Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 4 - Evidence, April 14, 2008
OTTAWA, Monday, April 14, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, to which was referred Bill S-218, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to enact certain other measures, in order to provide assistance and protection to victims of human trafficking, met this day at 5:04 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we are studying Bill S-218. We have, as our first witness, the sponsor of the bill, the Honourable Gerald Phalen. We are very pleased that you are available to speak to your bill this evening. Senator Phalen, the floor is yours to make any opening statements with respect to Bill S-218, and then we will be asking questions.
Hon. Gerard A. Phalen, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, chair, and good afternoon. It is my pleasure today to appear before you on the subject of the Bill S-218, which amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and provides other assistance and protection to victims of human trafficking.
In October of 2005, Parliament passed Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Criminal Code regarding trafficking in persons. This legislation allowed Canada to meet its commitments to criminalize trafficking in persons under the United Nations' Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. At that time, I spoke strongly in support of Bill C-49 but also pointed out that the next step needed was to ensure a victim- centred approach.
In March 2006, The Future Group undertook an extensive international study on the treatment of human trafficking victims, and their opinion was that Canada had systematically failed to comply with its obligations under the UN protocol. In February 2007, when still no legislation had been put forward by the government in support of victims, I brought forward Bill S-222, which died on the Order Paper when the election was called.
Since the passage of Bill C-49, which criminalized trafficking in persons, the government has made a number of positive changes in respect of victims of trafficking, including lengthening the period of reflection given to victims and introducing legislation eliminating the infamous stripper visas. I commend the government on these actions, but I continue to believe that a more comprehensive, victim-centred approach is necessary. Therefore, in October 2007, I tabled Bill S-218, the legislation before us today.
The bill has four basic sections. The first section deals with short-term visas. This part of the legislation is very much in line with the current system. It allows victims a 180-day period of reflection during which time they receive, at no cost, health and psychological counselling under the Interim Federal Health Program. This 180-day reflection period is similar to the system in most G8 countries, and it also allows law enforcement time to investigate the case. Bill S-218 also gives victims the right to work or study in Canada during this period. I believe that working and studying will help victims to begin the healing process.
The next section of this proposed legislation deals with what we call the victim protection permit. This is a three-year temporary residency permit. I believe this is one of the most important sections of this bill, because victims would move automatically from the 180-day short-term visa to a three-year permit. The current system of short-term visas and ministerial special permits that might or might not be granted or lengthened and that require the victims to apply time and again simply re-victimizes victims. The last thing these victims need at this point is to have to go regularly to the bureaucrats asking to be allowed to remain in the country.
You also need to know that this proposed three-year victim protection permit gives victims the status of permanent resident for the purpose of health and social programs. If victims remain in Canada under this three-year permit, they will need more than basic health care. They will need legal aid, social housing, language training and more. In Canada, these programs are primarily administered by the provinces, and the most common qualifier is that a person must be a permanent resident. This permit also allows victims to work or study during the three-year period, as well as making victims eligible to apply to become permanent residents and eventually citizens, if they so choose, and of course this permit is on a no-fee basis.
How do victims qualify for this victim protection permit? They qualify if they or their families — and let me stress ``or their families'' — would suffer hardship, retribution or harm if they were returned to their home country. They qualify if they choose — let me emphasize ``if they choose'' — to comply with any reasonable request to assist in the investigation or prosecution of their traffickers. Finally, they qualify if immigration officials believe it is otherwise justified in the circumstances. This allows officials the leeway to deal with special circumstances, should that be necessary.
In all my discussions on this proposed legislation, the option of testifying is always the most contentious, and it has been necessary to point out clearly that testifying is optional. I believe that it is nearly impossible for law enforcement to prosecute traffickers without testimony of the victims and that victims receive a certain amount of closure by doing so. That is why I have included cooperation with law enforcement as an option.
Why did I choose to make this victim protection permit for a three-year period? In Canada, the most recent statistics show that the length of time it takes for trials for crimes against persons to be completed in superior court is, on average, 367 days. That is just the time necessary for the court proceedings. Then we must consider the time it takes for the criminal investigations. I would like to point out that three years is the term in the United States for a T visa for victims of trafficking.
The next section of this bill that I would like to discuss is the requirement for the Minister of Health to establish a hotline for victims. I feel this is necessary because victims often come from countries where law enforcement is suspect. They are therefore hesitant to approach the police, and they often have difficulty with the language. It is also necessary because victims will need counselling and referral services that local law enforcement may be ill-equipped to provide. Hotlines have proven successful in other countries. For instance, the U.S. hotline took 2,670 calls in 2006, and 20 per cent of them were in a foreign language.
The last section of this bill I would like to deal with is the requirement for the Minister of Health to provide specialized employees within the Department of Health to act as intermediaries for victims with things like immigration, health, legal aid and law enforcement. This section of the bill also requires the minister to provide a public awareness campaign to ensure that community-based people are aware of the rights of victims and the services available to them.
Honourable senators, if this proposed legislation is implemented, how would I see the situation of a victim unfolding ideally? I believe a victim would initially approach someone in the community, perhaps at a women's shelter. Those workers would be aware of the hotline and the rights and services available to victims and would encourage the victim to contact the hotline.
The victim would call the hotline and be put in contact with a specialized worker who would help them navigate the system to obtain their 180-day temporary visa and the interim health program. During this time, law enforcement would investigate, and the victim would begin the healing process.
After the 180-day temporary visa, the victim would move to a three-year visa. During those three years, the victim would learn the language, find employment or training and continue to heal, both physically and psychologically. It is also my hope that many victims would choose to participate in the prosecution of their traffickers to ensure that those criminals are punished. At the end of the three-year visa period, I would hope that the victim would now be a contributing member of Canadian society and looking forward to becoming a citizen.
The last thing I would like to take a few minutes to talk about is why I believe legislation versus ministerial guidelines is needed in respect of victims of human trafficking. Victims of trafficking have usually come from countries where the authorities and the legal system are suspect at best, and these victims have been abused and taken advantage of. They need assistance, and it is imperative that such assistance be enshrined in law.
It is not sufficient to leave the rights of victims to the discretion of non-legislative systems like ministerial guidelines. Ministerial guidelines are best suited to handling interpretations of the law or short-term gaps in the system. I believe the rights of victims of trafficking, like the human rights we also enjoy here in Canada, must be enacted in legislation and therefore have the certainty of the rule of law.
In May 2002, Canada signed the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. Article 6 of that protocol ensures that domestic legal and administrative systems provide victims with physical and psychological recovery, including housing, counselling, legal, medical and material assistance, as well as employment, education and training opportunities. To address this obligation, the current government has provided victims of trafficking with health and psychological assistance under the Interim Federal Health Program. I congratulate them for that. Now it is time to take the next step and ensure that other legal, financial and educational systems are available to victims. I believe Bill S-218 will do that.
When I first began to look at the situation of victims of trafficking, it was hard not to find examples of situations where victims had been treated more as criminals than as victims. Thankfully, we have continued to see improvement. I believe that in enacting this proposed legislation we will demonstrate in a loud and clear voice our commitment to ensuring that in Canada, victims are treated as victims.
The only other opening remark I would like to make is to say that in the last six months, I have attended conferences and meetings on human trafficking in Vancouver, Montreal and Vienna. Those events have only further reinforced my belief in the necessity of this proposed legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Phalen. I neglected to point out that you have someone with you. Perhaps you would like to introduce her. Would she like to make any statement?
Senator Phalen: The person with me is Carolyn Hume, and she will not be making a statement.
The Chair: I have two points for clarification. Could you tell me why you used the term ``human trafficking,'' when it would appear that there is international consensus to use the term ``trafficking in persons''?
Senator Phalen: I am sorry; I did not see a difference between the two terms. My terminology was always ``trafficking in persons.''
The Chair: Also, it has been brought to my attention that in the French version you have trafic de personnes and the normal, recognized terminology would be traite des personnes. There was no reason for that?
Senator Phalen: No.
The Chair: Could I take that to be an error we could correct?
Senator Phalen: I am sorry, I speak only English, and I have no idea what that interpretation would be.
The Chair: If we saw fit to make those amendments, you would have no objections?
Senator Phalen: Okay, thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Phalen, further to what the chair said, you have no issue with changing to both the English term normally used and the French. You have no issue with us amending that; is that correct?
Senator Phalen: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: In its 2007 report, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women recognized the need for and made recommendations regarding collecting data on the scope of trafficking in persons. What has been your experience in trying to access statistical data on this problem?
Senator Phalen: I believe the problem is serious. I think that data is lacking. The RCMP suggest that there are 800 victims of trafficking in Canada, while the non-governmental organizations, NGOs, suggest that the number could be as high as 16,000. That is quite a difference.
Also, the RCMP said that only one in ten of these victims reports the crime. I have seen that statistic only once and cannot find any more information on it.
Finally, all along, up to now, we have used the figure that this whole trafficking scene is bringing in probably $9.5 billion a year for criminals. It is profitable for them. However, I heard something quite different in Vienna. I heard that the figure is now $30 billion. That is three times the statistics I get from any source in Canada, which is quite a difference. There is quite a gap when trying to determine how serious this problem is. I suggest that $30 billion would probably put it as the top criminal activity in the world. It consisted of drugs, arms and trafficking, I think in that order. However, from $9.5 billion to $30 billion, I would suggest we have taken a huge jump, and it may be number 1.
Senator Jaffer: I read the bill and your presentation today. You speak about providing the victims with health care, social programs, legal aid and language training. It is my understanding that these are under provincial jurisdiction. Would we be stepping on provincial jurisdiction to have this in the bill?
Senator Phalen: I am not suggesting or instructing the provinces to do anything. We tried to get around the problem by making the victims permanent residents, so that they would be able to get that assistance. One of the major provincial qualifiers for social programs is that the person is a resident of the country, which is why we did that. I think that should answer your question.
Senator Jaffer: I understand that the most contentious issue in your bill is for the victim, the person who has been trafficked, to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities. Can you tell us what the current position of the Government of Canada is and how the other G8 countries are dealing with this matter?
Senator Phalen: In the last few days I did some checking on that, because this is the most contentious issue I ran across in this proposed legislation. What I read in the current law is that Canada requires a person to assist the authorities before it will open up the programs to that victim. That is in line with most of the G8 countries. They make that requirement. It is not an option; it is a requirement.
