(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
House of Commons Hansard #86 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was colombia.
House of Commons Hansard #86 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was colombia.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous agreement to support the motion before the House.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The House resumed from September 15 consideration of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the bill proposes changes to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with human trafficking. It creates a new offence for trafficking persons under the age of 18 and calls for a minimum sentence of five years for those convicted and life sentences for cases where death results. As the section is presently worded, there is no mandatory minimum sentence for the offence and no specific reference to age. Essentially, this bill says that if a victim is under the age of 18, there should be a minimum sentence of five years.
This bill is problematic for several reasons.
First, I will consider the use of mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums mean that if a person is convicted of a crime there is a minimum sentence that must be served. Mandatory minimums are based on a deterrence theory of punishment for which there is no evidence.
Anthony Doob and Cheryl Webster, in their article, “Sentence Severity and crime: Accepting the Null Hypothesis”, conclude that 25 years' worth of research, sometimes even in ideal conditions, has shown that there is no support for the idea that harsher sentences reduce crime. They also point out:
Deterrence-based sentencing makes false promises to the community. As long as the public believes that crime can be deterred by legislatures or judges through harsh sentences, there is no need to consider other approaches to crime reduction.
In other words, adding a harsher sentence is pretending to do something instead of actually doing something.
Next, the proposed changes to the Criminal Code are in keeping with the ad hoc approach that the government has to justice issues. When we make ad hoc changes, we are very likely to get changes that are entirely inconsistent with one another.
In the last comprehensive review of the sentencing provisions by Parliament specifically aimed at reducing the use of jail, section 718.2(e), states:
all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders...
The bill flies in the face of that, preventing the use of anything but imprisonment.
Let us consider other sentences in the Criminal Code.
Why are we proposing a minimum sentence for this offence when, for example, manslaughter does not have a minimum sentence? Aggravated sexual assault has no minimum sentence. Abduction of a child under 14 has no minimum sentence. Abandoning a child under 10 so his or her life is likely to be endangered has no minimum sentence. Perhaps most tellingly, taking a person under the age of 18 out of the country for the purpose of committing a sexual offence has no minimum sentence. Abduction of a person under the age of 16 or 14 has no minimum sentences.
What we have is a bill that attempts to divert our attention from the real issue of child trafficking and that makes it look like we are tough on crime, without actually dealing with the issues of crime and with child trafficking.
The Conservative government has clearly failed to deal with the issues of human trafficking. Despite the need for clear and effective policies and legislation, it has been content to leave this matter to a private member's bill.
This bill is in response to two cases of human trafficking in which the accused were tried and convicted, but then received what were considered by most to be very minimal sentences. In one of the cases, the offender was credited with time served and got no additional jail time.
The NDP categorically opposes human trafficking and would welcome any legislation that assists in actually realizing this outcome. However, in my opinion, the bill, in all likelihood, will have very little impact on curbing human trafficking and child exploitation.
In preparation for this speech, I took a look at statistics from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime February 2009 report. For all forms of human trafficking in Canada, here are the statistics on convictions: from March 2004 to February 2005, there were 19 convictions; from March 2005 to February 2006, there were 6 convictions; from March 2006 to February 2007, there were 5 convictions. We have 19, 6 and 5 convictions over three years. These are convictions for, in fact, all forms of human trafficking. On the flip side of this, we have the RCMP that estimates that 800 people are trafficked into Canada each year.
We have a situation here in which five people have been convicted. Let us remember that the bill deals only with people who have been convicted, and we have 800 people who are being trafficked. They are not addressed by the bill at all, not one bit. Five versus 800: I wonder why we are even wasting our time talking about this when what we really need is action on child trafficking.
After making this speech, I fully expect some mail-outs and accusations saying that I support pedophiles, but I am speaking the truth. The truth is that we need to get tough on child trafficking, and we know how to do it, but the bill is not the answer. If the government were serious about child trafficking, it would introduce a bill and it would introduce a bill that has an effective anti-child-trafficking approach.
