Bill S-224

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to specify what constitutes exploitation for the purpose of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons.

Justice and Human Rights

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code regarding trafficking in persons.

The Committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

[Nathalie Levman]

Well, that's true of the law right now. The appellate case law is quite clear that proof of actual fear isn't necessary. In fact, paragraph 15 of the Sinclair decision goes over a number of different factors that the courts ought to consider when determining whether the existing legal test is met. Certainly, in the world of Bill S-224 plus the Bloc's amendment, what the court would need to hear is whether the victim subjectively feared for their safety. That's how I read the Bloc's amendment, yes.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

That would require the victim to give evidence as to her or his state of mind. Is that correct? I understand, under the current legislation, and certainly under Bill S-224 without amendments, that would not require the victim to come to court to give evidence as to his or her state of mind.

[Nathalie Levman]

Yes, that is one of the appellate cases, but there are a number of them now not only in Ontario but also in Quebec and in B.C., and they all follow the Sinclair reasoning, so we know it is an objective test.

The difference between what's in the code now and what is proposed by Bill S-224, including with the Bloc's proposed amendment, is the bill would change the legal test. The legal test—the test that would need to be proved—would no longer be whether a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would believe that their physical or psychological safety would be threatened if they failed to do what was being asked of them. The legal test would be whether the accused caused the victim to provide their labour or services through one or another of the illicit means.

Subsection (2) in the Bloc's amendment is an interpretive provision. It's not a legal test. In determining whether that legal test would be met if it was law, the court would then look at whether the victim subjectively feared for their safety. At least, that is the way I'm reading this amendment.

The fear for safety in the Bloc's amendment is different from what is currently in subsection 279.04 (1), which is an entirely objective test, meaning that the Crown does not have to prove the victim in that particular case actually experienced fear. Here, that would be required, and the judge would consider whether the victim experienced fear. Then, I assume if the judge or the jury were to find that the victim did experience fear, that would weigh in favour of the legal test being met.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I hope you can give me a little bit of latitude because it's hard to talk about the amendments without talking about the bill as a whole.

We heard two different perspectives from witnesses. One of those I found very persuasive. That was that this bill doesn't actually do anything that would make the struggle against trafficking more effective, that it won't actually provide more resources for targeted trafficking units and law enforcement. It won't actually provide more resources for those who are fleeing trafficking situations in the community. Those who have worked with trafficking issues know that those are the two most important things we can do to help combat trafficking.

In casting a broad net as the original bill does, we risk making the mistake that we've been warned against in all of our discussions about sex work. When you define something too broadly, you capture a lot of things that ought not be captured. I think Bill S-244 defines trafficking in such a way that many practices that are not in fact trafficking would get included under the bill. The danger there is when you make everything trafficking, you miss the real trafficking and you miss the most serious parts of the trafficking offences.

For that reason, I can't see that Bill S-244 is a useful bill. I understand Mr. Fortin's attempt to fix those problems. I think it's a goodwill attempt that he's put forward here in these amendments.

My problem at this point is that I know that I've received a petition signed by more than 60 organizations asking us not to proceed with this bill. They have not been consulted on anything that's being suggested by Mr. Fortin. I would be hesitant to vote for these kinds of amendments without hearing from witnesses on the specifics of this. I think we would be better off as a committee defeating the amendments because we haven't had input on the specifics of them, and then defeating the bill or recommending that the House not proceed with the bill in the future.

For that reason, Mr. Fortin, even though I think it's a very good effort to fix the bill, I won't be supporting your amendment and I won't be supporting the bill.

Thank you.

[Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Chair.

I do have a comment to make on both 2(a) and 2(b). But I thought I would just back up so that I can make sure that we're all on the same page.

My reading of this amendment is that it would still replace the existing legal test, the existing definition for exploitation, with the one proposed by Bill S-224, which focuses on causing another person to provide labour or services through certain specific illicit means. The Bloc's amendment would further specify what “other similar act” means in terms of taking advantage of another person's vulnerability.

Sub 2 is more like an interpretative clause. There are factors as I understand it that a court could consider when determining whether or not that legal test is met in subsection 1. The first factor is whether or not the victim fears for their safety or the safety of a person known to them. While that is a little bit similar to the existing test in 279.04 (1) it differs because it's entirely subjective, whereas the current legal test in 279.04 (1) is an objective test. We know from appellate case law that it wouldn't determine whether or not the legal test was met but it would be something that a court could factor in, as would paragraph 2(b).

This is the one that causes me a little bit of consternation because it refers to consent. I'd like to bring the committee's attention to what is currently in subsections 279.01(2) and 279.011(2), “No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter of a charge under subsection (1) is valid." That is consistent with what the previous speaker said, which is where these illicit means are used, the law says it doesn't matter whether someone gave what courts call an apparent yes. The coercive practices used amount to human trafficking.

I would just point that out to you as a legal and a technical matter and a potential inconsistency between 2(b) and existing subsections 279.01 (2) and 279.011 (2).

Thank you.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

I understand the intent of Bill S‑224, but I found it a bit incomplete in its proposed form. We suggest some amendments, which you have received, and we would be prepared to vote in favour of Bill S‑224 if they were adopted.

First of all, our amendments pertain to the proposed paragraph 279.04(1)(b), which says “any other similar act”. That seems somewhat broad to me. So we want to limit the scope by saying that it has to be an act that takes advantage of the person's vulnerability. Thus, it should be established not only that the person who is accused of exploiting someone has committed an act similar to those mentioned, but also that he or she has taken advantage of the person's vulnerability.

The bill also proposes to repeal subsection 279.04(2) of the Criminal Code, which we thought was a bit bold, since it would eliminate, from the burden of proof, the need to show that the victim was, in a way, harmed by the act. We are proposing to add a criterion that says the victim fears for their safety. It is still different from the provision currently in the Criminal Code, but it would ensure that the Crown has a minimum of evidence against the accused. Our first criterion is that the victim fears for his or her safety.

The second criterion we propose regarding paragraph (b) is that the victim cannot give informed consent given their age or any aspect of their personal situation, including their financial or psychological situation. The victim is often a vulnerable person, either because they are too young, or because they are financially dependent on the person who is exploiting them, so to speak, or because they are simply under their psychological control.

We think those are important criteria. Before a person is convicted of a crime as serious as this one, it seems to us that the Crown should discharge a minimum burden of proof. We propose that you adopt this amendment as it is worded.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 73 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on March 22, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study of Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to take a few moments for the benefit of the witnesses.... Actually, I'll pass. I think you are all well experienced, and so are Mr. Caputo and the analysts online. I think we're good to pass on Zoom instructions.

I welcome the officials from the Department of Justice, who will help us by answering technical questions about this bill and the amendments. We have with us Nathalie Levman, senior counsel, and Ellen Wiltsie-Brown, counsel, both from the criminal law policy section.

Welcome, both of you.

We're ready to start clause-by-clause. I'd like to provide members of the committee with some reminders on the process.

Members should note that new amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. During debate on amendments, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment.

All of you received the agenda and the amendments package again yesterday. Let's now proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

I will now call clause 1 and Bloc amendment 1, number 12547306.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'll stay with Ms. Way.

It seems that one of the goals—perhaps not the main goal—of this Bill S-224, this amendment, is to make it easier to obtain convictions for trafficking offences. I'm just wondering, Ms. Way, if you could comment on whether that would be the case. Also, what are the other factors that might be causing lower rates of convictions for this crime?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

Bill S‑224, which I assume you read, replaces subsection 279.04(1) of the Criminal Code. The proposed new subparagraph 279.04(1)(b) introduces the notion of “any other similar act”. Do you think it's too vague, or is it a good addition? I'd like you to give me a quick answer; there's only 30 seconds left.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Way.

If I could follow up with you, we also know that the Criminal Code broadly interprets the human trafficking provisions to hold to account those who are trafficking and those who have also engaged in psychological forms of coercion.

Maybe this is for all the witnesses, but we'll start with Ms. Way.

Can you please give us any ideas for how could we ensure that prosecutors keep the tools that are currently in place if Bill S-224 was to pass?

[Wendy Gee, Executive Director, A New Day - Youth & Adult Services]

I want to thank the standing committee members for the opportunity to speak today about Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons, to remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals who must prove there was an element of fear in their abuse to obtain a conviction in court.

My name is Wendy Gee, and I am a mother of a daughter who was sex-trafficked as a teenager here in Ottawa. In my professional life, I'm the executive director of a charitable organization that provides long-term restorative housing and programming for young women who have been sex-trafficked throughout Canada. I also chair the Ottawa Coalition to End Human Trafficking, a steering committee of 40-plus frontline human trafficking organizations in Ottawa and the region.

When young people come to A New Day, they want to move forward and start their recovery. Many have spent months, if not years, living with sexual violence and physical abuse. The result is horrific trauma, PTSD, and addiction challenges. They have missed most of their formative adolescent lives, which should consist of attending school, making friends and learning life skills that prepare them for adulthood. Instead, they're forced into a life of sexual violence, 10 or more dates per day with strangers who have purchased them for their sexual fetishes, and physical violence, beatings and torture if they do not perform and make money for their traffickers.

