Justice Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I believe you'll find consent from MP Brock and MP Lawton to withdraw CPC-1 and CPC-2.1, and we'll move on with CPC-2.2.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You want to proceed with CPC-2.2.

Okay, CPC-1 and CPC-2.1 are withdrawn, then.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

That's correct.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I just want to know something. Is amendment CPC‑2, on which we're going to vote, the one we just received by email? I don't have it in my package of amendments.

I'm not saying I'm against it.

I maybe agree, but I just want to know which one it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I'm advised that it was emailed.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I just received it.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

On the references to Mr. Baber's new one on the page, are you saying it's new clause 6.1 for Bill C-14? It doesn't say “2.2” on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's 13870955.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I might try to make things easier, if I may, for members of the committee. I apologize. We just noticed a slight omission. If I could just direct your attention, if you're looking for a paper copy, then I suggest you look at Mr. Lawton's amendment CPC-2.1.

The only difference between Mr. Lawton's amendment and my amendment is that he has “public transit employee means an individual who works for an organization that provides passenger transportation service” and I expand it by saying “means an individual who works for or is contracted to work for a transportation service”.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Are we doing away with CPC-2.1?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

We're doing away with CPC-2.1 because CPC-2.2 captures not just “employed” but also “contracted” for.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

If people want to take a moment just to look at it, we can suspend for a couple of minutes.

I call this meeting back to order.

While we were suspended, we all received a hard copy of CPC-2.2, which was just submitted. As I understand things, CPC-1 and CPC-2.1 are being withdrawn, so before us we have CPC-2.2 to consider and vote on.

Is there any discussion on CPC-2.2?

Mr. Baber, go ahead.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm blessed to represent a riding in north Toronto. Toronto is home to the Toronto Transit Commission. In the last couple of years, we've seen a remarkable uptick in violence on the TTC. Specifically, assaults are up 160% in the last decade and all violent crime is up about 127%.

We heard from Michael Atlas the other day, who is legal counsel for the TTC. He said that assaults against transit workers are at record highs. This is obviously slowing down the system. This is creating victims where we wish there were no victims. The people of the TTC work very hard, and so do people in all transit systems across our country.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association has been asking for this amendment, that it be an aggravating factor on sentencing when an assault is perpetrated against a transit worker and that the court consider it as an aggravating circumstance.

There has been discussion about the best definition to go with, and I submit that the CPC-2.2 amendment is drafted nicely in that it defines an employee, it defines a transit system and it also expands protection for contractors as opposed to just people who are employed. For instance, often transit systems use cleaners and they use security personnel, so protection should be afforded to them as well.

I think this is necessary. MP Brock and MP Lawton had a very similar, if not identical, amendment, both in line and spirit.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Housefather, go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

We also agree with protecting transit workers, and I'll certainly be supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Shall CPC-2.2 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That takes us to CPC-2.

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

CPC-2 would add a new clause in the bill. That would become clause 6.1, which would add a new consecutive sentence rule for repeat human trafficking offences. Specifically, it would add a new Criminal Code section—proposed section 279.031, which would immediately follow section 279.03. It is for someone being sentenced “for a second or subsequent offence under sections 279.01, 279.011, 279.02 or 279.03”. If you look at the Criminal Code, this constitutes a number of ways human trafficking can take place, including the trafficking of minors. The sentence must “be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed...for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.”

Leaving aside what I anticipate to be Liberal concerns about stacking consecutive life sentences, and leaving aside that life sentences for human trafficking are next to impossible to establish....

I'll look to government officials to see if they can point out one decision of binding authority in this country that sets the bar that high—a life sentence for a human trafficker. I remember, as a young lawyer, being upset by a decision by one of my local judges, and the lack of significant penalty. I had naively argued for a maximum penalty, as a young Crown. I remember this very seasoned judge telling me, “Mr. Brock, I appreciate your passion, but maximum penalties, short of murder, are generally confined to the worst type of offender committing a predicate offence under the worst set of circumstances. I've yet to find that worst type of offender.”

We know human trafficking is an absolute scourge on society, and that it is prevalent—particularly in Ontario, and particularly in my riding. All the local hotels adjacent to the major thoroughfare of Highway 403.... We have a number of hotels, and there isn't a day that goes by when my local police service, the Ontario Provincial Police or the Six Nations Police Service aren't conducting surveillance on trafficking happening in those hotels. It happens every single day. I know the trafficking of indigenous women and girls has been a plague on Canadian society for far too long; they are disproportionately impacted. We, as parliamentarians, ought to be taking a very serious position when it comes to consecutive sentences for human trafficking. Anything less, in my view, is a derogation of our responsibility of keeping victims and Canadians safe.

I suppose the amendment itself can be tweaked, because, in my understanding—officials, correct me if I'm wrong—the imposition of a life sentence depends on aggravating factors. It depends on age, among other factors.

Let me ask you two questions.

First, am I correct in terms of the imposition of a life sentence for unique aggravating factors under the human trafficking regime?

Second, are you able to rebut my comments about a dearth of case law out there, if any, that would establish any particular judge—in any province or territory, at any particular level, including appellate courts—ruling or upholding a life sentence for trafficking?

This is for anyone.

[Matthew Taylor, Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I'll start with that.

On the first point, you are correct. The maximum penalty of life is in the more aggravated circumstances, and—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. There's no interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Try that again, Mr. Taylor.

Is that working, Monsieur Fortin? Yes.

[Matthew Taylor]

Mr. Brock, you are correct that the maximum penalty of life is in the more aggravated circumstances for human trafficking, and it's 14 years in the circumstances where the aggravating circumstances are not established.

As to the second question, I would point you to the Supreme Court's decision in Friesen that talks about maximum penalties as not necessarily being reserved for exceptional cases but where, as the court describes it, they're warranted.

Your more practical question is the following: Are life sentences being imposed in human trafficking cases? I cannot recall a decision where that is the case, so I would have to confirm that, but I don't believe so.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chair, to support my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.