What would a bill like this look like? Our colleague, an international human rights expert, the hon. member for Mount Royal, has talked loudly and often about the need for prevention, the prevention of trafficking by raising awareness of a new global slave trade and the urgency of acting against it. I agree absolutely with this approach.
An effective anti-trafficking approach would also include a strategy for enforcement. Many studies on mandatory minimums have concluded that predicted length of sentences has very little, if any, impact on crime, but getting caught does. It has a huge impact on crime. Not only would an enforcement strategy actually arrest traffickers and prevent them from continuing to do their work, but it has also been shown that crime decreases when there is a perception that getting caught is likely. So, I am left to ask why the bill does not attempt to channel funds into a special enforcement team, an investigative team that would actually track and arrest child traffickers, a special enforcement team with the expertise to navigate the complex underground system that trafficked children are trapped within.
I am also left asking why there is not more in the bill for the victims of trafficking who face innumerable challenges including overcoming traumas they have faced and attempting to reintegrate themselves. The key with reintegration is reintegration with the help of support networks, and I am not sure that support networks really exist for these children. This is another issue that is widely acknowledged regarding all forms of human trafficking, not just that involving children. The support networks do not exist and the victims are very reluctant to come forward to authorities. This makes it very hard to prosecute traffickers, because to get to the traffickers we have to get to the victims.
In the journal First Peoples Child and Family Review there is an article by a woman named Anupriya Sethi entitled “Domestic Sex Trafficking of Aboriginal Girls in Canada: Issues and Implications”. In this article Ms. Sethi argues that the current discourses on human trafficking in Canada do not take into account domestic trafficking, which includes trafficking within Canada, especially of aboriginal girls. Notwithstanding the alarmingly high number of missing, murdered, or sexually exploited women and aboriginal girls, Sethi states that as long as this issue continues to be portrayed as an issue of prostitution or sexual exploitation, we are not getting at the real issue which is domestic trafficking.
Through her interviews with key informants across Canada, Sethi identifies the root causes of trafficking of aboriginal girls. These root causes include the legacy of colonization and residential schools, isolation and the need for a sense of belonging, as well as violence, racism, substance abuse and poverty. Poverty is a major cause of sexual exploitation and as we all know, poverty in aboriginal families is at an all-time high. But the bill neglects to look at preventing trafficking and neglects to consider the root causes of child trafficking.
The bill claims to help children but it in fact abandons them. The only expected outcome is to change the sentencing of those convicted, not to prevent children from being trafficked. Mandatory minimums continually fail to result in lower crime rates, so with the bill, we find ourselves in the situation of having to explain to victims of child trafficking that the proposed legislation fails to provide assistance to children and their families and worse, that it will likely fail to prevent trafficking, because the bill is about scoring political points and not about a strategy for tackling the issue of child trafficking.
Andrew Saxton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of private member's Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).
This bill addresses a pressing issue – child trafficking involves the exploitation of society’s most vulnerable – and the bill would ensure a strong criminal justice response to what we must all agree is amongst the vilest of criminal conduct. For this reason, this bill has enjoyed widespread support in this House. For this reason, I add my own voice of support for it.
Might I add that the amendment proposed by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, which would remove the provision for mandatory minimum penalties for trafficking in persons under the age of 18, shows the true colours of the Bloc Québécois' soft approach to serious crime in this country.
Trafficking in persons is often referred to as the modern-day form of slavery. It involves the recruitment, transportation and/or harbouring of people for the purpose of exploitation, typically sexual exploitation or forced labour.
Traffickers control their victims in many ways, but often through force, sexual assault and threats of violence. As a result, victims provide labour and services in circumstances where they believe that their safety or the safety of someone known to them would be threatened if they failed to comply with the demands of their traffickers.
I am sure we all agree that this is a serious issue that warrants attention from all levels of government.
Toward that end, I am pleased that this House again has the opportunity to consider Bill C-268 introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul,which would amend the Criminal Code to impose mandatory minimum penalties for the offence of trafficking in children.
