Difference between revisions of "Victims of Human Trafficking (4:VIII)"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 77: Line 77:
==== Bill C-36 and Human Trafficking ====
==== Bill C-36 and Human Trafficking ====


In 2014, several changes were made to increase the penalties for the human trafficking in the ''CC''.  The changes were made as part of Bill C-36: ''Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act'' [''PCEPA''] which was enacted in response to the 2014 Supreme Court ruling [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc72/2013scc72.html?autocompleteStr=Canada%20(Attorney%20General)%20v%20Bedford%20%5BBedford%5D%2C%202013%20SCC%2072&autocompletePos=1 ''Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford'' [''Bedford''<nowiki>]</nowiki>, 2013 SCC 72].  In ''Bedford'', the Supreme Court of Canada found certain prostitution-related offences to be unconstitutional. The ''PCEPA'' posits sex workers as a vulnerable group and prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation.  It also attempts to address the constitutional concerns highlighted in ''Bedford'' by including exceptions to criminal liability in order to protect prostitutes and ensure they are able to report abusive or dangerous behaviour without fear of being prosecuted.  The constitutionality of the ''PCEPA'' has yet to be challenged in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, although various groups including the Canadian Bar Association have expressed concerns that certain aspects of the new law remain unconstitutional. (See “Bill C-36, ''Protection of Communities and Exploited  Persons Act''”, National Criminal Justice Section and Municipal Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association, October 2014,  http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-57-eng.pdf).
In 2014, several changes were made to increase the penalties for the human trafficking in the ''CC''.  The changes were made as part of Bill C-36: ''Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act'' [''PCEPA''] which was enacted in response to the 2014 Supreme Court ruling [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc72/2013scc72.html?autocompleteStr=Canada%20(Attorney%20General)%20v%20Bedford%20%5BBedford%5D%2C%202013%20SCC%2072&autocompletePos=1 ''Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford'' [''Bedford''<nowiki>]</nowiki>, 2013 SCC 72].  In ''Bedford'', the Supreme Court of Canada found certain prostitution-related offences to be unconstitutional. The ''PCEPA'' posits sex workers as a vulnerable group and prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation.  It also attempts to address the constitutional concerns highlighted in ''Bedford'' by including exceptions to criminal liability in order to protect prostitutes and ensure they are able to report abusive or dangerous behaviour without fear of being prosecuted.  The constitutionality of the ''PCEPA'' has yet to be challenged in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, although various groups including the Canadian Bar Association have expressed concerns that certain aspects of the new law remain unconstitutional. (See [http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-57-eng.pdf “Bill C-36, ''Protection of Communities and Exploited  Persons Act''”, National Criminal Justice Section and Municipal Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association, October 2014]).


Bill C-36 made several significant sentencing changes to the human trafficking provisions in sections 279.01 to 279.03 of the ''Criminal Code''.  First, the new provisions include a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years where a trafficker is convicted of human trafficking (section 279.01 of the ''Criminal Code'') and also kidnaps, commits aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or causes the death of the victim.  In such cases, the maximum sentence is life.  In other cases of trafficking of adults, the mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years (s. 279.01).  The maximum is 14 years.  Second, s 279.02(2), receiving a material benefit from trafficking of minors, now carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years, and the maximum sentence available for the offence has been extended from 10 to 14 years.  Third, the mandatory minimum sentence for withholding or destroying documents to facilitate trafficking of minors is 1 year.  The maximum sentence has been extended from 5 years to 10 years.  
Bill C-36 made several significant sentencing changes to the human trafficking provisions in ss 279.01 to 279.03 of the ''Criminal Code''.  First, the new provisions include a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years where a trafficker is convicted of human trafficking (s 279.01 of the ''Criminal Cod''e) and also kidnaps, commits aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or causes the death of the victim.  In such cases, the maximum sentence is life.  In other cases of trafficking of adults, the mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years (s 279.01).  The maximum is 14 years.  Second, s 279.02(2), receiving a material benefit from trafficking of minors, now carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years, and the maximum sentence available for the offence has been extended from 10 to 14 years.  Third, the mandatory minimum sentence for withholding or destroying documents to facilitate trafficking of minors is 1 year.  The maximum sentence has been extended from 5 years to 10 years.  


