Justice Committee on July 9th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Detective.

We'll try to do five minutes per party. Our first questioner is Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you for the job that you do every day. On that point, I'm pretty sure it's unanimous that nobody wants to see human trafficking happening or exploitation of women or girls or boys or men, or anybody, any human being.

I'm trying to understand your job as it is right now. I don't know if you heard my questions to your chief, but I'm trying to see what you see in Bill C-36 that gives you tools that will make your job easier. Like you said, people might disguise themselves as bodyguards. I'm not sure that by the passing of Bill C-36 suddenly your job will become easier.

What do you see that I don't necessarily see in Bill C-36—and maybe pinpoint it to me—that is not yet there? In view of the sections in the Criminal Code on human trafficking that are already there, and those on sexual exploitation and dealing with sexual exploitation against minors, and so on, that are already there, what tools do you see in Bill C-36 that you don't have already?

[Det Thai Truong]

First of all, this topic, as the chair and the committee know, is a hot topic. There are so many different perspectives. Again, when I speak, it's speaking directly from the voices that are trapped. From my view, when I talk about the human trafficking crime, you can't disassociate prostitution from human trafficking. Every single case of our human trafficking cases has been the commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls except one. One was similar, but involved labour. This is York Regional Police. With York Regional Police, amongst all the police services, with respect to human trafficking cases, we are definitely one of the most aggressive police services out there.

With Bill C-36, in the previous laws that were struck down, the living on the avails of prostitution was the tool that we utilized. It's a very important tool because it criminalized everybody around the victim. With our victims, when we come in contact with a human trafficking victim, especially in the hotel rooms, you can see—and I'll give you a real example—a black eye and her eye swollen. I can come in contact with her, I know she is working in the sex trade, and I can say, I'm a police officer. This is who I am. Listen, I want to help you. Let's talk about some strategies, what we can do to help you. I'm not here to criminalize you. I'm concerned about your well-being. I'm concerned about your eye.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

But your chief said that's pretty much how you operated for the last five years. You didn't criminalize the—

[Det Thai Truong]

We don't—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You could do it at that point in time. You said it was difficult to get them to go after, so now what additional tools—

[Det Thai Truong]

I'll explain. Let's say under the old regime she says, “Get away from me, police officer. You're harassing me. I'm doing this on my own volition. Nobody is exploiting me. That bruise you see? I fell.” But prior to my coming to talk to her, I may already know that she's a sex worker, that this is how she's operating, and that the individuals around her are exploiting her. She can tell me to get lost, but under the old regime, when that pimp shows up and I form the grounds that he is living on the avails of her prostitution, I can separate her. He can't come up to me and say, “Get lost, police officer. I'm her bodyguard. We're doing everything legal. She's working on her own volition. She doesn't have to talk to you. Get lost.”

Under the new regime, there will some issues with that—i.e., that they'll mask themselves as security bodyguards and that she will go. Under the old regime, I could say, “You know what? I'm not leaving. You're coming with me. He's under arrest for living on the avails of prostitution.” I could separate them. I could tell her, “Listen, I don't want to criminalize you in any way, but I need time to talk to you.”

The discretion that we used was time, because you cannot try to help a girl in 10 minutes. You need a good solid one or two hours to sit down, explain the situation, and offer resources. If she accepts it, great. We've been very successful in that extraction and accepting.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I'm trying to understand you here. Sorry, maybe I'm not quick or it's lost in translation, but are you telling me that the old regime worked better than the new regime because now they'll be able to disguise themselves in different ways?

[Det Thai Truong]

I'm telling you that, honestly, from the operational perspective, the old regime for that specific charge was good for us. It allowed us to extract these girls. When they chose to walk away, they couldn't because they had to listen to us. As the chief spoke about, we have not ever charged a girl for communicating for the purpose of prostitution. We used that—because the grounds were there—to keep her. If we didn't have that, she'd walk away and we couldn't help her.

I can tell you that we've been very successful with the victims we've come across. We speak to them, we deal with them, and we're still dealing with them today in their healing process. They thank us for that, because all the exit strategies are there for them.

In an ideal world, they can walk and they can exit, but they can't. The pimp is exploiting them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that, Detective.

Our next questioner is Mr. Wilks from the Conservative Party.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Thanks, Detective. We share a little bit of a common bond. I did three years of UC, so I clearly understand where you're coming from. I clearly understand the frustrations. I never did human trafficking UC; mine was in drugs. Having said that, there are similarities, and I believe you would agree.

From the perspective of tools for the police, we utilize the Criminal Code from time to time as a tool, not as a hammer but as a tool. It's used more often than not by police officers because it allows them to leverage what they need to leverage from time to time. One thing you mentioned is that you will come across a victim of human trafficking vis-à-vis prostitution in a hotel room; you'll be speaking to him or her, mostly her; and the tool you're able to utilize is subsection 213(1), which allows you to remove them from that, or at least speak to them. Is that correct?

[Det Thai Truong]

That was one of the tools, yes. The other tools were under the bawdy house provisions.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Correct.

As you're aware through Bedford v. Canada, with the ones that were struck down, now we're moving forward with regard to proposed subsection 213(1.1), which says that everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who communicates with any person—for the purpose of offering or providing sexual services for consideration—in a public place, or in any place open to public view, or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected.

