human trafficking indicated that 90% of human trafficking in Canada was reported in census metropolitan areas, and that 97% of victims are women and girls with 74% of them being under the age of 25. Of that 74%, 28% were under the age of 18. These numbers are absolutely horrifying and break my heart. These are not just numbers. These numbers represent somebody's daughter, son, grandson, granddaughter, niece or nephew. No one underage, particularly those who are trafficked, has the ability to consent to sexual acts or exploitation.

When I look at my party's record on this issue, I am grateful that we have taken this issue seriously and made significant overhauls to our Criminal Code to address this very serious crime. The member for Haldimand—Norfolk, during her tenure as the minister for Citizenship and Immigration and as minister for Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, introduced several changes to the temporary foreign worker program and the immigration act to prevent situations where temporary workers in Canada, including strippers, might be abused, exploited or possibly become victims of human trafficking.

In 2010 and 2012, former member of Parliament Joy Smith introduced and passed two private member's bills: Bill C-268 , minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years, and Bill C-310, trafficking in persons. Bill C-268 amended the Criminal Code and set mandatory minimums for those who were convicted of trafficking anyone under the age of 18, while Bill C-310 addressed a major loophole in our Criminal Code and made sure that Canadians or permanent residents who went abroad for the purpose of exploiting or trafficking foreign individuals would be brought back to Canada for prosecution.

In 2012, our Conservative government launched a four-year national action plan to combat human trafficking. This included Canada's first integrated law enforcement team dedicated to combatting human trafficking, and increased frontline training to identify and respond to human trafficking, enhanced prevention in vulnerable communities, provided more supports for victims of this crime, both those who are Canadians and foreigners, and strengthened our coordination with domestic and international partners in combatting human trafficking.

Our Conservative government also recognized that the majority of people who are trafficked are trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. This is why, when our government had to revisit Canada's law regarding prostitution and pass Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, we put a heavy focus on protecting these victims.

Until this law was passed, those forced into the sex trade were often treated as criminals by the law instead of being treated as the victims. This law was a made-in-Canada approach recognizing that those who sell sexual services are often victims of human trafficking and often underage. We recognized those people as victims of a more heinous crime, and instead of further victimizing the victim, our Conservative government focused on the pimps and the johns. This included those convicted of procuring, recruiting or harbouring another person for the purpose of prostitution, with a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. If the victim was a child, the penalty carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

We have done a lot to address human trafficking in Canada and stand up for the vulnerable in our society. However, there is still much more work that needs to be done.

Despite all of our hard work as parliamentarians, human trafficking is still a growing crime in Canada and remains very much below the public radar. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, one of the facts we have constantly heard from witnesses is the importance of raising awareness to help combat the prevalence of human trafficking. That is why I strongly support declaring a national awareness day. It would give us an opportunity to create an awareness campaign to educate Canadians that this crime happens and happens locally. It would show them the signs of someone who is being or is about to be trafficked and how to report that to the authorities.

The time is now to act on this very important issue. It has been over 16 years since Canada added human trafficking offences to the Criminal Code and 14 years since the House unanimously adopted a motion to condemn all forms of human trafficking and slavery.

The motion also calls for making February 22 the day to be declared national human trafficking awareness day. I believe this is the best and most practical day to use. The Provinces of Ontario and Alberta already use February 22 as the day to bring awareness provincially. Also, the government's own special adviser for combatting human trafficking has said that they would like to see this day declared as the national human trafficking awareness day.

There are several motions from all parties on the Order Paper: Motion No. 45 from the Conservative member for Peace River—Westlock, seconded by the Bloc member for Shefford; Motion No. 59 from the NDP member for Edmonton Strathcona, seconded by the Green member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith; and Motion No. 57 from the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood, seconded by the Green member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. All of their motions call for the House to condemn all forms of human trafficking and slavery, promote awareness, take steps toward combatting human trafficking and declare February 22 as national human trafficking awareness day.

Human trafficking is one of the most lucrative and quickly growing crimes in Canada. I hope all members of the House will agree with me and join me in declaring February 22 as national human trafficking awareness day.

[Joy Smith, Founder and President, Joy Smith Foundation Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's really nice to be back and to see the members around the table studying this very important topic.

As you know, I spent 11 years, four months, and 59 seconds in the House of Commons and passed the two bills, Bill C-268 involving mandatory minimums for traffickers of children 18 years and under, and Bill C-310, whereby the long arm of the Canadian law can reach into other countries when Canadian citizens or residents of Canada go abroad and exploit or traffic, and we can now bring them back to Canada to bring them to trial.

Going through the human trafficking issue in Parliament has been a process, because initially the good citizens of Canada often didn't know what human trafficking was, and that extended, Mr. Chair, right to parliamentarians. There has been a great change since the beginning of that time in people's understanding that there is human trafficking, so we've gone a long way in a very short time.

What brought me to Parliament then was working with the survivors of human trafficking, and I'm very pleased that Diane Redsky is here today. She is the executive director of Ma Mawi and is like a sister to me. She has done amazing work.

I'm so pleased to have Donald Bouchard, who was a trafficker and who now is doing much to combat human trafficking. I am the total skeptic. I never believed he was really sincere, so I had to wait for a very, very long time—many, many years—and I saw the amazing work he was doing and the voice he had to dissuade traffickers from buying and selling kids.

I want to speak first of all to the fact that I read over the blues and I read over all of the other testimony. You had department heads in here, the RCMP and others, as well as the border patrols, talking about the progress we have made. I have to commend the members here for dealing with the issue of human trafficking.

I know that even Rob Nicholson—and I guess you're not Minister Nicholson, but MP Nicholson—at one time was skeptical. I'm writing a book called I Just Didn't Know, because when people find out, they want to do something, like MP Nicholson, like all of you around the table today, because human trafficking is basically the buying and selling of mostly underage girls, as well as some boys, and in some provinces the aboriginal community is highly overrepresented on this issue.

There are many definitions that people are confused about on human trafficking, and there are many I used. There is one I used when I was doing my bills, which was very well known, but I often say that if someone is being bought and sold, that's human trafficking. I think sometimes we get too caught up in the minutiae of definitions and things like that, but really what it's about is human beings.

Many girls have their power and their dignity and everything taken away from them because they are sold to somebody and forced to service men sexually. Girls are very highly represented, no matter what community they come from. The fact of the matter is that now parliamentarians in this House have to understand that we have to take very definitive steps to stop this from happening.

The national action plan reached its limit in March 2017. We need a national action plan to combat human trafficking, because it's not only the laws that are put in: we need safe houses and we need rehabilitation of the victims of human trafficking. We need to help them restore their lives.

We found that very critical. The foundation has put together an education program for grades 8 to 12, and I'm surprised at how many young girls—I've only had two boys, and the rest of them have all been girls—have come up and said, “I think my boyfriend is grooming me.” In the school program they learn how the predators work and they learn how they gain their trust. It's just so insidious and hideous.

It's widely accepted. I think also it's very important that prostitution not be legalized in any way, because it puts more young girls at risk.

Parliamentarians can do specific things. The two that I've just mentioned, Mr. Chair, are extremely important. The national action plan to help rehabilitate the victims of human trafficking and make sure that they get the education and all the things they need to restart their lives is extremely important. As for the safe houses, I know there are places now all across this country where victims of human trafficking can go to be rehabilitated, but there aren't enough.

People call it prostitution, but I don't like to call it prostitution. I don't use that word. A young girl is lured; the trafficker gains her trust by giving her lots of praise and gifts and the vision that she'll get married some day, and then all of a sudden it all changes. They say they have to pay back all these gifts, and it becomes very hideous, very brutal. The kids are very scared. I could tell you a million stories, but I know in eight minutes I don't have time to do that. I'm trying to put a broad brush on the things that I see today in Parliament in 2018 that really need to be addressed.

How much time do I have?

[Matthew Taylor]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought it might be helpful to the committee for me to provide information for you on two separate things: first, the legislative history of Canada's criminal laws on human trafficking, and second, some background information on the types of programs that Justice Canada has funded to enhance services for victims of human trafficking.

Canada's first human trafficking specific offence was enacted in 2002 as part of the enactment of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Section 118 prohibits the trafficking of persons into Canada and targets the means used by traffickers, such as force, fraud, abduction, deception, or coercion to bring victims into our country. It should be noted that the enactment of this offence coincided with Canada's implementation of the UN protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, which Canada ratified in May of 2002.

In 2005, Parliament passed Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), and enacted three specific Criminal Code offences to more comprehensively address human trafficking, specifically, section 279.01 which prohibits all forms of human trafficking, domestic or transnational, and for any exploitative purpose; section 279.02, which prohibits the receipt of a financial or a material benefit knowing that it was derived from human trafficking; and, third, section 279.03, which prohibits the holding of identity documents to facilitate human trafficking.

Since that time, additional criminal law reforms have been passed by Parliament. In 2010, a private member's bill, Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), was enacted, creating a separate offence of trafficking in children that is punishable by mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment.

In 2012, two years later, a private member's bill, Bill C-310, was enacted, enabling Canada to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute in Canada Canadian citizens or permanent residents who commit human trafficking abroad. It also enacted a provision in subsection 279.04(2) that provides guidance to the courts in helping them to determine whether exploitation has been made out, exploitation being an essential element of the trafficking in persons offence.

In 2014, former Bill C-36 was passed, enacting the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.This act provided new mandatory minimum penalties for human trafficking involving adult victims and for the financial benefit and documents offences involving child victims.

Most recently, the government has introduced Bill C-38, an act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), to bring in force certain amendments that were passed in Parliament in 2015 through a private member's bill, Bill C-452, and also An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons). These provisions would enact an evidentiary presumption to help prosecutors prove an element of the human trafficking offence.

That's a bit of a summary of the changes that have been enacted by Parliament. As you can see, these criminal laws in respect of human trafficking have been the subject of ongoing interest and concern by parliamentarians.

At the same time, Justice Canada has supported their implementation in various ways, including through the provision of regular training to police and prosecutors, in conjunction with the RCMP and other police forces, victim services, and other experts. We've developed a handbook for police and prosecutors and fact sheets on key criminal justice issues for police and prosecutors, such as sentencing submissions, bail proceedings, and things of that nature in a human trafficking context. Justice officials have participated in similar efforts internationally, working closely with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to develop similar technical assistance tools to support implementation around the world.

The department is also supporting improvements to victim services. A copy of initiatives that have been funded since 2012 by the department through the victims fund has been provided to the clerk of the committee, I believe, detailing the specifics of each project. Examples for your information include: enhancing victim services delivery in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec; supporting the development of a resource handbook for indigenous women and girls who were victimized through human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation; and, developing a mental health and addictions program for women and girls who were victims of trafficking.

I'm going to conclude my remarks there. I look forward to any questions.

Members not seeking re-election to the 42nd Parliament

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure tonight to give my farewell speech here in the beautiful Parliament of Canada. These past 11 years have been a very interesting time here in Canada.

I have to thank first of all my beautiful family. My son Edward actually inspired me to come to Parliament because of his work in the ICE unit, because of his heart for those who could not help themselves, the trafficking victims and the child abuse cases he worked on. As my son, he turned my heart as a mother and subsequently the nation's heart was turned, because in this place I was able to come and represent the survivors of human trafficking. I thank my son Michael, who is a brilliant young man; Janet who is a top supporter of everything that I have done; Natasha, who is absolutely creative and brilliant; Alexandra, of course, who does so much on my foundation and who is truly a wonderfully caring human being; and Jenna. Those are my six children, and there are my grandchildren.

I am eternally grateful to my family for supporting everything I have done since I came to Parliament Hill. Of course, I thank my husband. He has suffered cancer through a large part of my stay here over the 11 years. I thank him for believing in my work and inspiring me to carry on.

Also, I thank my EDA who supported me in everything I have done, especially John Feldsted and Kaz Malkiewicz. John Feldsted was the president of my EDA for three years and continues to do much to further the cause of the political side of what I do.

I thank all the people across the country for their prayers as I did my work to bring laws to this place to combat human trafficking. Those prayers mean a lot because first in my life is my God. He is my strength. Second is my family, and everything else comes underneath that.

There are three people who I have to recognize as well: Brian McConaghy of Ratanak, who is my brother in terms of fighting human trafficking here in Canada and worldwide; Jamie McIntosh, who started International Justice Mission; and Benjamin Perrin, who started The Future Group. It is like the group of three. These people have always been with me through the many years, even before I came to Parliament and certainly during the time that I spent here.

Most of all, I would like to thank the survivors of human trafficking. When I came here I had a vision to stop human trafficking. I had a vision to get laws through to protect the victims of human trafficking. I did put two laws through that made Canadian history, thanks to the grace of God. They are survivors like Timea Nagy, Natasha Falle, Bridget Perrier, Trisha Baptie, just to name a few. They are absolutely amazing young women.

Around this place, to my colleagues in the Conservative caucus and my colleagues across the way, there have been real friendships welded together because of the common good. I believe everyone in the House has the good of the country at heart.

There is a man who sat in our lobby for years, John Holtby. He was such an encouragement to me. He was a brilliant man who cared very deeply about the issues and about my work.

There is a young lady, Kelly Williams, who worked with me, and on me as a matter of fact, when I was chair of the health committee. She did a lot of work around the committees.

Of course, there are the security people, the restaurant people, the pages and all who make Parliament work.

When I stop to look back at why I came here, for me, I came to stop human trafficking in our country. If it was not for the survivors who use their bravery to speak out, if it was not for ministers, like the Minister of Justice, and others, I would never have been able to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish.

When I think about the leaders in this Parliament, I know there have been many who have been very strongly affected by the human trafficking issue here in our country and who stood up in this Parliament to protect the most vulnerable. I thank them for that.

I thank Susan Finlay, my prayer partner. She has been my prayer partner for years, and she has always been with me. In my down times and triumphant times, she was always there.

This Parliament is a place where we change the laws of the land. There are very talented decision makers in this place, and often we do not see the small things that are there. To me, especially, the small things but very important things and people are the people like my staff.

Joel Oosterman, my chief of staff, and his wife Kristy have been with me for a very long time. I love them like family. Marian Jaworski, who runs my constituency office, is just an amazing person. I have to say that those are the people who saw the vision with me and who helped me. Joel is one of the most talented writers I have ever come across. If anyone needs anything, even a kidney, ask Marian. He will find it. He is that kind of staff member. He is just an incredibly honest man who stands above many.

All these people come together for such a time as this, to stop human trafficking here in Canada. God rest her soul, my mother always said that we should leave the world a better place and I hope that, because I have been here, that has occurred.

I have to say that there are many laws we have here, such as Bill C-268, regarding mandatory minimum sentences for traffickers of children age 18 years and under. There is Bill C-310, where we reached the long arm of Canadian law into other countries when Canadian citizens or permanent residents go to traffic or exploit others. We can now bring them back to Canada.

My heart started to really look to leaving this place on December 6, 2014. On that day, we passed Bill C-36, on which I worked with the Minister of Justice. For the first time in Canadian history, the buying of sex is illegal in this country. Now, we are at a point where we can press the button and have a new start. At that point in my career, I knew I had to leave this place.

I knew I had to do something else, so I am working on my foundation, the Joy Smith Foundation. I will continue to do that, I believe, until the end of time. The foundation is going very well. I have had hundreds of lovely letters from around the country from victims who have said thanks and that the foundation has helped them to restart their lives. What could be better than that?

I have a book coming out before Christmas, called I Just Didn't Know. All of the proceeds will be going to my foundation. I really hope the book touches the hearts of Canadians and people across the country who read it, because it has real life stories in it. Brave survivors have agreed to tell their stories, put their pictures in it, and explain how traffickers are able to lure young people.

It is my very great honour to have served and to continue to serve my country in this great place, the Parliament of Canada. It is rare to have the privilege of doing that and it is rare to have met all of the people in my caucus who I call friends and who are astoundingly strong leaders and decision-makers in this country.

I thank God for the opportunity that I had here, and I look forward to rekindling and keeping those friendships along the way as I go on to my other career.

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I am pleased to say that we are in third reading on Bill C-36, one of the most important bills this country has ever had in this Parliament. I will tell you why. It is because so many innocent victims are being lured into the sex trade under human trafficking. We have numerous cases all across this country.

Last Christmas, Canadians got a Christmas present. While they were busy packaging their presents, while they were busy doing things around the house, getting ready for Christmas preparations, the Supreme Court of Canada deemed all the laws around prostitution unconstitutional.

What happened after that? One wise thing the Supreme Court did was to give the government a year, until December 20 this year, to respond to that proclamation. Having done that, our government has put together Bill C-36. It is the first of its kind that Canada has ever seen. For the first time in Canadian history, those who buy sex will be brought to justice. It will be against the law to do that.

Second, the thing that is so unique about Bill C-36 is that there is help for the victims of human trafficking. Many in this Parliament do not understand human trafficking. They talk about prostitutes, the rights of others to set up shop and control a bunch of women, and young men now, in Canada, control and force them into the sex trade. It is the most devious, under-the-surface kind of crime that people now, finally, are starting to understand.

In this country right now it has been accepted that the buying of sex is just fine, because that is what women do. However, women do not want to service up to 40 men a night. Women do not want to be coerced into the sex trade. Women do not want to give their money to people who beat them if they do not. This is not what women want.

What women want in this country is to be safe. They want to be able to grow up. They want to be able to have a life they can be proud of, and grow and prosper like anybody else.

In this House, I have heard so many speeches, but what I need to tell my colleagues is that Bill C-36 has to be supported. It has to be supported because all of Canada is watching what is going on in this country right now. All of Canada, Canadians all across this country, have sent numerous emails to me, numerous petitions, numerous postcards, and what they have said is that they want their children to be safe. The majority of trafficked victims are underage, and we are finding that now. We know that now.

If members put human trafficking in a Google search, they would see how many human trafficking cases have come to the forefront, from coast to coast to coast across this country.

I have to tell my colleagues in the House what I have done with all those petitions, all those postcards and all those emails. I have categorized them. I know every single part of what is happening in this country, because of all the compilation we have done over 10 years. I know what the people are saying in each of the constituencies across this country.

I am going to be making sure that trafficked victims and their parents are very well aware in every constituency of what all the parliamentarians are saying and doing as far as it relates to Bill C-36.

There is no reason now to do archaic thinking. There is no reason now to say, “I am confused.” Quite frankly, that is a very stupid comment. It does not matter who they are or on what side of the House, right now, in this country, Bill C-36 is a bill that parliamentarians from all sides of the House should embrace.

As I said, for the first time in Canadian history, the buying of sex will be illegal. For the first time in Canadian history, there is significant money being put in to help the victims of human trafficking. For the first time in Canadian history, the advertising of sex, those big ads for fresh Asian girls, any size, any age, anything people want, will be illegal. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is not the girls putting that kind of advertisement in the newspaper. It is predators who are making between $260,000 to $280,000 per year, per victim.

In this Parliament, a mom, who members would know but I cannot name right now, came to see me because her 16-year-old daughter was trafficked. When I met her, she was a typical staffer, a typical person, well-dressed, well-educated, well-respected. She sat on my couch in my office with tears rolling down her face when she said, “Why don't the parliamentarians in this country stand up for the victims of human trafficking?”

I have heard some of the speeches in the House. They are all in Hansard and everyone knows what members are saying. Parliamentarians ought to know more than the average citizen about human trafficking. It is the right of every single young person to be safe in this country. I heard a speech the other day by a member who talked about how we are taking away the rights of a person to set up a brothel. Basically what the member said was that it is a woman's right to exploit other women. Meanwhile right in her riding there is a trafficking ring going through to the U.S. It has not hit the papers yet, but it will.

However, I am going to take that speech and I will personally put my feet in that constituency and get the parents and the trafficked victims together and tell them what their MP said and ask them what they think about that.

In Parliament it seems that all of us think that we are wonderful, learned people. We are here for one thing. We are here to serve the people of Canada. We are here to listen to what is going on in our country and everyone here knows about human trafficking. Some members on all sides of the House have really taken up the torch. There are members from the NDP, the Liberals and from our side who have taken up the torch. Unfortunately, many members and leaders have suppressed the voices of members who want to support Bill C-36.

Today is the last time I will have a chance to speak to the bill. Over summer, we came to Parliament to sit on the justice committee and we brought in the most dynamic people, the survivors. I say survivors, not victims, because these victims now have a voice. They have become the survivors and they are listening to everything that is happening in Parliament. Members should choose their words carefully and choose their vote carefully because their voices will go across. The voices of parents, grandparents, victims and organizations that take care of victims, my dear colleagues, are far stronger than anyone else who has a vested interest.

When we hear people saying this is a right to legalize prostitution; it is an industry. Members should shake their heads. It is not an industry and it is not what the elected people in this Parliament of Canada should be professing. They should not do that. If they dare to do it, I promise I am going to make sure I will go to every city, every town, every constituency and I will let their constituents know. They can decide whether they want to elect them to the Parliament of Canada with that kind of attitude.

We have to do something in this Parliament to suppress the human trafficking that is happening across this country.

All we have to do is talk about the victims. All we have to do is talk about what happens to them. Predators come on as the victim's friend to get their confidence and lure them. It can even be a family member. It can be a friend. It can be a woman. It is not just men.

I had one case very recently where a boyfriend said to this young girl, “We'll get married. I love you”. He was her knight in shining armour. What she did not know was that behind the scenes he was part of a little gang that were targeting young girls, getting their confidence, taking away all their support systems through their families, their schools, their churches, all their supports, my beloved colleagues, and he sold her. She serviced up to 40 men a night before we got her out of that ring.

This is something we cannot be silent about. This kind of crime has been below the radar screen for so many years here in Canada. Everybody talks about every other country but Canada. In Canada, predators are making between $250,000 to $280,000 a year off their victims. That is tax-free money. That is why they do it. Mostly, it is because they follow the cash.

Unfortunately, in this country, we have had films like Pretty Woman. We have had films glorifying prostitution. It is not prostitution; it is human trafficking. This is where people do not have a choice, where they are being targeted and are mostly underage victims. What happens is that these victims just give up after a while. They get post-traumatic stress. They sort of look to their predators because that is where they get their one meal a day. That is where they have some semblance of security. This is how they look at it. It is a very sick kind of crime in our nation.

If we look at the trafficking cases in Vancouver Island, the Nanaimo newspaper and the people who work with the trafficking victims say that this ring has been undisturbed for years. We know that.

In Ottawa, 10 minutes from Parliament Hill, we have had trafficking cases.

What is happening in this country, now, is that police officers are beginning to become schooled in human trafficking. Some police officers who used to think it was just part of a daily occurrence that they did not need to pay attention to, are starting to understand now that behind those young women and young boys on the street is a very sad story where they are being brutalized on a daily basis and huge money is being made off them.

In the country right now “herds of girls”, as they call them, are actually tattooed by the person who owns them.

Years ago, long before the Speaker and I came to Parliament, Wilberforce said that once you know, “you can never again say you did not know”. The other part of that is: what are you going to do about it?

Every parliamentarian in this Parliament knows that human trafficking is happening. Every parliamentarian knows that it is basically our young people. This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing. This is about representing our constituencies so that our children, our young people, are safe and they are not targeted, because this trafficking has grown to epidemic proportions at this point in time.

We had a nanny in Ottawa who was caught up in human trafficking. They are people who are often in a position of trust, a position where they can have access.

It happens everywhere. It happens in our communities, in our schools, in our churches—everywhere—and the victims have been silent. They are silent no longer, and they will not be silent during the next election, no matter what happens on any side of the House.

Bill C-36 is one of the most important bills we have ever put through Parliament. It makes a statement about our country. When the bill goes through, parliamentarians, on all sides of this House, can say that we will not allow our children to be bought and sold in this country.

When one talks about the pornography and everything around human trafficking, that is a conditioning of a society. A 10-year-old boy wrote to me about being addicted to porn. I was interviewed at the National Post, and the next day the National Post stated that this parliamentarian did not know a 10-year-old who was addicted to porn. The parents read this and called the National Post, and said, “We're the parents. I'll tell you about what happened”.

They came to visit me in Ottawa. I met the little boy, and we found out that a whole school division, and other school divisions all across this country, had porn popping up on their computers. It was not because they wanted it, but because the system is set up in a way that porn inadvertently pops up at random. It has happened on everybody's computer. It is a type of conditioning, a type of acceptance.

We should not accept, in any way, shape, or form, the exploitation of our youth. We should not do that. However, let us be careful. The world is watching what we are doing as parliamentarians here in the Parliament of Canada, on all sides of the House. They all know. It is not a partisan thing.

We have talked about human trafficking, and I have to commend you, Mr. Speaker. You are a man of great honour and you have given much support for this human trafficking. You stood by me a long time ago, when I first introduced Bill C-268. I honour the set of standards you have for what you feel is good for Canada.

There are people on all sides of the House who have done that, but there are too many today who are resisting Bill C-36 and are making statements in this Parliament that they will live to regret.

I have been in Montreal a great deal. I have worked with the head of the vice squad there, Dominic Monchamp. I have worked with and rescued victims of trafficking around that area. I do not speak French. Two of my children speak French very well. I wish I did. I try. I love French. However, I have not had the time to speak it eloquently, like most of the people do here. However, I have done a lot of work, and it does not matter what language we have, people know. Some of the most courageous people have come from Montreal, in terms of the human trafficking initiative. They are amazing people. I want each parliamentarian here to be able to leave this place knowing that their lives made a difference in the life of someone who has no voice.

I look forward to the speeches, and I would implore members to get behind Bill C-36. It is the right thing to do. If they have anything to say, they will hear it again in the subsequent months. I will ensure that happens in each constituency that each one of us lives in.

[Naomi Sayers, Spokesperson, Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform]

Thanks, Émilie.

My name is Naomi Sayers. My group is South Western Ontario Sex Workers, which is a member of the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform. I am an indigenous woman from northern Ontario and a former sex worker with experience in working both in northern and southern Ontario. I will elaborate on how Bill C-36 negatively impacts indigenous women, and will finish with recommendations for moving forward.

We make it clear from the outset that we do not support Bill C-36 or the use of criminal laws that target sex work. We propose, instead, a process that meaningfully includes people who work in the sex industry, and that includes labour and regulatory measures that prioritize safety.

Canada's greatest social injustice is the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women. Other witnesses will argue that the criminal laws against clients and third parties will protect indigenous women from going missing and murdered. We argue the opposite. Not only does this flawed argument ignore the fact that not all missing and murdered indigenous women do not work in the sex trade, it also ignores the fact that they experience institutional and systemic violence as indigenous women, especially the state's role in making a sex worker vulnerable to violence, such as Chief Justice McLachlin highlighted in her decision.

Wally Oppal, in his missing women inquiry report, also recognizes this when he states that the marginalization of women is due to the “retrenchment of social assistance programs, the ongoing effects of colonialism, and” —I emphasize—“the criminal regulation of prostitution and related law enforcement strategies.”

The Chief Justice reiterates the harmful effects of criminal regulation of prostitution when she states that the criminal laws not only impose conditions on how prostitutes operate but also the laws “go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution”. This reminds us to respect the spirit of the Bedford decision and that our objectives need to prioritize the health and safety of people working in the trade, not the elimination of the industry.

