Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 21 - Evidence for June 14, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 14, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which were referred Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons); and Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to all, including members of the public who are viewing today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the CPAC television network. Today we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons). This bill was first introduced in the House of Commons on October 3 of last year by Joy Smith, Member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul in the province of Manitoba.
The summary of the bill states that it amends the Criminal Code to add the offence of trafficking in persons to the offences committed outside Canada for which Canadian citizens or permanent residents may be prosecuted in Canada. It also amends the code to add factors that the court may consider when determining whether an accused exploits another person.
Bill C-310 was referred to the committee by the Senate on May 15 of this year for further examination. This is our third and final meeting.
I would like to welcome and introduce our witnesses for today to the committee. From Justice Canada, we have Matthew Taylor, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; from Public Safety Canada we have Yves Leguerrier, Director, Serious and Organized Crime Division; and from the RCMP we have Superintendent Shirley Cuillierrier, Immigration and Passports, and Sergeant Marie-Claude Arsenault, Non Commissioned Officer in Charge of the Human Trafficking National Coordination Centre.
I am not sure if all of you have opening statements. I understand Mr. Taylor will begin.
Matthew Taylor, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you Mr. Chair, and good morning, senators. I have been asked to comment on two specific issues, which are how this bill compares to previous bills on the same subject — notably former Bill C-612 considered by Parliament during the last session — and the amendments to this bill that were adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and passed by the House of Commons.
As you know, section 279.01 of the Criminal Code currently prohibits the recruiting, transporting, receipt, holding, concealing or harbouring of a person or exercising control, direction or influence over the movements of a person for the purposes of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation. It is a lot of words, but in short, the offence requires an act done with the specific intent of exploiting a victim or facilitating their exploitation.
Proving exploitation is a critical aspect of the crime of human trafficking and as it stands, proving this aspect is a two-stage process. First, it must be established that the accused intended to cause a person to provide or offer to provide his or her labour or services. Second, it must be established that the labour or services was provided, or would be provided, as a result of conduct that, in all of the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe that his or her safety or someone known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide their labour or services.
As to the safety test, I would note that the concept of safety has been interpreted broadly by our courts in Canada. It is not strictly limited to physical harm; it also includes mental, psychological or emotional safety.
It is also critical to note that this test does not require proof that the victim subjectively believed their safety would be threatened. Rather, it requires proof that the conduct used by the trafficker is such that a reasonable person in the victim's position, having regard to all of their circumstances, would have had such a belief. In other words, it is the nature of the conduct, and context in which the accused engages in that conduct, that is integral to the determination of the reasonably expected effect on the victim. That is by way of background.
I also note that Bill C-310 would make explicit the types of conduct that a court could take into consideration when determining whether exploitation had occurred. In this respect, the amendments would codify what the courts can already take into consideration and provide greater clarity for police and prosecutors.
I will briefly discuss how this bill differs from Bill C-612, which received second reading debate before the last session of Parliament was prorogued.
They both contain similar, though not identical, amendments. For example, both include amendments to allow Canada to prosecute Canadian citizens or permanent residents who commit human trafficking abroad. Both also propose changes related to how exploitation would be established. As well, Bill C-612 proposed a number of additional amendments, including in the areas of sentencing and proceeds of crime.
By way of conclusion, I will speak about the effect of the amendments that were adopted by the House of Commons. The first amendment is straightforward and simply ensures that all trafficking-specific offences that are in the Criminal Code would be subject to extraterritorial prosecutorial jurisdiction. As I said earlier, the second amendment would simplify the proposed list of conduct that a court could take into consideration and make clear that the conduct is relevant to determine whether the legal test of exploitation has been met.
I will conclude with that and I am happy to provide any additional information. Thank you.
The Chair: Does anyone else wish to make an opening statement?
[Translation]
Yves Leguerrier, Director, Serious and Organized Crime Division, Public Safety Canada: My name is Yves Leguerrier. I am the Director of the Serious and Organized Crime Division at Public Safety Canada. I am pleased to be able to talk to you about human trafficking today.
The true extent of human trafficking, either in Canada or internationally, is difficult to assess owing to the hidden nature of this crime. The International Labour Organization estimates that, at any given time, at least 2.45 million people are trafficked worldwide.
Human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation constitutes the majority of human trafficking cases encountered by law enforcement agencies in Canada, and the vast majority of those cases involved Canadian victims. More recently, however, forced labour cases have been more frequently identified. For example, in October 2010, investigators laid human trafficking and fraud charges against ten family members from the Hamilton area.
[English]
I will leave it to my RCMP colleague to tell the committee about the number of cases in Canada. However, we know human trafficking is a lucrative activity that generates billions of dollars annually for organized criminal networks as well as individuals. It affects virtually every country, including Canada.
As I am sure you are aware, the government launched a national action plan to combat human trafficking last week on June 6. The national action plan is a road map forward that builds on our current responses and commitments to our partners to address human trafficking domestically and abroad. It references international and domestic knowledge and puts in place a significant measure that will address human trafficking in all its forms, both for the purpose of sexual exploitation and forced labour.
Canada's National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking focuses on four pillars.
