Bill C‑292 inserts new monetary penalties and mandatory sentencing mechanics into the Criminal Code’s trafficking provisions, tightens the statutory definition of “exploit” to require coercion, and creates a statutory rule that trafficking sentences must run consecutively to other punishments arising from the same events. It also increases maximum and minimum punishments for offences involving persons under 18, and adds fines of up to $100,000 to several trafficking-related offences.
Beyond sentencing, the bill removes the preliminary inquiry as an available pre‑trial procedure for an enumerated list of sexual offences and trafficking offences, authorizes judges to order witnesses to testify outside the courtroom (including off‑site locations), and creates an evidentiary gateway for video recordings of victims made shortly after an alleged offence when the victim adopts the recording while testifying. These changes shift prosecutorial leverage, alter defence pre‑trial tools, and change how courts receive vulnerable witnesses’ evidence.—all of which matter to prosecutors, defence counsel, court administrators and victim service providers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds fines up to $100,000 into multiple trafficking provisions and adjusts maximum and minimum imprisonment terms for offences involving persons under 18. It amends the definition of exploitation to require coercion, requires trafficking sentences to be served consecutively, eliminates preliminary inquiries for a listed set of sexual and trafficking offences, permits testimony outside the courtroom (including other locations), and allows certain victim video recordings to be admitted if adopted at trial.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include accused persons charged with trafficking or listed sexual offences, Crown prosecutors, defence counsel, judges handling these matters, and victims of sexual or trafficking offences (particularly minors). Court administration, victim‑witness programs and police units that investigate trafficking will also face new operational requirements.
Why It Matters
The bill makes trafficking offences both more punitive (fines and minimums) and more procedurally streamlined for prosecutions (no preliminary inquiry, consecutive sentences, broader victim testimony options). That combination increases prosecutorial leverage, changes case management dynamics, and raises constitutional and implementation questions that will matter to practitioners and administrators handling these charges.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill C‑292 is a package of substantive and procedural changes to how the Criminal Code treats trafficking and certain sexual offences. On the substantive side, it inserts monetary fines—up to $100,000—into the text of multiple trafficking provisions and raises or clarifies imprisonment ranges and mandatory minimums where minors are involved.
The bill also changes the statutory language about what it means to “exploit” someone so that exploitation occurs when a person causes another, by any form of coercion, to provide labour or services. That addition makes coercion an express element of exploitation under the trafficking provisions.
The bill creates a new, explicit rule that any sentence for an offence under the core trafficking provisions must be served consecutively to any other punishment arising from the same series of events and to any sentence the person is already serving. In practice this removes judicial flexibility to make trafficking sentences concurrent with other sentences arising from the same facts.On procedure and evidence, the bill removes the preliminary inquiry as an available pre‑trial step for a listed set of sexual offences and for trafficking offences enumerated in the amendments.
It also amends courtroom protections for vulnerable witnesses: a judge may order a witness to testify outside the courtroom and specify a location outside the court building, and the bill creates a new rule allowing a video recording made within a “reasonable time” after the alleged offence to be admitted if the victim adopts its contents while testifying, subject to the presiding judge’s assessment that admission would not interfere with the administration of justice.Taken together, these changes increase penalties and tighten sentencing outcomes for trafficking offences, while reducing some of the pre‑trial procedural tools typically available to accused persons and expanding the ways victims’ accounts can reach juries or judges. That mix alters both prosecutorial strategy and defence preparation, and it raises practical questions about enforcement, evidence management, and constitutional safeguards.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a monetary penalty of up to $100,000 to multiple trafficking provisions, inserting fines alongside existing imprisonment terms.
Material‑benefit offences tied to trafficking of persons under 18 now carry a fine (up to $100,000) and imprisonment of up to 14 years plus a mandatory minimum of two years.
Concealing, withholding or destroying travel, identity or immigration documents to facilitate trafficking of a person under 18 is made punishable by a fine (up to $100,000), up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a mandatory minimum of one year.
A new section requires that any sentence for offences under the core trafficking provisions be served consecutively to other punishments arising from the same event or series of events and to any sentence the offender already serves.
The bill removes preliminary inquiries for an enumerated list of sexual offences and trafficking offences, permits judges to order witness testimony outside the courtroom (including off‑site locations), and allows admission of victim video recordings made shortly after the alleged offence if the victim adopts the recording while testifying.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Add fines to trafficking offences
The bill replaces the introductory language of subsections 279.01(1) and 279.011(1) to insert liability for a fine of not more than $100,000 in addition to existing indictable offence provisions. Mechanically, the bill preserves the existing criminal acts that constitute trafficking but makes monetary penalties an express statutory element tied to conviction. Practically, that creates a direct statutory basis for fining trafficking offenders (individuals or potentially corporations) and signals Parliament’s intent to broaden punitive options beyond custody.
Material‑benefit provisions and harsher penalties for offences involving minors
Paragraph 279.02(1)(a) is amended to insert fines into the provision, and subsection 279.02(2)—which deals with receiving material benefit from trafficking a person under 18—is replaced to set a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment, add a fine up to $100,000, and introduce a mandatory minimum sentence of two years. This changes both the ceiling and the floor for culpability tied to profits from exploiting minors and makes the offence substantially more punitive. Prosecutors gain a statutory tool for seeking combined custodial and financial penalties; defence counsel will need to account for mandatory minimum exposure in plea and trial strategy.
Penalties for withholding or destroying identity and travel documents
The bill substitutes paragraphs in 279.03 to add fines and to recalibrate custody terms for offences that conceal or destroy travel or identity documents to facilitate trafficking of persons under 18. The new text sets imprisonment at up to 10 years, attaches a fine up to $100,000 and requires a minimum one‑year custodial term. That creates a distinct, serious offence for document‑based control of minors and targets a commonly alleged trafficking tactic (document confiscation) with a statutory minimum.
