I'm certainly aware of many cases, and certainly some cases I've been consulted on, in which police or the crown were considering human trafficking charges and ultimately didn't lay those in favour of using the material benefit provision or the procuring offences in the Criminal Code. It's because the definition of trafficking that Canada has chosen really puts a burden on the victim to show their own exploitation and to show that the exploitation took place in some way through threats or the fear of force.
My understanding is that the amendments, if brought into force, would create an evidentiary presumption that might decrease the need to have victims testify, but that resumption can be rebutted, and it still requires, again, evidence of threats or violence, yet we see many cases in which the control is exercised by other means. Judge Morrison referred to the Moazami case in Vancouver, which proceeded under the regular material benefit or living on the avails provisions as they existed. He did things such as buy the young women dogs and then threaten to harm the dogs if they didn't comply. There are all sorts of techniques of control that don't meet the very narrow definition that's in the code.