The criminalization of clients, in Bill C-36, has devastating impacts for indigenous women who rely on income generated from prostitution, particularly in the context of inadequate housing, social services, or education. Indigenous women will seek out clients in more dangerous areas, and clients will rush negotiations, putting women at risk. The isolation and inability to screen clients for safety contributes to the rising violence against sex workers. Indigenous women are already targeted by aggressors, as seen for over 20 years in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. The Chief Justice wrote, “If screening could have prevented one woman from jumping into Robert Pickton's car, the severity of the harmful effects is established.”

Trafficking has also been raised in the discussion of the bill. While exploitation happens in the context of trafficking, Bill C-36 does not distinguish between exploitation and prostitution. It assumes that prostitution is exploitation. The Chief Justice highlighted that the old laws were overbroad and that conflating prostitution with human trafficking does an injustice to the victims of exploitation.

The Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, an organization that prioritizes trafficking victims, highlights that criminalizing clients diverts precious resources from protecting victims of trafficking who urgently need help into a politically contested and futile anti-prostitution campaign, and that criminalizing clients ignores the structural issues that cause forced labour, thereby distracting from the government's responsibility to victims of exploitation.

Consequently, we argue for the use of current existing criminal laws that address exploitation rather than reframing prostitution as exploitation, itself. More importantly, Bill C-268 made further amendments to the Criminal Code to combat human trafficking related to children. This bill received assent on June 29, 2010. As the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women asserts, conflating exploitation with prostitution ignores structural issues contributing to forced labour and diverts resources away from victims of exploitation and toward a highly politicized and futile anti-prostitution campaign.

We argue that we need to adopt a model respecting Canadian values entrenched within the charter. We recommend adopting a rights-based approach, like the New Zealand model, to protect the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in society. In 2003 prostitution was no longer regulated by criminal law in New Zealand. The trade is regulated through labour laws and occupational health and safety standards. New Zealand's sex workers find it easier to report incidents of violence to police, with police taking reports of violence seriously. Additionally, since 2004 New Zealand maintains their tier 1 ranking status, the highest and most favourable status for combatting trafficking, as reported by the United States' 2013 Trafficking in Persons Report.

We should focus on investing into resources, social supports, and sex worker-led organizations that work directly with sex workers to protect the safety of sex workers. The goal should be to ensure the safety and protection of all women in the trade by utilizing already existing Criminal Code sections.

Despite what people may feel about prostitution, the reality is that people will continue to work in the sex trade. In the context of Bill C-36, they will be at risk of more violence. Bedford demonstrated this risk. We hope the government will recognize this and prioritize health and safety.

Criminal Code

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to support Bill C-452, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons). This is an important bill that would address a pressing issue. Human trafficking involves continuous violations of fundamental human rights whose protection forms the basis of our free and democratic society.

I would like to start by thanking the member of Parliament for Ahuntsic for bringing this pressing issue to the attention of the House again. As she knows, this is a very important issue for our government. Her previous bill, former Bill C-612, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), which proposed similar amendments, died on the order paper in 2011.

Before I turn to the proposals in the bill itself, I would like to make some general comments on the nature of human trafficking and its severe impacts on its victims, to underscore the importance of ensuring the strongest possible criminal justice response to this crime.

Traffickers force victims to provide labour or sexual services in circumstances where they believe their safety or the safety of someone known to them will be threatened if they fail to provide that labour or service. They are deprived of the very rights that underpin a free and democratic society. The reality is that victims suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence or actual harm to their loved ones. This abuse is compounded by their living and working conditions.

To further aggravate the problem, this type of criminal conduct is not something that just happens occasionally or on the margins of society. Rather it is widespread, as evidenced by the global revenues garnered by it, which are estimated to amount to as much as $10 billion U.S. per year. This puts human trafficking within the three top money makers for organized crime.

What are we doing about it? I am pleased to report that the government's response to this crime is strong and multi-faceted.

First, we have a virtual arsenal of criminal offences that apply to this reprehensible conduct.

In 2003, trafficking specific offences were added to the Criminal Code.

In 2010, a new offence of child trafficking was enacted through Bill C-268, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), which was sponsored by myself, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. This offence imposes mandatory minimum penalties on those who traffic persons under the age of 18.

In 2012, former Bill C-310, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), sponsored by myself, the member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul, extended extra territorial jurisdiction for all Criminal Code trafficking offences and enacted an interpretive tool to assist the courts in interpreting the trafficking in persons provisions.

All of this is in addition to the trafficking specific offence contained in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 118, which prohibits transnational trafficking and the numerous Criminal Code offences that address traffic related conduct, such as forceable confinement, kidnapping, sexual assault and uttering threats, to give a few examples.

However, that is not all. In recognition of the multi-faceted nature of this problem, the government launched a national action plan to combat human trafficking on June 6, 2012. The action plan recognizes that a comprehensive response to human trafficking must involve efforts to ensure what we refer to as the 4 Ps: the protection of victims; the prosecution of offenders; the partnerships with key players; and, of course, the prevention of the crime, in the first place. All activities are coordinated through the human trafficking task force, which is led by Public Safety Canada.

This is, without a doubt, a comprehensive response to a complex problem, but more can always be done and where more can be done, more should be done, especially, when efforts serve to address a crime as insidious as human trafficking.

Bill C-452 proposes a number of reforms that would strengthen the response I have just described. It seeks to impose consecutive sentences for trafficking offences and any offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

The bill would also create a presumption that would assist prosecutors in proving the main human trafficking offence and it would require a sentencing court to order the forfeiture of an offender's property, unless he or she proved that the property was not proceeds of crime.

Although some amendments would be required to address specific legal concerns, Bill C-452 would undoubtedly strengthen the response to human trafficking and, as such, merits our support.

Legal concerns would have to be addressed. For example, the bill should not overlap with amendments that have already been enacted by the previous bill, such as the former Bill C-310, as this would cause confusion in the law. The bill should also avoid compromising the government's efforts to defend the living on the avails offence, paragraph 212(1)(j), along with other prostitution-related Criminal Code offences whose constitutionality is now before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Bedford case. The procuring provision, which Bill C-452 proposals would affect, contains the living on the avails offence.

However, these concerns and others should not detract from the positive contributions the bill would make if it were enacted. The legal concerns I have outlined can easily be addressed through amendments.

We must continue to be vigilant. We must continue to support legislative initiatives that would improve our ability to hold accountable those who exploit the vulnerabilities of others. The impact of human trafficking on its victims is almost impossible to comprehend. We cannot tolerate it. We must ensure that those who engage in such heinous conduct are brought to justice, that their punishment appropriately reflects their crime and that they are not permitted to reap the rewards gleaned from the suffering of others.

Toward that end, I ask all members in the House to join me in supporting Bill C-452. I look forward to examining and analyzing its proposals more deeply in the context of committee review. At that stage, amendments can be moved to ensure that the bill achieves its laudable objectives without creating any confusion or inconsistency in the law.

I am sure that we all agree that we can never do enough to combat human trafficking. I am grateful that Bill C-452 has provided us with yet another opportunity to do more.

Again, I thank the member for Ahuntsic for her attention to this very important bill. Certainly it has our full support on this side of the House.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of private member's Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons). I would like to thank the member for Ahuntsic for introducing this important piece of legislation.

The purpose of Bill C-452 is essentially to step up the criminal justice system's response to human trafficking, one of the most odious violations of fundamental rights and freedoms.

It is generally acknowledged that trafficking in persons occurs in three stages: the recruitment, transportation and accommodation of a person for a specific purpose; exploitation, usually sexual exploitation; and forced labour. The existence of one of these factors is enough for a person's conduct to constitute the crime of trafficking in persons. A person who recruits a victim for the purpose of exploiting that person is engaged in human trafficking to the same degree as someone who transports or houses a victim for that purpose.

Traffickers force victims to work or provide services in circumstances in which they believe that any refusal on their part would threaten their safety or that of a person they know. The expression “labour or a service” includes, for example, all types of sexual services, domestic services, agricultural work and factory work.

Victims suffer physical, sexual and psychological violence and face threats of violence against family members, including violence or threats of physical violence that may be carried out.

A crime this serious requires that more rigorous measures be taken in criminal law. My colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, has introduced two bills to combat these reprehensible crimes. We must all stand up and help the victims of human trafficking.

I see that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made amendments to this bill. I believe my colleague who introduced the bill is of the view that those amendments contribute to the bill's main objectives, particularly those of making offenders accountable for their acts, providing for penalties that reflect the seriousness of the crime and ensuring that offenders do not reap the benefits of their unlawful acts.

Before commenting on the specific proposals contained in the bill and explaining why I believe they deserve to be supported, I would like to put them in context. This bill would make it possible to expand the exhaustive framework of statutory provisions against trafficking in persons.

In 2005, three specific human trafficking offences were added to the Criminal Code. In 2010, a new offence of trafficking in children was adopted when Bill C-268 sponsored by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul was enacted. An offender convicted of that offence is liable to mandatory minimum penalties when trafficking victims are under 18 years of age.

In 2012, another bill sponsored by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul granted extraterritorial jurisdiction over all Criminal Code trafficking offences and created a tool to assist the courts in interpreting the human trafficking provisions.

In addition, section 118 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits transnational trafficking in persons, and many acts related to trafficking in persons, such as forcible confinement, kidnapping, sexual assault and uttering threats, to cite only a few examples, are offences under the Criminal Code.

However, it is possible to do more. Bill C-452 provides, first of all, for the creation of an evidentiary presumption that would help prosecutors establish that trafficking in persons has been committed. We know that victims are vulnerable and that they fear their traffickers. That means that they may well be reluctant to testify, and we understand that.

The presumption would allow prosecutors to establish the commission of the offence of trafficking in persons by submitting evidence that an accused lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who is exploited.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights amended this proposal to make it compatible with other similar presumptions currently set out in the Criminal Code, particularly subsection 212(3), which establishes a presumption for the purposes of procuring provisions, namely paragraph 212(1)(j), and subsections 212(2) and 212(2.1).

Prosecutors also find it difficult to establish that the offence was committed because victims in these situations are often too afraid of their pimps to testify against them.

In 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutional validity of this presumption in R. v. Downey. The final submissions of the majority are significant and directly relevant to trafficking in persons:

Prostitutes are a particularly vulnerable segment of society. The cruel abuse they suffer inflicted by their parasitic pimps has been well documented. The impugned section is aimed not only at remedying a social problem but also at providing some measure of protection for the prostitute by eliminating the necessity of testifying.

Surely the same considerations apply to the victims of human trafficking.

Bill C-452 also provides that a sentence handed down for an offence involving trafficking in persons shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for another offence arising out of the same event or series of events. Establishing mandatory consecutive sentencing sends a clear message: committing an offence leads to a long prison term. Is this not a message we want to send to the perpetrators of human trafficking offences? There are few crimes that deserve such lengthy sentences. I applaud this proposal.

Bill C-452 would also require an offender to prove that his property does not constitute proceeds of crime for the purposes of the Criminal Code forfeiture provisions. Trafficking in persons necessarily involves profiting from the suffering of others. In fact, global revenues generated by this crime are estimated at some $10 U.S. billion a year. That is unacceptable.

Trafficking in persons is thus one of the three most lucrative organized crime activities. We must ensure that traffickers are not allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains. It is essential that we strip them of the monetary benefits they derive from the exploitation of others so that the public can trust in the justice system's ability to hold offenders accountable for their actions and to bring them to justice. Justice is not served if an offender is allowed to profit from the suffering he inflicts on others.

The provisions of Bill C-452 contribute to the existing legislative framework to fight this crime, supplemented by a multi-pronged response to a complex problem.

I am particularly pleased to note that, on June 6, 2012, the government introduced the national action plan to combat human trafficking, which acknowledges that an exhaustive approach must be taken to consolidate efforts to fight this crime by emphasizing the four Ps: the protection of victims, the prosecution of offenders, partnerships with key stakeholders and, of course, the prevention of trafficking in persons.

All activities are coordinated by the working group on trafficking in persons, which is managed by Public Safety Canada. This shows that Canada is currently taking a strong approach to human trafficking. However, that does not mean that we cannot do more. We must be vigilant and do everything in our power to ensure that our approach is as rigorous as possible, which inevitably presupposes ongoing analysis to determine what else we can do.

Bill C-452 is precisely an example of what else we can do. We can support Bill C-452, which would assist in securing convictions, guaranteeing penalties that are proportionate to the severity of the crime and depriving offenders of their ill-gotten gains.

I believe that all members of the House should join me in supporting this bill.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I'm just kidding, Mr. Chair.

We propose that subclause 2(2) be amended.

This clause proposes to add a presumption that an accused is exploiting a trafficking victim if they are shown to be habitually in the company of that person.

Our proposed amendment would ensure that the clause creates a true presumption, consistent with the existing Criminal Code presumptions, such as that found in subsection 212(3) of the code. Presumptions enable prosecutors to prove a required element of the offence by proving a fact related, which is not an element of the offence.

As currently worded, the proposed presumption does not accomplish this objective, primarily because the presumed fact that the accused is exploiting the victim, is not actually an element of the trafficking offence.

Our amendment would also ensure that the proposed presumption applies equally to the child trafficking offence in subsection 279.01(1), as enacted in June 2010 by Joy Smith's private member's bill, Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

[Naomi Krueger, Manager, Deborah's Gate, Salvation Army]

I would just say, on behalf of the victims whom we serve on a day-to-day basis at Deborah's Gate, that certainly the efforts of Mrs. Smith and Bills C-268 and C-310 have created opportunities to better support these victims. Our message here today is that we want to continue to see these types of provisions created for law enforcement officers that reinforce the work we do on the front line. In the past year, we've been in court with two separate witnesses who have testified and been disheartened by the response at the justice level, because of a lack of understanding and a lack of ability on the part of the courts to respond from a criminal justice perspective.

Certainly, we would support any efforts to create opportunities for our residents to accomplish the goals and dreams they have for themselves, for them to be able to be empowered and be restored, and for them to be able to complete high school and to be able do all of the things they want for themselves now that they've been able to be free and to experience what life looks like without exploitation.

[Michael Maidment, Area Director, Public Relations and Development, Federal Government Liaison Officer, Salvation Army]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Michael Maidment. I'm the federal government liaison officer for the Salvation Army in Canada.

I'd first like to thank you for the opportunity to present to you this afternoon on the issue of human trafficking and, more specifically, on Bill C-452.

I'd like to begin by commending Madame Mourani for her work in this important legislation and for her commitment in presenting complex solutions to the issue of human trafficking in this country. I am delighted today to be joined by Naomi Krueger. Naomi is the manager of one of Canada's first shelters dedicated exclusively to caring for the victims of human trafficking. Deborah's Gate, which opened in 2009, aims to provide confidential, professional, and culturally sensitive community-support networks for survivors of this terrible crime.

The case management team at Deborah's Gate coordinates appointments with law-enforcement officials, immigration officials, legal counsel, trauma counsellors, and other service providers. Additional programs provide residents of the shelter with access to income assistance and/or sustainable income, addiction-treatment programs, health and dental care, and community-integration programs.

I want to frame my comments this afternoon by saying that the Salvation Army appears before you today in our capacity as Canada's largest social-service provider and with our 130 years of service-delivery experience, which includes, of course, programs such as Deborah's Gate. I hope to convey the perspective of our organization, as the leading social-service provider, on this legislation.

First off, I want to say that the Salvation Army wholly supports legislation that strengthens the ability of the criminal justice system to respond to the crime of human trafficking. Just as we supported Bill C-268 and Bill C-310, we, too, support Bill C-452. We believe the bill will provide law-enforcement officials with more tools to prosecute those who commit this heinous crime and that it is essential to preventing future victims.

With specific reference to the proposed amendments in the bill, we believe that allowing consecutive sentencing for offences is positive in two ways. First, a significant sentence is important to victims of human trafficking in so far as it provides a period of safety during which a victim doesn't need to worry about their trafficker being at large. This period is critical to a victim's ability to access restorative resources and engage in a long-term healing process.

The effects of violence and exploitation on a victim do not disappear when the trafficker is arrested. Instead, fear, anxiety, and hopelessness often increase, at least until the victim knows the trafficker will be held in custody for a designated period of time.

Second, we think this proposed amendment would strengthen the deterrent for perpetrators of human trafficking who believe the financial gain of the exploitation outweighs the loss experienced during shorter prison sentences. One such victim and resident of our shelter estimated that her trafficker earned $620,000 over a two-year period through her sexual exploitation.

I would like to raise one area of consideration regarding this amendment, that we're seeing more and more situations where victims who were once trafficked themselves have turned to aiding their traffickers with procuring and grooming other victims. This is generally a strategy that victims of human trafficking use to improve their own circumstances in an attempt to escape the exploitation they have undergone. Providing the courts with flexibility in the application of consecutive sentencing may prevent victims of human trafficking from being punished by the criminal justice system for attempting to escape from their exploitation.

With reference to adding the term “domestic” to the charge of human trafficking within the Criminal Code, the Salvation Army feels that this proposed amendment provides important clarity to the code. Human trafficking is a domestic issue. We've already heard that this afternoon. Yet the myth that trafficking is exclusively an international issue persists among many Canadians. Accurately describing human trafficking as a domestic issue will aid in correcting this long-term myth.

Deborah's Gate opened in 2009. Over half its residents have been victims of domestic trafficking, Canadian residents trafficked within Canadian cities, most often for sexual exploitation by Canadian men. Furthermore, our organization has found that women in our shelter systems were targeted as children as young as 12 years old, many from reserves in northern B.C., Alberta, and Manitoba, both by traffickers with gang affiliation and by individuals working alone.

The change this bill offers—the reversal of the burden of proof for the charge of human trafficking—is an important recognition of the devastating impact that sexual exploitation has on its victims. This reversal will not only make it easier to prosecute traffickers but will also protect victims who are struggling with the effects of being exploited.

With reference to extending the human trafficking charges to those who harbour a person who has been exploited, the Salvation Army is pleased that this proposed legislation considers the reality that many different individuals can play a role in the crime of human trafficking without ever meeting the conditions set forth by the legal definition.

While many individuals can share responsibility for holding a victim captive, it is rare that all parties involved are prosecuted. In our experience, traffickers are aided by multiple associates, each of which plays a role in facilitating their exploitation. While none of the associates may profit directly from a victim's exploitation, they supervise the victim's sexual services, assault victims when they fail to comply with their traffickers' orders, and coordinate travel from one abuser to another.

The proposed amendment would better equip law-enforcement officers to respond to the severity and complexity of trafficking operations holding all those involved accountable for the crime in its entirety.

It should be noted, though, that while this amendment in general enables effective enforcement of the offence, unintended consequences of the wording and the absence of evidence to the contrary may arise.

In particular, information that victims communicate to the police, health care practitioners, and other front-line service providers while they are in a state of fear or as a means to survival could be used as evidence to contradict exploitation or facilitation of exploitation at a later date. Victims have repeatedly reported that they were at times coached on what to say when questioned by authority figures.

Many times this coaching has led to the gathering of contradictory statements that could be used as evidence to the contrary if needed. A provision preventing the use of statements made by victims while in a state of trauma or coercion might help to avoid this unintended consequence.

In conclusion, while it is important to strengthen the tools available to prosecute those who commit the terrible crime of human trafficking, it is equally important, if not more so, to consider strengthening our ability to prevent human trafficking from occurring in the first place.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address you this afternoon and for your commitment to eradicating human trafficking in Canada.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for coming to committee today. We appreciate it.

As you know, we're talking about human trafficking. Research is showing us that it's primarily underage youths who are duped and deceived into servicing men, and if they don't do it, they get beaten, raped, shot up with drugs. I've worked with victims for 14 years now, so that's the way it happens.

As you know, in this country, Bill C-49 was the first bill, in 2005, that addressed human trafficking. They got one conviction, Imani Nakpangi. He trafficked a 15-and-a-half-year-old girl. You know about that one. Then Bill C-268 and Bill C-310 came in, in 2010 and 2012. Now we have this bill before us today.

I ran out of time on the other session, but this is why we don't have all the hard statistics, because the bills are so new. They are brand new in Canada.

You mentioned something that I thought was so relevant. I want to talk to Ms. Duval. You talked about human dignity. You talked about the right for people to be free, the right for them to make their own choices. Can you tell me, in terms of this bill of Maria Mourani's, why this is so important to help the victims of human trafficking?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I'll address this to Mr. Hooper.

The question keeps coming up as to why don't we have the statistics. We all know that in 2005, Mr. Cotler, one of the members from the Liberal Party, passed Bill C-49, and that Imani Nakpangi, the first offender, was convicted in Canada. Then my bills came in—Bill C-268, in June 2010, and Bill C-310, in June 2012—so there was very little time....

People sometimes get human trafficking mixed up with human smuggling. Can you define the difference between human trafficking and human smuggling?

Mr. Hooper, could you perhaps answer the question?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Hooper and Ms. Legault-Roy. Thank you for coming today.

Mr. Hooper, you and I know each other very well. Timea Nagy is an amazing victim who has risen above and is now helping police officers and is doing a lot of very good work. Mr. Hooper, as a lawyer for her organization, I have to thank you for all your volunteerism and for the work you have done as well.

Taking a look at this issue, you have described very well what we're looking at. It can be the girl next door. It can be people from abroad. I remember when Timea Nagy first came into Canada. She was trafficked from Hungary, as you know, and she was in a much different place from where she is right now, as one of the leaders in Canada, in my opinion, for helping victims of human trafficking.

In regard to the case you referred to in terms of the forced labour, I know between Timea, Toni Skarica, and a few of us, we did a lot of work on that one.

Looking at this whole bill from Maria Mourani, as you know, Bill C-268 and Bill C-310 did certain things to help with this issue of human trafficking. I would like you to talk a little bit more about how Bill C-452 will help the victims of human trafficking, because that is the issue here, where the victims go to court and they won't talk. I know for the men in the forced labour case it was a horrendous experience, and they actually had organized crime from Hungary after them as well, trying to come into Canada. In Bill C-310 we authorized the assumption of extraterritorial jurisdiction so that Canadian prosecution could happen if Canadian citizens or permanent residents who commit human trafficking went abroad. Then we had an interpretive provision, which expanded the definition of human trafficking to enable the courts to bring justice to these perpetrators. Bill C-452 will help the victims as well.

Mr. Hooper, I would like you to expand on your explanation of how this bill would apply to help these victims. Could you do that for us?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am so pleased to have the opportunity to support Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons).

As I have listened to the speeches tonight. It warms my heart to see members in the House who have worked together, and are continuing to work together, to stop this heinous crime in our country.

The member for Mount Royal has done much over the years to stand up for human rights. His Bill C-49 did much to bring the awareness of human trafficking to the forefront, and I thank him for that.

I also want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, as the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. When I first started working on my Bill C-268, I remember your support and your questions. I remember your input in making that bill go through.

As parliamentarians we are standing up against the perpetrators who feed on innocent victims in our country. Now public awareness is coming to the forefront. This is a pressing issue that we are addressing. Human trafficking, as we all know, continues to be a violation of fundamental human rights whose protection forms a basis of our free and democratic country. I want to thank all members for the input we have heard today.

Before I turn to the proposals in the bill itself, I would like to make some general comments on the nature of human trafficking and its severe impact on the victims to underscore the importance of ensuring the strongest possible criminal justice response to this crime.

Traffickers force victims to provide labour or services in circumstances where they believe their safety or the safety of someone known to them will be threatened. If they fail to provide that labour or service, they are deprived of the very rights that underpin a free and democratic society, a society that we hold dear in Canada.

The reality is that victims often suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence or actual harm to their loved ones. It does not only encompass the victims. One technique the predators have is to threaten their siblings and their relatives by telling them that they will be next. I have numerous cases where that has happened. That is how they control the victim from whom they earn so much money. Records show right now that a perpetrator earns between $250,000 and $260,000 a year from a victim. It is all about money. It is all about a despicable crime that is happening in our country that touches everybody. Everybody should be aware of it because sooner or later they will hear about it or be touched by it.

In Parliament today we are taking one more step to ensure that Bill C-452 is passed, examined in committee to make it even stronger. By working together, we can make this happen.

To further aggravate the human trafficking problem, the type of criminal conduct is not just something that happens occasionally on the margins of society. Rather, it is widespread in our communities as evidenced by the global revenues generated by it, which are estimated to be about $10 million U.S. per year. This puts human trafficking within the top three money-makers for organized crime. However, it is not just organized crime that is involved in human trafficking. So too are entrepreneurial people who feed off the suffering of innocent victims and control them so they can have money in their pockets to have a better life.

What are we doing about it? I am pleased to report that the government's response to this crime is strong and multifaceted.

First, we have a veritable arsenal of criminal offences that apply to this reprehensible conduct. In 2003 three trafficking offences were added to the criminal code. In 2010 a new offence of child trafficking was enacted through Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), which was sponsored by myself at that time. This offence imposes mandatory minimum penalties on those who traffic in persons under the age of 18.

In 2012 former Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), which was another bill sponsored by myself, extended extra territorial jurisdiction for all Criminal Code trafficking offences and enacted an interpretative tool to assist the court in interpreting the trafficking in persons provisions. Why did that happen? When we sat in a court, we heard lawyers trying to prove that the victim initially was not afraid. Was not afraid, why? How perpetrators work is the victim is not afraid. Most perpetrators come on as the victim's friends. They give the victims everything they want. It is only after they separate them from their infrastructure, family, community and friends and get them alone and take all their identification does the relationship change.

That is when the victims are beaten, raped and shot up with drugs. They are unrecognizable when they are seen on the street corners. These are innocent victims who need the love, care and rescuing to renew their lives. Many young girls who have been rescued are doing phenomenal things.

I was at a special event for Walk With Me, with Timea Nagy, a former trafficking victim in our country. She has done much to rescue victims, much to help restore the lives of these innocent victims.

All of these things, in addition to the trafficking specific offence contained in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 118, which prohibits transnational trafficking and the numerous Criminal Code offences that address trafficking-related conduct, such as forcible confinement, kidnapping, sexual assault and uttering threats, are few examples of the arsenal of crime bills that we have to protect the innocent victims in our country.

That is not all. In recognition of the multifaceted nature of this problem, our government launched the national action plan to combat human trafficking June 6, 2012. The action plan recognizes that a comprehensive response to human trafficking must involve efforts to ensure what we refer to, and I know everyone here in the House is familiar with, as the four Ps: the protection of victims; the prosecution of offenders; partnerships with key players; and the prevention of the crime in the first place.

All activities are coordinated through the human trafficking task force, which is led by Public Safety Canada. This is without a doubt a comprehensive response to a complex problem, but more can always be done. Where more can be done, more should be done, especially when efforts serve to address a crime as insidious as human trafficking.

That is why I commend the member for Ahuntsic who has put forward Bill C-452, which proposes a number of reforms that would strengthen the response I have just described.

It seeks to impose consecutive sentences for trafficking offences and any other offence arising out of the same event or series of events. The bill would also create a presumption that would assist prosecutors in proving the main human trafficking offence. It would require a sentencing court to order the forfeiture of the offenders property unless they could prove their property was not the proceeds of crime.