Amid this deranged lifestyle is a person, a trafficker, who controls every movement of that victim. This victim becomes dependent on their trafficker for everything from tampons and toothpaste to food and clothing. They develop a trauma bond, where the victim now believes that the trafficker is their protector. They may fall in love with them and feel that the trafficker holds their best interests at heart, including keeping them safe.

The victim is indoctrinated to believe in an “us against them” mentality, meaning the trafficker and the victim are together against the rest of the world, which wants to pull them apart. Is this logical reasoning? Of course not, but a trafficker knows his business, which is manipulation and coercion.

A trafficker will use any tactics to keep making money from their victim, even if that means keeping their victim in love with them. You can understand how challenging it is for a victim to come forward and provide a statement to the police. Even though their situation was horrific, the victims still had their basic needs met, and they found it challenging to believe they were being exploited.

My daughter told me that she loved her abuser, that she only did what she did to help him because he had an addiction. She thought she was complicit, and consented. Now she knows this is not true. She still has days when she struggles with what happened, and very rarely will she discuss it. Honestly, I can't blame her.

The young people I work with say the same thing. They want to move on. They don't want to discuss it anymore because it hurts. They feel shame. They feel stupid. And they believe they consented to the situation.

Throughout my tenure as the executive director of A New Day, only two young women came forward and provided a statement to law enforcement about their trafficking situation. It takes incredible strength to do so. They have to relive their sexual abuse, addiction and violence, and the shame of a horrific lifestyle they were forced to endure. They know that if they provide a statement, they will face their abuser in court and all those repressed feelings will overwhelm them. They also know that they will have to explain why they participated in a lifestyle that put them at risk and why they simply didn't leave. Why should a victim have to explain why someone abused them?

The burden of someone's violent, coercive behaviour and control should not be placed on the victim who has suffered. I see first-hand what a trafficker's violent behaviour leaves behind: broken noses and bones that were not medically set back in place, fertility issues because of botched abortions, multiple miscarriages, chronic STIs, not to mention the violence of repeated and daily...let's call them “rapes”, because that's what they are. There are also nightmares, trust issues, low self-esteem and self-worth, depression and anxiety, and self-harm in the form of cutting, where wrists, arms, inner thighs, vaginas and necks have been repeatedly slashed to release the mental pain they're enduring, or they can't do it anymore and they return to the life because they feel that's where they belong—overdosing on drugs, and death.

Eliminating the burden of proving they were fearful while they were exploited tells a victim that we believe them, that what they have endured was not a measure of their worth or value, was not indicative of the type of treatment they deserved and was not the result of poor decision-making, and that their victimization will not be continued by our justice system.

Thank you.

[Casandra Diamond, Founder and Executive Director, BridgeNorth Women’s Mentorship & Advocacy Services]

Good afternoon members. Thank you for inviting me to share with you today. It is a privilege to be here and to have the opportunity to speak not only as the founder of BridgeNorth, but also as a survivor.

I would like to share why I believe Bill S-224 would help trafficked persons.

It would combat trauma bonding, a known psychological impact that people who are trafficked experience as a result of a trafficker’s manipulative tactics. Under the proposed amendment, the requirement to prove a reasonable expectation of fear would be removed.

When I was trafficked, I was not afraid all the time, but when I was, it was overwhelming horror. For example, I recall a time when I overheard my trafficker speaking to one of the girls on the phone whom he sent out after a 13-plus hour shift to a so-called after party. I could hear her in the background saying my trafficker’s name. She was crying, sobbing, and begging for him to send somebody to come to get her out of there.

There were approximately eight to nine men in that room. They were taking pictures. They were recording, and they were using her in the most violent of ways. They gang raped her, and she called him, “My boyfriend, my trafficker”. You see, she was no longer afraid of my trafficker anymore. She saw him as someone who could offer help, and who could keep her safe. It was lost on her that he was directly responsible for the unimaginable sexual violence she suffered at the hands of so many men that night.

She called him and asked, “Could you make them stop?” His answer was, “It will be over soon.” This woman didn't fear my trafficker, or her trafficker anymore. She feared the customers who were doing all of those brutalizing things to her.

This woman’s story, though, is not unique. I have a similar story of my own, and so do the many whom we serve today. This is why removing the requirement to prove reasonable fear from the definition of exploitation is so very important. The many girls I know who have gone to court have said that proving fear, as is currently required, would hinder their from coming forward.

In trauma bonding, we start to view the trafficker who facilitates violence as someone who is offering help, and this has been proven over and over again. When many of the girls I know see their trafficker in court, they feel love towards their trafficker, and all of their feelings of fear just go out the window because of trauma bonding.

Bill S-224 would support victims by reducing the burden they experience when testifying and trying to prove they feared their trafficker. The proposed amendment would eliminate the difficult requirement that the Criminal Code currently places on prosecutors to show that there was reasonable basis for the survivor to fear for her safety. This would account for situations, like mine, where my trafficker had manipulated me to see him as someone who offered safety and protection, rather than the one who facilitated brutal sexual violence against all those he trafficked, me included. This bill would support victims in coming forward in the court process and reduce barriers, which would allow more victims to feel safe to share their allegations over time.

Bill S-224 would allow us to assist people who are trafficked in licensed systems, whether for sex, labour, or organs. Based on my knowledge and experience in the sex industry, girls are being exploited from region to region, municipality to municipality, and in massage parlours and the like across the GTA. These women are forced to sell sexual services six to seven days a week.

Typically, there is one girl who monitors the phone and who speaks more English than any of the other girls. She is tasked with supervising the other girls who are also being trafficked there. They all live together in the same house. They go almost everywhere together, commuting together and eating together, as they have extremely limited other options.

This tactic can be related to debt bondage, an all too common method traffickers use to reduce one's ability to leave. The girls in these situations are being controlled, directed, and coerced by third party traffickers to engage in these brutally dangerous situations with men who purchase sex, while hiding behind the veneer of offering safety, security and a licensing system that keeps them bonded to their traffickers.

The proposed amendment would help people who are trafficked into Canada from another country, such as those who see their trafficker as someone helping them with language interpretation or helping provide their basic needs, like food and shelter. It will help people who are the most vulnerable in society who are being trafficked and were targeted due to their cognitive impairment, neurodivergence or other impairments that impact their ability to understand and process fear.

In summary, Bill S-224 would make trafficking in persons easier to prove as survivors would not have to prove their state of mind, which is inherently subjective. It would provide survivors with fewer barriers to seeking justice. It would remove the tool of manipulation from the trafficker's arsenal, meaning that the trafficker could not hide behind a carefully manufactured lie that he offers to the women that he exploits, even if he succeeds in convincing his victims of that lie. Very importantly, it's trauma-informed and it's “survivor first” legislation.

Canada's trafficking survivors deserve better than what we currently have, and Bill S-224 is that better.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I'll make a couple of comments for the benefit of witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English, the floor or French. For those in the room you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For those on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function.

The clerk and I will do our best to accommodate you in the rightful order.

Welcome, everyone. We are studying Bill S-224, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons.

For today's meeting we have with us, via video conference, Dawne Way, barrister, and Wendy Gee, executive director, A New Day Youth and Adult Services. In person, we have Casandra Diamond, founder and executive director, BridgeNorth Women’s Mentorship and Advocacy Services.

We will go to you, Ms. Diamond, for five minutes. I have a little cue cards, so could you just pay attention when you are about 30 seconds away and then when your time is up, I won't have to interrupt you?

Perfect, over to you, Ms. Diamond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 72 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order adopted in the House on March 22, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to continue its study of Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23. Members are attending in person and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before I go into that, I believe I have consent from everyone, even though the bells are ringing, that we'll go until maybe 10 minutes before the vote. That way we'll get all of the witnesses to speak for their five-minute time and then we'll do the round of questions after the vote, if that's okay.

Is that okay? Good.

Yes, Mr. Fortin.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Is there any discussion on that?

We are scheduled to hear Bill S-224 on Monday, and then we can do clause-by-clause on Wednesday.

Is there any issue with that? Is there any discussion?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

With respect to Bill S-224, we have witnesses next Monday. My suggestion would be that we do clause-by-clause on Wednesday.

In the interim, can we have the deadline for the submission of amendments at midday on Tuesday? Is it too tight...or Monday at 5:30?

[Sandra Ka Hon Chu]

Thank you.

As we noted in our joint submission, I would like to reject the bill in its entirety. In 2012 there was a subjective requirement with regard to human trafficking. That was changed to this reasonable person standard because of the notion that it was too hard to convict if you required complainants' testimony.

I can't emphasize this enough: You do not require complainants' testimony under this current version of the law. Reject Bill S-224 in its entirety. You need to support, as Elene said, non-carceral forms of safety. People do not require more policing. We put hundreds of millions of dollars into human trafficking initiatives, and we have allowed more police and prosecutors to flourish in this anti-human trafficking world, but that hasn't translated into more safety. We care about the safety of migrant workers and people who are experiencing exploitation and abuse, but you need to support them so they can obtain decent housing, access to income supports, access to child care, access to housing—all the things that, as I'm sure the other witnesses will agree, are helpful in terms of supporting people.

