Debates of Feb. 27th, 2009

Criminal Code

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, on January 29 the Conservative member for Kildonan—St. Paul introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-268, for first reading in the House of Commons.

This bill would add a new offence to the Criminal Code. It would distinguish offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of 18 years from those involving adults.

The goal of this bill is to impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years for anyone found guilty of trafficking a person under the age of 18.

This bill is simple enough. There are eight clauses, but the heart of the bill is in the second clause, in its creation of a new offence in the Criminal Code, namely, section 279.011. The wording in this provision is exactly the same as section 279.01, regarding the trafficking of a person, but adds the distinction “under the age of eighteen years” to the definition of an exploited person. With this addition, a separate offence would be created when the trafficking involves a minor.

Although we are well aware of the worldwide scourge that is human trafficking, the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill. Allow me to explain the reasons for its decision.

In 2005, the Bloc Québécois voted in support of Bill C-49. Creating an offence to specifically condemn human trafficking was necessary, and we willingly cooperated to see it passed. The amendment to the Criminal Code gave law enforcement authorities the legal tools they need to prosecute and convict anyone who unfortunately engages in these horrible practices that show no respect for human dignity.

Bill C-268, however, we believe is a step in the wrong direction. By automatically imposing a minimum sentence of five years on anyone convicted of the trafficking of persons under 18, the government is not solving anything. I will explain why.

First of all, many experts have established that minimum sentences have negative effects and dubious value when it comes to fighting crime.

For instance, criminal lawyer Julian Roberts, from the University of Ottawa, conducted a study in 1997 for the Department of Justice of Canada in which he concluded:

Although mandatory sentences of imprisonment have been introduced in a number of western nations... the studies that have examined the impact of these laws reported variable effects on prison populations and no discernible effect on crime rates.

In early May 2006, during a press conference on the controversial passing of Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety at the time were forced to acknowledge that no Canadian study has demonstrated that new measures to introduce minimum penalties are effective in fighting crime.

Minimum sentences can also have a negative impact. According to André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal, minimum sentences can encourage plea bargaining by lawyers wanting to have their clients charged with offences that do not have minimum sentences. Minimum sentences can also force judges to acquit an individual, rather than be forced to sentence that individual to a penalty the judge considers excessive under the circumstances.

When it comes to sentencing, the first consideration must be individualization. The justification of this individualized approach lies in the principle of proportionality. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This is because no two crimes are identical, no two offenders are exactly alike and no two sets of circumstances are exactly the same. For all those reasons, the Bloc Québécois believes in the importance of maintaining judicial discretion.

When judges sentence an offender to prison, they take into account the offender's degree of responsibility, the seriousness of the offence and the best way to serve justice while maximizing the likelihood of rehabilitation.

People who know only the offence and the sentence often do not realize that there are other important factors that must be taken into account in sentencing.

Moreover, studies have shown that when people have the chance to go beyond what is reported in the media, the body of evidence and the factors considered by the judge, most conclude that they would have handed down a similar sentence.

The Bloc Québécois is therefore opposed to mandatory minimum sentences because it believes in the justice system and the importance of maintaining judicial discretion. We believe that judges, who are best able to assess the information presented in court, have to be free to decide.

In addition, Bill C-268 is not consistent. It does not provide for a minimum sentence when an offender found guilty of trafficking of a minor kidnaps, commits an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against or causes death to the victim during the commission of the offence. The bill does not change the subsection that covers this.

We are having a hard time understanding the logic behind Bill C-268. On the one hand, they say that they want to prevent serious offences involving the trafficking of minors by imposing minimum sentences, but on the other, they are not changing sentences for offenders who use extreme violence in committing the crime.

To ensure the most appropriate court rulings possible, we would be wise to look at recommendation 33 of the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women's report on human trafficking. Judges and prosecutors should be informed of, educated about, and made aware of the Criminal Code provisions concerning human trafficking and the disastrous impact of this crime on its victims.

When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is still, and will always be, prevention. We have to attack crime at the root. That being said, the Bloc is aware that the existing legal system needs considerable improvement, and that some changes to the Criminal Code are necessary. The government's duty is to intervene and use the tools at its disposal to make sure that people can live peacefully and safely.

