Justice Committee on Sept. 24th, 2018

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Professor Sheehy, I'd like to ask you a question because I don't understand something that came up a couple of times in the presentations. It's with regard to a distinction on sexual assaults that are proceeded with summarily. You made allusion to the fact that they are being treated distinctly. I'm not aware of that problem. Why do you think that?

[Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy]

I've already explained it to the analysts over there. It's just that the bill amends all the other sections that deal with summary conviction forms of assault. All of them have been amended to change the maximum sentence from either six months or 18 months to the new default, which is two years. The only one that was not amended is sexual assault. It stands at 18 months maximum.

It has it specifically in section 271 and it just hasn't been changed. I'm sure it's an oversight.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. That's very helpful.

I'd like to pick up on a question Mr. Rankin was asking regarding the charter. Ms. Smithen was speaking to it.

Reversing the onus at a bail hearing without any fact pattern ever having been tested in court strikes me as fundamentally problematic as far as the presumption of innocence goes. I think there probably would be a charter issue in doing that.

All three of you who've presented have said that you're in favour of doing it. I wonder if you've given thought to the Charter of Rights.

[Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy]

There is another reverse onus in section 515, which is a reverse onus for people charged with drug trafficking offences—not convicted, but charged—and that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the reverse onus on the basis that these are the kinds of offenders who are more able to abscond and in fact—in some ways drawing on common assumptions and not even necessarily evidence—a category of offenders who are well connected and able to escape jurisdiction and escape the charges.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Do you know the name of that case? I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with it.

[Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy]

I didn't teach criminal law the last two fall semesters.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

That's okay; we'll find it. Thank you all very much.

[Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy]

I'll send an email.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks, Professor, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Again, it was a little bit of a disjointed panel because we made you wait during that break, but I really appreciate your bearing with us. Thank you so much to both of you; it's really appreciated.

We'll take a brief recess as I ask the next panel to please come forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We are reconvening this meeting. I would like to thank the participants in our last panel for bearing with us while we ran a little bit late because of the votes.

We are joined today by Ms. Joy Smith, the founder and president of Joy Smith Foundation Inc. and a former member of Parliament.

Welcome, Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Founder and President, Joy Smith Foundation Inc.]

Thank you very much. It's an honour to be here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We will also be hearing, by video conference from Japan, Ms. Maria Mourani, a former member of Parliament, who is also a criminologist and sociologist.

Welcome, Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Criminologist and Sociologist, President of Mouranie-Criminologie, As an Individual]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We also welcome Ms. Marie-Eve Sylvestre, who is a professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa, Civil Law Section.

Welcome, Ms. Sylvestre.

[Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Full Professor, Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Good day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We're also joined by the London Abused Women's Centre. We have Ms. Megan Walker, the executive director, who is a regular at committee. Welcome.

[Megan Walker, Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

As we agreed, we will begin with the witnesses who are joining us by video conference in order not to interrupt that and not lose the communication.

Ms. Smith, Madam Mourani, you're going to go first. You have up to eight minutes. I won't cut you off until 10, but try to stick to eight if you can.

The first person will be Ms. Smith, and then Madam Mourani.

Ms. Smith, you're up.

[Joy Smith]

Thank you, Chair. I thank the committee for examining this Bill C-75.

I also want to say hello to my colleagues. I was a member of Parliament for close to 12 years. I know how hard you all work on this committee. I'm glad to have some input into it.

I have to say that Bill C-75 concerns me greatly. I think there are some strengths in it, but I want to address the part about human trafficking.

I don't think a lot of people understand human trafficking. Human trafficking is when young girls, mostly, are targeted and groomed in such a way that they sometimes get confidence in their predators, and then they eventually end up trafficked.

When I look at Bill C-75, I have concerns. You can see through this bill that the understanding of the global and Canadian issue of human trafficking isn't here. There are a lot of things that are not addressed. There are laws that are being.... The criminals actually get a bit of a break in what they do.

I want to talk about human trafficking so that you understand it. I've dealt with hundreds of survivors of human trafficking. They live a very horrible existence. Predators target their victims.

I'll give you an example. I know of a young girl who was very beautiful. She lived in a very good family. She was very knowledgeable in her school studies and everything; she did a great job. She went to a summer program at a community centre, and some cute guys showed up.

There were five of these girls who had been friends for a lot of years. Now, people would say that only the most vulnerable or people who don't have good families are the ones who are subject to human trafficking. That wouldn't be true.

Anybody who is a girl—and boys as well, but mainly girls—can be targeted and trafficked and eventually lured into the sex trade through no fault of their own. This particular girl came from a very nice family. Her parents dropped her off at the community centre. They gave her a cellphone to call them when she went home, but what happened to this girl is typical of a lot of trafficked victims.

Some cute guys showed up and sweet-talked the girls. The girls were 14 and 15 years old, and they quickly fell in love. The traffickers took them to parties. The girls were told to tell their parents that they were at sleepovers. They weren't at their friends' places at all; they were at parties with these cute guys, or what they thought were cute guys. The guys were giving them fancy restaurant meals, taking them in limos, giving them gold chains, making them feel very special, telling them that they loved them and that someday they would get married.

