Justice Committee on May 1st, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to meeting number 71 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 6, 2013, we are studying Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons).

In our first hour we have two witnesses and in our second hour we have another panel of two witnesses.

Today, we have Éliane Legault-Roy from the organization Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle.

Thank you for coming.

From Walk With Me Canada Victim Services, we have Mr. Robert Hooper, who is the chair.

You both have 10 minutes to give an opening statement.

Please begin.

[Éliane Legault-Roy, Responsible for communications, Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will follow my brief because I am not very comfortable.

Today Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle wishes to reiterate its support for Bill C-452, which was introduced by Maria Mourani, the member for Ahuntsic.

We believe that, by targeting procurers and the profits of an exploitation-based industry, this bill will guarantee better protection for women engaged in prostitution and the victims of trafficking for sexual purposes.

Ms. Mourani's bill promotes a better understanding of the essential connection between prostitution and trafficking, both of which are based to a large degree on inequality and, to paraphrase Gloria Steinem, are created by the same customers who seek unequal sexual relations. Bill C-452 emphasizes that connection by including a subsection on sexual exploitation in section 279.04 of the Criminal Code, which concerns trafficking, and by attacking procuring, a definite step toward achieving equality between men and women in Canada.

In Canada, where most human trafficking is carried on domestically, there is demand for sexual services in all communities, in all provinces, but most of the time it requires that hundreds, even thousands of young girls be transported around the country to remove them from their families, friends and social networks and to erase all trace of them.

We also see that massive numbers of women are occasionally transported to specific regions of Canada to meet increased customer demand at sports and other events.

The clarification made before paragraph (a) of subsection 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code is important in having domestic trafficking recognized as an organized system similar in all respects to international trafficking and as something that must be punished as such.

The inclusion of the presumption of exploitation of a person following subsection (2) of that same section is also a clear measure in favour of the protection of women, who are the main victims of trafficking in Canada. The reverse burden of proof removes an enormous weight from their shoulders, as they are often afraid of reprisals if they testify and prefer to remain silent to having to relive their ordeal by testifying.

In addition, since 80% to 90% of women victims of trafficking are being used to supply the sex industry, we think they should be treated the same way as the victims of procurers, who are already subject to the reverse onus of proof, as provided by subsection 212(3) of the Criminal Code.

Lastly, by providing for exemplary and consecutive sentences and the forfeiture of the proceeds of procurers and traffickers, Bill C-452 clearly indicates that the commoditization of women, who are imported and exported, sold and resold for the benefit of men through trafficking, is a serious crime that deserves a clear sentence.

In conclusion, since the sex industry responds solely to profit and customer demand, it is imperative that we attack the sources of this market. That is why we at Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle believe that focusing on procuring and the forfeiture of proceeds generated by human trafficking, as Ms. Mourani's bill does, is the first appropriate, urgently needed step in addressing the problem of human trafficking for sexual exploitation purposes in Canada.

We also believe that, to affirm our solidarity with women who too often have no choice and to guarantee real protection for prostitutes, prostitution should be decriminalized. We hope that the Bloc Québécois and the other political parties will soon take action to that end and tackle the sex industry and the customers who support it head on.

In the meantime, we hail Ms. Mourani's initiative and hope that her bill is passed by all members of Parliament. This is a step in the right direction, one that gives us hope that one day we will move beyond the concept of individual choice and collectively assert the right of women, of all women, not to be prostitutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

The next presenter is Mr. Hooper from Walk With Me Canada Victim Services.

Mr. Hooper, you have 10 minutes.

[Robert Hooper, Chair, Walk With Me Canada Victim Services]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Walk With Me Canada was established by a survivor of human trafficking. Walk With Me was created with a commitment to ensuring that survivors have first response care and, secondly, with recognition that survivors should have a voice in developing a coordinated community response that can meet immediate crises and longer needs of trafficked victims.

Since its inception in 2009, Walk With Me has been working closely with various police services and has been able to provide unique services and support to many victims of human trafficking in Ontario and across this country.

Walk With Me Canada Victim Services' vision statement is transforming the lives of the victims of human trafficking while eradicating slavery in this country. The mission statement of Walk With Me Canada Victim Services is a survivor-led organization dedicated to raising awareness and providing education on issues of slavery, delivering and coordinating services, supporting victims to become survivors, and advocating action for change in our laws in this country.