I also want to provide my time to Elene to share more of the experiences of Butterfly, their first-hand experiences of policing in the context of human trafficking.

[Dr. Janine Benedet]

I'll just say that while I appreciate very much the work that Ms. Wood is doing, I certainly don't agree with her analysis that 80% to 90% of the sex trade involves people who are not exploited. Whether a third party is involved or not, there's still a considerable amount of exploitation that typically pushes people into prostitution. That's the reason we have such an overrepresentation of indigenous women and girls in the sex trade.

In direct answer to your question, which is, “What else can we do?”, here I would encourage the committee to look at some of the initiatives that have been brought forward by member states in Europe. In particular, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE, has a bureau to combat the trafficking of persons. It does a lot of really excellent monitoring. I would say that of all the member states, France is the country that by far has gone the furthest with this. It's really about bringing our domestic laws into line with our international obligations. We have an international obligation to punish human trafficking, and we have a definition internationally that speaks about the exploitation of a condition of vulnerability.

My worry with Bill S-224—it's an improvement, certainly—is that still we've just moved the focus on coercion, physical force, fear and threats into the definition of exploitation. We got rid of the reasonableness requirement—that's a step in the right direction—but the question will be, well, how do the courts interpret “any other similar act”? Are they going to recognize threats to report you for welfare fraud? Are they going to recognize threats to disclose pornographic photographs to your family members? Are those going to be seen as forms of coercion? Are they going to recognize that kind of emotional manipulation? We had a notorious trafficker in Vancouver who bought a small dog. If the girls were good, they got to take the dog for walks. If they were bad, he would abuse or threaten to abuse the dog.

These are all very effective techniques for keeping women in line. We just have to make sure we're not narrowing the definition in a way that's artificial. To me, the way to do that is to look to our international commitments.

[Dr. Janine Benedet]

Just to be clear, as I said in the beginning, this applies only where there's a third party involved. Prostitution, the commercial sex trade, can be very exploitative even without a third party involved. Many of the circumstances that drive people into prostitution are hallmarks of exploitation, but what we have here is a situation in which you have to prove that the individual knowingly and intentionally did one of a number of listed acts that caused another person to enter into, or to remain in, the sex trade. There's already a considerable amount of actus reus or mens rea before we even get to the question of whether the circumstances of those acts are exploitative.

The proposed definition in Bill S-224 says it is a situation in which you cause that person “to provide or offer to provide labour or a service”, and you do so with “the use or threatened use of force...another form of coercion...deception...fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act.” I think it's important to understand what we're talking about here and what has to be proven. This is still not going to be an easy offence to prove, but it's one that will be simpler and more straightforward, and it involves less judgment of whether victims feared for their safety and indeed whether those fears were reasonable.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

In that case, do you think that, if we remove the notion of threat to safety and broaden the definition of exploitation, Bill S‑224 will reinforce the perception that sex work is a form of exploitation?

[Sandra Ka Hon Chu]

Thank you, Elene.

My name is Sandra Ka Hon Chu. I'm co-executive director of the HIV Legal Network.

I have two main points to add about Bill S-224. First, the removal of the threat to safety requirement will capture cases where no exploitation exists. Proponents of this bill describe difficulties obtaining direct evidence from a potential complainant, but the test today is already an objective one and does not require a complainant's testimony. Removing this requirement merely gives more power to police and prosecutors to define, and often wrongly define, violence and exploitation for communities. In the case of sex work, violence and exploitation are assumed. For example, Professor Roots has documented how police pressure sex workers to take on the trafficking victim label despite their rejection of this label. Without the threat to safety requirement, determinations of coercion or exploitation are made through biased perspectives of sex work.

Second, as Elene described, the amendments risk capturing all third parties in sex work, including those who provide supportive services to sex workers. Butterfly and the HIV Legal Network have been consistently told by law enforcement that any third party involvement of sex workers suggests exploitation that warrants investigation. However, researchers have documented how police and prosecutors insist that pimping is a major problem, focusing their attention on young, poor, racialized men, and particularly Black men, despite sex workers' more nuanced accounts of third parties as protectors and intimate partners. As Elene mentioned, many sex workers also take on third party roles. Migrant, Asian and other racialized communities rely on family members and community for work support, but they are often swept up in anti-trafficking efforts.

Butterfly members have been charged with third party sex work offences for merely assisting with client communication, scheduling, advertising and screening. While the punishments for third party sex work conviction are already severe, third parties convicted of human trafficking are subject to a four-year mandatory minimum sentence, which could result in the removal of status and deportation for those who are not Canadian citizens.

If you truly wish to support people at risk of exploitation and abuse, you must listen to sex workers and reject Bill S-224 in its entirety; fully decriminalize sex work by removing all sex work-specific criminal offences; remove immigration regulations that prohibit migrants from working in sex work; stop surveillance, raids, detention and deportation of sex workers; support non-carceral forms of safety, such as decent work, health care and housing for all; and invest in grassroots communities so that they can support each other.

Thank you.

[Elene Lam, Executive Director, Butterfly: Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network, Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform]

Hi and good afternoon. I am Elene Lam, executive director of Butterfly. We work with over 5,000 migrant sex workers in Canada.

I am shocked that the committee did not consult any migrant rights, racial justice or sex workers who are directly impacted. Many scholars on violence again women and racial justice and human rights organizations have already shown their opposition to this bill, and have shown concern that they are not having the opportunity to tell you how this bill is harmful.

The claim is that the bill will help charge traffickers and bring them to justice. It will not. As Sandra will explain, this bill will lead to more human trafficking charges laid against migrants, Black and racialized people, sex workers and those who are providing support services to others. It will take away their livelihood, make them live in fear and drive them to work even more underground.

The concern was already expressed by some of the committee members that this bill does not differentiate sex work from human trafficking. It cannot differentiate as to whether people have asked another person to organize the work or whether they are being forced or exploited. Both of them will be charged with trafficking, no matter the nature of the relationship. It is wrong to assume that all third parties are exploiting and human trafficking. Poor, racialized migrant sex workers rely on community support to stay safe. They help each other access transportation, food, medical care, translation and a safe work environment. If Bill S-224 passes, anyone who helps sex workers stay safe, particularly Black and migrants, will be charged as human traffickers. People will be too afraid to be associated with sex work, and that will make sex workers more isolated and vulnerable.

Advocates against sex work have long used anti-human trafficking campaigns and policies to further their racist anti-migrant agenda. They promote moral panic, racial discrimination and hate against the sex industry. By calling for the criminalization of sex work and increased policing, the goal of anti-trafficking campaigns is often not ending trafficking but ending the sex industry. It's not protecting sex workers but ending sex work.

You are all here today because you care about the rights and safety of vulnerable people. You should listen to the community and what many racialized, Black and migrant sex workers will tell you: “Don't take away my agency. We cannot let Bill S-224 pass. Bill S-224 does not protect us. It puts us into danger.”

I will now give Sandra the time to explain more.

Thank you.

[Holly Wood, Researcher and Educator, BRAVE Education Foundation]

Hi there. My name is Holly Wood, and I'm representing Brave Education for Trafficking Prevention.

I'm a Master of Legal Studies student at Carleton University, currently finishing my thesis focused on police responses to sex trafficking and sex work in Ontario. I hold a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Law from Carleton.

I'm a nationally licensed human trafficking prevention educator with Brave Education, where I assist with building and delivering sexual exploitation prevention curricula for grades K to 12 and adults. I serve as vice-chair of the Ottawa Coalition to End Human Trafficking and chair of the advocacy committee. I have worked for the Ontario Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services with foster care youth who are at risk of or actively being trafficked. I've worked at the Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa with women who were criminalized as a result of being trafficked, and I have worked in criminal defence; the firm I worked for successfully defended a human trafficker.

For my first example in support of Bill S-224, I look to the experience of a survivor whom Brave has worked with. Out of respect, I will speak of this survivor anonymously.

As a 19-year-old girl, she was trafficked by a man she loved and who she thought was her boyfriend. She had a relationship with her trafficker. He trafficked her in five cities across Canada. After years of being trafficked, she learned what trafficking was. She learned that she had, in fact, been trafficked.

She pursued legal action against her trafficker. When asked to attend court to provide a victim impact statement, she got on the stand in the courtroom in front of her trafficker. She looked out into the courtroom and locked eyes with him. She immediately felt feelings of love and dependence flood her body. She ran out of the courtroom and did not testify, because regardless of the fact that she knew she had been trafficked, she was so in love with him that seeing him in that courtroom triggered an emotional response of love, not fear. She was not afraid of her trafficker. She was in love with him. To this day, she tells us that she would go back to her trafficker in an instant, because he made her feel more loved than her family and friends did.

