Human Trafficking Around the World (24 page)

Without knowing the scope of human trafficking in Canada, it is difficult to know how best to address it. Likewise, using the two terms interchangeably places the focus on movement, specifically movement into Canada. The emphasis on movement can be seen in the nation’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the only anti-trafficking law in existence in Canada until 2005, when Canada amended the Criminal Code to include the offense of trafficking in persons. Under the act, both the offenses of smuggling and human trafficking include “coming into Canada” as an element. It makes sense that movement is discussed in the immigration act, but its inclusion also illustrates why the act was not sufficient in addressing human trafficking. Movement is not a necessary element of human trafficking, and making it such diminishes the focus on other forms of trafficking, such as internal trafficking. Though movement is not a necessary element of the offense of human trafficking in the Criminal Code, the government of Canada continues to focus on movement into the nation. This can be seen in the 2012 adoption of the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, which included the controversial Bill C-4 (formerly Bill C-49), initially purported by the government to be an anti-trafficking bill when in fact it primarily focused on limiting the rights of refugees smuggled into the nation, illustrating once again that the conflation of the terms smuggling and human trafficking continues
.

CHAPTER 9

Canada

Some cases are like charging someone with assault when they murder someone. We should be charging someone with the most serious charge that their conduct warrants.

—BENJAMIN PERRIN, FOUNDER OF THE NGO FUTURE GROUP

All forms of human trafficking and associated offenses, such as receiving material or financial gain as a result of trafficking, are prohibited in Canada. Child sex tourism is illegal, as is transnational trafficking. Destroying or withholding a person’s travel documents or identification to assist human trafficking is also prohibited. The government prosecutes all forms of trafficking, including offenses such as forcible confinement, sexual assault, extortion, kidnapping, threats, and prostitution-related crimes (U.S. Department of State, 2007a, 2007b). Some advocates state that while the anti-trafficking laws are sufficient, the resources allotted to services—such as long-term assisted housing—and the monitoring of labor conditions are not. Experts also point to a need for stronger anti-trafficking training of local law-enforcement personnel, who are often the first to come into contact with trafficking victims (U.S. Department of State, 2007a, 2007b, 2012; Akin, 2010).

The Canadian government has recently amplified its efforts to keep out illegal immigrants. An anti–illegal immigrant agenda can often counteract a nation’s ability to properly protect and provide services to victims of human trafficking because it tends to overpower the need to protect trafficking victims who are commonly violators of immigration law by the nature of their trafficking experience. Until recently, because of international treaty obligations, Canada accepted anyone who arrived on its shores and claimed refugee status (Akin, 2010). The issue of refugee status was raised most recently in response to the arrival of 492 Sri Lankan Tamil refugee claimants in August 2010. The refugees were aboard the MV
Sun Sea
when they landed in British Columbia. In reaction, the government did not amplify its anti-trafficking efforts under existing law but instead created Bill C-49 (now Bill C-4), the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act (Akin, 2010; Dhillon, 2011; CCR, 2012). In support of the bill, government sources have been quoted in the media arguing that the bill is designed to put a stop to human trafficking rings (Akin, 2010). What is clear is that the bill places the emphasis on border control and immigration as opposed to human rights. In terms of the government’s discussion of the bill, it is difficult to determine whether the conflation of human trafficking and smuggling was intentional and if by purporting that the bill furthered the nation’s anti-trafficking objectives it was able to garner more support. In June 2012, the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, which included Bill C-4, was approved (CIC, 2012). Years later it has not yet been determined whether the refugees aboard the MV
Sun Sea
were victims of a trafficking scheme, though the government stated it suspected so because of the exorbitant fees the refugees were charged, 75 percent of which was to be paid once in Canada, creating a potential scenario of debt bondage (Canadian Immigration Information Centre, 2011). Recent details show that the passengers paid $5,000 to $10,000 in advance and pledged to pay 10 to 20 times that amount if the ship made it to Canada (Bell, 2012b). Those who orchestrated the operation are believed to have netted a profit of $1.6 million (Perrin, 2011). Of concern is that attorneys for MV
Sun Sea
passengers said that the migrants were held in custody by the Canada Border Services Agency and would not be released until they paid off the smuggler. “It’s become this weird perversion of the law where we’re forcing people to pay these debts,” said attorney Gabriel Chand, who represented some of the migrants who were aboard the vessel. “They’re selling their land, their jewelry, so that they can pay these debts so they can be released from custody.” Attorney Eric Purtzki, who represented some of the passengers, told the
Globe and Mail
that paying off the debt undoubtedly played a role in their release. Jason Kenney, minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism, said the attorneys were incorrect. “The government of Canada wouldn’t countenance facilitating someone paying [such a debt],” Kenney said (Dhillon, 2011).