In the last three years, Walk With Me has assisted over 200 men and women who have been rescued or left their position where they were trafficked for labour or, most often, for sex. Those we have helped thus far are both men and women, and their ages range from 14 to 45.

Several of these circumstances include multiple people being trafficked by the same person, which we think is very important in this bill. Often the word “stable” is used, and I apologize, but that's the word we often hear on the street. Some of the people, particularly in the sex industry, have a stable of young women, which makes the consecutive sentencing quite important to our organization.

Walk With Me operates a safe house and also provides first response assistance for trafficked persons. We are attempting to start and create second-stage housing for longer rehabilitation and reintegration into society for the people we help.

The bill itself, Bill C-452—the three amendments—is supported by Walk With Me Canada, with some modifications in the language, hopefully. It purports to make three amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. They are to provide consecutive sentences for offences related to procuring and trafficking in persons; to create a presumption regarding the exploitation of one person by another and add circumstances that are deemed to constitute exploitation; and finally, the amendment is to add the offences of procuring and trafficking of persons to the list of offences where forfeiture of proceeds of crime would apply.

Walk With Me Canada supports all three amendments. Our support is subject to a review of the legislation for wording and overlap with some of the previous amendments made in Bill C-310.

On consecutive sentences for offences related to procuring and trafficking in persons, Walk With Me Canada's somewhat recent arrival on the scene does not allow us to have any scientific data for the committee with respect to concurrent sentences as opposed to consecutive sentences. A review of sentences with respect to trafficking in drugs and trafficking in persons shows that harsher sentences are handed out by our courts for drug trafficking than for trafficking in persons, either for sex or for labour. Not to make light of drug trafficking, but certainly the sentences are more harsh than they are for trafficking in persons.

Furthermore, Walk With Me Canada was involved in the largest human trafficking case in Canada, known as the Roma Hungarian labour trafficking case in Hamilton, where concurrent sentences were given to most of the offenders. The kingpin, Ferenc Domotor, was handed a significant sentence, but one that was concurrent.

At a post-sentencing gathering, where several of the victims attended after the sentence was handed down, we were able to discuss the court proceedings with the labour traffic victims. One of the young Hungarian men indicated he was not sure that the hell he had gone through was worth the trauma and post-traumatic stress he suffered, given the fact that the sentence was to be one sentence no matter how many victims were involved. Although he did not understand, in my view, concurrent versus consecutive, his assessment of the court proceedings and the sentence handed down by the court was that the amount served by Mr. Domotor would not have changed whether there was one victim or ten victims.

When this is coupled with the fact that multiple victims mean larger profits for the trafficker, consecutive sentences are a necessity for this heinous crime. Presently, a relatively low risk of having a more significant sentence for having two, three, or more victims of sex slavery or labour slavery is worth the financial gain. In other words, when you are able to garner upwards of $200,000 to $300,000 per trafficked victim in one year, and the only real risk in sentencing is a concurrent sentence for each additional victim, the trafficker is almost compelled to expand his business empire with little risk of significant ramifications to him in the criminal justice system here in Canada.

For those reasons, Walk With Me Canada supports this amendment.

Walk With Me Canada supports the amendment with respect to the “presumption regarding the exploitation of one person by another and adds circumstances that are deemed to constitute exploitation.”

Although the wording at first blush appears to provide some risk that innocent bystanders may be captured, the presumption is a necessary one for victims who are scared for their life. Some of the classic traits of trafficking in persons include threats to people's family, their own lives, and the lives of their friends. A lot of the time, the person has been transplanted from their roots to a foreign city, or even another country. As a result, being asked to testify is one of the scariest propositions of being rescued from trafficking.

In our experience, a lot of the women need to be removed from the city, or the province, for their own safety. The severe post-traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression that come with being victimized by their traffickers make testifying a deterrent, and it makes one reluctant to come forward. A reversal of the burden of proof, once a prima facie case has been put forward by the crown, is a welcome addition to the Criminal Code. Having the victim not testify, or not feel that her testimony is the only reason a police force will have to lay charges, will assist in the recovery process of victims.

