Status of Women Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

[Vivita Rozenbergs]

I'm from the mission in Washington, D.C., which is responsible for North America and the Caribbean.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

We've had testimony before on this issue with respect to immigration and the criminalization of the user. I want to see what you're saying. I hear you saying that the temporary visa is too short a period of time. They can't actually work and there's no protection. What if we were to give a work visa to the victim for, say, two years, just as we give work visas to others who come here to work? Could we then allow that person, if employed, to apply for landed status just as any other person with a work visa? Some people will say that women will use this as a way of entry. But actually, they're doing it anyway. That's one question I have.

I want to clarify that you are saying not to criminalize the women but the users, the men. Am I hearing you right?

[Aurélie Lebrun]

Yes. We advocate criminalizing the clients, as in the Swedish model, in fact. It's obvious that the act alone won't address the problem. It must be combined with prevention and education programs. We can't start criminalizing clients overnight, when society constantly sends out messages that it's normal to buy women. So the idea of criminalizing demand and decriminalizing women at the same time, yes.

[Jean Bellefeuille]

We can take the example of what happened in Canada with the legislation against spousal abuse. There was a time when it seemed somewhat natural for a man to be able to beat his wife. Today, it's no longer socially acceptable, because an act was passed to criminalize such acts, but also because awareness and education programs have been put forward, so that, today—in any case, in the minds of many men—it's no longer considered socially acceptable and it's no longer an act that is perceived as cool. So the same principle could apply.

As regards the work visa issue, I believe we should create a kind of visa that would first recognize the status of people who have none because they have been victims of trafficking or because the documents they had were false. In any case, the documents that were removed from them were not valid. They should be given legal status, because, being deprived of status in Canada, they are in a criminal situation. So that would already be one step forward. Obviously, the problem is work. How do you enable people to stay here for three, four or five months, sometimes longer, and to survive in the meantime? Because, in some instances, it can take a number of years before they can testify at trial. These people must have access to the labour market. A work permit would definitely solve part of the problem.

[Aurélie Lebrun]

I think a work visa would be a promising temporary solution, particularly since what we've learned from the research on trafficking in persons in Canada, regarding women who have been victims, is that Russian women, in particular, are highly educated and could easily find work. There is a myth that these women wind up in these conditions because they have no other choice.

These women are in tough financial situations, but they have an education that will enable them to find work and to have enough points to apply for permanent resident status.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

So at the core of the problem, as some of us have said before, is the economic issue; the base issue is economics, which is what drives them to come here in the first place.

[Aurélie Lebrun]

In fact, we're talking about a favourable context, a context of women's poverty, pauperization and migration. These conditions are the cause of trafficking. As regards sexual exploitation and prostitution, they also result from inequalities between men and women. At bottom, it's poverty. There are also the inequalities between north and south.

[Jean Bellefeuille]

Since the fall of the Berlin wall, thousands of women, who were professionals—occupational therapists, medical secretaries and in all kinds of other occupations—live in poverty with an average of $30 a month in order to survive, not in a warm country, but in Bulgaria and in Eastern Europe. It's impossible for them to make ends meet, so they can't refuse an offer they get to come to America or to go to Europe. They're thus caught in all kinds of traps that lead to prostitution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Mourani is next.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for your testimony, which is very interesting.

We've met and heard from a number of witnesses. After doing some reading—correct me if I'm wrong—I noticed a major problem with the definition, at the outset, of trafficking in persons. The term, as defined, poses a problem, even at the international level, if you refer to the protocol. Article 3 refers to work; it refers to trafficking in persons for work purposes, because prostitution is considered as work. It states that it is illegal to traffic in persons for the purpose of making them work as slaves. And everything's lumped in there: agriculture, prostitution, domestic work; any kind of work. Already from the outset, there's a problem with this definition.

