The Liberal Senate Forum

Connect

facebook Ideas Forum youtube flickr

Meet Senator

George Baker

The Hon. George  Baker, P.C. Senator George Baker is the former MP for the riding of Gander - Grand Falls (Newfoundland and Labrador). He was first elected to the House of Commons in 1974, and was re-elected at every subsequent federal election. Since March 26, 2002, he has served in the Senate of Canada, representing the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Statements & Hansard

Second reading of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years)

More on...

Share

Feedback

Read the comments left on this page or add yours.
Statement made on 20 April 2010 by Senator Sharon Carstairs (retired)

Hon. Sharon Carstairs:

Honourable senators, it is with pleasure that I rise this afternoon to address Bill C-268.The purpose of this bill, as indicated by its sponsor both here and in the other place, is to increase sentences for those involved in trafficking. The sponsor of this bill in the other place, Joy Smith, states that such a bill will prevent the trafficking of children for sexual purposes.

Honourable senators, if the bill accomplishes this goal, then, of course, the principle of the bill is worthy of both our consideration and support.

I do not think anyone in this chamber believes that such activity, the trafficking of children for sexual exploitation, is anything but deeply offensive. For that reason, honourable senators, any attempt to prevent it is worthy of support. However, from my examination of the bill, I am not sure that it accomplishes the noble goals laid out by Ms. Smith and Senator Martin. The bill seeks to amend section 279 of the Criminal Code of Canada by doing two things. It makes specific mention of the age of a child — under the age of 18 — and provides for a minimum sentence.

Section 279 of the Criminal Code defines trafficking but, interestingly, within its definition it does not speak of sexual activity. It speaks of trafficking for the purposes of labour; it speaks of trafficking for the purposes of organs; but it does not reference sexual activity in its definition. Therefore, I was surprised that the author of this bill made no attempt to amend Part V of the Criminal Code of Canada, particularly sections 150 to 160, which is the part of the Criminal Code that specifically addresses the issue of sexual offences. I believe that this part of the Criminal Code needs to be amended, in addition to section 279, which Bill C-268 does amend, to achieve the goal of not only the sponsor of the bill but all of us assembled here.

I sincerely hope this bill will be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs since it contains a Criminal Code amendment. The bill is something the committee must examine carefully. In addition, the bill may become somewhat problematic since sections 150 to 160 of Part V of the Criminal Code have not been opened in this bill. The question becomes whether our committee can amend the bill by opening those sections of the Criminal Code.

Honourable senators, I believe we are all supportive of ensuring that traffickers of children for the purpose of sexual exploitation are punished severely.

My second concern with this bill is its failure to differentiate between those who traffic for the purpose of forced labour and those who traffic for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Honourable senators, these two types of trafficking are not the same thing. Forcing a child or an adult to work is a bad thing. The International Labour Organization states that 14 million persons a year, old and young, are forced to work, and that evil must be stopped for it is a form of work slavery. However, when placed on a scale with children and adults whose bodies are used by others for sexual activity for which they have not given their consent, I believe that sexual exploitation is the greater evil. Yet, this bill in no way differentiates between these two activities.

The third issue in the bill that I want to address this afternoon is the provision dealing with minimum sentences. I recognize that the provision of minimum sentences is becoming more common, and in cases where a crime is, if you will, black and white, perhaps a minimum sentence is understandable. However, I suspect that each and every one of us have a difference of opinion as to whether a provision of the Criminal Code, under any circumstances, can be black and white.

For example, when a person chooses to have several drinks and then gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and drives, thereby endangering his or her passengers, those sharing the road, and even himself or herself, the situation is black and white. However, if man has a few drinks just before his wife goes into premature labour and his only thought and consideration is getting her to a hospital, and he drives to do so, is that situation absolutely black and white? Perhaps it is not.

That is why, honourable senators, I am a strong believer in judicial discretion. Only a judge, and sometimes a jury, hear all the details of a case, and every case should be considered on its own merits. I am concerned that if minimum sentences are imposed in legislation, it will become all too easy for the minimum sentence to become the reality. In other words, five years becomes the norm even though, after hearing the testimony, a judge may determine that an offence was so egregious that a prescribed minimum sentence is far too low. I recognize that judges can impose much higher sentences within a prescribed framework, but my examination of recent use of minimum sentences shows that far too commonly the minimum is now the norm.

Honourable senators, what has drawn us as legislators to impose minimum sentences with greater frequency? I think the frequency is in part due to the input of victims and victims groups who frequently despair at sentences that they view as far too short. With the greatest respect to those victims and to those who represent them, they frequently do not have all the facts before them. Only the judges and the juries have all the information.

Honourable senators, I want to speak to you briefly as a victim lest you think I do not understand the victim's perspective. I was about seven years old when I was first sexually assaulted. I know that I was at least seven when I was a victim for the first time because my hair was short. I was my older sister's twelfth birthday present, although I was actually born a few hours into the next day.