On June 15, 2007, in response to the Conservatives' ideological approach, the Bloc Québécois recommended a number of measures. The party proposed a series of recommendations for major changes to Canada's justice system. Unlike the Conservatives' measures, which lacked nuance, the Bloc's measures reflected the concerns of Quebeckers, who want a more balanced system, one that is consistent with modern realities and will have a real impact on crime, but that avoids the pitfalls inherent in the repression-based American model, whose negative effects are manifest.

The Bloc Québécois proposed measures that are in line with Quebeckers' values, measures based on prevention, rehabilitation, social and economic integration, and better distribution of wealth. Our proposals included the following: streamlining the parole system, stepping up the fight against organized crime, eliminating double credit for time served before sentencing—which British Columbia's Minister of Justice supports—and more funding for the national crime prevention strategy.

The Bloc Québécois does not support the bill because we believe its approach is harmful and ineffective and we are convinced that it will do nothing to improve the safety of citizens. The Bloc defends a model of justice based on a process tailored to each case and founded on the principle of rehabilitation. Any measure seeking to automate the nature of the sentence given to the offender represents, in our opinion, a dangerous approach. Minimum sentences unnecessarily tie the hands of judges who, we believe, remain in the best position to determine what sentence is the most appropriate in light of all the facts of the case.

In closing, experts tell us that minimum sentences do not lower crime rates or the rate of recidivism.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful the hon. member brought this very sensitive and serious subject to the House of Commons where it should be.

Whether we agree with the bill or disagree with the it does not matter. The hon. member is absolutely correct that this is a serious Canadian and worldwide problem, and she has every right to bring it to the forefront to explain to us her motivations, her experiences and how we can move forward in order to tackle the problem that is before us.

It is obvious to some that the intent of the bill is to add mandatory minimum sentences, strong deterrents and penalties for those who commit this heinous act.

I wish to go into some personal stories of my upbringing in my family

. When we came to Canada, one of the things my parents did in Richmond, B.C. and in Burnaby, as part of the Christian Reformed Church, was run a group home. In over 20 years, my parents had 300 to 400 children come through our doors. Some came for a few hours in the middle of the night, some stayed for a weekend, some stayed for months and some stayed for a couple of years.

I will share the experience of one young lady who was 12 years old and who was in a house fire in British Columbia. She was severely burned from the waist down and could never have children. For whatever reasons, her parents abandoned her to the British Columbia government.

She ended up in our group home. When she turned 16, my mother suggested she send her mother a Mother's Day card to see if she could rekindle whatever there was. My mother always believed that a mother could never totally abandon her child.

This girl made a beautiful hand-made Mother's Day card and mailed it to her mother. It came back a month later. She opened up the envelope and inside was the card she had made, ripped up in a 100 pieces, and a note saying, “Don't ever try to contact me again”.

The problem is a lot of these children do not have love in their lives. They have been abandoned by the state, by their families and by brothers and sisters. They are easily exploited by the first person who comes along and tells them their life can improve, that they will receive this or receive that.

The movie Slumdog Millionaire was a fabulous movie. It showed how these children were easily exploited by the first kind person to give them a bottle of Coke on a hot day, or give them a nice meal and a place to stay. How quickly they were exploited. That happened in India, but this kind of activity happens around the world.

I have had a private member's bill for years, by my former colleague, Chris Axworthy, a long-time member of Parliament and former Attorney General of Saskatchewan, on child Internet pornography. I have asked the Conservative government, and I asked the previous government, to take the bill and run with it in order to stop the effects of the Internet on vulnerable children. They are easily exploited. They can meet at a ballpark, or a school or somewhere else. The next thing we know, they are in the clutches of these pedophiles and exploiters of children.

I appreciate the fact that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul came to my office. We had a very heart to heart discussion on this issue. I pledged her my personal support for the bill.

Now there are concerns with the bill, and she is aware of this, such as, is it absolutely fundamental that judges have that power taken away when we put in mandatory minimums? Is that the most effective way?

The bill should go to committee to have that frank and thorough discussion, to get it out in the open. Bring in the experts from the legal side, from the child services side and others so we can have that concrete debate.

If the way to go is mandatory minimums, that means additional costs for correctional services. I would hope the government would back up the legislation, if it goes through, with the financial resources to the provinces, et cetera, so they could have the funds in order to carry out the intent of the bill.

There is a deeper-rooted problem, and I believe the hon. member from Quebec mentioned this. It is a societal problem. There is more to this than just the end. We have to get at the roots and the beginning of what happens.

