FEWO Committee Meeting

     I'll call meeting number 23 of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to order.

    Welcome, Mr. Epp and Mr. Godfrey. It's always nice to have some of our male counterparts join us.

    Before you, as committee business, you should have the agenda. There are a couple of things before we hear from our witnesses.

    We have a list of suggested witnesses, but we did not have time, because some of these were not received until this morning, to get them translated. I'd like to suggest, if everybody is in agreement, that we distribute this list of suggested witnesses for the meeting in relation to Ms. Stronach's motion. The committee could look over the list, and we could go on to committee business at 12:30, so we would have sufficient time to decide whom we want to come, the number of meetings we need to have, the format, and the possible days. We'll be thinking about that. I apologize that it's only in English, but we're moving quickly and didn't have time.

    There's also a book here that was referred to the other day in connection with some of our witnesses. Ms. Mourani asked for a copy. It is also only in English. Can we have permission to distribute it only in English to the committee members?

    Do you have a question, Ms. Davidson?

    Are we supposed to have that list of witnesses, or is it coming?

    We'll distribute it now. I'm getting permission to be able to do that.

    If there are any other witnesses whose names you haven't had a chance to submit, you can read them into the record later on when we deal with it. We'll be able to handle it that way.

    Go ahead, Ms. Mourani.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    If possible, I would also like to know what were the results of the big conference dealing with human trafficking that took place last week in Sydney, Nova Scotia. I don't know if it was a symposium, a conference or a meeting involving various partners, but it would be a good idea to get the results of this event, in both languages if possible.

    All right. That's fine. We'll do what we can.

    Go ahead, Ms. Smith.

    Madam Chair, could I speak to that? That was a symposium on November 7 in Sydney, Nova Scotia, on human trafficking. I was supposed to be one of the keynote speakers, but I couldn't get permission from the whip to go. I'm going to be getting all the synopses of the presentations there. I would be very happy to pass that on to the clerk to have it distributed to all members of the committee.

    Thank you.

    Now we will go to our witnesses.

    You have our apologies for being late this morning.

    From the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women Canada we have Ms. Shauna Paull, and from the Montreal City Police Services we have Dominic Monchamp, sergeant detective, supervisor of investigations module.

    Welcome. We appreciate your taking the time from your own busy schedules to join.

    Mr. Monchamp, would you like to go first? Thank you.

    First of all, I would like to thank you for the invitation. I am truly pleased to be here with you. It is a great pleasure to speak to you today. I will begin by giving you a brief explanation of what my work is about and how I got there.

    Since 1999, I have worked on the vice squad of the City of Montreal Police Service. In the beginning, I dealt with adult prostitution and afterwards, in 2002, a special squad on the sexual exploitation of children was created. I was an investigator with them until 2005. In 2005, I was promoted to the rank of detective sergeant and I became the supervisor of investigations within this section which deals exclusively with investigations on the sexual exploitation of children, whether it is an issue of child pornography, of pimping or of juvenile prostitution. This is my area of experience.

    I would like to paint a picture of the situation in Montreal. In light of my experience, I have also been declared an expert witness in matters of sexual exploitation for the Province of Quebec. I am therefore in a position to give you quite an extensive briefing on what is happening in the sex industry in the Province of Quebec.

    If I compare the current situation with what it was in 1999, when I began my work as an investigator, I must state that the sex industry has grown in Montreal and in the suburbs. There are several obvious reasons for this. The resources allocated to the fight against sexual exploitation of women and children are minimal, as compared to the money invested in fighting narcotics. This is seen particularly in the proliferation of escort agencies, massage parlours and strip clubs on the Island of Montreal.

    On the Island of Montreal, there are 28 strip clubs. Within the scope of our investigations on the exploitation of children — I am not talking about adults —, our investigations took us to more than 100 strip clubs in the province. For the average person, a strip club is not necessarily synonymous with prostitution, but according to the most recent court decisions, lap dances and $10 dances are still considered as active prostitution. That shows the extent of the phenomenon and the great availability, for the exploiters, of young girls and adult females.

    Moreover, the Russian and Asian massage parlours are growing in number. There is a great demand for this among clients and it has become common place within society, there has been a certain acceptance. I fail to understand why it is common place and tolerated, which is the right word.