The whole scenario changed one night, and the tide suddenly turned. One night the guys got together and said to the girls, “You know what? You have to pay us back for all the gifts we've given you, and this is how you're going to do it.” The girls objected, especially Malana, who objected very much, and they beat her very badly. She was threatened. They told her they were going to go to her school and that they were going to go to her parents and tell them what she'd been doing. She'd already been servicing some men for her boyfriend, because the boyfriend had told her they were trying to get some money for a house, that she had such a beautiful body, that dancing in the strip bar just meant that it was art and everyone would watch her.

This is the deceptive part of human trafficking. What happened to her eventually is that she was gang-raped. She was sold to another trafficker.

Five of them went through very similar experiences. The other four have disappeared. My foundation helped the fifth one through many years of rehabilitation and reschooling, getting her in school again, because a lot of these survivors of human trafficking miss a great deal of their education—four, five, six, seven years if they survive that long.

Human trafficking is very lucrative. Traffickers make between $260,000 to $280,000 a year. This is a horrible inflicted pain on very young girls. Why do they pick people who are underaged or very young girls? It's because they're easy to intimidate. They're easy to scare. They pick the very young and they can brainwash them over and over again.

When I look at Bill C-75 and I see some of the penalties that are very light, I would suggest there be another study on human trafficking, and particularly the harm it does to these young people. They are forever changed. To put it out there that prostitution is an industry is wrong: no, it's the greatest affliction against women. I haven't met any young girl who wanted to be in this at all.

The perpetrators and the others around this crime make a great deal of money out of it, and that's why they do it. I know when I was in Parliament for 12 years it was my responsibility to stand up for the most vulnerable. People have to understand.

When I look at the committee today, I see primarily men around this committee and I see a couple of women sitting at the end of it. There's Maria.

Maria, thanks. It's so nice to see you. She's done very good work on the human trafficking file. When I see Megan Walker and others who have worked so long, so many years, with victims and survivors of human trafficking, and some of the things that we see along the way.... I worked 23 years in total trying to stop it, and my foundation now still works to educate the schools and the school children about how predators work and how they can protect themselves.

To me, this Bill C-75 is building a new philosophy around human trafficking. It's almost like this is okay. The criminal charges are lighter. It seems to me there's a lot of misunderstanding about human trafficking. I would suggest it is imperative that parliamentarians actually find out about it. Talk to survivors.

There is a segment of women who make a lot of money in the prostitution field, and they lure other young girls in, but these are not the trafficking victims. These are the people who, it's been my experience, make a great deal of money off the innocence of the very young. I think when parliamentarians are around the table, they have to have a view of respect for women. It has to have a view that there is no glass ceiling. Women have a right to be safe. They have a right to be honoured. I don't see this in this bill to any great extent.

Human trafficking keeps going on. I know. I've been in schools. Our foundation now goes to schools all over the country, and I don't make any money off the foundation at all. I do it as a labour of love, because I've fallen in love with the survivors and the very many survivors who told me their stories. I've fallen in love with the people who have stood up for them for years. I think this Parliament now has to take this very seriously. I know that in the schools, no matter what school I go into, when I talk about human trafficking and how the predators work, I have several girls coming up.

I was in a school last week. There were a lot of students there. I spoke to grade 5 right up to grade 12. From each grade, ladies and gentlemen, students came up once they found out how predators work, and said, “You know what? I think my boyfriend is grooming me.” I asked them why they thought that, and they would tell me things. They would say, “Well, I fell in love with him. He's so wonderful.” A couple of them said that they intended to get married, but actually the boys were suggesting things that kind of shocked them.

They wanted to get some money, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Smith, you're up to 11 minutes now. Could you try to wrap it up? It's because we have three other witnesses on the panel. Thanks.

[Joy Smith]

Oh, sorry about that. I don't have a stopwatch here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Anyway, I think it's an issue that needs to be taken very seriously, and I don't think Bill C-75 reflects that the way it should.

Thank you for this time that I've been able to give input to this committee. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

To refresh your recollection, you asked for a study. We are in the process of doing a study on human trafficking. We have travelled the country, meeting with people. You were, in fact, one of our witnesses on the study. We haven't yet come out with our report, but there is a study that is currently being done. Hopefully you'll be happy with that study.

Ms. Mourani, you have the floor.

[Maria Mourani]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

It's always a great pleasure to be with you. I thank the committee for its invitation. I also want to greet my former colleague Joy Smith, with whom I worked extensively on this issue when I was an MP.

As you can probably imagine, I will not discuss all of the provisions contained in Bill C-75, which is quite long. I will simply address the provisions that concern my bill on human trafficking, which is Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons). The bill was tabled for first reading on October 2012, and passed unanimously at second and third readings, as you know. It then passed all of the stages in the Senate and received Royal Assent on June 18, 2015.