The very first trafficking case that came to justice in Canada was a very short while ago. It was the Imani Nakpangi case where a 15 and a half year old girl was trafficked. He made a lot of money out of her, over $360,000 that we know of today. The forfeiture of the proceeds of that crime is so important. Bill C-452 has that element in the bill.

Although some amendments would be required to address specific legal concerns, Bill C-452 would undoubtedly strengthen the response to human trafficking and as such merits all our support.

Legal concerns would have to be addressed. For example, the bill should not overlap with amendments that have already been enacted by previous bills, such as Bill C-310, as this would cause confusion in the law. We do not want that to happen. The bill should also avoid compromising the government's efforts to defend the living on the avails offence along with other prostitution-related Criminal Code offences. These are the kinds of things that we will examine and work on in committee, and we are very proud to do that.

I want to thank the member once again for her hard work on this human trafficking issue. I want to thank all members in the House for taking up this cause and protecting the rights of innocent victims.

The Criminal Code

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the second reading debate on Bill C-452, an act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons). I believe the bill addresses a matter of utmost importance: the criminal justice system must respond effectively to the crime of human trafficking.

Bill C-452 seeks to achieve the important goal of strengthening the criminal justice system's response to this heinous crime. Bill C-452's predecessor, Bill C-612, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), also sponsored by the member of Parliament for Ahuntsic, proposed similar amendments but died on the order paper at second reading with the dissolution of Parliament in 2011.

The objectives of the bill merit support. Its proposals seek to hold offenders accountable, impose penalties that befit the severity of the crime and assist in ensuring that offenders do not reap the rewards of their wrongdoing. There are, however, some legal issues raised by the bill's proposals, which I have no doubt can be addressed through amendments.

Bill C-452 proposes to amend the Criminal Code in a number of different ways.

First, it seeks to require that sentences imposed for procuring, section 212, and trafficking offences, sections 279.01 to 279.03, be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed. It also seeks to clarify that the main trafficking offence, section 279.01, would apply regardless of whether the crime occurred in a domestic or international context.

Further, it would add a presumption that an accused is exploiting a trafficking victim if he or she is shown to be habitually in the company of that victim. It would modify the definition of exploitation for the purposes of the trafficking offences to include specified means.

It would also modify the provision that imposes a reverse onus for forfeiture of proceeds of crime for certain offences to apply to both procuring and trafficking offences. Finally, it would make a small technical amendment to the French definition of exploitation, in section 279.04.

One concern raised by certain proposals in the bill involves the Bedford case, which is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada. Bedford involves a Charter challenge to three prostitution-related Criminal Code provisions, including living on the avails of prostitution offence, paragraph 212.(1)(j), which is contained in the procuring provision, section 212. Any amendments impacting on this provision could compromise the government's defence of its constitutionality.

Another concern is that some of the proposals relate to issues already addressed by former Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), which was sponsored by the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul and came into force in June 2012.

Former Bill C-310 extended extraterritorial jurisdiction for all Criminal Code trafficking offences and clarified the definition of exploitation in section 279.04 by creating an interpretive tool to assist courts in determining whether a person has exploited another for the purposes of the Criminal Code trafficking offences.

New amendments that overlap with recently enacted reforms could cause confusion in the law, which may create inconsistency in enforcement and interpretation. These concerns and others could be addressed through amendments to ensure consistency and clarity in the law and manage legal risk.

The bottom line, however, is that we should all support any proposals that would strengthen our response to a crime that is as pernicious and heinous as human trafficking. This crime is commonly referred to as a form of modern-day slavery.

There has been some confusion, both within Canada and internationally, about the nature of this crime. Given the breadth of the issue, the complicated way in which it can be carried out and the diversity of both its victims and its perpetrators, it is no wonder that the global community has struggled with defining it.

However, I can say to Canadians that our government continues to take steps to improve our responses to this very destructive criminal activity.

On June 6, 2012, the government launched Canada's national action plan to combat human trafficking to enhance our ability to prevent this crime, better support victims and ensure that traffickers are held accountable. We are directing more than $25 million over four years to implement this plan.

Specifically, the national action plan emphasizes the need for awareness in vulnerable populations, support for victims, dedicated law enforcement efforts and for all Canadians to prevent the trafficking of individuals.

Among other things, the national action plan launched Canada's first integrated law enforcement team dedicated to combatting human trafficking; increased front-line training to identify and respond to human trafficking and enhance prevention in vulnerable communities; provides more support for victims of this crime, both Canadians and newcomers; and strengthens the coordination with domestic and international partners who contribute to Canada's efforts to combat human trafficking.

Further to this, Canada ratified the United Nations protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. The protocol's definition of human trafficking is consistent with Canada's four specific trafficking in persons offences, which provide us with a comprehensive domestic definition of this horrible crime. There are also many other Criminal Code offences that can be used to address related conduct.

As I mentioned, we have four trafficking-specific offences in our Criminal Code. The main offence of trafficking in persons, section 279.01, protects all persons by prohibiting the recruitment, transportation or harbouring of a person for the purposes of exploitation.

The child trafficking offence, section 279.011, is the same as the main trafficking offence, with the exception that it imposes mandatory minimum penalties for trafficking in children. It was enacted by another bill sponsored by the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul, former Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), which came into force in June 2010.

I noticed that my colleague from the Bloc, who was speaking, mentioned a person under the age of 12. This unfortunately is something that does touch our children.

The two other trafficking-specific offences prohibit receiving a material benefit from the trafficking of a person and withholding or destroying documents in order to facilitate the trafficking of a person, sections 279.02 and 279.03. The Criminal Code also defines exploitation for the purposes of these offences in section 279.04.

Bill C-452 would add heavier penalties to this important group of offences by requiring the imposition of consecutive sentences for engaging in this type of reprehensible conduct. No one would disagree that penalties for this type of offence should be severe.

Bill C-452 would also require a sentencing court to order the forfeiture of offenders' property unless they disprove that their property is the proceeds of crime. We must ensure that traffickers are not permitted to keep the financial benefits of their insidious exploitation of others.

Bill C-452 would also create a presumption that would assist prosecutors in proving the main trafficking offences by proving a related fact, that the accused lived with or was habitually in the company of an exploited person. This type of offence is very difficult to investigate and prosecute, especially given that witnesses are usually afraid to come forward due to threats and intimidation. In particular, such a presumption could assist in holding an accused accountable or the prosecution's case rests heavily on the fact that the accused was living with or habitually in the company of an exploited person. However, this proposal requires amendments to ensure that it applies equally to the child trafficking offence, and the language should also be consistent with other Criminal Code presumptions so that the proposed presumption achieves its goal. These amendments would assist in securing convictions, ensure that punishment is proportional to the severity of the crime and deprive offenders of their ill-gotten gains.

I believe these are goals we can all support.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I want to say that our government has put $5 million into the human trafficking initiative. It's the first time that's ever happened.

I think all parliamentarians, as Mr. Woodworth said, have been a good part of why that happened because everyone is working together to try to make this happen. The national strategy is something we're working on now. The Prime Minister did announce that during the last election, and I'm delighted about that.

I have to thank all parliamentarians for allowing Bill C-268 to go through. It's being used today, on the ground in Canada.

This is a heinous crime. I would invite everyone to read a book. I get nothing out of this book, but it's Canada's story, Invisible Chains. Read that book. It talks about what's happening here in Canada.

It's going to take a nation working very hard to get this done.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

We know right now of cases that are sitting there. We know Canadians right now who are doing exactly that. They have brothels. We have a man who set up a brothel in Haiti. Publicly I hate to say too much because we're just waiting for this bill to get through. His youngest victim is four years old. Not only that, he comes back to Canada and he continues what he does to Canadian children. It's a matter of putting as many tools in place for police officers so they can grab these cases.

If you look at our history right now, we had Bill C-49, our first trafficking bill, which had royal assent in 2006. That's a brand-new law. Then my bill went through, Bill C-268, mandatory minimums, and now we're getting more tools for them. If you look at the grid, we used to have no trafficking cases. To date we have 19 human trafficking cases in Canada with specific charges related to Bill C-268, and we have 55 human trafficking cases now before the courts that are related to other laws that we have here in Canada. Of the 19 cases or 55 cases, what I am trying to get across is we used to have none. Now, suddenly because we have put those laws in place, they are catching these people, and with Bill C-310.... I know right now of one case extremely close to the Hill that we've been looking at for some time.... We can't touch him unless he goes through the States, and he doesn't.

Criminal Code

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

moved that Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to rise and speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons). This bill follows my previous bill, Bill C-268, which created Canada's child trafficking offence with stiff penalties for individuals trafficking a minor in Canada. Having received royal assent on June 29, 2010, Bill C-268 is now law and is being used across Canada, most recently in a case right here in Ottawa.

Bill C-268 was supported by members from multiple parties in the last Parliament. I want to take a moment to thank the members from the Conservative Party, NDP, Liberal Party and Green Party for offering their support for Bill C-310. This bipartisan support reveals that members on both sides of the House are committed to combating human trafficking.

The term “human trafficking” can often be mistaken as human smuggling, which is the illegal movement of people across international borders. However, we must be clear and concise about what human trafficking is during our debate tonight.

Human trafficking is the illegal trade of human beings for sexual exploitation or forced labour or other forms of slavery. Human trafficking is nothing short of modern day slavery. The focus of my bill is on combating the enslavement of individuals both in Canada and abroad.

I would like to begin by speaking to the recent Ottawa case that I referred to a few minutes ago to demonstrate the reality of human trafficking here in Canada. Last week, Montreal police caught up to Jamie Byron, who was charged by the Ottawa police force for a number of serious human trafficking-related offences, including the trafficking of a minor. Mr. Byron, considered to be violent, is also wanted in Toronto for robbery, uttering threats and possession of a dangerous weapon.

I would ask members to take a moment and consider that only a few blocks away from where we are sitting today in the House, Jamie Byron was forcing underage girls into prostitution. The methods he used were particularly heinous. In a downtown Ottawa hotel a young 17-year-old girl trafficked from Windsor, Ontario was starved until she agreed to be a prostitute. This is nothing short of slavery.

As parliamentarians, we must be resolved to eradicating all forms of this slavery, both in Canada and abroad. The first clause in Bill C-310 would amend the Criminal Code to add the current trafficking in persons offences 279.01 and 279.011 to the list of offences which, if committed outside Canada by a Canadian or permanent resident, could be prosecuted in Canada. The very nature of human trafficking requires an international focus.

Canada is known as a source, transit and destination country for human trafficking. The human trafficking offence in section 279.01 states:

Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person...or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person...for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence--

I would like to provide a basic example of how Bill C-310's amendment to extend extraterritorial jurisdiction to human trafficking offences would apply in an international human trafficking case.

Human trafficking can often have global implications with traffickers recruiting in one country and sending victims to another country. For example, if a Canadian trafficker were to situate him or herself in Romania and recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold or control victims to be exploited in Canada or even within Romania, the amendment in Bill C-310 would ensure that person could be held criminally responsible in Canada.

However, if the trafficker were to return to Canada today without being caught or apprehended in Romania, the individual would not be guilty of an offence under Canadian law. In a reverse situation, this amendment would also ensure that Canada's trafficking in persons offences would apply to a Canadian who was trafficking Canadian victims within and throughout other countries.

Let us look at a real life example. John Wrenshall is a Canadian serving 25 years in an American prison for running a child brothel in Thailand. He was recruiting, holding and controlling boys as young as four years old and arranging for international child sex tourists to visit his brothel. Mr. Wrenshall even admitted to the court that his brothel was linked to a Thai pedophile sex trafficking ring.

The U.S. arrested Mr. Wrenshall in the U.K., after he left Thailand, for a number of a charges, including aiding and abetting Americans to sexually abuse children abroad.

However, had Mr. Wrenshall managed to return to Canada, we would not have been able to prosecute him for human trafficking since Canada's trafficking in persons offences are not extraterritorial.

I also want to note that this amendment would apply to people who traffic victims for sexual exploitation, as well as for forced labour or slavery. This is important, as we know that men, women and children have been recruited abroad and trafficked to Canada for the purposes of forced labour.

Extraterritorial laws are guided by a number of principles under international law. Bill C-310's amendment would fall under the nationality principle that can be defined as “States may assert jurisdiction over acts of their nationals wherever the act might take place.

Canada has designated a number of serious Criminal Code offences as extraterritorial offences, especially those related to the sexual abuse of children by Canadians sex tourists. These can be found in section 7.4 of the Criminal Code.

There are three primary purposes of designating a criminal offence with extraterritorial jurisdiction. I would like to review these with regard to human trafficking.

First, an extraterritorial human trafficking offence would allow Canada to arrest Canadians who have left the country where they engage in human trafficking in an attempt to avoid punishment here in Canada.

Second, an extraterritorial human trafficking offence would ensure justice in cases where the offence was committed in a country without strong anti-human trafficking laws or strong judicial systems.

Finally, an extraterritorial human trafficking offence would clearly indicate that Canada will not tolerate its own citizens engaging in human trafficking anywhere in the world.

While it would not be conventional to start applying extraterritorial jurisdiction to every Criminal Code offence, there is significant international precedence to do so for human trafficking offences. For example, a number of countries, such as Germany, Cyprus and Cambodia, have applied international jurisdiction to their domestic human trafficking offences so that they can prosecute their own citizens regardless of where the offences took place.

The UN Organized Crime Convention requires a state's parties to establish jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute and punish all offences established by the convention on the trafficking of persons protocol, which Canada has done.

However, in 2009, the United Nations handbook for parliamentarians on combating trafficking in persons also notes that the Organized Crime Convention encourages the establishment of jurisdiction on an extraterritorial basis. In 2003, the UN resource guide to international regional legal instruments, political commitments and recommended practices stated:

The adoption of extraterritorial criminal laws against human trafficking is one of the many intersectoral and interdisciplinary measures required to effectively combat this phenomenon.

The UN guide also stated:

Extraterritorial laws should be appreciated realistically as one of the many complementary measures needed to eliminate human trafficking, coupled ultimately with the political and social will and cooperation to overcome this global phenomena.

Prior to tabling Bill C-310, I consulted with numerous stakeholders on this matter of extraterritorial offences. This included law enforcement, prosecutors, and non-governmental organizations.

On further reflection, I will be seeking a friendly amendment at committee stage to add sections 279.02 and 279.03 to this clause. These are offences of receiving material or financial benefit from human trafficking and withholding or destroying travel documents in the process of human trafficking. This would ensure that all of the acts around human trafficking are covered by extraterritorial offences and there is no chance for a Canadian human trafficker falling through the cracks.

The second clause of Bill C-310 would amend the definition of “exploitation” in the trafficking of persons offence to add an evidentiary aid for courts to consider when they are determining whether a person was exploited.

Evidentiary aids are already used in our Criminal Code. In fact, the evidentiary aid found in section 153(1.2) of the Criminal Code provides greater clarity to the courts on what constitutes sexual exploitation of a minor.

There is also an evidentiary aid found in section 467.11(3) that provides additional guidance on what constitutes participation in organized crime.

This amendment stems from consultations with law enforcement, lawyers and prosecutors who have faced challenges demonstrating exploitation and trafficking in persons under the current definition. They feel that the current definition of “exploitation” is worded in such a way that it has caused courts to interpret “exploitation” too narrowly. The current definition hinges on an assumption that victims feared for their own safety or for the safety of someone known to them so much that they were compelled to provide a labour or a service. This has often been interpreted as a concern for one's physical safety.

UBC professor Benjamin Perrin, in his landmark book on human trafficking in Canada, called Invisible Chains, writes, “It could be argued that safety should not be restricted simply to physical harm but also should encompass psychological and emotional harm”. He goes on to point out that Canada's definition of “human trafficking” does not include methods of exploitation that are consistent with the UN Palermo protocol. The Palermo protocol states:

“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.

The heart of this amendment is to provide an aid to the courts that clearly demonstrates the factors that constitute exploitive methods. In my amendment, I have proposed including “use or threats of violence, force or other forms of coercion and fraudulent means”.

Similar to the first clause of this bill after it was tabled in Parliament, upon reflection, I believe it would be helpful to also include the term “use deception and abuse a position of trust, power or authority”.

I will also be seeking a friendly amendment for these minor changes at committee to ensure this bill is sound and will accomplish what we want it to do.

I would like to share some of the feedback I have already heard from stakeholders regarding Bill C-310.

Jamie McIntosh of IJM stated:

The crime of human trafficking often transgresses international boundaries, with vulnerable men, women, and children subject to its devastating reach. Human traffickers, including those of Canadian nationality, will persist in their illicit trade if they believe their crimes will go unpunished. Extending authority to prosecute Canadians for human trafficking crimes committed abroad is an important step in the global fight against human trafficking. As a nation, we must commit to prosecuting Canadian nationals who commit these crimes, regardless of geographical location at the time of offence.

UBC law professor Benjamin Perrin said:

Human traffickers have evaded prosecution for their heinous crimes, in part, because Canada's criminal laws are not explicit enough to clearly encompass the range of tactics employed by these serial exploiters....I call on all Parliamentarians to support this initiative.

Timea Nagy, who is the program director of Walk with Me, and a survivor of human trafficking herself, writes:

As an internationally trafficked survivor, who has been working with Canadian law enforcement to help human trafficking victims, I am absolutely thrilled to see this legislation.... This Bill will help Canadian law enforcement and prosecutors to be able to do their job and send a message to traffickers around the world, that Canada does not tolerate this crime against human dignity.

There are so many more organizations and experts that I could list but I do not have the time to do so. It is important that Parliament continue to act to combat modern day slavery. Human trafficking is a national and international crime and this legislation addresses both.

By supporting Bill C-310, each member of this House plays an important role in strengthening the tools used by police officers and prosecutors and in securing justice for victims of trafficking both here in Canada and abroad.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie, and thank you to everybody who came to committee today.

My question will be for Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Kennedy, obviously you are one of Canada's heroes for the great sacrifice you made in coming forward and telling your story, because no one knows better than the victim of such a crime. You broke a lot of ground. I've worked with a lot of victims over a lot of years, and they always say, if Mr. Kennedy could do it, I can do it. I don't think you hear that often enough.

Having said that, I've heard a lot today about crime prevention and about making sure our streets are safe in terms of programs for victims. I know, Mr. Kennedy, that the anti-drug strategy we put $89 million into is something that would be in that category of crime prevention. Also I know that the first child advocacy centre in Vancouver, which was put in place for the victims of crime, is something that probably you would have wanted years ago when it wasn't there. Also, the $26 million to continue the federal victims strategy is something that I think is of paramount importance in our country and something that wasn't there for you when you went through all of this.

And of course my bill, Bill C-268, concerning mandatory minimums for traffickers of children eighteen years and under, basically fits into the same category, as does Graham James. This guy got three and a half years, and he has basically written off the record.

As you've said in your testimony, you don't think any child molester should have a pardon. Obviously it is something that has made the world aware of all these things, that you came out, you spoke, and in your unfortunate and very devastating experience all these things culminated in your becoming Canada's hero by rising up against it.

So how did you feel, Mr. Kennedy, when Mr. James actually got off almost, I would say, scot-free?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce another bill that would support my last bill, Bill C-268, a human trafficking bill. If trafficking is committed by a person outside Canada, by a Canadian or a permanent resident, they can be prosecuted in Canada.

Also, the second amendment would enhance the current definition of exploitation in the trafficking in persons offence, giving specific examples.

The rising crime of human trafficking is still very much something about which to be concerned. I know 10 years ago when my son was in the ICE unit, he taught me a lot about what happened with the trafficking of victims. I began working with victims.

It is imperative that all members on this side of the House support this kind of private member's bill that would do something to help the victims of the heinous crime.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ahuntsic introduced Bill C-612 after holding a number of consultations and having the legal rules explained—since this is not her primary profession—that need to be respected in order for her proposed improvements to have a legal impact and to make clarifications. When a private member's bill is introduced it is not enough to have good intentions. Such bills need to be translated into legal language that will have consequences.

That is where another hon. member went wrong. Her definition of human trafficking was so broad that it ended up only covering exploitation. It was clear that the Supreme Court would have rejected it because of the minimum sentence. It would have used the same reasoning as it did in the Smith case in the 1980s. In that famous case, the Supreme Court studied the minimum sentence of seven years in prison for importing narcotics. It found that the definition was so broad that even the smallest amount of imported marijuana would be punishable by a minimum sentence of seven years in prison. It found that to be unreasonable and declared that minimum sentence unconstitutional; it has not be reinstated since.

If a minimum sentence were established for simple exploitation, without regard for the duration, the type of exploitation or its extent, the Supreme Court would uphold the same reasoning. I have defended it without using authority as argument. Here we should naturally be concerned with applying the charter, which outlines the principles of justice we should all share. The charter in this case has made Parliament a little irresponsible. In this case, the changes are useful and it is clear that they were made following consultations with people who apply them. They fill the gaps that were hindering enforcement.

The first change has to do with jurisdiction. It is rare for Canada to claim, as France does, to oversee the conduct of all individuals on Earth. France claims that, no matter where an offence is committed, France has jurisdiction over it. Canada has applied its jurisdiction in a certain number of cases that were perfectly justified and it did so again recently. Canada assumes extraterritorial jurisdiction for crimes having to do with sexual exploitation abroad. That is the first amendment being proposed in clause 1.

Next, consecutive sentences are added. I would like to respond to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine by saying that, even when consecutive sentences are imposed, judges retain their discretion. Consecutive sentences have a certain amount of importance in this situation. Very often, the pimp lives with his victims. He sexually abuses them and changes victims regularly. His victims will not file a complaint about their situation. Nevertheless, the police can establish that the person is being exploited. Very often, the pimp who is living with the victim is the one who is exploiting her. A presumption is therefore created.

The presumption is created based on observations made by police.

I would like to come back to the consecutive nature of the sentence. The judge retains his or her discretion. Most of the time, the pimp leads a life of crime and has committed many other offences. When he is arrested, he will likely face a number of charges. Sexual exploitation of women, particularly if they are also young, is an offence that must be clearly indicated and he must understand that a specific sentence will be imposed for that offence. The sentence for this offence should not be buried under the other sentences he may have to serve, for example, if he has stolen goods in his home, if he is in possession of drugs, if he is in possession of a large quantity of drugs, if he has been trafficking in drugs. No. He must understand that the sentence being imposed on him is for the sexual exploitation of the woman. This does not take away from judges' discretion, but requires them to specify which punishments are for which crimes in a given case.

Indeed, one of the major shortcomings we found with Bill C-268, which was introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, is that the definition of “exploitation” was too broad. I would like to remind the members of the wording of that bill:

Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence...

I took the time to read the entire clause, but the most important word is “or” because it indicates that any one of these acts is a crime. It does not say “recruits, transports, and transfers, and receives, and holds, and conceals”. It could be any of those.

The word “harbours” is in there. We know that organized crime is often behind such exploitation, and they have groups of prostitutes. The girls are taken quite young and are sometimes taken from a foreign country. Consider a girl who starts at the age of 17 and a half. After eight months, when she is 18 and has an apartment, she is told that another girl will arrive the following day and they ask her to take this new girl in until she can find her own place. Or maybe they ask if she can stay there and the two could become friends. So the girl who is 18 years and 2 months old is harbouring the girl who is 17 years and 6 months old for the purpose of exploitation and for the organization. Does that warrant a five-year prison term? No judge would want to hand down that sentence. In all the cases the member who introduced this bill was worried about, I am sure that the judges would have given a five-year sentence, but there are clearly exceptions to be made.

There is another issue. It is clear that each of these acts—recruiting, transporting, transferring—must be for the purpose of exploiting a person. But what is exploitation? It is defined in the act, a bit further down:

...a person exploits another person if they

a) cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

In short, I would say that that is a form of intimidation.

But this is a matter of providing labour. For how long? Sometimes, when I go into a convenience store, I get the impression that some young people are very young. How did they come to be working at 11 p.m. when they are only 15 or 16 years old? Did someone make them feel that they should do it? The definition was too broad and that is why, I am sure, it will be declared contrary to the charter.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on private member's Bill C-612, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons). I would like to thank the member for Ahuntsic for this initiative, which seeks to deter people from committing these crimes and to ensure that those who profit from them are punished accordingly. I believe that we all agree that these objectives deserve our support. In fact, thanks to the hard work of the Conservative member for Kildonan—St. Paul, there is now a minimum sentence in the Criminal Code for those found guilty of trafficking in persons under the age of 18, an initiative that was supported by all opposition parties except the Bloc. It is a shame for this party and a sad day for Quebec's children.

Although we support the good intentions of the bill, I believe that, in its current form, it could prevent the desired objectives from being attained. I will spend my time pointing out some of the problems with the bill, but I will do so in a constructive manner and in the hope of making it as sound and effective as possible. In my opinion, changes need to be made to fill in the gaps in current criminal law and provide sufficient legal clarification so that such changes are useful to police and prosecutors. In the end, it would allow the member to attain her objectives of deterring and punishing this crime.

Human trafficking is a problem that comes up often. It garners a lot of attention from the public, media, police and legislators across the country and around the world. I believe that this interest stems from the fundamental human concern we have for one another and from the fact that we all recognize that no one should be treated as merchandise that can be bought and sold for profit. It is a form of modern slavery. Despite the attention that this crime garners, we are only just starting to comprehend the nature and scope of this crime in Canada and abroad. We do know, however, that women and children are disproportionately victimized by this crime.

According to the United Nations, in 2009, 66% and 13% of the victims were women and girls, respectively, compared with 12% for men and 9% for boys. The United Nations estimates that more than 700,000 people are victims of human trafficking every year. And this crime is clearly very profitable. The United Nations estimates that this crime nets nearly $32 billion each year for the offenders.

Police investigations and prosecutions in Canada provide us with useful, albeit incomplete, information about human trafficking. These cases have demonstrated that the majority of victims were trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. But there are also cases of trafficking for forced labour. Most of the victims were women and the majority of these human trafficking cases took place here in Canada.

In December 2010, RCMP statistics showed that there were at least 36 cases involving human trafficking before our courts. That is an encouraging number because it shows that the criminal justice system is becoming more comfortable with the relatively new offences involving human trafficking.

In light of this, we must ensure that we do not inadvertently make our laws less effective. I am concerned that certain proposals that have been put forth could do just that. And in that context, I would like to speak to the content of this bill.

First, it would grant the extraterritorial power to bring legal action in Canada against Canadians or permanent residents who commit offences related to adult trafficking abroad. This seems logical to me and I know that extending jurisdiction in this matter is encouraged under the relevant international law. In fact, other countries have taken measures in this regard, including the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Australia.

I believe—and I am asking members to think about this—that this type of amendment should have been extended to offences involving the trafficking of children, which fall under section 279.011 of the Criminal Code. This offence was enacted last year further to private member's Bill C-268, which was introduced and sponsored by the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul. The addition of a human trafficking offence involving both adults and children would allow us to ensure that Canadian laws and, of course, this bill, are consistent, as well as to take legal action no matter what the age of the victim.

