I reviewed the third reading of this bill, and what jumped out at me was this sentence: “This will put the onus on the perpetrator rather than the survivors.”
There should not be an onus on the survivors, but there is an onus on the Crown. I'm very concerned that a constitutional challenge to this bill on this record would lead to a finding by the court that this amendment is unconstitutional. That would wreak havoc for all human trafficking prosecutions that are presently in the system. It might even affect ones that have been dealt with that are under appeal. That's my concern, sir. We have to tread very carefully.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in cases like Mills, has said that trial fairness is seen through the eyes of the defendant in terms of their right to full answer and defence—we would all be in agreement with that—and also that courts should consider the interests of the complainant and the interests of society as a whole.
If we go back to my earlier comments, there are other things that could be done to assist human trafficking victims that would not give rise to a concern that this is unconstitutional because the onus has been shifted.