When I first introduced this bill, I said that victims must cooperate, and I said that they must cooperate because that is what the law said, as I understood it. I may be incorrect. As I understood it, the law said that victims must cooperate. The first bill I introduced, Bill S-222, said ``must.''
I have had a hard time on this issue, which is very contentious. At a conference in Vancouver I was told quite pointedly that it is not correct: victims should not be forced to cooperate in order to get these benefits.
When I introduced Bill S-218, I made cooperation with law enforcement authorities an option. It was the same wording only it was optional. That is the difference.
Senator Jaffer: I understand there are already regulations dealing with what you have in this bill. Why do you feel that this needs to become law? Most of it is already in regulations.
Senator Phalen: I guess because I do not believe in regulations. I do not believe that regulations carry the weight of law. With regulations, sometimes a person has to keep going back to get an increase. For instance, if you wanted to go farther than 180 days, you would have to reapply. That situation is quite possible, because, as I said, on average, the court takes 367 days to try these crimes, so 180 days simply would not cut it if you were in a legal situation. You would have to keep going back to get extensions. I do not believe in regulations taking the place of law. I think law has more effect.
Senator Munson: How can we be sure that we are dealing with genuine victims of trafficking and not simply migrant workers or, even worse, dishonest people trying to take advantage of this victim protection program?
Senator Phalen: It could be, but I think there are other people, rather than someone coming into the country to prostitute himself or herself, and that is happening. When people come into the country to prostitute themselves, sometimes the criminal element gets a hold of them and takes over. Those people then become victims. They should not be treated as criminals. For instance, they should not be charged for prostitution; they should be treated as victims, not criminals.
There are other situation as well. More than people coming into the country just to prostitute themselves, people apply for jobs here from different countries. I gave you some situations in my first speech. For example, a young girl, a college graduate, applied for a nanny position in Canada through an organization in her country. When she got to Canada, there was no job, no such a thing as a nanny position. These people grabbed hold of her, took her identification and her passport and everything.
Senator Munson: In your opening remarks you spoke in favour of victims testifying in a case. What are the advantages to that, and would it be mandatory or optional for these victims?
Senator Phalen: It is optional. I think I explained that. When I first introduced the bill it said ``must,'' because that was the law. I changed that to ``optional.'' I changed it because across the country I heard that people felt that ``must'' was too strong, that cooperating with the authorities or testifying should be optional.
Senator Munson: I am startled at the discrepancy in the figures for the number of victims; you mentioned 800 and then 16,000. That is a major difference. Surely, in this day and age and with statistics, we should have a better appreciation of the data.
Senator Phalen: I believe there are a number of reasons for that discrepancy. I do not think that the RCMP really knows the figure, because these people are not going to the RCMP. Because of the situations in the countries where they came from, they do not trust law enforcement. They are talking more to NGOs and front-line social workers. The NGOs and front-line social workers tell us that there could be as many as 16,000, which is quite a difference. It points out a major problem because, if the RCMP really do not know how many of these people are in the country, it is hard to deal with the situation.
How do you get victims to go to the RCMP and report their traffickers? That is what we are trying to do with this proposed legislation. We want to set up a hotline that victims can call. Then they will get an explanation of what services are available to them, and it will ease the move towards the police, because that is what they are afraid of.
Senator Munson: Some concern has been expressed in the Senate that clause 8, which calls for the establishment of the hotline, is akin to micromanaging and the ministry calling for the Minister of Health to do that.
Senator Phalen: It may be. I do not know if I could argue that. I believe it takes a little bit of micromanaging to get a bill in place, so I am willing to try it. That is the only thing I can say in respect of micromanaging.
Senator Munson: How would you see that public service campaign unfolding? Who do you see as targets for the campaign?
Senator Phalen: The campaign would target not only the victims but also community-based NGOs and front-line workers. Those workers would bring the victims up to date on what is available under the system or under the law, and then hopefully have them report their problem to the hotline.
Senator Munson: On a personal level, when you decided to do this, Senator Phalen, what motivated you? What troubled you such that you wanted to add something to the existing system? Some would say a lot of this is already in place. You talked about gaps.
Senator Phalen: I have no hands-on experience on this issue, none. I am not a front-line worker. I did not belong to any of these organizations.
When I spoke to Bill C-49, I did some research. The more I read, the more problematic it became for me. I thought this was a very serious situation, one that needed some help. I did further research, read most of the reports that were available and drew conclusions on how we might be able to make an improvement in that situation. That is simply it.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I assume some of these victims fear for their lives from the people who are trafficking them. What is being done to protect these victims?
Senator Phalen: That is a real fear, and it is one reason why the RCMP are not seeing many of these victims reporting that they have been victimized. There is no question that they are afraid. Their passports have been taken from them and they are facing deportation.
In all the reading and research I did on this, every instance said that these people had fear. In some countries, not Canada, mothers would not allow their children to go to school for fear that they would be abducted and sold into sexual servitude. Are they fearful? Yes.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Is anything being done to protect these victims?
Senator Phalen: It is an odd situation. How do you protect the victim when you do not know who the victim is? That is what is happening. The police do not know. They are talking about 800 people, but the victims are not going to the police, so how do you protect them? In my opinion, the answer to that question is to enact bills such as this and put protections in the law and treat these people as victims and not as criminals.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: In debate in the Senate, Senator Andreychuk stated that $6 million per year was allocated. Can you tell me more about this funding and how it is being used?
Senator Phalen: I am sorry; I do not know about that funding. I cannot answer that.
Senator Stratton: I am a relative newcomer to this area, although I know people who are deeply involved in it. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, trafficking involves the exploitation of people, often through forced labour, for example sex work, domestic work in restaurants or in factories, and exploiting vulnerable women and children in particular. Is that your definition?
Senator Phalen: Yes.
Senator Stratton: Precisely that?
Senator Phalen: Yes.
Senator Stratton: You are talking about opening up a hotline and trying to encourage people to come forward by enacting this bill. I guess one of the biggest concerns you would have is someone getting on the telephone from wherever they are. Are you talking about a 1-800 number just in Canada?
Senator Phalen: Yes.
Senator Stratton: Someone could come into the country illegally, get on the hotline and state that they are a victim of human trafficking. How would you go about substantiating that that person was indeed a victim of human trafficking?
Senator Phalen: That is what the 180 days is all about. It gives the RCMP time to investigate that person. Let us say this bill was introduced and this system was set up. What would happen? Victims might come forward, but someone else might come forward, too — someone working in these clubs, or a prostitute. That person might look at this program and say, ``That is a good program. I would like to get into that, but I do not qualify because I am not a victim. Who cares; I will apply anyway.''
At that point, it is up to the RCMP to flush that person out. The person has a reflection period of 180 days. The RCMP can flush that person out and see whether or not he or she has in fact been victimized.
Senator Stratton: My concern is that this is an ideal way to smuggle people. You charge them so many thousands of dollars, bring them into the country and give them the 1-800 number and a story. That, I think, must be a real concern.
Senator Phalen: I am not quite sure I follow you.
Senator Stratton: There is human smuggling right now. You bring people into a country. That is how human trafficking happens. You get them to work in the sex trade or as domestic workers. In this case, like the boat people, you can bring people into the country illegally, give them the 1-800 number and tell them to phone. These people could be Russian or Chinese.
Senator Phalen: They probably are.
Senator Stratton: That is my point. How would a worker on the 1-800 number have the ability to respond to people in the language of their choice? They cannot speak English. They could be Mexican, Spanish, whatever. How do you respond to someone who cannot speak the language?
Senator Phalen: There is a whole system there. If you bring people into the country illegally, do they have a passport? If not, they will have a serious problem. They will certainly not report themselves.
Senator Stratton: They claim to be trafficking victims and that they have been used for prostitution, for example, if they are women.
Senator Phalen: I was suggesting that at that point, when people come into the country, whether they come in to prostitute themselves or for whatever reason, when the criminal element takes them over, it is at that point that they become victims. Are you saying that these people are not really victims, that they come into the country and then say they are victims?
Senator Stratton: Yes. They are buying their way in.
Senator Phalen: It is up to the RCMP then to investigate that situation.
Senator Stratton: Are you not afraid of overload?
Senator Phalen: You will get these people regardless.
Senator Stratton: I do not think so.
Senator Phalen: They are coming into the country.
Senator Stratton: If a smuggler realizes that here there is a potential to make a lot of money, he could go to Vietnam or somewhere and bring people in and tell them to phone a certain number, and they will get into the country.
Senator Phalen: That could be in any situation. It is very difficult to protect against that.
Senator Stratton: My point is that they can buy their way into the country, and once they are here they say, ``I am a victim because someone brought me into the country.'' How do you differentiate?
Senator Phalen: The RCMP would have to make that differentiation.
Senator Stratton: They were victims though.
Senator Phalen: Let them prove it.
Senator Stratton: They paid the money and they came into the country.
Senator Phalen: Anyone can cry foul, but they will have to be able to prove it.
Senator Stratton: I do not think you quite get my point.
Senator Phalen: I think I get your point, but you cannot protect against everyone coming into this country. People come into this country all the time. There are laws, but this proposed law would try to protect persons who have been victimized. If those people can prove that they have been victimized, I suggest that they qualify, but they would have to prove it.
The Chair: I have a few questions. We share the same concern about victims of trafficking, but I want to question you on your particular bill.
First, you say that you become a victim when you come into this country. On what do you base that assumption?
Senator Phalen: No, not when you come into the country. If you come into the country to prostitute yourself, and you have not been taken over by the criminal element, and you move on and do what prostitutes do, if you are caught, you are not a victim, you are a criminal. You are a victim only if the criminal element takes you over. The criminal element is buying and selling these people. They are selling them for anywhere from $7,500 to $15,000.
The Chair: I know those statistics. My concern is the point at which a person becomes a victim. My understanding is that you can be a victim and not have left your country of origin. You can be bought and sold before you ever get to Canadian shores. You seem to be making a distinction for the purpose of this bill, and that is what I am not clear on. What makes a victim in Canada?
Senator Phalen: My interpretation of a victim is when the criminal element takes the person over.
The Chair: Could that be anywhere?
Senator Phalen: Yes. I related one story in which a person was actually a victim before she ever landed here.
The Chair: That is my point. You seem to be tying it to Canadian soil, and I wanted to understand that.
