Status of Women Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Members of the committee, we are ready to commence.

We have with us Yvon Dandurand and Benjamin Perrin, and by video conference we have Kajsa Wahlberg and Gunilla Ekberg.

I'd like to thank all four witnesses. At very short notice you have accommodated us, and we would like to take advantage of your time and expertise.

Members of the committee, you have received a brief from The Future Group. In the papers you have been given there is a little blurb on what Yvon, Ms. Ekberg, etc., are doing, and suggested questions. Since we have such expert witnesses, I'd like to seek the committee's indulgence. We would like to ensure that there is as much interaction between the witnesses and the committee members.

I understand you have a formal presentation to make, Mr. Dandurand.

Do you have a formal presentation to make, Ms. Ekberg or Ms. Wahlberg?

[Kajsa Wahlberg, Rapporteur, National Criminal Intelligence Service, Swedish National Police]

Both of us have prepared presentations, but we can also take questions, whichever the committee prefers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay. I suggest you keep your remarks to five to seven minutes, after which we will go through a round of questions. If you can, keep your questions brief so we are able to interact with the witnesses.

I'd like to remind the witnesses that when you're responding, if the member feels that their question is not being answered or you are not in the right framework, they will interrupt.

Mr. Dandurand, please.

[Yvon Dandurand, Senior Associate, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform & Criminal Justice Policy, University of British Columbia]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon.

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to come back and talk about some of these issues that we'll be discussing today. I was glad to learn that the committee had decided to spend some time reviewing some of the issues that are associated with the gathering of information and reporting on the national situation with respect to human trafficking.

One of the problems that we all have--not just in Canada, but everywhere in the world--is that in order to develop good policies and strategies to respond to human trafficking, we need good data. Every one of us needs good data, and very few of us, whether it's in Canada or elsewhere, have actually managed to develop systems that provide that kind of reliable information that we all seek.

I know that the committee has expressed an interest, in particular, in the mechanism of a national rapporteur or something equivalent, so some of my comments will be directed toward that question in particular. However, before I get there, I would like to remind the committee, although I am sure committee members already have fully grasped some of those difficulties, that to fully understand the merit of a national rapporteur system, one has to understand some of the difficulties that exist in collecting data and information on human trafficking--the patterns and modi operandi and so on--as well as information on our response and whether or not it is achieving results.

In order to understand the usefulness of a mechanism like this, one needs to perhaps spend a few minutes in considering some of the very specific difficulties that exist in collecting information on human trafficking. I have a list of 12 here, and I will go through them very quickly, because I'm sure that some of those have already become apparent to members of the committee.

Here is my top 12 list of difficulties in getting reliable information on human trafficking.

The first one is that human trafficking oftentimes occurs without the victim herself knowing that she is being victimized until much later in the process. So simply asking people whether they're being victimized or not is not always sufficient.

Second, as a crime, human trafficking is better understood as a process rather than as a single event. The picture you get depends on which part of the process you look at. Thus, there is difficulty in trying to measure and understand what is happening.

Third, the victims are often hesitant to come forward. I am absolutely certain that you've heard that many times. Victim identification is one major issue when it comes to responding to human trafficking. Of course, if victims are not identified, how are you going to try to count them or measure how we respond to those cases?

Fourth, this is, of course, a crime that oftentimes involves organized criminal groups. It typically involves intimidation and a fear of retaliation, so there is enormous pressure on the victims not to report the incident to authorities. When they do report it to helpful groups--to victim assistance groups and other NGOs--they oftentimes do so on the express condition that this will not be brought to the attention of the authorities.

Also, there are many cases of victims' or individuals' alleging to be victims in cases which later prove not to be genuine instances of human trafficking. That's not to say that these people are not necessarily in dire situations or do not need assistance, but they do not meet the criteria.

Another question that makes it difficult is that all of the people who are involved in responding to human trafficking issues are not necessarily using the same definition of it. So oftentimes when you gather information from those different agencies, you are in fact comparing apples and oranges.

There's also a great potential for duplication of data. It's not uncommon for victims of human trafficking to seek assistance from more than one organization, and also to seek assistance or protection from law enforcement. Given that that information is hard to track from one agency to another, if you simply add up all of the cases, you really have an exaggerated number at the end because you're possibly counting the same person two, three, four, or five times.

The police also have access to intelligence. But of course, as you might realize, that information is very sensitive, and it's not something that can be exchanged readily with others.

The investigations also go on for a long period of time, which clearly makes a difference to how we are going to protect that information: it makes it very difficult for anyone to get access to that information, because one would not want to interfere with ongoing investigations, and so on.

