Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 5 - Evidence, May 29, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 29, 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 9:04 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is today studying 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.
Here in Canada, we have Senator Lovelace Nicholas, Senator Poy, Senator Phalen, the proposer of this bill, Senator Dallaire, and Senator Munson.
I welcome our guests by video-conferencing, from the Council of Europe, the gender equality and anti-trafficking division, Mr. Hallvard Gorseth, Administrator, Anti-Trafficking Action; and Ms. Marta Requena, Head of Division. We would welcome an opening statement from one or both of you before we go to questions.
Marta Requena, Head of Division, Council of Europe, Gender Equality and Anti-Trafficking Division: Good morning. I will provide a short overview on the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. The first thing I would point out is that the Council of Europe considers the trafficking in human beings constitutes a violation of human rights and is an offence to the dignity and integrity of the human being. It is for this reason, and to fight this modern form of slavery, that in 2005, the Council of Europe adopted a comprehensive treaty. This is the first European treaty in this field and is a treaty which is also open to non-member states, or non-European states, of the Council of Europe. This treaty is a comprehensive one, the main aim of which is, first, to prevent trafficking in human beings and, second, to protect the human rights of the victims as well as, third, to prosecute the traffickers.
Our idea is that the scope of the Council of Europe's Convention on Action against Traffic in Human Beings will apply to all the victims of trafficking in human beings, whether they be women, men or children. It will also apply to all forms of exploitation, not only sexual exploitation or forced labour but also others forms of exploitation, such as the removal of organs. In relation to this scope, it is important to underline that the Council of Europe Convention also applies not only to transnational trafficking in human beings but also to national trafficking in human beings, because it is possible that a person could be trafficking within the same country.
I would like to mention very briefly the main measures provided in our convention. The first is the awareness raising measure in the framework of the convention. It is very important to carry out awareness raising amongst persons who are vulnerable to trafficking, and also to carry out actions for discouraging the consumer; not only the consumer of the sexual exploitation victim but also of the forced labour victim.
Second, the convention states that victims of trafficking must be recognized as such and they must, therefore, not be confused with illegal immigrants or with prostitutes in order to avoid having the police and public authorities treat them as illegal immigrants or criminals, and thus repatriating them to their country of origin.
The third main measure of our convention is that the victim of trafficking deserves protection. Therefore, they should be granted physical and psychological assistance as well as support for their integration into society. For instance, medical treatment, counselling and information are among the measures provided for by the convention, but also the victims are entitled to compensation.
Another important measure for which our convention provides is that victims are entitled to a minimum period of 30 days for recovery and rehabilitation. The convention provides a minimum, but obviously we advise the state to enlarge this period if it is needed for humanitarian reasons or because the victims of trafficking in human beings are cooperating with the law enforcement authorities and with a criminal investigation to prosecute the traffickers.
Among the criminal measures contained in the convention we have a very important one, which is that trafficking in human beings should be considered a criminal offence in order for the trafficker and their accomplices to be prosecuted.
Also, during the criminal proceedings and the judicial proceedings, it is very important to protect the lives and the safety of the victims of trafficking. When we talk about human trafficking, we are very often talking about the actions of networks of criminals and mafias. These can be very dangerous people, and therefore the victims need protection during the whole criminal proceedings.
Another important measure is to criminalize the use of the services of a victim of trafficking in human beings. In other words, it will be a criminal offence to knowingly use the services of such a victim.
Finally, another measure that the convention provides for, in order to protect the victim, is not to impose a penalty on the victim for their involvement in unlawful activities if they have been compelled to do so as a victim of trafficking.
I would like to underline that this Council of Europe convention has an important and powerful monetary mechanism. This mechanism is currently being set up and will be fully operational at the beginning of next year. The idea is that highly qualified, independent experts will monitor its implementation by the parties to this convention.
At present, 17 member states of the Council of Europe have already ratified the convention, and 21 states have already signed the convention. We are expecting many more ratifications in the near future.
The idea is that these highly qualified, independent experts will monitor the implementation of all the measures contained in the convention by the parties to the convention, namely, our member states. This monetary mechanism is called GRETA, which means ``group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings.'' The point is not only to determine which countries are doing badly, or are not implementing very well the measures in the convention; it is also, in the spirit of cooperation with the parties to the convention, to try to overcome any obstacles to the implementation of the convention and to try to provide such parties with technical assistance to implement the measures that they have not implemented.