Humbly, having conducted research as well, I'll cite the example of street gangs. We know how many gangs there are in Montreal. And yet these are individuals who carry on illegal activities. How is it that we are unable to assess, approximately, the scope of trafficking in persons? Is it a matter of definition, as a result of which everything is lumped together and we can't make progress on a problem of major importance? If we look at criminal gangs, trafficking in persons represents a burgeoning market for street gangs, bikers and so on. So my first question concerns the definition of the term.

My second is for Ms. Rozenbergs. Why does Canada invest so little in the fight against trafficking in persons? Some countries cooperate to an enormous degree; you mentioned the United States, Sweden and Australia.

Most of the funding for anti-trafficking activities, according to the brief you submitted, currently comes from the U.S. government, Sweden, the European Union and Australia. Canada is mentioned, but I don't think its contribution is very large.

If we consider only the fight against street gangs in Montreal, it's estimated that $40 million would make it possible to eradicate this phenomenon. I'm not using the word “eradicate” in the sense of making it disappear, but more in the sense of controlling it. So why does Canada allocate so little money to a problem of global scope? Perhaps that's a highly political issue that you may not want to answer. Those are my two questions.

[Aurélie Lebrun]

I'm going to answer irst.

The definition problem is an abomination; no one perceives in the same way what a victim of trafficking is, particularly when we're talking about prostitution. That's what I tried to address briefly in my text, the idea that there is forced prostitution and voluntary prostitution; that confuses matters, especially when the police don't really have the resources to question people. There's also the entire conception that we have of the victim and of what it means to be forced to perform acts. The image that people have of a person held prisoner, struck, raped, in fact applies to very few situations. Trafficking may be highly invisible, in fact, and a victim is not necessarily identifiable by marks on her body or her way of speaking.

There's also another problem: until quite recently, as long as a woman had legal status, she wouldn't be questioned by police who came across her in the street for one reason or another. Today, I think that's changed at the RCMP. A woman who is a victim will take weeks, months, before deciding to talk about it. There's no reason why she'll suddenly open up to someone she doesn't know and tell that person about her life and the violence she has experienced, about something she isn't even aware of. So in fact, these are definitely questions that required a lot of field investigation. That's why, if we put the emphasis solely on the victims, it's already a lost cause because, first, there aren't enough resources in the field to meet all the women and because, if you consider that prostitution is a job, there's a whole prostitution sector that we'll never investigate. In fact, these women are there and they don't necessarily seem...

One Montreal police offer told me that, from the moment they're well exploited, there's no need to rape them. In fact, a good exploiter is someone who can make it so that his victim seems normal. She's exploited in her mind, but in fact... And the definitions, the criteria for defining what a victim is... It's very complex when you're dealing with a person in distress, who is in an environment that's unfamiliar to her. That's why, if we focus more on the demand for prostitution services, that would enable the victims to take their time. In fact, they wouldn't be the ones who had to testify, to prove that they are really victims.

[Niurka Piñeiro]

I wanted to add something. IOM has come across many women all over the world who have been victims of trafficking, and as Armand said and you were saying, this is labour-related. Indeed it is labour-related, because most of the women are willing to leave their country because they need a job and need to support their families.

But where the definition comes in—and you were asking. There's coercion and deception. There is non-payment for the services that they either agree to do or are forced into. So that's where it comes in. They are working, but there is coercion; there's non-payment and deception.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Just quickly.

[Armand Pereira]

Yes, I want to quickly say one thing. If we're going to be able to have great success in fighting these crimes, we have to have very clear-cut concepts about and approaches to the nature of the beast. What really is the cause of trafficking? Is it economic need? Is poverty the cause of criminal trafficking? Or is it just an oxygen that helps out the problem?

What we've learned is that the key cause of what we can call crimes is impunity more than anything else.

There are international standards that define forced labour, whether or not it's for sexual exploitation. And I'm not implicitly arguing that by calling it forced labour for sexual exploitation, and other forms of economic exploitation, prostitution or any kind of sexual activity should be legalized as a job. That's not my argument; that's not the ILO argument.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I was going to defer to Mrs. Smith, Madam Chair, thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank everybody for your presentations today. It's really great to hear your expertise here at committee, and it's very important.

