Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 14 - Evidence - November 23, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, November 23, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, to which was referred Bill S-223, 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 2 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this is the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. We are here to examine Bill S-223. The committee will recall that this bill was before us previously in a different form. It had a different proponent at that time. I am pleased that the Honourable Senator Carstairs is here as sponsor of Bill S-223. The floor is yours.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs, P.C., sponsor of the bill: Thank you, honourable senators. It is with pleasure that I present to the committee on Bill S-223, 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.
I do not think there is any need with this particular group to discuss the scourge of trafficking. In your study on the sexual exploitation of children, you have been given much data on the devastating effect of forced sexual activity on anyone — child or adult. As senators will know, and as the chair indicated, this bill was presented on several occasions to the chamber by the Honourable Gerard Phalen, who is now retired. I agreed to take over sponsorship of this bill because I supported — as I believe do most senators — the principle that victims of human trafficking should be afforded the greatest possible protection when they find themselves brought into this country.
Shortly after I took over sponsorship of this bill, I was approached by Senator Comeau, Deputy Government Leader in the Senate. I was asked if I would meet with staff of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the Honourable Jason Kenney, in order to make the bill workable. I was assured that the minister was in favour of the principle of the bill, and I was delighted to meet with the officials. What you have before you now is a bill with a series of amendments that have been approved by both the minister and me. I would like to spend the balance of this presentation on ways that together we have enhanced this bill and made it workable.
I invite you to follow in the bill before you as we go through the amendments. It is not a particularly large bill. I will try to be as clear as I can.
To begin, the title has been amended to delete the words after "Act" and to put in parentheses "victims of trafficking in persons." This was recommended by the Department of Justice Canada for clarity's sake when the department reviewed the amendments. In essence, that is what the bill was doing, so I do not have any difficulty in changing the title.
There are no changes to page 1 of the bill. I invite you to look at page 2, beginning with proposed section 24.1(1). In the second line, "victim of human trafficking" has been changed to "victim of trafficking in persons." That is now consistent with the title of the bill and also with a number of other places in the bill that will now read "victims of trafficking in persons" instead of "victims of human trafficking."
"Person" has been changed to "foreign national who is a victim, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, of the offence set out in section 279.01 of that Act or in section 118 of this Act." The officials tried to make this very clear and to ensure that we would be consistent with the Criminal Code and with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Proposed section 24.1(2) adds after "protection permit" the words "which may be cancelled at any time." The intent of this was to provide immigration officers the explicit discretion to cancel if circumstances warrant. I had some difficulty with this area, but I think it is necessary to ensure that we do not tie Immigration's hands too tightly.
The changes in section 24.1(2)(b) are in (i), "trafficking in persons" and in (ii), "issuing the permit is otherwise justified in the circumstances." These amendments are to provide discretion to officers when issuing the permit. They made a very convincing case that there needs to be balance. The person may be a victim of trafficking, but there may be other inadmissibility concerns, such as serious criminality or engagement in the past in organized crime.
Proposed section 24.1(3) in the bill has an alternative amendment: "The holder of the victim of trafficking protection permit issued under subsection (2) is eligible for the same federal health services as is a person who has made a claim for refugee protection inside Canada." This was changed to ensure that changes made to the Interim Federal Health Program would not apply in this case. Changes to that program are made on a regular basis; therefore, you could find the victim not assured of the appropriate health protections. We needed to ensure that victims would be assured of health care regardless of changes to the federal health program.
In section 24.1(3)(b), the authorization for work and study has been removed from the bill. It was recommended that this be done not by legislation but by regulation. This is how it is done in every other example of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA. To make this bill consistent with other IRPA bill provisions, it will be done by regulation. I am assured that those regulations will be forthcoming. You can certainly ask the officials.
Proposed section 24.1(3) in the amendments pertains to instructions of the minister. The purpose is to keep the bill before you consistent with other provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The amendment to proposed section 24.2(1) adds "which may be cancelled at any time" and "up to" with respect to three years. Again, the purpose is to give the officers discretion. The second change is to make it appropriate to the circumstances and to remove a direct path to permanent residency.
Proposed sections 24.2(1)(b), subsections (i), (ii) and (iii) have all been deleted. This is to allow for permit criteria to be outlined in ministerial instructions. This would allow the process to remain consistent with the framework nature of the act, and it would provide flexibility to the government to respond to victims' needs.
In proposed section 24.2(2), changes provide that officers shall act in accordance with instructions from the minister. This section has been deleted to ensure no infringement on provincial jurisdiction, as services indicated in the bill are provided not by the federal government but by the provinces.
Proposed section 24.2(3) in the bill contains work or study provisions; these are deleted in the amendments, as such provisions are currently provided in IRPA regulations, and so too should they be in this case.
Proposed section 24.2(4) is a major change. It changes the concept of eligibility for permanent residency to one of immunity. Clearly, we want these victims protected from prosecutors for minor offences they may have committed in connection with being trafficked, but they would not be granted blanket amnesty.
Proposed section 24.3 in the bill regarding waiver of fees has been deleted to make the bill consistent with the IRPA. Such exemptions should be made by regulation as they are in all other cases.
"Transitional provisions" has been deleted to make it consistent with other Canadian legislation as recommended by the Department of Justice Canada.
Part 2, the duties of the Minister of Health, have all been deleted. This is the one aspect that causes me some concern, as their elimination means the proactive nature of the bill, as originally designed for victims, has been removed. The rationale, as presented, is to prevent any infringement on provincial jurisdiction. As we know, most social services and prevention services are not provided by the federal government; they are provided by provincial governments.
However, I would like some assurances that some effort will be made by the federal government to reach out to these victims and to ensure that they get the support they require. Perhaps the hotline, as envisaged by Senator Phalen in this bill, is not the best vehicle, but some services need to be provided. Remember, colleagues, I did not write this bill. I hope the officials who will follow me this afternoon can provide the committee assurances that that help will be provided.
Honourable senators, this is a much changed bill, as I have indicated while taking you through all the amendments. However, I believe the principle has been maintained, and that principle is to ensure that victims of trafficking are not further victimized by our immigration and refugee system.
I am not a great believer that private members' bills, with all of their wonderful intentions, are easily passed within houses of Parliament, be they legislatures or the federal government. They are not easy for two reasons, as I see it.
First, the drafters of those bills — and I have certainly drafted my own — do not have the technical assistance that is available to government when it drafts similar pieces of legislation. Therefore, they may often find themselves in situations where the aim or objective is very good but the means by which they have gone after that aim or objective is not necessarily easy to follow.
The second difficulty is that the government must want a private member's bill to pass. We know that is often not the case, regardless of the political party of the day. Governments do not particularly like private members' bills unless they are simple. For example, I think of Mr. Chrétien's bill from when he was a young member of the house that proposed changing the name of Trans-Canada Airlines to Air Canada; it was a wonderful concept but not terribly difficult within the overall scheme of things.
I perceive a private member's bill as being something to alert the government, to make the government aware that there is a significant problem that needs to be fixed. That is why I was pleased when I was approached by Senator Comeau about whether I would meet with the Citizenship and Immigration Canada people, and first with the minister's staff, to take this concept that Senator Phalen wanted and turn it into a workable piece of legislation that the government could then support; then we were moving the bar forward.
That is why I have agreed to the amendments and why, quite frankly, I welcome your support of the bill in its amended form. I now open myself for questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Carstairs. Thank you for putting it in that perspective. I should assure you that, having gone through this negotiation that you have, we will scrutinize that. As you are aware, we are also studying the exploitation issue in this committee. Therefore, this bill is a small part, if I may say — and I do not mean to diminish its significance — but it is a part of a scheme of sexual exploitation and trafficking issues with which this committee has been and will continue to be preoccupied. We hope we can look at the broad scope of the issue and fill in any gaps that we perceive as we go along in our study.
If my recollection is correct, when the bill first came in its original form, Senator Phalen said there should be more services and more immediate services out there for the victims of human trafficking. In return, the victim would be responsible for testifying before the courts. I think it stalled in this committee because we were very concerned about compelling victims who were already in a difficult situation to go through that legal process. Because it is international, one does not know the levers the trafficker might have used on that person.
In its next form, Senator Phalen dropped that, but the other issues of provincial jurisdiction and uniformity were not there. You have stressed — and I wanted a little more elaboration on this — that in this form you are building on the existing immigration and refugee system and saying that these victims should not be isolated and identified differently. If they have come into Canada and we have some assurance that they are here against their will, perhaps, or if it is with their will but extracted in ways that we do not support, they should be afforded the same services as anyone else coming into this country. That is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the regulations should flow through that.
Is that one of the reasons you supported using the regulation route and going through the act?
Senator Carstairs: I do not think you can expect two parallel systems within any immigration and citizenship protection legislation. If you try to set up two systems, they are bound to run against one another.
I was convinced, therefore, that if you could take these individuals who are to some degree a special class and could provide for them within the current legislation, through the regulatory system, that would get it passed, first, so that the attention was brought to the victims. I am a pragmatist. Second, the reality would be that you would have an immigration refugee system that was total in and of itself, and you would not be looking at the offshoots of it.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Senator Carstairs, for the work you have done on this. We certainly heard you very clearly when you said you are a pragmatist. I defer to your vast knowledge on how to get private members' bills accepted by the government.
You have touched on some of these issues, but the whole debate on this issue is between smuggling and trafficking — whether the person has been smuggled into the country or trafficked. Immigration officers have a legitimate concern, because sometimes they are not able to tell whether a person has been smuggled or trafficked. The debate is all around this issue of smuggling or trafficking.
When I see the amendments and that most of the bill has gone into regulation, I am greatly concerned that that has diluted the bill. I accept what you say and will, therefore, support it, if you would please consider adding one further amendment, that the regulations be reviewed by Parliament.
I think there is a review by Parliament of the regulations for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which you spoke about earlier. If I am wrong, I can certainly be corrected by the officials. However, if that is the case, I would like to add a further amendment — even if it is not in IRPA— that there be a periodic review of these regulations by Parliament.