She is a prime example of why this bill is so important. Even when victims of trafficking know they have been trafficked, the feelings of love and attraction to their traffickers do not disappear. The effects of the manipulation, coercion, love bombing, etc., do not end just because a survivor has been pulled out of their situation. Hence, it is important, more now than ever, to remove the requirement to prove fear, so that survivors of human trafficking can pursue justice without the unfair burden of proving fear and without having to worry about the years of an emotional relationship with their trafficker getting in the way of securing a conviction for the crime they endured.

Human trafficking and exploitation can affect anyone, not just women and girls. For my final example, I will look into my colleague Ena Lucia Mariaca Pacheco's published research on male exploitation and familial trafficking. According to Ena Lucia's research, there can be several reasons that men or boys may be hesitant to show fear after being trafficked or exploited.

Societal expectations in Canada place emphasis on men being strong and tough and suppressing their emotions. Therefore, many men and boys may feel pressure not to show that fear or weakness. They may believe that expressing fear or vulnerability is not productive or helpful, and they may choose to internalize their emotions to maintain a sense of control or to try to forget about their trauma. Male victims may experience feelings of shame or embarrassment, judgment or stigmatization if they show that they are fearful or unable to protect themselves from their male or female perpetrator.

Therefore, by taking out fear and showing male victims that it is okay to finally speak out about their exploitation, hopefully we will see an increase in disclosures and convictions. It is important to approach this bill with empathy and understanding, recognizing that in any response to trauma, you are shaped by a complex interplay of personal, cultural and societal factors. Fear can look like different things to different people and, in many cases, is not what the current provision deems fear at all.

I thank the committee, Mr. Colin Carrie and all other parliamentary bodies for paying long-overdue attention to the devastating crime of human trafficking. Bill S-224 is one of many steps we must take to protect our communities and, most importantly, those affected by the crime of trafficking.

The fact of the matter is that our current laws in Canada are not evolving at the same pace as the crime of human trafficking is. In the anti-human trafficking movement, we have a common saying—it is a legal system, not a justice system.

For me and my team at Brave, Bill S-224 can change the narrative for our legal system and make justice more accessible for victims of human trafficking. Most importantly, Bill S-224 will reinforce that trafficking of individuals in Canada is not acceptable, will not be tolerated and will be punished accordingly, in line with the rights and dignities of victims who, with the help of Bill S-224, will feel more inclined to stand up to their traffickers in a courtroom in order to protect current and future generations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the House order adopted on March 22, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to trafficking in persons.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

To access interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

A reminder that all comments should be addressed to the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function.

The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Welcome everyone.

We are studying Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to trafficking in persons. To help us with the study today, we have Dr. Janine Benedet, QC, professor of law at the Peter Allard School of Law at UBC. We also have, from the Brave Education for Trafficking Prevention foundation, Holly Wood, researcher and educator, also via video conference; and we have Sandra Ka Hon Chu from the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform.

I apologize. I think we had to cancel you last time. Thank you for rescheduling and coming back. Things in Parliament happen, and we have to adjust from time to time, but thanks for being here.

You'll each have five minutes to deliver opening remarks, and then we will have questions coming from the members. Hopefully anything you might have left out you can answer within that time.

We'll begin with Dr. Benedet, please, for five minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Carrie, thank you for coming to present your bill to us this afternoon.

Bill S‑224 repeals the interpretive provision providing a non-exhaustive list of factors such as a threat, deception or abuse of power that the court may consider in determining whether exploitation or intent to exploit has occurred. There's existing case law on this, namely the Sinclair decision, which dates back several years. The current definition of exploitation was included in the Criminal Code in 2005. That's 17 years of case law.

What will become of all that after your bill passes?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Your bill deals with a definition of exploitation. I take it more as being presented as a clarification around the definition. The current definition of exploitation in the Criminal Code focuses on the impact of the trafficker's conduct on a reasonable person in the situation of the victim. The current definition has about 17 or so years of case law associated with it.

Can you give this committee some thoughts on what you think will happen to the existing case law as it relates to defining what exploitation is with the passage of Bill S-224, if it passes?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Today I will be speaking to Bill S-224, a non-partisan bill that passed unanimously in the Senate on October 6, 2022.

This bill had its start as Bill C-461, which I was honoured to present in the House on June 17, 2019. Unfortunately, it died on the Order Paper.

I want to thank Senator Ataullahjan for taking up the cause and successfully stickhandling this through the Senate. I want to thank Arnold Viersen for his unending commitment to ending human trafficking. I also want to thank an amazing community of supporters, victims, moms and dads, survivors and many other stakeholders.

I want to share the experience of a survivor that I heard recently at a forum organized by the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. Alexandra spoke to us about her experience, saying:

I walked into the commercial sex industry at 20 years old. I was an adult, over the age of consent and able to make informed decisions for my own body. I believed that I was taking control of my sexuality by using it for personal gains. I never thought of my boyfriend as a pimp. And I certainly never considered my situation to be trafficking. It wasn't until 10 years after my experience, that I was informed I was trafficked.

She went on:

This is the reality you need to understand: I made choices and I was manipulated. I believed I was a consenting, empowered adult and I was exploited by my boyfriend.

Had the police intervened in Alexandra's situation under our current laws, it's unlikely her case would have fit what they look for, as it's focused on the victim's mindset, and she wasn't afraid.

The purpose of the bill is to align Canada's law so that it is consistent with international law aligned with the Palermo protocol—a protocol that we as a country ratified in 2002—and properly places the focus on the actions of the trafficker. It will facilitate convictions against those who participate in human trafficking in Canada by amending the Criminal Code's definition of exploitation and human trafficking offences, so that the Crown is no longer required to prove a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances feared for their safety or the safety of someone they know. This will put the onus on the perpetrator rather than the survivors.

Our current code reads as follows:

279.04(1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all [of] the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

In contrast to our definition, the Palermo protocol views human trafficking as having three distinct elements: the act, the means and the purpose. Human trafficking is defined as the act of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and receiving a person by means of coercion, abuse of power or deception for the purpose of exploitation. This is not reflected in Canada's Criminal Code.

Colleagues, we have a serious lack of convictions here in Canada. The latest statistics from Stats Canada are really compelling. They were released in May 2021 and showed the serious challenge that police face when trying to get a conviction, and it's only getting worse. When examining court decisions from 2018-19 by charge, overall, the vast majority—89% of human trafficking charges—were stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged. Less than one in 10—seven per cent—of the charges resulted in a guilty finding.

Now, I want members to pause and to think about the situation in Canada for victims of human trafficking. A crime is committed. There is no debate as to whether or not the acts have occurred, yet under Canadian law the victim is required to prove fear in order for a conviction to occur.

To emphasize the absurdity of the situation, let's apply this requirement to another crime. Imagine that someone I know comes up and stabs me. How would I prove fear in that situation? Would the offender be convicted if there were proof of their crime but fear could not be proven? I ask you, why do we treat the crime of human trafficking so differently? Human trafficking is a scourge, mostly on vulnerable young people and their families, across Canada.

This overdue change is consistently brought up in conversations by stakeholders across the country and internationally. Vulnerable young people often think of their abuser as their friend and think their abuser cares for them and loves them. Often, the Crown's case depends on the victim's testimony, the only evidence against the trafficker. Without the victim's testimony, there is no case. In Canada, it sometimes takes years to come to court. There, the victims can be victimized again and again. Usually a conviction is not obtained.

The Palermo protocol was adopted in November 2000. It has 117 signatories, including Canada, and more than 22 years have passed, yet this small but important change is still not reflected in our Criminal Code.

Human trafficking is on the rise. Traffickers seek out young people dealing with substance abuse, traumas, addictions, abuse and homelessness. Women and girls, indigenous children, new immigrants, persons living with disabilities, LGBTQ2+ persons and migrant workers are among the most at-risk groups.

We need to give victims every tool possible to allow the return of their dignity, their humanity. Bill S-224 is another tool, and it is a long-overdue change.

Thank you, colleagues, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 67 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on March 22, 2023, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Since our witness is a member and he already knows how to use the Zoom and interpretation features in the House—and I don't think there's anybody externally who does not know—I won't go into those.

I would like to welcome Dr. Colin Carrie, member of Parliament for Oshawa, the sponsor of Bill S-224, for the first hour of our meeting.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Carrie. You have five minutes to present if you have opening remarks, and then we will go to questions from members.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-224 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am excited to add my voice to this debate on Bill S-224 as well, and I want to acknowledge the hard work of the sponsor of this bill, Senator Ataullahjan, who worked hard to steer it through the Senate, and the MP for Oshawa, who has been working hard with stakeholders and survivors to advance this bill, since 2019 actually. Both of these members are members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, an organization of which I am one of the co-chairs. I want to thank all of the folks who are members of that organization for their help as well.

Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery that turns people into objects to be used and exploited. It is vicious, it is profitable and it is growing here and around the world. I often say that human trafficking is happening within 10 blocks or 10 minutes of where one lives. Even in my large rural riding in northern Alberta, we have had human trafficking cases as well. We know that the vast majority of human trafficking victims in Canada are female, young and indigenous. The reality is that anybody can become a human trafficking victim, so this is a critical issue.

