Justice Committee on March 15th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We'll call the meeting to order. This is the 27th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, December 12, 2011, we are considering Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

Before us today, we have Joy Smith, the MP from Kildonan—St. Paul—she is the sponsor of the bill—and some witnesses who will appear before the committee.

We'll start with Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here today. I'm honoured to be before this prestigious committee on this important issue. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak to my private member's bill, C-310, an act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons.

I want to begin by thanking the honourable members for their support at second reading. Legislation rarely enjoys unanimous consent. However, the unanimous consent for Bill C-310 at second reading is very encouraging. There are a few matters of justice that require our careful and constant attention, and there's no issue more pressing than modern-day slavery.

Cases of human trafficking are beginning to appear regularly in the media. For example, last fall an Ottawa man was arrested after trafficking a 17-year-old girl from Windsor to Ottawa and starving her until she agreed to service men. This happened in a hotel just blocks from where we're sitting right now.

You've probably also heard of Canada's largest human trafficking case involving 20 Hungarian men brought to Hamilton for the purposes of forced labour. They were fed scraps once a day and locked up at night.

You may have heard of the 24,000 women and children freed over the past year in China. This is only the tip of the iceberg. This happens here in Canada daily. Modern-day slavery exists in all corners of our globe, and our resolve to eliminate it must grow stronger. Bill C-310 is a very simple bill that has only two clauses but will have a significant impact on the anti-human trafficking efforts of Canada here at home as well as abroad.

The first clause will amend the Criminal Code to add trafficking in persons, sections 279.01 and 279.011, to the list of offences that if committed outside Canada by a Canadian or a permanent resident can be prosecuted in Canada. I will also be welcoming a friendly amendment today to add to section 279.02, receiving financial benefit from trafficking in persons, and to section 279.03, concealing, withholding, destroying travel or identification documents. This will ensure that all offences surrounding trafficking in persons are prosecutable.

Extending extraterritorial jurisdiction to Criminal Code offences is rare and is typically reserved for matters of international consensus. This was noted by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice as well as the NDP justice critic during second reading. I want to refer to an extensive report on the practice of extraterritorial jurisdiction released by the Law Commission of Canada entitled, “Global Reach, Local Grasp: Constructing Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the Age of Globalization”.

This report states that:

...most exercises of extraterritoriality are deliberately multilateral, and those which are not are supportable by general international consensus on when it is legitimate to claim such jurisdiction. That is not universally true, however. It is open to Canada to act extraterritorially in advance of consensus having formed: in effect, to attempt to lead international opinion by example.

What is most notable is that the report provides Canada's child sex tourism laws as an example of this, and states:

...one might note that the child sex tourism provisions, though now perfectly in line with international treaties, actually preceded the signing of those treaties.

There are three primary purposes for designating trafficking in persons as an extraterritorial offence and they are as follows.

First, an extraterritorial human trafficking offence would allow Canada to arrest Canadians who have left the country where they engage in human trafficking in an attempt to avoid punishment.

Secondly, an extraterritorial human trafficking offence would ensure justice in cases where the offence was committed in a country without strong anti-human-trafficking laws or strong judicial systems.

Finally, an extraterritorial human trafficking offence would clearly demonstrate that Canada will not tolerate its own citizens to engage in human trafficking, inside or outside of Canada.

Bill C-310 is an opportunity for Canada to again take international leadership in combatting such a heinous crime. We will join countries like the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and Cambodia, which have already extended extraterritorial jurisdictions.

I want to tell you about a joint presentation on human trafficking at the U.S. embassy by Canadian and U.S. law enforcement that I attended just a few weeks ago here in Ottawa. During the presentation by U.S. Homeland Security, the officer reviewed the U.S. legislation on trafficking of persons known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In the U.S. they have to renew this legislation every three years, and it includes funding, immigration, and criminal aspects.

It may seem tedious, but it allows them to update and tweak their laws. I have to say that the agent was particularly enthusiastic about the changes to the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which extended extraterritorial jurisdiction to trafficking in persons' offences. He expressed how this change was so important for U.S. law enforcement to be able to catch and prosecute their citizens who travelled abroad to engage in human trafficking in other countries.

