Summary#

This bill changes how the Criminal Code defines “exploitation” for human trafficking crimes. It replaces the current test with a clearer list of actions that count as exploitation and repeals a related subsection. The changes apply to existing trafficking offences in sections 279.01 to 279.03 of the Code (Bill s.1).

• Replaces the old “fear for safety” test with a “means-based” test focused on force, threats, coercion, deception, fraud, or abuse of trust, power, or authority (Bill s.1).
• States that threats or coercion can relate to “any person,” not only the victim (Bill s.1).
• Requires that the accused’s conduct caused the person to provide or offer labour or a service (Bill s.1).
• Repeals subsection 279.04(2), which is no longer needed under the new definition (Bill s.2).
• Does not change penalties in sections 279.01–279.03; it only changes the definition used to prove those crimes (Bill s.1).

What it means for you#

• Households and victims

  • If someone makes you work or provide services using force, threats, coercion, deception, fraud, or abuse of trust, power, or authority, that is “exploitation” for trafficking, even if you did not say you feared for your safety (Bill s.1).
  • Threats to anyone (for example, a family member) can meet the definition, if they are used to make you work or provide services (Bill s.1).
  • Effective on Royal Assent, since the bill has no separate coming-into-force clause (Bill text).

• Workers, including migrants and youth

  • Deceptive recruiting, fraud about job terms, or abuse of authority to make you work can meet the test for trafficking if it causes you to provide labour or services (Bill s.1).
  • The Crown would not need to prove you reasonably feared for your safety; it would need to prove the listed coercive means were used (Bill s.1).

• Businesses and labour recruiters

  • Practices that involve deception about job conditions, threats (including to third parties), or abusing power over workers could trigger criminal liability for trafficking if they cause labour or services (Bill s.1).
  • Review recruiting and supervision practices to avoid conduct that could be seen as coercion, deception, or abuse of authority (Bill s.1).

• Police, Crown, and courts

  • Investigations and prosecutions would focus on evidence of the listed means (force, threats, coercion, deception, fraud, abuse of trust/power/authority) and causation, rather than proving the victim’s fear for safety (Bill s.1).
  • The repeal of subsection 279.04(2) removes a separate “factors to consider” list, because those factors now appear in the core definition (Bill s.2).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations or new programs in the bill text. It changes definitions in existing Criminal Code offences (Bill s.1–s.2).
• Possible impacts on justice system workload (investigations, prosecutions, legal aid, courts): Data unavailable.
• No official fiscal note identified: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Clarifies and modernizes the definition of exploitation by listing concrete means—force, threats, coercion, deception, fraud, or abuse of trust, power, or authority—making it clearer what conduct is illegal (Bill s.1).
• Removes the need to prove that a victim reasonably feared for their safety, which supporters say made cases harder to prosecute and placed a burden on victims (Bill s.1).
• Confirms that threats or coercion aimed at “any person,” not just the victim, count toward exploitation, which captures common trafficking tactics like threats to family members (Bill s.1).
• Keeps focus on causation: the accused’s conduct must cause the person to provide or offer labour or services, maintaining a clear link to trafficking activity (Bill s.1).
• Repeals an overlapping subsection because the indicators it listed are now part of the definition, which may simplify jury instructions and court analysis (Bill s.2).

Opponents' View#

• Argue that removing the “fear for safety” element could widen the offence and risk capturing severe labour disputes or misconduct that should be addressed by labour law, not criminal trafficking, depending on how courts apply the new test (Bill s.1).
• Note that the phrase “any other similar act” is open-ended and may invite litigation over vagueness and the scope of the offence (Bill s.1).
• Caution that “abuse of a position of trust, power or authority” is broad and could be unevenly applied without clear guidance, increasing enforcement discretion risks (Bill s.1).
• Warn of potential increases in investigations and prosecutions without added resources, which could strain police, Crown, legal aid, and courts: Data unavailable.
• Flag transitional risks as cases shift from a “fear-based” to a “means-based” standard, requiring training and updated practices to ensure consistent application (Bill s.1).