I understand that you are also planning or proposing to carry out a campaign for raising awareness on the trafficking of human beings. I should mention that the Council of Europe carried out such a campaign for more than two years, and that this campaign just finalised in February of this year. More than 41 member states participated in that campaign, and it has been very important for raising awareness within the member states; that the states realize that we are speaking here of human rights violations, and that therefore there is a responsibility upon the state in such cases. In order words, we are speaking not only about criminal offences but also about human rights violations.
That is a short overview of the convention. Perhaps my colleague Mr. Hallvard Gorseth will provide you with more information on the operation of the convention and how it might relate to your Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Hallvard Gorseth, Administrator, Anti-Trafficking Action, Council of Europe, Gender Equality and Anti-Trafficking Division: We have read your bill. It is mainly on the right to stay in Canada for victims of human trafficking, and assistance to those victims.
I will briefly say something about the provisions of our convention which correspond to the provisions of your law.
The right to stay in a member state of the Council of Europe for victims of trafficking in human beings arises in several situations: first, during the identification process of victims and, second, during a period of recovery and reflection for the victim. Then there is the question of the issue of more permanent resident permits.
As I have said, first comes the identification of the victims. Failure to identify a victim correctly will probably mean that he or she will be denied his or her fundamental rights. The prosecution of the trafficker will lose its principal witness, and most likely will not succeed. Moreover, unidentified victims are likely to be treated as illegal immigrants, as prostitutes or as illegal workers. They risk being punished for the illegal activity in which they have been participating, and being expelled from the country without being given any help, with the risk of retrafficking that then arises.
Of course, identifying a trafficking victim can take some time. The convention seeks to prevent the victims, or the potential victims, from being expelled during this period of identification. The convention, however, does not require absolute certainty that this is a victim because that would be contrary to the provision itself. The convention demands that there should be reasonable grounds for believing that someone is a victim. That is sufficient reason not to expel the victim, or the potential victim, until the completion of the identification process.
Second, Ms. Requena has mentioned the recovery and reflection period. As you are probably all aware, victims are often extremely vulnerable after the trauma that they have experienced. Many of them are illegally present in the state's territory and are likely to be expelled. The convention, therefore, introduces this recovery and reflection period, whereby victims are not supposed to be removed from the state's territory until they have been able to recover, or at least for 30 days.
Then there is the question of a more permanent resident permit. The convention provides that victims of trafficking should be issued with renewable resident permits in two situations: either if the victim stays necessarily owing to their personal situation, or if it is necessary for the purpose of the investigation or the criminal proceedings.
This is a compromise provision of our convention, so the states are able to choose between the two options, either a resident permit on account of the victim's needs or for the cooperation with law enforcement authorities. Indeed, in both situations, it seems to be the case in your draft legislation.
Briefly, on the right to stay, during the victim's stay in the country of destination, there is a need for assistance to them. They need to be able to break free from the trafficker's control, and they are in a position of great insecurity and instability. The convention provides that victims shall be provided with a standard of living that is capable of ensuring their subsistence. As examples that are particularly relevant to assisting trafficking victims, the convention mentions psychological and material assistance, and appropriate and secure accommodation. When we talk about secure accommodation, we have seen many examples in Europe of special, protected shelters having been introduced.
The convention also provides for emergency medical treatment to be available to all victims. Language aid is often also necessary because victims do not always speak the language of the country to which they have been trafficked.
There is one particular provision on assistance to child victims, and that is access to education so that they do not miss out further on a normal life. Victims are also entitled to legal assistance to ensure that their interests are being taken into account throughout the criminal procedures.
The Chair: Could I have some clarification before I turn to my colleagues? Is there a difference between coming in and being identified as a victim through this process, and being a refugee in any one of the countries leading towards permanent residency and citizenship? In other words, if you are found to be a victim of trafficking, and you are entitled to stay and you get the long-term permit, can you then get to the point of citizenship? Is it a different process from that for refugees, or is it the same process?
Ms. Requena: In the cases we are speaking about, a trans-border trafficked human being is illegally over the border. The person has no legal status in this new country. This is a victim of trafficking, and the whole measure to protect victims of trafficking is to give them, for the time being, a legal status, whether it be a resident permit at the beginning with a probation period, or just a resident permit.