While members of the Conservative Party of Canada want to stop allowing passengers of unannounced boats to claim asylum, others like New Democratic Party MP Olivia Chows believe this step would result in a regression in immigration law (Whittington, 2010). “Sometimes we are generous, sometimes we are not, with tragic consequences,” Chows told the
Toronto Star
, referring to Ottawa’s well-known decision to turn away Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1930s. “That’s why we have a refugee law and we should follow the law and treat these individuals equally under Canadian law,” she said (Whittington, 2010). As of August 2012, 15 of 492 MV
Sun Sea
passengers had been granted refugee status (Bell, 2012a).

CHILD SEX TOURISM AND CANADA AS A TRANSIT NATION AND DESTINATION

Experts have believed for many years that Canada is primarily a transit nation for human trafficking. In 2004 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) estimated that 1,500 to 2,000 persons from other nations were trafficked annually through Canada into the United States and that only 600 to 800 were trafficked annually to Canada as a destination. The RCMP also estimated that some Canadians were trafficked within Canada (U.S. Department of State, 2007a). Certain forms of trafficking such as internal trafficking and forced labor are just now coming to light. It is likely that while Canada remains a transit nation, it may also be more of a destination country and a nation of internal trafficking than was previously believed.

Persons trafficked through Canada are primarily women from Asia (chiefly from South Korea) and eastern Europe. Many of these women are trafficked into the United States (U.S. Department of State, 2007a, 2007b, 2010). NGOs believe that the number of persons trafficked through Canada is much higher than the RCMP estimates—closer to 15,000 (Fitzpatrick, 2006). Women are believed to constitute the primary group of victims brought to Canada for commercial sexual exploitation there. As in other nations, this is the form of trafficking that has been most sensationalized in the media. Persons are also trafficked to Canada for forced labor in sweatshops, farming and fishing, agriculture, processing plants, and domestic work (CityNews, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2006; U.S. Department of State, 2010). Victims are from China, Hong Kong, Moldova, the Philippines, Romania, South Korea, Taiwan, and Ukraine. Eastern European women and Latin American women are more often trafficked to eastern Canada, Montreal, and Toronto, while Asian women are more regularly trafficked to Vancouver and western Canada (U.S. Department of State, 2007b, 2010).

The government’s primary focus on sex trafficking makes it difficult to determine the actual extent of forced labor. Most labor victims enter the nation legally and are subjected to forced labor after arrival. NGOs report a higher incidence of forced labor in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario than elsewhere in the nation (U.S. Department of State, 2010). One alleged instance of forced labor involves Khaira Enterprises Ltd., a subcontractor paid $286,979.83 by the government to clear brush in British Columbia. The contract was suspended in 2010 when it was found that 25 workers—mostly African immigrants—were found living in squalor without drinking water or bathing facilities (Bolan, 2010). The typical day for workers included traveling 2 to 3 hours into the bush, working 10 to 12 hours, and traveling another 2 to 3 hours back to the makeshift camp. The workers also allegedly faced threats, racist comments, insufficient food, and bounced paychecks (Bolan, 2010). Jim Sinclair, president of the British Columbia Federation of Labour, said that the federation asked the Ministry of Labour to undertake an independent investigation of what happened. Sinclair said that all the workers are still owed tens of thousands of dollars for their months at the bush camp. “It is clear that these people weren’t protected,” Sinclair told the
Vancouver Sun
. “It’s clear that enforcement failed. We had Third World conditions in British Columbia” (Bolan, 2010).