The concept of establishing a national rapporteur is not something that is very familiar to Canadians, although the concept has existed in Europe since at least 1995 or 1996. Later on, in 2004, an expert group for the European Union actually looked at the concept and recommended that it be adopted as a basis for collecting information at the national level. Then, for using that information to make comparisons between countries, there's even a notion or suggestion that there should be a rapporteur for the whole of the European Union, a person who would basically collect that information from everywhere.

Let me just conclude, if I may, Madam Chair, with something that came out of that expert group that I think would help you in your deliberations around this potential mechanism or something equivalent. That expert group has delineated six conditions that distinguish this mechanism from others, and six characteristics that are essential to ensure that the mechanism can collect the information we all need.

The first one is that it must be independent and at arm's length from operational agencies.

The second condition is that it must have a very clear mandate.

The third is that the mandate must focus exclusively on data collection; it should not be mixed with other mandates, such as operations, advocacy, executive responsibilities, and so on. I could explain later why this is so important.

It also has to have authority to access confidential information. That is tricky, particularly in a country such as Canada, where there are all kinds of different levels of regulations, and legislation regulating access to private information, and so on.

Finally, that mechanism must be one where the quality of the report is not compromised, and where the rapporteur or the equivalent mechanism must be authorized to report either directly to Parliament, or to a minister, or directly to government, in a way such that the integrity of the information is protected.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Do you have a report to deliver, Mr. Perrin?

[Benjamin Perrin, Advisor to the Board, The Future Group]

Yes, I have. I've circulated a copy and I understand you'll have a copy of it. It's brief number two from The Future Group. We've tried to be true to the word “brief”. It's only two to three pages and it very succinctly gives you a quick background on this proposal you've heard about.

I'm going to jump right to our recommendations, as the representative of The Future Group.

Most of you were here last time I appeared before the committee. I want to thank you for inviting us to return.

For those of you who were not present in the past, and for the other witnesses, our organization is a non-governmental organization based in Canada that does work principally overseas but has also been active here in Canada on a policy level with respect to victims of trafficking.

To be quite concise, The Future Group supports the creation of a national rapporteur on human trafficking for Canada, but—and there's always a but—strongly cautions that this will not address the principal concerns we have with Canada's failure to address human trafficking. In short, this is part, but certainly not all, of the solution.

To start, what can a national rapporteur do? You've heard already that they can gather information. You've heard some of the challenges that are involved, and I don't want to downplay any of those, but just add that many of those challenges have been overcome and have been dealt with.

They've been dealt with not just in the European Union; in the United States, the Department of Justice also files an annual report. It's not an independent report, but the U.S. government offers support and training to other countries on how it goes about gathering the data, so this should not hold the committee back in considering this recommendation.

It also brings the issue to national attention. It provides recommendations. These are all admirable contributions.

In creating an essentially data collection and intelligence gathering capability that's separate from government, I'd like to reiterate that there are a few other components necessary for it to work. By “work”, I don't just mean to gather information that's actionable by government, but also to produce reports that don't just gather dust on a shelf.

The first component is that the national rapporteur has to be independent. That's been mentioned.

Second, they must have unlimited and direct access to relevant information. There will be requirements to amend privacy legislation to that effect.

Third, there has to be an appropriate level of support staff and funding.

Fourth, the report should be public. Not all countries make their reports public, but we think an essential component of a national rapporteur is to bring that national attention and pressure upon governments to act.

Finally—this is termed a condition, but you'll see in a moment why it affects the effectiveness, and why this is not the whole answer—a national rapporteur has to be focused on gathering this information, not coordinating and implementing government policy.

That brings me to my next major point, which is why this is not the whole answer. Having a national rapporteur is like being given a road map to go on a trip. Unless you have a driver, someone who knows how to get into the car and drive it, you're not going anywhere.

You say, “I hear this place we're going to is really great.” You tell your kids, “We're going on this great vacation.” That's fine and dandy, until they say, “Well, when are we going there?” And each year you give them a new map with new things on it.

So you need a driver.

In our last appearance we proposed that there be an agency or office within the government—I'm not talking about something independent, but about something that's in the government—that is charged with the implementation and coordination of...and if you adopt a national rapporteur, then what they're implementing are the recommendations of that rapporteur that the government of the day has approved.

I want to very quickly talk about what the mandate of that office would be and how it relates to a national rapporteur.

First, the office would serve as the main interlocutor within the federal government for all human trafficking issues. This is different from the case in the countries you're hearing about that have a national rapporteur. They're not federations, generally speaking, although Germany is, and they don't have the complex federal relations Canada has. You need to have an office that coordinates this sort of thing.

Second, the office is designed to decide and determine what, out of the recommendations, will form the national action plan, and to do so in consultation with government departments. The national rapporteur doesn't do that. They gather information, but they're not actively consulting with departments about budgetary restrictions or about operational concerns.