Exploit defined to require coercion
The definition of “exploit” in 279.04(1) is amended by inserting the phrase “by means of any form of coercion.” The current provision sets out that exploitation occurs when a person causes another to provide labour or services; the amendment makes coercion an explicit element of exploitation for sections 279.01–279.03. That revision will shape how prosecutors frame charges and the proof required to establish exploitation, and it could narrow or, depending on interpretation, clarify the universe of conduct the Crown must prove.
Consecutive sentences for trafficking offences
The bill adds a new section (279.05) requiring that any sentence imposed under sections 279.01 to 279.03 be served consecutively to other punishments arising from the same event or series of events and to any other sentence the offender is subject to at the time. This removes judicial discretion to order concurrency in those circumstances, increasing total time served for offenders convicted of trafficking alongside related offences and altering sentencing calculations for pleas and trials.
Testimony outside the courtroom, including off‑site locations
The bill supplements section 486.2 to clarify that an order for a witness to testify outside the courtroom may specify a location other than the building that houses the courtroom. That language extends existing measures intended to protect vulnerable witnesses (e.g., screens, closed‑circuit TV) to permit off‑site testimony locations, which raises logistical and security questions for court administrators while offering victims more options to avoid in‑court presence.
No preliminary inquiry for listed sexual and trafficking offences
The bill revises section 536 to add a new subsection (4.01) explicitly barring preliminary inquiries for a long list of sexual offences and for trafficking (sections 279.01 and 279.011). It also adjusts language around elections before a justice for offences punishable by 14 years or more, excluding offences listed in section 469 or the new subsection (4.01) from certain elective processes. The practical effect is to remove a key pre‑trial disclosure and testing mechanism (the preliminary inquiry) for specified offences, which will compress pre‑trial process and shift when and how defence counsel can challenge Crown evidence.
Admissibility of victim video recordings and limits on other uses
The bill adds section 715.201 to allow, in proceedings for offences covered by subsection 278.2(1), the admission of a video recording made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence if the victim later adopts the recording while testifying, unless the judge finds admission would interfere with the administration of justice. The presiding judge may also prohibit any other use of the recording. This creates a specific path for contemporaneous victim statements to be tendered at trial while giving judges discretion to limit broader exploitation of the recording; it alters how evidence will be managed and may affect disclosure and defence investigation tactics.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims (including minors): The bill increases protections for victims’ capacity to give evidence outside the courtroom and allows contemporaneous video accounts to be admitted, reducing the trauma of live testimony and expanding options to get their accounts before the trier of fact.
- Crown prosecutors: Stronger statutory penalties (fines, higher maxima and mandatory minimums) and the removal of preliminary inquiries for listed offences streamline prosecutions, reduce pre‑trial delay and increase leverage in plea negotiations.
- Victim‑support organizations and victim‑witness coordinators: Broader tools for protected testimony and an explicit statutory focus on coercion and document‑related offences give these programs clearer statutory grounds to push for protective orders and specialized supports.
- Law enforcement specialized units: New, clearer offences (document withholding with minimums, material‑benefit enhancements) align with common trafficking investigative findings and provide prosecutors with more tailored charges to pursue.
Who Bears the Cost
- Accused persons and defence counsel: Loss of preliminary inquiries and added mandatory minimums reduce defence pre‑trial tools and mitigate bargaining power, increasing exposure at trial and constraining defence strategy.
- Judicial discretion and sentencing judges: The consecutive‑sentences rule limits judges’ ability to tailor sentences to the totality of an offender’s conduct, potentially producing longer aggregate sentences regardless of mitigating factors.
- Court administration and provincial services: Ordering testimony off‑site and managing admitted video recordings impose logistical, security and technological costs on courts and victim‑witness programs; facilities and staff time will be required to implement safe off‑site testimony options.
- Corrections and parole systems: Higher mandatory minimums and the consecutive‑service requirement will likely increase total custody time for convicted offenders, producing additional costs to provincial and federal correctional systems and affecting institutional capacity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between strengthening victim protections and prosecutorial effectiveness on one hand, and preserving defence procedural safeguards and judicial discretion on the other; the bill makes it easier to secure victims’ evidence and to impose harsher, consecutive punishments, but it does so by removing pre‑trial tools and limiting sentencing flexibility—a trade‑off between victim‑centered adjudication and the traditional procedural protections that safeguard fair trial rights.
The bill blends punishment increases with procedural curtailments, and that mix raises difficult implementation and constitutional questions. Making coercion an express statutory element of “exploit” can clarify prosecutorial burden, but it also requires prosecutors to prove an element (coercion) that courts have previously inferred from surrounding circumstances; that proof path may be contested and could lead to litigation over the scope of “any form of coercion.”
Mandatory minimums and a statutory consecutive‑service rule reduce judicial flexibility and may produce disproportionate aggregate sentences in multi‑offence cases; they also shift bargaining dynamics toward the Crown. Eliminating preliminary inquiries for a long list of offences accelerates trials but removes a discovery‑focused pre‑trial step that defence counsel use to test the Crown’s case—this raises concerns about the accused’s ability to make informed electors and about fairness in complex, multi‑accused prosecutions.
The admissibility rule for video recordings depends on an undefined “reasonable time” and on adoption by the witness while testifying; those elements leave open evidentiary disputes over reliability, confrontation rights, and whether a video can be used beyond identification if the judge prohibits other uses. Finally, granting courts authority to order testimony in locations outside the court building helps victim safety but imposes operational burdens and new security and chain‑custody issues for evidence and witnesses.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.