I also support the bill's proposal to the effect that human trafficking offences should result in the reversal of the onus of proof in cases related to proceeds of crime. The existing regime limits this possibility to serious offences involving organized crime and other serious drug offences that are directly related to organized crime. We know that members of organized crime groups also participate in human trafficking. This amendment would target financial incentives and make this type of crime less appealing to criminal organizations.

This bill also proposes a “presumption” that appears to be an attempt to make prosecution easier. In cases involving adults, this presumption would require the court to find that the accused is exploiting a victim if he lives with a person who is exploited or is habitually in the company of or harbours a person who is exploited.

Presumptions help prosecutors prove an element of the offence by establishing a fact. However, as it is written, I do not think that the presumption achieves its goal. That said, I think that the goal could be achieved if the proposal could be amended to ensure that it produces the desired results and that it is compatible with the existing presumptions in the Criminal Code. I urge hon. members to think about the need to make such amendments to the bill.

Furthermore, I am concerned about a number of amendments this bill proposes to section 212 of the Criminal Code, which is commonly known as the procuring provision. Two amendments are proposed. The first would require that individuals found guilty of this offence must serve their sentences consecutively to any other punishment they have received. The second would apply reverse onus to this offence in cases related to the proceeds of crime.

As the House surely knows, our government is currently defending the constitutional validity of certain provisions regarding prostitution. Therefore, I think it would be ill-advised to make more amendments to these provisions before a ruling is made.

I would like to tell the member that I am absolutely willing to work with her to strengthen this bill in order to hold traffickers responsible for their horrendous crimes.

However, I am outraged that the Bloc has introduced this bill, since it knows that it wants to defeat the government. This is a case of opportunism. That party is trying to pretend that it defends victims, when all it does is defend the rights of criminals.

[Brian Rushfeldt]

All right.

I've given the clerk for translation two documents supporting the idea, including the CIRCAMP paper. I also included for your study, which you will receive at some point if you choose, a paper written by INHOPE, which is a European body similar to Cybertip in Canada. I encourage you to look at the first three pages of that report, which deal with the naming, description, and definition of child sex abuse materials.

In Canada, the federal ombudsman just a year ago released a report called Every Image, Every Child, which I hope you will take advantage of, because it is Canadian and it's current. In that 50-page report, the number one recommendation was to change the terminology in the Criminal Code from “child pornography”. Unfortunately, Bill C-54 neglects the issue. And there's no doubt in my mind that this bill actually is probably a bill that really should deal with that particular one, because it does deal with some of the other things from section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

I now want to address what we consider another problem with Bill C-54, in that it fails to address at all the most grievous of crimes under section 163.1, and that is the making of child pornography. The minimum sentence now in section 163.1 and the subsections for making child pornography, which are in force, are a mere one year on an indictable offence and an appalling 90 days for raping, abusing a child, making pornography, or making sex abuse images if it's a summary conviction.

Recently this committee, the House, and the Senate recognized the need to act with respect to the trafficking problem of under-age persons. As you know, Bill C-268 has passed, with a five-year mandatory sentence for those who traffic minors. I think if we can agree that trafficking of a minor is an outrageous crime that requires five years, then it's disturbing to me that we would think or allow the potential of a 90-day sentence for someone who sexually assaults, rapes, or abuses a child to produce these vile materials.

Failing to address the “making” section of 163.1 is a major injustice, I believe, to Canadians and certainly to the victims. It's known that when perpetrators are brought to justice, if justice is applied, it can often bring healing to the victims. Unfortunately, with the kind of sentence we currently have, and in fact I think even the ones suggested in Bill C-54, I don't think justice is being served well in Canada under those terms.

If we compare Canadian sentences to some other countries', it's not much wonder that the RCMP say that Canada has become a destination for pedophiles. In the United States those convicted of producing—producing—child pornography are given a mandatory sentence of 15 years, with a maximum of 30. For possession of child pornography, the minimum is five years, with a maximum of 20. Compare that to the 14-day minimum sentence in Canada for possession. I hope in your study of this bill you'll look at whether in fact judges in our country have ever imposed maximum sentences for child sex crimes under section 163.

My third point relates to the mandatory sentencing that is dealt with in Bill C-54 regarding the two subsections of 163.1 on possession and distribution. There are many examples that I could quote to you of unjust sentences in Canada, particularly when it comes to possession and distribution, where criminals have received as little as 14 days, sometimes slightly longer sentences, often to be served on weekends, or other meaningless conditions.

Some statistical research reports say that as much as 85% of people who possess and view pornography will at some point sexually assault a minor. Another report suggests it is 40%. If we use that lower figure of 40%, we still place an unacceptably large number of children at risk. While our current maximums are comparable to places like Australia and the U.K., our minimums remain shamefully weak.

While we appreciate the strengthening of the sentences in Bill C-54 and the addition of some of the new clauses, our major concern is that the mandatory minimum portions are still fairly weak. We don't believe that is going to provide appropriate safety for children.

Bill C-54 also doesn't really increase the minimum sentence for distribution. The current minimum is one year, and it will continue to be one year on the distribution issue.

Clearly, there must be changes made to Bill C-54 to accomplish meaningful protection and true justice for these defenceless children. We do, however, recognize that this is a great start, and I want to commend the government for bringing this forward. I believe this is the first amendment in a number of years to this section of the Criminal Code. I believe the Criminal Code is far behind the technology.

I'd like to close by saying that our first recommendation is to consider better terminology in the Criminal Code--something rather than “child pornography”. We might suggest “child sex abuse materials”, as has been made and suggested in some other districts around the world.

The second recommendation is to legislate mandatory sentences. We would like to see a three-year mandatory sentence for accessing or possession, a five-year sentence for distribution, and seven to ten years for those criminals who make child sex materials. The making of this stuff is similar and analogous to the concept we use in first-degree murder. These are deliberate, planned, and executed acts against children. They don't happen by chance. What these people are doing is very deliberate.

We believe that incarceration is critical. I know there are people--possibly in this room--who don't agree with mandatory sentences. But in all the discussions I've had with people across Canada, no one has suggested any better method than incarceration for people who commit these crimes. We simply cannot protect children as long as these people are out wandering the streets in our communities.

It has become clear in our assessment of a whole number of Canadian cases that sentences are failing to protect children from sex criminals. So I appeal to you as the lawmakers to take the actions necessary to ensure that the removal of predators from society is for a period appropriate to the crime committed.

I would add, as a former social worker who did some work in some areas of addictions, etc., that a 90-day sentence is not long enough to do remedial training and help a child sex offender. You cannot treat that individual properly in 90 days.

I speak on behalf of the 84,500 Canadians who in the last four months have signed a petition that the House will be receiving within the next couple of weeks. All of those people are pleading with you as lawmakers to act decisively and expeditiously to correct the part of the Criminal Code that's outdated and inadequate, due to Internet technology and the crisis of escalating sex crimes against children in Canada and around the world.

We ask that you do this expeditiously, as I just heard in the House in question period some rumblings again about an election. I hope this bill can get back to the House and put through before an election, because I think our children are clearly more important--and important enough. I know you passed the pardon bill for the Homolka case within two days, so surely within two to five weeks something like this is capable of getting through the House. I ask that all parties work together on that.

Thank you for receiving our comments, the brief we presented, and the reference documents.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

In any event, I am confused. With regard to Ms. Bonsant, I don't know her specific record, but I do know what the record is with respect to Bill S-6, Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, where currently murderers can apply for parole every two years after they serve 15 years, which means families have to continuously go through that to testify before parole boards, relive those kinds of horrific crimes and relive the grief they've suffered. Victim groups have been asking for years for that faint hope clause to be repealed. Bill S-6 would have repealed the faint hope clause and ensured criminals convicted of murder could no longer apply for that early parole and have that revisited every year to the grief of those families.

Bill C-16, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act, formerly Bill C-42, would also have ended house arrest for serious crimes such as luring a child, arson, and aggravated assault. This would obviously also impact victims and those that have crimes perpetrated on them.

Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, or formerly, Bill C-15, introduced minimum sentences for serious drug offences.

Bill C-268, which was the minimum sentence for human traffickers, was introduced by my colleague, Joy Smith, the Conservative member from Manitoba. It would have introduced stricter penalties for people who participate in human trafficking of children.

The Bloc Québécois voted against all of those, every one of those.

Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham for his question and for the work he has done for immigration in this country. I want him to know I am proud that he is part of our government, which wants to pass a bill to put an end to illegal immigration and to attack the root of the child trafficking problem.

Unfortunately, it is a problem that we have already dealt with here in the House. It is not surprising to see that the Bloc is opposing human smuggling today, because they voted against Bill C-268, to impose minimum sentences for criminals found guilty of human trafficking. We get the picture. I think it is deplorable that the Quebec MPs are opposing measures that Quebeckers want. These measures are wanted because we have one of the most generous immigration systems in the world. They are currently in the process of creating a two-tier system: one system for illegal immigrants and another system for people who wait their turn. Our message is that there is only one way to enter the country and that is through an honest and transparent process. That is what this bill aims to achieve.

Human Trafficking

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, before Parliament adjourned for the summer, my private member's bill, Bill C-268, was adopted by the Senate and given royal assent. This bill created a brand new offence of trafficking a minor and carried stiff penalties.

Today I am pleased to announce to this House that this new offence has been applied for the first time in Canada. This past week, a man from Milton, Ontario was charged with trafficking a minor. After kidnapping and gang-raping a young 17-year-old girl, the trafficker viciously forced her into prostitution.

I want to commend the police officers who worked hard to bring this case forward. I also want to thank members on all sides of this House who supported Bill C-268. The bipartisan efforts that led to the success of this legislation must not fade. Human trafficking is a heinous crime and it will take a unified effort here in Parliament to eliminate the modern-day slavery that now exists across our nation.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I also have hundreds of names on a petition to stop human trafficking, to support Bill C-268 and to get it passed as quickly as possible.

Victims of Crime

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, an opportunity to remember that every victim counts.

Our Conservative government has always made it a top priority to protect law-abiding Quebeckers and Canadians. We created the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims Of Crime, we passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, we introduced a bill to get tough on violent and repeat young offenders and, as announced in the Speech from the Throne, we will introduce more bills to strengthen victims' rights.

That being said, I would be remiss if I did not mention a sad anniversary. Nearly a year ago, the Bloc Québécois voted against Bill C-268, a bill to end trafficking in children. That was completely unacceptable.

Despite the Bloc's opposition to our justice and crime initiatives, our government is making sure that victims' rights take precedence over those of criminals.

Trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years)

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have with me 1,500 signatures or more regarding my Bill C-268. People are encouraging the bill to become a law very soon. Many people are waiting for it so they have sent those petitions in.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as Canada celebrated International Women's Day yesterday and we are currently in the middle of International Women's Week, I believe it is important to reflect on the impact that this budget and our previous budgets have had on women.

This year, Canada's theme for International Women's Day is “Strong Women. Strong Canada. Strong World.” It reflects our government's firm belief that increasing women's participation and access to leadership roles and opportunities will help women and girls reach their full potential and help build a more prosperous Canada.

Canadian women have made enormous strides and the current government has the highest percentage of women in cabinet in Canadian history. The House of Commons currently has 67 women in it.

A strong economy that benefits all Canadians remains our government's top priority. Our objectives are to fully implement the economic action plan, balance the budget once the economy has recovered, and build Canada's economy for the future. Our economic and social programs are helping hundreds of thousands of women at every income level to take action to increase their security and improve their lives.

For example, since 2006-07, a total of 396 projects have been approved by the Government of Canada through Status of Women Canada. Our federal government is investing over $19 billion in 2009-10 in supports for children and their families. This includes approximately $5.9 billion for early childhood development and child care. Since 2006, the federal government's universal child care plan provides choice in child care to all parents of young children, whether they work in the paid labour force or care for their children at home.

This plan has two components. First, the universal child care benefit offsets the cost of whatever form of child care parents choose, providing families with $100 per month for each child under six. Second, there is $250 million in new transfers for provinces and territories to support the creation of child care spaces in addition to other transfers for early childhood development and early learning and child care.

In all, federal transfers in support of families with children total over $1.13 billion this year. When we talk about this budget and about the track record that our government has had, especially for women and children in this country, it is of paramount importance. This budget speech will centre around what our government has done, especially for women. It will also talk about some of the opportunities that my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul has had to improve its community centres and infrastructure.

As far as the economic benefits of women are concerned, employment insurance has several features that benefit women, including extending parental benefits to 35 weeks and allowing recipients to work. Self-employed women now have greater access to business financing and a full range of supports to launch and expand their businesses.

Women are now one of the business engines in our economy. As I speak, many women are starting their own home businesses. They are engaging in the business world, creating a lot of jobs and stimulating the economy. This is a result of the opportunities that our government has put in place for women to grow their businesses.

The aboriginal human resources development strategy and the aboriginal skills and employment training strategy focus on supporting demand-driven skills development, fostering partnerships with the private sector in the provinces and territories, and emphasizing accountability and results. A lot of women are involved in these strategies.

A variety of federal supports, such as the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit supplement and the child disability benefit, help women combine earning with caring for their children. In addition, the child-rearing provision in the Canada and Quebec pension plans helps increase women's retirement income. These are very important elements. In my riding, many older women are telling me they wished they had these benefits when they were raising their children years ago.

The Fairness for the Self-Employed Act extends special employment insurance benefits like maternity, parental, sickness, and compassionate care to self-employed individuals, a growing number of whom are women doing this on a voluntary basis.

The aboriginal skills and training strategic investment fund supports a number of projects that target aboriginal women, including one to increase women's knowledge of business management, financial management, and small business development. Another project seeks to engage aboriginal women in academic and educational activities.

The working income tax benefit supplements the earnings of low income workers, many of whom are women.

I want to talk about violence against women. As members know, Bill C-268 is currently in the Senate and I am awaiting its passage. Under the federal government, in March 2008 the Government of Canada announced five new shelters to be built in five provinces to address violence against first nations women and children. In the 2007 budget, it included funds to expand the new horizons for seniors program. A portion of that goes to the elder abuse awareness program to foster activities to help reduce the incidence of abuse of older adults. Many older women are recipients of this abuse.

Starting in 2007 our government committed $6 million annually to help prevent human trafficking and online child exploitation. As members know, the horrendous crime of trafficking of children is growing in the country. The government has acknowledged that funds must be put in place to help combat it.

In 2008 Canada also strongly supported the renewal of the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, to collect information, recommend measures to eliminate violence, and remedy its consequences. Under the administration of the Government of Canada, there have been many inroads and steps forward to help support women, children, and the most vulnerable people in society.

In December 2009 Status of Women Canada contributed $1 million to UNiTE to End Violence Against Women. That is a project run by shelter organizations across Canada to facilitate the national exchange of best practices and to design a national network of women's shelters across Canada. This is connecting the dots.

On January 15, 2009, Public Safety Canada, the RCMP, and the Canadian Crime Stoppers Association partnered to develop a national media campaign to raise awareness on human trafficking and to access the crime stoppers' 24/7 anonymous national tip line for reporting suspected cases of human trafficking, which includes the domestic trafficking of women and girls for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

The budget is all about stimulating the economy. In looking at the new budget that was just announced a few days ago, it is continuing that stimulation of the economy. It is supporting women and children, and also our most vulnerable citizens, our elderly. However, it also provides at the community level dollars and cents that are put into programs such as the RInC program. Manitoba infrastructure has been the recipient of that money. In my riding, many centres like the Gateway Community Centre, the Gwen Secter Creative Living Centre, the Garden City Community Centre, and the Red River Community Centre have been recipients of these programs.

In Canada's communities, many children who go into their community rinks and recreation centres have the opportunity to grow, learn sports, be healthy, and stay out of trouble. Families can do this kind of activity together. It is low cost.

In terms of looking at the budget, it is staying the course. It is making Canada a place where people can grow, live, and be able to prosper.

Canada went into the recession late. We are coming out of the global recession. It is a fragile emergence from the global recession. Canada has much to be proud of.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one key measure put forward by a member of this Conservative government to protect women was Bill C-268, a private member's bill introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. The bill would protect women from human trafficking by introducing a mandatory minimum sentence for the trafficking of minors, a disgusting situation that even exists in Canada.

I applaud the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her work and continuous effort on this issue. She is standing up for the most vulnerable in our society and has done a lot to bring the issue of human trafficking to the attention of parliamentarians.

Unfortunately, although Bloc members talk the talk, they do not walk the walk. The member for Laval voted against Bill C-268 and I am sure she had the best intentions. I know the member and I respect her, but I do not know why the member, who speaks so passionately, would stand up against such a bill.

Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation)

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in the House of Commons with parliamentarians from all parties to talk about Bill C-58. In this Parliament probably one of the most important things we are doing is addressing the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, our children.

Bill C-58 would provide a level of certainty for all those who supply an Internet service to the public that they would be held to the same reporting standard with regard to child pornography. We have heard in the House that child pornography is on the increase. The images that are displayed are becoming more and more violent. Our government recognizes the efforts of major Internet service providers in voluntarily reporting this type of material.

However, creating a uniform mandatory reporting requirement with respect to Internet child pornography on all who supply Internet services to the public across Canada will strengthen our ability to protect children from sexual exploitation.

As I have listened to the speeches, there has been a thread throughout and this thread has been that all members feel that this is a horrendous crime against children. Mr. Speaker, you have small children and I know that it must touch your heart because our children are our most precious gift.

The bill would improve the law and improve law enforcement's ability to detect potential child pornography offences and help reduce the availability of online child pornography. It would also facilitate the identification of victims so they may be rescued and help identify and apprehend offenders. This is a very important piece of legislation. We have heard in the speeches that there are 1,400 police reported child pornography incidents of which 440 resulted in charges, and that is not even up to date. There are more today in the year 2009 going into 2010.

Many good people across this nation are watching and putting the lens on what Parliament is doing in terms of protecting our children. Traditionally speaking, Parliament is a place that sometimes can go wonky. Even though a good bill is presented, sometimes it does not get passed. We have a lot of unnamed people making a lot of unnamed speeches that sound good, but in the end the laws sometimes do not get passed.

As we know, after we deal with the laws here in the House of Commons, they then go into the Senate where they must be examined before they can receive passage.

I want to talk about people across the country who have made a big difference and who are watching what our government is doing in terms of child pornography. I am proud that our government also introduced related bills that have supported Bill C-58. So there is a concerted effort with our government to address our most vulnerable citizens and to protect our children.

Our government recently produced three hard-hitting related bills and one is Bill C-46 which was brought forward on June 18. That bill would require Internet service providers to provide police with email and ISP addresses of those viewing child pornography. It also would require ISPs to freeze child pornographic data for 21 days. It also would require cell phone companies to assist police in tracking child porn on cell phones and BlackBerries.

Again, Bill C-47, which was passed on June 18, was a bill that permitted police to obtain information about clients from ISPs and requires companies to acquire the technical ability to allow police to intercept information. Bill C-58 is just another building block on this foundation that helps protect our children.

In my travels over the past decade, I have met many of the people working on this issue of human trafficking and child porn in our country. As a mother of six children and the mother of an RCMP officer who used to be in the integrated child exploitation unit, I have seen first-hand the cost that a lot of these police officer have paid. They sat there and viewed those images. They went out and tried to get the bad guys. I pay honour and respect to all the police officers who have done that.

Many of the projects across the country outside of Parliament Hill have really put pressure on all of us as members of Parliament to stop this horrific crime. When we talk about child porn over the Internet, it brings to mind Mr. Brian McConaghy who was the founding director of the Ratanak Foundation. He is a forensic scientist with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and has served with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 22 years. He worked tirelessly to help build the case against Donald Baker. For 19 of those 22 years, he performed his duties with the RCMP while setting up and running this foundation. After that, he continued on.

I was talking to Mr. McConaghy yesterday. He and I work on different things.

When we are talking about the Olympics, human trafficking or child porn, they are all connected. What makes these police officers and front line workers who work with the victims of Internet child porn so special is their heart.

The Baker file has been forgotten in some cases but other files keep coming up. They come and go. They are horrendous and yet they are forgotten. I know everybody remembers the Willie Pickton file in B.C., which was a horrendous case that hit the front pages. The RCMP officers and the police vice officers who were working on Internet child porn and on these cases were deeply touched by the victims of this crime.

When we have people watching these images on the Internet and when they go across the ocean and act on those images and fantasies, they come back and continue that appetite for acting on the fantasies because they have allowed themselves to go into that dark place that human beings often have with child pornography.

We talk about the front line officers and we talk about the victims but I want to talk about one victim just to impact our Parliament today so that we understand.

Serena Abbotsway was killed by Willie Pickton. She was a kind young girl who was on the streets helping young people who were victims of human trafficking and child pornography. She underwent many beatings in trying to rescue people because she herself was a street person.

Mr. McConaghy is off to Cambodia right now but when I was talking to him the day before yesterday, he was telling me, as a forensic scientist, how he became attached not only to the cases but also attached to the victims.

He told me what it felt like to look at the skull of Ms. Serena Abbotsway and to look at the picture he had of her. She was baptized at a church on the east side. She worked on the streets and was involved in all kinds of different things. There, before him, was her remains.

He treated her remains with respect as he went through her particular case. When he finished doing his forensic science work, he put her skull away and said goodbye to her. He told her that he would never forget her and that he would do the best he could to ensure that other victims were not hurt.

We can talk about people like Matt Logan. In Parliament the public needs to know about these unsung heroes who work so hard every day. Matt Logan is a recently retired RCMP officer. He has penetrated the psyches of countless psychopaths, pedophiles and hostage-takers. He has spent time in the jail system assessing predatory sex offenders. He is one of only seventeen people in North America who are both police officers and qualified psychologists, and one of even fewer who specialize in the criminal mind.

The member opposite mentioned the toll it took on the police officers. I know many police officers who have taken that toll because of their work. Matt Logan knows an awful lot about pedophiles and about their minds. He knows how to get into those minds and how to rescue the victims.

Staff Sergeant Logan has done so much to bring this issue to the forefront on our national scene. He said that he had a hard time believing that, given an opportunity, the child predators, when after watching victims, would not act on their fantasies. He said, “Child pornography exists primarily for the consumption of predatory child molesters”.

It is the beginning of something that can grow. Logan, who is a criminal psychologist in the RCMP's behavioural science group, has done extensive work with sex offenders. He has been called on more and more to consult on child exploitation cases.

RCMP Matt Logan describes two types of child molesters, the situational and the preferential. He says that most molesters fit into the situational category. He says that means most are male and are indiscriminate with victims, committing sexual assault based on accessibility to a victim. If they have a pornography collection, child porn is usually a small portion of it. He says that the preferential child molester can be of any age, driven by fantasies centred on a specific age, gender or even the look of a child. Most gravitate to prepubescent. Is that not shocking?

RCMP Logan said that although he had worked with some whose fetish was newborns, preferential child molesters also had a long-term pattern of behaviour and almost certainly collect child porn. He says, “The images and erotic stories fuel the fantasies that “drive the bus” to hunting and molesting a child”. This is a statement from a seasoned 22-year RCMP officer who worked in this area.

Bill C-58 is extremely important.

Talking about close to home, my son is an RCMP officer and is in the ICE unit. On his days off, he goes all over the country, talking to associations and groups about how to protect their children against child molesters. In fact, next Friday night he and I will do a joint presentation at one of those locations.

There are other people, like Lianna McDonald, who is the head of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. She does so much to try to get the cybertip lines up and running. She works hand-in-hand with Beyond Borders, with Roz Prober.

For the first time, businesses across the country are putting money toward organizations that are fighting child trafficking and child porn. One of those organizations is The Body Shop. It has recently launched a huge initiative about hand cream. My Christmas baskets are going to be filled with its hand cream because of its support for the protection of child victims from human trafficking and from child porn.

I want to talk about Paul Gillespie. Paul Gillespie was on the streets protecting children, victims of child abuse. He worked on the ground with many of these young women. I have met some of the young women whom he has rescued. Now he is with KINSA, the Kids Internet Safety Alliance. He works with Canadian law enforcement and other partners to deliver training and build capacity among the police of developing nations to help them find and rescue victims of child abuse, whose images are shared on the Internet. Once rescued, he helps the victims and their families receive support to help them heal through the Mothers Online Movement, MOM. It is a powerful community network. These are the unsung heroes who are listening today to what is going on in Parliament.

Paul Gillespie, a former police officer, built and led the child exploitation section of the Toronto Police Service Sex Crimes Unit. He has become widely known as a world leader on this issue. I consider him a very good friend of mine and someone who is one of those unsung heroes. He has never been brought to the forefront for his work. Today I want to do that and to thank him.

Then we have the small groups that are springing up all over our nation, those groups that do not receive any money from anyone, but they find out about human trafficking and child porn. They go out and educate people. I have always said that education is our greatest tool.

We can talk about Naomi Baker from Canada Fights Human Trafficking. She has brought so many people together and educated many of them on how to protect their children.

We can talk about Natasha Falle. She is my hero because she was a victim of trafficking and was the daughter of a cop. She is off the streets now. She has helped so many people. She now runs Youth Unlimited. We will never find a more articulate, more beautiful, more grounded person than Natasha Falle. She is the poster girl for getting programs in place that will protect and help these victims because they can be rehabilitated.

We can talk about the beautiful Temple Committee Against Human Trafficking in Montreal, started by Rabbi Lerner.

Many people are working so hard to ensure that this horrendous crime is suppressed. Even today in the other chamber, Bill C-268 is awaiting the passage by the Senate. We look forward to all senators supporting that bill.

Over and over we hear in Parliament that this issue has to be a non-partisan one. When it comes to the protection of our children, parliamentarians have to work together. It is so important.

The Olympics are coming upon us in a very short time. I happen to know the bad guys now are getting all the girls together. I know some towns from where they have taken some of these girls.

We cannot sit and wait. This is Canada's hidden secret. This is one of our darkest spots in history when child sex slavery is allowed and when child porn has become something of a joke to some of the people in our country. We have to take this seriously. We have to speak out. As parliamentarians, we cannot afford the luxury of in house bickering. We can only afford the luxury of the privilege of putting laws forward that will protect our most vulnerable victims.

Criminal Code

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Yes, long years in prison, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières has said.

It may seem odd but we have to be careful when drafting a bill. This morning, I asked my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin if he thought that the government was in a little too much of a hurry to pass its bills and everything to do with its law and order legislative agenda. In fact, it seems that they want to move quickly, that they want to ram it down our throats so that citizens will think that it is the kind of good government that defends the widows and orphans. That kind of government does not necessarily advertise the replacement of doorknobs, as occurred recently. They spent $100,000 to announce that some doorknobs were going to be replaced. I have serious doubts about the pertinence of certain aspects of this bill.

I have serious doubts and at the same time, out of concern for those people we must protect, we must ensure that the bills put forward will truly meet the needs of our citizens and our society.

To that end, we truly need a government that works with the provinces and territories to ensure that we have all the structures required to implement the bill. If we do not have enough police officers or enough supports in place to implement this bill, we will not be able to thwart those who have been engaging in fraud for a very long time and who will continue to do so.

My colleague talked about a person who went away on vacation and returned home to find someone else living in his house. That could happen to anyone. We have to recognize that in our society, fraudsters are the most obvious bad guys, but they are not the only bad guys on the list. Other individuals help carry out these crimes. There have been corrupt notaries, corrupt lawyers, and less-than-honest bank and financial institution employees. We have to understand that perpetrating fraud can involve several people.