In the future, it is possible that this person may become a refugee under other grounds. In fact, the Council of Europe convention, in article 40, specifically states that:
Nothing in this Convention shall affect the rights, obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under international law, including humanitarian law and international human rights law and, in particular . . . relating to the Status of Refugees. . .
Victims of trafficking are not refugees. It is possible that this person could be a refugee under other grounds, but as a victim of trafficking, in principle, this person is not a refugee. You could be a victim of trafficking and also have been politically persecuted. However, as such, as a victim of trafficking, this person is not considered a refugee. The two situations could converge, but normally they do not.
Senator Phalen: I have several questions for you. I heard you say that 16 countries have ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, and that a further 21 countries have signed the convention but have not yet ratified it. Can you tell me if these nations are also signatories to the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking of Persons?
Ms. Requena: We have had 17 member states of the Council of Europe ratify the convention, and we have 21, as you rightly pointed out, signatories. These countries have ratified the Palermo Protocol, the additional protocol to the United Nations Convention of Transnational Organized Crime. All of them, as I say, are parties to the Palermo Protocol. I would like to point out that this is not an incompatibility between the two instruments, between the Palermo Protocol and the Council of Europe convention. Why? The Palermo Protocol is, by definition, focused on the criminalization of the trafficker. By definition, it is an additional protocol to the main instrument that is focused on transborder organized crime. The Council of Europe Convention is looking to prosecute the trafficker, but the main idea is to protect the human rights of the victims.
Senator Phalen: The Council of Europe Convention states that victims are entitled to a minimum of 30 days to recover and escape from their traffickers, and to make a decision regarding their possible cooperation with the authorities, and that a renewable resident permit may be granted if their personal situation so requires, or if they need to stay in order to cooperate in a criminal investigation.
Bill S-218 — and you have it before you, I understand — that we are studying in this committee simply has the cooperation with criminal investigation as a number of options available to victims wishing to remain in the country, regardless of whether they cooperate with the investigation or not. They could be entitled to remain in the country, and they will receive a host of social benefits to aid in their recovery.
This committee has been told that having cooperation with law enforcement as an option forces victims to choose between deportation and cooperation, and may put trafficked persons at risk. Can you comment on this issue, with your experience in Europe, and with victims participating in the prosecution of their traffickers?
Mr. Gorseth: If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if it is necessary to go beyond the situation where the presence of the victim is necessary to prosecute the traffickers.
The Council of Europe convention is a human rights instrument, so during the negotiations of the convention there was the idea to put in humanitarian grounds. That is, it is necessary for the victim to stay in order for that person's human rights to be protected. This was not possible to put in as an absolute requirement, so there are two options — or the third option, which is to include both possibilities, as you have done in Canada.
If a victim is repatriated, as you rightly point out, there is a risk of a breach of their human rights. In particular, there is a risk of them being retrafficked. That is what we often see within Europe. Especially before the convention was promoted or drafted, there was an automaticity in returning the victims to their often Eastern European country of origin, without any accompanying measures, and this often led to retrafficking.
Ms. Requena: The Council of Europe, in the convention, has both options because there was a process of negotiation. You know very well about that process. Sometimes there are very different opinions, and member states of the Council of Europe refused to grant what we call resident permits only on the humanitarian provision, which means in the best interests of the victim, regardless of the cooperation or not with law enforcement authorities. We are encouraging the states to adopt not only granting resident permits for the victims in the cases where they are cooperating in criminal proceedings with the law enforcement authorities. The whole idea is to say that we cannot use the victim as a tool for prosecuting the traffickers, but we have to protect the rights of the victim, not only in the interests of the victim but also in the interests of the country.
If you have a victim who feels secure and protected, they will probably cooperate more effectively with the law enforcement authorities, and it will also be in the best interests for the justice system to prosecute the trafficker.
In this sense, I would like to congratulate you for the bill. You have this option in the interests of the victim, not only when they are cooperating. There are different possibilities, but one of the possibilities is granting a resident permit in cases where it is needed for the victim.
Senator Munson: Thank you for being with us from Europe today. You talked about the bill that we have before us, and it seems to me that there is good support for it. One part of the bill proposes to take the 180-day temporary resident policy that already exists and make it into law.
Another section of the bill would add the term ``victim protection permit'' from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to ensure that trafficked persons have the same rights and obligations as other temporary resident permit holders.