Bill C-36 made a number of other changes.  First, offences under the ''Criminal Code'' apply generally only to acts committed within Canadian territory.  However, exceptions to this principle of territoriality are provided in section 7 of the ''Criminal Code''. These include terrorism offences, human trafficking and sexual offences against children.  In this last example, the bill provides that anyone who obtains for consideration the sexual services of a minor outside Canada will face the new minimum (6 months or 1 year) and maximum (10 years) penalties.
Bill C-36 made a number of other changes.  First, offences under the ''Criminal Code'' apply generally only to acts committed within Canadian territory.  However, exceptions to this principle of territoriality are provided in s 7 of the ''Criminal Code''. These include terrorism offences, human trafficking and sexual offences against children.  In this last example, the bill provides that anyone who obtains for consideration the sexual services of a minor outside Canada will face the new minimum (6 months or 1 year) and maximum (10 years) penalties.


Second, the offence of luring a child consists in communicating, by any means of telecommunication, with a person under 18 years of age for the purpose of facilitating the commission of one of the offences with respect to that person – generally a sexual offence – listed in s 172.1 of the Code.  The bill adds the three existing offences pertaining to trafficking of minors (s 279.011, s 279.02 and s 279.03 of the ''Criminal Code'') to the list of offences.  Consequently, an accused person convicted of having lured a person under 18 years of age for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a trafficking-related offence against that person shall be liable to the following penalties:
Second, the offence of luring a child consists in communicating, by any means of telecommunication, with a person under 18 years of age for the purpose of facilitating the commission of one of the offences with respect to that person – generally a sexual offence – listed in s 172.1 of the ''Criminal Code''.  The Bill adds the three existing offences pertaining to trafficking of minors (ss 279.011, 279.02 and 279.03 of the ''Criminal Code'') to the list of offences.  Consequently, an accused person convicted of having lured a person under 18 years of age for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a trafficking-related offence against that person shall be liable to the following penalties:
*upon indictment: imprisonment for a term of between one year and 10 years
*upon indictment: imprisonment for a term of between one year and 10 years
*upon summary conviction: imprisonment for a term of between 90 days and 18 months
*upon summary conviction: imprisonment for a term of between 90 days and 18 months


Third, Bill C-10 makes it an offence to agree or arrange with another person, by any means of telecommunication, to commit one of the offences – generally of a sexual nature – mentioned in s 172.2 of the ''Criminal Code''.  Bill C-36 adds to the list of offences the three existing offences pertaining to trafficking of minors (s 279.011, s 279.02 and s 279.03 of the ''Criminal Code'').  An accused person convicted of having made an agreement or arrangement with another person over the Internet to commit a human trafficking offence in respect of a person under 18 years of age shall be liable to the same minimum and maximum sentences as those provided for luring (i.e., a term of one year to 10 years upon indictment or of 90 days to 18 months upon summary conviction).
Third, Bill C-10 makes it an offence to agree or arrange with another person, by any means of telecommunication, to commit one of the offences – generally of a sexual nature – mentioned in s 172.2 of the ''Criminal Code''.  Bill C-36 adds to the list of offences the three existing offences pertaining to trafficking of minors (ss 279.011, 279.02 and 279.03 of the ''Criminal Code'').  An accused person convicted of having made an agreement or arrangement with another person over the Internet to commit a human trafficking offence in respect of a person under 18 years of age shall be liable to the same minimum and maximum sentences as those provided for luring (i.e., a term of one year to 10 years upon indictment or of 90 days to 18 months upon summary conviction).


Additional information concerning Bill C-36 may be obtained from:
Additional information concerning Bill C-36 may be obtained [https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/412C36E here].
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=c36&Parl=41&Ses=2


==== BC’s First Human Trafficking Conviction under the Criminal Code ====
==== BC’s First Human Trafficking Conviction under the Criminal Code ====