The territories and provinces, rather than the federal government, have been primarily responsible for enforcing labor standards and combatting forced labor. Ontario enacted the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act (Live-in Caregivers and Others) in December 2009. The act amends the Employment Standards Act (2000) to include employment protections for temporary foreign workers in the domestic-service sector. It prohibits taking or retaining property from a foreign worker, or intimidating, penalizing, or attempting or threatening to intimidate or penalize a foreign national because he or she requests compliance with the law, makes inquiries about his or her rights, files a complaint with the Ministry of Labour, exercises or attempts to exercise a right under the act, gives information to an employment standards officer, or is required or is going to testify or participate in a proceeding under the act. Violators are subject to a fine and/or possibly imprisonment of no more than 12 months if the offender is an individual. Corporations are subject solely to fines of up to $512,432 depending on whether the company has had previous convictions, and if so, how many (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 2009). In April 2011 amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) came into effect and established an improved compliance structure for the federal temporary foreign worker program. Among the reforms are guidelines for compensation to temporary foreign workers in instances of employer liability, additional criteria for the live-in caregiver program, and increased consequences for employers that are noncompliant (U.S. Department of State, 2012).

Canada has yet to ratify the more general International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 29 on Forced Labor. The convention, adopted in 1930, prohibits all forms of forced or compulsory labor, defined by the ILO as “all work or service exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered voluntarily” (NUPGE, 2009). Canada has also not ratified ILO Convention No. 98, Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (1949) or ILO Convention No. 138, Minimum Age (1973) (NUPGE, 2010). Still, Canada has adopted some of the ILO conventions related to human trafficking. For instance, in 1959 it ratified Convention No. 105, Abolition of Forced Labor, prohibiting forced or compulsory labor as a means of political coercion. It also ratified the Convention on Maritime Labor in July 2010, which requires that seafarers have rights to decent work conditions and allows Canada to inspect foreign ships in its ports to determine compliance with modern labor standards (NUPGE, 2009, 2010). Cleopatra Doumbia-Henry, director of the ILO’s International Labor Standards Department, believes that the ratification of the ILO Convention on Maritime Labor “demonstrates a re-engagement by Canada with international labor standards, being that it’s the first convention ratified by Canada in ten years” (NUPGE, 2010).

Canada is not only a transit and destination nation for human trafficking but also a significant source country for child-sex tourists, citizens who travel abroad to engage in sex with children. Since 1997, roughly 136 formal charges have been filed against Canadian citizens who allegedly sexually exploited children in other countries. In 2008 the government obtained two convictions against Canadian sex tourists compared to none in 2009, one in 2010, and none in 2011 (U.S. Department of State, 2010, 2011, 2012).

TRAFFICKING WITHIN CANADA

The conflation of smuggling and human trafficking has created significant hurdles in Canada, where, historically, statistics have combined cases of smuggling and human trafficking, so that it is impossible to properly examine the extent of human trafficking. From 2002 until 2005, the only anti-trafficking law in existence was the IRPA, which includes the offense of human smuggling (section 117) and the offense of human trafficking (section 118) (Department of Justice, Canada, 2001; RCMP, 2010). The issue is that the emphasis of the act is on violations of immigration, not human rights. For instance, the human trafficking section is only applicable when persons are trafficked across a border into Canada (RCMP, 2010). In the first case of human trafficking on which the IRPA was used, the accused offender was acquitted on the charge of human trafficking but convicted of human smuggling and prostitution-related offenses, which illustrates its ineffectiveness as a tool to prosecute traffickers. In 2005 the government of Canada amended the Criminal Code to include the offense of trafficking in persons. This change permits prosecutors to focus on the human rights violation aspect of human trafficking, which does not always involve borders, rather than those aspects potentially related to immigration. Even with the change, conflation of the two issues continues. One adverse result is that the nation’s anti-trafficking efforts have focused primarily on persons entering Canada, which has marginalized victims of internal trafficking. The reality is that persons, some of whom are as young as 12 years old, are trafficked internally within Canada for commercial sexual purposes. The offenders are often part of organized crime syndicates. Unsurprisingly, exact numbers are unknown. One reason is that the issue of internal trafficking is just now beginning to be acknowledged in Canada, but recent data indicate that the numbers are significant. In fact, in February 2012 all but 4 of 57 ongoing human trafficking prosecutions involved internal sex trafficking (U.S. Department of State, 2012). Girls of the aboriginal communities—a particularly marginalized population—are targeted by sex traffickers. Other groups that are also vulnerable are children in protective care, the homeless, and sexually exploited youths (CISC, 2008; Perrin, 2009a).