Justice Committee on July 9th, 2014

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I wonder if we could go along that same line with regard to the services that are available, not only to those you deal with but also to the police. From the perspective of discretion, police officers utilize a lot of services that are made available to them, not only for people who fall under section 213 but for others as well.

I wonder if you could speak to some of the services that are available to police.

[Chief Eric Jolliffe]

I can tell you that in our business we can't do it alone, so we have partnered with many social service agencies to help us, for us to have the ability to point individuals in a different direction. Some of those partners have spoken here before to this committee, and we value their ability to partner with us and their ability to educate us on what goes on in the industry so that we can offer supports to those we see as victimized.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I wonder if we could now change focus. There are some we have heard witness from who have asked, “Why don't we just let the laws fall on December 20?“ and then we'll move forward from there. Could you give us an understanding from a police perspective of the laws falling on December 20 of this year versus Bill C-36? From the perspective of the police, if the laws fall, what can or cannot the police do versus with Bill C-36?

[Chief Eric Jolliffe]

We would lose the procuring piece. We would lose the communicating piece. For us, we need these tools to be able to find out what's going on in this business. As I said, we're always trying to find out if individuals have been victimized and without those tools we don't have the ability to intercede, ask those questions, nor help those individuals who desperately need the help.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

You mentioned also in your testimony the tools that fall under the Criminal Code of Canada to allow police to assist them in investigations. You also spoke of how long it takes to formulate the grounds and then the evidence to proceed with charges under human trafficking, and that sometimes you use other tools in the Criminal Code, such as sections 213, 212, 210 to move forward in that investigation.

I have a twofold question, through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Jolliffe. What would you say is the average time of investigation for a human trafficking charge, from the time you start to the time a charge is laid? What other tools do you use to try to get there?

It is important for people to understand that this doesn't happen overnight.

[Chief Eric Jolliffe]

No, you're absolutely right. For us to suss out an individual who we think is exploited sometimes takes weeks and sometimes takes months. For us to engage ourselves in what an individual may be up to and in our ability to build trust and confidence—which is so important for us, so that someone feels comfortable coming forward to share what is actually going on in their life—we can work files for days, for weeks, for months. We have a dedicated staff of seven in this particular area, and every day of the week they are out in our community trying to disrupt the whole human trafficking piece.

As I said, in the last four years we have extricated nearly 100 young folks from this industry who we didn't know existed until we put the energy in and put the resources to it to find out what actually is going on here.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the Liberal Party, is Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief Jolliffe, I want to follow up on a couple of things that you were asked already and a couple of things that you've said.

One thing you said is that your department has not availed itself of the power you have under section 213 to charge any sex workers in the last five years. But when you were asked by Mr. Wilks about what would happen if, on December 20, Bill C-36 wasn't passed, you said you would be concerned that you would lose the communicating piece. You said that the communicating piece is one that you don't use, but you're concerned about losing it.

Can you explain that to me?

[Chief Eric Jolliffe]

That's the tool piece; that's what opens the door for us. We use the section in the code to give us the authorities to interject ourselves into a process and then determine where it will take us. In most cases, it takes us on a much lengthier route whereby we start to find out that the individual is not acting on their own accord. What it does for us is provide the opening of the door for us to get in and begin an investigation of something of a much bigger magnitude.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Does that mean that you use section 213 for the purposes of apprehending a sex worker, whom you then attempt to extricate with the possibility of a charge under section 213 hanging over that person's head, but that you never actually deliver on what is hanging over that person's head? Is that what you mean by having it as a tool that you never actually use?

[Chief Eric Jolliffe]

As I said, we have never charged a prostitute under that particular section of the code. We use it as a tool to help us get to much bigger things.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Section 213 of the code carries with it a maximum sanction of a $5,000 fine and six months in jail. Is that correct?

[Chief Eric Jolliffe]

It's a summary conviction offence, as written in Bill C-36.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

As a summary conviction offence, it carries with it a maximum sanction of a fine of $5,000 and six months in jail. Is that correct?

You're nodding your head; that isn't picked up by recording. Is that a yes?

[Chief Eric Jolliffe]

Yes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

So if someone were applying for a job and the job application asked, “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which you have not received a pardon?” or in the new language “a record suspension”, and someone has been charged—and I realize you haven't done it in five years—and convicted under section 213, they can't rightfully answer no to that question on a job application form, can they?

[Chief Eric Jolliffe]

No.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

Professor Ekberg, thank you for your testimony.

I'm interested in your comments with respect to the communication provisions. I hope I'm not incorrectly paraphrasing what you said, but if I understand it, you think that the communications provisions, which are being retained after a successful challenge, are bad policy. Would that be fair?

[Gunilla Ekberg]

If you're referring to the communication offence that is related to those who are exploited in prostitution, if that is retained that would make bad policy, yes. But it would also have serious direct effects on the victims, obviously.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you. I appreciate your comment that it's bad policy, and that was exactly what I was driving at.

Do you have an opinion as to the constitutionality?

[Gunilla Ekberg]

I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Do you have an opinion as to the constitutionality of the retention of the public communication provisions in Bill C-36?

[Gunilla Ekberg]

As for the communication provision that relates to selling a sexual service, as it is phrased in the bill, I would argue that it is unconstitutional because it targets those who are victims of, first of all, a human rights violation but also a crime.

I think it would specifically be unconstitutional in terms of section 15 on a gender equality basis—so the equality based on sex—but also under other provisions, which I think the courts outlined to some extent in the decision.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

You referenced the absence in the preamble of any reference to the uniquely vulnerable position in which first nations find themselves. I'd be interested to hear a little more from you on that.

If there was reference to that in the preamble, how do you expect that might change the effect of Bill C-36 and how it is interpreted and applied by the courts?