[Translation]
First, the plan aims to prevent human trafficking by enhancing training to our police officers, border agents and other front-line workers to help them recognize signs of human trafficking; by raising awareness among Canadians; and by working with communities to identify people and places most at risk.
Second, the plan seeks to protect and provide assistance to victims of human trafficking by increasing financial support for victim services and by identifying and protecting domestic and foreign nationals in Canada who are vulnerable to trafficking, including young females aged 15 to 21.
Third, the plan aims to strengthen the prosecution pillar by creating Canada's first integrated law enforcement team dedicated to identifying, disrupting and prosecuting human traffickers in our country. Bill C-310 would also strengthen this pillar by holding Canadians accountable for human trafficking crimes they commit abroad.
Finally, the plan seeks to enhance partnerships with relevant stakeholders to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach and will build on research and improve information sharing to better collect and report data related to human trafficking, and ensure monitoring.
Under this pillar, Public Safety Canada will hold annual round tables with partners and stakeholders to improve responses to this crime.
[English]
This action plan is ambitious. Therefore, Public Safety Canada will lead a human trafficking task force composed of key federal departments and stakeholders to provide direction and coordination to action plan activities.
Thank you for your attention. Along with my colleagues, I am happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Superintendent Shirley Cuillierrier, Immigration and Passports, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good morning. I am the Superintendent, the Director of the RCMP's Immigration and Passports Division at the National Headquarters in Ottawa. Joining me today is my colleague Sergeant Marie-Claude Arsenault, who is in charge of the Human Trafficking National Coordination Centre. Thank you for inviting us to speak to you today about human trafficking.
The first thing I want to address is the difference between human smuggling and human trafficking, since they are not the same.
[English]
Human smuggling involves the illegal movement of people across international borders with their consent in exchange for payment. More often than not, once they have paid their smuggling fee, smuggled people are set free when they arrive at their destination.
Human trafficking is a very different crime that involves recruiting, transporting or harbouring people against their will for the purpose of exploiting them, typically in the sex trade or as forced labour.
Human trafficking is modern-day slavery. It is a crime that knows no borders and affects all countries, including Canada.
Victims may be trafficked across international borders or within a country. They can be trafficked within a city or move from one city to another. That said, it is not necessary that a person be moved from one place to another in order to be trafficked. Victims can be foreign nationals or Canadian citizens. They can be men, women or children.
Traffickers use various methods to maintain control over their victims, including intimidation, sexual assault, threats of violence, and physical or emotional abuse.
Human traffickers prey on the most vulnerable members of our society by exploiting their trust and their desire to pursue a better life. Traffickers make money with no concern for their victims. This is a crime against people, not commodities, and it is a crime the RCMP takes very seriously.
[Translation]
In September 2005, the RCMP established the Human Trafficking National Coordination Centre.
[English]
With the help of domestic and international agencies, non-governmental organizations and the public, the HTNCC's mandate is to develop and coordinate anti-human trafficking activities and initiatives related to the four pillars of prevention, protection, prosecution and partnership.
[Translation]
The centre coordinates and disseminates intelligence within Canada and abroad while maintaining an ongoing threat assessment.
[English]
One trend identified by the threat assessment is the trafficking of Eastern European and Asian women into Canada for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Domestic human trafficking for sexual exploitation within Canada's borders is also prevalent.
Another trend identified by the threat assessment deals with forced labour. Intelligence indicates that many migrant workers are being deceived when they come to Canada and wind up being forced to work for little or no pay.
[Translation]
Human traffickers can be individuals — a victim's family or friends — or members of an organized crime group.
In Canada, we are aware of 23 cases in which human trafficking charges have been laid and the accused have been convicted of human trafficking or other related offences. Forty-two accused have been convicted in these cases. Currently, there are approximately 59 more cases before the courts.
[English]
RCMP intelligence confirms that Canadians are going abroad to obtain sexual services from women and children in bawdy houses, where human trafficking victims can be found. Providing extraterritorial jurisdiction to Canadian law enforcement officers so that we may investigate these cases gives police another tool for intervening in these cases and apprehending more offenders.
Human trafficking is a global problem that requires both domestic and international solutions. The RCMP believes that law enforcement should focus its efforts on rescuing victims and prosecuting the individuals and criminal enterprises that are engaged in human trafficking in Canada and around the world.
In closing, I would like to say that the RCMP supports any efforts that will enhance the integrity of the judicial system, protect victims of human trafficking and make the prosecution of traffickers more effective.
My colleague and I thank the committee for wanting to learn more about human trafficking. We would be happy to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, superintendent.
We will begin the questioning with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Fraser.
Senator Fraser: I apologize to the chair and to the witnesses for my late arrival. I was in another committee, in another building.
Those are very helpful presentations. We have heard before, but you have mentioned it again, that there have only been 23 successful charges of human trafficking brought and there are, what, 59 now before the courts. This is a drop in the ocean, from all we are given to understand. I know that no one bill can fix everything, but do you expect that this bill, if it is passed, will enable any significant increase in the number of successful charges that are brought? We will start with Mr. Leguerrier, and then Ms. Cuillierrier.
Mr. Leguerrier: I am not the official person; I am not a front line officer. From a policy perspective, I am sure it will at least make the people who are committing these crimes abroad be accountable for their acts, for their crime. In that sense, I am sure just the mere fact of having this will be of assistance.