We all know that regulations can be changed. I have a concern that a lot of this bill is going from being an act of Parliament to regulations, which can be changed, and I believe there needs to be a review. I would like to hear from you, and then I have some other questions.
Senator Carstairs: I certainly would not object to such an amendment. I would like to hear what the officials would have to say to such an amendment.
I think there are two things we should recognize. First, there is always a review of regulation that goes on at cabinet committee. Second, there is a review of regulations that occurs through a joint House of Commons and Senate committee, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
If you want to go a step further and have these particular regulations sent to, for example, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, I suspect you might want to do a broader job and look at regulations with respect to all of the immigration and refugee provisions, not just having to do with the issue of trafficking.
I do not think we do enough of that in Parliament. We do not review regulations in significant detail. Despite all the good work that Scrutiny of Regulations does, that committee has only so much time to do that particular work. More and more legislation is finding itself being given its practical activity through regulations, not through the legislation itself.
Regulations are easier to change. We all know that. That is the advantage to governments of using the regulatory process. Your committee might want to look at that in terms of an amendment. However, I would not want the bill to fail because we found ourselves in a conflict between Citizenship and Immigration and the committee and therefore we did not provide the victims of trafficking with the kind of protection they need, which is what this bill is all about. Do not ever lose sight of the principal objective of the bill.
Senator Jaffer: I would not go so far as to say I would not support the bill without that amendment. Having been a member of Scrutiny of Regulations and knowing how much they have to handle and the scrutiny that sometimes goes on, I know that committee might not have the expertise that this committee has.
The other thing is that Citizenship and Immigration does not come to this committee. Normally, it goes to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. That is another reason why I wanted the review in this act; hopefully, it will come to our committee.
My second question is on the cancelling at any time. I have great anxiety about that. I have spoken to people who have gone to Immigration and asked for this protection, and I know how scared they are and I know the rigorous questioning they go through — as they should; I am not questioning that. To say cancel at any time — cancel at any time without any reason, for a reasonable excuse, nothing — is pretty drastic. I have great concern with that, knowing how difficult it is for them.
As soon as the women arrive, the mindset is that it is a smuggling case that wants to go on to trafficking. That is what the women tell me. That is what I have heard from groups that work with these women. They immediately think it is smuggling and they want to get in under this. I have great difficulty with that.
It is almost not worth having this bill if it can be cancelled at any time. After that, except for raising awareness, there is nothing much that this bill adds that the other trafficking bill does not have. Yes, it adds a little more; I do not want to take that away. However, there needs to be "for a reasonable reason" or something like that in the wording; I have great concerns with cancelling at any time without any excuse given or anything in this legislation to protect these women. I know you have expressed these concerns also, but I wanted to share them with you.
Senator Carstairs: Yes, I have considerable difficulty with that. The argument is clear that there needs to be discretion for the immigration officer. Perhaps what needs to be done, and you will have to ask the officials who follow me, is that regulations are needed with respect to the cancellation of this particular, at-any-time type of thing.
The reality is that some of the people who will seek this provision are certainly innocent victims. Others who will seek this provision are part of the problem. That is what I think the officials want in terms of their cancellation at any time. If they can identify that something is not a genuine case of trafficking, that in fact this person is the trafficker and not the person who has been trafficked, they want to know that they can eliminate this. I will leave it at that and ask the officials when they come to the table. I will join you, as a senator, to see if they can give further testimony to that.
Senator Jaffer: If I may comment on it, I do not know how many traffickers have applied for this; hopefully the department will be able to provide information on that. The concern is not so much the traffickers as the vulnerable woman — whether she is smuggled or not, whether she is a person who has genuinely been trafficked.
I am very cynical when they say traffickers apply under this. There are other places where they can apply. My concern is that we need to look at this more carefully; and, obviously, we will talk to the department.
The Chair: Can I just supplement that? If I understand, what you are saying is that you are weighing that issue about the cancellation against the fact that perhaps the department will move rather expeditiously to grant it, and that will be the incentive to ensure that the victims are looked after quickly and get access to the resources, as I understand from the previous testimony we have heard. Then, if there are some that need cancellation, they will have to justify why. Otherwise, without the cancellation, the front end would be slowed down, I presume. Do I understand that correctly?
Senator Carstairs: That was my concern, that if they did not have this jurisdiction, they were going to reject it outright. Whereas if they could grant the permit, give everyone a clear first glance, they could let the process be in place that regulations could apply. Then, if they were provided with information that would indicate that this particular individual did not qualify, they would have the right to cancel.
You are quite right, Madam Chair; I am afraid that if that is not there, it will slow the process. There will not be the ease of saying that we believe this person is a victim of trafficking and so let us get the help provided, unless you provide the back door so they can get out of that choice.
Senator Jaffer: As a supplementary, I understood it was going from 180 days to three years, and the idea was to cancel within the three years.
Senator Carstairs: After three years.
Senator Jaffer: The department already has those rights of granting the right to stay here.
Senator Carstairs: Of course.
Senator Jaffer: My understanding was that if you give the additional time, the three years, and something comes up within the three years, they would cancel.
Senator Carstairs: That is true.
The Chair: I think it is the same point I was trying to make. A period of 180 days goes by quickly. Three years is a good chunk of time. In prosecution, you can use up 180 days pretty quickly, as we know when we are trying to gather evidence. That is why I think the three years was an interesting negotiation.
Senator Carstairs: The idea here is to provide protection for the person who may well be the victim of trafficking, but also to preserve the integrity of the immigration and refugee system. You have to weigh both, and hopefully this is what this has done.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to follow up again on this cancelling at any time. Is there any appeal provision for the woman who has been trafficked, or is this it — they withdraw and that is it?
Senator Carstairs: No. There are the usual appeal procedures through the immigration appeal board, but there is no provision for this one being cancelled in terms of an appeal. The immigration officers made a judgment that yes, this is a victim of trafficking, and then they decide no, this person is not a victim of trafficking.
Senator Mitchell: Senator Carstairs, this seems like an important bill. You have certainly invested a lot of time and commitment in it. Why would the government not have initiated a bill of this kind? Do you know?
Senator Carstairs: To be fair, there is a lot of immigration legislation and lots of priorities in any given department. This is where I see the strength of the private member's bill, which is to say to the government, "Look, this is an area that perhaps has not gotten the kind of attention you should give it." When I took over the sponsorship of this bill, I was quite delighted that I had an immediate contact who thought it was something the department could support and who wanted to discuss potential amendments.
Certainly I did not think these proposed amendments were absolutely wonderful. I have indicated a couple of areas that I think should be not quite so generous to the government, if you will. However, the bill has obviously caught the attention of the government, and that is a good thing.
Senator Mitchell: Absolutely. You mentioned in your presentation that a change contemplated in the amendments would reverse or do away with a direct path to permanent residency. Could you explain that? I did not understand. Was permanent residency more readily available in the past?
Senator Carstairs: If you are in the country for three years, you have a direct path to permanent residency. That is why it says "up to three years." It was not to say that because you are a victim of trafficking you should be given the opportunity to become a Canadian citizen. There might be other reasons why you should not become a Canadian citizen. Those rights have to be protected, as well, which made sense to me. Simply because something horrible happened to someone does not mean that person should bump the line in becoming a permanent resident of Canada. Other factors are considered en route to permanent residency status.
Senator Mitchell: Clearly, the assurance of one's safety upon returning to one's home country would be a factor.
Senator Carstairs: Safety upon return to the home country is a critical factor and has been a factor under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Senator Peterson: Thank you, Senator Carstairs. Proposed sections 24.1 and 24.2 refer to the opinion of the officer as to whether the individual is a victim of trafficking. What is the standard of belief, and does this standard vary from what exists now?
Senator Carstairs: Senator Peterson, I do not know whether there is any change. Departmental officials would be in a better position to answer that question, but I do not think the standard varies. To this point, there has not been a sufficient sensitivity to the prevalence of human trafficking. That is why we wanted to highlight it as a separate section. At the same time, it is always a matter of judgment on the part of the immigration officer to decide whether a person has been a victim not only of trafficking but of other things as well.
Senator Jaffer: I have a concern with this being seen as a route to permanent residency. I have great issues with this. Persons who intended to do that could have applied earlier on humanitarian or compassionate grounds to receive their citizenship. For example, a person who has been smuggled into Canada and has begun working and has settled down could gain status on a humanitarian basis and not have to resort to this method.
I have great concerns when the department talks about this being a route to permanent residency when it is not necessary to do this. I have huge issues with its being classified as a root to permanent residency. As I have said, if a person has that intention, there are other ways to do it. People can stay here and work, get married and so on and then apply under humanitarian or compassionate grounds. They do not need to use human trafficking as a route to residency status. I share that concern with you.
The Chair: Senator Carstairs, as usual you are efficient and to the point. Thank you for taking on this bill and presenting before the committee. We will continue to study it.
I now welcome our next panel of witnesses from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. For their information, in the previous panel we heard from the Honourable Senator Carstairs, the sponsor of the bill, about the process that happened between the department and her that resulted in some amendments to her initial bill.
I should also remind senators that we did have hearings on one of the previous incarnations of this bill when Senator Phalen was handling it. The steering committee has met and will recommend that after we hear the department officials, the testimony of Senator Carstairs and the department officials be sent to all the witnesses who testified previously on this bill for their reaction and comment, rather than going through hearings with them, because we have their substantive evidence, which we intend to apply. That is a heads-up and an alert to the committee.
Before us, we have from Citizenship and Immigration Canada Mr. Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy; from Health Canada, Ms. Martha Vaughan, Manager, Women's Health Division, Programs Directorate; and Ms. Gigi Mandy, Director, Canada Health Act Division, Programs Directorate.
I see many people behind you. You have reinforcements there. If you need to call on them, they will identify themselves and come to the table.
Mr. Linklater, the floor is yours.
Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Thank you for the invitation to be here today. With me is my colleague Eric Stevens, also from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, and colleagues from Health Canada. I am pleased to be here with you to work on Bill S-223. I would like to thank Senator Phalen and Senator Carstairs for their attention to this important issue.