There are many survivors, frontline organizations and law enforcement people working to bring justice for victims and stop human traffickers, but our human trafficking offences are not accomplishing what we want them to do. Here in Canada, we are not fully aligned with the Palermo protocol that Canada signed over 20 years ago. Specifically, within the human trafficking offences in section 279 of the Criminal Code, there is a definition of exploitation that states:

a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide... the labour or service.

The problem with this definition is that it places the burden of the offence in the mindset of the victim rather than in the actions of the trafficker, as the Palermo protocol calls for. The actions that traffickers use are threat of the use of force or coercion or threats to other people. They use fraud or deception or the abuse of power or the abuse of vulnerability to enslave another person.

UBC law professor Janine Benedet testified at the committee and said that the challenge with the existing definition of the Criminal Code is that:

we've adopted a definition that is much narrower and much harder to prove than the definition of trafficking that you will find in the Palermo protocol.

The definition of exploitation in Canada requires a proven threat to safety, and does not extend to keeping someone in prostitution through the exploitation of a condition of vulnerability, which is part of the Palermo definition.

...police and prosecutors are shifting trafficking cases over to these other offences, because it's so difficult to actually prove the very narrow and strict definition of trafficking [that is in our law].

As I have stated before, the burden of proof should never be on the mindset of victims, many of whom are not even initially aware that they are being trafficked. Police officers have told me over and over how they have met victims whom they know are being trafficked, but because the victims do not live in fear of their traffickers, the officers' options are very limited. I have met with survivors, NGOs and law enforcement across Canada, and the one issue that comes up at every meeting is that we need to be in full alignment with the Palermo protocol. This bill is critical to Canada's efforts to target and apprehend pimps and traffickers.

To emphasize the difficulty in securing convictions over existing trafficking offences, I want to share the conviction statistics from Stats Canada, which notes, “Less than half of detected incidents of human trafficking result in the laying or recommendation of charges.” For a 10-year period, between 2011 and 2021, the majority, 81%, of completed adult criminal court cases involving at least one human trafficking charge were stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged. During the same time, only 12% of these cases resulted in a guilty decision. Putting it another way, only one in eight completed human trafficking cases resulted in a guilty decision.

Finally, every human trafficking case is half as likely to result in a finding of guilt as a case involving sexual offence or a violent crime. This is tragic. Canada is failing the victims of human trafficking and our law enforcement officers, who work so hard to investigate and apprehend these traffickers. This is not a new problem. Survivors and NGOs have been speaking out about this for years.

Back in 2014, a report entitled “Ending Sex-Trafficking In Canada” from the National Task Force on Sex Trafficking of Women and Girls in Canada recommended our alignment with the Palermo protocol, and every year, the U.S. trafficking in persons report, on its file in Canada, urges Canada to amend its Criminal Code to include a definition of trafficking as exploitation as an essential element of the crime consistent with international law.

The Conservative Party of Canada has had this in our platform since 2019, and a few years ago, the Alberta government launched a nine-point action plan to combat human trafficking. The implementation of that was spearheaded by my friend Paul Brandt, who chaired the Alberta Human Trafficking Task Force. He has done an incredible job. The first priority of the action was to adopt the Palermo protocol definition of trafficking.

Canada needs to do much better in its fight against human trafficking, and the bill is an important start. The tragic reality of human trafficking is that it has not been a priority for this government. For example, bills such as Bill S-224 and Bill S-211 are the result of individual MPs and senators who worked hard to address the gaps experienced by survivors and stakeholders.

A lot of work has been done to support this and has been driven by the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery since we launched in 2018. Our goal is to ensure that Canada is free from all human trafficking and to increase awareness around that. We have four co-chairs, one from each official party, and we recognize the immense value of working across political lines to combat human trafficking. That is why, three years ago, we were able to get the House of Commons to finally recognize February 22 as Human Trafficking Awareness Day.

However, when we look at the legislation that the government has introduced over the past eight years regarding human trafficking, it is taking Canada in the wrong direction. Government legislation has blocked consecutive sentencing for traffickers after it has been adopted by Parliament. It reduced some of the human trafficking offences to hybrid offences, meaning that traffickers get away with as little as a fine. More recently, the Liberals have extended house arrest to some human trafficking offences. Who benefits from all of these changes? It is pimps and traffickers. I would also note that the government allowed the national action plan to combat human trafficking to expire in 2016 and refused to bring forward anything for almost four years until weeks before the 2019 election.

The Liberals' 2019 national strategy to combat human trafficking says a lot of good things, but it is just that: It says a lot of good things. Unlike the Conservative Party national action plan, the strategy has no targets and no measurables. That is why, four years after it being announced, the survivor-led advisory committee on human trafficking has still not been set up. The voices and lived experiences of victims and survivors are essential for this success. I am hoping that we can get that set up soon. Canada must have a zero-tolerance approach to human trafficking that centres on the voices of survivors.

While we often talk about sex trafficking in Canada, we know that forced labour is also very tragic and happens here in Canada. Victims of forced labour can be found in restaurants, the agricultural industry, the mining sector, live-in caregiving situations and manufacturing. Just two weeks ago, the York Regional Police announced that 64 men and women from Mexico were trafficked to work in Ontario. I want to thank the police for their hard work on these things and the officers who apprehended these traffickers and rescued these victims.

Around the world, now more than ever, there are more than 50 million people in some form of slavery, which is up from 40 million pre-COVID. It is more than the population of our country, and more than ever in human history. Worldwide, slavery is a multi-billion dollar industry that generates more than $150 billion annually. This is why I am so pleased to support the bill before us today so we can end human trafficking here and around the world.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to commend the hon. parliamentary secretary for giving so much of his speech in French. That takes effort and the results speak for themselves. I want to congratulate him on that.

This bill “amends the Criminal Code to specify what constitutes exploitation for the purpose of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons.” As my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean said a few sitting days ago, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill.

It is imperative that we discuss all of the tools that could help authorities combat this scourge, which is getting worse with population movement and the growing number of refugees. This bill also responds to the demands of several human trafficking survivors' groups and would make the definitions of exploitation and human trafficking more consistent with those set out in the Palermo protocol, which Canada signed at the beginning of the millennium.

The bill is very simple but very important. It removes a phrase from the Criminal Code so that an accusation under these provisions must be based on the fact that the victim believes that a refusal on their part would threaten their safety or the safety of someone known to them.

According to the International Justice and Human Rights Clinic at the faculty of law at the University of British Columbia, asking victims to demonstrate that they have reasonable grounds to fear for their safety may be an obstacle to obtaining convictions for human trafficking.

Elements of the offence of human trafficking are more difficult to prove than those of other similar offences. For example, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which prohibits human trafficking, does not require the person involved to prove that they fear for their safety. This standard is no longer appropriate.

Let us look at the chronology of legislation against human trafficking. In 2002, Canada ratified the Palermo protocol, a “protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”.

Article 3 clearly defines trafficking in persons as follows:

“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs . . . .

That is the definition.

That is how human trafficking came to be added to the Criminal Code in 2005. The Canadian definition, however, is different from the Palermo Protocol definition in that the issue of consent or the victim's sense of safety is taken into consideration. Thus, the victim must prove that they were in danger if they refused to be exploited.

In human trafficking cases, regardless of whether the victims were initially willing or felt safe, victims should never have to justify the circumstances under which they were lured into the situation in order to prove they were trafficked. Human trafficking is not limited to sexual exploitation, as we have already heard. Traffickers exploit their victims in many ways, including for forced labour. It is important to remember, for example, that even if victims did consent to come to Canada, they did not consent to the forced labour or sexual exploitation to which they may have been subjected afterwards, especially if they end up being dependent on someone because of isolation, lack of resources or language barriers.

Section 118 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, passed in 2002, makes it a criminal offence to “organize the coming into Canada of one or more persons by means of abduction, fraud, deception or use or threat of force or coercion”. Although human trafficking and human smuggling are two different concepts, the act also prohibits human smuggling into Canada.

In 2005, Bill C-49 added three offences related to human trafficking to the Criminal Code, as well as a definition. The offences include trafficking in persons; receiving a financial or other material benefit from the commission or facilitation of trafficking in persons; withholding or destroying a person's identity documents, such as a passport, whether authentic or not, for the purpose of committing or facilitating trafficking in persons; and exploiting another person in the context of trafficking in persons offences.

In 2008-09, the first case involving a charge of human trafficking under the new law was ruled on in adult criminal court.

In fall 2008, a 20-year-old woman went to Peel Regional Police to report that a 22-year-old Ontario man named Vytautas Vilutis was using intimidation and threats to sexually exploit her. She said that she made $10,000 for him in just a few weeks through online Craigslist classified ads. She added that he took her phone calls, set up her “dates” and kept track of her appointments, so he knew how much money she owed him each morning. It was not until he threatened her for not leaving all the cash out for him one morning that she reported him to police. Vytautas Vilutis pleaded guilty in April 2009 to charges of human trafficking and receiving a material benefit from human trafficking.

