Bill C-310 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 3, 2011
- Debated in principleDec. 12, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 27, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 21, 2012
- Became lawJune 27, 2012
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Pierre-Hugues BoisvenuSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Joy Smith11 interventions in debateShe introduced and moved the bill multiple times while praising its progress and prior related law.
- Mark Warawa2 interventions in debatePraises the bill as important to ending human trafficking and notes unanimous support.
- Françoise Boivin2 interventions in debateShe reiterated full support and confirmed NDP votes in favour at every stage.
- Kevin LamoureuxHe stated the Liberal Party believes the bill will make a difference and is prepared to see it pass.
- Fin DonnellyHe spoke in support of the legislation to strengthen prosecution of human traffickers.
- Geoff ReganHe rose in support and noted the Liberal Party also supports the bill.
- Charmaine BorgStates the bill has support of all parties and proposes important amendments to aid prosecution.
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
That Bill C-310 · 2012-04-04 · Passed
How it changed on the way
64% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (480 words introduced, 493 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill added two more Criminal Code sections to those that can be prosecuted in Canada when committed abroad by citizens or permanent residents. The factors a court may consider in assessing exploitation were replaced with a different list.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The core exploitation test mixes an objective reasonable-person standard with open-ended phrasing that invites case-by-case argument. The extraterritorial rule and cross-references to specific Criminal Code sections are narrowly drawn.
Open to argument
“by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened”
The phrase 'in all the circumstances' and the belief-based test leave wide room for differing judicial conclusions on the same facts.“the Court may consider, among other factors”
The non-exhaustive list and permissive wording give judges broad discretion to weigh unlisted considerations.“any other form of coercion”
The catch-all term is undefined and expands the reach of the organ-removal provision without clear boundaries.
Clear-cut
“if the person who commits the act or omission is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”
The class of persons covered is fixed by reference to an existing statutory definition rather than an open-ended standard.“Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that if committed in Canada would be an offence against section 279.01, 279.011, 279.02 or 279.03”
The provision names exact sections and uses a clear deeming rule for jurisdiction.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers or regulations; the only discretion rests with courts when applying the listed and unlisted factors under s. 279.04(2).
Challenging the law itself. The 'in all the circumstances' and belief-based language could support a s. 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim, though the reasonable-expectation framing supplies some objective anchor.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily argue that the conduct would not have caused a reasonable person in the complainant's position to fear for safety, given the fact-specific test.
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.