The second clause of Bill C-310 recognizes that courts and law enforcement would benefit from an interpretive provision to provide clear guidance on what exploitation consists of. The heart of this amendment is to provide an aid to the courts that clearly demonstrates the factors that constitute exploitive methods. In proposed subsection 279.04(2) I have proposed including the use of threats of violence, force, and other forms of coercion and fraudulent means.

I also welcome a friendly amendment to change “fraudulent misrepresentation” to ”deception”, and to add another description of exploitation as “abused a position of trust, power, or authority”. This will ensure that the language is consistent with the Palermo Protocol and international definitions, and it will ensure that this bill accomplishes what we all want to do.

Interpretive aids are already used in our Criminal Code. In fact, the interpretive aid found in subsection 153(1.2) of the Criminal Code provides greater clarity to the courts on what constitutes sexual exploitation of a minor.

There's also an interpretive aid found in subsection 467.13(1) that provides additional guidance on what constitutes participation in organized crime. This amendment has received broad support from Canadian NGOs. For example, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime has noted that the definition of exploitation in Canada's trafficking in persons offence requires clear and specific wording. The Canadian Women's Foundation states, and I quote:

Strengthening the definition of exploitation in the criminal code creates important clarity for police, prosecutors, and the judiciary and hopefully will lead to increased charges and convictions.

Bill C-310 will not only strengthen the definition of exploitation but will align it with international trafficking protocols.

I believe that's very important.

Honourable members, trafficking in persons is a fast-growing crime in terms of profit, and it is incumbent on all of us as parliamentarians to confront slavery in all of its forms, both within our nation and abroad. Over the past few days I've received a number of e-mails from Canadians writing to this committee regarding Bill C-310. By the way, I didn't solicit those e-mails; they came. I was even surprised at the number of them. They want to see this legislation become law.

People like Michelle Brock from the organization, Hope For the Sold, wrote:

It is essential that we waste no time to protect those who are vulnerable and abused, and Bill C-310 is a huge step in that right direction.

Saskia Wishart, a Canadian currently working for the Not For Sale campaign in the Netherlands, wrote:

Clarifying laws that define exploitation will provide members of our legal system who seek justice the tools they need to properly prosecute criminals who deal in the buying and selling of human beings for the purpose of exploitation. Similarly, Canada has a responsibility to the global community to implement extraterritorial laws that will allow law enforcement to seek out and prosecute those Canadians who exploit individuals, no matter where in the world they may try to hide.

Betty Dobson, president of the Zonta Club of Halifax, wrote:

The Zonta Club of Canada fully supports the recommended amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-310. We cannot allow Canadians to commit human trafficking offences in other countries, and return home to hide.

By supporting Bill C-310, each member of this House plays an important role in strengthening the tools used by police officers and prosecutors, and in helping to secure justice for victims of trafficking, both here in Canada and abroad.

Once again I want to express my gratitude for your support for Bill C-310 in second reading. By working together I know we can effectively combat human trafficking in our country, as well as abroad. I look forward to your assistance in helping me get this law through, as we have cases right here in Canada. We have Canadians right here in Canada—we know where they live, who they are, and what cities they're in—who are exploiting children abroad, and we can't touch them.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Now we have two people here from Walk With Me. I think it's been explained in correspondence that the time allocation is by group.

Ms. Nagy or Mr. Hooper, if you want to share your time, that's fine.

[Timea E. Nagy, Program Director, Front Line, Walk With Me]

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Timea Nagy. I am a founder of the Walk With Me organization and a survivor of human trafficking. Mr. Hooper is the chairperson of the board of directors of Walk With Me.

Walk With Me Canada Victim Services, or Walk With Me, is a front-line and secondary service provider to victims of all forms of human trafficking. We have been asked to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning Bill C-310, which suggests amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada concerning human trafficking.

Let me tell you who we are. Walk With Me is a Canada-wide organization with a mandate to provide services to persons rescued from modern-day slavery, also known as human trafficking. Walk With Me has been involved in the rescue of trafficked human victims in the labour and sex trades.

The mission statement of Walk With Me is as follows:

Walk With Me Canada Victim Services is a survivor-led organization dedicated to raising awareness and providing education on issues of slavery, delivering and coordinating services supporting “victims to become survivors” and advocating action for change.