    That is a brief overview of the situation in Montreal. I would like to give you some statistics. For the West Island, we currently have received about 50 complaints dealing only with massage parlours. For the Island of Montreal, I receive one complaint a day on juvenile pimping and on the production, distribution or possession of child pornography. That is the situation as far as children are concerned.

    For adults, the situation is just as serious in my opinion, but it is much more widely accepted. There is consensus on the fact that it is unacceptable for children to be exploited, and certain resources, as a result, are allocated to that. As far as adults are concerned, the consensus is far less clear.

    I would like to list some of the issues with which we are faced in our fight against this phenomenon. I told you that I was very happy to be here today and to be able to speak to you. That is mostly because I have to fight to justify my work in this domain on a daily basis. I have no problem as far as my work for children is concerned: everyone agrees it is unacceptable. But as soon as a young girl turns 18, 19 or 20, I have to fight to have it recognized that what she is experiencing is unacceptable and that she is a victim. I am always told that she is consenting, that she is there of her own free will, that we live in a free society and that if she has chosen to do this, we must let her be. This logic may seem acceptable, so long as we do not dig a little deeper.

    Over the many years of my career, I have met with many victims and with many people who use their services, and the issue of consent is the biggest irritant when we carry out our investigations. Are people who are disadvantaged, whether psychologically or financially, truly giving their consent? Do they really have a choice, when they have been shown the way, particularly within a certain culture?

    Nowadays, the hip hop culture and its videos create problems for us, because they improve the image of pimps and exploiters. There is a positive marginalization of these individuals, and our young people are attracted by that. They are in effect willing and consensual.

    However, once they realize what they have gotten themselves into, they are emotionally destroyed, sometimes even physically. It is difficult, at that point, to back out and to admit to themselves that they have fallen into a trap and to accept that they voluntarily got into that situation. This is what we see every day.

    Despite that, it is easy to see that this consent is tainted. That is what makes it most difficult for us, and it comes from all quarters including the police. There is a lack of education and a lack of understanding among my colleagues and among many of the people working within the justice system. This lack of understanding is one of our greatest enemies. It prevents us from obtaining sufficient funding and support.

    When we talk about child prostitution, as I have said, there is a consensus. Even with that, I do not have half, one third or even one quarter of the staff assigned to fight narcotics, and this is true even though there is a consensus and that everyone recognizes it is unacceptable. No need to tell you that as far as adult exploitation is concerned, I have no staff. Not only do I not have any staff, but currently in Montreal, the Crown has no staff, and cases involving bawdy houses are not being dealt with. In my opinion this is very serious. It shows a lack of understanding with the impact that can have. In fact, if we want adult female trafficking cases to be dealt with, we have to be able to connect them to organized crime, to international trafficking, to street gangs or to major organized crime, before the investigation has even begun.

    I have been working on this kind of investigations for seven years. When we launch an investigation, for example on Asian or Russian massage parlours — which are bawdy houses —, an investigation must be carried out to show that organized crime is involved, because the words “Russian organized crime” are not posted on the door. We are caught in a vicious circle, which renders us ineffective. If we do not act, there is no information, and if there is no information, there is no problem, and if there is no problem, no staff is assigned to it, and no one sees what is going on, and the women caught in this vicious circle remain isolated.

    When we manage to investigate these cases, there are fewer problems in the case of children. In fact, we work very closely with youth centres and youth protection services. There is a whole system already in place.

    This system also exists for adults, but it is very finicky. There are shelters for women who are drug addicts, who have been beaten or abused. A woman who is dealing with a pimp who is taking all her money, who has turned her into a drug addict and who beats her, has no access to these centres. I have a recent example I will tell you about.

    It is the case of a young woman who had just turned 18. She is Aboriginal, and from the ages of 2 to 4, was locked in a dog crate and was sexually abused by her parents. At the age of 4, she was taken in by social services and given over to the care of a psychotherapist who treated her from the age of 4 to 18. From the age of 4 to 5, she walked on all fours and barked. Her treatments, which lasted until she turned 18, resulted in her having a personality and a psychological condition that are relatively normal. Unfortunately, when she turned 18, those services were taken away and she was left on the street, without any support. She was immediately taken in by a pimp who saw her psychological weakness — that is their specialty — and he exploited it. He turned her into a drug addict, he offered her crack and exploited her sexually.