Another aspect we have not talked about yet is that the Minister of Health here in Canada was called upon to establish and operate a national, multilingual toll-free telephone hotline to provide counselling, information and referral services to trafficked persons.
Would you endorse those three proposals in this bill? Do you have questions about them, or no comment?
Ms. Requena: If I may, I have a question in relation to the telephone line, the hotline within the Department of Health to provide counselling, information et cetera, to the victims.
I am sorry if I have misunderstood this part of the bill, but would this telephone line be 24-hour, 7-day-per-week information line?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Requena: In the information they would provide to the victim, would it include information about possible accommodations? Will the victim be given information about shelters? We think the telephone help lines are important to have because what happens very often is that the victims do not know what to do. Sometimes they do not even know in which country they are. Also, would the help line include service in several languages, apart from English and French?
Senator Munson: Yes, it would. I think the idea behind that section on the telephone line, too, is to give comfort to trafficked persons, to be able to talk to somebody besides the police. They would have a place to go, as opposed to an authority with a uniform, and it would give them that kind of comfort.
Part of this bill would provide ``blanket amnesty'' to trafficked persons who may have also committed serious crimes. There have been some questions with this part of the bill. What is your perspective with respect to this potential blanket amnesty, as opposed to the current policy in Canada that allows for a case-by-case analysis of any inadmissibility?
Ms. Requena: In the Council of Europe convention, we have a provision that we call a no-punishment provision, which is article 26 of the convention. The idea behind this provision is to not impose penalties on the victims who have been involved in unlawful activities, due to their situation as victims - for instance, a person who is forced to prostitute herself or himself, and is also forced by the trafficker to sell small quantities of drugs on the street.
The idea is that this person does not have a penalty imposed. We have discussed this during negotiations on the convention, and I think it is very important to distinguish the two things. The first one is the criminal liability or the criminal responsibility, and the second one is the sanction.
It does not mean that the person who has committed an unlawful or a criminal offence is not criminally responsible. This person is responsible. The criminal liability is there. What we are trying to avoid is that this person is sanctioned. This does not mean that the public prosecutor cannot prosecute this crime. What we are trying to avoid is imposing sanctions on victims.
If we are imposing sanctions on these persons, on the one hand, they are victims and exploited, and on the other hand, they are sanctioned for something that they have been forced or compelled to do. In the criminal codes of all democratic nations around the world, when a person has been compelled to do something which is illegal, and this persons cannot avoid doing this, this person must not be sanctioned. That is the idea.
It is very important to distinguish between both, because sometimes there is a criticism that we have experienced in our member states, where they are saying ``We cannot prosecute something which is not a criminal offence.'' Of course, we are not saying this. We are saying criminal offences can be prosecuted as such, but a victim who had no choice cannot be sanctioned.
Senator Poy: If I were the victim of trafficking and I identified the trafficker, my life would be in danger. The only thing that I heard that was covered was that there would be secure accommodation for the victim.
Can you expand on the mechanism that the convention has in relation to the protection of victims, aside from secure accommodation? What other protection is there?
Ms. Requena: It is very important. We mentioned at the beginning that we have different measures for protecting the victims. Among these is secure accommodation. Obviously, for the victim, protection is very important, as you very rightly point out.
We were speaking about the mafia. In such a case, if I identify and testify against my trafficker, not only my security, but probably my life is in danger. Therefore, it is very important to have the victims protected during the legal proceedings, from the investigation part through the criminal proceedings and even after the criminal proceedings.
In the convention, it is mainly article 28, but there are other articles also concerning the need for protection. For instance, when you are a victim testifying against the trafficker, sometimes your testimony can be given so that the trafficker does not see you. There is the possibility that it could be recorded testimony, and your face would be concealed so that they cannot see you. The voice can also be distorted so that your voice cannot be recognized.
In extreme cases, there would be the possibility even to change your identity — the same thing that is happening in the mafia cases, where they can even give the victim a new identity. They have a set of measures for protecting the identity of the victims.
This is very important. We have to realize that sometimes the trafficking mafias are very dangerous. Therefore, we must take strong measures to protect the victims. It is not enough that they do not see you during the trial. Sometimes, we need extreme measures to protect the victims, such as giving them a new identity and changing their life completely — moving them to another place to live, et cetera. This is another measure.