Senator Phalen: I am sorry.
The Chair: Proposed new section 24.2(2) states:
A foreign national who holds a victim protection permit issued under subsection (1) is deemed to have permanent resident status for the purposes of being eligible to receive a benefit or service under any medical or social program or program of social assistance.
These are clearly provincial matters. If I understand your argument, you are saying that the victims will have permanent residence status and therefore will be entitled to these services, and you are not transgressing the federal- provincial boundary; is that correct?
Senator Phalen: No. There is a difference there. We are not telling the provinces that because we gave these persons permanent status the provinces have to give them these programs. We are saying that the most common qualifier for those programs is that you are a citizen. We have made the persons permanent citizens for that purpose.
The Chair: Your words here are ``for the purposes of being eligible to receive.'' You are implying there that the federal government will give permanent resident status to deem someone eligible for these services. Are you not doing indirectly what we cannot do directly? In other words, get at provincial services by federally mandating the provinces to do so?
Senator Phalen: The answer is probably ``Yes, in some respects.'' The provinces are responsible for these programs, and there is no other way to get into them unless we make the victims permanent residents. You cannot get there any other way. We are not telling the provinces to do that, because the provinces have the right to deny, but the most common qualifier, as I said, is that a person is a citizen.
The Chair: We actually studied some of this when Senator Pearson was deputy chair of this committee. Victims require specialized and personalized services. In other words, every victim has different needs, both psychological and physical. They need different protections. If I understand, even if we can get over the federal-provincial problem, the proposed sections I pointed out would provide victims only with the services that any other citizen in that province would get. Those entitled to hospital services would get hospital services, but they would not be services tailored to victims of trafficking. Am I correct?
Senator Phalen: I would say that the victims would be entitled to the social services that the provinces provide.
The Chair: Just the normal social services, okay.
Senator Phalen: Before we move there, they have already had psychological help from the federal program.
The Chair: I wanted to know about the federal-provincial level. That is giving me pause.
Turning to page 4 of your bill, in the English version, Part 2, clause 8(d) says that ``The Minister of Health shall'' — and ``shall'' means that it is mandated —
(d) provide for the necessary appointment, instruction and training of persons, from among persons employed in the Department of Health, to provide, in its regional offices, victims of human trafficking with information and assistance, including information on and assistance in contacting relevant federal, provincial and non- governmental organizations.
Then you go on further. Have you discussed whether this is the most efficient way to get at providing services? It seems to me that we are setting up a bureaucracy here for assistance through the federal government. That may not be the most efficient way in Canada. We do have a federal-provincial system where we can make special arrangements and agreements if we sit down with the provinces.
Senator Phalen: We thought about how to obtain what we are looking for. We thought about which department would be best suited for that type of situation. The answer we came up with is the Department of Health. I do not think we are creating a bureaucracy. We are saying that someone in the department has special training to handle the needs of these people. I do not think that is setting up a bureaucracy. I do not think we are talking about too many people.
I do not see it as a major problem. The Department of Health is located in most provinces, probably in many cities. We thought that it would be the most available department.
The Chair: In your notes, not in the bill, you said that these employees would act as intermediaries for victims with things such as immigration, health and legal aid. Do you think a person employed by the Department of Health would be the right person to be an intermediary on things like law enforcement and legal aid?
Senator Phalen: The employee is only an advisor at that point, telling the person what is available.
Let us go back. Now, if people want to report that they are victims, they have to walk into a police station and tell the police. They will not do that, and they are not doing that. The question then is how do you get those people to report that they have been victimized.
The people working at Health Canada do not have to be experts. They have to be facilitators. They have to direct the victims to the programs and tell them how to access the programs. They have to advise victims that these programs are available, because a person coming off the street does not have a clue.
The Chair: We have a tight schedule, and we have run out of time. I thank Senator Phalen for coming and putting forward his views, both in writing and orally today. We will continue to study the bill. Senator Phalen, no doubt you will be following our deliberations. Thank you for appearing today.
We now have before us, from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Brenna MacNeil, Director, Social Policy and Programs, Immigration Branch; and Robert Mundie, Director, Strategic Priorities Division, Strategic Policy Branch. From Health Canada, we have Cindy Moriarty, Director, Bureau of Women's Health and Gender Based Analysis. Welcome, panellists; please proceed with your presentations.
Brenna MacNeil, Director, Social Policy and Programs, Immigration Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
[Translation]
The issue of trafficking in persons is a concern for many federal government departments and agencies. CIC works closely with these partners to collaborate and strengthen Canada's response to this crime.
The key role played by CIC is protection of victims. To this end, we have introduced temporary resident permits for victims of trafficking.
In May 2006, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced a new public policy and instructions enabling immigration officers to issue a free temporary resident permit for up to 120 days to suspected victims of trafficking in Canada.
Responding to concerns raised by stakeholders and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the minister extended the maximum length of this permit to 180 days.
[English]
The intent of this temporary resident permit is to allow victims to escape their traffickers and to begin to recover from their ordeal. With this permit, victims have access to medical coverage with the Interim Federal Health Program, which includes trauma counselling. The temporary visa also allows victims to apply for a work permit and provides an opportunity to earn a living in Canada while they consider their options. There is no fee for this permit.
To encourage victims to come forward, they are not required to assist law enforcement in order to receive temporary or permanent immigration status in Canada. In cases where a more complete verification of the facts establishes reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is a victim, a longer-term permit may be issued for up to three years.
Bill S-218 also deals with temporary resident permits; however, there are limitations with the proposed legislation. First, most of Bill S-218's proposed measures are already in place and have the force of law. In one sense, the bill is actually playing catch-up with current immigration policy. There is one significant difference, however, and that is flexibility.
Current use of ministerial instructions and public policy to protect victims of trafficking offers the necessary flexibility and responsiveness required by this complex issue. The recent increase in the short-term permit is a good example of this flexibility. The increase to 180 days closed a gap in the previous policy, which did not allow victims to work. As the change could be made through ministerial instruction, it was done very quickly. Bill S-222, the predecessor to Bill S-218, provided for 120-day permits. By including a 180-day permit in Bill S-218, the bill was brought up to the date with departmental policy.
This timely change would not have been possible if the measures had been in legislation. Putting current measures into legislation would hamper the government's ability to adjust and respond quickly to the needs of victims as well as the stakeholders involved in combatting human trafficking.
[Translation]
Another area of concern is the potential for abuse. Fraud is a concern in any program, particularly one which provides the potential of permanent residence in Canada.
This bill would require that long-term permits be issued for three years and that permanent residence be granted after this period.
Given this direct path to permanent residence, permits under the bill may be open to abuse by those seeking to enter Canada by any means possible.
While permanent residence is also possible under the existing guidelines, there is greater flexibility to issue a long- term permit for a period of time appropriate to the circumstances.
[English]
A third concern is that the bill would grant permanent residence without consideration of inadmissibilities associated with trafficking. This could provide a blanket amnesty to those who have committed crimes in these circumstances, including those crimes as serious as trafficking others and even murder.
The current policy, however, allows a case-by-case analysis of any inadmissibility. We know that victims can be coerced into committing a crime and, if the circumstances warrant, any inadmissibility may be overcome. A case-by- case approach balances considerations of Canadian security and victim protection.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to underscore that many of the measures proposed in Bill S-218 are already in place and have the force of law. The existing measures provide the flexible, responsive and victim-sensitive approach necessary to protect and assist victims of human trafficking.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I understand that you are the only presenter, so we can go to questions.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for coming here, all three of you, and helping us to understand this.
I have some preliminary questions for all three of you. I see that the U.S. has a hotline. Do we have a way for victims to contact help besides calling the RCMP? If you leave Vancouver and go to the U.S. side at the airport, you see a notice saying that if you are a victim, phone this number. Do we have anything like that? I have not seen anything like that. I am wondering how we get aid to the victims.
Ms. MacNeil: Specifically, with respect to temporary resident permits, the contact point would be the local Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, office. Victims would either come forward on their own to the local CIC or through a non-governmental agency or law enforcement.
Senator Jaffer: Could you walk us through the process, so that I understand completely? I believe they do not have to go to the police. They have to go to the CIC. I understand the big issue is whether they are really trafficked in. What happens once a person says, ``I have been trafficked into Canada''?
Ms. MacNeil: As I said, people would come forward on their own or through an NGO or law enforcement. At that point, they would be granted a one-on-one interview with a CIC official. Questions would be asked about the circumstances in which they came in or in which they were situated. The guidelines provide specific examples to the interviewer, to the CIC official, that have been developed in order to get at the information.
Senator Jaffer: I know that CIC is very busy and I imagine that an interview is set up for some time in the future, so when these people first come to the CIC, are they given a safe haven to stay in or do they receive any help between the time they report and the time they get an interview with CIC?
Ms. MacNeil: The officers make efforts to communicate with either NGOs or other agencies in the area in order to create the linkages to get access to the programming available.
Senator Jaffer: There is nothing government-sponsored, however.
Ms. MacNeil: There is nothing specific for the federal government because most of that programming is offered more on the provincial or municipal level.
Senator Jaffer: What happens after the interview?
Ms. MacNeil: In the interview, they would go through the questions to determine whether there is a suspicion of trafficking. In the interview, the victims would also be counselled on other immigration avenues available to them, depending on the circumstances. At that time, the immigration official would also help them with the forms required for the Interim Federal Health Program to get access to those services. As well, if the victims wanted a work permit, they would fill out those forms and that would be issued at the same time as the permit.
Senator Jaffer: If the people presenting themselves as victims do not fit into the guidelines, are they deported right away?
Ms. MacNeil: I am not sure. They would not be deported on the spot, because the deportation proceedings would be a matter for the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and I am not sure how CBSA proceeds in those circumstances.
The Chair: Senator Jaffer has added a witness to our list, the border agency.
Senator Munson: Senator Phalen talked about discrepancies in the data. From 800 victims to 16,000 is a big, wide, gap. Do you have any numbers that you could provide to us?
Ms. MacNeil: I do not. As I think you may be aware, the RCMP is working on that issue. We work together with other federal departments through the Interdepartmental Working Group on Trafficking in Persons. The leads in that working group are Justice Canada and Public Safety Canada. I believe Public Safety Canada is taking the lead on researching that issue in order to get at the numbers.
As has already been stated, it is difficult to answer the statistics question because of the clandestine nature of the offence.