We saw that with Vincent Lacroix and Norbourg. The bank he was dealing with gave him tips for committing fraud. That is not right. Individuals who should be trustworthy betrayed the trust of people who placed their money in such institutions. The important thing is for the government to work with the provinces, but I have my doubts.

As my colleague from Shefford pointed out, this government is not interested in working with any of the provinces on a long-term basis on issues that really matter. It claims to be open, to want to work with the provinces, but when real things happen, when real situations arise, they ignore the National Assembly of Quebec's unanimous—that being the operative word—decisions. We have seen this happen with Kyoto, with the securities commission, and now. The government is willing to go to the Supreme Court to make sure that it can implement something that nobody other than the federal government and Ontario want because they are the only ones who would benefit.

We have to be wary of this government. I say that because I know that someone tried to impersonate me in my riding, to impersonate my office by sending my fellow citizens various brochures. I did not send these items, which were about the Conservatives' so-called recovery plan, their so-called Bill C-268. They accused Bloc members in general and me in particular of speaking against children and for molesters and abusers. That too is fraud. That too is taking advantage of people's weakness, taking advantage of elderly people who are isolated. That is playing on people's fears. It is not honest, and it is not right.

Having seen such false advertising, who can blame us for doubting the government's good faith when it says that it wants to pass its law and order legislative agenda to help victims of crime? If the government wants to help these people, it should do something about the 500 First Nations women who were murdered and raped. Nothing was done for them, nobody looked for any answers, nobody tried to figure out why it happened or find the people who did it. If the government really wants to help victims of crime, it should act on the information we already have, in areas under its jurisdiction that it has the power to do something about.

It should not try to intervene in areas that are not under its jurisdiction.

I will close by saying that we will vote for this bill because we truly believe that white-collar criminals should be punished and put in jail.

I would remind my colleagues that such criminals should be very glad we voted against minimum prison sentences, because as of now, those sentences would have applied to them.

Human Trafficking

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has seen some strange sights but it has been a long time since it has seen anything as strange as our vote Wednesday evening.

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul has committed herself to dealing with the issue of human trafficking, especially the repulsive practice of enslaving and trafficking children. She brought forward Bill C-268, a bill that deals directly with trafficking by strengthening the penalties for involvement in this parasitic activity. It touches upon issues of recruiting, kidnapping, controlling, assault, transporting and harbouring involved in the exploitation of children.

Amazingly, the Bloc and some NDPers voted against this bill. For some people, ideology always overrides common sense.

Thankfully, Bill C-268 has passed third reading in the House of Commons. I call upon the Senate to deal with it expeditiously. The children of our country need it to become law as soon as possible. The Senate should do the right thing and do it now.

Bloc Québécois

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Montreal last Sunday, many people, including Conservative Party members from Quebec and Manitoba, took part in a march to stop the trafficking of children. Who stood out, by their absence? The members of the Bloc Québécois. Not one of its 49 members attended to support the cause of children who are victimized, not even the members from Montreal.

Since the introduction of Bill C-268 against human trafficking, the Bloc members have systematically sided with the rights of criminals. Their party leader says over and over again that he only votes in the interest of Quebec. Imagine that. They continued to vote against this bill. So, for the Bloc, voting in favour of Bill C-268 is not in the interest of Quebec, and even less in the interest of Quebec's children, who are the future of our nation.

By choosing to vote for the rights of criminals instead of showing compassion for children who are the victims of human trafficking, the Bloc leader and his members are clearly showing where their priorities lie.

The House resumed from September 29 consideration of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Human Trafficking

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, I would like to present petitions from many communities across Canada.

The petitioners call on parliamentarians to support Bill C-268. The bill will be voted on tonight, and Canada's citizens are counting on parliamentarians to support it.

Criminal Code

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Minister of State (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

My colleague the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul in Manitoba is a good friend of mine, someone I have worked very closely with since I became a member of Parliament and who is considered to be an expert in human trafficking. I would like to acknowledge the international award she has received for her work on this issue. I am pleased to support her, and I also want to congratulate her on her efforts.

Bill C-268 is an important bill. It seeks to impose a mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment for trafficking a person under 18 years of age.

The bill addresses the horrific crime of trafficking in persons, a deplorable act. The crime of trafficking in persons involves the recruitment, movement or harbouring of a person by means of deception, coercion or force. It is known as modern-day slavery.

It is estimated that between 700,000 and four million people are trafficked annually worldwide, through sexual exploitation or forced labour. The estimates vary widely because these crimes go unreported and the victims are often unknown.

It is also estimated that the underground market in the trafficking and smuggling of persons represents close to $7 billion U.S. per year globally, quickly rivalling the extensive trade in illegal drugs and firearms as a source of profit for organized crime.

Those involved in the adult sex trade are often among the most vulnerable members of our society. Their involvement in sex work often puts them at an increased risk for harm and abuse.

This government remains deeply committed to combating the exploitation of women and girls.

Addressing such harm requires the enforcement of existing criminal laws as well as a range of non-legislative responses, including prevention and other support initiatives.

Our government has been working diligently through its overall anti-trafficking strategy, guided by the three P's that were mentioned by my colleague earlier: preventing trafficking, protecting victims, and prosecuting offenders.

Our government is committed to combating violence against women and girls. We are committed to helping the most vulnerable. As Minister of State for the Status of Women, I can confirm that our government, through Status of Women Canada, is funding grassroots organizations across the country that are working to address trafficking. We believe they are best equipped to help the most vulnerable.

One of those organizations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, has a project called prevent human trafficking: stop the sexual exploitation of first nations women and children. This initiative will develop partnership networks as well as other measures to prevent and protect women and youth from sexual exploitation and trafficking. Aboriginal women and youth are among the most vulnerable members in our society today.

We are also proud of the work we are doing with Sisters in Spirit. This initiative is spearheaded by NWAC, the Native Women's Association of Canada. I want to take a moment to congratulate the new president Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell. I look forward to working with her. I also want to acknowledge the incredible work of Bev Jacobs, and the families and victims for the stories they have told. The program is a research project to ensure there is more public awareness of the aboriginal women we have lost. I want to commend them for their courage in their work to give the lost spirits a voice.

I mentioned briefly the grassroots organizations that we are supporting.

Our government has made some significant changes to Status of Women Canada. We have increased the funding available to grassroots organizations across the country by 41%. With that, we have seen an increase in the number of organizations that are receiving support and funds to deliver their projects to the most vulnerable women across the country. The benefits from these changes to date have impacted 100,000 women directly and one million women indirectly.

Over the past year I have been meeting with many Canadians, particularly women, from coast to coast to coast, to engage in discussions about violence against women. I have met with thousands of Canadians, and they have indicated the need to address this very serious issue of human trafficking as well as the need to ensure that women have a safe place of refuge, such as shelters.

That is why our government was proud to support the first ever World Conference of Women's Shelters. I was pleased to bring the organizations together toward establishing an international network of shelters, so that Canada can continue to lead, so that we can transfer knowledge and share best practices.

Human trafficking in women and girls occurs, we know, both domestically and internationally, and our government is tackling the issue on both fronts. I had the honour of leading the Canadian delegation to the annual meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women to reiterate our government's commitment to end this practice, along with other gender-based crimes.

In November 2005 this government introduced reforms to Canada's Criminal Code that created three indictable offences related to human trafficking. The Criminal Code reforms were the first deliverables through this government's anti-trafficking strategy. As a result, Canada's Criminal Code is strengthened and now includes three human trafficking-related offences: one, the actual act of trafficking; two, receiving material benefit from trafficking; and three, the withholding or destroying of identity or immigration documents. There is also a trafficking offence under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which was introduced by our government.

In helping to increase the application of new legislative tools, training on the laws and issues surrounding human trafficking is currently being delivered to law enforcement, border and immigration officials across Canada. This program includes a strong focus on victims' issues. Federal efforts are coordinated by the Interdepartmental Working Group on Trafficking in Persons, which brings together 17 departments and agencies, including my agency, Status of Women Canada. The RCMP and federal partners, including my agency, have held training workshops across Canada for law enforcement officials on human trafficking.

In 2007 this government introduced legislation that allows Citizenship and Immigration Canada officers to issue temporary resident permits of up to 180 days to victims of human trafficking. Recipients are also eligible to apply for a fee-exempt work permit.

The parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which I have had the pleasure of sitting on and participating in since I became an elected member, has tabled two motions calling on the government to prevent trafficking at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Federal, provincial and municipal officials are collaborating on a strategy. We have also engaged in initiatives to combat trafficking in persons, including national law enforcement training and providing funding to groups with survivors and victims as their focus.

Our government also focuses on raising awareness, which is a key element in curbing demand for trafficked persons. These awareness-raising measures include the creation of a website on trafficking in persons. It is accessed through the Department of Justice website. Posters and information pamphlets are available in 14 different languages, which have been developed and distributed widely within Canada and throughout Canadian embassies abroad to help prevent human trafficking.

Federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women have also agreed to identify best practices to respond to this crime.

Our government has a strong record on supporting women, particularly those who are victims of criminal activity, and Bill C-268 further demonstrates this commitment.

Clearly, if hon. members of the House embrace the values of justice, human rights and compassion, they should and will support this legislation, particularly if they care about the situation of women and children in Canada and around the world who are subjected to the crime of trafficking.

I look forward to this bill receiving support from the opposition in the House. I will close by congratulating my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, on the incredible work she has done and for her leadership on this issue.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). It provides for a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years for offences involving the trafficking of children.

I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for proposing this legislation and her tireless effort to address this very important issue.

This bill is of personal interest to me because as a new father, I see the world through the eyes of my 23-month-old girl, Nanki Kaur Bains. I want to ensure that she or any other child is never victimized by the horrors of human trafficking. The trafficking of minors is an issue that, by its very definition, crosses borders and this is something all Canadians can support regardless of their political affiliation.

To many Canadians, human trafficking seems like an issue from another age. Just over 200 years ago Canada and its Commonwealth partners led the western world by banning the slave trade throughout the British Empire and actively used the power of the Royal Navy to prevent other countries, including the United States, from engaging in this despicable practice.

Slavery itself was banned in 1833 and Canada became a beacon of hope for tens of thousands of slaves escaping the American south, but slavery was not relegated to history. It may no longer be practised openly and certainly has no official sanction, but for the victims of human trafficking it is still painfully very real.

The International Labour Organization, an agency of the United Nations, estimates that presently there are 12.3 million adults and children in forced labour, bonded labour and commercial sexual servitude. Think about that. Every day a population the size of Ontario labours as modern-day slaves. The United Nations estimates that the numbers grow each year, with 700,000 people trafficked annually.

Many of those trafficked are children who are very helpless by their nature and are unable to do anything about it. Yet, many Canadians think that this is a problem that does not pertain to us or reach our shores, something the government should address through our foreign policy and international development efforts. However, human trafficking is a Canadian problem, as well as a global problem.

The U.S. state department, in a report from June of this year, refers to Canada as “a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor”. This is a wake-up call. Many of these people come from Asia and Eastern Europe but victims also come from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

More disturbingly, the report says, “Canadian women and girls, many of whom are aboriginal, are trafficked internally for commercial sexual exploitation”. For example, there was a case of a man from Victoria who allegedly lured a 14-year-old girl from the B.C. interior and then forced her into prostitution and beat her.

Last year in Montreal, another man trafficked a 17-year-old and procured three others for the purposes of prostitution. Even in my own backyard in Brampton, there was a case of a man convicted of human trafficking and living off the avails of prostitution of a 15-year-old homeless girl who was sold in Toronto. During his trial he revealed that he had made $360,000 by selling two young girls for sex.

Human trafficking exists in our communities. It affects our children. What can we do? How can we help?

Last year a report of the Canada-United States Consultation in Preparation for World Congress III Against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents pointed out inconsistencies with our approach to addressing the trafficking of children.

The report pointed out that “under Canadian law, procuring a child is punished more severely than trafficking a child”. The report went on to recommend that Canada must “amend the Criminal Code to provide a mandatory minimum penalty for child trafficking”. I believe Bill C-268 does just that.

Just like the banning of the slave trade did not completely remove the scourge of slavery, I do not expect that this bill alone will tackle the problem. It is an important first step, but there is much more that can be and should be done.

One of the major concerns is the issue of victims' rights compared to the larger struggle against the traffickers. Recognizing trafficked persons as victims of crime rather than as criminals themselves is important if we are to uncover trafficking networks and bring perpetrators to justice. This has been difficult because traditionally trafficked persons have been treated as illegal immigrants and are often deported.

A frequently cited gap in a victim protection scheme is the lack of an early identification procedure for victims of trafficking. Currently, there is no formal process for the identification of trafficked persons which is a prerequisite for providing victim protection.

Immigration and law enforcement officials must be given the tools to recognize trafficked persons and to know when trafficking has occurred. How else can we expect these new laws to be meaningfully applied?

Another gap that exists involves the services offered to trafficked persons. These include protection services, shelter, health services, long-term counselling and economic services. The Government of Canada currently does not have a national approach to services for trafficked persons and since many of these services are offered at the provincial level they exist at uneven levels.

What we need is a national strategy to address human trafficking. The government has an opportunity here to use the goodwill in the House to do the right thing and ensure that we address this issue in a coordinated fashion from coast to coast.

Even those who are happy to return home face the lack of support for a safe return. Trafficked persons can face a wide variety of emotional and physical obstacles, ranging from ostracism in the home community, threats from traffickers and a repeat of the same conditions of poverty that led them to leave in the first place.

We need to work with the international community to address these issues and create an organized process to facilitate a safe return and reintegration.

These are not simple issues. They involve legislative and regulatory changes. They involve the co-operation with all levels of government, NGOs and community groups. They involve decisive leadership not just by Canada but by the entire international community.

It is important that we as parliamentarians continue to fight for the victims of trafficking and that we work with all the relevant stakeholders to remove this horribly tragic situation.

William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian who led the movement to abolish the slave trade once said, “Let everyone regulate his conduct...by the golden rule of doing to others as in similar circumstances we would have them do to us, and the path of duty will be clear before him”.

Our path of duty is clear and this bill is another step in the journey toward a world where human trafficking is a distant memory.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of private member's Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

This bill addresses a pressing issue – child trafficking involves the exploitation of society’s most vulnerable – and the bill would ensure a strong criminal justice response to what we must all agree is amongst the vilest of criminal conduct. For this reason, this bill has enjoyed widespread support in this House. For this reason, I add my own voice of support for it.

Might I add that the amendment proposed by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, which would remove the provision for mandatory minimum penalties for trafficking in persons under the age of 18, shows the true colours of the Bloc Québécois' soft approach to serious crime in this country.

Trafficking in persons is often referred to as the modern-day form of slavery. It involves the recruitment, transportation and/or harbouring of people for the purpose of exploitation, typically sexual exploitation or forced labour.

Traffickers control their victims in many ways, but often through force, sexual assault and threats of violence. As a result, victims provide labour and services in circumstances where they believe that their safety or the safety of someone known to them would be threatened if they failed to comply with the demands of their traffickers.

I am sure we all agree that this is a serious issue that warrants attention from all levels of government.

Toward that end, I am pleased that this House again has the opportunity to consider Bill C-268 introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul,which would amend the Criminal Code to impose mandatory minimum penalties for the offence of trafficking in children.

Bill C-268 would create a new separate offence of trafficking of a person under the age of 18 years. This offence would mirror the existing offence of “Trafficking in Persons”, found in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code, that protects all victims, adult and child.

The bill was amended by the justice committee in June. Now Bill C-268 proposes to impose a mandatory minimum penalty of six years for the aggravated branch of the offence of trafficking in children, for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, in addition to the five-year mandatory minimum penalty with a maximum penalty of fourteen years, as originally proposed by the bill.

In my view, this law reform is an important part of our efforts to combat this terrible crime. What do we really know about trafficking in persons, given that it is so often hidden from public view due to its criminal nature? Global estimates show us just how widespread the problem is.

The United Nations estimates that more than 700,000 people are trafficked globally each year. Further, a February 2009 United Nations report states that over 24,000 victims of trafficking were identified by 111 countries in the year 2006, that 79% of these cases involved trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, and that 18% involved trafficking for the purpose of forced labour. However, the actual number of forced labour cases may be even higher, as forced labour is less frequently detected and reported than is trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Also in 2005, the International Labour Organization estimated that at least 2.45 million people across the world are in situations of forced labour as a result of human trafficking. Of these, it is estimated that 32% are trafficked for economic exploitation and 43% are trafficked for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation, with 98% of the latter being women and girls. Finally, UNICEF estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked around the world each year.

These estimates confirm that this crime affects the most vulnerable. We know that trafficking in persons also occurs within Canada. As is the case with all countries, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of human trafficking within Canada. This is so not just because of the clandestine nature of the activity, but also because traffickers may be charged with trafficking in persons and/or other related offences.

In Canada, law enforcement has a tool box of offences that may apply in trafficking cases. As hon. members know, in 2005, three new trafficking-specific Criminal Code offences were enacted. These provisions address all forms of trafficking in persons.

The main offence of trafficking in persons, section 279.01, which provides the model for the new child trafficking offence proposed by Bill C-268, prohibits anyone from engaging in specified acts such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. This offence is punishable by up to life imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the crime and its harmful consequences for victims and Canadian society.

Section 279.02 makes it an offence to receive a financial or material benefit knowing that it results from the trafficking of persons. This offence is punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment.

Section 279.03 prohibits the withholding or destroying of travel or identity documents in order to commit or facilitate the trafficking of persons. This offence is punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment.

These offences supplement existing Criminal Code offences such as kidnapping, forceable confinement, assault and the prostitution-related provisions, which have long been used to address trafficking cases, as well as section 118 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which prohibits cases involving victims who are foreign nationals.

Police and Crown now have the ability to charge the offences that best meet circumstances of a given case. To date there have been five convictions in Canada under the specific offence of trafficking in persons. Many other cases are currently being investigated or are before the courts.

There have also been numerous charges laid and convictions secured in trafficking cases under other related Criminal Code offences. These cases reflect international estimates. The majority of known victims are women and girls who are trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Further, anecdotal information suggests that aboriginal girls are particularly vulnerable to this type of exploitation.

We must continue to be vigilant in ensuring a strong criminal justice response to this global scourge that victimizes the most vulnerable among us. I believe that we are doing just that. The issue of trafficking in persons transcends party lines. I am sure that hon. members remember the all-party support that Bill C-49 received in 2005. It enacted the three Criminal Code trafficking offences that I have already mentioned.

In 2006, the House unanimously supported Motion No. 153, which was also introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. This motion condemned the crime of trafficking in persons and called for a national strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide.

Further, in 2007, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women released its report entitled “Turning Outrage into Action to Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada”. The government's response to this report reiterated the importance of a multidisciplinary response to trafficking in persons. This response is reflected in the international framework established by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplemental protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

Canada continues to use this framework as its overarching model for a comprehensive response to the issue by focusing on the four ps: the prevention of trafficking, the protection of its victims, the prosecution of offenders and the building of partnerships, both domestically and internationally.

I believe we all understand and appreciate the seriousness of the issue, which Bill C-268 addresses. I hope that all honourable members will join me in supporting this important initiative.

The House resumed from September 15 consideration of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Motion in Amendment

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to review the Bloc Québécois' proposed amendment to Bill C-268 put forth by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin yesterday which would delete clause 2 of the bill.

I welcome this opportunity to share my views with hon. members and trust that they will all see as clearly as I do why we must vote against this proposed amendment.

I am both distressed and puzzled by this proposal. I believe that anyone who reads the bill would readily agree that clause 2 is the heart of Bill C-268. It is the very clause that achieves this laudable objective. Without clause 2, there would be no stricter penalties for those who would target children to subject them to some of the worse forms of exploitation.

In short, if we were to support this proposed amendment there would be no mandatory minimum penalties for the offence of trafficking in children, which is the express purpose of the bill.

We have heard about this terrible crime and its effect on victims, how victims who are forced to provide labour or services out of fear for their own safety or the safety of someone known to them. We have heard that trafficking in persons disproportionately affects children. We know that UNICEF's estimates indicate that as many as 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year.

In the face of these horrible facts, why would we not want to strengthen our criminal laws to ensure that those who would abuse children in this way are brought to justice?

As the House knows, my riding in Mississauga in the region of Peel is very close to the Toronto airport. The Toronto airport, being located in the Peel region, experiences every year many children who arrive at the Toronto airport unescorted by adults. The Canadian Border Security Agency often intercepts these children and they are turned over to the Peel children's aid.

I have spoken to Peel children's aid officials and they tell me that many of the children who are sent into their custody may in fact be involved in trafficking. We must do something about this. This is happening on our doorstep, in my home region of Peel.

As we know, clause 2 of Bill C-268 seeks to add a new offence of trafficking in children which would mirror the main trafficking in persons offence in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code. This new offence would carry mandatory minimum penalties of six years for the aggravated offence where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and five years in all other cases where the maximum penalty is fourteen years imprisonment.

The justice committee has already amended clause 2 of the bill to include the six year mandatory minimum penalty for the aggravated offence. The justice committee amendment to clause 2 would ensure that Bill C-268 fulfills its objective of imposing mandatory minimum penalties on anyone who trafficks in children, whether they are convicted of the aggravated offence or the lesser offence. Therefore, to delete the bill completely defeats the objective of the bill.

The committee has considered the five convictions that have been secured under the main trafficking offence, section 279.01, since its enactment in November 2005. Some of these cases involve child victims but sentences range from a mere two to seven years. We need to ensure that traffickers who target children, society's most vulnerable, are held to account and that they pay for their unspeakable crimes. The current law does not adequately do so.

Clause 2 of Bill C-268 would ensure that these traffickers remain behind bars for a longer period of time. This matters. It matters to the victims. They would be assured that their traffickers would no longer be able to abuse them or other children. It matters to all Canadians. They would be assured that other children would not be targeted and that other traffickers would think twice about harming children in Canada.

It makes no sense to support the Bloc Québécois proposed amendment, and not just for the compelling reasons that I have just given, but also because deleting clause 2 would render the remaining clauses in the bill entirely meaningless and even incoherent.

Clauses 1 and 3 to 8 of Bill C-268 propose consequential amendments which refer to the new offence of child trafficking that would be created by clause 2 of the bill. They would ensure that along with the main trafficking in persons offence, section 279.01, the proposed new offence of child trafficking is referenced in the provisions that deal with the interception of communications, exclusion of the public from court, publication bans, DNA sex offender registry and dangerous offenders.

If we were to support this proposed amendment to delete clause 2, we would effectively be voting down the bill in its entirety. It defies all logic to support consequential amendments without supporting the main amendment itself.

The Criminal Code's provisions addressing interception of communications, exclusion of the public from court, publication bans, DNA evidence, sex offender registry and dangerous offenders cannot refer to an offence that does not exist. That would be the incoherent result of supporting the Bloc's proposed amendment. Effectively, what the Bloc is asking us to do is vote down the bill, despite the fact that the bill has already received overwhelming support in the House. We cannot allow this to happen.

As we have heard so many times before from parliamentarians, stakeholders and Canadians themselves, trafficking in persons is a serious issue. We must have a strong criminal justice response. I am very pleased that we do have comprehensive criminal laws attacking trafficking in persons. Three Criminal Code offences were enacted in 2005, as was previously mentioned. The main offence, section 279.01, criminalizes anyone who would traffic in persons and imposes a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the aggravated offence where it involves kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or death to the victim, and 14 years in all other cases.

Section 279.02 criminalizes anyone who would materially benefit from the trafficking of persons and imposes a maximum penalty of 10 years.

Section 279.03 criminalizes anyone who would destroy or withhold identity documents to facilitate the trafficking of persons and imposes a maximum penalty of five years.

In addition to those important offences, section 118 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act also criminalizes cases of trafficking in persons across Canada's borders, and many Criminal Code offences continue to apply to trafficking in persons cases, such as forcible confinement, kidnapping, assault, sexual assault and prostitution provisions.

It is, without a doubt, that law enforcement officers now have a wide variety of tools at their disposal that they can use to fight trafficking of persons in Canada. However, how do we ensure that traffickers get sentences that properly reflect the severity of their crime? I have already pointed to several cases involving convictions under the main trafficking in persons offence, section 279.01, that show that sentences imposed have not always reflected the serious nature of the crime committed.

To achieve this pressing objective, we must vote against the Bloc's proposed amendment to delete clause 2. We must support BillC-268 as amended by the justice committee. We must ensure that those who traffic children feel the full force of the law. We must ensure that mandatory minimum penalties are imposed on those who traffic in children.

For all those reasons, I ask all hon. members to join me in voting down the amendment put forth by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and, most important, I ask all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-268 as amended by the justice committee.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this debate on Bill C-268. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I attended the meetings concerning this bill.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul for the efforts she has dedicated to this bill. I know she cares deeply about this issue and I would like to congratulate her.

It is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-268 and to perhaps, at the risk of lowering the temperature just a bit as fall approaches, outline what the bill does. Under a Liberal government in 2005, my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River was part of a team that brought in the first law with respect to trafficking.

That is found in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code. It makes it an offence for a person to recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal, harbour a person or exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of people for exploitation purposes, which is defined further in the code.

Exploitation, which the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin properly sets out in this debate, is at the heart of what this law is all about. I think we all think we know what exploitation means, but in the end, exploitation is forcing people to do something they do not want to do that is usually for money or of some benefit to the person exploiting the victims and is done, and this is the key part as defined in section 279.04, in circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause the victims to believe their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to do what was asked of them.

That is what exploitation is as defined in the Criminal Code and that is what carries over with this new offence. In other words, the new offence is like a branch placed on the tree of the good Liberal law with respect to trafficking, which specifically says that the same offence, when it is carried out against a person under 18 years of age, is meriting stronger sentencing. That is all this law does. The law says that trafficking is bad, that exploitation, which is the basis of how trafficking occurs, shall be punished. This is already in the code.

However, when it is with a child, our most sacred assets in this community, as every member of Parliament would agree, the sentences will be stronger. As the bill says, the sentences will be a minimum of six years in the presence of evidence of aggravated assault, kidnapping, sexual assault and attempts to cause death during the offence. That means the convicted person will get six years minimum. In any other case, there will be a five-year minimum.

I have the utmost respect for the member of the Bloc and his legal prescience to any debate carried on in the House. He is a former solicitor general of his province and he is the spokesperson in this debate. However, what I really think he is saying is that the Bloc is generally against mandatory minimum sentences and that it does not like this law.

I respect that if that is what Bloc members believe. However, they are coming out at report stage with a motion that says that nowhere in this law as presented is a mention of young people. We have just gone through the fact that people are very much identified by age in the laws proposed. It is there twice. I do not know what is not so obvious about it.

The second thing is to say that exploitation is so nebulous, that it is so difficult to determine what exploitation means and that therefore the harsh sentences of five and six years are out of proportion. I know what he is leading to, that the Supreme Court of Canada or a court in our country may someday read these debates and ask if we turned our minds to the issue of proportionality. The sentence is severe, so is the crime well defined? That is really what the debate on this law is about.