The vision of Walk With Me is as follows:

Transforming the lives of victims of human trafficking while eradicating slavery.

Bill C-310 purports to make two amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. They include: making the offence of trafficking in persons an extraterritorial offence for Canadian citizens and permanent residents, and adding a subsection to give evidentiary assistance to courts on factors to be considered in defining exploitation.

On extraterritorial trafficking in persons, the proposed amendment to section 7 of the Criminal Code is to add proposed subsection 7(4.11), which states:

Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that if committed in Canada would be an offence against section 279.01 or 279.011 shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person who commits the act or omission is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Walk With Me’s position is that this is a necessary and desperately needed amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Walk With Me has had significant involvement with Project OPAPA, which is about the Hungarian labour trafficking ring in southwestern Ontario. Conceivably, as the Criminal Code presently stands, a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident could set up an office in eastern Europe and traffic in human persons to Canadian soil without the threat or worry of prosecution when they return to Canada.

It is our anticipation that Project OPAPA will force the parties involved in modern-day slavery to move to a more sophisticated cultivation of trafficking in human persons. It is our view that it will include having Canadian citizens and/or permanent residents set up shop outside of Canada and deliver the potential trafficked persons to Canada via a foreign country.

Given the mandate of our work inside of Canada, we have not seen a significant amount of involvement of extraterritorial shipments of trafficked persons; however, it is clear that the Roma people involved in Project OPAPA specifically had agents in Hungary shipping people to Canada. Some of those people who were the conduits in Hungary eventually came to Canada, requested status after sending the shipment of trafficked human beings, and became permanent residents.

It is our anticipation that this crackdown and the prosecution of this group of organized criminals will lead to parties attempting to set up a shop extraterritorially.

I'm going to pass this on to my team member.

[Robert Hooper, Chairperson, Board of Directors, Walk With Me]

As was necessary in the case of sexual offences and the amendments made to subsection 7(4) of the Criminal Code, it's our view that this amendment is necessary not only to deal with trafficking in persons outside of Canada but to prevent parties from infiltrating Canada, becoming permanent residents and/or Canadians, and then moving offshore to deliver persons trafficked to Canada to be exploited for labour or sex.

Proposed subsection 279.04(2) lists the factors that are proposed in the amendment. Walk With Me is in complete support of adding factors that a court may consider when determining what constitutes exploitation. The factors that are listed are necessary to give teeth to the legislation.

The position of Walk With Me is that these additional factors are required to assist courts in assessing the exploitation of persons in this country. Walk With Me thinks these factors will be extremely useful in reviewing the conduct of accused persons before the court system in Canada.

Some of the things our front-line workers have witnessed first-hand include victims being isolated; their passports and other official documentation being stolen; victims being forced to commit fraudulent acts, including those involving government forms; and the withholding of essential services, such as those for learning English as a second language or health.

In the Project OPAPA situation, some of the victims were not overtly threatened with violence or death, but a very subtle version of coercion was placed upon their lives. There was never an explicit threat to their safety, but the complete isolation of the victim, leaving him or her bereft of any dignity, help, or any hope, was used as a tactic to exploit those people. They were left with absolutely no avenue to escape, left to the unknown, without language, funds, or safety. Included in the systematic, subtle coercion was the removal of official paperwork, including immigration documents and passports, from these people who had recently come to Canada.

Also, there is often no direct threat, but a formula. It was best described by a police officer testifying at a bail review. He stated:

Well, place yourself, sir, in their shoes. They come to a country…they don’t speak the language. They've lost contact with their families. You have an individual who has offered them a better life. They are grasping for that. They are hopeful of getting a better life in this country.... And someone graciously pays their way here...only to find out that [they] are here to be used...[they] are here to commit acts that [they] may or may not commit...that the money [they] are promised [they] never receive. They come from a country where the relationship with the police is not particularly good; as a matter of fact they are very fearful of the police back in Hungary. And [they] come here, not speaking the language and all of a sudden [they] are embroiled in this horrendous drama, so everywhere [they] look [they're] fearful. The expression is better the devil you know than the one you don’t. They know no one else so they will go back.

