Justice Committee on March 15th, 2012

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

This part of the bill is really well drafted. My hat is off to you; the wording is really good. It lists examples that could be regarded by a court as exploitation, but it also has these magic words: “among other factors”. So it's not an exhaustive list. If those words weren't there, I'd be quite worried, but they are there.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Okay.

Thank you.

[Rosalind Prober]

I want to say that, having worked, Mark and I, on the child sex tourism legislation, when we were doing that a lot of the folks who were opposed thought the sky was going to fall if you did this. But the reality is that the alternative is to have your country as a safe haven for criminals who have committed offences abroad. That's the reality, if you want to accept that reality. If you don't have this, that is the reality: they will just skip home and say tough luck.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have one minute remaining.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I'm content. I'm happy to pass my time to any of my colleagues who may want to use it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you.

I will carry on where my colleague left off in relation to the definition and some of the things that were included within the definition.

When courts look at this type of case, in Canada at least, they look at the total evidence. They look at all the evidence. Do you think there's anything further that could have been included within there?

I'm talking specifically to Mr. Attaran.

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

What can I say? I think it's great. I really don't have a problem as far as that section goes.

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

You've talked about, and in fact criticized, some of Canada's laws on the international scene as far as this goes. I understand that laws reflect society and things move very slowly, but can you cite specific examples, other than the United States, that have similar laws that in your opinion would be superior to these?

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

Let's not mix apples and oranges. Bill C-310, as far as it goes, does a great job. My criticism is that this House has to go farther. I'm no expert in procedure to say whether that occurs—

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

If I may say, as I've only got one minute, you're suggesting in relation to the victims after, current, and/or during...?

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

Correct. The treatment of victims....

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

I understand that. We have very generous social programs other than that, but I don't know the specifics in relation to that.

As far as the law goes and the definition section goes, and as far as what it's trying to do extrajurisdictionally in the world, do you think it goes far enough compared to other countries?

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

On that part I give it a big thumbs up.

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

An A-plus?

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

You're asking a professor for a grade?

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

Exactly. That's exactly what I was asking for.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Ms. Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will all give ourselves a nice A-plus after the passing of this bill.

Ms. Smith, I want to thank you not only as an assistant spokesperson for justice, but also as the main spokesperson for the status of women. This is an issue which is close to my heart.

Mr. Attaran, I have carefully listened to your comments. Nevertheless, I think you might wish to make your heartfelt appeal some other time. We are now addressing the issue of transborder trafficking in persons and that is one way to correct the situation. If there is something we should do after that, we will do it. One does not necessarily exclude the other.

I want to ask a question. Could we not have a conflict of jurisdiction at some point? If Canada wanted to start proceedings against one of his nationals who is abroad and who is responsible for that type of appalling act, and at the same time, the country where that person is wants to do the same, what would we do? Would we not be facing a conflict of jurisdiction? That is one of my concerns.

I do not know which expert can answer that. Ms. Smith, I imagine you have thought of this possibility.

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

For extraterritorial jurisdiction, as I said in my opening remarks, that is something that is normally not done by a private member's bill, but in this case it's exactly what should be done.

A number of countries have already extended or included extraterritorial jurisdiction in trafficking and purposes, but I want to ask you to look at a report. The report of the practice of extraterritorial jurisdiction by Canada was released by the Law Commission of Canada and it states that most exercises of extraterritoriality are deliberately multilateral. It is open to Canada to act extraterritorially in advance of a consensus having been formed.

I think that's what you're saying, that the consensus isn't there, that we should do extraterritorially per se in a private member's bill, but—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It's not exactly that. But maybe I'm not exactly clear.

Let's say that Canada was in a position of prosecuting somebody who's in Switzerland, and Switzerland wanted to prosecute for the same thing. Is there a problem of conflict? That's my question.

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

No.

Sorry.

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

Can I address it?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Whoever can give me an answer.