Third, there needs to be coordination across government departments. I didn't hold any punches last time in talking about the failure of the interdepartmental working group to produce an action plan. It had five years to do so; it has yet to do it. We're back here now talking about a stage that is even before a national action plan.

I am all in favour of getting it right, but this committee cannot wait any longer, Madam Chair. The time for this report is upon us now.

When The Future Group was founded, people said, why don't you just work with the government to do this? We said we couldn't wait. That was seven years ago.

I commend the members of the committee for focusing on this issue. I just want to emphasize the need to move forward on this issue, produce a report, and introduce recommendations that will genuinely help trafficking victims. I believe that is the conviction of all members of the committee.

The final point is that this office can play a very key function. Governments probably say, well, that's not our job; this is someone else's job; this is another department's position. We heard that before when we corresponded with various government departments on the victim assistance side. This office can say, the buck stops here; no department has the responsibility for creating a national hotline on human trafficking, so we'll do it; we'll coordinate with government departments, but we'll do it.

In closing, I would like to leave you with a very brief quote from the Dutch national rapporteur--since that's what we're here to talk about--which I think really poignantly states the issue. In July 2004 she said:

Pretty speeches, in the form of--repeatedly--giving priority to this objectionable form of crime, are no longer enough. A national plan of action is necessary as well in order to allow the professed good intentions to actually take shape.

I would replace that with this government, with this committee and its report.

Thank you very much, and again, our thanks for paying so much diligent attention to this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Perrin.

We'll now go to Ms. Wahlberg.

[Gunilla Ekberg, Expert on trafficking in human beings, As an Individual]

We have decided that I will start. Because Ms. Wahlberg is the national rapporteur of Sweden, we think it's better that she talks last about how this mechanism actually works in Sweden.

Is that all right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

That's fine with us.

[Gunilla Ekberg]

I'm going to speak a little about how I would perceive a national rapporteur in Canada. I also have to say that I am Canadian and have worked on these issues in Canada for many years.

I'm delighted to be back here to have the opportunity to address you again. In my latest appearance to the committee I proposed that a national rapporteur be appointed and adequately funded in Canada, using other countries' experiences to develop an appropriate mandate. I have worked with the Swedish national rapporteur for five years, and I also work continuously with the national rapporteur in Nepal, whose position I evaluated two years ago.

Why is it important to establish an independent office of a national rapporteur in Canada? The work to prevent income by trafficking in Canada and the protection of assistance to victims is carried out by many actors at both the federal and provincial levels. But there is very little national coordination of the work that is done, and there is not very much coordination and analysis of those initiatives that are put into place.

I'm also surprised that the knowledge and research about the situation of trafficking human beings in Canada, and the measures, are surprisingly limited compared to other countries in the world. I suggest that Canada needs an independent mechanism that is responsible for gathering, analyzing, and presenting comparative data about the scale and states of trafficking in human beings within and to Canada. It's important to remember that trafficking takes place both cross-border and within the country.

I also think that the national rapporteur should evaluate local and national policy, and legal measures and initiatives. Such a measure would be consistent with Canada's national, legal, and charter obligations and the legislative approach so far.

We should remember that in 2003 the CEDAW committee--the UN committee that looks at the state of the elimination of discrimination of women in the country--expressed its severe concerns as to how Canada lacked an organized approach to measures on trafficking in human beings, especially when it came to protection and support of victims of trafficking.

If Canada implemented a national rapporteur, and especially if it were done through a cross-party initiative--meaning that all parties agreed to this, which was the fact in Sweden--we would show a commitment to working against trafficking.

What should the tasks be? First of all, I think it's important that the national rapporteur operates as an independent and autonomous entity, with a general mandate to investigate, monitor, and analyze the character, state, and scale of trafficking to and within Canada. It should also study the effectiveness of already-implemented policy, legal and practical measures, or as the case may be, the lack of measures.

All actions and initiatives of such a national rapporteur should, as in Sweden and Nepal, have a firm gender equality perspective and be based on internationally recognized principles of non-discrimination. It should also take account, of course, of the human rights and the fundamental freedoms of the victims.

The national rapporteur should be given a mandate to present annual reports to governments on the extent and development of the situation. It should focus initially on trafficking in human beings for sexual purposes, considering that today this kind of trafficking has the largest number of victims in Canada. It should later extend its investigations to all other forms of trafficking.

In the report, the national rapporteur should pay particular attention to the adequacy of legal and other measures for the protection and assistance of victims, as well as look at investigations and prosecutions of the perpetrators to see if they're adequate and there is collaboration with the countries of origin. It should also look at and publicize information on emerging issues—new forms of trafficking, new methods for the traffickers in and to Canada.

It is important that the national rapporteur issues recommendations on how to develop and ameliorate the work to prevent income by trafficking.