Bill C-268 would create a new separate offence of trafficking of a person under the age of 18 years. This offence would mirror the existing offence of “Trafficking in Persons”, found in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code, that protects all victims, adult and child.
The bill was amended by the justice committee in June. Now Bill C-268 proposes to impose a mandatory minimum penalty of six years for the aggravated branch of the offence of trafficking in children, for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, in addition to the five-year mandatory minimum penalty with a maximum penalty of fourteen years, as originally proposed by the bill.
In my view, this law reform is an important part of our efforts to combat this terrible crime. What do we really know about trafficking in persons, given that it is so often hidden from public view due to its criminal nature? Global estimates show us just how widespread the problem is.
The United Nations estimates that more than 700,000 people are trafficked globally each year. Further, a February 2009 United Nations report states that over 24,000 victims of trafficking were identified by 111 countries in the year 2006, that 79% of these cases involved trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, and that 18% involved trafficking for the purpose of forced labour. However, the actual number of forced labour cases may be even higher, as forced labour is less frequently detected and reported than is trafficking for sexual exploitation.
Also in 2005, the International Labour Organization estimated that at least 2.45 million people across the world are in situations of forced labour as a result of human trafficking. Of these, it is estimated that 32% are trafficked for economic exploitation and 43% are trafficked for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation, with 98% of the latter being women and girls. Finally, UNICEF estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked around the world each year.
These estimates confirm that this crime affects the most vulnerable. We know that trafficking in persons also occurs within Canada. As is the case with all countries, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of human trafficking within Canada. This is so not just because of the clandestine nature of the activity, but also because traffickers may be charged with trafficking in persons and/or other related offences.
In Canada, law enforcement has a tool box of offences that may apply in trafficking cases. As hon. members know, in 2005, three new trafficking-specific Criminal Code offences were enacted. These provisions address all forms of trafficking in persons.
The main offence of trafficking in persons, section 279.01, which provides the model for the new child trafficking offence proposed by Bill C-268, prohibits anyone from engaging in specified acts such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. This offence is punishable by up to life imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the crime and its harmful consequences for victims and Canadian society.
Section 279.02 makes it an offence to receive a financial or material benefit knowing that it results from the trafficking of persons. This offence is punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment.
Section 279.03 prohibits the withholding or destroying of travel or identity documents in order to commit or facilitate the trafficking of persons. This offence is punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment.
These offences supplement existing Criminal Code offences such as kidnapping, forceable confinement, assault and the prostitution-related provisions, which have long been used to address trafficking cases, as well as section 118 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which prohibits cases involving victims who are foreign nationals.
Police and Crown now have the ability to charge the offences that best meet circumstances of a given case. To date there have been five convictions in Canada under the specific offence of trafficking in persons. Many other cases are currently being investigated or are before the courts.
There have also been numerous charges laid and convictions secured in trafficking cases under other related Criminal Code offences. These cases reflect international estimates. The majority of known victims are women and girls who are trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Further, anecdotal information suggests that aboriginal girls are particularly vulnerable to this type of exploitation.
We must continue to be vigilant in ensuring a strong criminal justice response to this global scourge that victimizes the most vulnerable among us. I believe that we are doing just that. The issue of trafficking in persons transcends party lines. I am sure that hon. members remember the all-party support that Bill C-49 received in 2005. It enacted the three Criminal Code trafficking offences that I have already mentioned.
In 2006, the House unanimously supported Motion No. 153, which was also introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. This motion condemned the crime of trafficking in persons and called for a national strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide.
Further, in 2007, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women released its report entitled “Turning Outrage into Action to Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada”. The government's response to this report reiterated the importance of a multidisciplinary response to trafficking in persons. This response is reflected in the international framework established by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplemental protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children.
Canada continues to use this framework as its overarching model for a comprehensive response to the issue by focusing on the four ps: the prevention of trafficking, the protection of its victims, the prosecution of offenders and the building of partnerships, both domestically and internationally.
I believe we all understand and appreciate the seriousness of the issue, which Bill C-268 addresses. I hope that all honourable members will join me in supporting this important initiative.
