Justice Committee on June 8th, 2009

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

Thank you.

Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

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

[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?

[Supt Michel Aubin]

I will do my best, Mr. Petit.

In my experience with organized crime and in my recent experience, I can say that it is not an insignificant problem. The problem does not just exist in Canada; it is widespread in Europe, where police and governments are putting a lot of time into it.

Many people from southeast Europe are trafficked for sexual exploitation in Europe. The cases before the courts in Canada show the extent of the problem.

After having led undercover operations inside criminal organizations for six years, I can tell you for sure that a number of women are involved in prostitution or exotic dancing clubs. They are not there of their own free will, they are there because they are being controlled. This is a fact. But I would find it difficult to tell you how many.

As for street gangs, police forces in Toronto, Vancouver and especially Montreal are aware that a number of individuals are involved in controlling girls who are held so that they can be put into prostitution. If they are not actual street gang members, they are directly linked.

This is a crime that is controlled to a greater and greater extent by street gangs. We need more research. We are also seeing what we call a shifting of responsibilities between criminal organizations. There is a kind of stratification going on between organizations, but street gangs are more and more involved. They are recruiting for this activity and running it.

I cannot tell you if the activity is growing fast in Canada, but I know that it is a problem all over the world, and one that we are seriously coming to grips with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, Superintendent, and also Ms. Arsenault, for attending. We're now going to move to clause-by-clause, so you can leave whenever you wish.

For our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-268, you should have received three amendments, numbered pages 1, 2, and 3. The first is government amendment 1. Then there are two NDP amendments.

We don't have an amendment for clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry? On division?

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

Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote on each of the clauses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. We have a request for a recorded vote on each clause, Madam Clerk.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can you tell us who is signed in from our side, because members should only be at the table and voting if signed in?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I just inquired of the clerk, and you're still signed in for the purposes of this vote.

(Clause 1 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 2)

We have three amendments. First of all, we have the government amendment.

Mr. Moore, are you moving that amendment, and do you wish to speak to it?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I so move.

What this amendment does is address the issue that was pointed out over the course of our committee study, that for the more serious offence involving kidnapping and a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life, there was no minimum included. For the lesser offences, if you will, there was a maximum punishment of 14 years and also a minimum of five years. So what this amendment does is provide for a minimum penalty of six years for the most serious cases involving kidnapping and where the maximum penalty is life.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Just for members' information, there is a line conflict with NDP-1 and NDP-2. So if G-1 is adopted, then NDP-1 and NDP-2 cannot be proceeded with. I wanted you to know that up front.

Is there any further discussion on the government amendment?

Mr. Comartin.

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

I moved the lesser periods of time even though if you look at the connected sections that are in section 212 of the code, it's a mixed bag there as to whether it's three years or five as mandatory minimums. The reason I moved for the lower numbers, Mr. Chair, was that this is a new section; we're creating a new offence here. I think in those circumstances we should err on the side of caution as to how our courts are going to interpret this section and then apply what level of severe penalties.... As you know, I'm generally opposed to mandatory minimums in any event, being quite willing to rely on our courts to impose the proper sentencing in response to the severity of the crime and facts that are before them.

So I think in a situation like this, where clearly we have in both paragraphs (a) and (b) what I would recognize as fairly severe crimes.... I don't want to downplay that at all, and I want my amendments to reflect that. What I want them to reflect is that we are dealing with a new section. We're providing the courts with a new tool to go after people who perpetuate these types of crimes. So in those circumstances I think we should err on the side of caution.

In keeping with that, Mr. Chair, I think the appropriate thing is for me to move an amendment to the government amendment to make it coincide with the two sections I have, so that we vote on those first rather than on the amendment from the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I've anticipated, Mr. Comartin, that you would come up with a subamendment to the amendment. I have a ruling that Bill C-268 amends the Criminal Code by creating a new section to provide for a minimum sentence of five years for the offence of trafficking of persons under the age of 18 years. This amendment proposes a minimum sentence of two years for the most serious offences committed under this newly created section. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

It's the opinion of the chair that the introduction of a two-year minimum is contrary to the principle of Bill C-268 and is therefore inadmissible.

Mr. Murphy.

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

Does this mean that in clause 2, proposed paragraph 279.011(1)(b), the part about a fourteen-year sentence and a five-year minimum...any amendment down would be out of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It's my understanding that any amendment that would reduce the mandatory minimum sentence below five years would be out of order. Any increase, of course, would be totally in order.

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

I guess you can't debate your ruling. I'm not saying I'm against it, but just as a matter of information then, can I ask a question of someone who might know?

Do we have six-year mandatory minimums in the code anywhere? I remember a debate about seven years. I think you guys tried ten years--crazy numbers. We've settled on five and three for many offences, five, three, two, one, and six months, and all that sort of thing. But is there one in the code that's six years? And if so, what is it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We do have a resource here in this room that we could call forward. You may recall we had Ms. Levman before us at our last meeting. She was a fount of information. She is here.

Is it the will of this committee to call her to answer that question?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I have no problem with that, but I think the ruling is on the intent and spirit of the legislation and has nothing to do with what's currently in the code.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I think it's legitimate to ask whether there are any mandatory minimums of six years.

Ms. Levman, would you be prepared to come forward and do that?

[Nathalie Levman, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

To my knowledge, six years is unprecedented, i.e., there isn't a precedent for having a six-year mandatory minimum penalty in the code currently. There are other numbers, but not six.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right.

I'm also advised that the ruling of the chair can't be debated. I'm going to exercise a little bit of discretion here to allow....

Mr. Murphy.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I didn't mean to ask that question in furtherance of or in consternation about your ruling. The ruling is past; it's gone. But that would mean, then, that if Mr. Comartin's motion is out of order, we are back to Mr. Moore's motion, which is, under G-1, should we have a six-year mandatory minimum? This is what we're talking about now, as I understood it.

May I ask another question just for a point of information?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Go ahead, please.

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

It would be this. There are five-year mandatory minimums for things like aggravated assault. Isn't that where we settled?

[Nathalie Levman]

I would like to, if you don't mind, get my list of mandatory minimum penalties so I don't mislead the committee in any way.