Ms. Cuillierrier: Senator, that is a very good question. To echo my colleague's response, I think any tool that law enforcement in Canada is given will result in greater convictions. Perhaps we may not have a significant increase in volume of complaints coming in, but I think if we save one person, one child, it makes the world of a difference to us as Canadians.
[Translation]
Senator Fraser: Mr. Leguerrier, we were told yesterday that a lot of victims of trafficking arrive here through legal means and cross our borders legitimately, and then claim refugee status later.
How can our border services recognize these people when they arrive? What can be done so that our agents recognize probable human trafficking cases?
Mr. Leguerrier: The measures put forward in our national action plan include the training of front line agents, and this includes border officers, immigration front line officers and first interveners. This training will include awareness-raising to allow officers to better recognize specific signs. You would have to ask the Canada Border Services Agency. Generally speaking, these are signs that people understand and are beginning to recognize. The main objective of the training will be to make front-line officers aware of the signs so that they can recognize them.
Senator Fraser: If I understand correctly, this training is not being given at this time?
Mr. Leguerrier: It is either incomplete or is not being offered to all of the officers.
Senator Boisvenu: I have a supplementary question for you in the same vein as Senator Fraser's. Yesterday, the Ontario Attorney General told us about a criminal network that had its roots in Poland, I believe.
Senator Fraser: In Hungary.
Senator Boisvenu: I am trying to understand how it is that when these people entered Canada, the RCMP did not uncover the fact that they belonged to a Hungarian criminal group. They enter Canada and continue to commit crimes here; are our borders leaky sieves for these criminals? We are not talking about just one person, but about five, six or seven people who crossed our borders and belong to the same family. They were part of a criminal network in their country, and yet they come here and they continue their criminal activities!
When I come back from the United States, I have trouble getting a package of cigarettes through customs, and yet these people arrive with long criminal records; how do they manage to get into Canada so easily? Do the RCMP and border services work together, or do they work so very separately that these people manage to get through some crack in our police organizations? That is my concern.
[English]
Ms. Cuillierrier: Senator, I think that is a good question, but one that should be posed of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have another question for you on another topic.
This week in Ottawa, some minors of 14 or 15 were charged with running a trafficking network involving younger girls of 13 or 14. A few months ago I was in Longueil, where I visited a youth centre that works with 200 children of 12 or 13 who engage in prostitution to pay off their drug debts — so I was made aware of another trafficking network. I have always thought that by law, young people had to stay in school until the age of 16.
How is it that our police services do not see all these young girls who belong to these trafficking networks? To my mind, organized crime, street gangs that reel in young people of 12, 13, or 14, are engaging in trafficking, whether abroad or here. How can our police forces not see these young people who are prostituting themselves at the age of 12 or 13, when they are supposed to be in school until the age of 16, I believe, in Quebec and other provinces?
I am deeply dismayed to see such networks developing, and even if we adopt the best laws in the world — and I think that Bill C-310 is a good law — I do not know, but I am really having some fundamental concerns with regard to police work in connection with these girls; to allow these minors to manage networks involving other minors — I am completely flabbergasted. I am really wondering whether our police officers are more concerned with their collective agreements than with public safety.
Mr. Leguerrier: This is indeed a problem, and I am thinking that first and foremost, this is a visibility issue. These networks are clandestine and do not operate on the street in full view. They are difficult to detect and investigate. Quite frankly, as citizens, we do not normally expect to be dealing with 15-year-old pimps. I think there is probably some awareness-raising to be done, to the extent that the networks are detectable.
Sergeant Marie-Claude Arsenault, Non-Commissioned Officer in charge of the Human Trafficking National Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: You are quite right, it is a clandestine problem. Unfortunately, police officers cannot always detect them. We need help from organizations and from the public in order to be able to identify these cases. Also, there has to be some awareness-raising among young people. When we look at the data, we see that among the total number of victims, i.e., cases that are before the courts, there are 147 victims, and 29 are younger than 18.
When we started examining these figures, it was important that we make the decision to develop awareness-raising tools for young people, as well as for their parents and teachers. We prepared a tool kit to make young people aware of this phenomenon, because it is a phenomenon. Pimp culture is present in our societies, but sometimes young people have to be told that this is a crime, that it is not accepted and that we have to protect youngsters. There are a lot of people who have to be brought on board in order to help police officers detect this crime.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I have so many questions. If you can keep responses tight, then I can get my questions in before the chair stops me.
Mr. Leguerrier, can you please define what you mean by "stakeholders"?
Mr. Leguerrier: There is a wide range of stakeholders. We can talk about other police forces, for example, municipal or provincial. We can talk about nongovernmental organizations and victims services, for example. There is a wide range.
Senator Jaffer: I am really glad that you have this task force that will focus. Someone is in charge now to ensure it happens. I congratulate you for all the work you have done. That is great work.
Can you help me quickly understand how it will translate, say, from Vancouver to Toronto? You will be based here. What services will the task force have? Will there be a group under you set up in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, et cetera? How will that work?
Ms. Cuillierrier: For the police?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Cuillierrier: At this point in time, we are still reviewing our threat assessment to make a decision on the location, and that is how the location will be decided upon.
