Justice Committee on June 1st, 2009

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

Thank you so very much for your questions, and thank you for your support and your good work on this human trafficking issue here in Canada.

First of all, I must state very clearly that I never recommended one single witness to come today. I never did any of that. I thought I was going to be the only one here. I was hoping I was going to be the only one here, because I really wanted this to pass. And I referred not to the committee holding up my bill, but to the Bloc's not voting for my bill at second reading. That is why I brought out the detective from Montreal and invited everybody to come and listen to the human trafficking issue in Quebec, to try to persuade them that this is something that needed to be done.

So thank you for your comments about trying to be fair. I think I am very fair; I just cannot understand why anybody wouldn't support mandatory minimums for traffickers of children 18 years and under. Let's just get that cleared up.

The thing you asked about was national strategy. My motion number 153 was about the national strategy, calling for a national strategy. Ever since I came to Parliament, my wish and my hope and what I have worked toward is to make this non-partisan, so that all of us would work together to protect victims.

Those are very good questions. Speaking of police officers, my own son is RCMP, and it's more about training police officers. Many police officers don't understand what human trafficking is about, because they've never had special training. If you get trained in an ICE unit.... It's like being a teacher: if you're trained in math, you know math; if you're trained in language arts, you know language arts; if you were trained in French, you know French. You're expert in that area.

ICE units, or integrated child exploitation units, are made up of specially trained police officers, and that training is something that I think is mandatory. You always need more resources; the resources never end. I've always been a proponent of more resources because, my own son being a police officer, I see the wonderful work they do, the long hours, and some of these police officers are very disillusioned. When you're talking about child pornography and about the victims of human trafficking, it's the most heinous crime.

I want to make sure that I address all your questions. I'm hoping that has addressed some of them, Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That was not bad at all, really. As MPs, I suppose we're used to being on this end, so you're doing very well.

Are we any further towards having or seeing a national action plan? What is the government doing about your bill and your motion?

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

The bill has been supported very well. As for the national strategy, I think we need to all continue to work toward a national strategy. The law enforcement is one piece to it. The other piece is that if you've ever worked with victims of human trafficking, you know that they need to have shelter, they need to have counselling, they need to have education. It's a horrendous thing that they go through.

This is like the tipping point, I believe. Mandatory minimums have been called on by the international community, and I think Canada will stand tall when we answer that call, because human trafficking is global. The next step would be for all of us to work on the national strategy and the other aspects of human trafficking that are so important.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, you have seven minutes.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Ms. Smith. I am not suggesting that you decided to invite REAL Women of Canada. However, I saw the mischievous gleam in your eye directed at me when you said, in front of the television cameras, that the Bloc Québécois was against fast-tracking this bill in committee, when that is not true. Unfortunately, you told a white lie that did not hurt your cause one bit, but we have to set the record straight. The steering committee chair brought this bill before us in May....

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Do you have a point of order. Mr. Storseth?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My translation could be off, but I don't think it's parliamentary language to accuse a parliamentarian of lying; and second, I believe standing up and voting against this legislation in the House of Commons at second reading is opposing its coming forward to committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That is not what I said, Mr. Chair.

Stop my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Ménard, we want to preserve the stability and decorum of this committee. We've done a lot of good work already during this Parliament. And Mr. Storseth does make a point: you referred to a “white lie”, and I think that we as MPs treat each other cordially and with respect. I don't think we use the word “lie”.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Point of order. I suggest that you gently remind the witness that, in mid-May, you submitted a report to this committee, and in that report, we were asked to consider Ms. Smith's bill on June 1.

To say, in front of television cameras, that the committee spent time on this matter is not an accurate reflection of the truth. Mr. Storseth's motion was deferred so that yours could be heard first. I just wanted to set the record straight in terms of the sequence of events.

That being said, Mr. Chair, I voted in the House—as did the Bloc Québécois—in favour of Bill C-49, which the Liberals introduced and which does not include any minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois is consistent in its actions. We do not support minimum sentences. I would like you to submit to this committee studies showing that minimum sentences are effective.

I will ask both you and the Department of Justice whether it is true that, to date, there have been only two convictions under section 279 of the Criminal Code. The opinion that sentences are not severe enough needs to be qualified. In fact, this section did not get much use. Perhaps they were not severe enough, but in those cases, an appeal should be filed. That is not a justification for minimum sentences.

