Justice Committee on June 1st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

We'll move on to Monsieur Petit for seven minutes.

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

Good afternoon, Ms. Smith, Ms. Watts and Ms. Levman.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am Daniel Petit, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles in Quebec. I want you to know that not all Quebeckers oppose this bill. I have read it. I have been a lawyer for some 30 years. I have four children, who are all of full age, of course.

The issue you are raising has been a problem for a very long time, not only in Quebec and in Canada, but also worldwide. The trafficking of young girls and boys has been the focus of numerous movies and news stories. I can assure you that Quebeckers in the Conservative party support your bill.

We have had the chance to meet, as we sit on the same side of the House. I have followed your motion's progress. Way back when, you proposed a motion, and, if memory serves me correctly, we voted almost unanimously in favour of it.

The question I want to ask Ms. Levman is this. Very often, the general public does not distinguish between procuring and the trafficking of children for sexual or other purposes. In the Criminal Code, it says that if someone is found guilty of procuring, the minimum sentence is two years' imprisonment, and up to five years in the case of a more serious offence. We are talking about prostitution and procuring.

I read Ms. Mourani's book; she is a Bloc Québécois member who, in fact, voted in our favour. In her book, she writes that certain highly organized street gangs in Montreal sell one another young women, whom they then use. As one city of Montreal official told us during a presentation on human trafficking in the Montreal area, it is more profitable for a gang to have girls than drugs, because they have to buy more drugs once they sell the drugs they had, but a girl can be used over and over again, which brings in more money.

Ms. Levman, since people are watching us now, could you please explain the difference between section 212 and the new section that Ms. Smith is proposing with respect to minimum sentences for procuring and trafficking offences. Most people think that procuring is human trafficking. But they are not necessarily the same thing. Can you explain the difference from a legal perspective?

[Nathalie Levman]

For me, there are different elements of the offence that need to be proven by a crown in a court of law. That's not to say that a given situation, a given fact scenario, might not equally fit under section 279.01 and subsection 212(2) or 212(2.1). They might equally fit and you might see charges, in fact, under both of those provisions, as we did in the Nakpamgi case. I hope I am pronouncing his name properly.

So you have a situation where basically crown or law enforcement generally have a set of tools they can use to attack these serious cases, and in both of these offences, whether it's trafficking or child prostitution, we see very high maximum penalties. So we don't worry so much, I guess, which offence is used. We simply hope that crown and police will choose the one that's most easily provable, based on the facts that can be proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt, given the facts of the case that can be proven in court.

I hope that answers your question.

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

In Quebec, a man named Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu works with victims. One of his two daughters was killed in a serious accident, and the other was killed by a repeat offender released from prison. I had a chance to speak with Mr. Boisvenu about Ms. Smith's bill. He sees it as a good thing. I have never experienced anything like the situations that Ms. Smith is trying to prevent through her bill, and I hope the same goes for everyone at this table. Mr. Boisvenu, an expert in the field, supports this bill. He is a good Quebecker doing very good work. He is sometimes emotional given that his daughter was the victim of a serious crime.

Ms. Levman, in your opinion, would the minimum sentences that Ms. Smith is calling for go against any provision in the Constitution? Would it be valid from a constitutional standpoint? Is there anything strange about imposing minimum sentences? And I do not mean the fact that some do not like the idea and oppose the bill. Legally speaking, does imposing minimum sentences, as in section 212, for example, cause any problems?

[Nathalie Levman]

Well, I'm not a charter expert. I want to put that out there, so I'm not misleading anybody. But I'm sure the committee members are aware that mandatory minimum penalties do pose a risk of violating section 12 of the charter, which entrenches the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Now, this is quite a high test to meet, and the test is whether the punishment is “grossly disproportionate” for the offender, such that Canadians would find the punishment intolerable.

Now, it goes without saying that the lower the mandatory minimum penalty, the less risk of infringing section 12. And it also goes without saying that there should not be too much of a disproportion between a mandatory minimum penalty imposed for one offence and a mandatory minimum penalty imposed for another similar offence—if that makes sense. Where the disproportion is great, there is a higher risk of section 12 infringement. Where there is no disproportion, or they're similar, there is a lower risk.

I hope this helps the committee consider the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you so much.

We're at the end of our time. I want to thank all three of you for providing testimony here today. We'll let you go.

I'm going to adjourn, and then we have a Czech delegation coming in on an informal basis.

Monsieur Lemay, did you have a question?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I would like two documents submitted to the committee by tomorrow: the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, and, especially, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These documents provide the basis for Ms. Smith's bill. I want to be able to read them to see whether they actually set out an obligation to impose minimum imprisonment sentences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Smith, are you able to provide those by, say, the close of business tomorrow?

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

It would be my pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay, thank you. You can deliver them to the clerk.

Monsieur Lemay, you'll have those documents presumably tomorrow. Those documents will be distributed to all committee members.

We're adjourned.