Walk With Me fully supports the four factors enumerated in proposed subsection 279.04(2). They are very necessary tools for the court system.

Walk With Me front-line workers have witnessed the following activities by human traffickers in both the sex trafficking and labour trafficking situations: isolating the victim; withholding language services; withholding essential services, including health services; forcing victims to falsify government applications and documents; controlling their bank accounts and all their financial means; and taking control of their passports and/or their other immigration documents.

It is our view that these are but a few examples from the front line that show the absolute necessity to add the factors outlined in the proposed amendment to assist the courts in assessing such conduct of exploitation.

Walk With Me would ask the committee to consider the following recommendations: first, that the bill be amended by adding the offences listed in section 279.02, receiving financial benefit from trafficking in persons, and section 279.03, concealing, withholding, destroying travel or identification documents, to clause 1; and second, that the bill be amended to add as a factor to clause 2, “abuse a position of trust, power or authority”.

As chairperson of Walk With Me Canada, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the honourable members for allowing us to present in front of the committee. We are very grateful and thankful for the work you're doing to eradicate slavery in this country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you very much.

Now we have Beyond Borders ECPAT Canada.

Ms. Prober.

[Rosalind Prober, President and Co-Founder, Beyond Borders ECPAT Canada]

Beyond Borders, Au-delà des frontières, is a national, bilingual NGO that works in solidarity with sexually exploited children.

I am president, and I founded Beyond Borders, in 1996, with Mark Erik Hecht.

Our NGO is now the Canadian arm of an international NGO based in Bangkok, Thailand, called ECPAT: End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes.

Both ECPAT and Beyond Borders were founded to combat cross-border sex crimes against children, including all forms of sex trafficking and child sex tourism.

Bill C-10 proposes that human trafficking be added to the list of extraterritorial offences. Beyond Borders early on endorsed this bill, as it includes child sex traffickers and supports the tireless work of MP Joy Smith on the issue.

Ethical cosmetics company The Body Shop raised awareness of this issue with Beyond Borders. Over half a million Canadian customers signed a petition asking the government to do more to stop child sex trafficking. This bill validates the incredible efforts of that company and its staff. Canadians clearly want child sex traffickers held accountable wherever they choose to abuse and exploit vulnerable children for profit.

Extraterritorial crimes against children committed by Canadians are the focus and expertise of Beyond Borders. Thanks to the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Lloyd Axworthy, I appeared before this committee in 1996 on Bill C-27, on child sex tourism. In its wisdom, this committee in 1996 agreed with my suggested amendments and made all sex crimes against children extraterritorial. The committee referred to the new legislation as the “Prober amendment”. At the time, there was, of course, no legislation on human trafficking, as there is now.

Today before us is another bill making human trafficking law, including child trafficking, extraterritorial. What has happened in Canada after our new sex tourism extraterritorial law came into effect in 1997? Well, it has worked to a limited extent. There are lessons to be learned from the last 15 years, which leads to the recommendations Beyond Borders is making today.

Since 1997 Canada has had four successful prosecutions in Canada of child sex tourists abroad: two in Vancouver, one in Montreal, and one in Windsor. That's four in 15 years.

I always enjoy discussing the Windsor case, as it concerns a pedophile priest who got tremendous funding from the good people in Windsor, through Hearts Together for Haiti, to bring technology, etc., to the children in the remote village in Haiti where the priest was sexually abusing the boys. Using that Canadian technology, one of the Haitian victims e-mailed the Windsor funders to inform them of the sexual assaults.

The constitutionality of the extraterritorial law—Criminal Code subsection 7(4.1)—on child sex tourism was challenged in the latest child sex tourism prosecution, R. v. Klassen, in the B.C. Supreme Court. The main issue before the court was whether it was constitutional to apply Canadian law to acts committed overseas by Canadians.

Justice Cullen decided that the child sex tourism legislation was constitutional. He ruled that Parliament has the power to enact extraterritorial legislation, adding that the majority of the world's countries, including Canada, have signed the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography.

He disagreed that the rights of the accused under the charter would be infringed when the crimes were committed outside of Canada, stating that the accused was still guaranteed a fair trial in Canada under our charter.