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). It provides for a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years for offences involving the trafficking of children.
I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for proposing this legislation and her tireless effort to address this very important issue.
This bill is of personal interest to me because as a new father, I see the world through the eyes of my 23-month-old girl, Nanki Kaur Bains. I want to ensure that she or any other child is never victimized by the horrors of human trafficking. The trafficking of minors is an issue that, by its very definition, crosses borders and this is something all Canadians can support regardless of their political affiliation.
To many Canadians, human trafficking seems like an issue from another age. Just over 200 years ago Canada and its Commonwealth partners led the western world by banning the slave trade throughout the British Empire and actively used the power of the Royal Navy to prevent other countries, including the United States, from engaging in this despicable practice.
Slavery itself was banned in 1833 and Canada became a beacon of hope for tens of thousands of slaves escaping the American south, but slavery was not relegated to history. It may no longer be practised openly and certainly has no official sanction, but for the victims of human trafficking it is still painfully very real.
The International Labour Organization, an agency of the United Nations, estimates that presently there are 12.3 million adults and children in forced labour, bonded labour and commercial sexual servitude. Think about that. Every day a population the size of Ontario labours as modern-day slaves. The United Nations estimates that the numbers grow each year, with 700,000 people trafficked annually.
Many of those trafficked are children who are very helpless by their nature and are unable to do anything about it. Yet, many Canadians think that this is a problem that does not pertain to us or reach our shores, something the government should address through our foreign policy and international development efforts. However, human trafficking is a Canadian problem, as well as a global problem.
The U.S. state department, in a report from June of this year, refers to Canada as “a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor”. This is a wake-up call. Many of these people come from Asia and Eastern Europe but victims also come from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.
More disturbingly, the report says, “Canadian women and girls, many of whom are aboriginal, are trafficked internally for commercial sexual exploitation”. For example, there was a case of a man from Victoria who allegedly lured a 14-year-old girl from the B.C. interior and then forced her into prostitution and beat her.
Last year in Montreal, another man trafficked a 17-year-old and procured three others for the purposes of prostitution. Even in my own backyard in Brampton, there was a case of a man convicted of human trafficking and living off the avails of prostitution of a 15-year-old homeless girl who was sold in Toronto. During his trial he revealed that he had made $360,000 by selling two young girls for sex.
Human trafficking exists in our communities. It affects our children. What can we do? How can we help?
Last year a report of the Canada-United States Consultation in Preparation for World Congress III Against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents pointed out inconsistencies with our approach to addressing the trafficking of children.
The report pointed out that “under Canadian law, procuring a child is punished more severely than trafficking a child”. The report went on to recommend that Canada must “amend the Criminal Code to provide a mandatory minimum penalty for child trafficking”. I believe Bill C-268 does just that.
Just like the banning of the slave trade did not completely remove the scourge of slavery, I do not expect that this bill alone will tackle the problem. It is an important first step, but there is much more that can be and should be done.
One of the major concerns is the issue of victims' rights compared to the larger struggle against the traffickers. Recognizing trafficked persons as victims of crime rather than as criminals themselves is important if we are to uncover trafficking networks and bring perpetrators to justice. This has been difficult because traditionally trafficked persons have been treated as illegal immigrants and are often deported.
A frequently cited gap in a victim protection scheme is the lack of an early identification procedure for victims of trafficking. Currently, there is no formal process for the identification of trafficked persons which is a prerequisite for providing victim protection.
Immigration and law enforcement officials must be given the tools to recognize trafficked persons and to know when trafficking has occurred. How else can we expect these new laws to be meaningfully applied?
Another gap that exists involves the services offered to trafficked persons. These include protection services, shelter, health services, long-term counselling and economic services. The Government of Canada currently does not have a national approach to services for trafficked persons and since many of these services are offered at the provincial level they exist at uneven levels.
What we need is a national strategy to address human trafficking. The government has an opportunity here to use the goodwill in the House to do the right thing and ensure that we address this issue in a coordinated fashion from coast to coast.