Are we ever going to root out pedophilia in the country or exploitation of children completely? No. Can we reduce it greatly? Absolutely. Members of Parliament and Senators are here for that.

The first priority of government and the opposition is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, not just in terms of military and policing but also, most important, that they have shelter, a good job, the ability to drink the water in their community, good food to eat, entertainment and freedom and security in their lives for themselves and their families. Regardless of whether they live on an aboriginal reserve or if they live in a small community, of if French or English or if they live in our larger urban centres, it does not matter. From coast to coast to coast citizens should be allowed to be free, to express their opinions and to live their lives in a normal democratic way, or what we call a social democratic way.

For many families that just is not the case. Usually what happens is when parents or the communities have difficulties, the children end up suffering. Children will very easily turn to the first kind face or the first warm person who pays them any kind of attention. We all know how it works. These people work with them in kindness and end up exploiting them in the end. It is society that has to deal with it at the end.

I would encourage the hon. member, and I am sure she would be more than welcome to do this, to also open up the discussion to get at the root problem of why children are so acceptable to this. What expertise do these mostly men, but there are women who do it as well, have to exploit these vulnerable children? What is the role of the family and the provinces and everyone else?

I honestly believe we have the capability to understand this issue. We have the capability to move this issue forward. The end goal is not necessarily incarceration of the criminal. That will happen one way or the other. The main goal is to ensure that we get at the root of this problem, to understand this issue and to see what we can do in education in our schools, our churches, our mosques and our synagogues, working with the provinces and aboriginal groups and all sectors of society so they have a clear understanding of the dangers out there.

I am one of Canada's biggest supporters by saying this is one hell of a country. It is a great country. However, there are many faults within our society where the most vulnerable are either left alone, abandoned or exploited for a variety of reasons.

That is why I rose to speak to this. Not only did my parents want to thank the Canadian people for their liberation, but they also wanted to serve their community in the Lower Mainland. That is why they ran their group home.

I know my fellow Dutch colleague over there knows of other Dutch families in the Lower Mainland that did the exact same thing as did many other families across the country. They did that because they loved those children. They had nine of their own and they had hundreds more come through the door.

The common thread through all of them was the lack of love in their lives. Anyone can listen to George Chuvalo, the great heavyweight champion of Canada who lost three children and his wife in various circumstances. He goes around to schools and across the country and he says one thing: love. If we love one another and care for one another, regardless of our differences, then we will not be so easily tempted by the experts out there in terms of exploitation or whatever it is.

Sri Chinmoy once wrote, “World peace can be achieved when the love of power is replaced by the power of love”. I like that saying. I have it at home and I understand it. This is at the root of what the hon. member is trying to do.

I welcome sending the bill to committee to have that thorough analysis. My hon. colleague from the Bloc had questions and I am sure others will as well. There are concerns, but this is the type of debate that we should have in the country. At the end of the day, whenever it happens, if we can protect one child, then it would be a good thing to do.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Private Members' Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). I, too, am a mother of two wonderful daughters and I am appalled that any mother in Canada might have to deal with the horror of having her child taken and used in human trafficking.

Trafficking in persons is sometimes described as the new global slave trade. No country has been left untouched by this terrible scourge. It is a serious issue that warrants attention from all levels of government.

The private members' bill introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul would amend the Criminal Code to impose a mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment for the offence of trafficking a person under the age of 18 years and for which the maximum penalty is currently fourteen years imprisonment.

Bill C-268 would create a new, separate offence of trafficking a person under the age of 18 years, which would mirror the existing offence of trafficking in persons found in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code and which protects all victims, adult and child. The current section 279.01, trafficking in persons offence, was added to the Criminal Code in 2005. It prohibits anyone from engaging in specified acts such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. This offence is punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment where it involves the kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or death of the victim and 14 years in all other cases.

In effect, Bill C-268 is saying that this penalty is not enough, at least with respect to the child victims of human trafficking. I am sure we can all agree that all countries, including Canada, must remain vigilant to ensure that our criminal law responses to human trafficking remain effective and treat it as the serious issue it is.

A report released on February 12, 2009 by the United Nations' Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking reported that over 24,000 victims of trafficking were identified by 111 countries in the year 2006. According to the report, the most common form of human trafficking is trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The second most common form of human trafficking is for the purpose of forced labour, although the real number may be higher as forced labour is less frequently detected and reported than trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Although anyone can be a victim of trafficking, victims are predominantly women and children. Worldwide, almost 20% of all trafficking victims are children. However, in some parts of Africa and the Mekong region, children are the majority: up to 100% in parts of West Africa. UNICEF estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked around the world each year.