I and the other members on the Liberal side think the crime and section are well defined. We know what it means when a person traffics in children by exploitation. When that occurs, we know that five and six years respectively are adequate and proportionate sentences. As parliamentarians and members of the committee, we have turned our minds to that eventuality. For the member from the Bloc to say that exploitation cannot be properly defined in this instance belies the fact that there have been convictions already under the underlying section passed in 2005.

If he had evidence that the courts brought up the issue of the weakness of the definition of exploitation in section 279.04, he should have brought it forward, because I have seen nothing where judges have complained about the definition of exploitation.

The Liberal Party has always been against human trafficking, especially when it involves children. My colleague Raymond Simard from Saint Boniface gave me a letter from the Missionary Oblate Sisters of St. Boniface. I would like to read the letter, which expresses support for this bill:

We, the Missionary Oblate Sisters of St. Boniface, are committed to fighting the terrible scourge of trafficking in women and children. We wish to condemn anything having to do with human trafficking throughout the world, especially in Canada and right here in Manitoba.

That letter was signed by Sister Cécile Fortier.

Again, there is a letter in support from the Catholic Women's League. The Canadian Religious Conference president, Father Yvon Pomerleau, in February of this year said:

In the global context where systems of oppression threaten the sacredness of all forms of life on our planet, the CRC believes it is imperative that we call on the Canadian government to adopt Bill C-268 in order to actively fight against human trafficking in Canada.

We support that. We want to do what is right. But what is really our job here is to make sure that the law as passed stands up to debate, scrutiny and criticism and is a law that will be used by our courts.

With that in mind, I, too, read the words of Professor Benjamin Perrin of the University of British Columbia law school. He certainly made the case on mandatory minimums. We on the Liberal side have nothing to be ashamed of with respect to mandatory minimums. I was not here, but they were brought in by Liberal governments. Mandatory minimums have been appropriate in certain circumstances. There has been great debate as to the implication, the ongoing onslaught of mandatory minimums everywhere, in the ceiling, in the hall, in the closets of the Conservative legislative agenda, but in this case, it is appropriate. In other cases it has been appropriate.

The lack of convictions thus far with respect to the trafficking offences promulgated in 2005, five convictions under section 279.01 and trafficking convictions up to the spring of 2009, being eight in number, suggest to me that this might have been an area of law that merits a mandatory minimum and a road map to prosecutors and judges to be harsh in these instances of crime.

Certainly my friend from Kildonan—St. Paul has made it very clear the egregious case of Imani Nakpangi making over $360,000 in a two and a half year period by selling the girl notionally called Eve and selling her services is absolutely horrible.

It is appalling.

In closing, we here on this side of the House support Bill C-268.

I think in our remarks and the hard work done by members of the justice committee on this side and the critic, the member for Beauséjour, we have done the due diligence to make sure that the law stands up.

It is one thing to propose a law and it is one thing to get a lot of press for a law, but it is a much better thing as parliamentarians to work together to make sure it stands up, is legal and will stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That is good, Mr. Speaker. I have spent two minutes asking a question of members across and I think it was a good question. Now I will continue to speak at report stage to my private member's bill, Bill C-268.

First I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Abbotsford who kindly agreed to exchange spots in the order of precedence. The member has been a strong advocate of protecting our most vulnerable citizens.

I would like to make it clear that the bill was not introduced to address or solve the complex and clandestine nature of human trafficking. I want to assure members that I certainly believe that Canada can and must do more to combat the trafficking of humans within our borders and abroad.

Since being elected, I have championed a national strategy to combat trafficking in persons. I thoroughly agree that there are many root causes of human trafficking that must be addressed and resolved.

I believe that a legal system that routinely criminalizes victims of trafficking must be changed to restore dignity to the victims. The same legal system that ignores the men and women who provide the demand must also be addressed.

I can go on with many more initiatives, but that is a debate for another day.

This evening we are debating a motion by the Bloc Québécois to gut the heart of Bill C-268, to remove the mandatory minimums that form the intent and scope of the bill.

Bill C-268 was drafted with one clear intention: to create a separate offence for the traffickers of children in Canada and to ensure that the penalties reflect the gravity of the crime. This followed considerable consultation with victims, NGOs, and law enforcement representatives.

The bill would also bring parity between Canada's legislation and that of many other countries.

Dr. Mohamed Mattar, executive director of the protection project at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, points out that many states have specific provisions in their anti-trafficking legislation or criminal codes guaranteeing enhanced penalties in cases of trafficking in persons, including a crime committed against a child victim.

The United States, for example, has a minimum sentence of 15 years for trafficking cases where the victim is under 14 years of age, and a minimum sentence of 10 years where the victim is between 14 and 18 years of age.

The current legislation in the Canadian Criminal Code does not distinguish between age and offers a penalty between 0 and 14 years in most cases, and up to life in other cases. The suggestion that those who traffic minors could face no time in jail is not speculative.

The limited convictions in Canada for the trafficking of minors have more often than not resulted in sentences that are grossly disproportioned to the offence.

Last year, Montreal resident Michael Lennox Mark received a two-year sentence, but with double credit for the year served before his trial, the man who horrifically victimized a 17-year-old Montreal girl over two years walked out of jail a few days after being convicted.

I have spoken previously of Imani Nakpangi, who received a sentence of three years for the offence of trafficking a 15-year-old Ontario girl. After selling her body over and over each day for two years, raking in profits of at least $360,000, Imani Nakpangi was credited 13 months for time served.

There are few other injustices that can compare in severity to the utter devastation caused by the enslavement and auctioning of a human being, especially when this is a child. I am certain that no honourable members would dare contest this statement, yet there are members in the House from the Bloc Québécois who proudly oppose the bill, claiming it is a bad law.

Let us be clear about one thing: the opposition of the Bloc Québécois to mandatory minimums for the trafficking of minors is not only reprehensible, it is unacceptable in our country. To openly oppose serious penalties for those who sell and abuse the bodies of minors does not just suggest approval for this horrific abuse of human rights, it virtually endorses this grave form of exploitation.

Over the summer, the Bloc Québécois member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin first suggested that Bill C-268 is a bad law because it has no minimum sentence for aggravated factors. This concern was addressed at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and a minimum sentence was added for aggravated factors.

Then the Bloc Québécois member went on to argue that it was a bad law because it contained mandatory minimums.

In fact, during the second hour of debate on Bill C-268 on April 1, 2009, the Bloc member for Hochelaga stated that parliamentarians will acknowledge that the Bloc Québécois' positions are consistent, that they have never been comfortable with mandatory minimum sentences. Yet, in 2005, Bloc MPs supported and even moved amendments containing mandatory minimums for the sexual exploitation of children. So what has happened since 2005? I implore Bloc members to be consistent today and support mandatory minimums for the trafficking of minors.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois argued that the bill is a bad law because it would result in scenarios where employers would receive a minimum sentence of five years for not providing proper wages to teenagers. This is an absurd suggestion. No prosecutor would bring human trafficking charges against an individual who commits labour infractions by underpaying a teenager.

The bill has nothing to do with labour laws. The Bloc is attempting to take the focus off the abuse and sexual exploitation of women and children by attempting to make the bill something it is not. For an elected representative of Canadians, this is completely irresponsible.

Maybe the Bloc does not believe this type of exploitation occurs in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois seems to think the worst form of exploitation occurring in Quebec is paying young people wages that are below the legal minimum. I have news for them. Canadian girls and boys from across our country are being sold for sexual exploitation and forced labour. This harsh reality exists even in Quebec, regardless of whether the Bloc acknowledges it or not.

With one exception, that is the hon. member for Ahuntsic, who courageously stood alone in support of this bill, the Bloc Québécois is the sole entity in Canada that has voiced opposition to mandatory minimums for child traffickers. The Bloc Québécois has chosen to stand against legislation that upholds Canada's commitments to the UN optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography.

Our children are not for sale. The price of inaction will cause us to have a lost generation. With this amendment, the Bloc Québécois has forfeited an opportunity to stand up for the victims of this modern-day slavery. Instead of fighting for the rights of children, it fights for the rights of the traffickers.

Years ago, a member of the British Parliament, William Wilberforce, a great abolitionist and personal hero of mine, was known for his eloquent speeches in the British House of Commons. In one of his speeches on the abolition of slavery he captured the essence of what motivates me to combat this modern-day slavery. He said:

Never, never will we desist till we have...extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonour to this country.

History will remember those who fought against this evil trade and it will certainly not forget those who are complacent when faced with it.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. After the last speech I thought we were going into questions and answers, because I had just finished the last debate. I was so taken by the absurd comments made across the way that I did ask that question.

I can assure members opposite that the top lawyers in this country worked on that bill. As one can see from my website at www.joysmith.ca, there is support from hundreds of law enforcement agencies, a letter from the chief of police of the Toronto region of Peel, and a lot of support from people all across this country.

I believe the Bloc Québécois is ignoring what Canadians want. They want to obliterate traffickers from Canadian soil.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-268. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Trafficking of Persons

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I have with me 5,859 petitions calling on Parliament to encourage everyone to support Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving the trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), which is coming up at the private members' session this afternoon.

These petitions come from all over Canada, a number of them from Quebec, and call on parliamentarians to support Bill C-268.

Over the break, 4,562 people presented this and had it in my office for me to present today.

Human Trafficking

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for members of the House of Commons to support Bill C-268, thereby increasing the punishments for human trafficking offences.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today our government is introducing amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We want to give immigration officers the power to deny work permits to those who may be trafficked into Canada and forced to perform humiliating and degrading jobs.

The previous government issued hundreds of special stripper visas to exotic dancers, with media reports of senior government members consorting with strippers and handing out ministerial permits. We know that these visas have resulted in the exploitation and degradation of foreign women.

Canada is taking action to protect the most vulnerable and to fight exploitation. I hope the House supports today's announcement, which gives immigration officials the tools they need to stop the trafficking of vulnerable women into Canada.

I would also encourage the Bloc Québécois to truly represent all Quebeckers, especially those under 18, and support Bill C-268. Traffickers of children must receive sentences that reflect the severity of this horrific crime.

Justice

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just a few short months ago, the NDP leader played to the cameras when he told the Vancouver Police Chief:

There's probably no city in the country right now that is understanding the need for action more than Vancouver. We're not seeing this elsewhere in Canada but, believe me, we're going to if we don't see some action taken against these gangs.

All this political posturing abruptly came to an end once the camera stopped rolling and the B.C. election was over.

Yesterday, the NDP, along with the Bloc, voted against the action the government has taken to tackle organized crime and gangs. The NDP voted against mandatory minimum sentences for the serious crime of drug trafficking.

The NDP also voted against our truth in sentencing bill, and Bill C-268, which provides for mandatory minimum sentences for the serious crime of human trafficking.

I implore the NDP to help the government fight gangs and organized crime. Our communities need support now.

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Wednesday, April 22, your committee has considered Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), and agreed on Monday, June 8, to report it with amendment.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Aubin and Ms. Arsenault.

My comments are mainly for you, Mr. Aubin. Thank you for agreeing to testify. This is a problem that affects Quebec, Canada and the rest of the world equally.

In Quebec and in Canada, what we call human trafficking can involve young children. It is a growing phenomenon and I am moved by it. It has become a very lucrative crime for street gangs and even for organized crime. The more they spread, the more hidden the crime gets and the more children under 18 years of age are used. Underage boys and girls are used exclusively for sexual purposes. This is the clearest and most frightening aspect of the problem these days.

I do not know if you are familiar with the Nakpamgi case, the first child trafficker convicted in Canada. There was at least one case in Quebec; it involved Michael Lennox Mark. In all these cases, the lives of young boys and girls have been destroyed.

Naturally, concerns have been expressed. People in my constituency have told me that they support Bill C-268. We went to British Columbia to see how things were being handled. That is when they told us about organized crime and human trafficking. A number of people have written to me to say that there can be no question of opening brothels during the Olympic Games. They want to know what we are going to do. This is a serious problem at the moment.

I am going to quote a part of a letter from Professor Benjamin Perron from British Columbia:

...it is my considered opinion as a criminal law professor that Bill C-268 is fully compliant with relevant constitutional standards. Your decision to support Bill C-268 will be a tremendous demonstration of commitment to hold perpetrators of child trafficking accountable for their horrific crimes.

I have seen your films and I have attended your lectures. I know you and I know a little about the world you work in. As a representative of the RCMP, what are the issues in human trafficking in Canada and elsewhere? Have you anything to say about Bill C-268? In a few words, how can we fight this crime?

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a friendly remark before addressing the actual substance of Bill C-15, which is extremely important because it will implement the Conservative government's anti-drug strategy.

When I was first elected to this House, people said that when the Liberals were in power, they governed like the Conservatives, and when they were in opposition, they behaved like the NDP. Today, listening to my colleague talk about Bill C-15, I learned that Conservative policies haunt the Liberals, whether they form the government or the opposition.

That being said, this is an extremely important bill that is very disappointing. First of all, we have been hearing a lot of rhetoric from certain members suggesting that, if we seek some sort of alternative to minimum sentences and misguided crackdowns, it means we are going easy on organized crime in our communities. This kind of insinuation makes it extremely difficult to properly debate the issue.

The Bloc Québécois is against minimum sentences. We have maintained that position from the beginning of our existence, and I will explain why. We oppose such sentences, unlike certain parties who say they are against them but voted in favour of Bill C-268. I imagine my NDP colleague will want to explain that when he gets a chance to speak, which will be soon.

We are opposed to minimum sentences and I will explain why. We do not, however, need any lectures about the need for vigilance against organized crime. I myself was the first member to introduce an anti-gang bill in this House, at a time when bombs were going off in Montreal, there were gang wars going on, and yet the elected representatives and officials of the government of the day were saying that there was no need for any new legislation and that organized crime could be broken up using the provisions on conspiracy.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is also responsible for the successful abolition of the $1000 bill, which was obviously a favourite of major organized crime syndicates. The former Bloc member for Charlesbourg, Richard Marceau, was the one who, in the dying days of the Martin regime, convinced the government to pass legislation reversing the burden of proof in connection with the proceeds of crime. I myself put forward a motion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that would be instrumental in cracking down on the most criminal groups, one of whom of course is the Hells Angels.

So we have an impressive record that is clear evidence of our commitment, our vigilance and our desire to always foil organized crime and to keep our legislation up to date, since it is well known that organized crime is a constantly evolving phenomenon.

The government's problem is its ideological stubbornness, which is so deeply rooted that it sees everything in black and white. The Liberals, unfortunately, are no different in this respect.

Of course, when it is a matter of major drug trafficking networks, no one in this House would object to tough penalties. I am in favour of them and so, I am sure, are all my colleagues. If an individual gets involved in major organized crime and is involved in drug imports or exports, this has harmful effects on the legitimate economy of our communities and on the members of the community who get involved with these substances. We agree that the penalties need to be as tough as possible.

We do, however, believe that in the administration of these penalties there is a certain phenomenon at play. A judge assesses the context, and then has total freedom to reach his decision after having heard and absorbed all of the evidence, heard the witnesses, and of course examined the text of the law. That phenomenon is called judicial discretion.

The problem with this government is that, for basically ideological reasons, it has embraced mandatory minimum sentences. When the Minister of Justice appeared before the committee, my colleague from Vancouver and I asked him, notwithstanding the fact that mandatory minimum sentences were part of the Conservative election platform, whether anyone from his department had assessed their impact. In other words, is there a correlation between including mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code and the deterrent effect sought and eventually observed? The answer is no. And yet, since becoming Minister of Justice, like his predecessor, he has been unable to provide studies that show conclusive evidence in support of mandatory minimum sentences.

Not only are mandatory minimum sentences an illusory ideology, but they also have an adverse effect on the administration of justice. In what way? Justice Paradis, a former judge from Vancouver who does not speak one word of French, told us that when he was on the bench and had to hear cases, minimum mandatory sentences made him uncomfortable. He also told us that when attorneys have to lay charges involving a mandatory minimum sentence that will tie the judge's hands, they prefer to choose other charges.

It was not the Bloc or the member for Hochelaga or our NDP colleagues who said that, but a retired judge who appeared before the committee.

I hope that we will eventually see the day when the Conservative government does away with its ideological dogma. Why not provide police officers with more tools? Every time our party has had the chance, it has supported putting more police officers in communities, broadening electronic surveillance and giving police forces more sophisticated investigative mandates. We agree that we need to fight organized crime and that we need a number of tools to do it. But we will not win by instituting mandatory minimum sentences.

The bill before us addresses trafficking. One kind of trafficking that is easy to condemn involves networks of people who import and export drugs. Often, seizures produce tens of kilos of cocaine and other controlled substances. The people involved are linked to organized crime, such as the Hells Angels and other similar groups seeking to profit from illegal activity and corrupt our society. But if four students get together to celebrate the end of classes and one of them has a joint that he or she passes on to another, according to the letter of the law, that constitutes a drug trafficking violation.

That can set in motion a mandatory minimum sentencing mechanism. For example, with respect to drug trafficking, thanks to God and the members who supported the amendment, the committee managed to get rid of the mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in controlled substances if the person charged is in possession of fewer than five plants. A six-month minimum sentence still applies if the person is in possession of between 5 and 201 plants. Clearly, that is excessive. Those of us who are against mandatory minimum sentencing agree that just because three students have a little marijuana, that mechanism does not necessarily have to apply. That does not mean that we are inviting our fellow citizens to use marijuana. The Bloc Québécois is not suggesting that marijuana is part of Canada's food guide.

We know it is a drug, it can create dependency, and this is not desirable in a person’s life. Of course, we hope, and we sincerely call for there to be awareness campaigns to prevent any kind of drug use. However, the prohibition route is really not the one we should be going down.

In fact, in that committee, when we considered Bill C-15, we also heard from law enforcement officials from the United States, and in particular Washington, who offered the example of New York. When we look at the American example, the results we see are striking. In terms of the administration of justice, the United States was the first to go down the mandatory minimum sentence road. But the states that have adopted mandatory minimum sentences are not the states that have won the war on drugs. There is no correlation between mandatory minimum sentences and winning the war on drugs. So as a society, we do better to put our efforts into awareness when we are dealing with something like trafficking in small quantities.

We should remember that on the last day of the Paul Martin government, this Parliament failed to adopt an alternative approach to penalties for marijuana offences. Once again, I would repeat that I have never smoked either cigarettes or marijuana, and that is not something I feel a need for in my life. But as a society, should we be putting offences relating to cannabis and marijuana and offences involving trafficking in large quantities, engaged in by groups like the Hells Angels, on the same plane in the offence scheme? That is where the bill makes no sense. We would have liked to see this distinction made.

For example, on the last day of the Paul Martin government, the Bloc Québécois had introduced this itself in this Chamber, and it was the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie who led the charge. And lead it he did. He is a very active member and he is much loved by his constituents. He is the green conscience of our party, and the connection between his green conscience and all the battles he leads can be seen.

So when we are looking at small quantities of marijuana, we would have hoped to see an offence scheme adopted that favoured fines over criminal penalties. In fact, in a few days, we will be tabling a report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights about driving while intoxicated. Without disclosing the recommendations, which are confidential, I can say that our committee will be proposing a somewhat less enforcement-oriented approach than is now contained in the Criminal Code.

It is too bad this government did not heed the alarm sounded by extremely knowledgeable witnesses such as Line Beauchesne, a professor of criminology at the University of Ottawa. She reminded us that since the mid-19th century, the federal government has taken a prohibitionist approach. The government thought that the sanctions in the Criminal Code would deter people. That prohibitionist logic has not worked.

Obviously, that does not mean that I hope we legalize drugs and make them widely available. That means that we have to take different approaches to this problem. It is not as though we had a bill that increased the maximum penalties, for example. We have never had a problem with increasing maximum penalties. The government should have gone after major traffickers. Drug imports and exports are worth billions of dollars.

In 2001, the Auditor General determined that even with the whole existing repressive approach, the whole arsenal and all the money for the police—we are talking about millions of dollars—law enforcement authorities were able to seize less than 10% of the drugs on the Canadian market.

We are in favour of going after the major trafficking networks connected with the Hells Angels. That is why I want to mention a motion I have introduced in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I hope that before long, we will be living in a society where membership in the Hells Angels will be an offence in and of itself. I hope that there will be a list. The Bloc Québécois is waging this battle, and I want to acknowledge that we are supported by government members, the Liberals and the NDP.

We will not really address the drug problem with mandatory minimum penalties. The Hells Angels and other criminal groups—there are 38 in Canada—make a living from selling drugs. But if we succeeded in getting rid of these groups, would we not be solving part of the problem?

Another amendment was passed in committee requiring parliamentarians to conduct a review. We will therefore have to review the legislation. I do not know what the composition of the House will be at that point, and I do not know whether I will have the pleasure of taking part. Still, we passed an amendment stipulating that, two years after the section comes into force, there is to be a detailed examination of this legislation and the effects of its application together with a cost-benefit analysis of mandatory minimum sentences by the committee of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament, which Parliament designates for this purpose.

Obviously, this is increasingly common with bills. I recall our adopting such a provision for new reproductive technologies. I think parliamentarians adopted it when the set of regulations on tobacco was either passed or under consideration. It is one way for them to get feedback and verify a law's effectiveness. We could have objectives as lawmakers, but are these objectives met once the bill is passed? That, obviously, is a whole other matter.

We would have been more comfortable with the idea of aggravating circumstances rather than minimum sentences. The Criminal Code—as my colleagues no doubt know—provides in section 718 that a court may take into account a number of circumstances specific to a context and impose a harsher sentence.

We support, of course, the imposition of a harsher sentence when an offence is committed for the benefit or at the direction of a criminal organization. We agree that when an individual committing an offence uses or tries to use violence it should be considered an aggravating circumstance, as should the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence.

We obviously agree that when an offence is committed within a school, in school grounds or in a place frequented by young people it should be considered an aggravating circumstance.

We would, however, not have wanted these specific circumstances to culminate in a mandatory mechanism that leaves no room for legal discretion. I refer of course to mandatory minimum sentences. That seems a mistake to us.

Those are the comments I wanted to make on Bill C-15. We will not support it in the vote at third reading.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it always makes me laugh to see the Bloc members shouting so loudly.

They are the only ones in Parliament who voted against Bill C-268, which would have protected our own children from sex offenders. And they are the ones lecturing us. I am sorry, but Bill C-268 was very important. All the parliamentarians supported us.

The treatment of Canadian children is just as important as the treatment of children elsewhere.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

On the mandatory minimums in terms of what's in section 212, in order to have a mandatory minimum on Ms. Smith's Bill C-268 for sections 279.02 and 279.03, you would actually have to charge them under section 212 to get a mandatory minimum.

[Dianne L. Watts]

We would like to add our support to Bill C-268. Human trafficking, which involves the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of individuals for sexual or labour exploitation, is in our opinion modern-day slavery. The offence of human trafficking is one of the three most lucrative enterprises carried out worldwide by organized crime, outranked only by the trade in weapons and drugs.

According to the RCMP, 600 individuals annually are victims of human traffickers for sexual purposes in Canada; 800 individuals are victims for drug trafficking purposes, forced marriage, or domestic labour; and between 1,500 and 2,000 are transported across Canada for purposes of exploitation in other destinations, mostly the United States. The domestic trafficking of aboriginal and other women and youth from within Canada is a concern equal to that of the importation of individuals from abroad for the purposes of human trafficking.

Canada has made international commitments to oppose human trafficking. In the year 2000, Canada signed the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The state parties to the protocol state that they are “Gravely concerned at the significant and increasing international traffic of children for the purpose of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”. The state parties believe the elimination of the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography will be facilitated by addressing, among other things, poverty, dysfunctioning families, and the trafficking of children.

I quote again from the protocol. States parties are “Taking due account of the importance of traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child”. As stated previously, the optional protocol, which Canada has signed, provides in article 3, section 3: “Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature”.

In October 2008, the report of the Canada-U.S. consultation in preparation for the World Congress III against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents recommended that Canada “amend the Criminal Code to provide the mandatory minimum penalty for child trafficking and strengthen the sex offender registry”.

In April 2009, the declaration of One is Too Many: A Citizens' Summit on Human Trafficking at the 2010 Olympics and Beyond called for “the effective prosecution of human traffickers, the protection of human trafficking victims, and the prevention of human trafficking in every instance”. Summit participants advocated that Canada's Criminal Code reflect the fact that the crime of human trafficking should carry meaningful penalties. It is therefore urgent that Bill C-268 be enacted in order to be ready to offer protection in time for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.

Canada is a signatory to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, General Assembly resolution 55/25 of November 2000. This protocol approaches human trafficking in three specific areas: preventing trafficking, protecting the victims of trafficking, and prosecuting trafficking offenders.

As an NGO in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, REAL Women of Canada is strongly supportive of Bill C-268, which would amend section 279.01 to provide for a minimum penalty. We support this for three main reasons.

First, we believe that a minimum sentence for trafficking will act to dissuade men and women from engaging in the exploitation and abuse of children. This would help to achieve the law's deterrent goals.

Second, the minimum sentence of five years for such a grave crime as trafficking of children will send a strong message that trafficking is not acceptable to Canadians. It will highlight society's abhorrence of this crime. This will help set standards of behaviour in keeping with our society's values of respect toward vulnerable children. And children are the future of Canada.

Third, without minimum standards and with wide-open discretion, sentencing often takes the form of a mild rebuke, which is out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and the horrendous suffering of the victims. This also fails to deter continued exploitation of the most vulnerable, who should receive our protection and not suffer from our neglect. We believe minimum sentencing should be even broader, to include all victims of trafficking regardless of age.

Regardless of political affiliation, we should do the right thing and join those around the world who are working to make a better world by preventing human trafficking, protecting victims, and effectively prosecuting those who would exploit and abuse children. This is a rare opportunity to protect vulnerable children, and Canadians across Canada, it seems to us, would want their legislators to adhere to the above protocols and build on past efforts at global consultations to reduce these atrocious crimes in Canada and throughout the world. It's a privilege for us to defend the most vulnerable members of our society.

We thank you for inviting us to present our views to the committee.

[Dianne L. Watts, Researcher, REAL Women of Canada]

Thank you very much.

REAL Women of Canada is a national organization of women from all walks of life, occupations, and social and economic backgrounds. We recognize the family as the most important unit of Canadian society. We see the fragmentation of the family as one of the major causes of disorder in society today. We are cognizant of data that demonstrate that the stable family, especially within marriage, is the best environment for men, women, and children in terms of reducing poverty, fulfilling the social, health, and educational potential of children, and reducing crime and violence. We affirm the family as society's most important unit.

We promote the equality, advancement, and well-being of women. We support government and social policies that strengthen family life.

Considering human trafficking, which is unacceptable to Canadian families, we would like to add our support to Bill C-268. Human trafficking, which involves the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring--

[Nathalie Levman, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the committee with some general information on the existing criminal law addressing trafficking of persons as well as the implication of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), which proposes to impose a mandatory minimum penalty of five years for the offence of trafficking in children.