The government supports the immigration objectives of Bill S-223: the protection of foreign national victims of trafficking in Canada. We do have some concerns with the bill in its current form, but we are confident that these concerns can be addressed through amendments while maintaining the spirit of the proposed legislation.
The Government of Canada promotes a multi-pronged approach to trafficking in persons, focusing on prevention, protection, prosecution and partnerships — the four Ps. Citizenship and Immigration Canada's key focus is the protection of the foreign national victims of trafficking in Canada.
To this end, in May 2006, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism introduced ministerial instructions and guidelines enabling immigration officers to issue a fee-exempt temporary resident permit, TRP, for up to 120 days to foreign national victims of trafficking in Canada. Responding to concerns raised by stakeholders and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, in 2007 the minister extended the maximum length of this permit to 180 days.
This important change provided victims access to a fee-exempt work permit, which was not an option with the 120-day TRP. A work permit gives victims the opportunity to earn a living in Canada while they consider their options. Victims who are issued this short-term TRP have access to medical coverage with the Interim Federal Health Program, which includes trauma counselling.
The purpose of the TRP is simple: to help victims of trafficking escape the influence of their traffickers and begin to recover from their ordeal so they can consider their options for the future. In cases where individual circumstances warrant, CIC may issue a longer-term TRP for up to three years.
In general, the measures put forth by Bill S-223 mirror the current immigration approach to foreign victims of trafficking in Canada. The bill proposes that victims be issued a fee-exempt short- or long-term victim protection permit. It also proposes that they be issued work and study permits and that they be eligible for health and social services.
As mentioned, the government supports the intention of these proposed provisions, but we have some technical concerns with this legislation in its current form and have put forward amendments, as Senator Carstairs has outlined.
Our main concern is that Bill S-223 would limit the flexibility afforded by the current use of ministerial instructions and guidelines. The increase of the TRP from 120 to 180 days, for example, could not have been accomplished quickly if a legislative change had been required. Flexibility is essential to respond to the needs of victims of trafficking in a timely manner.
Canada's experience with anti-trafficking measures, particularly with respect to immigration matters, is limited. We need the ability to adjust our approach and respond promptly to unanticipated situations and improved knowledge.
In order to maintain the flexibility of the government's current approach toward victims of trafficking, we recommend that Bill S-223 be amended to provide the detailed eligibility criteria for the victim protection permit in ministerial instructions and guidelines, as is done currently, in order to maintain this flexibility.
We are also concerned that the bill could create a blanket amnesty for victims of trafficking by allowing long-term permit holders to apply for permanent resident status, despite any circumstances caused by or related to their being victims of trafficking in persons. This could include any criminal offence committed by the victim.
Current immigration policy allows a case-by-case analysis of any inadmissibility. While we know that victims can be vulnerable and may be coerced into committing a crime, it is important to retain the ability to consider individual circumstances. Therefore, a case-by-case approach helps us to balance our need to protect victims with the need to consider Canadian security.
We recommend that this provision be amended to be similar to section 133 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which provides protection to refugees for misrepresentation or use of forged documents when entering Canada.
This amendment would ensure that victims of trafficking are afforded the same protection. These particular offences, which are often outside the victim's control, would not be used against them, while more serious offences would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
[Translation]
Another area of concern in Bill S-223 is abuse of the long-term victim protection permit. Fraud is a concern in any program, particularly one which provides the potential of obtaining permanent resident status in Canada.
Bill S-223 provides for a three-year long-term victim protection permit. After this time, the victim would be eligible for permanent residence. While permanent residence is also possible under the existing guidelines, we currently have greater flexibility to issue a permit for a period of time that is appropriate to the circumstances. We also have the ability to cancel the permit if we find it to be based on fraudulent claims. As such we recommend that this provision be amended to give officers the discretion to issue the permit for up to three years and to cancel it at any time.
As well, the government is concerned that Bill S-223 could allow victims of trafficking to be deemed permanent residents for the purposes of health and social services. We interpret this as an attempt to legislate directly in provincial/territorial jurisdiction and this provision should not be included in the Bill.
We recommend, therefore, that the provision deeming foreign nationals who hold a three-year victim protection permit as permanent residents for the purposes of health and social services be deleted.
Finally, Bill S-223 creates a new definition of "victim of human trafficking" that is inconsistent with other federal legislation, such as the Criminal Code. We are concerned that this inconsistency could cause confusion for legislators and law enforcement.
Madam Chair, these are the comments that our Department has concerning Bill S-223. As such, we recommend that "victim of human trafficking" be amended to ensure consistency with the Criminal Code.
We have tabled these, and other technical amendments with the committee. We would be happy to take your questions and we look forward to working with you on this important initiative to further protect victims of trafficking. I will now turn the floor over to my colleagues from Health Canada.
[English]
Martha Vaughan, Manager, Women's Health Division, Programs Directorate, Health Canada: Thank you for the invitation to be here this afternoon. I am here today to address Part 2 of Bill S-223.
Part 2 of the bill would create new responsibilities for the federal Minister of Health with respect to the provision of a toll-free, multilingual hotline and the implementation of a public awareness campaign with respect to human trafficking. In addition, the department would be required to make provisions for the regional offices to provide counselling, information and referral services to victims who seek assistance via the hotline.
With respect to the Part 2 responsibility to develop and implement a public awareness campaign regarding human trafficking, the federal government is already taking action. In January 2009, the Minister of Public Safety announced a partnership with the Canadian Crime Stoppers Association to launch a national awareness campaign that includes the use of a national tip line for the public to report suspected cases of human trafficking.
Regarding the proposed requirement for Health Canada to provide counselling, information and referral services in its regional offices, provinces and territories provide these services to their residents. Health Canada's involvement would be seen as duplication of provincial and territorial initiatives and outside the federal mandate. As well, the proposed provisions for Health Canada would have significant financial implications for the federal government.
For these reasons, we agree and recommend that Part 2 of Bill S-223 be deleted.
Senator Carstairs: Mr. Linklater, I want to make sure that everything I said is compatible with the intention of the bill.
Mr. Linklater: Yes, indeed. The overview that Senator Carstairs provided to the committee is perfectly compatible with my remarks and the department's intent.
Senator Carstairs: Ms. Vaughan, what feedback, if any, have you had on the hotline that has been set up by the government in cooperation with the Canadian Crime Stoppers Association?
Ms. Vaughan: I have been in touch with my colleagues at the RCMP who have indicated that it has been quite successful. I cannot comment any more specifically on that. It is not something we instituted. If desired, I would be happy to try to fulfill that request at a later date.
Senator Carstairs: Is any funding coming from the Department of Health to Crime Stoppers to effect this?
Ms. Vaughan: No.
Senator Carstairs: It is through the Minister of Public Safety, not Health Canada?
Ms. Vaughan: That is my understanding.
Senator Carstairs: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for appearing today. I know that your department has made a lot of progress on these issues, but there is still much work to do. I do not think you would disagree with that.
How many temporary resident permits have you issued so far?
Mr. Linklater: Between 2007 and 2008, we issued 27 permits to 18 individuals. The numbers do not correspond because that is a reflection of the fact that a number of individuals who received initial short-term permits then applied for and obtained the longer-term permits. Therefore, the number of permits is higher than the number of recipients.
Senator Jaffer: To clarify, short-term is for 120 days and then they applied for 180 days?
Mr. Linklater: They could be 120- or 180-day permits depending on when they first arrived in Canada and the instructions in place at the time. For anyone who has applied since 2007, the second permit would be for up to three years.
Senator Jaffer: Do you know how many are in process at the moment?
Mr. Linklater: No, I do not. However, as you can see, it is quite a rare occurrence to date.
Senator Jaffer: From where are the majority of these permits being applied for?
Mr. Linklater: I could not respond with certainty, but I suspect that the majority are being issued in Ontario.
Senator Jaffer: So that the committee understands the process that is followed, a person who wants a temporary resident permit under this bill or under the IRPA tells you that they have been trafficked. Is that correct?
Mr. Linklater: That is correct.
Senator Jaffer: From speaking to officials in your department, I understand that their biggest concern is whether these people were trafficked or were smuggled. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Linklater: In part. When someone comes forward to one of our officers with a claim of trafficking, we make sure that it is a very non-confrontational and non-adversarial situation. Law enforcement officers, including border services, are normally not part of the interview with the individual. At that point, the facts are taken and the officer will make a determination of whether the individual has made a case to warrant the issuance of the initial permit. To my knowledge, that generally happens as a matter of course.
The initial permit is designed to allow the alleged victim to have time to reflect on his or her — usually her — options to determine whether she wishes to cooperate with the prosecution, that is, be party to a prosecution in the courts, or if she would prefer to leave Canada and return home.
Following the 180 days, the person would return to our offices and seek to extend the permit, or request permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate consideration, or make a claim for refugee status.
Senator Jaffer: Under this new legislation, will it still be 180 days or will it automatically be three years?
Mr. Linklater: The first permit will still be 180 days, with the option for a subsequent application for a permit of up to three years.
Senator Jaffer: This bill does not change the initial permit to a three-year permit; it will still be a 180-day permit?
Mr. Linklater: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: My colleague Senator Nancy Ruth was asking a question about appeal. There is no appeal, is there? Is the decision not final?
Mr. Linklater: A decision to cancel a permit would need to be based on the appearance of new evidence that would have countermanded the initial issuance of the permit. Given the litigious nature of immigration, our officers are trained to ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed. If adverse information comes to the fore, the individual who is holding the permit is provided with that information and is given the opportunity to refute it. It is not an automatic decision. There must be an interaction with the permit holder to allow him or her any opportunity to provide additional information.
Even then, if the permit is revoked, the person is not necessarily immediately removed from Canada. As I said earlier, people in that circumstance could apply for humanitarian and compassionate consideration or they could make a claim for refugee status. If they do fall into the removal stream with the Canada Border Services Agency, they are entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment before they are removed from Canada.
Senator Jaffer: Do you have a specific department that just looks after these cases? Are you doing training, and if so, for how long? Are you developing a specialized unit within your offices to deal with these permits?