We know that trafficking in persons also occurs within Canada. As in other countries, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of human trafficking within Canada due, in large part, to the clandestine nature of the activity. It can also be difficult to track offenders through reported cases, as they may be charged under any number of offences that may not always easily identify the case as a trafficking cases.

The experience of Canadian law enforcement reflects the international experience insomuch as the majority of known victims are women and children. These victims are often forced into situations of horrible exploitation, their rights abused and their freedom taken away. Trafficking in persons often involves organized criminal networks that profit from this abuse. The 2006 Canada-U.S. Binational Threat Assessment on Human Trafficking reported that from spring 2004 to February 2006, there were at least 25 convictions under various Criminal Code provisions for trafficking activity. A recent United Nations report identified that between March 2004 and February 2007 there were 30 trafficking-related convictions in Canada under various Criminal Code offences.

We also know that the 2005 Criminal Code trafficking offences are now being used by our police. These numbers reflect the minimum number of cases, as many decisions go unreported. To date, there have been three reported convictions in Canada under the 2005 specific offence of trafficking in persons, which Bill C-268 proposes to amend.

When the specific trafficking in persons offences were enacted in 2005, they were meant to give police and crown prosecutors another tool to combat trafficking. These offences supplemented existing offences such as kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault and the prostitution-related provisions.

The police and Crown now have the ability to charge the offence or offences that best meet the circumstances of a given case, and this is what we are seeing in these early cases under the recent trafficking offences.

For example, Canada's first conviction under section 279.01 involved two victims under the age of 18. In that case, the defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons and living off the avails of prostitution of a minor, and received a sentence of five years imprisonment, three years for trafficking and the mandatory minimum of two years for living off the avails of child prostitution, to be served consecutively.

The remaining two convictions under the trafficking-specific offences involved both adult and child victims, and in both cases the accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons and prostitution-related offences. The sentences imposed ranged from two to three years imprisonment.

This government's commitment to combating human trafficking is reflected in its response to the 2007 report by the House of Commons standing committee, “Turning Outrage Into Action to Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada”.

The government's response reiterated the importance of a multidisciplinary response to trafficking in persons and outlined our approach. This approach also clearly reflects the framework established by the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplemental protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, by focusing on the four Ps: prevention of trafficking, protection of its victims, prosecution of offenders, and the building of partnerships both domestically and internationally.

Canadians are rightfully concerned about this horrible crime. The issue of human trafficking has received significant attention in this House and in the other place. I think we all understand and appreciate the seriousness of the issue being addressed by Bill C-268. Its proposed reform really raises a key question: Are our existing penalties for the trafficking of children adequate, and if not, would Bill C-268 provide the needed enhancement?

If this bill is referred to committee for study, I hope that the committee will consider the bill by looking as well at how the existing Criminal Code penalties addressing child victims are working.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages now has the floor.

I will have to interrupt her after two or three minutes, so she will be able to continue at the next opportunity.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a recently elected member of Parliament and as a veteran police officer with almost 19 years of experience in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I join in the second reading debate on private member's Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). I am very pleased to speak to the bill and I thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her dedicated efforts to combat human trafficking in Canada.

Bill C-268 proposes to build upon our existing Criminal Code protections by specifically recognizing that the trafficking of children is a crime which must be treated seriously by the justice system. Human traffickers of course prey upon the vulnerable and trafficking victims suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence or actual harm to their loved ones. This abuse is compounded by their living and working conditions.

I spent four years investigating sexual and physical abuse of children as a detective in the Winnipeg Police Service Child Abuse Unit. With this in mind, I know firsthand that strong responses are required to address this horrific crime of exploitation and abuse.

I am sure that we can all agree that human trafficking is a horrible crime which inflicts serious damage on its victims. Hon. members may recall that in 2006 the House unanimously supported Motion No. 153, which was also introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. It condemned the crime of trafficking in persons and called for a national strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide. The unanimous support that motion received reflects the shared support of all members to ensure we continue to strongly condemn the act of trafficking in persons.

I implore all members of the House--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I apologize for interrupting. The time provided for private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)