Often, waiting for the Criminal Court proceedings to take place brings the recovery to a standstill, as they are singularly focused on their day in court, where they will have to face their trafficker again, and have the burden on their shoulders that the case will only be successful if they come and testify and put their life at risk.

For those reasons, Walk With Me Canada supports this amendment.

The amendment “adds the offences of procuring and trafficking in persons to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime apply.” There are many statistics with respect to the profits made by human traffickers. Some of these statistics include trafficking one young woman for a profit of $280,000 to the trafficker in one year. Other statistics show that a sex-trafficked woman between the ages of 12 and 25 years can generate illicit tax-free income for the trafficker in the range of $300 to $1,500 per day. A government table, which was attached to our submission, shows that the average daily profit for one trafficked woman is in the range of $900, and an annual profit in the range of $280,000. A trafficker with 10 young women in his stable could have an annual profit in excess of $3 million. Backpage.com, an example of which we attached, is a unique way to find women in this country. Our example shows that five women were advertised from 11 a.m. to 4 a.m. in one hotel room. Also, if you look at it, the ranges were from $60 to $80 per half hour and $120 to $180 per hour. I looked at the attachment, and in fact the young lady in that attachment is actually being advertised at $200 per hour. You can appreciate the amount of profit you can make if you have four or five people doing that for you on any given day. It should be recognized that this is illicit income, and it's not subject to taxation. This is clear profit.

We're also aware, from our victims, that initially they see some proceeds of their being trafficked, and they are given nice things. Very quickly, once they are brainwashed by the trafficker, they receive less and less of the profit or material items, and the money goes into the coffers of the trafficker.

Anecdotally, we're aware that in the labour trafficking in Hamilton, one of the people who pleaded guilty owned a house in Ancaster, Ontario, that was listed at $750,000. This amendment would've allowed the crown attorney to have that family forfeit the home as proceeds of crime. RCMP surveillance and the evidence given at the trial, which I attended, show that many of the traffickers also had several bank accounts with significant funds in them, including welfare funds. They also could have been forfeited if this amendment had been made previously. As a result, the labour trafficker received a concurrent jail sentence, and in all likelihood a deportation, but he was able to keep all of his assets, including his bank account and his house.

The profit made by organized crime, street gangs, and entrepreneurial men who prey on young women and men in this country, as well as immigrant people who come to this country, needs to be stopped. Along with consecutive sentences, the risk of forfeiting all of the profits and their assets will be a deterrent to this heinous crime.

For the foregoing reasons, Walk With Me supports the three amendments. We hope they will assist in securing convictions that make the punishment proportional to the severity of the crime and that cause the traffickers to be deprived of the profits from their illicit activities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Hooper. Thank you for that presentation.

We'll go now to our rounds of questions. Our first questioner is from the New Democratic Party.

Madame Morin.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much for your testimony. It is important for us to know what you think about this issue.

To date, the NDP has been in favour of the bill. I consider your testimony important because you are part of a team of people working extensively in the field.

My first question is for Mr. Hooper.

You said you have assisted 200 male and female human trafficking victims to date. Can you give us more details on those people? For example, what are the percentages of men and women? Are all the victims Canadian and are there also aboriginal people? I would like to have a more comprehensive picture of those 200 people.

[Robert Hooper]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I can answer the question.

I'll start with an overview, because I don't have the statistical analysis in front of me. It would be significantly heavy, women to men. In fact, I think it's a bit disproportionate that there were 18 labour-trafficked victims in Hamilton alone. There were two other male victims that I'm aware of, that I can think of off the top of my head, which, if my math is correct, makes it probably a 90%-10% split female to male.

The other component would be, surprisingly to me, that most of the women are domestics. They are Canadians. Most of the population thinks there are people coming here to be nannies who become trafficked. It's not true. The majority of trafficked people are Canadian citizens.

There is a large pull from rural to urban. In the book written by Ms. Nagy—a guide written for police officers—places like Tim Hortons at 10 o'clock in northern Ontario are classic places to find an aboriginal young woman who, if somebody shows her attention, will apparently go to lovely Toronto, Halifax, Edmonton, or Vancouver with the promise of great wealth.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

How do you find trafficking victims? Do you work with local police officers, or do the victims come to you because you are an organization?

[Robert Hooper]

Yes. There are three main ways. We proactively look, for example, in the regions of Peel and Niagara, which have the most exotic dancing places per capita I think in North America, or at least Canada. We actively look in those places.