He was convicted under both provisions and was the first person in Canada to be convicted for benefiting from human trafficking. In 2010, another section was added to the Criminal Code, setting out a mandatory minimum sentence for persons charged with trafficking of persons under 18. That was Bill C‑268.

In 2012, the Criminal Code was amended to allow the prosecution of Canadians and permanent residents for the offence of trafficking in persons committed outside Canada, and added factors that judges may consider when determining whether exploitation occurred. That was Bill C‑310.

In 2015, mandatory minimum sentences were imposed for the main trafficking in persons offence, receiving a material benefit from the proceeds of child trafficking, and withholding or destroying documents to facilitate child trafficking. Bill C‑452 was put forward by my political party.

In 2019, the Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, released the national strategy to combat human trafficking 2019‑24. With $75 million in funding over 6 years, this strategy followed the Palermo protocol. The national strategy to combat human trafficking 2019‑24 was adapted from the previous five-year plan.

It was adapted due to some deficiencies identified during policy assessment, namely that most of the resources were being allocated to the fight against sexual exploitation whereas forced labour is a growing issue. This is nothing new, but it is being increasingly recognized and discussed.

Bill S-224 is part of a long legislative quest to combat human trafficking, which is extremely important. In closing, I would like to paraphrase author Ralph Champavert and say that the stigma of human trafficking will disappear when the sun of human dignity rises in all hearts.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding trafficking in persons. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

The bill came to us on October 18 after having passed the other place; it proposes reforms to the definition of “exploitation” for the purposes of the Criminal Code's human trafficking offences. The bill seeks to protect victims and to hold human traffickers accountable. These are laudable and pressing objectives.

Human trafficking is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and it is often described as a modern-day form of slavery. It involves recruitment, transportation, harbouring and/or control over the movement of persons for the purposes of exploitation, typically sexual exploitation or forced labour. Human trafficking devastates victims and survivors, as well as their families, their communities and society as a whole.

In Canada, reported human trafficking data primarily relates to trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. Traffickers seek to profit off the sexual exploitation of others, treating victims as commodities to be used for the traffickers' financial gain. Between 2010 and 2021, the large majority of individuals accused of trafficking were men, most commonly between the ages of 18 and 24. While we know that anyone can be targeted by a trafficker and become a victim of human trafficking, 96% of police-reported victims between 2010 and 2021 were women and girls.

Almost one in four, or 24%, of the reported victims, were younger than the age of 18; half, 45%, were between 18 and 24 years old; and one in five were between the ages of 25 and 34 years old. Moreover, women and girls were more at risk of being targeted by a trafficker when impacted by factors like poverty, isolation, precarious housing, substance use, a history of violence, childhood maltreatment and mental health issues. In short, traffickers look for young women and girls in precarious situations and target these individuals for financial gain.

We also know that indigenous women and girls are disproportionately represented among victims or those at risk of becoming victims of trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls notes several intersecting factors that increase the likelihood of being targeted by a trafficker. Those include systemic racism, violence against indigenous women and girls, intergenerational trauma linked to colonization, the lack of access to social and economic resources and colonial assimilation policies.

Traffickers likely target victims who experience these types of risk factors. The majority of victims are trafficked by someone they know. For example, nearly one-third of victims have been trafficked by a current or former intimate partner. In fact, some traffickers target and romantically pursue potential victims with the specific intent of exploiting them.

Traffickers will go to a great extents to keep victims isolated and unable to seek help. They often separate victims from those who could help them, hide them from the public, ensure they do not have access to support and may force victims to commit crimes while being trafficked, convincing them that they will be arrested if they try to seek help.

We also know that victims may be unwilling or unable to seek help for a number of reasons, such as distrust of authorities, which is often created or fostered by the traffickers themselves, or because victims are fearful, ashamed, not aware of their rights in Canada, experiencing language barriers, or have a desire to protect their traffickers.

After being trafficked, victims may experience post-traumatic stress and memory loss as a result of the physical, sexual, financial, emotional and psychological abuse they were subjected to while being trafficked. Many victims have both physical and psychological scars from being trafficked.

It is crucial to support victims and bring their traffickers to justice. I am reassured by the fact that the Criminal Code contains a strong legislative framework governing human trafficking that includes a specific offence of trafficking in persons, including trafficking in adults, trafficking in children, receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons, and withholding or destroying identity documents to facilitate the commission of this crime, with maximum penalties of up to life imprisonment. Because human trafficking cases are complex, other offences may be used depending on the facts of the case, such as forcible confinement, assault, sexual assault and uttering threats.

Bill S-224 would strengthen this framework. I agree with the bill's sponsor that we must continue to reflect on how we can ensure the most robust legislative framework possible, and I am grateful that we now have the opportunity to do just that.

That brings me to my main concern with Bill S-224. The bill would repeal the Criminal Code's existing definition of exploitation, resulting in prosecutors no longer being able to rely on that definition in appropriate cases. The current definition of exploitation focuses on the impact of the trafficker's conduct on a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances.

I note that the existing definition was first enacted in 2005 and thus we have 17 years of jurisprudence interpreting it. I am pleased to be able to report that the definition has been interpreted broadly, as I have already noted, applied to human trafficking cases that have involved purely psychological forms of coercion. This is critically important because human traffickers often target victims due to their vulnerabilities, which make them easy to manipulate without the need to resort to more violent tactics. In particular, both the Ontario and Quebec courts of appeal have found that under such an existing approach prosecutors do not need to prove that the victim was actually afraid, that the accused used or threatened the use of physical violence or even that exploitation actually occurred. Prosecutors need only to prove that a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would fear for their safety, that the accused engaged in psychological forms of coercion and that the accused either intended to exploit the victim or knew that someone else intended to do so.

If Bill S-224 were amended to add the proposed definition of exploitation as an additional definition that could be used in appropriate cases, prosecutors would have an additional tool to assist, ensuring that traffickers are held to account. Such an approach would strengthen the existing criminal laws in response to human trafficking without removing any of the existing tools that have been successful in achieving the critical objective of ending this heinous crime.

Since 2005 when human trafficking offences were enacted in the Criminal Code, Canada has continued to demonstrate leadership in combatting human trafficking. For example, in 2019, the Government of Canada launched the national strategy to combat human trafficking. The strategy is led by Public Safety Canada and is a five-year whole-of-government approach to addressing human trafficking. It frames federal activities under the internationally recognized pillars of prevention, protection, prosecution and partnership.

The objectives of Bill S-224 are laudable and I share the sponsor's concern about the serious impacts that human trafficking has on victims. I welcome the opportunity to study the bill.

The House resumed from December 2, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill S-224, legislation that will strengthen the human trafficking laws under the Criminal Code.

Under the Criminal Code, in order to successfully convict someone of human trafficking, two elements must be satisfied. The first is that the perpetrator recruited, transported or harboured the victim. The second is that it was done for the purpose of exploitation. This bill relates to the second element, which is that of exploitation.

More specifically, it redefines exploitation by removing the requirement that the Crown establish that the victim reasonably believed their safety to be threatened by the perpetrator. This is a welcomed change in the law that removes a barrier to successfully prosecuting and convicting human traffickers.

Moreover, it brings the Criminal Code definition of exploitation under our human trafficking laws in line with the international definition, which is the anti-human trafficking UN protocol, namely the Palermo protocol, which Canada ratified in 2002.

Before I elaborate on the merits of this bill, I want to take this opportunity to commend the member for Oshawa for his leadership in championing this important and needed legislation. The member has been a tireless advocate for the rights of victims.

I would also like to recognize my Conservative colleague, Senator Salma Ataullahjan, for introducing and successfully shepherding this bill through the Senate with unanimous support. That unanimity, I believe, speaks to the merit of this legislation.

Human trafficking is a heinous crime. It is a gross human rights violation. It is a form of modern slavery. Human trafficking is also a complex and multi-dimensional crime involving a range of criminal activities, from sexual exploitation to forced labour and debt bondage.

Human traffickers exploit some of the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society, 95% of whom are women and more than 70% of whom are under the age of 25. Indeed, it is estimated that a quarter of human trafficking victims are children.

Human traffickers profit through the brutalization of their victims by taking away their freedom and personal autonomy and stripping them of their human dignity. Human trafficking is truly a horrific crime, and it is one that is unfortunately growing in Canada.

Although it is not known how widespread human trafficking is, having regard for the fact that this is a crime that is committed in the shadows of Canadian society, police data indicates that human trafficking cases have increased elevenfold between 2010 and 2016.

Despite the fact that it is widely understood to be a widespread problem, very few human trafficking cases are successfully prosecuted under the human trafficking provisions of the Criminal Code.