Even those who are happy to return home face the lack of support for a safe return. Trafficked persons can face a wide variety of emotional and physical obstacles, ranging from ostracism in the home community, threats from traffickers and a repeat of the same conditions of poverty that led them to leave in the first place.
We need to work with the international community to address these issues and create an organized process to facilitate a safe return and reintegration.
These are not simple issues. They involve legislative and regulatory changes. They involve the co-operation with all levels of government, NGOs and community groups. They involve decisive leadership not just by Canada but by the entire international community.
It is important that we as parliamentarians continue to fight for the victims of trafficking and that we work with all the relevant stakeholders to remove this horribly tragic situation.
William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian who led the movement to abolish the slave trade once said, “Let everyone regulate his conduct...by the golden rule of doing to others as in similar circumstances we would have them do to us, and the path of duty will be clear before him”.
Our path of duty is clear and this bill is another step in the journey toward a world where human trafficking is a distant memory.
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Mr. Speaker, we will soon come to the end of this debate, and we will have to vote on this bill. That is why I first want to assure all my colleagues that, like all the members of the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois believes that child trafficking is a horrible crime that warrants the stiffest sentences for offenders. We are confident that judges feel the same way.
However, the Bloc takes issue with this bill because it targets all forms of exploitation of minors, not just trafficking of persons under the age of 18 years, as the bill's title indicates. When they talk about this bill, the Conservatives always talk about “child trafficking” to justify their proposed minimum sentences of 5 and 6 years.
It is true that children are under the age of 18 and therefore fall into the category of persons under that age, and it is true that child trafficking is covered by the broader concept of exploitation of minors. But child trafficking is probably the worst and most advanced form of exploitation of minors. Many forms of exploitation of persons under 18 are not as horrible as child trafficking. People who engage in certain forms of exploitation do not deserve the same sentence as child traffickers.
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
I would like to make a comparison. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the House to show the same respect they expect when they are speaking.
Tigers are very dangerous animals. They are also felines. But not all felines are tigers. Cats are also felines, but they are not dangerous animals.
I share the view that everyone who has ever exploited minors deserves to be punished. But the sentence must reflect the seriousness of the exploitation, its duration, the form it takes and all the other circumstances a judge has to consider in handing down a sentence. Not all offenders deserve the sentence the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who introduced this bill, intended for child traffickers.
To fully understand our position, hon. members should first read the most important clause in this bill:
279.011 (1) Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person under the age of eighteen years, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence—
The key thing here is exploitation. The clause describes a number of ways to commit the offence, but what all of these have in common is that they must have been committed “for the purpose of exploiting them”. Not for the purpose of trafficking in children.
Yes, as I already said, trafficking in children is a form of exploitation, but it is not the only method of exploitation. Members can read the entire bill and will not see a single mention of “trafficking in children” or “child trafficking”. The bill covers something much broader than the trafficking of children.
In everyday language, the word “exploitation” is a very broad term, but in this case here, it is defined in the Criminal Code. Let us see if it limits the scope of the legislation to child trafficking.
The bill lists the proposed offences to be added to the Criminal Code between sections 279.01 and 279.02.
The current section 279.04 provides a definition for the word “exploitation” found in clause 279.011 that I quoted in part just now. It states:
279.04 For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they
(a) cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service—
It certainly cannot be said that this definition applies only to human trafficking. We are talking about causing a person to provide labour or a service by use of intimidation. That is a definition that certainly covers human trafficking, but many other things as well.
Let us compare this definition to the way the UN describes human trafficking. In its Global Report on Trafficking in Persons published in February 2009, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime wrote:
The term trafficking in persons can be misleading: it places emphasis on the transaction aspects of a crime that is more accurately described as enslavement. Exploitation of people, day after day. For years on end.
The use of the word “exploitation” in referring specifically to the phenomenon of trafficking in persons is inadequate. This is something much more serious. The comparison with enslavement is significant. Slavery goes beyond exploitation and child trafficking goes beyond exploitation, even though both are forms of exploitation. What concerns us is the application of sentences that were meant for child trafficking to all other forms of exploitation, .