Mr. Gorseth: I will just add that these measures also apply to family members. It can also apply to family members of victims, as they are very often used as a means of retaliation to make the witness or the victim back down from testifying.
Senator Poy: Actually, you have just answered my second question, which was the identification of the victims and their families back home. It could get very complicated if the whole family's identification has to be changed, and also the place they live will have to be changed. Is that actually workable?
Ms. Requena: The question is important. It would be difficult to change everything for the whole family. Normally, when we are speaking about the family, we are speaking, for instance, about the son or the daughter of the victim of trafficking, or eventually the husband, but mainly the children.
I think it is possible, yes. We must take into account that we are speaking about the third most important illegal activity when you consider the potential profits. Apparently, after the trafficking of weapons and drugs, it is the third most important illegal activity by profit. Therefore, it generates a lot of money, and we must also put money into it and give resources for protecting the victims.
The closest family of the victim is also very important. We have a case in Europe where a victim of trafficking first testified but then withdrew. She did not want to have the testimony stand because her child was in her country of origin. Obviously, if your children are not protected, you will never give your testimony against the trafficker.
Senator Goldstein: Thank you, Mr. Gorseth and Ms. Requena, for participating with us in our study of this proposed legislation.
I had the very good fortune of being a member of the Canadian delegation to the Council of Europe when this matter was considered, both in committee and on the floor, and participating in the debate which was of a significant, high and concerned level. I am very grateful to have had that experience.
The convention has come into force as at the beginning of February of this year. There have been some ratifications, but comparatively few. Many signatories have not ratified the convention. Could you help us understand what reasons are motivating some of the countries which have signed but have not yet ratified?
Ms. Requena: As I said, we have 21 signatories at present. There are different reason why these countries have not yet ratified, but there are two main reasons. The first is probably that we have internal procedures. You know very well, probably better than myself, that for ratifying an international treaty or convention, you need first of all to fulfill your internal procedures and authorization. Normally, it depends on money as well. In any case, you need to probably to have Parliament accept the ratification of the convention. Therefore, the first reason for not ratifying is the fulfillment of internal procedures to ratify an international treaty, whether it is this one or another one.
A second reason could be that the convention requests those countries that have ratified the convention to put in place a set of measures for protecting the victims. Normally, when you sign a convention, that means that you have a compatibility with the legislation. It means your legislation is compatible with the main measure of the convention. Some of the states which have signed but not yet ratified need to establish at a national level different measures for protecting the victim. There are various accommodations and shelters, and they need to establish these different things. That also takes some time.
So far, of these 21 member states who have signed and not ratified, some of them have announced that they are ratifying in the very near future, such as Germany, the United Kingdom and Poland. They will be ratifying in the very near future, in this year. Italy also has very protective legislation on the victims of trafficking human beings. In Belgium, there was an election and a new government, and it takes some time to ratify that convention.
Mr. Gorseth: On a positive note, for a Counsel of Europe convention this has been a rapid ratification process. The convention entered into force only a little over two years ago. This is actually quite exceptional for us. Of course we would like to see all member states ratifying rapidly, but for the time being the process has come on quite quickly.
Senator Goldstein: Thank you for your answer. Let me be a bit more precise: Have any of the states which have thus far not ratified the convention raised particular issues with respect to particular parts of the convention, or is the non- ratification in all cases resulting solely from the fact that there are certain internal procedures that must be followed, as you have just suggested?
Ms. Requena: As far as we know, not one of the signatories to the convention has raised any particular problems with any part of the convention. The signatories agreed in principle when they signed, so it is because, as I say, there is a compatibility issue or they are drafting new laws.
Of the 47 member states, the nine member states that have not yet even signed so far have not raised any particular problem, but maybe we do not have complete information. One member state has not signed yet because of a problem with another country of the Council of Europe, another member state. It had nothing to do, really, with the convention. It was more a bilateral problem which covered all the different international treaties, but this has now been solved. In fact, this country was Spain, and they have announced that they will sign and ratify the convention. So far as I know, the signatories do not have any problem with one specific part. They may have problems afterwards in implementation, but not as a matter of principle.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you, and welcome. As we all know, trafficking is a problem across all countries. Do you think it is possible to impose stricter laws for these people who are trafficking humans around the world?
Ms. Requena: Concerning the question of prosecution, as I said, we need to criminalize the offence in the Criminal Code. You cannot make a criminal offence of trafficking human beings but you can prosecute the trafficker with other criminal offences in the Criminal Code. Obviously, you need legislation to do this.
