Justice Committee on May 6th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, thank you for that.

Are there any comments?

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Maybe you can enlighten us on both arguments.

[Nathalie Levman]

I can explain the amendment. It does create a separate legal test for exploitation, so the police would have to decide which definition they would go with. Previous witnesses have correctly pointed out that much of this language is derived from article 3 of the United Nations trafficking protocol and, as has already been pointed out, that language has not been judicially interpreted in Canada so there really is a problem with vagueness and potential overbreadth here with some of this language. It could confuse the operation of the law, and it raises potential charter considerations.

On the point of the words “labour services”, the current provision in section 279.04 is intended, of course, to cover all types of labour or services including sexual services. Bill C-452 does refer to sexual services in the separate legal test it provides and, of course, that relates back to the prostitution provisions, which also refer to sexual services.

This is a term that has meaning in our law, is intelligible, and has been judicially interpreted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Am I correct in saying that when I read the amended definition in clause 2, which we're looking into right now, it seems a bit more complex for the crown to get into proof of all of these elements? I don't know if it's just an impression I have. The text as it is seems a bit more simple, and it's easier to fit in a lot of things.

[Nathalie Levman]

To be fair, Bill C-452does say “or”. The crown would have to prove only one. You're quite right that some of these expressions have no legal meaning in Canadian law whereas in section 279.04 as currently drafted, each word is carefully chosen and has been judicially interpreted. So arguably, it would be more easily interpreted by a Canadian court, which is, of course, the point.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I guess a better question would be whether you can foresee any problems such that somebody could just fall through the cracks because of the actual way the article is written, which the amendment might help. Or, do you not see that?

[Nathalie Levman]

I believe the current definition covers all of these different scenarios. Bill C-310 also provided an interpretive tool, which I think really helps. It uses language that has meaning in Canadian law to assist judges in interpreting when exploitation has taken place for the purposes of section 279.04.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Let's take a vote on amendment G-3.

All those in favour of G-3?

(Amendment agreed to)

[An hon. member]

We're running out of time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to get to it as soon as we're done here.

We're on clause 3 as amended.

All those in favour?

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

We are about seven or eight minutes past the normal end of the meeting. The rule is that we can extend the meeting with a majority vote.

I can tell you, just so you have an understanding of where we are, that we have clause 4 with no amendments, clause 5 with one amendment, and clause 6 with one amendment. We're at least halfway through if not more. If you want to continue, I'd be happy to continue, and I can ask the question again at 6 o'clock if we're not there by 6 o'clock.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have House duty right now and I'm already late.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

We can continue on Wednesday then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have Wednesday open.

My concept today, to be frank with you, was that we would get this done, and then we wouldn't have to meet on Wednesday, but would meet on the Wednesday that we get back—

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

We didn't anticipate Mrs. Mourani commenting on every amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I know. You're probably raising your eyebrow at that, but for a private member's bill I think every member has the right to come and talk to the bill and the amendments to it. That's why I invited her to join us. I think that's only fair to all members of the House as has been discussed recently in the House of Commons.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

We haven't done it for any other private member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'll be frank with you, Mr. Seeback. We have invited others to show up for clause by clause and they haven't come. Ms. Mourani made the choice.

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

It doesn't matter. We're beyond it now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'll take a motion to continue with a majority vote. What do you want to do?

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we should just end the meeting.

I'll just point out that there should be a vote of the committee. It's the committee's choice, not yours, with all due respect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'll take that under advisement for the next time.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

All those in favour of adjourning?

(Motion agreed to)

Okay. We'll meet on Wednesday.

The meeting is adjourned.