I sat on the justice committee in 2018 when we undertook a study across Canada on human trafficking. We travelled from Halifax to Vancouver. One of the things we consistently heard was the difficulty, in practice, of using the human trafficking provisions to convict and put away those who commit this horrendous crime. Indeed, often prosecutors end up prosecuting the case under offences such as procuring and material benefit, which are lesser offences under the Criminal Code. The reason being is that these cases are very difficult to prove, and this is made all the more difficult by the need for the Crown to establish that the victim reasonably expected their safety to be threatened.

This is made more difficult for several reasons. First, there is more likely a need to bring in the victim and call them as a witness at the trial. Many times, human trafficking survivors, for understandable reasons, are reluctant to testify, given the trauma that they have endured, and given the fact that they do not want to relive the horrors they have been subjected to by their perpetrator under the pressures of cross-examination.

Moreover, it puts attention where it should not be, and that is on the state of mind of the victim rather than the actions of the perpetrator. From a practical standpoint in a trial context, that is made all the more problematic given the circumstances in which human trafficking survivors find themselves in, which is brutalized, having endured enormous trauma, sometimes with impediments to their memory. They may have mental health issues they are suffering from as a result of these crimes committed upon them.

This is why, under the Palermo protocol, the focus is not on the state of mind of the victim but on the actions of the perpetrator. That is what this bill would do. It would bring our Criminal Code in line with the Palermo protocol in this important regard.

I would also note that, in requiring that that fear be established, that the victim reasonably feared for their safety, it results in an overly narrow definition of exploitation. When someone is particularly vulnerable, threats of force or violence may not be necessary to control that person. There could be circumstances where, by every other measure, the victim is being trafficked, but it is impossible to obtain a conviction because it is not possible to meet the objective standard that they feared for their safety.

For all of these reasons, this bill is needed. It is, as the member for Oshawa, noted in his thoughtful speech, a relatively minor change to the Criminal Code, but one that would have a real impact in seeing that survivors of human trafficking receive the justice they have been denied, and it would give law enforcement and prosecutors the ability to use the Criminal Code human trafficking provisions to successfully prosecute and convict human traffickers as human traffickers.

I urge the speedy and unanimous passage of this important bill.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak to Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons, Winnipeg has once again received horrific news of the murder of indigenous women in our community: They are Morgan Harris, 39; Marcedes Myran, 26; Rebecca Contois, 24; and one woman yet to be identified. These are three additional charges for Jeremy Skibicki, who now seems to be the latest serial killer of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in our community.

I would like to offer my love, support and deepest sympathies to the latest families and communities that have been affected by the ongoing genocide against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. Something that has been acknowledged particularly is that my city of Winnipeg is ground zero for the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

Their lives were precious. They were loved. They were mothers. They were sisters. They were aunties. They were daughters. I do not know how many times I have risen in the House to speak about the dire urgency of the crisis we face as targets. In this country, our lives seem to be of no consequence, either our life or loss of life. In this country, which espouses to be a beacon for human rights, those human rights have been deprived from indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people since the first contact when exploitation started.

As we debate today in the House a bill to strengthen protections for women around sex trafficking, protections for all women, we must acknowledge, when we talk about human trafficking in Canada, that certain groups are disproportionately impacted.

The Canadian Women's Foundation notes that 51% of trafficked girls were or had been part of the child welfare system, something that has been called the new residential school because there are more kids in the child welfare system now than there were at the height of residential schools. These are indigenous girls, young people and two-spirit people. It also notes that 50% of trafficked girls and 51% of trafficked women are indigenous. Over half of individuals who are trafficked, 51%, are indigenous women because there is an ongoing genocide, something we are reeling with again in my beautiful community of Winnipeg.

There is an ongoing genocide of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and human trafficking is just one part of this ongoing genocide. Let us not forget what we have recently found out regarding the second serial killer in recent history to target our women, because there is a normalized violence and genocide occurring in this country with piecemeal approaches by government. That sends a very clear message to indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, including the zero budgetary allocation in the 2022 budget, that this is not of top urgency and priority.

I know we are here to debate the current bill, but I would be remiss at this very critical time if I did not take the opportunity to call on all members of the House to stand in solidarity together against human trafficking or the murder and genocide of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in this country. This is a human rights crisis. This is a life-and-death crisis. We must stand together in non-partisanship, to work together to ensure that indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in this country can finally be safe. If we fail to do so once again as we debate this bill, the latest murders in my community, and I want to let members know that it is a beautiful community of wonderful people, as a result of an individual who targeted indigenous women, this genocide, will continue if we do not stand in non-partisanship.

I am calling for urgent help. I am calling for resources. I am calling on the government to come to my community and meet with the families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and come up with an urgent response. I am calling on all members of the House to not politicize this genocide and to just provide the resources and support needed to end this crisis of violence. Every day that this is politicized, every day that we wait, we lose another life.

I had the privilege of speaking with one of the family members of one of the late women who was identified in the latest crisis. Families deserve justice. The women's spirits deserve justice. Our communities deserve justice. We have a right to be safe. We have a right to be respected. We have a right to be honoured. That needs to happen today.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill S‑224, a Senate bill that seeks to amend the Criminal Code and the section dealing with trafficking in persons.

Either this was pre-arranged, which I doubt, or it is an odd coincidence, but today is December 2, which is the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, and it is also the day we are dedicating to discussing human trafficking.

The International Day for the Abolition of Slavery stems from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”.

The day we are marking today is about eradicating all contemporary forms of slavery. As my colleague from Shefford pointed out in her member's statement on Wednesday, slavery is not just something that belongs in the history books. It still exists today, but now it comes in more insidious forms.

The International Labour Organization says that approximately 40 million people are still trapped in modern forms of slavery, such as debt bondage, serfdom, forced labour, child labour and servitude, trafficking in persons and in human organs, which unfortunately continues to take place around the world, sexual slavery, the use of child soldiers in armed conflicts, the sale of children, forced marriage, the sale of women and the exploitation of prostitution.

As I mentioned, there are still many types of slavery. When we talk about trafficking in persons, we are actually talking about modern forms of slavery that are still taking place. Slavery has changed over the years, so the provisions of the law that address it must also change and evolve.

My colleague from Oshawa mentioned that, in 2002, Canada ratified the Palermo protocol, which supplements the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and seeks to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Article 3 of this convention gives an explicit definition of trafficking in persons. It states:

“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;

The Palermo protocol covers a lot of ground. In subparagraph 3(b), it says, and this is important:

The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;

It states specifically that the way the victim felt during the commission of an act related to trafficking in persons shall not be taken into account.

The Criminal Code, which includes the offence of trafficking in persons, was amended in 2005. It was in 2005 that a section was added to the Criminal Code to deal with trafficking in persons, following the ratification of the Palermo protocol, and that is precisely what we are debating today. Subsection 279.04(1) of the Criminal Code states, and I quote:

For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

That is precisely the crux of the problem. Whereas the Criminal Code offences that we are used to dealing with require the actus reus, which is the commission of the criminal act, and the mens rea, which is the guilty intention behind the act, this section adds a third element for the court to analyze, specifically the state of mind of the victim of the offence.

That is what this new clause would correct. It provides that, for sections 279.01 to 279.03, “a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that...causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service” and adds the following: “involves, in relation to any person, the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act”. It completely abandons the concept of fear for a person's safety.

The section we are currently looking at goes back to 2005. Although changes were made to this section of the Criminal Code in 2012 and 2015, it was never changed to line up with other Criminal Code offences, which have only two constituent elements, the actus reus and mens rea.

This is a departure from what is generally accepted in criminal law and other forms of law that flow from common law, namely, the thin skull rule. This requires that the victim's situation be taken into account in cases where it is to the victim's advantage and to the accused's disadvantage. That is the principle behind the thin skull rule. It is a rule of tort that a person should be compensated even if the harm they suffer is unusually severe. For example, if you hit someone with a thin skull and they die as a result, you cannot use the fact that they had an abnormally thin skull, more so than average, as a reason to avoid liability.

When a person's constitution is taken into consideration, it should be to the benefit of that person and not that of the person who committed the offence. The proposed amendment to section 279 may be more in line with what is generally offered in the rules of common law. What is more, it is something that is already enshrined in other areas of our domestic law, namely, when it comes to refugee protection. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was also created as a result of the ratification of the Palermo Protocol.

It has already been mentioned that there is a human trafficking offence set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or IRPA, but that act does not require evidence of a victim's fear for their safety. I would like to read subsection 118(1) of the act. It says, and I quote, “No person shall knowingly organize the coming into Canada of one or more persons by means of abduction, fraud, deception or use or threat of force or coercion.”

Once again, all we need to look at here is the commission of the act, not the way it is perceived. The member for Oshawa spoke very eloquently about that. He mentioned that, often, the victims do not even see themselves as victims.

That is the problem because, in order to prove that the crime was committed, the victims need to see themselves as victims and realize that they felt scared, which may not necessarily be the case. Victims may not feel afraid when they are in the situation because they have become so accustomed to it or they may experience post-traumatic stress only after the fact. They may be in protection mode and not feel afraid. In some cases, the victims do feel afraid, but they are unable to prove it in court. This bill eliminates the additional constraint that was imposed on victims to prove that the offence of human trafficking was committed.