Creating legislation like Bill C-10 is, of course, when it comes to extraterritorial crimes, the easy part. The investigations and prosecutions of our child sex tourists in Canada have been extremely complicated, costly, and a huge investment of law enforcement and prosecutors' time. R. v. Klassen took six years.

Sentencing of our child sex tourists has been all over the map, from extremely lenient to what I would call “fitting the damage done”.

A recommendation from Beyond Borders was proposed recently by another of our legal counsel, David Matas, who appeared before the Senate justice committee on sentencing. Beyond Borders proposed a sentencing commission for Canada. I am today recommending that solution as well.

Post-incarceration, the reality is that not only do our convicted high-risk sex offenders, including convicted child sex tourists and child traffickers, get out of jail, but they also get passports, allowing them access to low-cost, high-speed foreign travel. Of course, vulnerable, young, at-risk children can easily once again become their targets in foreign countries.

Today I'm recommending that Canada use our sex offender registry to have a designation for, at a minimum, all convicted extraterritorial child sex offenders to be declared unfit to travel. Canada has signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where countries commit to putting children first, not globe-trotting convicted pedophiles and sex traffickers.

There are presently scant resources and too few liaison officers in embassies abroad to combat all global crimes. Another recommendation is therefore that if you're going to take trafficking seriously and really crack down, there will have to be more RCMP liaison officers abroad and much more focus on preventing sex crimes against children by travelling Canadians.

As of December 2011, in a landmark step for children's rights, the UN General Assembly adopted a new optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, establishing a complaints mechanism for violations of children's rights. The new treaty will enable children or their representatives to bring a complaint to an international committee of children's rights experts if they've not been able to get remedies for these violations in their countries. Canada has not signed on to this new complaints mechanism and should do so forthwith.

Presently Beyond Borders is running a national campaign supported by The Body Shop, reaching out by using Canadian male celebrities to speak to all men in an effort to sensitize them on the tremendous damage their gender is doing to children. The demand or perpetrator side of child sexual exploitation results in an endless supply of trafficked children prostituted both here in Canada and abroad. The campaign is called “Man to Man/Homme à homme”. Much more focus in Canada has to be put on child sex consumers, as stopping demand will prevent more damaged children.

It is essential, to ensure global justice for children, that Bill C-10 is supported by this committee. At the same time, it is essential that systems are in place in Canada and abroad to make sure the law will work.

One case out of Nova Scotia, Regina v. MacIntosh, is so disturbing, so full of injustice for victims in Canada and victims in India, that nothing less than a full inquiry is necessary to ensure a global child abuse case like this never happens again. Previously convicted sex offender MacIntosh, while under warrant status in 1995 for 43 new child sexual abuse charges of many Nova Scotia boys, lived in India for 11 years in flight from justice. He got passport renewals to stay there, travelled back and forth from India to Canada, and was reported by the Toronto Star to be sexually exploiting boys in India. He twice got visas, while wanted for sex crimes here, to bring an Indian boy to Canada with him. That boy, according to the Toronto Star, joins many other Indian boys who say they were abused by this Canadian, in India or here.

Every system put in place to stop sex crimes abroad, including the extradition system, was bungled. The law on child sex tourism was ignored. Officials in India were widely quoted in the papers saying they were dumbfounded that a wanted Canadian had access to Indian boys for years and years and they were never aware that he was previously convicted and also wanted. They are stunned that he, remarkably, was getting passport renewals and visas to travel with minors while under warrant status. The Canadian passport office was asleep, at best.

A first recommendation, obviously, coming out of this case is that Canadians under warrant status for sex crimes, including trafficking, should not get passport renewals.

Holding global child sex traffickers accountable wherever they exploit and not providing a safe haven for them here, if detected in another country and they flee home, is necessary at this time of globalization, cyber-pimping, and trafficking. The law is constitutionally valid.

We can no longer turn a blind eye to those Canadians who befriend, romance, control, abuse, and then traffic children in countries like the Dominican Republic, sadly a Canadian biker gang hangout.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We are at our time limit. Thank you very much.

Professor Attaran.

[Professor Amir Attaran, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. I'm Professor Amir Attaran, professor of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa.