I will focus more specifically on clause 389 of Bill C-75, since that clause establishes the coming into force of clauses 1, 2 and 4 of Bill C-452, and stipulates that clause 3 must be the subject of an order. Its coming into force is thus subject to an order, which is to say that this depends on the government's will to do so; the government clearly expressed its opposition to this clause at the time.

I know that several members around this table are new and were not members of Parliament during the previous Parliament. So I want to provide some explanation about how this bill came into being.

The bill was the result of a consultation that lasted several years. Many groups were consulted, including women's groups, victims' aid groups, victims themselves, and police officers—several police forces were consulted. The bill was also reviewed by criminal law jurists in Quebec. And so it was studied and studied again, and developed into the bill you see now.

A criminological analysis was also done of the phenomenon of trafficking in persons in Canada, which led us to understand that there were gaps in our Criminal Code that need to be filled in. Our observations led us to the following conclusions: first, trafficking in persons is very, very lucrative. People who pursue this criminal activity make a lot of money. The phenomenon is not unique to Canada; it is global. In fact, several experts believe that the proceeds from this criminal activity are second only to drug trafficking, and that it is even more lucrative than arms dealing. It's appalling!

Not only is human trafficking lucrative, it causes incredible suffering for the victims. I can tell you that in the course of my professional work, since the end of the 90s, I have met many, many victims. What they have to say, the suffering of these victims, is unimaginable, and defies description. It can sometimes even make you wonder if it is real. You react by thinking that this can't be, how can such things happen here, in Canada?

The most common form of trafficking in persons in Canada is internal trafficking. So this directly involves our girls, girls who are moved all over Canada to be subjected to the the most prevalent form of trafficking in the country: sexual exploitation. This is what I will focus on. There is also, of course, some trafficking involving forced labour. To my knowledge, organ trafficking is not happening in Canada, but it's possible that it is. It may simply be that we haven't caught the perpetrators yet; I don't know.

Trafficking in persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation is not only the most prevalent form of trafficking, but it generates billions of dollars for the sex industry. For instance, it has been determined that 11% of men in Canada have purchased the services of prostitutes. Comparison can be comforting, as the saying goes: in the Netherlands, that figure is 60%. In Germany it is 66%, and in Cambodia, 65%. In Sweden, where the approach is completely different, it drops to 8.5%. Don't forget that when prostitution is legalized, trafficking increases, as does consumption.

Human trafficking in Canada and internationally mostly involves women and children. The average age of entry into prostitution in Canada is about 14. I have met victims who became prostitutes at 13. Others were forced into prostitution at 10 or 11. The average however is 14, 15, and 16. And yet we aren't in Thailand, we are in Canada.

For a five-year period, from 2007 to 2013, 40% of victims identified as such in Canada were minors. This confirms the global trend, where an increase in the statistics involving minors has been noted. The victims are of course mostly girls rather than boys.

The cities that are reputed to be trafficking hubs are Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto. Canada is recognized as a transit country, a country where recruitment takes place, and a sex tourism destination. These observations were made by the RCMP and the American State Department. What is very compelling is that on average, a perpetrator who exploits a victim sexually can make between $168,000 to $336,000 per year from one victim. These are RCMP figures, once again. As I said, trafficking is very lucrative.

Bill C-452 had two objectives: to make trafficking less lucrative, or not lucrative at all, and to protect the victims. Our consultation made us realize that trafficking is a crime that needs a victim; we need the testimony of a victim. However, as you know, the victims are either terrorized or in love with and under the spell of their pimps. They suffer from PTSD, Stockholm syndrome and all sorts of psychological ailments. But without victims, it is extremely difficult to conduct investigations.

We also saw that when we managed to get investigations done that led to convictions, the penalties did not fit the crimes. The victims said that quite often the traffickers were charged with three or four offences and were sentenced to the full extent of the law, as that is the system we had. The victims did not understand. A pimp was charged with trafficking, pimping, aggravated assault, attempted murder, and in the end, the offender was sentenced for the most serious offence, but this was a light sentence as compared to the gravity of all of the crimes committed. Consequently the victims felt that they were subjected to another injustice at the hands of the system. They wound up feeling that there was no point denouncing the trafficker and having to go through all of that judicial process.

So basically, we had to find a way to remedy all of this. I felt—and this was supported by my various partners—that if we could make trafficking less lucrative it would be less attractive, and involve a lot of risks for the traffickers. This would create a balance. First, we had to do something that still does not exist in our system, and that is an aberration, and that is to confiscate the proceeds of criminality. This is done in the case of big drug traffickers, but not for human trafficking. So we added that.

Someone who gets caught and is convicted must demonstrate that all of his assets are not derived from trafficking and the sexual exploitation of girls. On the one hand, the state may take away everything he owns. In addition, given the reversal of the burden of proof, investigations can be held without the need for the testimony of a victim. This is due to the victim protection process. They are not obliged to testify; the police officers are the ones who must gather the necessary evidence to charge a trafficker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Mourani, the 10 minutes you had are up. I must ask you to conclude your presentation.