Justice Committee on May 8th, 2013

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Is there anything further to the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I believe Ms. Mourani, as the mover of the bill, would like to speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

As I indicated to the committee, out of respect to the committee, you need to move that the individual gets an opportunity to ask questions, and then I'll take it to a vote.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I move a motion that Ms. Mourani be allowed to speak to the committee.

(Motion negatived)

(On clause 6—Coming into force)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

There is government amendment, G-5.

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

This has to do with the coming into force, Mr. Chair.

We propose that clause 6 be amended. This clause proposes that the bill comes into force 30 days after it receives royal assent. Our proposed amendments would specify that the bill would come into force on a day or days “to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council”. This would ensure the provinces will have had the time to prepare for the bill's enactment, since the provinces enforce the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I know Madame Boivin served with me on the scrutiny of regulations committee for a period of time, and at that committee this issue has come up from time to time. I think it's perfectly reasonable that we as a body decide to delegate that parliamentary authority to the government so the government can choose a date that they can put out.

Again, this particular bill will go through a whole rigmarole, I'm sure, at the Senate. So I think it's reasonable that we delegate that authority because there has been—and I'm sure Madame Boivin can attest to this—cases where that was not clear as to the date. That has caused challenges and raised the ire of the scrutiny of regulations committee. So I would just simply suggest that passing this onto the government to choose a pertinent date will probably lead to better law, not just in the implementation but also for that particular committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Monsieur Goguen.

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

I want Ms. Boivin and the members of the committee to know that we are taking this bill very seriously. Frankly, if we were to impose this on the provinces without consulting them, we would be taking the matter lightly. The province of Quebec may well be ready tomorrow, but we cannot be sure that all the other provinces are as well. That's why we are asking for some indulgence and proposing the amendment. We want to be able to work with the provinces. As we know, the application of justice comes under their jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further to this amendment?

Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Again, all of the committee recognizes that it's an important issue and it's something that clearly needs some attention from all of us as parliamentarians. So I'd like to amend it as follows:

This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, but not later than twelve months after it receives royal assent.

The idea of just leaving it out there in no man's land...it could easily stay there for quite a while. I think it's far too important to just leave it there and it's a way of showing our respect and concern that we have as parliamentarians on that issue. So once it receives royal assent, then it comes into force within twelve months. That seems to me to be reasonable because by that time we're going to hear from the Supreme Court and the issue will be dealt with in a different way altogether.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay. Give me 35 seconds so the legislative clerk can see if the subamendment is in order.

The subamendment is in order, so we'll allow it to stand. Is there any further discussion on the subamendment?

Mr. Albas, and then Madam Boivin.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that I certainly appreciate where members across are coming from; however, you made it apparent to all the parties that if they did have amendments to have them in by a certain time. You've been generous, fair, and even-handed in that response as far as amendments are concerned.

I just find that these last-minute amendment processes, especially if we don't have this in writing, make it very difficult when we are talking about things that are going to affect people's lives, particularly when we're talking about the Criminal Code of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'll agree with you. It's nice to have them in advance, Mr. Albas, but the rules by which we operate around here allow you to move amendments on the fly as long as they're current and in order with whatever is being discussed.

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

But you agree with me that you're even-handed?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Based on your discussion with me earlier, I'm not sure that you believe I'm even-handed.

Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I like my colleague Judy Sgro's subamendment. I will digress for a moment, while I have the floor. It's too bad we cannot hear from the person behind the bill. It is specified that this act comes into force 30 days after the day on which it receives royal assent. I assume that this did not come out of nowhere. Verifications were probably made, but we will not necessarily know that.

As things currently stand, I don't see how the government or the Conservative Party members could object to a 12-month time frame. That's plenty of time. I even think it's a bit much.

As my colleague Mr. Albas said, the bill will be examined by the Senate and analyzed to death—including the amendments adopted in committee. While the bill goes through those steps before coming back to the House and being passed, the Department of Justice officials will already be able to start working on it. I think we have the ability to do things right. When the government wants to proceed quickly, it can impose an extremely fast pace. It would be very unfortunate if this matter failed to move forward, since we did have a nice unanimity.

We should be careful when examining regulations. You know that the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations sometimes has to examine very extensive regulations, and that can take time. One of the problems is that it always takes too long and that overly lengthy time frames are set.

We should probably be consistent with our own actions, given the nature of the offences and the upcoming change—the onus reversal. That change will not so much affect the administration of justice as it will affect lawyers and judges who will have to enforce the law. One need not have taken a big law course to be able to make the necessary adjustments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Speaking to the subamendment, we have Monsieur Goguen.

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

I appreciate the intent of what Madam Sgro is trying to do, but we will stick with what we've proposed, if only so we can ensure that we do not trample on the provincial jurisdictions, and there are a number of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Merci.

Are there further comments on the subamendment? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived)

We're back to the main amendment, amendment G-5 from the government. Is there any further discussion on the main amendment? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we're on clause 6. Is there any further discussion of clause 6 as amended? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote.

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

Shall the title carry?