Thank you for asking my opinion on Bill C-310. You know the subject of today's hearing, of course. It's human trafficking.

The image attached to the crime is at times caricatured but nonetheless meaningful. For example, it is that of a woman from eastern Europe who is induced to come to Canada by false promises or threats, and upon arriving she's forced into prostitution, just as Timea said.

That sort of thing happens, surely, but it is only one example of the phenomenon. Men are trafficked too. They can be coerced into agricultural labour, farming, or domestic help. Certainly, women in Canada who are not immigrants but Canadians themselves are trafficked too. It seems as though first nations women have it especially bad in that regard.

In this context, Bill C-310 is a very helpful bill. It's necessary. It's constitutional. It definitely should pass. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the people behind it are heroes. I'm surrounded by heroes on each side right here.

The heart of the bill is really those provisions that clarify the meaning of exploitation and trafficking and that make trafficking a Canadian crime worldwide. Let me explain those a bit.

When trafficking is committed abroad by Canadians or persons normally resident in Canada, at the moment they cannot be prosecuted in Canada. The bill will change that. It will enable the prosecution of Canadians or permanent residents who do this sort of thing abroad. That sort of global criminalization is a large step in the direction of what lawyers call “universal jurisdiction”.

The clarification of exploitation in the bill means that traffickers who use psychological pressure to control their victims, rather than brute threats of force and violence, will be criminals. For years, they slipped through this loophole. They could use all the psychological pressure they wanted, and as long as they didn't resort to physical endangerment, they were innocent. That's foolish.

So I'm delighted that all parties seem to agree on closing that loophole and invoking universal jurisdiction. Bravo. Please pass the bill.

But now, as clear as I am in my praise, let me also be clear and at times brutally honest in some criticism. Why is this House so under-ambitious? Although you're doing a wonderful thing by toughening the laws on human traffickers, haven't you forgotten about the victims to some extent?

Bill C-310, much as I like it, does nothing for the victims. Earlier I put in evidence to the clerk, and I hope it is now with all of you, the United States law on trafficking. It's here, and the citation is “28 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1100, Subpart B”.

Look at what the American law does that Canadian law does not, even after Bill C-310. American law requires the trafficking victims be housed and be given legal help and medical treatment as victims. They are not imprisoned as criminals.

In America, the law gives foreign trafficking victims the right to stay lawfully in the country with protection so they can turn star witness and help put the trafficker in prison. If you deport them, you can't do that. But in Canadian law, we don't have those victim protection measures right now.

Listen to me on this, please. You cannot deal successfully with human trafficking by only taking aim at the trafficker. You also need to think of the victims. That is what Bill C-310 currently does not do.

Put yourself, please, in the shoes of being a trafficked, prostituted woman yourself. I know this is very hard. Thank goodness it is very far away from our experience, those of us in this room. But put yourself in those shoes anyway. When you're not on your back being sexually exploited, probably the thing you want is for someone in uniform to kick in the door and slip handcuffs on your trafficker. Imagine how that wish can easily turn into a nightmare when it happens, because the men and women in uniform come into the room and they slip handcuffs on you. Why? Because the trafficker, for example, tore up your passport—that's part of the control—and now you don't have a valid visa to be in Canada. So the handcuffs go on you.

That trafficked, abused victim who you've hypothetically imagined yourself to be has just been locked up in a jail cell and treated like a criminal. Are you going to tell the men and women in uniform what they need to hear to lock up your trafficker? Are you going to turn crown witness and help them bust the large organized ring of criminals that brought you to this place? No way, because you simply won't trust the authorities.

It's a question of trust. That is why I say Bill C-310 is an extremely worthwhile bill, but it's also inadequate. Both can be true. Pass the bill, please, but don't come out of here, any of you, saying that you're making Canada a world leader against trafficking. You aren't. You simply aren't. The best that can be said is that Canada moves from being absolutely appalling on human trafficking, which is our present reality, to merely being backwards, somewhere behind the United States and the American law that I told you about. The U.S. law will still be miles ahead.

