Bill C-268 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDone
- Passed the second chamberJune 16, 2010
- Became lawJune 28, 2010
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Yonah MartinSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
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
72% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (787 words introduced, 816 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core purpose of adding mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking persons under 18 but raised the aggravated-case minimum from none to six years. Minor wording was adjusted to insert the new minimum alongside the existing five-year floor for non-aggravated cases.
- Added a six-year minimum term in the aggravated trafficking offence.
Before: “(a) to imprisonment for life if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence;”
After: “mum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six years if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence;”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets fixed minimum prison terms and lists specific acts and aggravating factors with clear age thresholds. Some key terms like exploitation and material benefit remain undefined in the supplied text, leaving room for argument.
Open to argument
“for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation”
The word exploiting is not defined in the text, creating a subjective element that could lead to disputes over intent.“cial or other material benefit”
The phrase other material benefit is open-ended and lacks an objective test or list of examples.
Clear-cut
“minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years”
Uses a fixed number rather than a discretionary range.“under the age of eighteen years”
Provides a clear numerical age threshold instead of a vague standard such as apparent age.“if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim”
Lists specific objective acts that trigger the higher six-year minimum.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; all penalties and elements are fixed in the statute itself.
Challenging the law itself. A vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter could be brought because the undefined term exploiting may fail to give fair notice of prohibited conduct.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether the listed acts were done for the purpose of exploiting, given the lack of a definition in the text.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.