To be able to carry out this work, funding is of course essential. You need a staff, you need research staff, and you need adequate funding so that the rapporteur can travel and bring in the information that's needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Ekberg, please, could you wrap up.

Thank you.

[Gunilla Ekberg]

Yes. I have two more things.

As the previous speaker said, it's absolutely necessary that the national rapporteur is given full access to all documentary material, including confidential information on victims, on prosecution, victims' statements, and organized crime networks, in order to be able to make a good report.

I think also that it could be useful to have a national database that's sitting with the national rapporteur, looking at the extent of the trafficking. And I think, just as the previous speaker said, it's absolutely necessary that the report is taken seriously and the recommendations are implemented, preferably by an interdepartmental working group in the government, both federally and provincially.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Ms. Wahlberg, would you keep your remarks to five minutes, please. We have only one hour, then, for questions and answers, so I would appreciate it if you kept it to four or five minutes, please.

Thank you.

[Kajsa Wahlberg]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. I'm Kajsa Wahlberg. I'm a detective inspector and the national rapporteur to the Swedish government regarding trafficking in human beings.

This assignment was handed to the national police board in 1997 from the government because of a joint declaration within the EU. The Swedish government wanted reports on the trafficking situation in Sweden, the extent of the problem, and what could be done to combat trafficking more efficiently. Therefore we report annually to the government about the trafficking situation, and we also process and analyze intelligence information. To help us, we also have a special unit dealing specifically with crimes on the Internet.

I think one of the advantages of having the national rapporteur assignment within the police is that police have access to international networks like Interpol, Europol, and the Baltic Sea Task Force. But of course it depends on much reporting from a law enforcement angle.

For 2004 to 2006 the Swedish government earmarked 30 million Swedish kronor for the police to combat trafficking more efficiently. I think also that we appointed the national rapporteur at the right time, because in 1997 and 1998 a visa requirement was abolished for nationals from the Baltic countries, and we suddenly noticed that we had foreign women in street prostitution in Sweden. From that time, we have been working intensively with mapping out the situation in Sweden, and I think to date we have a very good picture regarding who the criminals are and who the victims are. We have been rather successful in investigating these types of crimes.

[Gunilla Ekberg]

I think it might be better if the committee asks Kajsa questions, because you are in a hurry. She has almost ten years' experience in being the rapporteur. I will help if more English is needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Her English is better than my Swedish.

Thank you so much.

Because we have a vote today and the bells will ring at 5:30, I would like to remind the committee members that we probably will have only two rounds of questions. So keep your questions brief so you can have an interaction with the four witnesses. We'll keep the first round to five minutes instead of the normal seven minutes so we can get through the questions.

We'll go to Ms. Minna.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be quite quick, actually.

On the independence issue, which I think Mr. Perrin but also Ms. Wahlberg mentioned, can you explain to me very quickly what you mean by “independent”? Does the rapporteur in Sweden report to Parliament or to the government?

[Gunilla Ekberg]

I can answer that question. The rapporteur in Sweden reports to the government directly, once a year. And it's also made public. The independence here is that she can give any recommendation and do any investigations. She has access to all the material, including confidential material, and she also has the possibility of questioning all public authorities that deal with the issues, including, if they're willing, non-governmental organizations.

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

Next is the question of powers. You just said that she is independent and she reports to government, and the report is made public.

I have two questions. First, does the government have the ability to change the report if they think there is some stuff there that they don't want made public? Can they edit the report, for public purposes, that she has prepared?

And in collecting the information for the report, does she have the power to basically talk to--I don't know--the police? We have a federation here with federal–provincial jurisdictions and different police forces and so on. What powers does she actually have, or does the position have, in terms of being able to collect that kind of information?

So I ask both those questions.

[Gunilla Ekberg]

No, the government cannot change the reports. In fact, the report is given publicly before it's given to the government.

Second, she can talk to any police forces, or the prosecution services or the judiciary or the NGOs or whatever, and they have to give the information she requests.

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

Then her office has some powers to that effect, because as I said, we have a federal–provincial situation, so it's a bit more difficult.

With respect to the other departments in the government, at the national level, she has access to all the departments and the ability to coordinate. Is she seen as the lead on this issue by the departments of the government?

[Gunilla Ekberg]

She is independent. So the government, which I used to work for, had their own working group on trafficking that could ask questions of the rapporteur, or the rapporteur could present to the working group. But the rapporteur cannot tell us what to do. She can give recommendations. And the government cannot tell her what to do, other than by changing the mandate.

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

The commissioner reports and makes recommendations, or an Auditor General, but then it's up to the government and various....

How many staff does the office have at this point? How big is the office?

[Gunilla Ekberg]

It has three police officers and one secretary.

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

Why is it all law enforcement on the staff side? I'm just curious.