Justice Committee on July 10th, 2014

[Christa Big Canoe]

With respect, I would disagree. Minister MacKay also said that, and relied on, the $20 million that has been so notoriously discussed through these meetings about not being enough. His response was that, in addition, there is the legislative monetary response and that they would partner with first nations and other aboriginal agencies.

First nations aboriginal agencies, aboriginal individuals, are diverse in this country. There are over 600 nations. There is Métis. There is Inuit. So, for example, in that diversity of opinion…and Mr. Piragoff also talked about things like the consultation of this legislation. His response was that they had spoken with a few first nations. Never is “a few” enough first nations to actually get that consultation. So who will the partnerships be made with? Minister MacKay's response was, well, there's the money.

Quite frankly, in the proposed legislation, I'm not seeing any type of clause that allows for an exclusion or for a direct application of paragraph 718.2(e) or the Gladue principles to come in place. In fact, Mr. Piragoff stated that it will have to comply with whatever is put in place.

What you're asking to do in law is you're saying that one provision of the same code is going to be equal to the other, but what he is saying is that it's going to be paramount because it's a mandatory minimum. Technically, they are both provisions of the same code and in this case, constitutionalism sort of trumps.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

We heard testimony earlier in the week from Ms. Ekberg. Do you know who I'm talking about?

[Christa Big Canoe]

Yes, the Canadian that assisted with the development of the Swedish legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's right. We all know who we're talking about, at least.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

She talked about Canada's international obligations, and the UN declaration, and the absence of any recognition of that in the preamble. I take it by the fact that you know the pronunciation of her name that you probably also watched her testimony.

What would be your response to her recommendation to include, in the preamble of the bill, a recognition of Canada's international obligations toward first nations?

[Christa Big Canoe]

I am going to reference only the UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Interestingly, and I don't have time to get into it, there is a whole level of autonomy and self-governance, and a lot of models. It's one thing to say to respect it, but then that also allows first nations and aboriginal communities...who may define things like sex work or prostitution much differently than Canadian law does. So I doubt that the committee would necessarily want to include that. However, there are actual international obligations, as a signatory to it, to actually be in compliance with it. I don't think dropping it into the preamble necessarily means you are complying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner from the Conservative Party is Mr. Wilks.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

My questions will be directed towards Ms. Pond.

Thanks for being here today. I am also a retired member of the force, and I remember pre-charter as well. I think that it is still an evolving document that challenges police from time to time.

Having said that, you mentioned that there are other tools available to police if section 213 were not there. Could you tell me what tools would allow the police to extract a person of vulnerability from a place if they would not have the authority, legally, to do that through the Criminal Code?

[Deborah Pond]

I think we've seen the example of how the York Regional Police police individuals who are involved in prostitution. We've discussed it with them. They have built those relationships with these individuals. They have intervened where they have charged the pimps, charged the traffickers. They have developed that trusting relationship to be able to have the women come as witnesses if they are still in the exploited situation. They have built up and maintained contact with them. When the young woman has decided that they want out of the exploited situation, they then contact the police. The police are able to provide services to different agencies, and a venue for them to be able to exit.

With regard to the profits being made by individuals, they have the proceeds of crime legislation where they're able to go after an organization or individual who benefits from the profit-making with regard to prostitution. They're able to seize those illicit assets and wealth and are able to take that out of the organizations that are benefiting.

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

That's pimps and organizations, whether it be through organized crime and/or other means.

Getting back to the victim, in most cases the first point of contact is with the police through some form of violence, normally always in cases of a form of violence, and a lot of them are in a position where, if they are under the control of a pimp or a person in authority, they feel very compelled not to speak to the police through more threats of violence.

Would you agree with that statement?

[Deborah Pond]

Yes, I would agree, but I think still the police are able to separate. It's like when you go into a domestic violence situation, you don't leave the person who has perpetrated the violence against the victim. You separate them. You talk to them separately.

I think it's the same case here. You would take the victim and you would be speaking with them separately from the pimp or the trafficker. If it means—

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

If I may, Ms. Pond, I think there is a slight difference between the example that you provide. That is, under normal circumstances under a domestic dispute, there will be an assault...by two people in a residence, to which you know who the perpetrator is, and you can arrest for that assault because it's an offence to which you can prove whom the person is that did the assault. Given the example of a police officer being called to a scene to which there is a person in distress, they enter the building or a place, they see a person, male or female, who has obviously been assaulted—let's use the case of a black eye or something that can visibly be seen as a black eye, or a physical assault—and there is another person there who is telling the police, “Get lost. This is none of your business. It has nothing to do with you.”

Then you ask the victim, him or her, “Can you tell me what happened?” Under the circumstance that they will say, “There there is nothing wrong, so please leave”. What authority would the police have to speak with that person if it were not for section 213, in relation to an offence under section 213?

[Deborah Pond]

In relation to section 213, if they are communicating in public, they would not be able to arrest them in relation to that. They would have to talk to the individual. Again, we separate the individuals who are involved in those types of instances. You would talk to them separately, and get the information from them.

You do not arrest an individual to just take them out of the situation and then release them unless you're going to investigate to charge them. You're still detaining them. If you're detaining them, you're technically arresting them.

Again, you would need to talk to the individuals separately. You would be able to gather your evidence and your information to be able to assess what the situation is. You may have to walk away, and you may have to have the contact again with that individual, with the victim, to be able to determine what is happening.

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

You brought up something that is quite concerning for any police officer and that is that you may have to walk away, and I believe that is not what any police officer would want to do.

Having said that, from the perspective of police training, as you know, police training has evolved throughout the years, whether it be the RCMP or others. They've got into a lot of role-playing within the RCMP at Depot to be able to give first-hand ability to recruits. Do you think there is a potential for some form of that type of training that would assist police officers coming out of Depot to better understand the magnitude of this type of crime?