Mr. Linklater: Not per se, although we are coordinating the function from a policy perspective within my group and the department. However, the officers that would deal with the actual victims on the ground report through our regional structure. We have five domestic regions across the country. Those officers are receiving training. We do work closely with the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and the RCMP. There are training videos and sessions available for our officers. In addition, we have put out operational guidelines that provide fairly extensive detail as to how our officers should deal with potential victims of trafficking.
Senator Jaffer: When people come to get a temporary resident permit, they may be leaving a dangerous situation.
Mr. Linklater: Correct.
Senator Jaffer: In these cases, the majority of them would be in that circumstance. What kind of immediate services are you providing for these women to be protected from the trafficker, and are these services available in all cities?
Mr. Linklater: If the decision is taken to issue the initial short-term permit, our officers can work with community organizations and local police authorities to ensure that accommodation is secured, and, if warranted, the local police can be informed and can be brought into the equation to ensure the most protection possible. Again, these cases so far have been rather limited. As I said, there have been 18 in the last number of years. We are learning as we go, and we will be improving as the program matures and will identify any gaps in coverage that may exist for victims who hold a short-term permit.
Senator Poy: I have a question for Ms. Vaughan. I do not quite understand your presentation. We are talking about victims of trafficking under this Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is federal. In your presentation, you said that Health Canada's involvement would be seen as duplication of provincial and territorial initiatives and outside its federal mandate. There could be significant financial implications that could be viewed as excessive and unwarranted.
Is my understanding correct that there is already in existence a multilingual hotline run by the federal government?
Ms. Vaughan: There is no such dedicated hotline as yet.
Senator Poy: When it does come into effect, the federal government will be responsible for that. Do I understand that correctly?
Ms. Vaughan: As it was presented in the bill, yes.
Senator Poy: When it is necessary to provide counselling or referral services or health services, then it would become provincial. Would that not be the case?
Ms. Vaughan: Health services are not provided directly to victims or residents by Health Canada.
Senator Poy: Health Canada cannot refer to the provincial health services?
Mr. Linklater: All victims of trafficking who receive the short-term permit are eligible for CIC's Interim Federal Health Program. That covers all required medical needs, including trauma counselling and emergency dental care. That is in effect for the duration of the permit, so for 180 days.
After the 180 days, the victims would then roll onto provincial health care rolls. With any referral, there is no formal role for Health Canada. It would happen between the practitioners identified by CIC's Interim Federal Health Program and the local physicians in the community under, say, OHIP in Ontario.
Senator Poy: In the first 180 days, the costs would be borne by the federal government?
Mr. Linklater: Yes.
Senator Poy: I do not understand what Ms. Vaughan is saying, that Part 2 of this bill should be cancelled or deleted. Victims of trafficking need those kinds of services. What is the point of having protection for these people if you will not give them any kind of health benefits or services? I do not quite understand that. What is the logic behind that?
Mr. Linklater: Perhaps I can clarify that. With CIC's Interim Federal Health Program, potential trafficking victims are provided the pathways to the health care they need in the first six months. The feeling is that after six months, most people are integrated well enough into their community that when they roll onto the provincial health roll, they will be able to identify health care providers in their city of residence, should they decide to remain in Canada beyond 180 days. In fact, they would then be turning to the provincial health and social services provided. There, we are quite confident that in most provinces the information is readily available, for example on websites, with outreach, local health units, and so on, to enable victims here on a longer-term permit to be able to access the health care they need.
Senator Poy: Does part of Bill S-223 prevent that?
Mr. Linklater: It would mandate the Minister of Health to set up services that largely already exist in the provinces and are strictly within provincial purview under the Constitution.
Senator Poy: Thank you.
Senator Peterson: Along the same lines as Senator Poy, if the overlap and duplication is removed, and there would be no need to have it duplicated, would that not remove the financial aspect and therefore remove the necessity of having it removed?
Mr. Linklater: If I understand the question, it would be hard to delineate victims of trafficking within broader provision of health care services on provincial rolls. The numbers are quite small. At this point, we have not pursued with provinces the discussions that would be required to understand the extent of any overlap or duplication. At this point, the provinces have been collaborative in terms of coming forward to say, "After the six-month expiry of interim federal health, by all means, we will accept legitimate victims of trafficking on our provincial health and social services rolls."
Senator Peterson: There would be no need to remove it from the bill, then. You said that you cover it for 180 days. After that, the provinces have agreed that it is their responsibility; they will look after it. Why would we take it out? Other than changing the language, are you worried about their being mandated? Is that what you are concerned about?
Mr. Linklater: The overarching concern is that when we are mandating the provision of services within provincial jurisdiction, that goes beyond the constitutional arrangements that we have with the provinces.
Senator Peterson: Let us remove that, then, and then everything would seem to fit.
Senator Mitchell: Do you provide legal aid lawyers to these victims? If so, at what stages and for what reasons?
Mr. Linklater: Legal aid is offered by provincial governments to those who are engaged in immigration proceedings. In the most important areas of destination — that is, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta — the system seems to be functioning quite well. If people feel they need representation to manage the system, the provinces will ensure that the legal support is there.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I was shocked by the number 18. I guess it is hard to figure out who they are, whether they come forward and under what circumstances. What kind of publicity is done in shelters, or wherever else, to encourage these women to come forward?
Mr. Linklater: I am not aware of specifics across the country. However, CIC puts out guidelines to our officers to monitor for this type of situation. I think the RCMP has been doing most community outreach with regard to the trafficking issue. There is a federal interdepartmental working group in which both Health Canada and CIC participate. I would not be able to provide a response today regarding actual products, but I would be happy to get that information for you.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That would be great. I assume these women are going into various shelters. Does the federal government pay for their beds there? What is behind my question is this: The province is picking up the tab for the beds that are available for domestic abuse victims in cities, or wherever. If beds are taken for these women, who is paying that freight, or are they adding beds? How is that dealt with? Does it have a negative impact on what is available for domestic abuse victims?
Mr. Linklater: The numbers are so small that we have not heard from the provinces that this is causing a problem. As you know, social services are covered in part through the Canada Social Transfer, CST. These individuals do count for purposes of CST calculation.
A victim of trafficking could come to our attention at any point in time, not necessarily only at a ported entry. Someone could have been working here for a number of months and then realized he or she was being trafficked and contacted CIC. That person might already have his or her own lodging or friends to turn to for help or support. However, when victims come to CIC, the primary role we play is to secure their status, get them the protection they need and give them the opportunity to reflect on their next steps.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you.
The Chair: When people are trafficked, they are coming from countries where the systems are not user-friendly, if I can say, so they arrive and they may know that they are being trafficked. In some cases they may know they are being coerced but not exactly in the technical trafficking terms.
The points of entry are usually the border services and the police. Is that where you get your case load from, when the police or the border agency calls you? Or do you get the victims coming forward from other sources?
Mr. Linklater: For foreign victims who are trafficked to Canada, the port of entry or a local CIC office is the point of contact. However, we should not forget that there is an issue of domestic trafficking as well, where individuals may not come to the attention of Health Canada or CIC but may come to the attention of the RCMP or local police forces.
We receive most of our referrals from our officers who work at port of entry or from our local offices following a referral at the airport, for example, or the land border from a CBSA officer, who during primary examination would refer the person to immigration secondary at the port of entry for a more in-depth interview with a CIC official.
The Chair: Is the trigger then a Canadian government official?
Mr. Linklater: Being approached by the victim, correct.
The Chair: What about all of the INTERPOL services and other government agencies and United Nations agencies that certainly tell us they are involved in this whole issue of trafficking because it is a growing issue; do you not get an alert and a response earlier?
Mr. Linklater: It really depends on the victim's ability to come forward. As you say, sometimes there is collusion with traffickers for individuals to gain access to Canada. At other times, people may realize only after they have arrived and been here for a while that they have been trafficked. It depends on their ability to raise the alarm, if you will, to be able to reach out to any type of official, whether the police, CIC, a doctor, for example, to be able to tell their story. It really does depend on the individual circumstances.
At this point, with only 18 foreign victims identified to date, it is too early to provide any trends analysis regarding the role of INTERPOL in actually providing a heads-up or a deterrent effect.
The Chair: It would seem to me that you say you have special training, you have awareness, and you exclude other officials to make your own assessments. That seems to be good common sense to me, but the identification of the traffickers and the trafficked individuals is done by agencies other than yours, namely police and border services. Is that correct?
Mr. Linklater: In part; however, if a victim comes forward to CIC and is able to provide us with information about the traffickers or the alleged traffickers, we would share that information with the Canada Border Services Agency.
The Chair: Of the 18, are any self-identified, or were they all sent to you by one of the other services?
Mr. Linklater: I would not be able to say with certainty today, but we could look into the case.
The Chair: Thank you. My concern is that if we are concerned in this bill about ensuring that the victims are getting the services, we have to identify the victims first. We hear in the newspapers and we hear from agencies of greater numbers than 18, so where is the disconnect? Either the figures that are sometimes bandied around are inflated, which could be the case or, alternatively, the victims are not being identified.
Mr. Linklater: You have identified a key gap in terms of the rate of reporting of the issues of trafficking. What I can report to you are those individuals who have actually come to CIC, have been assessed and have been issued a permit. However, in terms of alleged trafficking incidents, or volumes of individuals being trafficked into Canada, CIC does not have strong estimates in that field. It would be more the border services or RCMP.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Mr. Linklater, I have a question for you concerning the authority of the minister to cancel permits. From what I understand, this authority stems from an amendment introduced by the Government of Canada. Was this amendment brought in to protect us from cases where alleged victims of trafficking are in some instances directly tied to or involved in human trafficking?
Mr. Linklater: Thank you for the question.
[English]
As I said, the ability to cancel a permit would not be taken lightly by departmental officials. That said, there is concern that if a permit is issued in error to a perpetrator of trafficking and they were to receive a permit for three years, without the discretion to be able to cancel the permit, as Senator Carstairs outlined in her remarks, we could in effect be providing a direct path to permanent residents for criminals who do not warrant it, perhaps at the expense of their victims.