Senator Munson: In your brief statement, you are in strong defence of what we have presently.
Ms. MacNeil: Yes, I am.
Senator Munson: Senator Phalen was passionate about what he would like to see changed. Are you telling us that Bill S-218 is not necessary?
Ms. MacNeil: That is our position. We do agree with the goals, because what is in the bill does reflect what is in the current immigration policy in large part, but we feel the amendments are not required. As I said, the problem with putting it into legislation is reduced flexibility.
The example I gave in my opening statement was that the change made from 120 days to 180 days was an important one that allowed the victims to work over that short-term permit period. The other example raised today is the idea that victims ``must'' participate in legal proceedings. That was changed from Bill S-222 to Bill S-218. Had those measures already been in legislation, those changes would have been much more difficult to make and would have taken longer to do, so flexibility is a key issue.
In my opening statement, I also raised the question of abuse, which has been covered off here as well, and the idea of the specific provisions on inadmissibility. Bill S-218 has a broad section with respect to inadmissibility. It effectively provides amnesty for any crimes committed in the course of the trafficking, whereas our case-by-case approach provides a more balanced approach, balancing security versus the need to protect victims.
We also take issue with deeming the victims permanent residents for the purposes of health and social services. It has been pointed out, quite rightly, that health and social services are matters of provincial jurisdiction, and however it is done, the impact will be on the province, so the provinces should be consulted on the issue. That is what usually would be done in legislation.
Another issue is that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is designed to be framework legislation. The anchors for the provisions are in the act, and there is an anchor in the act for a temporary resident permit. However, it is framework legislation, and there are regulations and ministerial instructions that abide by that act, as do the instructions that we have, and the courts have recognized the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as framework legislation. Therefore, for consistency in our approach, we believe there is no need to put this into legislation.
Senator Munson: I am wondering why you would have an issue with a hotline, which is part of this bill. This is a very sensitive, delicate issue for victims or alleged victims. Sometimes governments can be impersonal and it is a big bureaucracy, and people have a difficult time trying to discover where to go and what to do. If there were a public awareness campaign, would a hotline not help?
Cindy Moriarty, Director, Bureau of Women's Health and Gender Based Analysis, Health Canada: Those recommendations are directed at the Department of Health, and our principal concern is that the hotline falls outside the department's core mandate. Also, we would need to consider the provincial and territorial jurisdictions, because some of them already have hotlines and referral services in place. Many of the provinces and territories have community-based services, the NGOs we have talked about.
Senator Munson: Do other countries have federal hotlines? The victims coming to Canada are international, and they are not choosing the province to which they are being trafficked.
Ms. Moriarty: I do not know offhand. We could find out. The interesting point there would be to compare other countries that are similar to Canada in terms of the federal-provincial-territorial dynamic.
Senator Munson: I have one final question. I will invoke Senator Andreychuk's name in this. In debate in the Senate on March 5, Senator Andreychuk stated that the government allocated an additional $6 million per year to strengthen existing federal efforts to combat the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children. The money was aimed primarily at enhancing our front-line enforcement response. Can you tell us more about this funding and how it is being used?
Ms. MacNeil: I will speak to it, but I will note that these efforts are being led by Public Safety Canada because they do touch on reinforcing the law enforcement provisions. They deal with public education outreach, which, through the working group, we are working on with our partners. There are provisions for enhanced reporting of the crime through a campaign with Crime Stoppers. As I mentioned, there are provisions for research to assess the impact of trafficking on specific communities, as well as sexual exploitation.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: What happens if a victim commits a serious crime during the time of the 180-day permit? Is the victim still allowed to say here, or will he or she be sent back? What will happen to that person?
Ms. MacNeil: Generally, a temporary resident permit is a measure that is available to persons who are inadmissible to Canada and who have committed crimes. It would depend on the circumstance. Each circumstance would have to be evaluated independently.
The Chair: If I understand Senator Lovelace Nicholas's point, if the victim gets the permit and then commits a crime, what happens?
Ms. MacNeil: It depends on the case, on what the crime is and on the application.
The Chair: Let us say it is serious crime. What would happen?
Ms. MacNeil: The person could be removed.
Robert Mundie, Director, Strategic Priorities Division, Strategic Policy Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: A person can be removed. It would be up to CBSA to make the determination.
The Chair: Do you have examples of cases like that?
Ms. MacNeil: Not to my knowledge.
The Chair: We need to go back to CBSA again to get the information.
Senator Stratton: I am still harkening back to this potential. You want to protect genuine victims of human trafficking. This 1-800 number intrigues me, but you can do that through regulations; you do not need a bill.
When people coming into the country apply for refugee status, what happens to them? Are they sent out of the country to apply? I am not familiar with this, and I want to make a comparison between what happens to someone who applies for refugee status versus someone who, under this bill, is home-free in three years.
Ms. MacNeil: I am not an expert on the refugee determination process. However, an individual would come forward to claim refugee status and then the determination is made by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. That determination would be made there. I am not sure which part of the process you are interested in.
Senator Stratton: Say it was determined that people are genuine refugees. They are granted temporary resident status in Canada. Would they then have to go through the normal process of becoming citizens, or are they given something special under that refugee status, as people would have under this bill, to obtain their permanent residency? Are we making a special case here? In other words, are we identifying something specific to human trafficking and in so doing harming the genuine refugee? If we are, then why would someone apply for refugee status instead of claiming to be a victim of human trafficking, because the victim of trafficking route is quicker and safe?
Ms. MacNeil: On the issue of deeming an individual to be a permanent resident, that would certainly be a unique provision. That would be a difference. I think we would have to assess what impact that would have on the refugee process, if any.
The Chair: If I recall, you said that there are amnesty provisions here and that they are troublesome to you. Are you talking about proposed section 24.1(2)? Is that what you are calling amnesty?
Ms. MacNeil: It is the inadmissibility provisions.
The Chair: There is a short-term and a long-term inadmissibility. I see proposed sections 24.1(2) and 24.2(1). Is that what you are referring to as amnesty? That term is not used, and I wanted to explore how you come to the conclusion that it is amnesty.
Ms. MacNeil: We are looking at proposed new section 24.2(4), the eligibility for permanent resident status. The last part reads:
. . . is not inadmissible for those purposes by virtue of any circumstance that was caused by, or incidental to, their being a victim of human trafficking.
The Chair: Is your concern with this that it would be a blanket inability for governments or criminal justice authorities to take into account serious crimes?
Ms. MacNeil: That is right. The way the provision is worded, it clearly says ``any circumstance,'' so any crime that was committed in the course of that trafficking would not be held against that person for purposes of admissibility into Canada under the immigration provisions.
The Chair: To be quite honest, I read it first to talk about the victim of trafficking. Are you saying it could cover anyone who is involved in trafficking?
Ms. MacNeil: No. We are talking about the victim. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we know that victims can become involved in crimes in the course of their being trafficked. However, the concern here is just to point out that this is so broad as to include any crime that that person may have committed. It could include murder and it could include trafficking of others.
The Chair: Under the present system, if this bill does not pass, if a victim was brought to this country improperly, was threatened in some way, and committed a crime, he or she would be charged, if you could prove it?
Ms. MacNeil: This speaks to inadmissibility for the purposes of immigration. Under the current system, what happens is a case-by-case approach.
The Chair: This does not go to the crime and how it might be dealt with in court. Your concern is that you prefer a case-by-case approach, where there may be some compelling reason not to grant a permit. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. MacNeil: Yes. This is with respect to the granting of permanent resident status.
The Chair: ``Amnesty'' means something different to me than what you are saying, so I wanted to clarify that.
Senator Jaffer: If a person has been given a temporary resident permit and is allowed to and does stay here for 180 days, what happens after 180 days?
Ms. MacNeil: Different things can happen. That person can be issued another 180-day permit if there is more work to be done as far as establishing reasonable grounds to believe that trafficking has occurred. You can reissue a 180-day permit or you can issue a long-term temporary resident permit, and under the current provisions that can be for any period up to three years.
Senator Jaffer: Can people in that circumstance apply to become permanent residents within the three years?
Ms. MacNeil: They can apply under other immigration channels open to them. If they meet someone over the course of that period, a permanent resident or Canadian citizen, and get married or enter a common-law relationship, there are provisions for that. They could decide over that period to apply for refugee status. Many of the immigration channels are open to them at that point.
Senator Jaffer: With the greatest of respect, it is based on individual cases. Things would be difficult for them to apply for refugee status, but could they apply under humanitarian and compassionate grounds?
Ms. MacNeil: That would be open to them as well.
The Chair: Are you saying, from your department analysis, that if this bill passes, the minister's discretion is taken away and it would be just one 180-day permit, while under the present system it can be continued?
Ms. MacNeil: I am not sure it is clear in the bill as drafted whether there could be repeat 180-day permits. The bill speaks of both a 180-day permit and a 3-year permit.
The Chair: Has your legal department looked at this?
Ms. MacNeil: That specific question has not been posed.
The Chair: We need someone from the Department of Justice for their interpretation. The bill does not speak to any extensions, so the question is whether it can be extended by inference. I do not know. We would have to look at that. I am not an immigration lawyer.
Thank you very much for your comments on Bill S-218. We will take your remarks into account in our study.
We are now pleased to welcome, from the Canadian Council for Refugees, Ms. Janet Dench, Executive Director; and Ms. Loly Rico, Chair, Anti-Trafficking Subcommittee. I understand you have an opening statement, and then we will go to questions.
Loly Rico, Chair, Anti-Trafficking Subcommittee, Canadian Council for Refugees: Thank you very much for inviting us to comment on Bill S-218. The Canadian Council for Refugees is an umbrella organization committed to the protection of refugees in Canada and around the world and to the settlement and integration of refugees and immigrants in Canada. About 170 organizations from across Canada are members of the CCR.
We welcome and salute the Senate's work on the issue of trafficking and congratulate Senator Phalen for his commitment to protecting trafficked persons, including the introduction of this bill. Trafficking has long been an almost invisible problem in Canada, so we are particularly grateful to senators for shining a spotlight on the issue.
Under the leadership of our gender core group, the CCR has been following the issue of trafficking in women and children for several years. Following regional consultations in 2002-03, we held a national conference on trafficking in women and children in November 2003. Out of this process, we developed a series of recommendations, and we adopted three guiding principles.