Senator Jaffer: I have to thank the chair and the steering committee for having you all here today. One of my concerns is that we had this big case in Vancouver. I will not go into too many details. We had 18 people — it was huge. That is why I was asking you the definition of "stakeholder." Women's groups worked hard with the police to get those arrests. The women's groups had assurances that the women would not be handcuffed; the women would not be the ones who would be taken to jail.
I respectfully ask you to study that case to see how we should not be doing it. I am sure Sergeant Arsenault knows this case well. Women were handcuffed. As it turned out, the women were either permanent residents or Canadian citizens, so that was not the issue.
I will tell you where I am going with this. When a woman who has been trafficked comes to me, I do not go to you and I will tell you why. I would not ask for your help, because what you do — and I am generalizing; forgive me — is take her to the airport, because you do not have the services.
Someone is trafficked, and you said that really well, and I thank you for it. Someone who is trafficked often does not have the papers to live here. Having you here from immigration really helps me to convey the message, which is: People do not come who do not have proper papers because they are being taken straight to the airport.
Those are the challenges if we are to really deal with the issue of trafficking.
I would like you to tell the committee the following: If someone reports to you that they are a victim and they do not have proper papers, how do you deal with that?
Ms. Cuillierrier: From a policy perspective, senator, we have a very close working relationship with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CBSA and with the new task force led by Public Safety Canada. We are even in discussion of perhaps tightening that group around operational issues.
I take your comments as being very valid. I will defer to Sergeant Arsenault for that case in Vancouver.
Senator Jaffer: I do not want to go into privacy. I am just sharing with you the concerns that women have come to me and said they will never cooperate with you again because you have let them down. That is not where we want to be. We want cooperation.
Sgt. Arsenault: You are absolutely right. Over the years, the police have had to change their way of doing business in these cases. This case was a learning case. There have been other cases where none of the women were handcuffed. It is very much a learning experience.
Senator Angus: Good morning, and thank you for being here. I am not sure who I will address this to. Perhaps I will try Superintendent Cuillierrier.
Yesterday we had witnesses tell us that the big problem is the demand for these sexual services. We would not have the problem of trafficking nearly as much if there was no demand. The question is where to start attacking first, and the suggestion was made that we have to find a way to curtail the demand. Have you ever addressed this issue, or do you have any comments to make on that?
Ms. Cuillierrier: I think that is a fair statement. We certainly have talked about it at the policy level. Our current activities are certainly focused on law enforcement and judiciary and, as Ms. Arsenault mentioned, educating youth and parents around the crime. I think we will have to move to the demand side. We have spoken to police officers in other countries in the world who do focus on demand, but I know Ms. Arsenault has had some conversations with folks in Sweden and Holland and can offer a perspective as well.
Senator Angus: We were told there were two models: the Netherlands model — not a good model — and the Swedish model being perhaps the more preferable one.
Sgt. Arsenault: We have been in discussion with both Sweden and Holland. We also are looking at different campaigns around the world. We are aware of the Australians, who came up with a very good campaign on the demand. Again, it is to raise awareness in the public in general and the people utilizing these services, whether it is forced labour, products we buy or sexual services and so on. What is being done around the world is something we are very much aware of and are looking at.
Senator Angus: We were all obviously interested in Senator Boisvenu's comments because it does seem strange to us and to all laypersons that they can get in so easily, when he has trouble coming from New York with a pack of cigarettes. You had suggested perhaps he should go to Citizenship and Immigration for the answer. We have a lot of departments, such as the RCMP, the border folks and Citizenship and Immigration. Is there a problem here of cross-jurisdiction? I used to practise maritime law, and I would go to Transport Canada and they would say, "Oh, no, it is Fisheries and Oceans." I would then go to Fisheries and Oceans, and they would say, "No, it is Northern Affairs." At the end of the day, it is as Senator Jaffer said. You throw up your hands and say, "I am going to go home and watch TV."
Ms. Cuillierrier: As I said earlier, we work closely with CBSA and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and we are a service provider to CIC on many fronts. However, in terms of the immigration streams and how people come into the country, I would defer to the department to explain those points.
Senator Angus: Is there a cooperative working together and a memorandum of agreement?
Ms. Cuillierrier: Yes, we provide service to CIC on referrals.
Senator Angus: Thank you.
Senator Baker: Let the record show that Senator Angus won his cases in marine law at the Supreme Court of Canada. I have read the judgments, and he did pretty well. That was a long time ago.
The bill that we are talking about here is extraordinary in nature. I think you would all agree with that. The Criminal Code says you cannot convict someone of an offence in Canada that was committed in another country. That is section 6(2) of the Criminal Code. It is very difficult to bring in this bill, which says for something that has taken place in a foreign nation, the conviction can be made out in Canada by the RCMP. Presumably, the RCMP would lay the charge. That is normal, unless you testify otherwise in a moment in answer to the question.
It not only involves children and sexual offences. It also involves people who represent those people and gain in money. It could be a law firm, a consulting firm and so on. This law does not say when it comes into effect; it may be retrospective. The government may decide to make this retrospective in nature.