There are a few things that I had a bit of trouble understanding. The question was asked by my esteemed colleague, Ms. Mourani, why isn't Canada having more resources put in to stop this horrific crime? You seemed to have two arguments, one of which was that this kind of thing is an industry, which I don't believe. I think it's not an industry; it's a crime. I know one of our witnesses yesterday said that raising the age of consent in this country is very important, because when you raise the age of consent, then it's a crime if you violate a child.

Right now, we're having some difficulty in the Senate, with seven bills on crime being disputed. It's all around what is best for these young people, what is best for Canada. Being exploited, from your presentations, is not something that should be happening on Canadian soil, period. I really appreciate all of your comments when you say you have to have clear guidelines.

Could you comment, anyone who wants to comment, on what your feeling is about this being used as a sex industry, as an industry, sexual exploitation of children? Please tell me what you think of that. One comment was made with one witness that sometimes they can earn more in prostitution than they can in something else. I think that's shocking. You have been in the field for a number of years, all of you, so briefly, could I have your comments on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Whoever wants to, please start.

[Vivita Rozenbergs]

I can start. I think we're in agreement that any child, defined as someone under 18, should never be engaged in sexual exploitation. There should be protections in place. If indeed they have fallen victim to such exploitation, there should be a full range of services, from education, to health care, to counselling, psycho-social services, and protections in place. As a society, as a global community, I think we can agree upon the children's right to protection and their well-being.

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

So you would say that legalizing prostitution or refusing to raise the age of consent is not a good thing. On our side of House, what we've been trying to do is raise the age of consent. I need your opinion on it, because there seemed to be dissenting voices on this issue.

[Aurélie Lebrun]

Laws obviously make it possible to send important signals to society, but a single law obviously can't really change attitudes. For example, if you raise the age of sexual consent, but don't teach young girls to know what they're doing, to say yes when that's what they really want and they know what they're doing, that may not be so helpful.

Sexual exploitation occurs at the age of 12, 13, 14, 15, 15, 17 years, 18 years less a day as well, 18 years plus an hour too. So in fact, age of consent obviously has to be established in order to protect young women, but the earlier they're educated, the earlier we can prevent this and the better it will be. As for decriminalizing prostitution, that will definitely send a message that buying women and young girls is all right.

I don't know whether you ever visit Web sites or look at certain advertisements. People talk about hypersexualization; I would simply call it the sexualization of young girls. It's everywhere. Models in fashion shows can be 12 years old. Advertisements show us girls who really look increasingly young. This is an entire culture that promotes the sexualization of young girls. So, ultimately, we have to work on all levels; we have to educate young women and educate young men as well. If, in terms of sexuality, pornography and prostitution are acceptable, then we're not headed in the right direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If someone else would like to respond, we still have a minute and a half.

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

Thank you.

My second question is in terms of gathering data. I know witnesses we've had come to our committee are increasingly saying that they know it's there; it's increasing. The RCMP are saying that; the NGOs are saying that. Looking at it, what would be your idea of resources that need to be put in this initiative? From my point of view, and I'm very biased here, I think it should be stopped, period.

We have to look at solutions. Could you please tell me, in your professional opinion, what some of those solutions are?

[Vivita Rozenbergs]

I can speak first.

In my testimony I made reference to IOM's global database. The information we collect as an organization is almost a case management system; it in turn has provided us with great insight into the conditions of the people prior to being trafficked and what their needs are, and it also provides insight necessary for law enforcement to try to pursue prosecution of the traffickers.

In terms of a dollar amount, I'm not able to say how much Canadian resources should be dedicated to this, but it is true I think that this information must be collected from the very grassroots--from local communities on upward--to be able to come up with some national figures.

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

Thank you very much.