Measures must be non-punitive and must not penalize trafficked persons. Measures must be guided by and be respectful of the human rights of trafficked persons. Specific programs and supportive services catered to trafficked persons are needed as well as training of service providers and stakeholders.
To follow up on this work, we struck an anti-trafficking committee, nationally representative of trafficked persons advocacy organizations, in which we focused on applying the above principles and advocating for their implementation nationally by governments, their agencies and service providers; increasing public awareness about trafficking in Canada; and working for the protection of trafficked persons in Canada.
As an example, a coordinated network was developed in Vancouver between the NGOs and the local authorities to work towards services for trafficked persons. Other cities have focused on doing public awareness as well as advocacy with their members of Parliament for the protection of trafficked persons. We have been closely following the various measures introduced by the Canadian government. Because we believe that more remains to be done, in early 2007 we developed proposed legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for the protection of trafficked persons, and we have been working to promote this proposal.
We have passed around our proposal for legislation. Last November we lobbied with the different members of Parliament at the House of Commons, and we have a brochure with questions and answers and a pamphlet we use with the NGOs when we do public awareness.
The key aspects of the proposals are the following: to advocate for legislative changes to ensure that there is a permanent and fundamental change in policy so that trafficked persons in Canada are unconditionally protected through permanent residence and provided with adequate service programs; to highlight the narrowed focus of current provisions in the law relating to trafficking, which serve to criminalize trafficking and promote detention of trafficked persons rather than protecting the human rights of trafficked persons; to promote gender equality, given the gendered aspects of trafficking, which differentially impacts women and girls, exploiting their vulnerability within society, both in Canada and around the world.
These proposals have been endorsed by numerous organizations, including the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Canada; Stop the Trafficking; Persons Against the Crime of Trafficking, PACT; London and Area Anti-trafficking Committee; and the Canadian Federation of University Women.
Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees: We wanted to make a few comments on similarities and variances between Bill S-218 and our proposal. To look at some of the similarities, both Bill S-218 and our proposal recognize the need for a change to the immigration legislation in order to ensure the protection of trafficked persons.
We appreciate the positive steps taken by the government in introducing the 2006 guidelines for the issuance of temporary residence permits to trafficked persons, but we believe, based on experience, that this is not enough and that an amendment to the law is necessary. In this regard, we disagree with the comments from the witness from Citizenship and Immigration Canada that the current measures in place respond adequately to the needs of trafficked persons.
The Canadian Council for Refugees' proposal recommends that trafficking be defined as in the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. Bill S-218 adopts a similar definition, although we note that there are some differences that may be of concern.
Both Bill S-218 and our proposal recognize the importance of providing trafficked persons with access to health care and social services.
Both the bill and our proposal recognize the need for providing an immediate grant of temporary protection on a low threshold of proof. In our proposal, we suggest the standard of ``reasonable grounds to suspect'' that the person may have been trafficked, a standard that already exists in the act. The bill proposes protection if the person ``may be or may have been'' a victim of human trafficking. Both these tests recognize that the situation is often unclear and impossible to determine quickly, especially when the persons concerned have not had an opportunity to develop trust in officials.
Both the bill and our proposal provide for more permanent protection where it is established on a higher threshold that the person has been trafficked, and there would be a risk of hardship if the person is removed.
I will turn now to some of the differences between bill S-218 and our proposal.
We have consciously avoided using the term ``victims'' in our proposal. Trafficking is a process that depends on taking away from the trafficked the control of their lives. Trafficking treats people as objects or commodities, rather than as people and as agents in their own lives. We therefore believe it is preferable to avoid, as far as possible, words and actions which put trafficked persons into a passive role and undermine their agency.
We believe that it is crucial that protection not be conditional on cooperation with authorities. Some other countries have done just this. Experience has shown that this works against the goal of protection for a number of reasons, including because of the profound and often justified fears for themselves and their families, and the fact that the experience of being trafficked will be so traumatizing for some that they will be unable to assist in intimidating judicial proceedings.
We have therefore been careful to word the criteria for protection in such a way as to avoid making cooperation implicitly or explicitly a requirement, while recognizing that the fact of cooperation in prosecution may well put trafficked persons at greater risk. Although Bill S-218 does not make cooperation a requirement for longer-term protection, we would be concerned that making it one of the criteria would mean in practice that some women would need to choose between deportation and cooperation.
In our proposal, we recommend a possibility of acquiring permanent residence in the mid-term rather than a three- year permit leading to eventual permanent residence, as in the bill. We are familiar with the implications of temporary versus permanent status. We are therefore concerned that imposing a long period of temporary status on trafficked persons would mean a significant hardship in practical and psychological areas. It is very difficult for someone who only has temporary status in Canada to get on with their lives. This would be doubly so for those who have experienced as grave an abuse as trafficking and who therefore already have significant handicaps to overcome in rebuilding their lives.
A specific obstacle for persons on temporary permits is that they have no right to family reunification, even with spouses or dependent children. In our proposal, we recommend that trafficked persons be able to include immediate family members on their permanent residence application, as do refugees.
Because children are among those trafficked, and they are particularly vulnerable because of their young age, our proposal includes specific text to attempt to address their situation.
Finally, we have included references to NGOs in our proposal, and we believe that a successful response to the needs of trafficked persons will involve NGOs in a key role. NGOs are much better placed than officials to develop a relationship of trust with people who have been abused and exploited.
The Chair: I should say that the concern about trafficking persons is a worldwide concern, and certainly in Canada. For that reason, this committee has put in a notice of motion to study this issue. The Senate has not passed that motion, but we intend to study every aspect of this issue as we think that a full review is timely and necessary. No doubt you will be before us again in the broader context of the issues.
Senator Munson: In earlier testimony with Senator Phalen and the officials, we heard the figures 800 and 16,000 for the number of victims of human trafficking in Canada. Since you are closer to the ground in working with people, do you have any idea what the figure may be for victims of trafficking in this country, or alleged victims of trafficking?
Ms. Dench: We do not have any privileged access to figures. In our work on this area, we have realized that as long as there is no clear protection mechanism for trafficked persons, many of them will not come to our attention.
At the moment, the situation is that the traffickers can tell their victims that they have a choice: ``If you leave us, you will likely be deported.'' Then if they are deported, they may be at risk in their home countries. Traffickers can hang threats over the heads of their victims because of the lack of secure protection in Canada's laws.
Our member organizations who serve immigrants and refugees, when talking about what we can do for trafficked persons, ask what we can offer people. If there is no secure protection in the law, it is difficult for us to reach out to people and tell them that we can help when there is nothing concrete we can do to help. In that sense, we have no way of knowing how many people are involved.
Our position is that each human being has the right to have their rights respected. Whether very large or only small numbers of people are affected, we need to be concerned, because we know there are people in this situation.
Ms. Rico: Also, there is no process where they can count data. One of the numbers could come from the RCMP. In my experience, because I work with refugees, women and children, we have been seeing potential trafficked persons. When we contact Citizenship and Immigration Canada or if they have been recognized by the Canada Border Service Agency, they have not been recognized as victims of trafficking. However, when they have gone through the refugee process at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, some of them have been recognized as refugees.
There is not a specific category of ``trafficked person,'' and that is why we do not have exact numbers. I have been there, seeing them and trying to help them, but there is no real process under which we can help them.
Senator Munson: It takes a lot of courage for a victim to step out of the shadows, I would guess. Senator Phalen's bill talks about a hotline. The officials before us seemed to be dismissive of that. Would a hotline be helpful to victims?
Ms. Rico: Yes. We have experience with that. For example, I am located in Toronto, and we have the hotline for domestic violence for abused women. It has been a success. It is a way women can communicate and go through the shelter system and obtain protection.
We are looking into something like that. The RCMP has a number at the moment, but because it is the RCMP number, that hotline has not been successful. However, that idea would be helpful.
Senator Munson: Your own proposal, which has some similarities to Senator Phalen's, contains a line that struck me. You said that there is nothing in the law to protect the human rights specifically of trafficked persons. Could you expand on that?
Ms. Dench: There is nothing specifically for trafficked persons. If you do a search through the act and the regulations, trafficking comes up in the measures in order to criminalize the act of trafficking, so the traffickers are targeted. There is reference in the regulations relating to detention. If a person is trafficked, including children, that is a factor in favour of their detention. A person who is trafficked is at greater risk of being detained than someone who has not been trafficked. There is nothing in the law to say these are specific measures to protect or advance the rights of trafficked persons.
Senator Munson: We know that you have your own proposals here, but would you encourage us to pass Bill S-218?
Ms. Dench: We are certainly in favour of the general goals of the bill. As I said in my comments, we have some concerns about some aspects of the bill.
Senator Stratton: To continue along with Senator Munson's questioning, considering the differences between what you would like and what Senator Phalen has in his bill, do you think the bill could be amended to meet your requirements?
Ms. Dench: Yes, certainly.
Senator Stratton: Among the differences you list in your remarks, the first bullet talks about victims. You do not use that word. The second bullet says, ``We believe that it is crucial that protection not be conditional on cooperation with authorities. Some other countries have done just this.'' Can you provide examples of other countries that have done this?
Ms. Dench: Certainly. Quite a number of countries in Europe as well as the United States and Australia have tied either temporary or permanent status in the country to cooperation with authorities. In some cases, you will get your temporary status if you agree to cooperate. In some cases, continuance of status in the country is dependent on whether there is a conviction. If the prosecution does not succeed in winning a conviction against the traffickers, then the person who is being trafficked also suffers the consequences.
Senator Stratton: In the third bullet, you recommend a possibility of acquiring permanent residence in the mid-term. What does ``mid-term'' mean for a layperson?
Ms. Dench: In Senator Phalen's bill, you have short-term protection and then you have a three-year temporary permit, and then after three years you can become a permanent resident. We want to skip that three-year period without saying that the permanent residence would come at a fixed time. We are saying that if you have a temporary permit, you could then apply for permanent status if you met the conditions at any time. That would, therefore, allow the person to get on with his or her life and to have the security of a permanent status from an earlier period. It could be within six months of arriving.
Senator Stratton: That is what I thought it said. I appreciate that.
Senator Jaffer: You work with the victims. I think the difference between what Senator Phalen is suggesting and what the department is stating is the issue of flexibility. If I understand what Citizenship and Immigration Canada said, putting current practise into legislation would hamper the government's ability to adjust and respond quickly to the needs of the victims. Do you feel that having this in legislation would remove flexibility?