While this is an important authority, I would assure you it is used sparingly and with great caution. As I said earlier, in ensuring that the principles of natural justice are applied, any adverse information is provided to the permit holder to allow him or her to refute it before a decision to cancel is taken.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Obviously, this provision is going to cause people some concern, and rightfully so. However, is it also fair to say that this provision was introduced to guard against the type of cases I alluded to earlier?
Mr. Linklater: Of course it is important to have some flexibility, as I stated earlier, to take into account new information that was not available at the time of the initial interview, information that could lead an officer to come to a different conclusion when assessing the permit application.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: I will ask a supplementary. You should always ask a question and you should know what the answer might be. In this case, I will plead ignorance.
If the permit is denied there is no appeal, but is there an administrative review, as in the rest of the act, in IRPA? Could you utilize the administrative review to say that you have been denied either by virtue of bias or inappropriate assessment — those things that go to the handling of the administration?
Mr. Linklater: Administrative within the department, no, but access to the Federal Court, yes.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: I have many questions. If there is anyone else, Madame Chair, you can just stop me.
Mr. Linklater, I will go through your presentation. You spoke about the flexibility, and I understand the issue of flexibility, but it can go two ways. You went from 120 days to 180; you could also go to 60 days if the flexibility is there, correct?
Mr. Linklater: The flexibility is there to allow the minister to react to any circumstance, correct.
Senator Jaffer: It can go to fewer days as well. It will not always be additional days.
Mr. Linklater: To go to below 180 days now that that is the expected norm and has been identified as an international best practice would be challenging. Certainly, to ensure the functioning of the benefits from the Interim Federal Health Program onto provincial health rolls, stepping back from the current paradigm would pose more problems than leaving things where they are as a base.
Senator Jaffer: You were in the room when I was asking Senator Carstairs questions. I have great concern with your saying that long-term permit holders can apply for permanent residence and there may be issues, including a criminal offence. As far as I know, there is a two-part process in which a person applies for permanent residence. First the person gets consent or is able to apply for permanent residence and gets acceptance, in theory, except for a criminal check, and then the person can be denied. I am sure the same process applies here.
You say in your presentation that allowing long-term permit holders to apply for permanent resident status could include any criminal offence committed by the victim, but is there not a two-step process anyway? Then it would not really matter.
Mr. Linklater: Under the statute, anyone who has held a valid permit for three years may apply for permanent residence. Acceptance is almost automatic, although we do need to ensure that health, safety and security requirements are met.
Our issue with the original draft of the bill as Senator Phalen laid out — and as Senator Carstairs alluded to in her remarks — is that if the bill as drafted became law, we would not have the discretion to do those criminal checks. The bill, as drafted, would, in fact, override any ability of CIC officers to introduce any inadmissibility into the permanent residence process, in effect trumping the current statute.
Senator Jaffer: I completely respect what you say on that. I have no issue when you say that you always need to have that check.
However, combining that with applying for permanent residence is where I have an issue. You say this may be a path to apply for permanent residence, but I do not think those two go hand in hand. That is where I have an issue.
Mr. Linklater: In fact, being a member of the permit-holder class is a pathway to permanent residence. The way our approach to trafficked victims has evolved, eventually the people who do receive long-term permits enter that permit-holder class. As the bill was originally drafted, our hands would be tied in terms of being able to deny permanent residence based on inadmissibilities, particularly those that were committed by the victim in order to obtain that status in Canada.
With the amendments that have been discussed, we feel that the spirit of the bill remains intact. However, our officers will continue to have that authority to ensure that those who do pose a serious threat to our health, safety and security are not granted permanent residence.
Senator Jaffer: I have two questions. I do not necessarily need answers from you today, because you may want to reflect and provide the answers to us later.
First, does IRPA have a review process that comes to Parliament for review and regulations?
Mr. Linklater: There is no formal process for the legislation. As Senator Carstairs mentioned, there is the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
Senator Jaffer: I am talking about the bill.
Mr. Linklater: There is a provision in IRPA that certain regulations are tabled with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Generally that would include regulations that deal with refugee protection or social migration as opposed to economic migration.
As a courtesy, Minister Kenney has been tabling all regulations with the committee. Legally speaking, though, he has to table only those regulations that deal with social or humanitarian issues.
Senator Jaffer: With that in mind, would you consider having some kind of provision here in this act? Could you reflect on that and let our committee know. As Senator Carstairs very clearly said to us, this is a joint effort. I ask you to consider, as there is in the review where he must table, if you could consider that here as well.
Mr. Linklater: Certainly we will confirm with this committee whether or not regulations under these proposed provisions would need to be tabled with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Senator Jaffer: "Would be tabled," not "would need to be tabled."
Mr. Linklater: Correct.
Senator Jaffer: The other thing that concerns me is that you have talked about giving permanent residence and certainly not wanting to give the perpetrator of trafficking status. Have you had any cases like that?
Mr. Linklater: Of issuing a permit?
Senator Jaffer: Of issuing a temporary permit and then finding out that that person was a trafficker.
Mr. Linklater: I would have to talk to our case management branch about that. I am not aware of any examples offhand, but I am aware of at least two cases where a permit was issued but then was subsequently revoked when additional information came forward.
Senator Jaffer: My grave concern is that the smell of this presentation has been to ensure that the trafficker does not get this permit.
Mr. Linklater: Correct.
Senator Jaffer: I work on this issue a lot. That has not been my experience. No one from your department or anyone has ever said that a trafficker has even gone to get the permit. I am not comfortable with you putting those things together. I would like to hear from you, through the chair, as to whether you have had any instances of that.
I would also like you and the department to consider wording such as "cancel for a reason." If it goes to Federal Court the law is clear; it can be cancelled at any time. I think it should be "cancel for some reason." It does not have to my words, but wording to that effect.
I know you set out that there is a process that is followed, but I do not agree with you that legal aid is provided. You should come to British Columbia and see what kind of legal aid is being provided. That is another day's question.
I would like you to consider whether there is another kind of clause we can put in. I have great difficulty with "cancel at any time." Perhaps wording such as "for a reasonable excuse" or something that is fairer and less arbitrary.
Mr. Linklater: We will take that suggestion on advisement. I would say the language put forward here reflects other provisions elsewhere in the act. We would need to ensure that what we are doing here would not cause an issue in other provisions of the law.
Senator Jaffer: Of the law or in this bill?
Mr. Linklater: Other portions of IRPA as it stands today.
Senator Jaffer: Can you tell us what "instructions of the minister" means?
Mr. Linklater: Coming back to the issue of flexibility, what our officers use as the foundation for their interaction with victims now are instructions that come from the minister. Those instructions indicate that should a permit be warranted, it shall be issued in the first instance for a period of 180 days, that it will be fee exempt, that for subsequent applications the instructions say the second permit may be issued for a period of up to three years, that in making the assessment officers must be non-adversarial, that law enforcement should not be present to the extent possible, and that the victim will be provided with the appropriate referrals for shelter through the appropriate municipal or provincial authorities.
I believe these instructions are on our website. If not, we would be happy to table them with the committee so that you can see first-hand the content of the instructions.
Senator Jaffer: To go back for a minute, I see in your explanatory notes that instead of saying "cancel at any time" you have used "permit if the circumstances warrant." Would you consider using in the bill "if circumstances warrant" instead of "cancel at any time"?
Mr. Linklater: We will talk to our lawyers.
The Chair: Thank you Mr. Linklater, Ms. Vaughan, Ms. Mandy and the others who have appeared.
I do not know whether I need a formal motion. With the concurrence of the committee, we will send today's testimony to the witnesses who testified on the previous bills for their comment with a return date of December 2 for their feedback. We will then consider the bill. Mr. Linklater, that should give you time to reflect on some of the suggestions.
I will remind honourable senators that the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is empanelled to hear from witnesses with respect to our study to examine the issue of the sexual exploitation of children in Canada, with a particular emphasis on understanding the scope and prevalence of the problem of the sexual exploitation of children across the country and in particularly affected communities.
We have two groups represented in this panel now before us: from the Canadian Red Cross, Ms. Shelley Cardinal, Aboriginal Adviser, Violence and Abuse Prevention Program; and from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Ms. Lianna McDonald, Executive Director.
I think you know our format is for you to give any opening statements and comments you wish to make, and then we turn to questions from the senators.
Shelley Cardinal, Aboriginal Advisor, Violence and Abuse Prevention Program, Canadian Red Cross: I want to begin by saying hi hi, hychka siem for allowing me to appear before you today and for giving voice to the silence of sexual exploitation that allows it to permeate our communities.
I am from Bigstone Cree Nation. My kokum is Tallcree, and my muchum is Bigstone Cree. I was raised in Northern Alberta and currently live on Salish territory on the Lak'waman-speaking territory. Today, I would like to acknowledge the Algonquin, whose land we are presently meeting on.
I am here on behalf of the Canadian Red Cross, a non-profit humanitarian organization dedicated to improving the situation of the most vulnerable people in Canada and around the world. We are a member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, with approximately 100 million volunteers worldwide. The movement includes the International Committee of the Red Cross, which acts as a guardian of the Geneva conventions and is tasked under international humanitarian law to protect the lives and dignity of victims caught in situations of armed conflict.
The other arm of the movement is the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, which coordinates the national disaster response activities of 187 national societies, like the Canadian Red Cross.
On an international level, the federation leads and coordinates relief operations, responding to large-scale emergencies, like the recent earthquakes in Indonesia, with its member national societies. National Red Cross and Red Crescent societies exist in nearly every country of the world, and each acts as auxiliary to the government in its own country.
Our network is vast but our approach is simple. All Red Cross programs and activities are guided by the fundamental principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality. These principles allow us to provide help immediately to whoever needs it, wherever they are, whatever their race, political beliefs, religion, social status or culture.
We are a leading humanitarian organization through which people voluntarily demonstrate their caring for others in need. The Canadian Red Cross has been a national leader in prevention education for 25 years through its RespectED: Violence & Abuse Prevention programs. The aim of RespectED is to break the cycle of abuse, neglect and interpersonal violence and in so doing to promote safe and supportive relationships between individuals within the family and throughout our community.