It removes the burden that was needlessly placed on the wrong person by focusing on what was done rather than considering how it is perceived by the victim. We hope that this amendment will be quickly adopted at second reading when the House votes and that the bill is referred to a committee, where I hope that it will be quickly analyzed and voted on. I also hope that this will finally become part of our domestic legislation and that it will continue to be aligned with the principle of victim protection regardless of whether they consider themselves to be victims.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

moved that Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague across the way. This bill is indeed a great way to end the week. Today I rise to speak to Bill S-224, a non-partisan bill that passed unanimously in the Senate on October 6.

I thank Senator Salma Ataullahjan for her collaborative effort and success in getting this bill through the Senate.

I thank the member for St. Albert for speaking today, for his support and for seconding this bill, as well as the member for Peace River—Westlock for his unending commitment to ending human trafficking. God bless him.

I want to thank an amazing community of supporters, victims, moms and dads, survivors and workers, including Lynda Harlos, Jocelyn Siciliano, Jasmine DeFina, Vanessa Falcon, Kim Miller-Sands, Lillian Fisher, Donald Igbokwe, the Durham Regional Police Service human trafficking unit, and Ms. Holly Wood who is here today.

These individuals and many more like them have been infected by a seemingly contagious affliction, which is a desire to do good and to make a difference in the lives of those most vulnerable victims in our communities. These people are heroes, and they are saving lives every single day with the work that they do.

This indeed is a rare opportunity and a rare occasion. When an MP has the opportunity to bring both Houses together for a common cause, it is truly an honour. The bill is a seemingly small bill. It is less than one page. It represents a small change, but a small change that will make a big difference in the lives of so many vulnerable people, people denied justice and people denied their human dignity.

This modern-day slavery initiative was brought to my attention by Darla, a survivor, friend and one of my constituents. As a father, her story motivated me to look for real solutions to this problem. At its heart, Bill S-224 aims to align the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of trafficking in persons with that of the 2000 Palermo protocol. Importantly, this would remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals who, under current Canadian law, must prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse in order to obtain a conviction in court.

I want members to pause and to think about this for a moment. A crime is committed. There is no debate whether the acts have occurred, yet under current Canadian law the victim is required to prove fear in order for a conviction to occur.

To emphasize the absurdity of this situation, let us apply this requirement to another crime. Imagine that someone I know comes up and stabs me in the back. In politics that term is used rather loosely, but indeed this crime does occur in reality. How would I prove fear in that situation? Would the offender be convicted if there was absolute proof of the crime, but fear could not be proven? I have to ask. Why do we treat this particular crime of human trafficking so differently?

Indeed, members, as I look around the House, we can agree that something needs to change. This is not justice. Human trafficking is a scourge, mostly on vulnerable young people and their families across our entire country, in my area and in yours. I am hopeful that my colleagues, regardless of their political stripe, will approach this effort on a non-partisan basis and help me secure this long-overdue change to Canada's Criminal Code.

Human trafficking does not discriminate against rich or poor and no matter one's background. My goal is simple. It is to ensure that our country and our local communities are safer for our most vulnerable young people. Who could be against that?

These victims often think their abusers are their friends and that their abusers care for them and love them. Those of us not involved in human trafficking can see that this is not the case. We see the coercion. We see the manipulation. We see the lies. We owe these victims a chance for truth, a chance for justice.

Often when these cases are brought to court, the Crown’s case depends on the victim's testimony. It may be the only evidence against the trafficker. Without the victim's testimony, there is no case. In Canada, sometimes it takes years for these cases to come to court. There the victims can be victimized again and again.

We all remember that sad case in Alberta, when a federal judge actually asked a victim in a sexual assault trial, “Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?” I ask members if this is the justice system that Canadians want. I suggest that whether or not the crime of human trafficking has occurred should only be defined by the perpetrator’s actions rather than the victim's experience.

Victims should not be revictimized by the system. We owe it to victims to make this small change that will make such a huge difference. By amending the Criminal Code to reflect the international definition of “trafficking in persons”, as outlined in the Palermo protocol, we will enable the Crown to efficiently convict traffickers.

I want to talk a bit about timelines. The Palermo protocol was adopted in November 2000, 22 years ago, at the 55th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It had 117 signatories, and guess what. That included Canada. Human trafficking is defined as “the act of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and receiving a person by means of coercion, abuse of power or deception for the purpose of exploitation.” There is nothing controversial about this.

More than 22 years have passed, yet this small but important change is still not reflected in Canada's Criminal Code. Let us not continue to make this another example of Canada's promises that never see concrete action. This bill is about protecting vulnerable Canadians from predators who exploit their victims for personal gain, and sadly, that gain is becoming greater and much more lucrative.

I will give some statistics. Human trafficking generates more than $32 billion annually and abuses over 40 million victims each year. The number of victims worldwide is greater than the entire population of Canada, and believe me, these numbers are under-reported.

Unfortunately, human trafficking is seen as a low-risk criminal activity here in Canada with a very high reward. According to Statistics Canada, less than 8% of perpetrators charged with human trafficking have ever been prosecuted. Let us think about that and also consider that very few perpetrators are even charged with this crime. Therefore, the number of those ultimately held to account for this modern-day slavery is dismally low and, I would say, embarrassing. We as a country can do better and we as a country need to do better.

I stand here today for Darla from Oshawa and countless other human trafficking survivors. I stand here today for their families and family members such as Lynda, who is an Oshawa mom of a human trafficking survivor. I stand here today for our youth and the most vulnerable Canadians. I invite all members to stand with me. I hope every member in the House supports this initiative.

I stand here for those who are being exploited tonight, right now, in plain sight, and some right outside my office doors in downtown Oshawa. This does not end at my doorstep. Each member of the House of Commons can be sure that this is happening outside each of their doorsteps as well.

My colleague from Peace River—Westlock has a statistic that puts things into perspective. I remember the first time I heard this, and I could not believe it. He said that the crime of human trafficking is happening today within 10 blocks or 10 minutes from one's home.

Human trafficking is on the rise, and it relies on abuse, coercion and manipulation. As I have said, victims of human trafficking are often convinced that their traffickers are their friends or boyfriends. Traffickers have made promises of clothes, money, work, drugs, education and even protection.

Many victims truly and naively believe that their trafficker has their best interests at heart. We know that is not true. Traffickers prey on the most vulnerable for a reason, as they can resort to violence and threats to make their victims do what they are told.

Traffickers seek out young people dealing with substance abuse, traumas, addictions, abuse or homelessness. Women and girls, indigenous children, new immigrants, persons living with disabilities, LGBTQ2+ individuals and migrant workers are among the most at-risk groups.

How can we continue to put so much responsibility on these victims who have endured such unimaginable atrocities? It is time for us to take action to lift the yolk of responsibility and pain, and give victims a chance of escaping their abuser.

Senator Ataullahjan said:

Most survivors do not identify as victims as a result of manipulation and gaslighting. They can believe their trafficker cares for them. We owe them the necessary help and care. Instead, they must prove that they fear for their life on the stand, often only a few metres from their trafficker. Victims are usually the only evidence against traffickers. Without their testimony, the Crown has no case. Testimony shows that the fear-based model is the biggest issue when dealing with convictions and that the experience is more traumatizing than being forced to work in the sex trade. They must relive their nightmare during that preliminary and then at the trial.

During cross-examination, it is common for the defence lawyer to twist their words and call them a liar.

If we do not take our responsibility seriously, our duty to amend the Criminal Code, then these cases depend upon the victim’s ability to perform on the witness stand. Remember, this is the same victim who we just described as being vulnerable to gaslighting and manipulation.

Some of these victims do not have the strength to fight our current system. They do not have the strength to stand up against slick lawyers and a system stacked against them. This is not justice, and it usually results in charges being dropped. We need to give victims every tool possible to allow the return of their dignity and their humanity.

The goal of Bill S-224 is to implement a simple amendment to the Criminal Code, a very small modification, that would make a huge difference in the ability of the Crown to prosecute human traffickers. There should be no more settling for a dismal 8% prosecution rate. The time to do better is now, today, while this historic opportunity presents itself.

To Darla, the moms and dads, and everyone involved in ending human trafficking, this small change can happen. The time to end 22 years of inaction is now. The opportunity will not be lost.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

moved that Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, the modern-day slavery of human trafficking is happening today within 10 blocks of our homes. The inspiration for this bill was brought to me by a constituent of mine, Darla, who is a survivor.

In June 2019, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-461, which was a product of meaningful consultation in our community. Although that bill did not pass, today I am pleased to sponsor Bill S-224, which would simplify the definition of exploitation for trafficking offences in the Criminal Code by removing the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals to prove there was an element of fear in their abuse.

I want to introduce this to my fellow colleagues as a non-partisan issue. I thank Senator Salma Ataullahjan for her excellent work in the Senate, and my colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock, for his commitment to ending human trafficking.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-208, an act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada; Bill S-222, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood); and Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Health; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, The Environment; the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Taxation.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.