Ms. Dench: I appreciate the government's interest in maintaining flexibility, but looked at from the point of view of the NGOs and from the point of view of the trafficked person, the flexibility does not necessarily work in favour of the trafficked person. We understand that there are good intentions in the guidelines that are issued from Ottawa, but when they do not have the force of law and do not have all of the measures that go along with the change in the law, what we see on the ground is that many trafficked persons fall through the cracks. Ms. Rico can speak in more concrete words about this. Our experience on the ground is that the flexibility is not working in favour of trafficked persons. We provide an example of a case in Vancouver where a person at the border was identified as being trafficked and yet ended up never being given access to a lawyer. She was in detention and, within days, was deported. We obviously cannot know all the details of the case, but that sort of thing is very troubling to us, and it is just one example.
Ms. Rico: I can give you a few examples. The police in Toronto were investigating a rape in a brothel house, and they found a woman who was without status. They brought her to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and they identified her as a trafficked person. At the moment she was interviewed by the immigration officer, there was no issuance of a temporary resident permit. The way they issue them is very subjective. The person must be identified as a trafficked person, and sometimes they do not realize that they have been trafficked.
It also depends on what the immigration officer believes. Even if the officer and the victim go through a questionnaire, whether temporary resident protection is produced depends on the belief of the immigration officer. That is why we say that kind of flexibility is not good.
Senator Jaffer: You said that sometimes people do not even know that they have been trafficked. From what I understand, even before they can get help from the department, they have to say that they have been trafficked. Under the legislation, they will get more help. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Rico: Yes.
The Chair: What tools does an official have available to use to determine whether a person has been trafficked, especially if the person does not know? Can you give me an example? It is okay if you are talking about a case where there is a known smuggling or trafficking ring and you can link it back to the other country and the police are monitoring those. The individual in that case would not know it, and I understand that difference. However, some cases are more nefarious. It is also going further underground. The police are having more and more difficulty finding those linkages and those trafficking rings. If the traffickers are getting more clever at disguising who they are and the victims do not know, then how does this piece of legislation help those victims?
Ms. Dench: It is important to recognize that trafficking can take many different forms. Perhaps we can take a different example involving children. We are aware of a number of cases where there have been children in circumstances that look like they may have been trafficked. It is not necessarily part of a ring. There could be a single child entering and perhaps being held in a household as a domestic servant. The child does not go out to school and is expected simply to work in the house. There are cases where children have arrived at the airport in situations that arouse suspicion. We have seen that child simply deported without any investigation into what exactly was going on and what the child was being deported to.
We do not think that passing legislation will suddenly make everything clear. These are often complex and difficult situations. However, if there is something in the law or something in the objective of the law that refers to protection of trafficked persons, this will lead to greater awareness, training and education among officials of both the immigration department and the Canada Border Services Agency.
This has been our experience in our organization in the last few years, where we have worked on the issue of trafficking. We have become more attuned to what we are looking for. If we see someone arriving under certain circumstances, in certain relationships, and saying certain things, then we know this may be an issue of trafficking.
The Chair: Your proposal differs from that of Senator Phalen in that your last statement refers to NGOs. My experience working in this area for over three decades is that NGOs are more likely than a department official to build that trust relationship, particularly when you note where these people are coming from, where department officials are not seen to be helpers but rather seen as ``the system.''
How could Bill S-218 incorporate the utilization of NGOs as facilitators as opposed to department officials? Have you given that any consideration?
Ms. Dench: There is partly the question of what belongs in law and what is a question of practice. However, we would certainly like to see, in terms of the overall strategy of dealing with trafficked persons, a strong emphasis on the role of NGOs and the different government agencies working more closely with the NGOs, looking at the NGOs as being the service providers.
As our efforts have been going forward, we have been somewhat disappointed at the unwillingness in many places to engage in that discussion, both at the national level and at the regional levels where there have been many attempts made by those involved in our national committee to sit down with the police, the immigration authorities and so on to address this issue. There has been a lack of willingness to do that in an effective way.
The Chair: The overall concern here is similar to working with family issues where violence is a symptom. For the people who find themselves before the court, you can use the term ``victim'' or the ``trafficked person.'' They are the least likely to have the capacity to cooperate, to get at the trafficker. It is not just fear for themselves; it is fear of what might happen to their families and in their village back home. It is a very insidious network.
There is sometimes a comfort level and emotional tie between the trafficked and the trafficker. Those who have worked in this field for a long time, as we found in family crises, know that that is very hard to get at. Any process that puts victims in the spotlight and before department officials and the courts simply makes them recoil more and suffer the consequences for fear of all the other unknowns.
I do not see that being addressed in your proposal or in Senator Phalen's bill. The difficulty that we found in family court is that a wife will not testify against her husband easily. You can mandate them, and that may or may not work. In many cases, it does not. What really works is counselling, working with these people and giving them the support systems when they can handle it. It happens at a different level with everyone, based on their history. Therefore, we need many local services to be available.
Are we looking at legislation and policy when we should be looking at resources and needs in various communities? Should we not be providing more money for counselling and enabling the ability to cope with what is happening to them?
Ms. Dench: You spoke very eloquently about the needs of people and the psychological effects of trafficking. In our proposal, one of the elements that we addressed was interviews with enforcement officials. Currently, under the temporary resident permit system, there is a mandatory interview with either RCMP or CBSA. We were concerned about that from the beginning with the temporary resident permit system. We understand that there will be circumstances where it is necessary for potentially trafficked persons to be interviewed, particularly if they are at the border when they come to attention. We think that strong guidance must be provided so that the officials conducting the interview are aware of these circumstances and, where possible, have the presence of an NGO with whom the trafficked person can feel more comfortable.
You are quite right that other kinds of services need to be available, but in order to get to the point where people can take advantage of those, people need to have the protection of status. That is why we did not make achieving services a priority, because until there is security of status, people will not come forward to benefit from the services. They will not be able to make much progress, because the lack of secure status plays such a role in undermining their ability to work. If you give them psychological counselling but all the time they are worrying about whether they will be deported next week or next month, the counselling will not help much.
The Chair: You said that you thought the proposed three-year waiting period was detrimental; in other words, the victims should be able to apply for residency status whenever. They should not be precluded from doing so. We have a refugee system, which we put in for all the right reasons, and we want now to deal, for all the right reasons, with persons who are trafficked.
If they choose to become Canadian citizens, assuming they pass all the requirements, should those two be equal? Should a refugee be able to get Canadian citizenship earlier than a trafficked person, or vice versa, or should they be on an equal footing in the long run?
Ms. Rico: At the moment, with the refugee process in Toronto and the interview with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, being recognized as a convention refugee takes eight months to one year. After that, refugees can apply for permanent residence, where they can include their family for family reunification. That is how it happens at the moment with refugee claimants.
With trafficked persons, the same thing would happen. If they have a temporary resident permit and they need to stay here due to hardship, they can apply for permanent residence in a way that they can reunify with their families, especially women who have left their children. That is what we are looking at in that situation, that they have the right. We have studies that when family reunification happens, it stabilizes the person who comes here, the refugee, and it helps with the integration and the adjustment for the trafficked person.
Senator Jaffer: Since this bill has come in front of us, I have often thought that we should be using the refugee system for the trafficked person. If a person is found to be trafficked, at the moment the trafficked person does not have any right to counsel. I do not know about anywhere else, but in B.C. a refugee person is now provided pro bono counsel under legal aid. All the same rules should apply to the trafficked person as apply for the refugee person. At the moment, with the flexible rules of this legislation, we are setting up a new system. You are familiar with the refugee rules. You have alluded to some of them and have said that there should be the same rules. How do you see it?
To clarify, once people are found to be convention refugees, there are rules that apply to them getting permanent residency. I think you have already said that the same thing should happen to trafficked persons. As soon as a temporary resident permit is granted, they should be in line as refugee persons.
Ms. Dench: There are different aspects to the question. We certainly did look at the parallels between a person who is trafficked and a refugee. Currently, we protect refugees. Some trafficked persons may meet the refugee definition and might have been able to get protection in that way, but there is a gap. Refugee protection is about people who fear persecution in their home country; trafficking is about people who have experienced abuses here in Canada. There is a gap in the law. In our proposal, we are trying to fill the gap by saying that yes, we will recognize that experience of abuse and treat those people in the same way as refugees.
You could go further than our proposal and say that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada would not only confer refugee status but would also recognize people who are trafficked and that those people would receive protection in Canada and would apply for permanent residence. We did not go quite that far. We said that Citizenship and Immigration Canada would make that determination, but you could go further and say that it would be done by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
At the moment, this does not look like a very interesting solution because of the problem with the failure of the government to appoint sufficient Immigration and Refugee Board members, resulting in a large and increasing backlog, unfortunately.
Senator Jaffer: We heard what Madam Chair said. I am also struggling with this. When people claim refugee status, immediately they are provided with a lawyer and they work with a lawyer to put their case through. When people claim that they have been trafficked, however, they go to the officer — mostly, I imagine — alone or with an NGO person. They are not able to build trust with someone. That makes it harder for them. In fact, it is much more difficult for people who claim they are being trafficked; there are not the services.
I am not saying that they should go to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada; that is another thing. I am saying that the same kind of services should be provided so that we do not reinvent the wheel. We cannot touch the refugee system because there is a definition and if we try to dilute that, it will not work. However, women and children are being abused in our country and we should provide the same kind of services for them. We have already set up a system, and we should set up the same system for trafficked persons.
Ms. Dench: Yes. Once you have it in law, the next task would be to go to the different service providers, including the legal aid of the different provinces, to say, ``You now need to expand your eligibility to cover people who are applying as trafficked persons so that they can have legal counsel.''
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Once a trafficked person comes forward to the authorities, how are they housed? Are they put in a safe house?
Ms. Rico: In my experience, in Toronto, in some cases the trafficked persons were put in an immigration holding centre, because there is no willingness to work together with the NGOs. Sometimes they look at the refugee houses or the shelter system.
Ms. Dench: To clarify that, when you say ``an immigration holding centre,'' you mean detention.
Ms. Rico: Yes, the detention centres.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Would there be a better way to house these trafficked persons? I am trying not to say ``victims.'' What could be done?
