“Harbours” is one of the actus reus verbs in the actual offence. Here, this is describing the related fact that the prosecutor would have to prove. So the prosecutor would prove “living with” or “habitually being in the company of” an exploited person, and once the prosecutor has done that, the prosecutor has made out an actual required element of the offence, which is exercising controlled direction or influence over the movements of that person.
It's a bit of a technical amendment but if you look at subsection 212(3), which is very helpful, it's modelled on subsection 212(3) which was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992, which was why we used that as a model.