So under the new law, if you come across a person who you believe is a victim through human trafficking and through prostitution...because as you said, except for one, you have never met any. I want you to walk me through a normal conversation that you would have with a victim attempting to help them move to...and then provide us with information with regard to whom you use in the circle to assist them. There are agencies you use that would assist these women, that would give them information, that would provide them with an opportunity to have the ability to exit if they so choose. In most cases, as you said, they don't have a choice, but this would give them the information.

Can you walk me through an investigation?

[Det Thai Truong]

That's a very tough challenge, and I'll try to do it in generic terms.

Proactive extraction of human trafficking victims is something we teach at the Canadian Police College. There are no set rules because every single victim needs different resources, individual to them. Rapport is one of the things that the investigators I work with and I use. We have to have rapport with that girl or she is not going to say anything.

If we have rapport—

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

How do you gain that rapport?

[Det Thai Truong]

We speak to her. We let her know exactly what we do. There are a lot of misconceptions about police out there, so we explain to her exactly what we do. If she is listening, then we've made very good progress already. We try to extract information from her so we can make an assessment on what to say.

For some girls, it may be something as simple as telling them that we will help them get a job. Sometimes they are having trouble getting their high school transcripts, and we tell them that we can help. We walk with them and use our agencies, the people we rely upon. We're not going to just dump it on them. This is a whole approach. We are going to work with them, get that transcript, and go from there, on a step-by-step basis. We tell them that this is how they're going to exit.

If they give us their offender, trafficker—the pimp—that is a bonus for us. That is something we strive for, but the ultimate goal is to help this individual, this girl.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Under section 213 as it exists now vis-à-vis what it may look like after this legislation goes through the process, tell me the difference—213—from the perspective of speaking to the individual, as you do right now.... You have never charged anyone over the past five years. The conviction is the same. It's a summary conviction.

I would suspect that you will use the same tool that you do today. There is no difference.

[Det Thai Truong]

The difference is the exception, where the pimps themselves can mask as bodyguards. Now they can show up and say, “I'm her bodyguard. I'm security”. They can have huge influence. While we're there and trying to have a one-on-one conversation away from the offender, the mere presence of him alone can cause some major fear in her. We need to get him out of there.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this, one UC to another. I know what I'd do. I'd put the guy up against the wall. I'd tell him to get the hell out of here right now or it ain't going to be pretty for him.

[Det Thai Truong]

I understand that, yes.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

They normally understand that language very clearly, because it wouldn't be in that language.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you for those questions and answers, Mr. Wilks and Detective Truong.

Finally, Mr. Casey, the floor is yours.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

Detective, a couple of the things you've said are that you're not here to ask for the right to arrest a sex worker, to charge a sex worker. You want the right to intervene, which I would equate to the right to detain.

You would know very well that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms imposes certain obligations on you, or alternatively certain rights on the person you seek to detain.

Another thing you said was that the old regime with respect to living on the avails was helpful to you in your work. You are undoubtedly aware that the old regime has been found to be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It seems that what you want us to do, and what you would find quite helpful, runs afoul of the supreme law of the land. What you're asking us to do, in my view, is one of two things. You are either asking us to make a case for invoking the notwithstanding clause or to amend the charter. That's the only way I can see that we can give you what you are asking for.

[Det Thai Truong]

It is a hot topic on every perspective. No matter what perspective you come from, there is going to be consideration or feedback from other perspectives.

My perspective is coming from the victims we deal with. My perspective in the victim's perspective is: how are we protecting these victims who are not going to be walking away who are able to? How are we going to do that, because those victims we deal with don't have that right? That argument...and I understand that it was struck down by the Supreme Court, absolutely. I respect what the Supreme Court said with respect to the independent sex workers, but that doesn't apply to these girls who are being enslaved every single day. That doesn't apply to them.

It's something that I'm asking this committee to consider. I don't know what the answer is. I have no idea what the answer is, to be honest with you. I've talked to other investigators across the nation who I respect and we just don't know what the right answer is because there are so many different perspectives.

But our view, as police, as law enforcement, when we respond, if the girl is lucky enough to have a father or mother who cares to call us, is that we need the tools for this girl who is brainwashed and manipulated, so that she can't say, “You're harassing me, get lost. I'm doing everything legally and I'm leaving”. All we need is time with her; that's all I need.

I just want to clear up.... I know it's a hot topic. I got some of the evidence of what happened earlier today and I missed the last half, but I know there is some confusion about criminal record and summary conviction offences. Can I just bring some clarity to that?

If I have a criminal record—a lengthy criminal record—and I am charged under section 213, and that's the only charge I am charged with and I am convicted, that will not appear on my criminal record.

The second scenario is that if I am charged with a straight summary conviction offence and in addition to that there is a drug offence or a breach, those are hybrid offences and now I'm going to be fingerprinted for all those offences. Now if I am convicted of a section 213 offence, it will show because there are fingerprints to match that conviction.

Does that provide clarification?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

If you have a conviction under section 213 and you apply for a job and on the job application, as many of them do, it asks “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which you have not been pardoned?”, how do you answer that question?