Reading this interesting report gives us another reason to condemn the use of minimum sentences. Is there any other country that has minimum sentences for child trafficking or even human trafficking?
We learn that:
—a disproportionate number of women are involved in human trafficking, not only as victims, but also as traffickers. Female offenders have a more prominent role in present-day slavery than in most other forms of crime.
The authors of this report add, “This fact needs to be addressed, especially the cases where former victims have become perpetrators”.
Is that not the best reason to give judges the necessary latitude to take into account the specific circumstances of each defendant? Should victims who are forced into prostitution and end up playing a role in trafficking get the same sentence as those who profit from this crime?
Some might say that judges could hand out more than the minimum sentence. Nonetheless, if we trust judges to give more than the minimum in cases where that is justified, why not trust them to give a fair sentence in cases where a minimum sentence is not justified?
We know that large criminal organizations involved in the trafficking of young women procure them in countries where the poverty rate is very high. Under various pretexts, and sometimes by force, they are brought to rich countries where various means—sometimes even drug addiction—are used to force them into prostitution. If one of these young women is now at least 18 years old and accepts her situation, and if she has agreed to harbour other young women who speak the same language or are of the same nationality, are under 18 years of age and have been recruited as she was, who is to say whether she deserves the minimum sentence of five years under this bill?
When a trafficking network that deals with individuals under the age of 18 is uncovered and the police charge all those who were involved, the judge must have all the latitude required to ensure that the sentences reflect the role of each accused.
Therefore, there are two fundamental reasons why we must vote against this bill.
The first, is that the definition of the offence envisaged is much too broad.
The second is that even if it did not apply to individuals involved in child trafficking, there would be cases—and there already are plenty—where a judge would need a great deal of latitude to issue a fair sentence.
We must remember that, in Canada, it is impossible to become involved in child trafficking without committing at least two crimes that come with serious punishments: kidnapping and false imprisonment.
We found this important sentence quoted by France's foreign affairs minister, Hubert Védrine, when he spoke in the French Senate on December 5, 2001, about the bill to ratify the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children. He said:
The protocol states that exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.
That is clear. That is what a law should clearly state when it supposedly deals with the issue of human trafficking.
Helena Guergis ConservativeMinister of State (Status of Women)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).
My colleague the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul in Manitoba is a good friend of mine, someone I have worked very closely with since I became a member of Parliament and who is considered to be an expert in human trafficking. I would like to acknowledge the international award she has received for her work on this issue. I am pleased to support her, and I also want to congratulate her on her efforts.
Bill C-268 is an important bill. It seeks to impose a mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment for trafficking a person under 18 years of age.
The bill addresses the horrific crime of trafficking in persons, a deplorable act. The crime of trafficking in persons involves the recruitment, movement or harbouring of a person by means of deception, coercion or force. It is known as modern-day slavery.
It is estimated that between 700,000 and four million people are trafficked annually worldwide, through sexual exploitation or forced labour. The estimates vary widely because these crimes go unreported and the victims are often unknown.
It is also estimated that the underground market in the trafficking and smuggling of persons represents close to $7 billion U.S. per year globally, quickly rivalling the extensive trade in illegal drugs and firearms as a source of profit for organized crime.
Those involved in the adult sex trade are often among the most vulnerable members of our society. Their involvement in sex work often puts them at an increased risk for harm and abuse.
This government remains deeply committed to combating the exploitation of women and girls.
Addressing such harm requires the enforcement of existing criminal laws as well as a range of non-legislative responses, including prevention and other support initiatives.
Our government has been working diligently through its overall anti-trafficking strategy, guided by the three P's that were mentioned by my colleague earlier: preventing trafficking, protecting victims, and prosecuting offenders.
Our government is committed to combating violence against women and girls. We are committed to helping the most vulnerable. As Minister of State for the Status of Women, I can confirm that our government, through Status of Women Canada, is funding grassroots organizations across the country that are working to address trafficking. We believe they are best equipped to help the most vulnerable.