Often, the problem is not so much a need for stricter criminal law to prosecute trafficking, it is to implement existing law. According to the information we have, countries very often have the laws. The question is to implement the law because trafficking in human beings is a complex phenomenon.
We must start by identifying and giving rights to the victim. After proving that this person has been a victim of trafficking, we must then to try to arrest the trafficker. We insist on the protection of the victims because it is often lost in the prosecution of the trafficker. It is in the interests of everyone — the victim and also the state — to protect the victim.
Mr. Gorseth: Our convention also provides for strengthening the prosecution for transporting for the purpose of trafficking. There are provisions on cooperation between states, having ratified the convention, that would lead to more efficient prosecution as well.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Are there any homeless victims of trafficking? If not, is everyone accounted for?
Mr. Gorseth: By ``homeless victims,'' do you mean victims living on the streets?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes, exactly.
Mr. Gorseth: I heard an interesting story recently from an NGO, talking about child victims of trafficking. We are seeing the spread from the African continent of children as domestic slaves. Often, when these children grow up, they become useless as domestic slaves and are simply disposed of on to the streets of major European cities. These are among the ones who are particularly at risk of becoming homeless. We have seen NGOs in Europe starting to work more with this specific category of homeless victims.
Homelessness can also arise for other victims of trafficking. If they manage to escape from the trafficker without getting to a safe house or getting help from an NGO, then their only option is to live on the streets.
Ms. Requena: There was a terrible story several years ago in one of our member states about homeless children or young adults on the streets. They were captured by traffickers to be used for the harvesting of organs. They could be killed to take their heart. Therefore, the trafficking of organs is also taking place. The investigation discovered a whole network of traffickers taking these street children.
The Chair: Are you referring to a case where organs such as the heart were taken to be used in some ritualistic way by a certain part of society, or are you saying that there was trafficking of organs for transplant purposes?
Ms. Requena: It was for transplant organs. It was obvious because the dead children would be found on the street, and it was clear that they had been operated on by a doctor. It was not something ritualistic. As you know very well, sometimes there is a very limited supply of organs available for transplantation.
The Chair: Was this curtailed in this country by use of the law and, if so, by what means? You are saying it has stopped. Are you sure that it has stopped?
Ms. Requena: You can never be sure that it has stopped. The situation of trafficking, whether it is for the removal of organs or for whatever purpose, it is never clear if it is happening. However, there appeared to be grounds for believing that it was a case of trafficking in human beings.
Mr. Gorseth: There was a public outcry in European countries against the authorities of this particular state for not acting sufficiently quickly to stop it. Eventually, we think they did act. We have heard little of it since.
Senator Dallaire: I have three questions. First, once you have identified the victims, what control measures do you have to ensure that they do not disappear on you? What means do you have specifically to maintain control over them until decisions are taken regarding their future?
Second, what is the scale of trafficking, particularly of women and girls, that you are seeing within the European Union countries, and then from outside the European Union coming into your member states?
Third, am I to understand that even if a person supports an investigation, that this person has absolutely no opportunity ultimately to become a landed citizen, and that they could be returned to their country of origin? Is that policy the same for those who are from within the European Union and for those from outside the European Union?
Ms. Requena: In relation to your first question concerning the controls, if we are taking care of the victim until a decision is taken on their future, from the moment the victim escapes from the traffickers, they will be given significant support. The victim will be provided with secure accommodation, medical assistance and counselling. They will also be protected during the proceedings.
After that, there will be a reassessment of the victim concerning returning this person to the country of origin. Even if the victim of trafficking would like to go back to his or her country, we have to make a risk assessment in order to avoid the possibility that the victim will again fall into the trap of the traffickers. This is what often happens, and it is very important. In the repatriation program, it is important that there is a follow-up of the victim. Otherwise, they will get caught up in the traffickers' network again.
Mr. Gorseth: I will add something. When we talk about safe accommodation and shelters for victims, one of the things that we have heard on the implementation of the convention in some states is that they are actually using prisons. Of course, victims can be safe in prisons, but they are not to be treated as criminals. They should not be in prisons. This option is to ensure that the victims do not disappear by putting them in a prison, which is contrary to the convention. A shelter will be one stage towards the social reintegration of the victims in one form or another.