Ms. Nagy, who is our main front-line worker, has a very good network with police officers and has done a lot of training. If there's a suspicion that a woman has been trafficked, she's often called in to do a subsequent interview to determine that.

I don't know how else to say it, but the word on the street is that you may also phone our 24-hour hotline, where you may get help immediately. Those are the three main ways.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I have met with a lot of organizations working in the human trafficking field. Last summer, I went to Thailand and Cambodia with a parliamentary delegation to learn more about human trafficking. Ms. Mourani will say that we must focus on Canada, and I agree with her, but that was the first time I had encountered this field. Since then, I have met a lot of organizations that have indicated that the major difficulty lies in getting victims to testify. I think the bill is useful in that respect, as you both emphasized.

However, we are told that it is very difficult to gather data and to prevent human trafficking. I was wondering whether you had any recommendations to make to us so that this bill can help us in that regard. Could we have more tools to help us prevent trafficking? Could you also advise us on data that might be necessary in the case of human trafficking in Canada?

[Éliane Legault-Roy]

I will let Mr. Hooper answer.

[Robert Hooper]

Yes. One of the main things that is done by several organizations is more education in rural areas for aboriginal people and northern communities. In the Canadian population, in general, it could be the girl next door, and it's not always somebody from Cambodia, Thailand, or Hungary. I think education is probably one of the key things, which maybe won't help this bill a lot in the Criminal Code, but I think that would be a great first preventative step.

The second thing is more money spent perhaps from the action plan, or otherwise, that would go toward training people at sites where this often happens—for example, doughnut shops or immigration lineups crossing the border. Often, these women are taken across the border, because of course New York is not very far from Niagara.

So money should be spent on education and training people, not just police officers, but others, such as welfare or social assistance workers, who have people coming in with some telltale signs. I guess, bluntly, education is the key.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Merci. Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the Conservative Party, is Ms. Smith.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Hooper and Ms. Legault-Roy. Thank you for coming today.

Mr. Hooper, you and I know each other very well. Timea Nagy is an amazing victim who has risen above and is now helping police officers and is doing a lot of very good work. Mr. Hooper, as a lawyer for her organization, I have to thank you for all your volunteerism and for the work you have done as well.

Taking a look at this issue, you have described very well what we're looking at. It can be the girl next door. It can be people from abroad. I remember when Timea Nagy first came into Canada. She was trafficked from Hungary, as you know, and she was in a much different place from where she is right now, as one of the leaders in Canada, in my opinion, for helping victims of human trafficking.

In regard to the case you referred to in terms of the forced labour, I know between Timea, Toni Skarica, and a few of us, we did a lot of work on that one.

Looking at this whole bill from Maria Mourani, as you know, Bill C-268 and Bill C-310 did certain things to help with this issue of human trafficking. I would like you to talk a little bit more about how Bill C-452 will help the victims of human trafficking, because that is the issue here, where the victims go to court and they won't talk. I know for the men in the forced labour case it was a horrendous experience, and they actually had organized crime from Hungary after them as well, trying to come into Canada. In Bill C-310 we authorized the assumption of extraterritorial jurisdiction so that Canadian prosecution could happen if Canadian citizens or permanent residents who commit human trafficking went abroad. Then we had an interpretive provision, which expanded the definition of human trafficking to enable the courts to bring justice to these perpetrators. Bill C-452 will help the victims as well.

Mr. Hooper, I would like you to expand on your explanation of how this bill would apply to help these victims. Could you do that for us?

[Robert Hooper]

I think what I have called the reverse onus or the presumption clause will assist. From my limited experience with victims and in my discussions with our three front-line workers, when particularly a trafficked woman is removed from the circumstances and has three months, six months, nine months of normal life, if that's what it's called, sometimes in a different city or a different province, particularly Vancouver often, they come back to be revictimized, and there's the pressure...the quote we often hear, if I can paraphrase it, is that if they don't perform, which is kind of an ironic way to say it, this case goes down the tubes. It's all on their shoulders.

So again, with this presumption it will assist that there will be other evidence gathered, and if a case can be built on top of that testimony, so that it's not the only testimony available, even from a psychological or subconscious view, it will make women in particular feel better in coming forward, because it feels like the system is on their side as opposed to on the traffickers' side.