    When we took her in, her psychotherapist, who feels very maternal towards her, helped us. When we carried out an investigation, we discovered that the people involved were part of Russian organized crime and that they were extremely violent. They hung her out from the 12^th floor to make her accept her first client, because she was refusing.

    When we wound up the investigation, she had no resources, no family and no shelter. We did some research, we approached all of the women's protection centres, and no one would agree to take her in, because of her drug addiction and because of the danger she was in because of the people she had been with. We wanted to place her in a detox centre, but it was very difficult because once again, the risk was high.

    There is no safe refuge for these adult victims. They are simply asked to move, they are the victims, and they are asked to move.

    I could go on about this for hours, but I know that my time is limited. However, I can tell you that the needs are blatant. We must stop believing that there is consent. Besides, the recently passed legislation for the protection of children has taken this perspective, and it is no longer discussed as far as the exploitation of children is concerned. Consent is no longer a defence, which greatly assists us in our work.

    In my opinion, we should not make any distinction between adults and children. They should be handled the same way.

     Thank you very much for sharing those cases with us. We had expected to hear some pretty forceful comments from you. Thank you for what you do for all of us in Canada.

    Ms. Paull, I'll turn it over to you now, and then we'll go with rounds of questions following your presentation.

    I am from the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, the Canadian branch, which is an arm of a global secretariat that has been at work on issues of trafficking in women for about 16 years. In Canada, we started in about 1996.

    Our work has almost exclusively been associated with transnational migration. I want to preface my comments by saying that although we are aware of trafficking within Canada, that's not the group of women I'm specifically working with or commenting on.

    I have had the opportunity of working with several aboriginal women, and I really appreciate your comments, Dominic. I have heard similar stories.

    I want to contextualize trafficking in my comments today in the context of global migration. I think one of the barriers to our taking action is that we feel overwhelmed by the threat of huge numbers of people who are migrating, which continues to be seen as a threat. If we can try to normalize that, then we can engage in some community-based, solution-based innovations, rather than this sort of binary response we have around either prosecution or victimization.

    According to the IOM, there are about 190 million migrants crossing borders in the world today. These include rural-to-urban migrations within countries and those from the global south to the global north. Women migrate for a number of reasons, including global economic disparities, displacement and dispossession of marginalized populations, increased access to travel, armed conflict, disasters, the awareness or hope of better options elsewhere, and of course the very basic human desire to explore the world.

    In this particular historical moment, in which states are responding to the challenges of increased global migration and other associated pressures with tightening of immigration controls, increased border security, and increased use of detention and deportation, it helps us to understand global migration as an ongoing historical reality to see migration as an always present aspect of human evolution and history.

    Although the discussion around trafficking in women, especially as the conversation attempts to address sexual exploitation, often becomes panic-laden or morally outraged, in seeking to respond in sustainable and substantive ways to the needs of migrant and trafficked women, it's been helpful in our work to consider a women's equality framework that acknowledges the trafficked woman as the expert in the issues affecting her migration and the exploitation she has experienced. It has been helpful to us to create communities of advocacy in the context of service provision—to have those two things linked—so that as a trafficked woman comes to identify her experience, she can access legal, social, and economic supports that are meaningful to her.

    It's been important to reflect on the paradigms of victimization that so often inform law enforcement responses so as to accompany women as partners in action for empowerment and to dissolve, in ways that are possible, the rendering of the trafficked woman as “other”.

    Sexual exploitation, we know, exists in so many areas in our world. It happens in workplaces, it happens at universities, it happens everywhere we go. We need to be careful about using the trafficked woman as an emblem of sexual exploitation, instead of acknowledging it as the pervasive problem that it is.

    We have found that regardless of whether a woman is able to remain in Canada or returns to her former country of residence, to a community experience within which her irregular migration is understood in the context of huge numbers in migration, the exploitation and abuse that may also have been part of that migration can be transformed somewhat.

    Obviously we have root causes for these things. Our globalized economy is inextricably linked with irregular migration and trafficking. Global patterns of economics and trade have increased demands for low-wage labour, as well as the demand of poor countries for remittances from out-migration labourers in the global north that assist economies in the global south.

     In fact, remittances have exceeded direct foreign investment for the first time, reaching almost $80 billion in 2002. Remedies for this are very few. In areas of market management, international migration, or labour laws, these remain inadequate to protect migrant women and ensure respect for their mobility rights and other human rights.