My sister became my champion and caregiver, as my mother was ill. She also became the keeper of my long ringlets. She dutifully brushed them around her finger each night and tied them in rags. In the morning she would take out the rags and again brush them around her finger and send me on my way to school or play. She married when I was seven and a half. My hair was immediately cut, as my mother, who had the care of five other children, was not as devoted to my ringlets.

I lost not only my ringlets, however; I lost my protector. Shortly after my sister married, I found myself alone one evening in our home in Halifax. I never knew how this happened but there was clearly a serious communication breakdown. I did what I had been instructed to do if I found myself in this situation. I called a family friend who lived close by, and he said he would come immediately.

Honourable senators, the reality of sexual assaults of children is that they are in large part committed by someone whom the child knows; a parent, siblings or a friend.

This man arrived in my home and the sexual assaults began, to be repeated on other occasions when I was unable to hide. My favourite hiding spot was a clothes closet that ran from the front hall under the stairs and was deep and dark. I learned that I could support myself among the coats with my hands on the rod and that I could cover my hands with other coats, thereby keeping my feet off the floor when I heard him call and when he opened the door.

Honourable senators, like all children, I was told that I could not tell. I was threatened that no one would believe me, and so I lost my voice. I could not hurt my parents, his friends, by telling on him, because he told me I would not be believed. Yes, I felt the guilt that many children feel. Did I do something to precipitate this abuse? Was it my fault? Many children feel that sense of guilt.

I found my voice only when I saw him watching my younger sister. Like many pedophiles, he liked only younger children, and I was becoming older. I was also becoming heavier, because I decided that one way to deal with my guilt was to eat a great deal, and I struggle with a weight problem to this day.

Once I saw him eyeing her, I was able to say in a loud, clear voice that if he touched her I would tell. That loud voice, honourable senators, has stood me in good stead in the rest of my life.

You do not ever forget these events, but if you are lucky, you can learn to live with them. The most important qualities I learned from this were to not become a lifelong victim and to stand up to bullies, friends and foes alike, anywhere one meets them.

My husband wishes I did not do that quite so often. For example, two weeks ago, when the cab driver would not deliver us to our hotel in Bangkok because the Red Shirt anti-government protesters had circled the hotel, I got out of the cab and John followed. I dragged the suitcase through about 10,000 Red Shirts until I got to my hotel, when he said to me, "You were in full anti-bullying mode."

Honourable senators, I was lucky. My perpetrator was not a parent or a sibling, for that is far worse. I had the advantage of living in a middle class family where I had many advantages. I was bright. I had the advantage of being able to achieve an excellent education, and my abuse became an incident in my life. It did not consume me as it consumes so many.

Honourable senators, I tell you this personal history because I want you to understand that not all victims are the same. Neither are all criminals the same, nor all crimes the same. This is why I believe in the principle of judicial discretion. I trust our judges to do the right thing after they have heard all of the evidence. As a legislator, I do not believe that it is my duty or responsibility to tell judges what to do, which is what minimum sentences do.

By all means, let us recognize that the sexual exploitation of children is a horrendous evil. But let us also recognize the tradition of judicial excellence in this country, and let us not tie the hands of the judiciary in ways that do not help the child and that might result in sentences that are weaker or perhaps more unfair than what we would wish. The objective of this bill, as stated by the sponsor, is to protect children, which clearly has my support. Honourable senators, let us ensure that this bill does what the sponsor intends it to do: Protect our children.


Recent Statements from Liberal Senators

Economic Benefits of Recreational Atlantic Salmon Fishing—Inquiry

17 May, 2012 | By Senator Wilfred Moore | Honourable senators, I am pleased to join in the debate of the inquiry commenced by the Honourable Michael A. Meighen regarding the economic benefits of recreational Atlantic salmon fishing in Canada.

Second reading of Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Nuclear Terrorism Act)

17 May, 2012 | By Senator Roméo Dallaire | Honourable senators, yes indeed, you are going to have to put up with me for another 45 minutes, but I will try to do as my friends in the U.S. Marines taught me. I will try to power talk my way through this and curtail my time.

RADARSAT Satellite and Communication Projects

17 May, 2012 | By Senator Roméo Dallaire | Has the Prime Minister developed a policy whereby he committed to monitor the Arctic, but now that it is time to allocate funding, he has changed his basic philosophy regarding the desire to move forward on the issue of Arctic sovereignty?

Arctic Research

17 May, 2012 | By Senator Claudette Tardif | Why would the government invest in infrastructure in the Arctic without a plan for keeping these important facilities operational?

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

17 May, 2012 | By Senator Elizabeth Hubley | Is this just another example of the government's preference for ideological rather than evidence-based decision making?
« 1 2 3 4 5  ... » 
Recycle

You can retrieve this page at:
http://www.liberalsenate.ca/In-The-Senate/Statement/9298_Second-reading-of-Bill-C-268-An-Act-to-amend-the-Criminal-Code-minimum-sentence-for-offences-involving-trafficking-of-persons-under-the-age-of-eighteen-years.
Please recycle this document.