Bill C-49 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 12, 2005
- Debated in principleSept. 27, 2005
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 17, 2005
- Passed the second chamberNov. 24, 2005
- Became lawNov. 25, 2005
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
69% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,269 words introduced, 1,778 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core offences of trafficking in persons, material benefit, and document withholding were enacted unchanged. Parliament added a new coordinating amendment linking the bill to DNA sampling rules and made technical adjustments to how the bill interacts with other statutes.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The core offences list specific physical acts, require proof of purpose to exploit, and define exploitation through an objective reasonable-expectation test plus listed means of coercion. Procedural additions and phrases such as 'any other form of coercion' and judicial 'opinion' introduce some room for argument.
Open to argument
“or of any other form of coercion”
Catch-all phrase expands the listed means without further definition.“if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the exclusion is necessary”
Subjective judicial standard governs when witnesses may testify outside court.
Clear-cut
“to imprisonment for life if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim”
Exact triggering acts and fixed maximum penalty remove discretion on sentence range.“No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter of a charge under subsection (1) is valid.”
Clear statutory rule eliminates consent as a defence.“to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years in any other case”
Numeric ceiling on sentence is stated without qualifiers.
Discretion. Judges receive explicit discretion to order out-of-court testimony or screens when they form the opinion it is necessary; no regulation-making power is granted to ministers or officials.
Challenging the law itself. Section 7 vagueness or overbreadth claims could target the purpose and 'influence' elements as insufficiently precise limits on liberty.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused can dispute whether listed acts were done for the purpose of exploitation or whether the reasonable-expectation test for safety belief is met on the facts.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.