I have worked in this program for 13 years and am committed to creating safe environments in our communities. The understanding of vulnerability and the risk factors that allow violence against children to exist are at the core of what we need to know to stop the cycle of harm.
"Let us put our minds together and see what we can make for our children." Those words were spoken by Chief Sitting Bull more than 100 years ago, but they are just as timely today. I believe they are especially timely as we meet to grapple with the challenges and confirm our commitment to participate in creating a better life for our children.
In every community and cultural group, every day, thousands of children and youth are harmed by emotional, physical and sexual maltreatment. The ramifications on individuals, families and society are staggering. Children and families become embedded in pain and dysfunction, while society attempts to respond with crisis interventions that are often too little too late.
This topic is not at the forefront of our thinking until someone who is defined as someone in Canada speaks up about the harm that has impacted their life. We recently watched the courage of Theo Fleury when he launched his book that tells the story of sexual harm. As an organization, we offered him the same support that was given to Sheldon Kennedy, who bravely spoke of the impact in his life of sexual abuse 10 years.
National incident studies indicate that sexual abuse, exploitation and maltreatment of children are serious concerns. Sixty-three per cent of substantiated cases of sexual abuse in Canada are committed against females; however, males are more vulnerable between ages 4 and 7. Street youth and those who are sexually exploited almost always become involved with drugs and alcohol, which furthers their dependency on those who exploit them, including pimping others to meet their needs.
For Aboriginal communities, the roots of this can be found in the history of colonization and forced assimilation, which damaged families and communities. High rates of poverty, substance abuse and violence, combined with systemic racism in Canadian society, make Aboriginal youth especially vulnerable. Aboriginal youth leave their remote communities for urban areas in search of opportunity, or leave home to escape abuse, lacking social supports or economic resources. They are preyed upon and often sexually exploited.
We think between 400 and 2,000 children and youth are being sexually exploited in Manitoba each year. This may be a low estimate, since only a small proportion is actually visible. Between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of those exploited in Manitoba are of Aboriginal dissent. The majority are runaways. In Canada, studies have found that 80 per cent of Aboriginal youth who are being commercially sexually exploited report having been sexually abused previously.
Aboriginal youth count for at least half of young people who are sexually exploited in Canada. This is a startling statistic when you realize that Aboriginal people make up 5 per cent of the population.
In my life and work, I have come to understand the role that violence plays in my community. There has been a history of pain and loss that has devastated the fabric that weaves the strands of the strength that holds us together. As a people, we have endured loss through legislation and lost five generations of children to residential schools, only to have to survive the child welfare system and the justice system. We intimately know the impacts of how violence affects our lives.
From that history, we now have a legacy of violence in front of us. Sexual exploitation is just one of the impacts of that violence. It is time to face our responsibility and live up to Article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Canada, which clearly requires that states must protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse.
Attempting to address the issues faced by Aboriginal children and youth exploited through sex work necessitates looking at social attitudes towards children and youth involved in commercial sexual exploitation. While 86 per cent of Canadians are aware that there are young people working in the sex trade, few realize or want to know the dangers associated with the work or the seriousness of it as child abuse. To most Canadians, these people are not "somebodies."
When RespectED partnered with the Victoria Capital Region Action Team on sexually exploited youth to host a conference on sexual exploitation for youth, mostly First Nations from Saskatoon boarded a bus for three days with their two youth workers to come to the youth pre-conference. The youth — comprised of males and females who had worked in the sex trade, some of them before the age of 12 — slowly began to find their voice in the three days. By the end of the pre-conference, they were able to participate with other leadership youth and adults in discussions, role plays and sessions, talking about sexual exploitation and the impacts on their lives. The conference was called Finding Your Voice and Making a Connection.
From the straight-A private-school girl who was lured into the trade with the promise of a modeling contract, to the young man who was sold many times over and over, each of these youth had a story that would chill you. However, when they were shown that their story matters, they found a way to link to the larger body of service providers attending the conference and accepted support.
One Vancouver youth said, "For myself, if I had been informed as a child, I think I would have made a better choice as a teenager and adult." In school, the children are learning so much, so why not teach them everything that they need to know about prevention, especially if they can prevent something?
Professionals who work with children and youth are crucial supporters and role models. Canadian Red Cross believes that supporting these professionals through high-quality resources and training on child and youth safety is one of the best ways to create a world fit for children and youth.
Sexual exploitation is not inevitable. When we create a united front and say "no more," when we educate ourselves and our children that they have a right to control their own bodies, when we teach them how to get help and make sure there are resources they can access, we have a good chance of reducing the sexual exploitation of children and youth.
RespectED's vision for our country is for all our children to have the ability and support to work towards their potential instead of surviving their circumstances. Given our goal, the Canadian Red Cross RespectED program has three recommendations.
The first is for a national study that looks at unreported sexual exploitation, abuse and the social determinants. The results from our longitudinal study, which is still in progress, conducted by Memorial, Dalhousie and Calgary universities, have revealed that the primary need of children and youth between the ages of 6 and 17 is to have a place to tell of their pain. Children and youth are not given a voice to talk of violence and abuse in their day-to-day lives. Many youth we have worked with have stated to us that there are not people in their lives they trust. We need to understand the actual scope of the harm.
Our second recommendation is a national prevention strategy that addresses the social determinants, targets adults' responsibility to keep children safe and educates children on their rights. We have learned clearly that young people are vulnerable to exploitation if they are without strong, stable supports at home or in their community. If they have been abused or neglected, if they are addicted to drugs or if conflict or poverty is rampant in their community, they are especially at risk. Children too often have no idea they have the right to be protected.
Our third recommendation is a national strategy to address sexual exploitation of children and youth. Most often, it is the chaos of survival that blocks any hope for getting out or getting help. We need to understand sexual violence and all its implications — name it and be able to learn protective strategies. RespectED is built on the resilient factors that believe in communities and our ability to address violence and protect our children. Let us put our minds together and see what we can create for our children.
The Chair: I think you have circulated to all members your 10 steps to creating safe environments for children and youth, which is part of your program.
Ms. Cardinal: Yes, it is.
The Chair: Thank you. Now we will turn to Ms. McDonald.
Lianna McDonald, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Child Protection: Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide some remarks regarding this important issue. I have had the occasion to review some of the transcripts from the previous presentations. My goal today is to provide insight and information that has not yet been presented, as well as to make a few recommendations at the end that our agency would like to see happen to better protect Canada's children.
The Canadian Centre for Child Protection is a charitable organization dedicated to the personal safety of children. We operate Cybertip.ca, which is Canada's tip line to report the online sexual exploitation of children. To date, we have received over 40,000 reports from the Canadian public, which have resulted in over 55 arrests of individuals as well as in numerous children being removed from abusive environments.
Last week, our agency released a study that examined over 15,000 websites hosting child abuse images and reviewed more than 4,000 unique images of children being sexually abused. I have included a full copy of the report within your packages, as well as a summary report that highlights the key points.
Focusing on child sexual abuse images on websites, the study provides an overview of the scope of the problem from the tip line's perspective. The results are concerning, and I would like to highlight a few.
The first is that 82 per cent of the images analyzed depict very young children under the age of 12. Of the over 4,000 unique images assessed by analysts, over 35 per cent show sexual assaults against children. Children were abused through extreme sexual assaults, including bestiality, bondage, torture and degrading acts; these mostly occurred against children under age 8. Finally, 83 per cent of the images involved girl children.
The report also provides information on the global movement of child sexual abuse websites, identifies the challenges with the borderless nature of the Internet and recommends additional solutions for tackling the problem. The reality is that child abuse websites are widely available and move in an effort to avoid being shut down.
In Canada, stakeholders in the area of online child sexual exploitation, particularly in the area of child abuse images and material, have made significant inroads. Beyond our strong legislation, our National Strategy to Protect Children from Sexual Exploitation on the Internet has had some important successes. Additionally, there has been long-standing collaboration from the private sector, most notably Canada's major Internet service providers. The Canadian Coalition Against Internet Child Exploitation, otherwise known as CCAICE, has collaborated to institute Cleanfeed Canada, a solution to block access to foreign-based websites hosting child pornography.
It has been through our agency's work that we have been able to understand the complexities and challenges of managing Internet-facilitated crimes against children. What we provide in terms of recommendations is the acknowledgment that we need to change the way we view the problems and solutions of child abuse images on the Internet. The truth is that sexual abuse begins in the off-line world. Efforts should be focused on preventing child sexual abuse from occurring in homes and communities. By doing so, we reduce the likelihood of these images ever circulating on the Internet. For this to occur, adults around children need to be educated about the abuse process, how to recognize inappropriate behaviour, interrupt sexual abuse and facilitate disclosures by children.
When we look at the continuum of child abuse and sexual exploitation, there exists a common denominator. It is the fact that too many adults have a sexual interest in children. While there exist a number of viewpoints that support offender-focused approaches, our agency supports investment into primary prevention strategies to prevent child sexual abuse. Moreover, there needs to be specific attention to target the situations in which children are more likely to be exposed. Finally, the importance of educating the general public about their civic responsibility and duty to report suspicions of child abuse is absolutely essential.
Our agency consistently carries out national public awareness campaigns on the issue of child sexual exploitation. We track and monitor the impacts of such campaigns, and we find that reporting increases as a direct result. In one specific example, over the course of one awareness campaign, we saw a 103 per cent increase in reports to Cybertip.ca and a 55 per cent increase in educational downloads. These results underscore the importance of providing the public with information and ways to take action. However, such outcomes obviously require ongoing, long-term investments in public awareness initiatives. There is no shortcutting this; we have to invest in the long run.
While public awareness is essential, so, too, is ensuring that children are educated about ways to protect themselves from child sexual abuse and exploitation. Our Kids in the Know personal safety program is now being taught in every province across Canada. The interactive program is taught within the classroom environment and includes protective factors that empower children and build their resiliency.
However, challenges exist in ensuring that teachers are prioritizing child sexual abuse education. Through our testing of various safety programs, we have learned that teachers are often uncomfortable teaching this type of education.