Out of respect for the work you have done, on Tuesday, I will propose a motion asking the government to suspend all consideration of the bill. We will immediately try to take a balanced look at the briefs you submitted. We are talking about 15,000 victims of human trafficking in Canada, that is 2,000 people a year. I am a lot more worried by the fact that out of those 15,000 trafficking cases in Canada, there were only two convictions.

As parliamentarians, we will try to not play politics, but to understand why there were only two convictions. We will propose a motion to suspend all other consideration of the bill.

How do you explain the fact that there were only two trials and two convictions? That question is also for your colleague from the Department of Justice.

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

Thank you, Monsieur Ménard. I'm hoping today to persuade you to change your mind.

With all due respect, you're an intelligent man, and as you know, deterrence is one of the sentencing principles available to judges in the Canadian Criminal Code. Another one is denouncement. This is the principle also expressed in article 3 of the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the sale of children, child prostitution, and pornography. It states--and this is the salient point, and this quote is not from me, but from this particular United Nations—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Ms. Smith, wait. That was not my question. I asked you whether you had in your possession studies proving that they have real merit, that they are effective. We asked the Minister of Justice. No one was able to submit studies on minimum sentences. It worries us that, out of 15,000 trafficking cases, there were only two convictions. How do you and your colleague from the Department of Justice explain that? This committee has to have a good understanding of the situation.

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

Mr. Ménard, I want you to hear me out and let me answer your question.

The United Nations protocol said: “Each state party shall make such offences punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature.”

This convention said that we need to have mandatory minimums. The world has mandatory minimums for traffickers of children. There are police forces, such as the Canadian Police Association and police forces in Quebec and Montreal, calling for mandatory minimums because they say that without mandatory minimums traffickers get away.

To answer your question, we don't get these convictions because we do not have the mandatory minimums. It is from the wisdom of the globe, the wisdom of the police officers, that I get this view.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Ms. Smith, you are not answering my question.

If 15,000 people were victims of human trafficking, why were there only two trials related to section 279? Does the committee not have an obligation, beyond all government bills, to understand that?

I am talking to you, Ms. Levman.

[Nathalie Levman]

Thank you for your questions. I will attempt to answer each one in turn.

First, regarding convictions, we have to remember that section 279.01 was enacted in 2005. As we all know, criminal laws do not apply retroactively.

Secondly, there have actually been five convictions so far under section 279.01, all as a result of guilty pleas. There have been other cases under trafficking-related offences in which we've also secured convictions. In the past reporting period, that brings us up to about 13 convictions, and we still have at least 12 cases before the—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Can you submit to the committee documentation on those 13 cases? Can you give us that information? The documents that Ms. Smith provided to all of the members mentioned two cases, and you are telling us there are 13. Why the difference?

[Nathalie Levman]

There are five convictions under the trafficking-specific offence—that is, under section 279.01.

In my opening remarks I discussed trafficking-related offences, offences that cover certain activities that are engaged in by traffickers. The other convictions fell under those provisions. What we have is, basically, a tool box for police and the crown--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

What are the related offences? False pretence?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, I'd ask that you let the witness finish her answers.

In any event, you're out of time. She can very quickly finish up what she was saying, and then we're going to move on to the next questioner.

Monsieur Ménard, please, let her answer.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I decide my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, please allow her to answer the question.

[Nathalie Levman]

Just to make it absolutely clear that I have presented the correct evidence before this committee, there are five convictions under section 279.01 to date, all the result of guilty pleas. The few number can partially be explained by the non-retroactivity of criminal laws. This law was enacted in November 2005.

Secondly, I'm not sure where this number of 15,000 victims came up. I would like to clarify for this committee that the estimates are very difficult to come by. This is a criminal activity that is basically clandestine in nature. We don't have hard and fast numbers. We do not know the extent of it. There are various estimates, depending on the body that you consult. Whether that be the United Nations or the ILO, they all have different estimates, and that will also be based on how the person or the entity making those estimates defines trafficking in persons. Not all people view trafficking in persons as the same thing, and it's often confused with smuggling.

I hope that addresses some of your concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Comartin, for seven minutes.