My problem with it is the following: When you get a case like this, and the Charter and our Constitution does not apply in that foreign nation to this particular offence — the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled many times that it does not apply — and you have a complaint from a foreign official or a politician or some bureaucrat in a foreign nation that so and so, a Canadian citizen, has committed an offence like one of these, do you just take their word for it and prosecute the person in Canada? The Charter does not apply, so what kind of investigation do you carry out in order to lay the charges here in Canada if there is no real connection to Canada in the charge?
Mr. Taylor: I can take a first crack at it. You have certainly identified a lot of issues.
I will start with the first point in terms of section 6 of the Criminal Code. You are absolutely correct in terms of what it states, but I think it also states that it is subject to any other provision in the code itself. It does provide some latitude in terms of allowing the government to enact laws that would have extraterritorial effect.
I think the other important piece of the puzzle is to understand that there is consensus internationally that these types of offences are the kinds of offences that should be subject to extraterritorial jurisdiction, and that is similar to the optional protocol, the sale of children. You will find that in article 15 of the organized crime convention.
Senator Baker: That is only that one.
Mr. Taylor: That applies also to the protocols. It does certainly give permission to assume jurisdiction.
Senator Baker: Part of it.
Mr. Taylor: Other countries do that as well.
In terms of the enforcement issues that you talk about and the Charter application abroad, I would just note that if a charge were laid in Canada, if a Canadian citizen or permanent resident was back in Canada, and a police force — not necessarily the RCMP — was working internationally on allegations, there are formal bilateral agreements in place for mutual legal assistance between Canada and a number of other countries.
It is also important to know that the organized crime convention provides a basis for cooperation in the absence of a bilateral treaty. Even in the absence of a specific bilateral treaty for mutual legal assistance, if two countries are parties to a convention, they can invoke those provisions to seek mutual legal assistance.
In terms of the Charter issues domestically in a prosecution, I would note, as I know you are aware, in the Hape decision that while it says the Charter does not apply to the acts abroad, it does note the safeguards in place in terms of right to a fair trial and that there are provisions that would allow for that kind of evidence to be assessed.
Senator Baker: You did not answer my question and I do not expect you to really answer the question. I just pose it. How do you charge someone if you have a letter from some foreign dignitary saying that so and so did something — it could be a totally cooked up charge against someone — and we are carrying out a prosecution in Canada in which the individual would have to prove himself or herself innocent, which is not the law in this country? There is no international agreement. I am sorry. The two cases that you cited are protocol cases. It is the children's protocol against child prostitution in one case, and the other one concerns a much larger case of international crimes against humanity. There is no comparable international agreement that covers sections 279.01 and 279.02.
Mr. Taylor: On the contrary, as I said, the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime at article 15 does use the exact same language as the optional protocol on the sale of children to allow countries that are parties to assume jurisdiction over their citizens.
The Chair: Senator Baker, you will have to carry on this debate in the second round.
Senator Angus: On a point of clarification, Senator Baker, are you saying that someone charged in Canada for a crime committed abroad not only has no right to a Charter defence but is also not presumed innocent until proven guilty? Is that your proposition?
Senator Baker: Yes, because the charge was not investigated by the RCMP. It was a charge being initiated in a foreign nation, most likely. That is exactly it.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Cuillierrier. Since I was at one point a police officer, I know that these investigations are not easy and that they can take a long time. We have been talking about human trafficking and pimping. We know that in Montreal, there are people who will use other people as servants in their homes, in exchange for accommodation and food only. These servants receive no remuneration, and this is exploitation. Are there any investigations that may lead to charges being brought against these people, who exploit newcomers, and sometimes even native Canadians?
I am going to put my second question to you right away. You have made arrests and laid charges. Will the new law allow you to lay more charges?
Senator Boisvenu spoke about coordination with immigration services. If this new law is passed, will it facilitate your investigations and perhaps change the way you do things?
Sgt. Arsenault: In your first question, you were referring to domestic workers?
Senator Dagenais: Yes. We know that in Montreal, there were arrests in some cases involving domestic workers.
Sgt. Arsenault: Yes. Some cases were identified and are currently before the courts. These cases are very difficult for police to detect. It is a matter of awareness, and here again, the public can help us to identify these cases of exploitation, given that the victims do not come and knock on our door to complain. Often, the victims do not even speak the language and are not aware of their rights.
But some cases were detected and are currently before the courts. These are indeed human trafficking cases, if they meet certain criteria during the investigation.
As for your second question, concerning whether the bill will help us to bring more cases before the courts, I would say that the answer is yes. At the centre, we know that at this time, police officers do not understand the definition in the act. If we help them to understand the law, they will be able to lay more human trafficking charges.
Senator Dagenais: Would you say that an amended act will mean that police officers will receive the necessary training? We know that when the time comes to intervene, you have to know the legislation, and good training can help policemen become aware of the law and help them to understand it. Would this provide them with more tools?
Sgt. Arsenault: Yes, definitely. There is already a great deal of training being given to police officers. A few weeks ago, the Canadian Police College launched a pilot course. That said, I would say that definitely, yes, training is needed.
Senator Chaput: A supplementary question. Senator Dagenais talked about the training that will be given to police officers. What would allow you to improve that training? The bill, the national action plan, or both?
Ms. Cuillierrier: The bill will be included in the training given to police officers. I am going to let Mr. Leguerrier answer that question.