Senator Dallaire: Before you go to the next one, I need to know how many of them you actually lose; how many disappear into society, find themselves a job as a dishwasher or something, and you never hear from them again?
Ms. Requena: I cannot really tell you because it is dependent upon the different states and the different measures that have been taken. If you lose them because they have really been integrated into society, I think that is perfect. The whole idea is to provide a measure of protection, but also to help them to reintegrate. The final objective is to reintegrate the victim, as far as possible, into society. If they become waiters or dishwashers, as you say, or whatever, this is the main purpose.
As for how many there are, as I say, it is different in each country, but I get the impression that, unfortunately, there is a large percentage of victims of trafficking that often get caught in the trap of the traffickers again. For instance, in many cases when they return to their countries of origin, there is no program for protecting the victim. They arrive back in their home country, and they are often rejected by their communities or families.
You can imagine the situation in a small village anywhere, where you have a person coming back and everyone in the village knows this person was a prostitute in London, or whatever. What often happens is that this person is ostracized by the whole village. They try to escape from that, so it is very easy for this person to go back to the trafficker.
I do not have an answer to your question. I cannot give you a number because we do not have a global number for Europe — it depends on the countries. Unfortunately, a lot of victims get caught in the trap of the trafficker again, and traffickers take advantage of these situations.
The second question relates to the amount of trafficking, mainly in women and girls, if I understood your question, not only in Europe but also from outside Europe. This is illegal trafficking. Therefore, we do not have reliable statistics. We can only make assumptions on what is happening, based on some of the data that we have.
There is, for instance, a story from the International Labour Organization that says in 2005, there were 2.5 million persons who were trafficked around the world. They said that 43 per cent of these persons were victims of sexual exploitation, and 32 per cent of them were used for forced labour.
You asked how many were women and girls. Apparently, that is a high percentage, around 60 to 70 per cent, depending on the countries. It is true that women and girls are mainly trafficked for sexual exploitation. In addition, they are used for what we call domestic slavery, for work in homes.
However, I would like to point out that we have more and more information about men who are used as slaves in the case of economic exploitation, forced labour. In the African culture mainly, more young men are trafficked. Therefore, if I reply to you in brief, the majority in this case is very high. Sometimes they say that in all of Europe there would be more than 700,000 persons. However, as I say, the more reliable study is this one of the International Labour Organization of 2005, which says 2.5 million persons are victims of trafficking all around the world.
Your third question is, can a victim of trafficking become a citizen, a national of the country where he or she has been exploited? Obviously, as I said at the beginning, one important part of the reintegration of a victim is to acquire the nationality of the country where this person is living and working. If we reach the point where the victims are becoming nationals of the destination country where they have been exploited, we would be very happy. That is the aim — to reintegrate these people into society.
Senator Phalen: Your website has an item about a study on the methods used by traffickers to recruit their victims via the Internet and the means currently being used to combat this. Can you give us an overview of what this study found and how successful countries are in combating this method of recruitment?
Ms. Requena: We realize, for victims of sexual exploitation, that many are recruited in person. However, nowadays with the new technologies and the general access of the public to the Internet, we have to check the recruitment through those methods.
There are several cases. There is what are called marriage agencies. There are some websites on the Internet that you go to if you are looking for a husband or a wife, and these websites are only a facade for buying a person. You can choose a person who will become your sexual victim and will also be exploited as a domestic slave.
This is only one case, with the marriage agencies. Other examples are the chat rooms. They are different mainly because children are included in these cases through the Internet. They chat online and it is very common that children and young adults use these sites.
The aim of the study is to alert people that there are new methods for recruiting victims of human trafficking. These methods are on the Internet. It is very difficult to know the origins of these websites. It is very difficult to close them down, and it is very difficult to track the methods of the trafficker. Therefore, the aim of this study is to alert people, first to tell them about the tools the traffickers use so that people do recognize them, and to also alert the state that they need to adopt specific legislation for this kind of recruitment of victims of trafficking.
The Chair: I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the time to share their expertise. When we were looking beyond our own borders to do some comparisons the Council of Europe, and particularly your division, were instantly recognized.
Given your expertise, we thank you for this discussion this morning — your afternoon. No doubt, we will be back to you with some particular questions as we continue our study, not only of this bill but of the whole area of human trafficking. We look forward to working with you and thank you for your expertise today.
The committee adjourned.