Bill C-452

Mike Wallace Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC

This is a problem for me because, during the study of Bill C-452, we all agreed in saying that the offences in question were serious. I have seen government bills take up to a year or a year and a half to be passed. The argument related to provinces is not the problem here; this is a classic case of procrastination.

Sometimes, deciding when a piece of legislation should be implemented has to do with politics. This is absolutely not a problem for the provinces, which know very well what we look at when we study bills related to criminal law. Quebec's minister of justice is fully up to speed, and that is the case for all other bills. The same goes for all other provincial ministers of justice.

I understand the Supreme Court's argument. I absolutely don't want to have any problems—for instance, a case where one of the two parties appearing before the Supreme Court may use what we are doing to argue that this is a message from the government.

That being said, the message was clear. This piece of legislation will come into force 30 days after it receives royal assent. We know exactly when that will be. In short, either we are serious or we are not.

Judy Sgro York West, ON

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your indulgences. I'm filling in for Professor Cotler on an issue that I think is really important to all of our people, especially when, particularly, you say that.

The concerns that we have regarding the amendment are that it apparently changes what's caught by the “proceeds of crime” provision. The current wording in Bill C-452 adds “procuring or trafficking in persons”.

As much as we support the government's amendment, to the extent that it removes the phrase “procurement”, it certainly is a procurement offence in section 212 of the Criminal Code, which is before the Supreme Court—we all know that. We do not want to prejudice any of the parties or the court, in the determination of the case. Indeed, of particular concern is that the procurement offence contains the “living off of the avails” provision, to which applying proceeds of crime might prove problematic and undesirable, in relation to prostitutes who take measures for their safety and protection.

The concern we have with the rest of the government's proposed change is that specifying human trafficking offences, instead of using the phrase “trafficking in persons” might be far too narrow in the event, for example, if someone is charged with numerous offences related to trafficking, but perhaps the trafficking charge itself does not hold.

We certainly understand that from a legislative drafting perspective, clarity in the code is desirable, and we would not want to have extended discussions of what is, and is not, trafficking, relative to the proceeds of crime upon sentencing. With that said, we do have concerns that someone who has engaged in or assisted in human trafficking, but is not charged with that specific offence, would not be subject to the proceeds of crime provision.

Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC

Here's how I see things. When I mentioned the decision in the Bedford case, I simply wanted to argue that our whole debate on section 1 may have been pointless, since we don't know what position the Supreme Court will adopt. The amendment proposed in Bill C-452 does not affect the correction the trial judge asked parliamentarians to make. It was not related to types of sentences, but to the offence itself. I think that's more or less applicable.

However, I am always somewhat reluctant to amend a provision that has already been submitted to the courts. We may want to err on the side of caution and wait for the Supreme Court's ruling. I have no problem with that approach. However, I fully support the proposed amendment to section 212 of the Criminal Code concerning sentence types, provided that it is considered constitutional.

It's simply a matter of delaying the process. Mr. Seeback is right. If the Supreme Court concludes that those provisions are entirely constitutional, the issue will come before us again and we will have to consider it once more. Perhaps someone else could propose an amendment. Even the government could do that, since it really seemed to support this bill.

Robert Goguen Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

I have a motion, Mr. Speaker. It has been discussed with Madam Boivin, I believe, and the Liberal Party, perhaps not Mrs. Sgro.

We voted previously on clause 1. I seek unanimous consent to reopen the discussion on clause 1. Actually, Madam Boivin picked up on this during earlier discussions, and it has to do with the Bedford case, which is before the Supreme Court of Canada.

You'll recall that we voted in favour of clause 1. This bill would impose a mandatory consecutive sentence in cases where a person has been convicted under section 212 of the Criminal Code, the procuring provision, and any other offence arising out of the same events or series of events. You'll also recall that we addressed clause 1 in the context of Liberal amendment 1, but we did not discuss the substance of the clause.

As I say, there's the issue of the Bedford case before the Supreme Court of Canada. I know you're aware of this, and it's expected to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in June. The court will be considering the constitutionality of several of the Criminal Code's provisions regarding prostitution, including one of the procuring provisions, the procuring offence under paragraph 212(1)(j), living off the avails of prostitution, which this squarely deals with in clause 1.

In my view, this committee should carefully consider this matter and seek further input from the Department of Justice on the matter. For this reason, I would move a unanimous consent to reopen the discussion on clause 1 of Bill C-452 for further consideration by the committee. It may be appropriate to consult the expert here on this, Mr. Chair, if we do get the unanimous consent.

Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of Bill C-452, which seeks to combat trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation.

Sean Casey Charlottetown, PE

Yes, please.

Mr. Chair, you have Bill C-452 before you. I referred to this in my intervention with respect to amendment G-2. Essentially, this adds in the provisions with respect to living off the avails of human trafficking or exploitation, so it deals with the example I referred to in amendment G-2, the example of the two brothers, where one would have the availability of the presumption. One would be forced to deal with the rebuttable presumption, but the financier wouldn't. This would catch him.

I do share the concern of the sponsor of the bill and the witnesses over low prosecution rates for trafficking offences and agree that the presumption provisions may be beneficial. Such provisions, while not unprecedented in the Criminal Code, are limited in number, and rightly so, given the presumption of innocence. The committee has heard testimony that this reversal would help convict offenders when the victims of exploitation are too frightened to testify. This is a worthy goal, and I'm not seeking to do away with the reversal of the burden of proof.

I am, however, seeking to ensure that this extraordinary measure will not unintentionally lead to the conviction of a person who is not guilty. The current wording of the bill applies this provision to anyone who is “habitually in the company of” an exploited person, which is overly broad. The amendment would require someone to be living off the avails of the exploitation in order for the reversal of burden to apply.

Given the importance of these reverse onus provisions to the presumption of innocence, I think it's extremely important that we get it right. On the suggestion that the example may be off the wall, I don't think the example of the two brothers is. I heard Mr. Calkins referring to the availability of the aiding and abetting provisions within the Criminal Code, which would provide some assistance with respect to the actual offence, but in terms of the rebuttable presumption that we're now building in, it wouldn't.

I would ask that this be considered. Thank you.