Mr. Leguerrier: I would say that it is a bit of both. I want to inform you that we have prepared documents that include the highlights. These documents are available on our department's website and describe a good part of our planned activities.
To answer your question, training is already being provided at both the provincial and local levels. One of the objectives of the action plan is to turn these programs into national programs, and provide training to front-line agents, including non-government organizations, and people who deal with victims, customs officers and police officers.
There is an organization in British Columbia that is doing good work in this area, and we are helping it make that training available to everybody. In Quebec, we are translating the training manuals and trying to ensure that the same training will be provided from coast to coast.
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, the bill supports the training element that is in the national action plan?
Mr. Leguerrier: Yes. And I expect that the various parts of the bill, if they become law, will be integrated into the training.
[English]
Senator White: The first question I have is a little bit toward what Senator Boisvenu asked, to try and add some clarity around people coming into this country and how they get here in the first place.
Unlike the United States, where you clear immigration in Canada to go to the U.S., you clear immigration in Canada. Hungarian immigrants coming here are at the Toronto airport when they clear immigration and can claim refugee status there, whereas the same Hungarian immigrant trying to arrive in the United States would actually claim refugee status in Hungary, so they do not have the same issues around entry. Is that not correct?
The question was how they end up on our land in the first place. The U.S. has their immigration clearance in the country of origin, whereas our immigration clearance is in our country. Is that correct?
Ms. Cuillierrier: That is correct.
Senator White: Just from a clarity perspective.
Senator Angus: Only in Montreal.
Senator White: No, in Ottawa as well, just so we are clear.
The actual question I have is around expulsion legislation. We heard yesterday a number of people who were charged, convicted and received nine-year sentences. It is a case out of Hamilton. I am sure you know the case, and then the difficulty in some cases in actually getting them out of this country. Most of them will probably be deported, but some countries, such as Switzerland and Sweden, for example, have expulsion legislation for charges like this where they can actually be expelled upon the date of release from a penitentiary.
Do you see such legislation in Canada as being helpful in combatting this crime as well, when they know that the day they are released from prison post-conviction they will actually be expelled from the country? This question is for the prosecutor or the superintendent, or both of you.
Mr. Taylor: I do not think I can comment on whether or not it would be helpful. I am certainly not an expert on issues of removal, but certainly the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides the tools now for the removal of persons in Canada who would be inadmissible in Canada for serious criminality.
Ms. Cuillierrier: As you are aware, we would be in a position just to enforce the laws of Canada when they are enacted.
The Chair: Supplementary to that in terms of your approach to these challenges, we heard testimony from a Crown prosecutor yesterday — this may be more to Mr. Leguerrier or Mr. Taylor — about the ability to access welfare and how attractive that is to some of these individuals. The rules and regulations are not standardized across the country, so that some jurisdictions are perhaps more attractive.
Is there any consideration in terms of whether it should be through an FPT conference or whatever the process might be to address that issue in terms of assisting you in dealing with some of these situations?
Mr. Leguerrier: I think it will be part of the consultation that we will be doing throughout the year. A lot of coordination work needs to be done, and that is part of the reason the action plan was launched, to ensure there are these kinds of discussions. I am sure they are happening in the FPT world, in the labour relations world. Our colleagues from HRSDC would probably be the best to tell you about those.
Ms. Cuillierrier: I am aware that Citizenship and Immigration Canada is actually working with provinces on that very issue right now.
Senator Di Nino: More than 20 years ago I spent a few years on the Crime Stoppers board in Toronto. I do not believe the issue of human trafficking ever came up. The reason I say that is because I think Crime Stoppers, at least in the Greater Toronto Area, is very active in trying to reach out to the public and others to identify potential criminals. Is there an effort within Crime Stoppers or other programs to try to reach the victims of human trafficking? Is there an effort to let those victims of these horrible crimes know that there is an opportunity for them to go somewhere or do something, pick up the phone? Are there such programs? If so, are they well funded?
Ms. Cuillierrier: At a national level, senator, I think probably you hit the nail on the head. Working with a non-government organization is a real critical piece of the government's action plan. Certainly as police officers at a community level, we have a partnership with Crime Stoppers Canada, and Ms. Arsenault can certainly elaborate. However, reaching out to victims in this country to be able to pick up the phone and call for help is a huge step. Partnership with the non-governmental organizations, such as Crime Stoppers, is something we value and seek out on an ongoing basis. I think we can talk about some of the successes in terms of Crime Stoppers having that phone number a victim can call.
Sgt. Arsenault: As mentioned, we developed a partnership with the Canadian Crime Stoppers Association. A protocol is in place. We trained the board of directors and the call takers. The material and tools we have — some of it is for victims or the public, law enforcement and so on — includes the Crime Stoppers phone number, tip number. It allows victims to report this crime anonymously to Crime Stoppers.
We also provided Crime Stoppers with referral mechanisms. If they are able to determine that it is a victim who is calling and reporting a crime, they can ask them if they want to be referred to a victims' service or non-governmental organization, or the police, if they wish.
Senator Di Nino: Are we doing enough in that area? Do we have enough resources, third-language newspapers targeting certain communities, et cetera?
Ms. Cuillierrier: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the RCMP certainly takes this crime very seriously. It is a horrible crime against people. We are constantly reprioritizing and devoting resources to the priorities of the organization and the community. We try to respond to the complaints coming in, the victims calling in and the community needs. That is an important piece of our community policing philosophy.