Ms. Rico: Yes. The International Organization for Migration, the IOM, has a manual on how to deal with trafficked persons. They had a good experience in Italy. One of their recommendations is that female trafficked persons should be housed in a small house where they feel that they are in the community and they feel comfortable. Also, they should be housed in such a way that they are not in public, because that would both be dangerous and pose a high risk to them. We have proposed that as well.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Would help if there were something to that effect in the senator's bill?
Ms. Dench: The challenge is always how to deal with things that are not really a matter of law but more a matter of service provision and policy.
Senator Jaffer: We are all struggling with the issue of when people say that they are being trafficked. They have issues if it is found out, and people in their families at home could get into trouble. In your experience, has the government helped with witness protection?
Ms. Rico: Not at the moment.
The Chair: Thank you for the evidence and for your perspectives on this important issue. If we are successful in proceeding with our study, no doubt we will have you back on the broader issues with which we will be dealing.
Honourable senators, the committee welcomes, by video conference, Mr. Benjamin Perrin, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia.
Please proceed with you opening statement.
Benjamin Perrin, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, as an individual: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and senators.
As you have no doubt heard already in the hearing today, human trafficking is not only a serious transnational crime but also a fundamental affront to basic human rights. Canada's role in this practice globally is still poorly understood. Two things are clear, however: we are not immune to human trafficking — it has reached our borders — and Canada is not doing enough to address it.
Internationally it is recognized that three things are required to effectively combat trafficking: preventing it, prosecuting offenders and protecting trafficked persons. Bill S-218 is an admirable attempt to do a better job of protecting trafficked persons in Canada. It recognizes the importance of protecting trafficked persons in Canadian immigration laws — an important starting point. However, as I will get into later in my remarks, there are several key amendments that I would put forward for the committee's consideration in order to ensure this bill is effective in combating trafficking in persons.
It is important to protect trafficked persons not only because it is the right thing to do in accordance with Canadian values, but also because we have committed internationally to doing more to protect these vulnerable individuals. The UN trafficking protocol was signed by Canada on December 14, 2000, and was ratified on May 13, 2002. Articles 6 to 8 of that treaty require that Canada consider a range of protective measures for trafficked persons.
In March 2006, I authored a report published by The Future Group entitled Falling Short of the Mark: An International Study on the Treatments of Victims of Human Trafficking. As some of you know, this report compared Canada's performance to that of other Western developed countries that had signed the protocol and assessed whether we had followed up our words with actions.
Canada received an F. The report concluded:
Canada has systematically failed to comply with its international obligations under the Trafficking Protocol related to the protection of victims of human trafficking. Canada's record of dealing with trafficking victims is an international embarrassment and contrary to best practices.
Specifically related to the bill you have before you today, this report found that the legal options available for trafficked persons to seek temporary residence in Canada after being discovered are not adequate. Through the refugee determination process, trafficking victims are not eligible for refugee status simply because they have been trafficked and brought to Canada. Similarly, humanitarian and compassionate grounds applications are too discretionary and sporadic to be a good alternative.
There is a need for a clear and direct means for foreign nationals who are trafficked persons to obtain legal status in Canada to facilitate their recovery and enhance the possibility of their being able to provide assistance in prosecuting those persons responsible for their suffering.
In addition to according immigration status for victims who are without status, as you have heard today, all trafficked persons require a range of support services. This includes health care and counselling, housing, income or employment support, legal aid and translation services. Most of these support services fall within provincial responsibility. I do not see that recognized yet in Bill S-218.
To date, only the Government of British Columbia, on the provincial level, appears to have taken concrete steps to bring these social services together. The B.C. government created the first governmental office to combat trafficking in persons during the summer.
At the federal level, the May 2006 Citizenship and Immigration Canada guidelines that you are familiar with at this point, which were updated the following year, were a very good first step at providing legal status for victims. Bill S- 218 attempts to partially codify those guidelines into legislation.
Having legislative authority to provide legal status for trafficked persons is a crucial step for both governmental and non-governmental individuals who come into contact with trafficked persons to give them a degree of certainty in making guarantees of protection. The current guidelines, while admirable, can be repealed without notice. On the other hand, they have the benefit of being flexible and responsive.
It would not be appropriate, however, to simply codify them without first looking at how they have worked in practice and learning from those lessons. There is some anecdotal evidence to date that the CIC human trafficking temporary residency permits are not being used in all cases where foreign nationals are suspected of being trafficked. Rather, suspected victims of human trafficking have allegedly been told they should simply claim refugee status.
This is highly problematic for several reasons. It obfuscates the extent of human trafficking in Canada, undermining our efforts to combat this serious crime. Furthermore, trafficked persons are unlikely to qualify for refugee status, as we have seen in numerous reported decisions, because they are usually not fleeing persecution in their home country, as refugees are, but have been exploited and persecuted here in Canada.
Trafficked persons should simply not be given the false hope of being told to claim refugee status in a system that is already strained and where the cards are stacked against them. It is largely for that reason that we need a clear, concrete and straightforward approach for them to have regular, legal immigration status in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The federal government can do more to protect trafficked persons to combat this horrible crime. There are two immediate steps I recommend be considered. The first relates to Bill S-218, and that is to provide legislation for a clear, direct and straightforward route for trafficked persons to be granted temporary residence in Canada.
Second is to promote greater federal, provincial and territorial cooperation in providing the full range of necessary services to trafficked persons to allow them to recover from their ordeal.
In the remaining time I have I would like to mention a few recommendations for the committee to consider to improve Bill S-218 specifically.
First, throughout Bill S-218, the rights and benefits afforded to trafficked persons are linked or even preconditioned on their lack of immigration status. However, we ought to remember that not all trafficked persons are out of legal immigration status. Some hold otherwise valid visitor, work or student visas. The protective measures and immigration options opened to trafficked persons under the bill should not depend only on their immigration status.
It is also likely that provincial regimes starting to provide services to trafficked persons would rely heavily on their being previously identified as trafficked persons by the immigration authorities. As such, where it is suspected that a foreign national is or has been trafficked, there should be a determination made in all cases, regardless of whether the person is in or out of status.
Second, the definition of ``victim of human trafficking'' in clause 3 of Bill S-218 is problematic. It sets the bar too high, does not consider the common practices of debt bondage or adequately reflect the conditions of psychological coercion many trafficking victims are under. It also fails to distinguish between child trafficking instances, which are treated differently under the UN trafficking protocol.
It is also, unfortunately, not sufficiently clear and even vague perhaps in what constitutes exploitation and coercion. I would recommend that the committee look at other international examples of where the UN definition has been translated into domestic legislation with respect to victims. The recent debate in the United States over the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 2007 would be a good place to start for those definitional issues.
Third, the short-term victim protection permits for trafficked persons in Bill S-218 must be clearly made to be renewable. There need to be more options between the 180-day period for a short-term permit and the three-year temporary protection permit.
Fourth, temporary protection permits are properly based in Bill S-218 on alternative grounds of harm to the applicant or their ability to assist with any prosecution of traffickers. However, with respect to proposed section 24.2(1)(b)(i), there is a need to show a ``serious possibility'' of harm. That standard appears to be too high, and I would recommend that the committee consider a different standard of there being a ``reasonable possibility'' of harm as more appropriate.
Finally, with respect to Bill S-218, Part 2, I fully support a single point of contact for referrals of support services to trafficked persons. That is an admirable recommendation in the bill. However, as with clause 2(b) of the bill, it should be clear that there is a role and responsibility for provinces to play a greater contribution in assisting trafficked persons.
To conclude, protecting trafficked persons is a necessary condition to enhancing the detection of human trafficking, because individuals are less likely to come to the attention of authorities without guarantees that they will be treated fairly and compassionately. The implementation of any measures to provide legal status and other protective measures to trafficked persons must be diligently pursued by the relevant government departments, because so much of this work, as you have heard, deals with policy, not simply legislation.
As we would hopefully all agree, human trafficking is a fundamental affront to our most basic commitment as a nation to protecting individual liberty and freedom. It must end within our time.
The Chair: Thank you for that concise and helpful elaboration of Bill S-218 and the larger issue of human trafficking.
Senator Jaffer: Professor Perrin, I thank you for all the work you have done in this area. I do not know whether you heard the earlier witnesses from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Their concern is that if Bill S-218 becomes law, it will remove the flexibility of the minister. They said that putting current practice into legislation would hamper the government's ability to adjust and respond quickly to the needs of victims as well as stakeholders involved in combating human trafficking. Could you please respond to that comment?
Mr. Perrin: I think that the correct line needs to be drawn here. There is certainly a need for a clear directive in the Immigration Act itself that identifies trafficking in persons by name. As the committee is aware, nothing in the Immigration Act deals with victims of human trafficking by name right now. There needs to be at least in the Immigration Act a specific creation of a category of temporary residence permit and also the short-term permits.
Flexibility can be achieved by then relegating to the immigration regulations various aspects of the procedure for that to take place; perhaps also the means that traffickers use should be considered in granting permits. Those sorts of things do lend themselves to enhanced flexibility.
While I would agree that we do not want everything in the Immigration Act, I would also be clear in saying we need to have something in the Immigration Act, and at least that is the legal authority for these permits so that they cannot be taken away at the stroke of a pen.
Senator Jaffer: You brought up another point that I had not thought of, so I want to expand on that. You mentioned in-status foreign nationals and not-in-status foreign nationals. For example, when people with student permits or work permits are trafficked, they should be given the same kind of access as people who are not in status. Do I understand you correctly on that?
Mr. Perrin: Yes. The way Bill S-218 reads currently, starting right in the very first passage with respect to purpose, it refers continually to persons without status, those who are inadmissible and do not meet the requirements of the act and so on. That language is tracked throughout the bill. What that suggests is that immigration officials would be in a position to say, under the Bill S-218 reforms, if they were to become law, that you are only eligible to qualify for these permits if you are without status.
Again, we are in the middle of doing this extensive body of research at the University of British Columbia on how the guidelines have been working in practice, and one preliminary finding we have already come across is that there is at least anecdotal evidence that immigration officials are not recommending or even considering the temporary residence permit for trafficked persons if the individual is already under some other form of status.
