S-224 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons) – clarifies what counts as “exploitation” when deciding if someone’s engaged in human trafficking.
Criminal Code
Not much here, S-224 just changes the definition of “exploitation” in the Criminal Code. Right now exploitation is when you have someone provide a labour or service by doing something that makes them think their safety or the safety of someone they know is at risk if they don’t do what you tell them to do. Actions like threats, deception, or abusing a position of trust or authority all count for this.
S-224 removes the requirement that the victim feel their safety, or the safety of anyone else, is at risk. If you abuse your authority to get someone to do a job for you it can count as human trafficking.
Progress
S-224 made it through the Senate without a problem, and passed its Second Reading Vote with everyone voting in favour.
During the committee hearings it was decided that this Bill was too vague with its changes, and that it could result in groups being charged with trafficking when none had happened. Any amendments recommended during the hearings were too significant and would need the entire thing to be rewritten. In the end the committee sent it back to the House completely empty, it didn’t even have a name anymore. (It’s actually kind of amusing reading the transcript here as everyone on the committee was confused about what happens next after deleting everything in the Bill.)
Amendment – Colin Carrie (Conservative, Ontario, Oshawa)
Coming back empty Colin proposed an amendment to restore this Bill’s name. It failed with 118 voting in favour and 207 voting against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 149 | 1 |
| Conservative | 117 | 0 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 31 | 1 |
| NDP | 0 | 23 | 0 |
| Green | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Independent | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Because S-224 was now just a number it immediately failed and has been scrapped.
Author’s Opinion
So going to toss this one out there for anyone wondering why Colin would want to give S-224 its name back. As far as I can see this is nothing but a time-wasting tactic. If this Bill still had its name the House would be expected to proceed with debating it and giving it its Third Reading vote, even though it’s empty. The only reason I can see for doing this is to waste the House’s time and prevent it from moving on to other legislation.
Discover more from Commons Sense
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.