Senator Di Nino: I think other things can be done, but maybe that is a discussion for some other time.
The Chair: I think part of the problem mentioned yesterday was the language barrier in terms of reporting.
Senator Di Nino: There are ways to deal with that.
Senator Fraser: Ms. Cuillierrier, we have been told by a number of witnesses that the extraterritorial portion of this law will not be fully effective unless greater resources are devoted, and the RCMP was specifically identified to having feet on the ground elsewhere. More than one person said we need more RCMP liaison officers abroad in the source countries. Will that happen?
Ms. Cuillierrier: Currently we have 37 liaison officers in 23 countries. We work with non-governmental organizations and victim services through our LO program. In these investigations, we would certainly have to prioritize in terms of getting the investigation done if a complaint is received. We have a lot of success through our LO program, as has been evidenced through our human smuggling challenges in the last few years. We have been able to build some really good networks, working with other police services in the world, and I would certainly look at putting resources to a complaint or investigation such as this and leverage our LOs working with the foreign police service in the area.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I am the sponsor of Bill C-310, and it is important to me that this bill have an impact. I am not an immigration expert, nor a lawyer, but I have been travelling for 30 years outside of Canada. I have a question for you, and you may say that this is not your field of expertise, but if we really want to intercept illegal people at Canadian borders, should the philosophy of Immigration Canada and of the RCMP not be based on monitoring people rather than property?
I am under the impression that at the Canadian border, officers are more concerned with intercepting the goods that are coming in, rather than the possible illegal entrants. Should the philosophy not be changed?
Mr. Leguerrier: That is a big issue. Immigration matters are really not my area of expertise. Customs, however, are. Should we be strengthening our measures? We hope that this will happen. The exchange of information with the countries that these people are coming from is an important aspect of the whole issue. We know that there are obstacles that get in the way of the exchange of intelligence. Often these obstacles are simply a lack of information. Our action plan aims to raise the awareness not only of our stakeholders here in Canada, but also that of our international partners. There is room for improvement, yes.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: When Ms. Smith presents this bill, she must be careful there is no money requirement because it is a private member's bill. I am sure that is why she is not putting in the Swedish model. I worked with parliamentarians in Sweden when they were processing this bill in Sweden. Is there enough in the code to enforce the Swedish model, which you know is not to punish the victim but to punish the john, or do we need more legislation?
Mr. Taylor: In the context of human trafficking, we have an offence at section 279.02 which targets those who receive a financial or material benefit from trafficking, and that certainly can address those issues around demand in terms of those who perhaps benefit from the slave labour down the road. In terms of the prostitution-related offences, I am sure you can appreciate, that given the ongoing constitutional challenge to our prostitution laws, it is difficult to say more at this point.
Senator Baker: Mr. Taylor, those were excellent answers to the very difficult questions that were posed to you here today. I am sure we will hear more about it in the courts after a period of time.
You said one thing that is rather intriguing. You said, "If the RCMP is the one who will be prosecuting." Our law in Canada is that where the offence takes place, in which province, determines the prosecution. However, if you arrest someone in another province, you can only prosecute them there with the permission of the Attorney General from the province in which the offence took place. In this particular case, I had assumed that it would be the Attorney General of Canada who would be the one who would be responsible for the prosecution, but you have questioned that by saying, "If it is the RCMP." Are you saying that it will be a provincial police force that may do these prosecutions?
Mr. Taylor: If I said that the police are prosecuting, that was certainly a mistake because obviously —
Senator Baker: No, the police charging; sorry.
Mr. Taylor: I do not actually know the answer in terms of practice, but I guess the point I was trying to suggest is that through the policing networks that may exist, we may get a policing relationship between, for example, the Toronto Police and a police force abroad, where information is provided to the Toronto Police. In terms of the role of the RCMP in that situation, I do not know the answer.
Senator White: We talked about a lot of different things here and we all know that they have no-fly lists in some countries. In our case, we had a discussion around people travelling to other countries who are even on our own registry and whether there should be some will-fly notification when they book a flight to what we consider to be high-risk countries. We wondered whether that would be helpful in notifying the embassies and RCMP staff in the other countries so that they could actually conduct investigations, maybe pre-emptive in some cases rather than reactive. Would you see such a legislative change as a positive as well? I will reframe that question. Would you see such an investigative tool as helpful?
Ms. Cuillierrier: Yes, certainly. Any tool that the police can be given to be made aware of those individuals would be very helpful.
Mr. Taylor: I would remind the committee of the amendments to the sex offender information that were enacted in 2011, which I believe expands the ability for law enforcement to share that kind of information.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses.
Senator Jaffer: I have one short question.
The Chair: We are over our time. You can question them afterwards.
Thank you, witnesses. We appreciate your appearance here today.
We will now deal with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-310. I want to mention that Mr. Taylor, from the Department of Justice Canada, who just appeared as a witness, will be here as well. If need be, we can call him to the table if there are any questions that we wish to direct to him.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to discuss appending observations to the report?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Jaffer: I know that the committee, it seems, is always against observations, but I think that we could make two observations at this time. I have not had a chance to speak to my deputy chair. We are doing clause-by-clause immediately after. It is very hard to discuss anything.