This is not uncommon with professionals who work with children. Most recently, our agency piloted a new child sexual abuse program called Teatree Tells, which I will make available to be passed around. The program is to be used in early child care environments. Given our recent research that shows how young most of the children in the child abuse images are, we realized the importance of early education and teaching children about these important issues.
We will be distributing over 10,000 kits to every child care centre in Canada over the next several months. Additionally, we will be distributing our new Commit to Kids program, which helps organizations create safe environments for children. It provides strategies, policies and a step-by-step plan for reducing the risk of child sexual exploitation and abuse. At the end, there is a child protection manual that organizations can adopt. Child-serving organizations need to be extensively engaged to ensure that children within their care are protected and not vulnerable to victimization. Criminal record and child abuse registry checks are simply not enough.
Public outrage, media attention and political agendas tend to focus on what to do with offenders rather than on what to do with children and their families and how we can stop child sexual abuse from occurring in the first place. There needs to be a shift from focusing exclusively on the criminal justice process and crime control efforts to a stronger emphasis on child protection policies. From our work through Cybertip.ca, we know that a significant number of adults have a sexual interest in children. We also know that many offenders who commit crimes against children are never caught. Therefore, a concerted effort to educate the public about the problem is a better strategy and is likely to have a bigger impact on the protection of our children. This prevention-centred approach will require continued political leadership and a long-term commitment and investment in this issue.
In concluding, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection has most recently released 12 recommendations regarding the online sexual abuse and exploitation of children. I note two key recommendations from the study for today's committee. The first is a call on the government to prioritize and support educational efforts targeting children under the age of 12 about child sexual abuse. The second is a call on the government to prioritize and support educational awareness campaigns targeting the general public about child sexual abuse and the importance of reporting. These are doable strategies that will go a long way in protecting our children.
I thank the committee for you time, interest and commitment to exploring new ways to address this significant problem. While challenges exist, we are optimistic that Canada can be a leader in addressing what is certainly a global and moral problem. As we know, this is not something owned only by governments. To make a real difference, citizens need to be more engaged and to understand their role in protecting children and childhood in general. Thank you.
Senator Poy: Ms. McDonald, in your presentation you mentioned the significant number of adults who have a sexual interest in children. Does the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, CCCP, know why that is?
Ms. McDonald: There are a couple of issues. First, the literature and the research cannot pinpoint why some adults have a sexual preference for children. There are clinical explanations, but we cannot understand the root cause. Is someone born that way? Does someone evolve to commit these types of crimes against children? We do not know for sure. That is one part of the complex problem.
Second, our current environment highly sexualizes children. We see the sexploitation of children through media messaging and advertising, such as stores that sell thong underwear for eight-year-old children. We are creating an environment that makes children sexual objects. The CCCP strongly believes that the combination of this almost perfect storm is creating a culture and an environment that tolerates these kinds of attitudes and beliefs toward children.
Senator Poy: Do you think that the government has a role in controlling the commercial sexualization of children?
Ms. McDonald: Definitely, there is an opportunity for the government to exert influence. We see in a number of other examples where the private sector engages through setting up codes of conduct or looking at other regulatory systems that help to modify how they market to children. In Canada, efforts could be made to start addressing those companies and marketing campaigns that send out clear messages that children are sexual objects.
Senator Poy: Do you think these products are bought by children? I think they are bought by adults for children, because children do not have the money.
Ms. McDonald: I think they are. Certain toys, like Bratz dolls, and other objects for young children to play with are sexualized items. Children see them on commercials when they are the newest and greatest toys and they want to have them. Children do not necessarily have the developmental capacity to appreciate what is happening to them. Again, adults are put in an awkward position and tend to minimize the harm that might be done to their child.
There are two parts to the issue. First, adults must be educated about the potential harms to children of such messages. Second, companies must be encouraged with the same dialogue to increase their social responsibility standpoint so that they understand and play a role in how they market to young children.
Senator Poy: The best thing to do is to not buy those products. That would send a signal to companies not to make them.
Is there a link between being sexually abused as children and becoming adults who sexually abuse children?
Ms. McDonald: That is a highly controversial question. Historically we heard a great deal about the connection between individuals who were sexually abused as children and their propensity to abuse children. Recent studies do not necessarily support that. Certainly, it is not to say that an individual who has abused a child has not been abused historically. We are beginning to see that there is not a direct scientific connection, which used to be put out to the public domain regularly.
Senator Poy: Who funds your organization?
Ms. McDonald: Since 2005 we have received funding annually from the federal government for the operation of Cybertip.ca. We also raise money from the private sector through a number of our programs and services.
Senator Poy: How long has the organization been in existence?
Ms. McDonald: We began after the murder of a 13-year-old girl in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in 1985. Her name was Candace Derksen. We evolved and renamed the organization to reflect its national work in 2005. We have been in operation for 25 years.
Senator Poy: I have another question for the second round.
Senator Jaffer: I found both presentations helpful. I would like to ask both of you about gender issues and sexual exploitation. Do the experiences of male and female children differ, and if so, in what way?
Ms. Cardinal: My experience is primarily within several indigenous communities across Canada where RespectED works. When looking at the history of sexual abuse within our communities, we have found that the experiences of men and women have been similar. When we look now at the sexual abuse that is happening within our communities, again there are very similar experiences.
We hear more and more disclosures as time goes on, starting from the time that children are about 5 years old. One of our programs talks to children in kindergarten about how to keep their bodies safe. Within that program, as youth learn about their private parts and the fact that they can say no to certain things, they are beginning to talk more about being touched in certain areas.
Our community statistics on sexual abuse are similar for boys and girls. For Aboriginal youth who are sexually exploited in urban centres, the rates are much higher for young girls than they are for young boys. That is driven in part by the market for young girls as opposed to young boys within our communities.
Ms. McDonald: One recommendation in our report is specific to gender-related education. We are not sure of the reason, but when we reviewed the images submitted to Cybertip.ca, almost 83 per cent involved very young girl children. Obviously, this is an issue of concern. We know very little about the children in the images.
We need to have a discussion with pediatricians and other people with expertise in the area to talk about how we can target young girls specifically and use appropriate language and tactics that they will respond to.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Cardinal, my specific concern is in my area regarding the Olympics. I see more and more young Aboriginal children on our streets. If we have any knowledge on the situation, can you comment on what is happening regarding the exploitation of Aboriginal children around the Olympic Games?
Ms. Cardinal: I know that the five different nations involved with VANOC, the organizing committee of the Games, have formed a committee. Part of what they are looking at is how to increase prevention programs within communities now to speak to adults in the communities about how to protect their children.
I think the games truly are enticing our children. They have significant access to the places and spaces that many people will visit on the West Coast. That, in itself, increases their risks and vulnerability in those spaces.
Currently, we have increased education, specifically with the five nations on whose lands the Games will be. In those communities, we are doing adult education around child protection, messages they need to give to their children, protective factors that children need in place, messages the communities need to give to children in their schools about how to protect themselves with visitors coming.
Senator Jaffer: I am encouraged by what you are saying. We have heard that if they arrive on our streets in Vancouver, we are too late. It is good to hear that you are doing prevention.
Ms. Cardinal: Our focus is prevention, and it is very difficult. Once children are on the street, it is difficult to educate them. At that point, we are dealing with someone who has run away and is in a position of isolation.
We have not personally engaged in this, but we have recommended that VANOC look at creating posters about sexual exploitation that we can put in the transit system. These would include telephone numbers people can call to ensure that children have some type of access to support even if it is not a person they know. We have been working with Kids Help Phone to ensure there are visible numbers in place for children who do not have support around them. If children are on their own and find themselves in a vulnerable situation, they will have someone they could call.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. McDonald, I am sorry that I have not read the material you provided. Have you any way of knowing whether Canadians are accessing international and national Internet sites? What are the authorities doing to charge people with what I call Internet sex tourism? I know it is not the correct term, but we have sex tourism happening abroad. Is there an Internet equivalent?
Ms. McDonald: We absolutely do. Within our agency, we accept reports in that area as well. The Internet is a facilitator, when you think about it. It is a way of providing anonymity. It is simpler. People are not visible and engage the technology to do that.
We see the whole continuum of child sexual abuse. We go from looking at the images all the way to sex offenders using websites and tours to look for opportunities to sexually abuse children.
There are many international efforts to address this. In our recommendations, we suggest that we are chasing our tails to some extent. In one particular case, we had a five-year-old girl who was being sexually assaulted. An image of her being abused was perfectly reproduced over 800,000 times over an 18-month period.
When we peel this apart and ask what we are doing, we are wiser to focus on the abuse in a home or neighbourhood to stop the image from ever surfacing on the Internet to begin with. I will echo my colleague's important remarks that the same goes for targeting children before they end up on the streets. We need to look at those sorts of investments.
The Chair: Ms. McDonald, to follow up on the cyber space issue, a previous witness indicated that while there has been some concentration on passing images for commercial purposes, the majority of images are passed through informal networks. It starts in the home or whatever environment. They are not passed through what we would normally know as the commercial sex trade, which used to be magazines. Now, it has gone to the Internet. Is that your experience?
Ms. McDonald: That is true. We know there are a variety of different technologies or Internet platforms where people can trade illegal child abuse images. They are passed on peer-to-peer networks. These present a number of challenges for law enforcement when images are essentially going from computer to computer and people are openly sharing them.
We also know through the work we are involved in that there is an underground nature. There are secure, closed networks in which offenders are actively engaged in the abuse and the trading of this type of material. The larger concern is that although the images may not be commercial technically in terms of the profit motive being directly behind it, but the image itself becomes a currency. In order to get images, I give images. It reinforces the deviant behaviour. It encourages people to create this currency and trade it with other abusers.
The Chair: Ms. Cardinal, I perceive that what you are doing in the Aboriginal community with your 10 steps and elsewhere is community-centred. You build more awareness and have teachers, parents and children talk about the issue and deal with it. Are there different techniques other than cultural awareness that need to be used in the Aboriginal community? Should the Aboriginal community be given more resources to begin to deal with this issue themselves?
