Evidence of meeting #17 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-14.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I have two questions for the officials.
Can they tell me, in cases of human trafficking, the mandatory minimums in terms of that particular offence? What would be the consequences of stacking the mandatory minimum penalties?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I might just offer one really minor procedural point before answering your questions. We noticed in the numbering that this is numbered as clause 6.1, and the previous CPC amendment also identified clause 6.1, so I don't know if you have to adjust that if both motions are adopted.
To answer your questions on the MMPs, the MMPs for the main human trafficking offence are five years in aggravating circumstances for adult victims and four years in any other case. In respect of child trafficking, which is section 279.011, it's six years in the aggravating circumstances and five years in any other case.
Then there are also MMPs for the material benefit offence, section 279.02, where it is linked to child trafficking, and that is a two-year MMP.
Then the documents offence, which is section 279.03, is a one-year MMP where it involves child trafficking.
The stacking issue that you've asked about is important in this context, because the concern that had been identified with a similar amendment that was passed by Parliament through a private member's bill but never brought into force was that, if it was brought into force, mandatory minimum penalties would be stacked back to back to back, and that would create potential charter concerns under section 12. It is the presence of the mandatory minimum penalties that creates the stacking risk more than the maximum penalties.
February 4th, 2026 / 9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
For clarification, Mr. Taylor, did Bill C-5 impact mandatory minimum penalties on the class of human trafficking?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, not to my knowledge. There were no amendments in Bill C-5 for those MMPs.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
To your knowledge, has any appellate court at the provincial-territorial level or the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the constitutionality of MMPs on trafficking?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Not to my knowledge. Not at the appellate level, and I don't think at the trial level, either, but I would have to confirm that. It was certainly not at the appellate level.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay, seeing no more hands, I will ask, shall CPC-2 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 7 carry?
(Clause 7 agreed to)
Shall clause 8 carry?
(Clause 8 agreed to)
(On clause 9)
Clause 9 takes us to amendment BQ-1.
Mr. Fortin, do you want to speak to that?
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to say that the lines we're asking to strike relate to auto theft. We agree that auto theft is obviously a scourge we need to tackle. However, we think imposing consecutive sentences for auto theft is excessive. It can only make things worse and undermine individuals' rehabilitation. For this reason, we propose to delete lines 3 to 7 on page 3, which matches the proposed subsection 333.11(1).
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
Shall BQ-1 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next, we have BQ-2.
Mr. Fortin.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
It's the same thing, Mr. Chair.
Subsection 333.11(3) of the Criminal Code deals with motor vehicle theft. Despite the fact that we agree on the importance of fighting this scourge and the sentences defined in the Criminal Code, we think consecutive sentences are unreasonable. As for the amount of the sentence that needs to be served, we think it should be left at the discretion of the court on a case-by-case basis. For this reason, we believe that the court must be given latitude when it comes to vehicle theft.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
Shall BQ-2 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next, we have BQ-3.
Mr. Fortin.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It's not being moved, thank you.
Shall clause 9 carry?
(Clause 9 agreed to)
Shall clause 10 carry?
(Clause 10 agreed to)
(On clause 11)
Mr. Fortin, BQ-4 is your proposed amendment.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
The same reasoning as for amendment BQ‑3 applies. Once again, we think it should be left at the discretion of the judge, and that consecutive sentences should not be imposed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
If you move this amendment, the following rule will apply. If you delete clause 11, here's the rule that you need to consider. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states in section 16.78:
An amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect.
In other words, Mr. Fortin, the amendment is out of order, but that doesn't prevent you from voting on clause 11 when we get to it.
BQ-4 is not being moved. Thank you.
Shall clause 11 carry?
(Clause 11 agreed to)
This takes us to new clause 11.1, which is G-1. G-1 refers to proposed subsection 524(6.2) of the Criminal Code, which is created by G-5. This makes G-1 dependent on the adoption of G-5.
The same things applies for G-1, G-3 and G-4. As I understand it G-1, G-3 and G-4, are proposing amendments based on G-5 having been successful. In other words, I think we need to stand these down until we deal with G-5.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Do you want me to deal with G-5 at this point because these amendments are dependent on G-5 passing?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
That might be the easiest course of action but it would require unanimous consent from the committee members to deal with G-5 and then proceed to G-1, G-3 and G-4.
(Amendments allowed to stand)
Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Section 524 of the Criminal Code enables the court to address all of an accused person's outstanding charges together, allowing for a single comprehensive bail decision and order that amplifies enforcement and compliance with bail conditions. Clause 29 would expand the section 524 bail cancellation process so that it also applies to those who have been charged with any offence rather than just an indictable offence while out on bail. Clause 29 would also change the onus from a reverse onus to the onus that would apply under section 515 rather than having a reverse onus apply to the entire section of the 524 process.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I would like to seek clarification. I like the first part of your submission. I didn't like the second part of your submission. If I understand you correctly, this streamlines the bail process because it allows the magistrate or the judge to consider all of the offences pending before the court for purposes of bail.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
That makes complete sense to me. However, what you're saying is that as a result of this, the onus that would be attracted to such hearings would not be the reverse onus because of the lesser offences before the court rather than considering the fact that you have to meet a reverse onus burden because at least of some of the offences involved.