The Chair: Senator Jaffer, would you prefer to go in camera for this conversation?
Senator Jaffer: Yes, please. Ask everyone who is not staff to leave the room.
The Chair: Anyone who is not staff please leave the room. I guess staff would remain in the room.
(The committee continued in camera.)
——————
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Is it agreed that this bill be reported to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
I will call Senator Fraser to come forward, and I will move into another chair.
Senator Joan Fraser (Deputy Chair), in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: As honourable senators can see, one amendment will be proposed. Since this is a single-clause bill, it is easy to guess which clause will be amended.
Senator Angus: You stepped down because you are the sponsor of the bill?
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Senator Runciman: Chair, I have an amendment to clause 1. I move:
That Bill S-209 be amended in clause 1, on page 1,
(a) by replacing line 14 with the following:
"of the International Olympic Committee or the International Paralympic Committee,"; and
(b) by replacing line 18 with the following:
"contest is held with the permission of the lieutenant governor in council or other specified person or body.".
I can speak to that briefly.
The Deputy Chair: I will just read it into the record in French.
[Translation]
It is moved by Senator Runciman:
That Bill S-209 be amended in clause 1, on page 1:
(a) by replacing line 14 with the following:
"of the international Olympic Committee or the International Paralympic Committee and,"; and
(b) by replacing line 18 with the following:
"contest is held with the permission of the lieutenant governor in council or other specified person or body.".
[English]
Is there discussion?
Senator Runciman: Committee members will recall when the Minister of Sport appeared before us he suggested the inclusion of the International Paralympic Committee in the legislation. The law clerk, when reviewing the proposed amendments and in looking at the bill, felt there was some ambiguity with respect to the reference to the International Olympic Commission that their authorization or approval might be required. That office suggested the specific legislation that would indicate it was the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the jurisdiction or the specified person or body that that jurisdiction has designated with that responsibility.
The Deputy Chair: I would draw to the attention of senators that we have with us in the room Ms. Catherine Kane from the Department of Justice, if you have any questions for her.
Senator Di Nino: My French is not perfect, but it looks to me as if (b) in English and (b) in French are different.
The Deputy Chair: Often that is because the lines are not identical in English and French. The text is the same, if you see what I mean.
Senator Di Nino: Part (b) in English is "the contest is held with the permission of the lieutenant governor in council or other specified person or body."
[Translation]
In French, it says "désigne l'exige, si le match est tenu avec sa."
The Deputy Chair: Just a minute, I have to read it. I am sorry.
[English]
Indeed, the French just repeats "avec sa permission."
[Translation]
". . . in the case where the province's lieutenant governor in council . . ."
[English]
". . . the lieutenant governor in council . . ."
[Translation]
". . . or body specified by him or her . . ."
[English]
". . . or any other person or body specified by him or her . . ."
[Translation]
". . . requires it . . ."
[English]
". . . requires it . . ."
[Translation]
". . . if the contest is held . . ."
[English]
". . . the contest is held . . ."
Senator Di Nino: I am happy to move that we accept the English version to be properly translated into French.
The Deputy Chair: I am not actually sure that the problem exists.
Ms. Kane, do you want to come forward and talk about this?
Catherine Kane, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you, chair. I am not sure that I can assist because I do not have a copy of that particular motion.
The Deputy Chair: That will be provided. Why not give her two copies so she can look at the English and the French simultaneously, instead of flipping the page back and forth?
Ms. Kane: Is the potential problem with part (b)?
The Deputy Chair: Yes.
As I look at it, I have to say that I am not sure we need the amendment in English even.
Ms. Kane: Again, I must apologize; I do not think I am well qualified enough in the proper interpretation in both languages to comment, but if it were acceptable to follow Senator Di Nino's suggestion that the English be what is agreed to, we could have our legislative drafters ensure that that is equally set out in the French version.
The Deputy Chair: I do not like doing that, actually. We are supposed to operate properly in both official languages. We are supposed to legislate simultaneously in both languages. If we suspend for 15-minutes, we could get in touch with the law clerk's office for an explanation of why they drafted this amendment as it is now constructed.
Colleagues, I know you were all hoping to skedaddle out of here in no time flat, but I think it is not good practice to say one language only and the other one will be tidied up after the fact.
Senator Runciman: I am fine with that.
I have a subamendment to the amendment that will simply remove (b) from the amendment that I originally tabled.
The Deputy Chair: Let me put the motion. Senator Runciman has moved a subamendment to his amendment to delete subparagraph (b). We would then have only subparagraph (a), referring to the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee.
Senator Runciman: That is right.
The Deputy Chair: We would also remove the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a).
Is there discussion? I would observe that should other counsels prevail, there is always the possibility of an amendment at third reading.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the subamendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried. Is there further discussion on the amendment? No. Is it your pleasure to adopt the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: It is agreed.
Shall clause 1, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I do not think we have to renumber anything, do we? I think the form of the amendment came from the law clerk.
Does the committee wish to discuss appending observations?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Senator Runciman, do you consider that this committee has concluded its work for the day?
Senator Runciman: We may wish to remind senators that there is a steering committee meeting immediately following this.
The Deputy Chair: We stand reminded; thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)