Enough of my tongue-lashing. Thank you for being patient and hearing it out. But, friends, friends in this House, members, members of all parties, I really applaud you for doing this, but surely you can do better. Do you want Canada to be a second-rate, also-ran country? I'm sure you don't. Here's your chance to be first-rate in this bill and in the next steps that need to take place. Be ambitious and beat trafficking.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you very much.

Now we begin our rounds with the members of the panel. It's five minutes each for questions and answers.

We'll begin with Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you all for your very interesting and passionate presentations on this extremely important issue.

I'd like to speak to Ms. Nagy, but I have a technical question, which I hope can be dealt with quickly by Professor Attaran.

We support the extraterritoriality provision, and we support this bill, so the details are not worrisome as presented. The question is that the extraterritoriality applies to Canadian permanent residents or Canadian citizens, but will this apply to someone who may be, for example, engaged in trafficking in Hungary or Europe and then comes to Canada, either with or without his or her victims, and is now inside of Canada? Could they be prosecuted under this legislation for crimes that were committed prior to them coming to Canada and prior to them coming under Canadian law?

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

If that person was a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the wrongful act, then yes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

But not otherwise.

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

But not otherwise. You cannot reach backwards; you cannot have an element of retroactivity in the law, such as I think, if I understand you correctly, you're hypothesizing there.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We do prosecute war criminals who come to Canada, who don't commit their crimes here, have no right to be in Canada until they come here, but they have committed crimes beforehand. But you don't think it would apply to this legislation—

[Prof. Amir Attaran]

That's why I said this bill takes a step in the direction of universal jurisdiction. It's not universal jurisdiction in its purist form.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I understand that. I have made a speech about that in the House of Commons.

I have a question for Ms. Nagy. I thank you for coming and telling us your views on this, because I'm concerned about how victims are dealt with. I thank Ms. Smith for bringing this up, as well as our colleagues in the House. I have looked at, as I'm sure you've seen, what Ms. Joy referred to as that Palermo Protocol, which is a protocol to prevent, suppress, and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, that Canada signed on December 14, 2000, and ratified on May 13, 2002. We're 10 years down the road trying to implement some of the provisions with respect to the criminal law, which is expected of states prior to this. There's a whole section here as well—article 6(3)—which says:

Each State Party shall consider implementing measures to provide for the physical, psychological and social recovery of victims of trafficking in persons, including...in cooperation with non-governmental organizations, other relevant organizations and other elements of civil society...Appropriate housing...Counselling and information, in particular as regards their legal rights...Medical, psychological and material assistance...Employment, educational and training opportunities.

Secondly—and I've put them both together so you can answer fully—in addition to these measures in article 6, there should be consideration of adopting legislation or measures that permit victims of trafficking and persons to remain in this territory temporarily or permanently in appropriate cases, and give consideration to humanitarian and compassion factors. That's kind of the legal lingo that deals with what Professor Attaran was talking about. Canada signed this 10 years ago.

I'm wondering whether you, as an individual, or your organization, can tell us what you think may need to be done, or what you think of the current state of both the immigration law as it might affect deportations, or whatever, and the state of assistance and services to victims of human trafficking who find themselves in Canada.

[Timea E. Nagy]

Thank you for that question, but unfortunately, you're not going to like the answer.

I'm going to start by answering the second question you had regarding immigration laws. There is one thing that Canada has graciously done, and that is to introduce a temporary work permit for human traffic victims that actually answers some questions you had earlier. If a woman or a man believed to be a victim of human trafficking is discovered by police officers, he or she has the right to apply for a temporary work permit that gives her immediate access to health services. She also gets a very small start-up fund and social assistance. This includes access to pretty much anything a refugee or a permanent resident can get, which is fantastic, and it has helped us a lot in the last two years.

I have seen victims ordered deported, but because of the free legal assistance they received, they were able to turn these decisions around. Immigration has decided not to deport them and they are still in Canada. I think we are becoming very successful on that end.

Mrs. Smith, myself, and a lot of other advocates have been doing a lot of police training for the last two to three years. Officers are actually turning out in big numbers. I have trained about 60,000 through the RCMP and other police agencies. We are painting a very serious picture of human trafficking and its victims. Based on the front-line calls we get, about 60% to 65% of the police officers we have trained no longer put the handcuffs on those victims. I think the RCMP and all the other agencies are learning to identify the signs very quickly. Mrs. Smith is doing a fantastic job on educating law enforcement, so I think we're doing really well in that department.