We know that traffickers frequently use otherwise legitimate immigration programs to bring individuals into the country, which is increasingly common, and the concern is that if they are not able to be identified as a trafficked person, they will be ineligible for the further three-year temporary residence permits, and also the provinces are then put in a tough position if they do support victim support services to say there has been no determination by immigration authorities of whether or not this person is a trafficked person. They would be put in the difficult position of having to conduct their own assessment.
My recommendation would be that any of the benefits, rights or privileges afforded to a trafficked person should apply across the board regardless of their status at the time of their discovery.
Senator Jaffer: If I understand what you are saying clearly, if we had this legislation, almost for the first time we would be setting out that we recognize that there is a category called a trafficked person. Is that what you are saying? At the moment, it is just in regulations. There is nothing in the act to recognize that persons can be trafficked into our country.
Mr. Perrin: That is correct. It is important that the vulnerability of a trafficked person and the seriousness with which the government treats this serious crime and human rights abuse makes its way into the Immigration Act. It simply is not enough for many non-governmental organizations, who say they come into contact with potential trafficked persons, to say there is a policy somewhere on a website that we can tell you about. We are not sure how it is working. It could be repealed within a day, so we are not able to tell you for sure that you will be granted legal status as a result of your being a trafficked person. Absolutely, it needs to be in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We could discuss further which aspects need to be within regulation and which aspects need to be policy measures. The principle is that the status of a trafficked person for victim protection and immigration status needs to be in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to offer any meaningful protection.
The Chair: You raised an interesting point: We do not recognize trafficked persons. You also made the point that they are the status/non-status issue in immigration. If we want to be truly consistent, would we not find some way in law to recognize trafficked persons, not just those brought into the country? People are trafficked within our country who were born and raised here. Part of a study that we have been looking at is young people who find themselves in the clutches of criminals, gangs or those involved in drug-related activity. They are equally vulnerable, and the actions against them are equally detestable, whether they emanate from a source outside our country and conducted in Canada or started in Canada and conducted in Canada.
Have you thought about the fact that we should approach this not from an immigration point of view only but from a trafficked persons point of view in recognizing that as the issue?
Mr. Perrin: The reason we are having this discussion today is that Canada does not have a national action plan to combat trafficking in persons, which, I completely agree with you, has serious and insidious domestic aspects affecting Canadian women and girls, in particular, being trafficked across the country. Our research has found cases of Canadian girls who have been trafficked into the United States. It is a very underexplored problem and it is happening.
The only reason we are discussing the issue with respect to foreign nationals in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is that it is such a massive problem. The research was finding that trafficked persons were routinely being detained and subjected to deportation. With respect to foreign nationals, the provision of immigration status as trafficked persons needs to happen. This is only one small aspect of the problem.
One of the other recommendations that the committee might wish to consider as part of its broader study on human trafficking is the role for federal leadership and the necessity for a single governmental office or agency to take the lead on human trafficking. One of the reasons that I believe Canada has fallen so far behind is that our interdepartmental working group on trafficked persons has so many departments that it moves very slowly, as you might expect. Unfortunately, we require quicker action to deal with the multiple facets of this problem.
The Chair: You put it succinctly. It is symptomatic of our federal-provincial levels of government and the need to work together. Movement is cautious when we try to coordinate provincial responsibilities in a federal way and to find where we have our capabilities. Often it is in consultation and with some recognized national perspective that the provinces are willing to cooperate in. That comment does not require an answer.
My other curiosity is new technologies. We are not certain where trafficking begins and where it is transmitted. So much of it is on the Internet, through bank transfers, money transfers and money laundering. You are saying that we need national leadership in that area. Should there be a national study on this new, emerging issue that makes trafficked persons vulnerable and, in particular, trafficked children? Do you have any new trends coming out because of the new cyber-technology?
Mr. Perrin: There are two main ways that technology is being used to facilitate and enhance human trafficking. First, many individuals who are eventually brought to Canada and exploited are recruited through websites promising work in Canada. That is a huge problem. The federal government requires additional legislative support to address it. Another bill is before Parliament on that issue so I will not comment directly on it, but it would enable immigration officials to do more to prevent people being duped and brought into Canada for human trafficking. One very important use of technology is to post job adds for jobs that do not exist, thereby luring people to Canada with a promise of work.
The other use is with respect to what has been called ``digital trafficking.'' It does not fit the direct definition, but it is part of the broader problem of online child sexual exploitation. On websites around the world, often in developing countries but they could be in Canada, people are able to direct in real time the horrific sexual abuse of very young children. As part of my work in Cambodia, we had to convince service providers to shut these websites down. Unfortunately, the Internet is taking away the requirement to even cross the border for international trafficking to occur. It is a horrible practice that never would have taken place before.
The final aspect with respect to technology, which we have not talked about yet, is Canada's fourth role in human trafficking, the first three being as a transit country, a destination country and a source country: Canadians' driving demand for human trafficking overseas. Recently, we released statistics through the Canadian media that 146 Canadians have been implicated in child sex tourism overseas. We have only one conviction to date under our child sex tourism law. There are Canadians who are driving demand for human trafficking by using the Internet to find victims and then travelling overseas. There are many different ways in which the Internet has fuelled human trafficking involving Canada.
Senator Jaffer: We were told today that the NGOs say there might be as many as 16,000 people trafficked into Canada. The official figure, as I understand, is 800. Can you comment on how widespread trafficking is in Canada?
Mr. Perrin: Several publications have been written globally about the difficulty of estimating human trafficking, and there are many reasons for that. It is one of the least reported crimes. It operates in the criminal underworld with organized crime and with victims who, by routine threat, have been told that if they ever tell anyone what has happened to them, they or their families back home will be injured or killed. Combine that with a difference in language abilities and the issues of poverty and corruption in developing countries, and you have a crime that is extremely difficult to put a number on.
Around the world, there has been a wide range of estimates. Canada is no different in that we see a vast range in estimates. My particular position on the figure is this: With any serious crime like human trafficking, it does not matter that we can add or take away a zero from the figure. What matters is that it is a serious crime and the gravity of it warrants our attention. Simply because we have between 400 and 600 murders in Canada, we would not think it is any less serious and one would not say, ``We do not need homicide units unless there are 400,000 or 40,000.''
Whenever we talk about trafficking statistics, I always emphasize that the importance is identifying that it is happening, and we can say that with certainty. However, regarding the actual numbers in quantity, we run the risk that, by choosing bigger numbers, we end up creating programs that deal with a situation that is not as extensive as we may think.
My focus has been on trying to understand how it is happening rather than coming up with a new figure. I would say, however, that the RCMP statistic that you referred to — the 800 individuals who are brought into Canada and exploited annually — has been universally admitted as a possible gross underestimation. However, it could be an overestimate, as well.
I am sorry I cannot provide a better figure than that which you have. We need to exercise caution in what figures we are using. It should be enough to say that we are certain it is happening and it is a serious crime that warrants federal attention.
Senator Jaffer: In your remarks, you talked about Canada receiving a failing grade at one point. Would you say we are still in the same position or have things improved? You have set out things we have to do.
Mr. Perrin: The main reason Canada did so poorly was because it had absolutely nothing in place to provide victim protection other than an ad hoc approach to granting some humanitarian, compassionate grounds applications. As a result, that caused all sorts of other problems.
We have through the guidelines at least the band-aid or the starting points for providing immigration status for foreign trafficked persons. However, we are still extremely far behind globally. We may not have an F but we probably have a C-minus or a D right now. Unfortunately, we have not come to the point where we can be comfortable with what we have done as a country.
I should mention that Canada was singled out not only by The Future Group but by the U.S. State Department a few years ago for failing to adequately prosecute traffickers. I have been told that this year's annual State Department report will have two modifications that have the potential to give Canada a worse grade this year.
First, they are no longer simply accepting ``trafficking-related'' prosecutions. They will be counting only human trafficking offences. For a long time, Canada has said we have several dozen trafficking-related prosecutions which are for lesser offences. However, as you know, we do not have a single conviction yet for the offence of ``human trafficking.'' That is the first change that will likely affect our rating in the report. The second is that sex tourism, the role of countries in driving demand beyond their borders for human trafficking, will be included this year in the Trafficking in Persons Report, as well.
For those two reasons, I would say Canada that will not fare particularly well. There is a lot of work to be done. However, it is encouraging to see debate in both Houses of Parliament. Human trafficking has been mentioned by the Prime Minister, and a commitment has been made to do more. I am hoping we will see more concrete action to make this a reality.
Senator Jaffer: This question is not about the bill. However, since you are appearing before us, I will ask you a question in regards to the situation with respect to the Olympics. As you are aware, when there are Olympic Games, there is an increase in trafficking of women and children into the area where the games are being conducted.
Are you at all involved in the situation of what will happen with the Olympics, and can you tell us what you foresee with regard to the games and trafficking of women and children?
Mr. Perrin: First, while this issue has been raised to public attention, it is unclear yet what the federal and provincial authorities will be doing about it. I have been told informally that there are law enforcement resources being put into place; a plan to deal with the human trafficking threat at the 2010 Olympics is underway. I am aware of ongoing consultations.
However, I have not seen the plans or the devotion of law enforcement resources yet. I am pleased the issue has been put onto the radar and has been raised, in part through a report that The Future Group released in the fall. It has also been raised through questions raised by members of Parliament and senators. I would say we are certainly not out of the woods on that issue and more needs to be done.
The specific report that I refer the committee to, if it is not yet before you, is called Faster, Higher, Stronger: Preventing Human Trafficking at the 2010 Olympics. It recommends that a range of steps be taken. Above all, deterring would-be traffickers and sex users is the most important thing we can do. Also, I think prevention is better than waiting for the Olympics to be remembered as a flash point for human suffering.
One other positive point I would mention is that the Minister of Justice has said that the federal government would not support an Olympic brothel being created. I am supportive of that decision. The possibility of an Olympic brothel would not have helped the vulnerable women involved in the sex trade that we were told it would. The reason for that is that it would have excluded anyone with a drug addiction or a serious sexually transmitted disease. Studies showed that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of women trapped in prostitution in the Vancouver area would fall within those exceptions.
Much more needs to be done. I hope we will get more news on that. I encourage the committee to ask for more answers on what the federal government will be doing to deal with that risk.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Perrin. I think we have exhausted the questions. No doubt, your testimony today will be helpful in our assessment of Bill S-218, and we will come back to you for further insights and information should we continue with a full study. We thank you for being with us today.
The committee adjourned.