By way of background, and as the sponsor has already pointed out, trafficking in persons or human trafficking is often described as a modern-day form of slavery. It involves the recruitment, transportation, and/or harbouring of persons for the purpose of exploitation—generally sexual exploitation or forced labour. Traffickers use various methods to maintain control over their victims, including force, sexual assault, and threats of violence. Victims are forced to provide their services or labour in circumstances where they believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide that labour or service. Victims suffer physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, including threats of violence or actual harm, which is compounded by their living and working conditions. Trafficking in persons may occur across or within borders and often involves extensive organized crime networks. Women and children are particularly vulnerable to sex trafficking and are by far its primary victims.

In 2005, three trafficking-specific indictable offences were added to the Criminal Code. Section 279.01 specifically prohibits trafficking in persons and imposes a maximum penalty of life imprisonment where kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, or death to the victim is involved, and 14 years in all other cases. Section 279.02 prohibits receiving a financial or other material benefit from the commission of the trafficking offence. This offence imposes a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Finally, section 279.03 prohibits the withholding or destroying of identity documents for the purpose of committing or facilitating the trafficking of a person. This offence imposes a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

In addition, numerous Criminal Code offences have always applied to trafficking cases, such as extortion, assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement, kidnapping, and prostitution-related offences, depending on the facts of the case in hand.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also prohibits trafficking of persons into Canada.

As a result, today police and crown prosecutors can choose from a wide range of offences, as they deem appropriate in each case. They may choose to charge or prosecute under the new trafficking-specific offences and/or they may choose to use other trafficking-related offences that I've already mentioned. In fact, in most of the recent cases, we are seeing charges under both trafficking-specific and trafficking-related offences.

Regarding Bill C-268, its proposed reforms would create a new offence of trafficking in children that would mirror the existing main trafficking in persons offence in the code, that is, section 279.01. There is one exception: where the victim is under the age of 18, it would impose a mandatory minimum penalty of five years for the branch of the offence that carries a maximum penalty of 14 years, but not where the maximum penalty is life. The sponsor has already dealt with that and indicated what she proposes to do about it. The bill also proposes consequential amendments to ensure that, along with the main trafficking in persons offence, the proposed offence of trafficking in children is referenced in the provisions that deal with interception of communications, exclusion of the public from the court, publication bans, DNA, the sex offender registry, and dangerous offenders.

The effect of these proposed reforms would therefore include, first, treating the trafficking of any person under 18 years distinctly from the trafficking of an adult, in that the mandatory minimum penalty would not apply to the trafficking of an adult but would apply to the trafficking of a child; second, where the trafficking of the young person is for the purpose of sexual exploitation, for example, in the sex trade, the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty would make the penalties for child trafficking more like the existing penalties that apply to the procurement of a person under the age of 18, which currently impose mandatory minimum penalties in three different circumstances.

First, the offence of living on the avails of child prostitution imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of two years and a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment under subsection 212(2) of the Criminal Code.

Second is the offence of living on the avails of child prostitution where aggravating factors are present, such as violence, intimidation, and coercion. This offence imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment under subsection 212(2.1).

Finally, there is the offence of obtaining, for consideration, the sexual services of a child or communicating for that purpose. This offence imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of six months and a maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment under subsection 212(4).

That brings us to Bill C-268 and its imposition of the mandatory minimum penalty for the lesser offence. As has been pointed out, this differs from the Criminal Code's usual approach to mandatory minimum penalties in two ways. First we'll take section 273, which is the aggravated sexual assault provision. It imposes a four-year mandatory minimum penalty when a firearm is used, and the maximum penalty is life. In a case where a firearm is not used, the maximum penalty is life and there is no mandatory minimum penalty.

In the case I just went over of a child prostitution offence, the more serious aggravated offence imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of five years, and a less serious offence imposes a lesser mandatory minimum penalty of two years. Police and the crown will still have the discretion to proceed under the charge or charges that are most appropriate to the facts of a given case, whether it be under trafficking-specific offences, including this new child trafficking offence, or others that I've already mentioned: child prostitution, forcible confinement, extortion, etc.

Recent cases have already been raised in the previous session and this one. The Gatineau case involved a woman who was charged with a specific trafficking in persons offence, assault, procuring, and living on the avails of prostitution, because as the sponsor has indicated, she forced three victims into prostitution, one of whom was under the age of 18. She pleaded guilty and received a global sentence of seven years.

The recent Nakpamgi case has already been referred to. It involved a man charged with a specific trafficking in persons offence, as well as living on the avails of the prostitution of a person under the age of 18. He pleaded guilty and received a sentence of five years: three years for trafficking in persons and two years for child prostitution, to be served consecutively.

I would like to thank you very much for taking the time to listen and for allowing me the opportunity to provide my comments.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for allowing me to make this presentation. Indeed, it's an honour for me to be here in front of you people.

The trafficking of a person, ladies and gentlemen, is a horrific abuse of human rights. The trafficking of a child is even more severe. Canada remains one of the few developed countries that does not have enhanced penalties for the trafficking of children. Bill C-268 was drafted with one goal, to ensure the sentences of the traffickers of children reflect the gravity of the crime.

The first two sentences involving child trafficking in Canada resulted in approximately one and two years served after credited pretrial time served was factored in. As such, traffickers are currently able to continue making hundreds of thousands of dollars from the exploitation and rape of children without much threat of serious sanction.

I have put forward Bill C-268 to amend the Criminal Code to address the critical legal aspect of child trafficking and to bring parity between Canada's legislation and that of many other countries. I have commended the previous Liberal government for bringing the initial human trafficking legislation under section 279.01 of the Criminal Code. This legislation has provided important tools for our police officers, prosecutors, and judges. Yet this legislation, while allowing for sentences of up to 14 years, and life in some cases, also has a minimum of zero years. One would assume that for such a horrific crime as human trafficking, lenient sentences would not be an issue. However, Imani Nakpamgi, who was the first person in Canada convicted of human trafficking involving a minor--and I must commend the member of Parliament Rick Norlock for mentioning this in his previous presentation at this committee--received a three-year sentence for the trafficking of a 15-year-old girl but was credited 13 months for pretrial custody. He made over $350,000 sexually exploiting her over two years before she was able to escape. Essentially, he will spend less time in jail for this offence than he did exploiting her, and if you ever had a chance to read her impact statement, it's absolutely heart-rending.

Last year, Montreal resident Michael Lennox Mark received a two-year sentence, but with a two-for-one credit for the year served before his trial, the man who horrifically victimized a 17-year-old girl spent only a week in jail after his conviction. With precedent-setting convictions like these, one wonders what a trafficker would have to do to get 14 years or life.

Most recently, a third conviction has been obtained for trafficking involving minors. Last month a Gatineau women was given seven years for trafficking three girls from Ottawa to Gatineau.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is 10 minutes from Parliament Hill, the seat of government for Canada. They were drugged, beaten, raped, and tethered to objects during their captivity. Two of these girls were subjected to this for six months, and one for a whole year, before their rescue. What this conviction shows is that there is at least one judge who understands that serious crimes against minors require serious sentences, but this standard must be consistent all across Canada.

The courageous officers in the Peel Regional Police Department have taken human trafficking head-on since the implementation of Canada's human trafficking legislation. They were responsible for Canada's first trafficking conviction and are currently investigating almost a dozen cases involving minors. I have to say you can read the letter that the chief of the Peel Regional Police Department wrote to me in support of this bill. The chief of the Peel Regional Police has said, and I quote:

Efforts by police officers across Canada to enforce this law are impressive, yet they are overshadowed by the disturbing number of occurrences that involve victims under the age of 18.

Establishing minimum sentences, as proposed by Bill C-268 would raise the law's deterrent goal, and highlight society's abhorrence of crimes that involve child victims.

That is from the chief of Peel Regional Police.

Allow me to point to Canada's international legal obligations. In 2005 Canada ratified the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Article 3, subsection (3), states:

Each State Party shall make such offences punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature.

As I have noted, the sentences so far in Canada have not been consistent with this protocol.

Further, Dr. Mohamed Mattar, executive director of the Protection Project at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, points out:

Many states have specific provisions in their antitrafficking legislation or criminal codes guaranteeing enhanced penalties in cases of trafficking in persons committed under aggravated circumstances, including a crime committed against a child victim...

That is the purpose of this bill, ladies and gentlemen. Canada must have enhanced provisions for trafficking of persons when the victim is a minor.

In the U.S., the minimum is 15 years if the victim is under 14 years of age, and 10 years if the victim is under 18 years of age but over 14 years. In Thailand they have a minimum of five years for child trafficking. In the Dominican Republic, five years is added to the minimum of 15 to 20 years if the victim is a child.

The international community has also called for Canada to enact mandatory minimums for child trafficking. Last October the Report of the Canada-United States Consultation in Preparation for World Congress III Against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents urged that Canada enact a mandatory minimum penalty for child trafficking.

Also, the former director of the U.S. State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and current executive director of the Polaris Project, Ambassador Mark Lagon, has said,

Protection requires both providing necessary support and assistance to these children and removing the most dangerous predators from the street for a very long time.

Bill C-268 will ensure that the sentencing process consistently recognizes the gravity of this violent crime.

I do appreciate the strong support I have received across party lines for this bill. Human trafficking must remain a non-partisan issue. This bill is jointly seconded by members from three parties and, as you know, during the vote on April 22 received near unanimous support from the Conservative, Liberal, and NDP parties. This support is encouraging. When it comes to the protection of our children, nothing should unite us more.

I am disappointed that the Bloc, with one honourable exception, has chosen to stand against this important legislation. They are the sole organization and entity in Canada that has voiced opposition to legislation that upholds our commitments to the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. This legislation has received strong support from all across Canada, from law enforcement, victims' service organizations, NGOs, and first nations. Strong support for this has especially come from Quebec, and as you know, a detective from Quebec presented to MPs and talked about the issue of human trafficking in Quebec, particularly around Montreal.

I also want to note that I am proposing an amendment to the bill. It was pointed out by the Bloc during second reading that there is no minimum sentence for aggravated offences under proposed paragraph 279.011(1)(a) in my bill. This paragraph provides for an individual to be sentenced to life imprisonment, which means that he or she would only be eligible for parole after seven years. I have had an amendment drafted that is within the scope of the bill, which would amend section 279.011, subsection 1(a), to ensure there is no question that this paragraph also provides for a minimum sentence of five years. It is my intention that this amendment be moved during the clause-by-clause review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which I understand and hope will be on Wednesday of this week.

Thank you again for allowing me to speak about Bill C-268. It is my hope that members of all parties will support this important legislation and soundly denounce the trafficking of children. We know as members of Parliament that we have the power to move this bill forward or stall it. We are nearing the end of the session, and this bill must be returned to the House as quickly as possible. I intend to seek unanimous consent of the House to move the bill quickly through third reading if I feel it is possible that we have agreement on this committee.

With the upcoming Olympics and the uncertainty of a minority government, it is imperative that this amendment be successful. Canadians and the international community will take note whether Canada is unified against the exploitation of its children. Those who oppose it will not be forgotten.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I reconvene the meeting.

By order of reference, we are now going to hear witnesses on a private member's bill, Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

We're pleased to welcome our three witnesses. We first of all have the sponsor of the bill, Joy Smith. We also have Natalie Levman, representing the Department of Justice; and Dianne Watts, representing REAL Women.

We will start with Joy Smith first, as the sponsor, and then we'll have the Department of Justice give a brief review of the bill; and then, Ms. Watts, you will have an opportunity to speak to the bill as well.

Ms. Smith, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 27 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Monday, June 1, 2009.

You have today's agenda before you. We have three items to deal with.

During the first hour, by order of reference of Monday, April 20, 2009, we will be considering, clause-by-clause, Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody).

During the second hour, also by order of reference of Wednesday, April 22, 2009, we'll be hearing witnesses on the private member's bill, Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

After our regular meeting, we'll be meeting with a delegation of MPs from the Parliament of the Czech Republic. This will be an informal meeting with dinner, after we've adjourned the main meeting.

I want to remind you that this meeting is televised.

We'll move on to clause-by-clause on Bill C-25.

We'll postpone clause 1, which is the title, I believe, Madam Clerk, and move on to clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Monsieur Ménard.

Child Trafficking

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am holding in my hand a petition with the signatures from 3,678 Canadians from all across Canada. They are calling upon Parliament to support mandatory minimums for traffickers of children 18 years of age and under. Today I will present in committee on Bill C-268. The public is very aware that parliamentarians are going to address this initiative and urge all parliamentarians to support this very important initiative.

Victims of Crime

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Victims of Crime Awareness Week and this year's theme is “supporting, connecting, evolving”. It presents a perfect opportunity to raise awareness about victim issues and about the programs, services and laws in place to help victims of crime.

I know one party in this House that will not be taking part in the events to mark this national week, and that is the Bloc Québécois. For purely ideological reasons and because of its narrow-mindedness, it systematically refuses to support any motion or bill that could help victims of crime. The Bloc votes for criminals and against victims.

Barely a week ago, the Bloc voted against Bill C-268, which would establish minimum sentences for people convicted of certain offences committed against young people, particularly, sex-related offences and trafficking of children. That is unacceptable.

The Bloc has the interests of criminals at heart, not the interests of Quebeckers.

Justice

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can always count on the Bloc members for surprises. They surprised us by being the only ones—yes, the only ones—in this House to vote against families and, just recently, against children as well.

The Bloc voted against Bill C-268 sponsored by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, which will protect children from criminals who try to abuse, exploit, hold and even sexually assault them.

It is always surprising to see that the Bloc can find ideological reasons to oppose everything, even common sense and harsher sentences. The Bloc members really must be living on another planet if they believe they are defending the interests of Quebec and its youth by refusing to vote for a bill that would protect our children.

Under the circumstances, we can understand why the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup wants to leave the Bloc as soon as possible.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, in this House, all but one of the Bloc members voted against private member's Bill C-268, which is designed to put an end to light sentences for child exploitation. Whereas members from all parties supported this bill against child trafficking, the Bloc members are turning their backs on families in Quebec.

My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada. Can my colleague tell me about this important bill, which is supported by the Canadian Police Association and more than 30 other organizations, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection?

Child trafficking

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec, like the rest of Canada, is faced today with crimes against the most vulnerable members of our society: our children. We have a duty to protect our citizens by using all of the tools available to us to protect families, and especially the children who represent our future.

Nevertheless, the Bloc voted against the interests of Quebec youth by voting against Bill C-268, thereby turning its back on basic human values.

The Bloc was the only party to vote against that bill, the purpose of which is to impose a minimum sentence for offences involving the trafficking of persons under the age of 18 years.

Yet they boast that they are defending the interests of Quebeckers. Will the under-18s be sacrificed by the Bloc? Turning their backs on youth protection, that is the Bloc way.

Child Trafficking

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present petitions with over 5,000 names from all across Canada calling for Parliament to support Bill C-268, regarding mandatory minimums for people who traffic children 18 years of age and under.

Also, two boxes of petitions came to my office this morning by FedEx. I will be presenting those petitions in the weeks ahead.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-268 under private members' business.

The House resumed from April 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-268 is about human trafficking and acknowledging the fact that human trafficking is a vicious crime that must be stopped.

Bill C-268 was drafted to accomplish one thing: to ensure the sentences of the traffickers of children reflect the gravity of the crime. With the first two sentences in Canada resulting in approximately one to two years served for trafficking children, traffickers are currently able to continue making hundreds of thousands of dollars from the exploitation and rape of children without much threat of serious sanction.

I want to thank the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry who pointed out in the first hour of debate that there is no minimum sentence for aggravated offences under paragraph 279.011(1)(a) of Bill C-268. This paragraph provides for an individual to be sentenced to life imprisonment, which means that he or she will only be eligible for parole after seven years.

However, should this bill go to committee, I have had an amendment drafted that would be within the scope of the bill and that would amend paragraph 279.011(1)(a) to ensure that there is no question that this paragraph also provides for a minimum sentence of five years.

I understand that some hon. members do not feel that mandatory minimums are appropriate in any case.

I want to remind hon. members that according to the Supreme Court of Canada, a mandatory minimum sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment only if it is “grossly disproportionate”, given the gravity of the offence or the personal circumstances of the offender.

Clearly the trafficking and sexual exploitation of a child demands a sentence that reflects the serious gravity of this egregious offence. Under current legislation, offenders can receive as little as no time in jail.

Countries around the world are beginning to recognize that serious action is required to combat the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children. Article 24 of the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings states that child trafficking is an aggravated circumstance that warrants an enhanced penalty.

It is important to note that Canada remains one of the few developed countries that does not have enhanced penalties for the trafficking of our children.

Mohamed Y. Mattar, executive director of the Protection Project at the John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, points out:

Many states have specific provisions in their antitrafficking legislation or criminal codes guaranteeing enhanced penalties in cases of trafficking in persons committed under aggravated circumstances, including a crime committed against a child victim;

Dr. Mattar also states that the Council of Europe framework decision of July 19, 2002, mandates that European countries provide penalties for trafficking of at least eight years imprisonment. This is significant since many European countries follow a civil law model that does not recognize the plea-bargaining system which, in countries like Canada, may result in a shorter sentence.

This framework specifically states that:

Penalties provided for by national legislation must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”.

There is also a great concern that more must be done in Canada for victims of human trafficking. I cannot agree more.

The long-term physical and psychological impact on its victims, especially children, is devastating. I have continued to call for a national action plan to combat human trafficking that would provide better coordination between the provinces, territories and federal governments to deliver effective victim services.

Only two years ago, members of this House unanimously supported Motion No. 153 that called for a national action plan.

I strongly believe we need to address the factors that lead to exploitation, such as poverty and marginalization. Our aboriginal women and children are especially vulnerable due to these factors.

These concerns cannot be addressed through a private member's bill. I have put forward Bill C-268 to amend the Criminal Code to address the critical legal aspect of child trafficking and to bring parity between Canada's legislation and that of many other countries.

It is my hope that members of all parties will support this important legislation and soundly denounce the trafficking of children.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in the second reading debate on private member's bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

I am pleased to speak to this bill today and I sincerely thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her many years of tireless work on this, her passion for protecting the young and vulnerable people in this country and around the world, and her dedicated effort to combat human trafficking, not just in Canada but internationally.

Bill C-268 proposes to build upon our existing Criminal Code protections by specifically recognizing that the trafficking of children is a crime that must be treated very seriously by the justice system. It would do this by creating a new offence of trafficking a person under the age of 18 years. The mandatory minimum penalty would apply to cases where there is a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment but not for the more serious offence punishable by life imprisonment where it involves aggravating circumstances.

This offence would mirror the existing offence of trafficking in persons, section 279.01 now in place, which protects all persons, both adults and children, and provides for maximum penalties of 14 years or, in aggravated cases, a maximum of life imprisonment.

The Criminal Code currently contains three specific offences that target human trafficking. These offences were created and enacted in November 2005, just a short while ago. Sadly, however, they have not dealt with the current reality we are facing on the globe today.

Section 279.01 prohibits anyone from engaging in specific forms of conduct for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of another person. Specifically, the offence identifies the acts in question as either recruiting, transporting, referring, receiving, transferring, holding, concealing or harbouring a person or exercising control, direction or influence over the movements of another person. This offence applies to both adult and child victims. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if it involves the kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or death of the victim. In all other cases, the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

Second, the Criminal Code contains an indictable offence that specifically targets those who seek to profit from the trafficking and exploitation of others, even if they do not engage directly in trafficking people. The existing section 279.02 specifically prohibits any person from receiving a financial or other material benefit knowing that it results from the commission of the trafficking of another person. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The third existing human trafficking offence responds to a common method that traffickers use to control their victims. It prohibits anyone from either concealing, removing, withholding or destroying another person's travel identification or immigration documents for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of the trafficking of that person. This offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

Of course, these specific trafficking-in-persons offences supplement other offences that can be used to address related conduct, such as kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault and the prostitution or procuring offences, which criminalize the many different aspects of trafficking. Canada's criminal law provides a comprehensive criminal justice response to this serious crime.

Bill C-268 addresses a particularly reprehensible form of criminal conduct that profits from the exploitation of the most vulnerable.

In contrast with what the previous speaker said, there are existing laws for existing offences but we need a specific offence to address the young and those who are most vulnerable. The widespread nature of this crime, sadly, is evident in the global revenues that are generated by it. They are estimated to be as much as $10 billion U.S. per year and the crime is estimated to be in the top three money-makers for organized crime. Further, we know that this crime disproportionately affects children. UNICEF's estimates indicate that as many as 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year.

The United States' state department's 2008 annual report on human trafficking estimates that 800,000 persons are trafficked around the world each year, with 80% of those transnational victims being women and, sadly, up to 50% of all victims being children.

As I have said, Bill C-268 seeks to amend the main trafficking in persons offence, which was enacted in 2005. This raises the question: Do we know how our existing Criminal Code responses are working in practice? As mentioned earlier, the specific trafficking offences in the Criminal Code supplement existing offences and this means that traffickers may be charged with a number of offences, depending on the circumstances of the case.

In contrast to the statement that was made previously that in Canada there have not been any convictions, there have. There have been three convictions to date for the specific offence of trafficking in persons, all of which resulted from guilty pleas and involved women and child victims who were sexually exploited. One of these cases was in Montreal where an accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons under sections 279.01 and 279.02 and procuring under section 212, and received two years for each charge, once again, regrettably, to be served concurrently.

A number of investigations and court cases are ongoing. As these cases demonstrate, while the offences in the Criminal Code are relatively new, law enforcement officials across the country are using them where appropriate.

Human traffickers prey upon the most vulnerable. Their targets are often children and young women. Victims may be kidnapped, abducted or lured by false promises of legitimate employment as, for example, domestic servants, models or factory or farm workers. Victims are then subjected to exploitation in the sex trade or other forms of forced labour.

Trafficking victims suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence or actual harm to their loved ones. This abuse is compounded by their living and working conditions. Theirs is an existence that is difficult, if not almost impossible, to comprehend.

With that in mind, it is clear that strong responses are required to address this horrific crime of exploitation and abuse. I am sure we can all agree that human trafficking is a horrible crime which inflicts serious damage on its victims. That is undeniable. I am also sure that we can all agree that we should ensure that our criminal law responds appropriately and strongly denounces this conduct.

Hon. members should recall that in 2006 the House unanimously supported Motion No. 153, which was also introduced, I am proud to say, by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. It condemned the crime of trafficking in persons and called for a national strategy to combat the trafficking in persons worldwide. The unanimous support that motion received truly reflected the shared support by all members to ensure that we continue to strongly condemn and act to combat trafficking in persons.

I believe that further consideration of this bill will no doubt help us assess the adequacy of these responses. I was honoured and privileged to be able to second the bill. A couple of years ago I spoke at the Asia-Pacific forum regarding Canada's position on human trafficking. The evidence given during that period was most alarming.

Thankfully, many other countries have already adopted the measures that we are proposing today and they have encouraged Canada to do so. I am delighted that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has recognized that reality and responded accordingly.

A number of years ago I served in the judicial field where I saw firsthand on many occasions the exploitation of our young people. I saw young girls aged 10, 11 and 12 years old being pimped and prostituted, sometimes even by their own relatives. This is an intolerable situation.

There are some situations where we need to be considerate and try to find a balance but there is no balance to a human life that has been absolutely betrayed. This is where we need to stand for all humanity, particularly for the citizens of Canada, and stand up for what we believe is right, which is that young people have a right to live a normal life without being preyed upon by the most insidious criminals. The law must prevail for that.

I am proud and pleased to support the member for Kildonan—St. Paul and I thank her for bringing this valuable legislation to the fore.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased that the issue of human trafficking has come back to the House. I am concerned, however, that my colleague from across the floor has introduced a bill that deals only superficially with the issues of human trafficking. It, unfortunately, neither addresses the causes of human trafficking nor looks at ways to prevent it. Bill C-268 is ineffectual and needs desperately to be amended.

We studied this issue of trafficking human beings at great length in the status of women committee. The member opposite was, at that time, a vice-chair, so she should be well-versed in the multiple issues that sadly have been omitted from her bill.

The committee found, in its 2007 report, that the issue of human trafficking is complex and many steps need to be taken to address this horrendous crime against vulnerable people.

I want to touch on a few of the key recommendations left out of this bill. However, first, I would like to point out that this bill is very restrictive because it only covers minors. I am not sure why the member added in that restriction because many adults are also victims and need to be protected. It is not just children under the age of 18 who fall victim.

The key to addressing human trafficking in Canada is prevention. As we heard from a number of witnesses, addressing poverty is the first and best prevention. In Canada, those most vulnerable to human trafficking are first nations people. We have national trafficking of Canadian women, especially in the aboriginal communities. In the prairie provinces, there is a lot of activity going on. Girls are being recruited on reserve and brought into the big urban centres, like Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Edmonton and Calgary, to work in prostitution. Erin Wolski of the Native Women's Association of Canada told the status of women committee that aboriginal females were extremely vulnerable. I am very disappointed that this bill does nothing to address this.

As the committee heard, we need funding for education, decent housing, safe water and anti-violence programs to address poverty in our first nations communities. We need to work with organizations, such as the AFN and the Native Women's Association of Canada, to develop programs to help women who are vulnerable to trafficking and create awareness about the dangers.

Additionally, we need sensitivity training for police on the issue as many first nations women do not feel comfortable, nor safe, in approaching police for assistance. The bill before us does not address the need for prevention and awareness or support programs.

The committee also recommended that an awareness program was necessary for minors about the risks of prostitution and trafficking. The modelling industry was singled out as particularly dangerous because it remains unregulated and promises of a glamorous job can be used to lure a young girl or a young woman.

The bill also fails to address the issues surrounding women who are trafficked into Canada from other countries. It can be more difficult for women to immigrate to Canada because there are so many more barriers for them, such as the need for money and education, and many of the women who wish to immigrate have no access to these.

Immigration laws need to be changed to allow more women to immigrate on their own and not through the very means that leaves them vulnerable to human trafficking. The temporary resident permit process needs to be reviewed and victims who have been trafficked should be sheltered for 180 days and allowed to work. The government should ensure their basic needs are met during this period.

The immigration and refugee protection regulations need to be reviewed and amended. In particular, section 245(f), a particularly odious section, states that a victim, having been under control or influence of traffickers, is more likely to require detention. This section needs to be eliminated entirely.

Many trafficked victims are threatened with criminal or immigration exposure by their traffickers; thus, preventing them from seeking help. Section 245(f) assumes that these people are criminals and forgets that they are victims. This simply reinforces the power that traffickers have over these vulnerable women.

Steps need to be taken to help victims of trafficking instead of treating them like criminals. Initiatives, such as a 1-800 number, access to the witness protection program, safe interim housing, counseling and legal advice would all benefit trafficking victims and help reintegrate them back into society.

It should also be noted that traffic victims are often sent home to their country of origin to face the same criminals who trafficked them in the first place. Imagine being so vulnerable and being deported back to the place where the predators are waiting.

The bill before us only addresses the need to target people who purchase sexual services. This requires an increase in funding for provinces and territories for training and education for officers, judges and lawyers. Those funds are missing from the legislation.

We also need a national data collection and tracking system that will protect the integrity of police information and the integrity of the victim.