The last thing that will be very sad for me to sit here and tell you is that there has been no support for agencies like mine that are helping these human traffic victims. We work for no salaries. None of the agencies that do front-line work for human traffic victims receive salaries. We can't be paid, because there are no grants available. There are no safe houses, because there is no money for safe houses. Every single thing we have done we are doing by the grace of God and private funds.

There is a huge need to create a national NGO task force. We have been crying for this for the last two years to officials. We want somebody to sit down and recognize that NGOs need to come together. We need more services, a big plan. Our prayers were heard by Mrs. Smith. Last year she consulted with many NGOs, front-line workers like me, and asked us what we needed in the way of better services. We want to catch up with the United States and provide the appropriate services for victims.

Mrs. Smith created a national action plan. We've all been praying for something to be realized in legislation or become legal, because every agency I know of across Canada is hurting badly in manpower. We need counselling services sometimes and there is nothing available for these victims.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you very much.

We went quite a bit over, but I think the information was worth our while.

Ms. Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I want to thank you all for being here this morning. As a colleague, I know of Mrs. Smith's hard work and the earnestness with which she tackles these difficult issues. I know that all of you on the front line of this problem are putting your hearts as well as your intellects to the task. I thank you all for that.

Did I pronounce your name correctly?

[Timea E. Nagy]

That was fine.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I know that days like this must be very difficult for you. But you've faced many of them in having to come forward and put a public face on what is a very difficult issue.

I've read your history. I know that you were forced into work as a sex slave in Toronto. Coming from Hungary, you were stripped of your identification, and you thought you were coming for a completely different summer experience, as I understand it, and miraculously you somehow managed to escape and make your way back home. Yet you didn't find the support at home either, as I understand it, from the Hungarian police and others. You've come back to Canada, and it's our good fortune that you're making this your home now.

It is my understanding that you have been working with Detective Bert O'Mara and the Canadian police force. I think you've said that you have done training for some 60,000 people, which is amazing. I believe you've been talking to people in Immigration and in the RCMP and other law enforcement as you go about the work you're doing now.

I also understand that in March of 2004, after many long years, the trial, which I'm sure you would have liked to end differently, found that your exploiter and sexual assaulter were acquitted of the charges.

So here's what I'm interested in. You are the person here with the unfortunate experience that we're talking about today. It's fine academically to talk about universal jurisdiction and all these things we're trying to do, but for you, as someone who has both experienced this and is now an advocate, I'm interested in hearing how you feel this bill would have made your experience different.

If we had had this bill then, how do you think your life would have been different, as well as the lives of those who you obviously have come into contact with, who have gone through the same unfortunate experience, and who are being exploited as we speak?

[Timea E. Nagy]

Thank you very much for the question. I really appreciate that.

The first human trafficking law that was put in the Criminal Code—section 279.03, I believe—would have changed my life right away, because at the time that my case happened, it was only exploitation, and there was no law at all about exploitation.

The second law that our Parliament graciously has put in place—and I was very grateful to see it—again would have changed my life at the time, because that would have provided me with a temporary work permit. I would have been able to go to a doctor. I would have been able to learn English. This way, I had to watch a lot of Friends, with the subtitles. Anyway, one way or another, I manage to speak English now.

But at the time, I wasn't allowed to work. I wasn't allowed to go to the doctor. After everything I had been through, my medical bills were, like, $5,000 or $6,000, and I had to work minimum wage at three to four jobs for six years to pay that off.

So that was the second law that I really, really welcomed. It would have changed my life big time.

My court went on. It became just sexual exploitation against only one Canadian man, because the men who recruited me from Hungary were already gone from Canada. So there was nothing.... They could do nothing about it.

What would this law have done? It would have never even allowed me to get to that in the first place: it would have prevented this. My life would be completely different. I wouldn't be sitting in front of you right now and talking to you. If there had been a law like this, I would never have got on that plane because the people who recruited me would be held accountable, and they would know that as soon as they would come back to Canada, if I were to go to the police, they would go to jail for what they did in Hungary.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Casey.