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

Do I have time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Hooper. I'm going to ask you another question.

You hit on something that is so critical, which is that the victim is very reluctant to testify, because what do they get out of it? They can go to court and their very lives are on the line if things don't go well in the court. Often they back down. I know of a case in Montreal where there was a mistrial and the victim has to come back again a year from now; they sort of dragged that out. They have a lot of thinking time during that time, and a lot of memories come back.

Is there something in the bill that you think could reassure the victims? I'm not sure, even when bills are passed, victims get the message that it's okay for them to testify, that they will be protected and the perpetrators will come to justice. That seems to be a huge issue, and it would be for anybody, especially these poor little girls and boys who get caught up in this kind of web of deception.

Can you comment on that at all, Mr. Hooper?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thirty seconds, Mr. Hooper.

[Robert Hooper]

Something in the system that gives support.... I know our courts presently have victim services inside the court, but the quick example is a woman who had to go back to Halifax. Our system doesn't provide a social worker or somebody to go with her. She now gets on an airplane by herself to go to Halifax, to take a taxi, or whatever the system provides, to a courthouse by herself, where her trafficker is. I can't imagine that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. Thank you for those questions and for those answers.

From the Liberal Party, Ms. Murray is with us today.

Thank you very much for coming. You have five minutes.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I appreciate that. Thank you for providing testimony here. It's great to be sitting in as a guest committee member.

I want to congratulate the member from St. Paul for the work that you've done over the years.

Ms. Legault-Roy, you mentioned sporting events. I actually tabled a motion a year before the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics that I was hoping to have unanimous consent for, to have an action plan to counter human trafficking, consistent with our obligations under the Palermo Protocol. We had the member from St. Paul's support that; unfortunately, I didn't get unanimous consent.

But it's great to see forward movement on this issue. I understand the Liberal Party is very supportive of Madame Mourani's bill—extending the jurisdiction to crimes outside of Canada; there are a number of different factors in it.

We have some concerns about two aspects in particular. One of them is the issue of consecutive sentence as opposed to concurrent sentence. My understanding is that the judges already have the power to impose a consecutive sentence. To take away flexibility from judges, to use their judgment, is always something to be done with a great deal of care. I'd like you to respond as to why you feel it's important, given that there's already the opportunity for judges to do consecutive sentencing.

Secondly, we have some concerns about the presumption of guilt and the potential situations where minors might be implicated and may not have the capacity or the resources, or even the situation, the support, in their lives to be able to defend themselves in a presumption of guilt situation.

I'd like to hear both of your comments on those two issues.

Thank you.

[Éliane Legault-Roy]

Mr. Chair, with respect to the presumption of guilt, this is already the case for procuring, and it generally works quite well. Police officers and agents normally lay charges only if the individual living with the prostitute encourages her to engage in prostitution for the purpose of exploiting her. However, the act is enforced with a degree of flexibility if the individual is a co-tenant, husband or the child of the person living on the avails of prostitution.

I am in favour of the presumption of innocence being applied in exploitation cases. I think that we have proven to date that we are capable of applying it judiciously. As for consecutive sentences, I am not a lawyer; this is not my specialty. However, I believe that the idea is to prevent certain things. We see that drug traffickers receive different sentences from those of human traffickers, who are punished only once for their crime, even though several girls work for them. I believe the idea here is to avoid this kind of pitfall.

[Robert Hooper]

With respect to consecutive sentences, I gave an anecdotal story of what one of the labour slave's position was on that. I think you deter victims from coming away once those stories hit the street or when they're in the newspaper that one or ten.... Unfortunately, or fortunately, the way our criminal justice system presently works, concurrent sentences are the norm. So if we're going to give human dignity to victim two, three, four, and five, I see no other way but to pull back on that discretion and send a very clear message to these people who are not paying taxes, who are ruining young women in our society. A clear message has to be sent that this is a serious crime that this country takes seriously. I have no qualms in our organization. We've debated at our board that it's a good thing.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'd like to ask a question on that specifically.

Is there any evidence? Anecdotal is not sufficient to change a law in a way that can have such far-reaching implications. Given the kind of money that can be made in that situation, is there any evidence that heavier sentencing is a deterrent?