Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon.
I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to come back and talk about some of these issues that we'll be discussing today. I was glad to learn that the committee had decided to spend some time reviewing some of the issues that are associated with the gathering of information and reporting on the national situation with respect to human trafficking.
One of the problems that we all have--not just in Canada, but everywhere in the world--is that in order to develop good policies and strategies to respond to human trafficking, we need good data. Every one of us needs good data, and very few of us, whether it's in Canada or elsewhere, have actually managed to develop systems that provide that kind of reliable information that we all seek.
I know that the committee has expressed an interest, in particular, in the mechanism of a national rapporteur or something equivalent, so some of my comments will be directed toward that question in particular. However, before I get there, I would like to remind the committee, although I am sure committee members already have fully grasped some of those difficulties, that to fully understand the merit of a national rapporteur system, one has to understand some of the difficulties that exist in collecting data and information on human trafficking--the patterns and modi operandi and so on--as well as information on our response and whether or not it is achieving results.
In order to understand the usefulness of a mechanism like this, one needs to perhaps spend a few minutes in considering some of the very specific difficulties that exist in collecting information on human trafficking. I have a list of 12 here, and I will go through them very quickly, because I'm sure that some of those have already become apparent to members of the committee.
Here is my top 12 list of difficulties in getting reliable information on human trafficking.
The first one is that human trafficking oftentimes occurs without the victim herself knowing that she is being victimized until much later in the process. So simply asking people whether they're being victimized or not is not always sufficient.
Second, as a crime, human trafficking is better understood as a process rather than as a single event. The picture you get depends on which part of the process you look at. Thus, there is difficulty in trying to measure and understand what is happening.
Third, the victims are often hesitant to come forward. I am absolutely certain that you've heard that many times. Victim identification is one major issue when it comes to responding to human trafficking. Of course, if victims are not identified, how are you going to try to count them or measure how we respond to those cases?
Fourth, this is, of course, a crime that oftentimes involves organized criminal groups. It typically involves intimidation and a fear of retaliation, so there is enormous pressure on the victims not to report the incident to authorities. When they do report it to helpful groups--to victim assistance groups and other NGOs--they oftentimes do so on the express condition that this will not be brought to the attention of the authorities.
Also, there are many cases of victims' or individuals' alleging to be victims in cases which later prove not to be genuine instances of human trafficking. That's not to say that these people are not necessarily in dire situations or do not need assistance, but they do not meet the criteria.
Another question that makes it difficult is that all of the people who are involved in responding to human trafficking issues are not necessarily using the same definition of it. So oftentimes when you gather information from those different agencies, you are in fact comparing apples and oranges.
There's also a great potential for duplication of data. It's not uncommon for victims of human trafficking to seek assistance from more than one organization, and also to seek assistance or protection from law enforcement. Given that that information is hard to track from one agency to another, if you simply add up all of the cases, you really have an exaggerated number at the end because you're possibly counting the same person two, three, four, or five times.
The police also have access to intelligence. But of course, as you might realize, that information is very sensitive, and it's not something that can be exchanged readily with others.
The investigations also go on for a long period of time, which clearly makes a difference to how we are going to protect that information: it makes it very difficult for anyone to get access to that information, because one would not want to interfere with ongoing investigations, and so on.
The concept of establishing a national rapporteur is not something that is very familiar to Canadians, although the concept has existed in Europe since at least 1995 or 1996. Later on, in 2004, an expert group for the European Union actually looked at the concept and recommended that it be adopted as a basis for collecting information at the national level. Then, for using that information to make comparisons between countries, there's even a notion or suggestion that there should be a rapporteur for the whole of the European Union, a person who would basically collect that information from everywhere.
Let me just conclude, if I may, Madam Chair, with something that came out of that expert group that I think would help you in your deliberations around this potential mechanism or something equivalent. That expert group has delineated six conditions that distinguish this mechanism from others, and six characteristics that are essential to ensure that the mechanism can collect the information we all need.
The first one is that it must be independent and at arm's length from operational agencies.
The second condition is that it must have a very clear mandate.
The third is that the mandate must focus exclusively on data collection; it should not be mixed with other mandates, such as operations, advocacy, executive responsibilities, and so on. I could explain later why this is so important.
It also has to have authority to access confidential information. That is tricky, particularly in a country such as Canada, where there are all kinds of different levels of regulations, and legislation regulating access to private information, and so on.
Finally, that mechanism must be one where the quality of the report is not compromised, and where the rapporteur or the equivalent mechanism must be authorized to report either directly to Parliament, or to a minister, or directly to government, in a way such that the integrity of the information is protected.
Thank you.