Bill C-292, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim protection), proposes changes to Canada’s Criminal Code. Its stated goal is to increase protection for victims; the bill text supplied here is a proposal, not proof that these changes are in force.
It would make people convicted of offences under the trafficking provisions liable to a fine of up to $100,000, alongside other punishments. It also sets minimum and maximum prison terms for some related offences.
A sentence for an offence under the trafficking provisions would have to be served consecutively (one after another) to other punishments for the same event or series of events, and to any other sentence the person is already serving when sentenced.
It would change the definition of exploitation used for trafficking offences to require causing someone, by any form of coercion, to provide or offer labour or a service. The bill’s summary also says it removes a requirement that a trafficking victim show reasonable apprehension of fear.
It would allow certain witnesses to testify somewhere outside the courthouse building, if the court makes an order for testimony outside the courtroom.
It would bar preliminary inquiries for a list of offences, including sexual offences, trafficking and some offences involving sexual services.
It would allow a qualifying video recording of a victim describing alleged acts to be admitted in evidence, subject to conditions and the judge’s power to exclude it or limit its other uses.
People accused of listed offences: A preliminary inquiry would not be available for the offences on the bill’s list, even if the accused or prosecutor requests one. Some trafficking-related convictions would carry a mandatory minimum prison term as well as a maximum fine of $100,000.
People convicted of trafficking-related offences: The bill would require consecutive sentences in the circumstances it specifies. It does not set out a process for deciding how sentences interact beyond that requirement.
Victims and witnesses: A court could order testimony outside the courtroom and specify a location outside the courthouse building. For a video recording to be admitted, the victim must testify and adopt its contents; the judge may refuse it if admission would interfere with the proper administration of justice. The bill does not require a recording to be made.
Courts and prosecutors: The bill would change which cases can have a preliminary inquiry and what evidence may be admitted in some proceedings.
General public: The bill does not directly create a new victim-support service or change taxes or fees.
No public cost information is available in the supplied material.
The bill would make people convicted of specified trafficking-related offences liable to a fine of up to $100,000. It gives no estimate of fines collected.
The bill does not provide a spending amount or estimate costs for court, prosecution or staffing changes.
The Criminal Code provisions being amended were not supplied. I could not verify how the bill’s wording compares with current law, including the summary’s claim about removing the reasonable-apprehension-of-fear requirement.
The bill uses “any form of coercion” but does not define coercion.
The bill does not set out how courts would decide whether a victim’s physical or mental health could be endangered by testifying, or what counts as a “reasonable time” for making a video recording.
The bill refers to offences in subsection 278.2(1), but that provision is not reproduced in the supplied material, so the full range of proceedings covered cannot be confirmed here.
The supplied material does not show when the changes would start or whether the bill has become law.
The bill appears intended to strengthen legal protections for victims of trafficking and certain sexual offences.
A possible argument for mandatory consecutive sentences is that a person convicted of several related offences would serve the sentences one after another, rather than at the same time.
Allowing some witnesses to testify outside the courthouse building could give courts more options for where testimony happens.
A recording could be admitted when testifying may endanger a victim’s physical or mental health, while the requirement that the victim adopt it and the judge’s power to exclude it remain safeguards.
Mandatory consecutive sentences could increase the total time a person spends serving sentences and limit a court’s ability to order concurrent sentences in the cases covered.
Removing preliminary inquiries for the listed offences takes that step out of those cases, regardless of a request by the accused or prosecutor.
The bill does not define coercion or set out detailed rules for assessing health risks and recording timelines, which may leave important decisions to interpretation.
Admitting a recording could affect how evidence is tested in court. The bill includes safeguards, but their application would depend on the circumstances and the judge’s decision.