[Deborah Pond]

I certainly think role-playing and any kind of training that police do, whether it's RCMP or other police departments, it would be essential for police to be able to determine how they need to act in certain situations. It gives them a sense of being able to walk into a situation with more confidence. As you approach situations you know as an officer that you think about what you're going to say and what you can face. As they do these role plays and as the police do internal training, I think it's essential for the police to do this, and they are doing that now. I often hear police talk about the kind of training that they're having for human trafficking and prostitution and other events. As they develop, yes, I believe they need to do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner from the New Democratic Party is Madam Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Many thanks to all our witnesses for agreeing to appear before us.

I'll try to do my best.

Ms. Big Canoe, I think you've touched on an important paragraph on the decision, paragraph 121, which talks about the balance between the individuals at risk.... You were pretty eloquent on making the difference between the existing laws that we have relating to exploitation and trafficking, which I would just like to cite that it is imprisonment for life for someone trafficking in persons, which is article 279.01.

I would like you to continue on the fact that there are statistics on human trafficking and on exploitation and the difference between the legislation we have here and the legislation already in place.

[Christa Big Canoe]

Yes, in response to that, article 279.01, which you were talking about, is actually a provision that allows for the prosecution of human trafficking. Interestingly, when we've done research on it to understand what the differences are...because what we're hearing from a lot of witnesses is the interconnectedness. What we're not hearing are the distinct differences between trafficking and sex work.

Essentially, when we look for numbers, we're not finding a large number of convicted traffickers. The point I was making earlier is: why is it that law that already exists in Canada isn't being enforced or used? Often, in articles in the academic realm of this, what you hear is talk about the difficulty enforcement agencies have nailing it down, because trafficking is elusive and everything. So the question I had to this committee is how that is going to change by the provisions that you're now proposing. Also, what can be done to change that, if it's not already occurring?

In terms of exploitive relationships, one of the things that Bedford does define is what an exploitive relationship is and what it isn't, but it doesn't do it well. There was an earlier question your friend had asked in relation to that, about whether it would be better if we defined that. It's already defined in law and it's already defined in international law, what exploitive behaviour is. It doesn't seem to me that this particular proposed bill has actually looked at that well enough to understand or to distinguish the differences between sex work. Bedford was about sex work; it wasn't about trafficking. We have laws in Canada about trafficking that aren't actually being used well. Maybe addressing those laws would be of assistance.

What is exploitive and what's defined as exploitive? So relationships that help.... An example of this is when a city has massage parlours and they allow for licensing. Is the city living off the avails of prostitution? Is that going to be one of the exemptions under this new legislation? Is that exploitive? Is the city making money? Is it capitalizing or commodifying the same way the friends on the panel have discussed it? Because there's a big difference between exploitive nature and exploitive relationships.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

It's just really important and interesting to note that the section of the buying and the section of benefiting financially was put in the trafficking section of the Criminal Code, and not as crimes against the person. So it was put in the trafficking section of the Criminal Code.

My next question would be for Mr. and Ms. Brock. Thank you very much for everything, and I can't wait to see your movie, so I hope I'm going to be able to get a copy of your work on the net. I can't wait to see it. My question would be concerning...because you've been on the ground so you've talked to people and you know what's going on. As I was asking Ms. Big Canoe, we have a problem with implementing laws. We had the same problem with domestic violence, which, before, we had laws that existed but they weren't implemented. Trust me, studying law, I've seen the progress on implementing the laws.

What would you say was the biggest obstacle for the police officers and for people on the ground to be able to get people out of trafficking? What are the resources needed? It just leads me to my question about the $20 million for five years, which is $4 million for five years. We know that one province in Canada, which is Manitoba, spends at least $8 million per year for that. I'm pretty sure that provinces like Ontario and Quebec spend probably much more, but I wasn't able to ask the question. So what's different between Bill C-36 and the existing laws? Is it really going to change something? Or do we need more resources on the ground to be able to target the pimps, to target the traffickers?

Thank you very much.

[Jared Brock]

Well, Mr. Chair, who doesn't want more money from the government.

We went to 80 cities, and they're looking to the federal government for a signal. What I think Bill C-36 does is it sends a signal that human beings are not to be bought and sold. We see that there are victims of circumstance, so let's decriminalize. But at the same time—and this is the key for us—we need to end demand for paid sex.

So we spoke with the head of anti-trafficking in Stockholm, and he said that it's a great tool to address demand. Now women can come to the police and they're not criminals and they can ask for help. If they want to get out, they have the opportunity. But at the same time, the police can really go after demand. So they're seeing that as a tool, as a weapon to fight trafficking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Did you want to add anything?

[Michelle Brock]

Just really quickly, to add to that too, I think it is really difficult to actually catch traffickers because the supply chain is pretty long and often crosses borders. So when you start going after their profit, that's when things start to change. Going after johns would be easier for police but would also cut into the profits of traffickers, so we feel like that might be another tool that police could use.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

The next questioner from the Conservative Party is Ms. Ambler.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of you for being here today, and we really do appreciate that you've informed our study of the bill in this way.

I wanted to continue along Madam Péclet's line of questioning because I was going to ask Michelle and Jared Brock also about supply and demand, and whether we can really reduce demand. You mentioned that in Sweden when the new laws were enacted, it started a national conversation. I think that's what we're doing here as well, and that's what the bill will do.

But is that what causes the reduction in demand, the knowledge that it's no longer acceptable to buy sex? Is it that simple? Where do these men go who have cash in their pockets and they're looking to buy sex? What happens? Do they just magically disappear? I don't know.

[Jared Brock]

Men go where it's easiest to pay for sex.