One of those organizations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, has a project called prevent human trafficking: stop the sexual exploitation of first nations women and children. This initiative will develop partnership networks as well as other measures to prevent and protect women and youth from sexual exploitation and trafficking. Aboriginal women and youth are among the most vulnerable members in our society today.
We are also proud of the work we are doing with Sisters in Spirit. This initiative is spearheaded by NWAC, the Native Women's Association of Canada. I want to take a moment to congratulate the new president Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell. I look forward to working with her. I also want to acknowledge the incredible work of Bev Jacobs, and the families and victims for the stories they have told. The program is a research project to ensure there is more public awareness of the aboriginal women we have lost. I want to commend them for their courage in their work to give the lost spirits a voice.
I mentioned briefly the grassroots organizations that we are supporting.
Our government has made some significant changes to Status of Women Canada. We have increased the funding available to grassroots organizations across the country by 41%. With that, we have seen an increase in the number of organizations that are receiving support and funds to deliver their projects to the most vulnerable women across the country. The benefits from these changes to date have impacted 100,000 women directly and one million women indirectly.
Over the past year I have been meeting with many Canadians, particularly women, from coast to coast to coast, to engage in discussions about violence against women. I have met with thousands of Canadians, and they have indicated the need to address this very serious issue of human trafficking as well as the need to ensure that women have a safe place of refuge, such as shelters.
That is why our government was proud to support the first ever World Conference of Women's Shelters. I was pleased to bring the organizations together toward establishing an international network of shelters, so that Canada can continue to lead, so that we can transfer knowledge and share best practices.
Human trafficking in women and girls occurs, we know, both domestically and internationally, and our government is tackling the issue on both fronts. I had the honour of leading the Canadian delegation to the annual meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women to reiterate our government's commitment to end this practice, along with other gender-based crimes.
In November 2005 this government introduced reforms to Canada's Criminal Code that created three indictable offences related to human trafficking. The Criminal Code reforms were the first deliverables through this government's anti-trafficking strategy. As a result, Canada's Criminal Code is strengthened and now includes three human trafficking-related offences: one, the actual act of trafficking; two, receiving material benefit from trafficking; and three, the withholding or destroying of identity or immigration documents. There is also a trafficking offence under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which was introduced by our government.
In helping to increase the application of new legislative tools, training on the laws and issues surrounding human trafficking is currently being delivered to law enforcement, border and immigration officials across Canada. This program includes a strong focus on victims' issues. Federal efforts are coordinated by the Interdepartmental Working Group on Trafficking in Persons, which brings together 17 departments and agencies, including my agency, Status of Women Canada. The RCMP and federal partners, including my agency, have held training workshops across Canada for law enforcement officials on human trafficking.
In 2007 this government introduced legislation that allows Citizenship and Immigration Canada officers to issue temporary resident permits of up to 180 days to victims of human trafficking. Recipients are also eligible to apply for a fee-exempt work permit.
The parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which I have had the pleasure of sitting on and participating in since I became an elected member, has tabled two motions calling on the government to prevent trafficking at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Federal, provincial and municipal officials are collaborating on a strategy. We have also engaged in initiatives to combat trafficking in persons, including national law enforcement training and providing funding to groups with survivors and victims as their focus.
Our government also focuses on raising awareness, which is a key element in curbing demand for trafficked persons. These awareness-raising measures include the creation of a website on trafficking in persons. It is accessed through the Department of Justice website. Posters and information pamphlets are available in 14 different languages, which have been developed and distributed widely within Canada and throughout Canadian embassies abroad to help prevent human trafficking.
Federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women have also agreed to identify best practices to respond to this crime.
Our government has a strong record on supporting women, particularly those who are victims of criminal activity, and Bill C-268 further demonstrates this commitment.
Clearly, if hon. members of the House embrace the values of justice, human rights and compassion, they should and will support this legislation, particularly if they care about the situation of women and children in Canada and around the world who are subjected to the crime of trafficking.
I look forward to this bill receiving support from the opposition in the House. I will close by congratulating my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, on the incredible work she has done and for her leadership on this issue.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.