The committee on the status of women also recommended more training for law enforcement officers to identify someone who has been trafficked. There needs to be dedicated, multi-jurisdictional units to investigate trafficking in Canada.

Women become trapped in the sex trade after being lured to cities with false promises. We can imagine individuals being beaten, forced into sex work, and told they will be killed if they try to escape. The constant threat of violence means they are too scared to go to the authorities, but even if they did, there is little chance of retribution for their attacker.

This might sound like something that would happen in a third world country or an era of bygone history, but it is not. It is happening right now in Canada and is a reality for the many victims of human trafficking.

Experts agree that the problem is escalating. With the Olympics in 2010, that could just be the catalyst for a massive boom in the trafficking of women into the city sex trade from outside and within Canada. Despite numerous convictions of people involved in running human trafficking rings in other countries, including the U.S. and the U.K., Canada has yet to prosecute a single person for this crime. The bill will do very little to change that.

Although Canada's very first human trafficking charges were laid against a Vancouver man in 2004, Michael Ng, who ran an east Vancouver massage parlour, they were dismissed by B.C. Provincial Court Judge Malcolm MacLean in 2007, after a year of testimony from two women who claimed Ng had lured them to Canada from China with the promise of jobs as waitresses. Judge MacLean said the offence of human trafficking had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, although there must be real action and real laws to deal with trafficking.

Vancouver activist, Benjamin Perrin, has complained about this. He said:

I can't understand why Canada hasn't successfully prosecuted a single person for human trafficking when you look at other countries like the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. We've made the same commitments and been to the same conferences, but Canada has been all talk and no action. We're just beginning to turn the corner; we're where other countries...were 10 years ago. We've had a decade of inaction on this--

It is time that changed. It is time that traffickers were stopped and this very risky business was put to an end.

There are victims that I would like to name before I conclude: a young woman by the name of Marta. Her dream was to be a Hollywood actress and to live in a mansion, so she saved up the money and went to an overseas modelling job. When she arrived, her visa and passport were taken away. She was locked in a hotel, and was beaten and burned with cigarettes until she submitted to her attacker.

This is a complex issue, as we can see. It needs a multi-faceted approach to even begin to address the problem. The bill falls far short of addressing the real issues behind human trafficking in Canada and abroad. If the government were serious about human trafficking, we would have a comprehensive government bill.

The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I have three petitions from constituents from all across Canada. There are hundreds of names on them.

The petitioners are in support of my Bill C-268, mandatory minimums for people who traffic children under the age of 18 years.

They call upon all members to support that bill.

Trafficking of Children

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting petitions that are starting to come in, in support of Bill C-268 which calls for mandatory minimums for traffickers of children under the age of 18.

Canadians are asking that these traffickers have consequences for their actions and that the message be set here in Canada that we do not traffic our children on Canadian soil.

Criminal Code

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a recently elected member of Parliament and as a veteran police officer with almost 19 years of experience in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I join in the second reading debate on private member's Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). I am very pleased to speak to the bill and I thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her dedicated efforts to combat human trafficking in Canada.

Bill C-268 proposes to build upon our existing Criminal Code protections by specifically recognizing that the trafficking of children is a crime which must be treated seriously by the justice system. Human traffickers of course prey upon the vulnerable and trafficking victims suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence or actual harm to their loved ones. This abuse is compounded by their living and working conditions.

I spent four years investigating sexual and physical abuse of children as a detective in the Winnipeg Police Service Child Abuse Unit. With this in mind, I know firsthand that strong responses are required to address this horrific crime of exploitation and abuse.

I am sure that we can all agree that human trafficking is a horrible crime which inflicts serious damage on its victims. Hon. members may recall that in 2006 the House unanimously supported Motion No. 153, which was also introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. It condemned the crime of trafficking in persons and called for a national strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide. The unanimous support that motion received reflects the shared support of all members to ensure we continue to strongly condemn the act of trafficking in persons.

I implore all members of the House--

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Private Members' Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). I, too, am a mother of two wonderful daughters and I am appalled that any mother in Canada might have to deal with the horror of having her child taken and used in human trafficking.

Trafficking in persons is sometimes described as the new global slave trade. No country has been left untouched by this terrible scourge. It is a serious issue that warrants attention from all levels of government.

The private members' bill introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul would amend the Criminal Code to impose a mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment for the offence of trafficking a person under the age of 18 years and for which the maximum penalty is currently fourteen years imprisonment.

Bill C-268 would create a new, separate offence of trafficking a person under the age of 18 years, which would mirror the existing offence of trafficking in persons found in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code and which protects all victims, adult and child. The current section 279.01, trafficking in persons offence, was added to the Criminal Code in 2005. It prohibits anyone from engaging in specified acts such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. This offence is punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment where it involves the kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or death of the victim and 14 years in all other cases.

In effect, Bill C-268 is saying that this penalty is not enough, at least with respect to the child victims of human trafficking. I am sure we can all agree that all countries, including Canada, must remain vigilant to ensure that our criminal law responses to human trafficking remain effective and treat it as the serious issue it is.

A report released on February 12, 2009 by the United Nations' Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking reported that over 24,000 victims of trafficking were identified by 111 countries in the year 2006. According to the report, the most common form of human trafficking is trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The second most common form of human trafficking is for the purpose of forced labour, although the real number may be higher as forced labour is less frequently detected and reported than trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Although anyone can be a victim of trafficking, victims are predominantly women and children. Worldwide, almost 20% of all trafficking victims are children. However, in some parts of Africa and the Mekong region, children are the majority: up to 100% in parts of West Africa. UNICEF estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked around the world each year.

We know that trafficking in persons also occurs within Canada. As in other countries, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of human trafficking within Canada due, in large part, to the clandestine nature of the activity. It can also be difficult to track offenders through reported cases, as they may be charged under any number of offences that may not always easily identify the case as a trafficking cases.

The experience of Canadian law enforcement reflects the international experience insomuch as the majority of known victims are women and children. These victims are often forced into situations of horrible exploitation, their rights abused and their freedom taken away. Trafficking in persons often involves organized criminal networks that profit from this abuse. The 2006 Canada-U.S. Binational Threat Assessment on Human Trafficking reported that from spring 2004 to February 2006, there were at least 25 convictions under various Criminal Code provisions for trafficking activity. A recent United Nations report identified that between March 2004 and February 2007 there were 30 trafficking-related convictions in Canada under various Criminal Code offences.

We also know that the 2005 Criminal Code trafficking offences are now being used by our police. These numbers reflect the minimum number of cases, as many decisions go unreported. To date, there have been three reported convictions in Canada under the 2005 specific offence of trafficking in persons, which Bill C-268 proposes to amend.

When the specific trafficking in persons offences were enacted in 2005, they were meant to give police and crown prosecutors another tool to combat trafficking. These offences supplemented existing offences such as kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault and the prostitution-related provisions.

The police and Crown now have the ability to charge the offence or offences that best meet the circumstances of a given case, and this is what we are seeing in these early cases under the recent trafficking offences.

For example, Canada's first conviction under section 279.01 involved two victims under the age of 18. In that case, the defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons and living off the avails of prostitution of a minor, and received a sentence of five years imprisonment, three years for trafficking and the mandatory minimum of two years for living off the avails of child prostitution, to be served consecutively.

The remaining two convictions under the trafficking-specific offences involved both adult and child victims, and in both cases the accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons and prostitution-related offences. The sentences imposed ranged from two to three years imprisonment.

This government's commitment to combating human trafficking is reflected in its response to the 2007 report by the House of Commons standing committee, “Turning Outrage Into Action to Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada”.

The government's response reiterated the importance of a multidisciplinary response to trafficking in persons and outlined our approach. This approach also clearly reflects the framework established by the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplemental protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, by focusing on the four Ps: prevention of trafficking, protection of its victims, prosecution of offenders, and the building of partnerships both domestically and internationally.

Canadians are rightfully concerned about this horrible crime. The issue of human trafficking has received significant attention in this House and in the other place. I think we all understand and appreciate the seriousness of the issue being addressed by Bill C-268. Its proposed reform really raises a key question: Are our existing penalties for the trafficking of children adequate, and if not, would Bill C-268 provide the needed enhancement?

If this bill is referred to committee for study, I hope that the committee will consider the bill by looking as well at how the existing Criminal Code penalties addressing child victims are working.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, on January 29 the Conservative member for Kildonan—St. Paul introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-268, for first reading in the House of Commons.

This bill would add a new offence to the Criminal Code. It would distinguish offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of 18 years from those involving adults.

The goal of this bill is to impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years for anyone found guilty of trafficking a person under the age of 18.

This bill is simple enough. There are eight clauses, but the heart of the bill is in the second clause, in its creation of a new offence in the Criminal Code, namely, section 279.011. The wording in this provision is exactly the same as section 279.01, regarding the trafficking of a person, but adds the distinction “under the age of eighteen years” to the definition of an exploited person. With this addition, a separate offence would be created when the trafficking involves a minor.

Although we are well aware of the worldwide scourge that is human trafficking, the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill. Allow me to explain the reasons for its decision.

In 2005, the Bloc Québécois voted in support of Bill C-49. Creating an offence to specifically condemn human trafficking was necessary, and we willingly cooperated to see it passed. The amendment to the Criminal Code gave law enforcement authorities the legal tools they need to prosecute and convict anyone who unfortunately engages in these horrible practices that show no respect for human dignity.

Bill C-268, however, we believe is a step in the wrong direction. By automatically imposing a minimum sentence of five years on anyone convicted of the trafficking of persons under 18, the government is not solving anything. I will explain why.

First of all, many experts have established that minimum sentences have negative effects and dubious value when it comes to fighting crime.

For instance, criminal lawyer Julian Roberts, from the University of Ottawa, conducted a study in 1997 for the Department of Justice of Canada in which he concluded:

Although mandatory sentences of imprisonment have been introduced in a number of western nations... the studies that have examined the impact of these laws reported variable effects on prison populations and no discernible effect on crime rates.

In early May 2006, during a press conference on the controversial passing of Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety at the time were forced to acknowledge that no Canadian study has demonstrated that new measures to introduce minimum penalties are effective in fighting crime.

Minimum sentences can also have a negative impact. According to André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal, minimum sentences can encourage plea bargaining by lawyers wanting to have their clients charged with offences that do not have minimum sentences. Minimum sentences can also force judges to acquit an individual, rather than be forced to sentence that individual to a penalty the judge considers excessive under the circumstances.

When it comes to sentencing, the first consideration must be individualization. The justification of this individualized approach lies in the principle of proportionality. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This is because no two crimes are identical, no two offenders are exactly alike and no two sets of circumstances are exactly the same. For all those reasons, the Bloc Québécois believes in the importance of maintaining judicial discretion.

When judges sentence an offender to prison, they take into account the offender's degree of responsibility, the seriousness of the offence and the best way to serve justice while maximizing the likelihood of rehabilitation.

People who know only the offence and the sentence often do not realize that there are other important factors that must be taken into account in sentencing.

Moreover, studies have shown that when people have the chance to go beyond what is reported in the media, the body of evidence and the factors considered by the judge, most conclude that they would have handed down a similar sentence.

The Bloc Québécois is therefore opposed to mandatory minimum sentences because it believes in the justice system and the importance of maintaining judicial discretion. We believe that judges, who are best able to assess the information presented in court, have to be free to decide.

In addition, Bill C-268 is not consistent. It does not provide for a minimum sentence when an offender found guilty of trafficking of a minor kidnaps, commits an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against or causes death to the victim during the commission of the offence. The bill does not change the subsection that covers this.

We are having a hard time understanding the logic behind Bill C-268. On the one hand, they say that they want to prevent serious offences involving the trafficking of minors by imposing minimum sentences, but on the other, they are not changing sentences for offenders who use extreme violence in committing the crime.

To ensure the most appropriate court rulings possible, we would be wise to look at recommendation 33 of the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women's report on human trafficking. Judges and prosecutors should be informed of, educated about, and made aware of the Criminal Code provisions concerning human trafficking and the disastrous impact of this crime on its victims.

When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is still, and will always be, prevention. We have to attack crime at the root. That being said, the Bloc is aware that the existing legal system needs considerable improvement, and that some changes to the Criminal Code are necessary. The government's duty is to intervene and use the tools at its disposal to make sure that people can live peacefully and safely.

On June 15, 2007, in response to the Conservatives' ideological approach, the Bloc Québécois recommended a number of measures. The party proposed a series of recommendations for major changes to Canada's justice system. Unlike the Conservatives' measures, which lacked nuance, the Bloc's measures reflected the concerns of Quebeckers, who want a more balanced system, one that is consistent with modern realities and will have a real impact on crime, but that avoids the pitfalls inherent in the repression-based American model, whose negative effects are manifest.

The Bloc Québécois proposed measures that are in line with Quebeckers' values, measures based on prevention, rehabilitation, social and economic integration, and better distribution of wealth. Our proposals included the following: streamlining the parole system, stepping up the fight against organized crime, eliminating double credit for time served before sentencing—which British Columbia's Minister of Justice supports—and more funding for the national crime prevention strategy.

The Bloc Québécois does not support the bill because we believe its approach is harmful and ineffective and we are convinced that it will do nothing to improve the safety of citizens. The Bloc defends a model of justice based on a process tailored to each case and founded on the principle of rehabilitation. Any measure seeking to automate the nature of the sentence given to the offender represents, in our opinion, a dangerous approach. Minimum sentences unnecessarily tie the hands of judges who, we believe, remain in the best position to determine what sentence is the most appropriate in light of all the facts of the case.

In closing, experts tell us that minimum sentences do not lower crime rates or the rate of recidivism.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on what I consider to be a very important bill brought forward by the hon. member, Bill C-268, an act to amend the Criminal Code to include a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of 18 years.

One of the reasons that I believe this bill is very important is because it mirrors something that I was involved in early in my career as a parliamentarian. Prior to becoming a politician, I had been on the board of directors of Interim Place, the shelter for battered women and children. I was a director and treasurer for five years and got to know the issue in a way that most men do not because very few men actually get into shelters to see and to meet some of the women and children involved.

Abuse tears at the heartstrings of those who wish they could help. One of the first things I had some success in as a parliamentarian, almost 15 years ago, was to amend the Criminal Code to provide stiffer sentences to those convicted of spousal or child abuse, and it is in the Criminal Code today.

If nothing else happens in my career, that gives me shivers when I think that I was able to draw on my experience, from my family and from my personal life before becoming an MP, to be able to actually leave a fingerprint somewhere in the system, in the laws of Canada, to show that there is a common bond of association with the people from the legislators that these things are important.

I feel very close to the member in terms of how she feels about championing this issue. She knows that there will be some detractors from it, but I sense from her speaking that she is ready to defend the bill that she has presented to us through all stages of its legislative process.

Some people may not be aware of what specifically would be involved, so I want to take the time actually to read the clause that she wants to put into the Criminal Code. It is a brand new clause. Subclause (1) states:

Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person under the age of eighteen years, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to imprisonment for life if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence; or

(b) to imprisonment for not more than fourteen years and not less than five years in any other case.

Subclause (2) states:

No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter of a charge under subsection (1) is valid.

That is the language that ultimately, we hope, will appear in the Criminal Code.

Private members' bills sometimes are successful when they are targeted and focused, and I think this one is. I have seen some bills that try and do a little too much, provide a little too many tentacles out there where somebody could find one reason why they might not support it. I think this one is clean.

The member did herself a great service by including the letter from Professor Benjamin Perrin from the University of British Columbia who laid out some of the elements that really helped to communicate. I think all hon. members have received this and I hope they take a chance to read it. When we get that third party validation, when they look at things, such as the need for the bill that he covers here and his comments on the consistency with international obligations, which is extremely important, as well as the constitutionality of it.

Those are very important things for members to do. This is a great model for all other hon. members who are championing private members' business to use for their private members' bills or motions because it covers the fundamentals.

We cannot be experts in all these things but we should get that third party validation, with good sound arguments and good examples. As a member of Parliament from the region of Peel, I do know how the Peel Regional Police worked with the Montreal police services on the case that was referred to.

I mentioned at the beginning that there will probably be some detractors to this and probably will talk about mandatory sentencing. It is a debate that has been going on. However, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that there are cases. I must admit that I myself have spoken against mandatory minimums in certain cases but they had to do with fetal alcohol syndrome. I was on the argument about people who do not know the difference between right and wrong. It appeared that the courts were not giving enough identification to the fact that there are some people in our society who do not know the difference between right and wrong and that the incarceration of someone who has a mental disability would not be a good thing to do because rehabilitation is not possible. We need institutionalization to deal with the lifelong disability. That is going to be one area.

The other area I recall with regard to challenging matters such as this has to do with alleviating the judge with the discretion and the latitude because cases are complex. Sometimes there are exacerbating or mitigating circumstances. When we look at the clause that is being proposed here, there are so many different elements that might be reflective of this offence but they are subject to interpretation. That is one of the reasons I asked the member where the language came from and whether it had tested. We do not need a false start. However, I am sure we will get a chance at committee to vent these kinds of questions and I know the member will be well prepared to deal with them.

I know a lot of other members would like to speak to this. I simply wanted I thank the member for the bill. I will be supporting Bill C-268 and I will be recommending that my colleagues support it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on introducing Bill C-268.

I will be speaking next so I do not want to get into details, but just for the information of the House, the new clause that is proposed to be added to the Criminal Code has some very sweeping language in it. Could the member indicate who developed the language? Is it modelled on some other jurisdictional language? Is there some assurance that we have it right?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

moved that Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

I ask members to take a moment to imagine a beautiful Ontario spring day in June 2008. Imagine a courtroom here in the province of Ontario where a young girl, no older than 15 years when her exploitation began, head bowed, eyes down, quietly relates a story so shocking that we as parents relive the images in our minds over and over again and pray it never happens to our daughters.

I am speaking of a young Canadian girl who lives not far from the nation's capital, telling of the horror she endured from the man who trafficked and sold her for sex for two and a half years, a man who made in excess of $360,000 off this innocent young victim by threatening her, beating her, and forcing her to have sex with strangers.

As a result, this man was able to buy himself a BMW and an expensive house in Niagara Falls. Even though he was eventually caught and convicted, he spent less time in jail than he did exploiting this young girl and destroying her life. Often he would tell her that if she got out of line, he would beat her. He would threaten to kidnap her brother or do harm to her parents.

This man, Imani Nakpangi, was caught and convicted as the first child trafficker in Canada. To get a glimpse of the ongoing trauma this young girl endured from her trafficker, I would like us to imagine our own daughters, granddaughters, or sons, telling this story in this Ontario courtroom last June.

I will quote from this young girl's impact statement so we as parliamentarians can catch a glimpse of what this little girl went through. She said, “I am constantly looking over my shoulder, afraid that either Imani or his friends are going to come after me for putting him in jail. I don't feel safe at home. He knows where I live, and what my family looks like, and where they live. I have nightmares about him. I have low self esteem. Feel like I am only good for one thing...sex. I don't see why someone, a man would be interested in me, and try to get to know me, because I feel unworthy, dirty, tainted, nothing."

In Canada today child sex slavery is alive and well. Traffickers make a great deal of money off innocent child victims. They prefer young children because young children are impressionable, easy to control and easy to intimidate. The criminal intelligence service of Canada's strategic intelligence brief entitled “Organized Crime and Domestic Trafficking in Persons in Canada” has reported that organized crime networks right here in Canada are actively trafficking Canadian born women and underage girls interprovincially and in some instances to the U.S. These women and girls are destined for the sex trade.

I would like to speak about the legal necessity of Bill C-268. Canada's first human trafficking offences were added to the Criminal Code at the end of 2005 through the work of the hon. member for Mount Royal, the justice minister at that time. Section 279.01 of the Criminal Code carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years and up to life imprisonment if the victim is kidnapped, subject to aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault, or killed during the commission of the offence.

Now there are some who will argue this amendment is unnecessary. They will suggest that individuals convicted of trafficking in Canada already face up to 14 years, even life in certain circumstances, and therefore, there is no need for mandatory minimums.

Let me be clear. This view is naive and ignorant of the reality of human trafficking convictions in Canada. Over the past year Peel Regional Police and Montreal Police Service have rescued the first child victims of sex trafficking in Canada and secured convictions against their traffickers. Imani Nakpangi, who I mentioned earlier, was convicted last June of trafficking a 15-year-old girl. He sexually exploited her daily over two years. For the offence of human trafficking, he received only three years and was credited 13 months for the pre-trial time he served.

This past November in Montreal, Michael Lennox Mark was convicted of human trafficking. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for trafficking a 17-year-old girl and selling her for sex. He served only a single week in prison after being convicted because he was given a two-for-one credit for his one year of pretrial custody.

In light of the incredulous sentences these men received, I cannot imagine what one would have to do to receive a full 14 years. These are our Canadian children.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the wonderful police officers in the Peel and Montreal police forces for their dedication to combatting this horrific crime. I can tell members they are shocked at the exceedingly inadequate sentences that have been handed down by sentencing judges in Canada's first set of convictions for human trafficking involving children.

I would like my hon. colleagues to know that Bill C-268 arose directly from consultations with these officers and victims organizations across Canada who are concerned about the safety of our children. These convictions set an alarming precedent for all future cases involving trafficking of children. With almost a dozen similar cases before Canadian courts today involving the trafficking of minors, it is imperative that Parliament send a clear message that the trafficking of minors will not be tolerated.

It is important to note that the Criminal Code already recognizes that certain serious crimes involving child victims require more stringent penalties. Section 212(2.1) of the Criminal Code imposes a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the aggravated offence of living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of 18 years. Pimps can theoretically be put behind bars for doing this. However, Canada's Criminal Code has no serious penalties for victims of trafficking who are children.

With regard to constitutional concerns, lawyer and criminal law professor Benjamin Perrin has reviewed Bill C-268 and found that it is fully compliant with relevant constitutional standards. Professor Perrin points out that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently affirmed the test for when a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment will constitute cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the unanimous reasons for judgment in R. v. Ferguson, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin stated:

The test for whether a particular sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate.... As this Court has repeatedly held, to be considered grossly disproportionate, the sentence must be more than merely excessive.

The only thing that is grossly disproportionate in these cases I have referred to is the inadequate sentences handed out. Let me be clear. There is no reasonable hypothetical scenario that would result in a mandatory minimum term of five years for child trafficking being grossly disproportionate.

As I mentioned earlier, section 212(2.1) imposes a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the aggravated offence of living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of 18 years. This provision has routinely been applied by the courts and was endorsed by the federal, provincial and territorial working group on prostitution in its report and recommendations in respect of legislation, policy and practices concerning prostitution-related activities. The report states:

--it is difficult to imagine a case in which the minimum sentence would not be suitable.... [I]t definitely signals the community's abhorrence of such a crime by imposing a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Both public protection and the expression of public revulsion for such conduct require that the minimum time served in a correctional system be the subject of legislative rather than judicial or administrative control.

These arguments apply with equal, or even greater, force to Bill C-268 in respect of a mandatory minimum sentence for a child trafficker.

Bill C-268 would also bring much needed parity between the trafficking in persons sentencing structure and section 212(2.1) with respect to child victims.

Canada has ratified the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. As a result, Canada has significant international obligations to ensure the safety and protection of our children. Article 3.3 states:

Each State Party shall make such offences punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature.

Our current Criminal Code does not meet this international obligation when it comes to the trafficking of children.

Bill C-268 would ensure that Canadian courts handed out sentences that reflect the gravity of child trafficking and sexual exploitation and also reflect the sentences handed out to child traffickers in other countries.

I would also note that in October 2008, the report of the Canada-U.S. Consultation in Preparation for the World Congress III against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents recommended that Canada enact a mandatory minimum penalty for child trafficking. This report was prepared by Canadian and American NGOs and federal government representatives, including Steve Sullivan, Canada's Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Other countries have taken significant steps to denounce the trafficking of children. The United States and Australia have separate offences for the trafficking of a child. Trafficking a child under age 14 in the United States will result in a minimum penalty of 15 years and a minimum of 10 for children between the ages of 14 and 16.

The plague of human trafficking that threatens our youth has galvanized Canadians across our country. In the past few weeks I have received countless letters, emails and petitions supporting my bill. I trust many hon. members in the House have experienced a similar outcry. Most notably, support for the bill has come from major stakeholders in the fight against child trafficking. Law enforcement, victims services, first nations, and non-governmental organizations have all expressed the need for mandatory minimum sentences for child trafficking.

Canadian Police Association President Charles Momy has said:

The United Nations has identified human trafficking as a serious concern and Canada is not an exception. This is very real crime in this country. We applaud [the member for Kildonan--St. Paul] for raising this issue in the House of Commons--

--I am sure he applauds everyone for it--

--and welcome this bill as a means for Parliament to address this problem in Canada.

Grand Chief Ron Evans of the Manitoba Assembly of Chiefs has said:

On behalf of First Nations people, I am pleased to support...Bill C-268. Both US and Canadian government reports have shown that Aboriginal women and children are at greater risk of becoming victims of human trafficking than any other group in Canada.... Bill C-268 is one step forward for the First Nations women and children of Canada.

Rosalind Prober, executive director of Beyond Borders, has said:

In terms of sentencing in Canada for crimes against children in general, they are very, very, very lenient....Traffickers of human beings, especially children, are not individuals that should get a slap on the wrist. A message should be sent from the courtroom -- and that's what [the member for Kildonan--St. Paul] is trying to do.

I know all members in the House are trying to do the same thing.

There are many more. What is clear is that Canadians are calling for Parliament to act. After all, we have been elected to ensure the safety of our communities.

The trafficking of children is not a Conservative, Liberal, Bloc or NDP issue. It is not a partisan issue. I have worked diligently to gain support from all parties for this bill.

In the past our parties worked together to pass legislation put forward by the hon. member for Mount Royal to bring in Canada's first human trafficking offences.

Our current government has taken important steps to provide much needed assistance and residence to international victims of human trafficking.

Our government has also introduced an annual $6 million in funding to combat trafficking of persons and child exploitation.

In 2007, members from all parties on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, including the hon. member for Laval and the hon. member for Beaches—East York, who are here in the House today, worked hard to produce a comprehensive report on human trafficking. They both remember the heart-wrenching stories of victims whose lives have been destroyed by this vicious crime.

I am grateful for the overwhelming support I have received from all parties for Bill C-268. It is vital that all Canadians and the international community witness all members of Canada's Parliament standing unified against this horrific abuse of human rights.

We must act to end the trafficking of children here in Canada and abroad. We can and we will.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important bill because in Canada there are no mandatory minimum sentences for human trafficking convictions, not even for children. The October report of the Canada-U.S. consultation, in preparation for the world congress against sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, recommended that Canada amend its Criminal Code to provide a mandatory minimum penalty for child trafficking.

In Peel county right now numerous trafficking charges are on the table, hopefully, with convictions, and this kind of bill would ensure that traffickers have very stiff sentences. This is very mandatory.

As members know, last year a Niagara man was convicted of human trafficking. He earned $350,000 off a 15-year-old girl over the period of two years. He only received three years and received a credit for 404 days of time already served.

These mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking of children are of paramount importance here in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)