Ms. Cardinal: As I said in my statement, there has been a legacy of harm within the community. It is that legacy of harm in which we are so entrenched today when we look at issues that impact the community. The strategies that need to be in place within the community are many. We fill a small part of those strategies.
Cultural awareness is imperative within community. We know that the stronger a culture is within its community, the stronger its protective factors are — children are stronger and more resilient in that particular community. The less sexual abuse there is, the less sexual harm, and the fewer drug and alcohol issues, the lower the suicide rate. We know that to be true.
One of the impacts of past sexual abuse within our communities is the current place where in many communities we actually have high rates of sexual abuse. There, we need to understand sexual boundaries. We need to understand, developmentally, what children need at different times in their life. For our young children, they need to be able to identify what their sexual parts are and know that no one can touch those. They need to actually know that. They need to have the adults in their life practice that language separate from them, so that they can then share that and actually form that protective strategy around them.
As kids are growing, parents need to understand how to keep their kids safe online, even though there is not necessarily a computer in their home. There are computers in the schools, for example. Children actually have great access to online information, regardless of where they are. Parents need to understand how to keep kids safe. My colleague has been talking about the cyber world and the dangers within it. We know that sexual abuse online is the fastest-growing type of sexual abuse that exists for us today.
Parents have a great deal of fear around talking about sex simply because of their own pasts, history and harm that they have felt through that. There are no boundaries given to our youth around it. Hence, our youth then move away from community with no sexual boundaries.
There must be a language around which they can speak about it. There must be that protective factor that we need to pass on to our children.
It is not just the cultural awareness that needs to be within community; it is also the whole language around what sexual violence is and what other areas of violence are. That information helps them to understand. There needs to be great information around support systems, so our youth understand that even if there is not the language at home or if there is not the feeling of safety at home, then there are other places that they can disclose, tell of their harm and talk. They have to understand that there are safe places they can go, even if that is not their home experience. There are all of those things.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you both for appearing this afternoon. I would like to know whether you have had any level of discussion with either the federal or the provincial governments on trying to create a public education awareness campaign and establish partnerships with, for example, different school boards across the country, the different levels of government, Internet service providers and Canadian hardware manufacturing companies. Perhaps advertise on social networking sites or provide public service announcements, because public service announcements do not require a lot of money to air those types of commercials, for example.
Have you had any level of discussion with respect to that?
Ms. McDonald: Actually, yes, we have in all areas. We work with provincial ministries of education in terms of our Kids In the Know program and any sort of new program. In your folders, I submitted a sheet that shows age-appropriate material that we distribute. Last year alone, we put over 3 million individual paper copies into the hands of children to take home. It is important to note that we need also to recognize that parents need the tools in their hands. Going to the Internet to get safety information is not happening; they are too busy. We have been working with provincial governments across Canada to do that.
Additionally, in terms of public awareness, as mentioned, we carry out campaigns at least two times a year. Typically, one will deal with child sexual abuse and the need to take action to report, then also on a specific subject area, such as Internet safety or Respect Yourself and educating children about sending pictures of themselves. We will tailor the awareness building we do.
However, with all of that going forward, I think there needs to be better coordination. That was one of the points I was making earlier. We need to be leveraging existing ideas and materials that work. We need to be doing some pre and post surveying to understand what is having an impact. We need to have the long-term investment to be able to carry these out over time.
You cannot just educate about reporting abuse and then stop for three years. One of the challenges is how to mobilize various levels of government and investment also from private sector folks to help underwrite and sustain that type of awareness building.
Senator Brazeau: Are you saying that your greatest challenge or barrier is a lack of financial resources to be able to get such a plan under way?
Ms. McDonald: We are very grateful for the funding we receive for public awareness, which we receive from the Government of Canada through Public Safety Canada. All of the stakeholders need to be working more collaboratively so that we maximize investments by sharing campaign material together and finding more diverse networks to get those out.
The other issue is that, again, it needs to be an ongoing campaign in the sense that it is a multi-year process. Those would be some of the challenges. Public awareness is something you can throw a lot of money into, so we need to know the right way to do it. We need to be able to measure and look at metrics to see whether we have been successful, and we need to leverage other partnerships with stakeholders. Some value could come from that type of national strategy that would combine those efforts together.
Senator Peterson: Thank you both for your presentations. Ms. McDonald, I notice in your financial statements that your administration is less than 5 per cent of your revenue, which is very laudable. Do you do Cybertip.ca? Does that come out of this, too?
Ms. McDonald: Everything.
Senator Peterson: Oh, my gosh.
Ms. McDonald: We always joke that you get more than you paid for. We have a $4-million budget, approximately, and we put the majority of everything into the hands of Canadians. We do everything in-house. We do all the design in-house and we maximize all of the dollars we have coming in.
Senator Peterson: You certainly do.
With respect to Cybertip.ca, you identify so many things, but are you able to do any more? Obviously, with the funding you have, you cannot delve into it. You have identified it; you know it is a problem. You cannot do any more than that, can you? Where does it go from here? Do you hope that another department or agency will pick this up and run with it?
Ms. McDonald: There is always more to be done. As I mentioned, and Ms. Cardinal also echoed, front-end prevention and investment is what we need to start seeing. We are telling a story about what we see in terms of the images and the way they propagate, and we are also addressing the very clear challenges within the work we do.
There needs to be more global collaboration, and we have to use disruption or other types of tactics, versus focusing on only criminal justice strategies, to stop this from happening. There is a lot more to be done; it is just a matter of doing it in the smartest way possible.
Senator Peterson: I recommend you qualify for more funding, no question about that.
The Chair: You can present a membership form.
Senator Peterson: Ms. Cardinal, sexual abuse is quite prevalent in First Nations, unfortunately; a lot of it is in the shadows, and a lot of it happens to families that are struggling.
What are the challenges in trying to get to the children at an early age to educate them? How difficult is it for you to do that in that type of an environment?
Ms. Cardinal: It poses many problems. The work we have been doing is very interesting. I have been managing Walking the Prevention Circle for 14 years, which is the Aboriginal development of the RespectED program. After doing several different education-based workshops in many different communities, we learned that we really needed to start integrating a capacity-building model, where we could teach the adults within communities. Once we could teach the adults within communities, then it was the adults.
If we could create the safety network within the communities, we could help teach the youth within communities to go to the safety of their adults within communities, as opposed to going to people who might fly in, present different information and then leave the community. We did not want our youth to start learning from someone like myself, who might come into a community, teach youth within the community and then leave. I will not be staying in that particular community.
We realized right away that there were critical partnerships we needed to make. The partnerships we first focus on are with the community leadership. We look to the school. We always do partnerships with the school — with the teachers, counsellors and administration of the school.
We do partnerships with the Department of Justice. We always bring in the RCMP and whatever Justice workers are within the community, along with whatever health care workers. If there is a community health researcher or community health workers and various support people in place, we do partnerships there. From that, we will start training prevention educators within the community.
Where we follow that model, we are very successful. Currently, we are working with 200 Aboriginal communities across Canada. We have prevention educators in 87 Aboriginal communities, and they are doing all of the education of their youth.
We specifically work with the adults to help frame the education and the messages that our children need to increase their protection and awareness, and also to help the adults in becoming different role models and in learning information that can help them be better parents and to work with our youth in a different way.
Senator Brazeau: You mentioned that you currently have partnerships with approximately 200 schools; that is roughly one third of current First Nation communities across the country.
Ms. Cardinal: With 200 Aboriginal communities.
Senator Brazeau: Is there anything preventing future partnerships with the remaining ones? If there are any barriers, what needs to be done to ensure we break them? To me, this is an easy sell for the benefit of our children.
Ms. Cardinal: We solidified a great partnership two years ago when we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Assembly of First Nations. The AFN came to the Red Cross to help with developing disaster response programs for the communities where we were finding greater disasters happening, especially with many of our northern communities, where the ice is melting. In their awareness of what the Red Cross is currently working on, they learned about the RespectED program and about the places where we have active partnerships. In the memorandum, the goal is to develop partnerships with all the Aboriginal communities in Canada over a 10-year period.
Definitely, there is an issue of readiness for different communities. When a community is in a strong place of crisis, it is not the right time for us to implement education. It is very difficult for a person to be in a learning space when they are in a grieving space. Hence, we have to be careful when we start education within a community; you have to start at a time that people are ready for the learning process.
We have been called into communities at times after a high number of suicides. That is a critical time, but it is a critical time of healing that a community needs to go through. It is not a time to go straight into that place of education.
We can help to bring different supports into the community. We can do different referrals to say this is who best to partner with right now to give better support within the community for the place you are in. When communities are in a place of un-readiness, you have to honour those places and what has created the un-readiness. We work with communities to help to create readiness.
You asked before about partnerships with school districts We have approximately 50 partnerships with Aboriginal-run schools. Our largest school partner would be Frontier School Division, which is about half of Manitoba. We have a strong partnership with Frontier School Division. Most of their schools are in Aboriginal communities. Where we have a strong school partnership, we can run the program through the school. We will often rely on the school then to help assess the readiness of various communities.
Senator Brazeau: How do you find out whether a community is ready to have you in so that the education process can start? Under the memorandum of understanding that you have with the AFN, is it the AFN that recommends? Is it the community that contacts you directly? How does that work?
Ms. Cardinal: The partnership we currently have is with a community that contacted us directly. For the communities that contact us directly, we start with a community needs assessment, where we find out right from the beginning the reasons for wanting to bring the RespectED program into the community. Generally speaking, it is the community that invites us, and from that place we start engagement.
However, the initial engagement is usually a period of talking around where they are at, what their support systems are, what the partnerships and the connections look like within the community and what the cultural strength is within the community. We do a fair amount of assessment before we start working in the community. We do not go straight to that place of education.
The Chair: Ms. McDonald and Ms. Cardinal, thank you for coming, and more particularly, thank you for the work you are doing. You have pointed out how complex the issue is and how, if we continue to work at a practical level, case by case, child by child and family by family, we might have an opportunity to lessen the exploitation. You have reminded us of practical solutions that we should be focusing on. Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your work.
(The committee adjourned.)