    All those states, including Canada, are responding to human trafficking with an array of new laws and policies. These are rooted in an enforcement framework that privileges border and national securities, conservative sexual morality, and prosecution of the trafficker.

    Although discussions in Canada have included notions of protection for the victims of human trafficking--and we're really happy to see that--very few protections are in place. I think the notion of protecting victims is also somewhat problematic. The question of protection of trafficked persons is certainly welcomed, but at the moment, deep consideration must be given to other associated questions. What does protection entail? Who decides what constitutes protection? Will the enforcement community decide? Will NGOs decide? Will trafficked persons themselves decide? How much space is there for trafficked persons' voices in setting the agenda and determining what protection means for them and their futures? Why is it that protection and the prosecution of the trafficker are so often coupled? Is it possible to delink protection from prosecution in the name of truly humanizing this experience?

     To date, laws to address human trafficking in Canada remain largely unresponsive to the protection of the human rights of trafficked persons. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains within it measures for more vigilant border surveillance, penalties for punishing smugglers and traffickers, and enhanced powers of detention and deportation. Within the act, in paragraph 245(f), for example, immigration officers are directed to detain those who may be involved with traffickers. This implicit contradiction between values of protection and what appears to be a direction toward protective detention reveals the privileging of prosecution over protection of trafficked persons.

    In May 2006, without much consultation with NGOs, the government announced a new temporary resident permit for trafficked persons. The document itself is flawed by inconsistencies, and its terms and conditions are not responsive to the needs of a victim of trafficking. For example, although there are provisions for interim federal health and counselling, no other social supports are accessible. The 120-day reflection period is not linked to an access to work permit or any other form of social support, including provincial income assistance, which remains to be negotiated.

    The TRP also involves an immediate consultation between enforcement communities, and although cooperation with the prosecution of the trafficker is not required under the new TRP, in practice we've seen that women who have made applications were scrutinized and interrogated for hours.

    Since May, when the TRP was put in, we've had two applications that I'm aware of and four others that apparently have been abandoned, although I'm not sure why. There was one that was successful and one that was not successful. The experience of the woman whose application was not successful seemed to reflect a kind of need for increased training and awareness amongst the enforcement community, in the way Dominic was speaking to earlier. In particular, the Border Services Agency and Citizenship and Immigration Canada both had lengthy interviews with this woman, and there was interrogation of her culpability throughout. In other words she was asked, in the same way that victims of domestic violence used to be asked, “If you knew something was wrong, why did you not leave?”

    So the trafficked person is at risk for being the site of statistical analysis, and in response, as Dominic mentioned, what social services are in place for her? Hardly anything. Most of what she receives is supplied by volunteer NGOs, and at this point she's still very much unable to access services from the state.

     I think the TRP did include some nuanced language. That is important, and it is one step in understanding the complexities of the experience of migration. However, it doesn't go far enough.

    In summary, our work continues in the form of ongoing advocacy and direct service provision for trafficked women, as well as ongoing dialogue and lobbying of government for full legislative protection of trafficked persons. We've also been doing lots of public education. We've found that to be a key element in trying to settle the long-term debates and discussions around what human trafficking is and what sexual exploitation is. Through that, we're trying to create communities of understanding, where the binary around what the needs are can be deepened, so there's a community response that actually honours human rights obligations and the human rights of that person and her participation as an agent in the solution-making.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much.

    We'll go to questions and answers for seven minutes, starting with Ms. Minna.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thanks to both of you for your presentations.

    Mr. Monchamp, your presentation was quite enlightening but also very disturbing because of some of the things you said. Some of us probably knew or suspected them, but it was quite disturbing to hear about them.

     You're right that the issue of consent is a major one, because even in court they'll say she consented, and if you charge the pimp, you charge the user. One of the things we have heard at this committee is that we should charge the user, not just the pimp or the trafficker--criminalize the customer as well. Do you agree with that?

    Second, do you have a suggestion as to how we might work around the issue of consent, how we might legislate or put up a framework of some kind that would address the issue of consent and take away that tool from the user and the trafficker?

    First of all, I believe it is important to criminalize the clients, the users and the pimps who live off these women. To me this is obvious.

    It must also be pointed out that in certain cases, there is a criminalization of the victims. Let us talk about the bawdy houses or the massage parlours that are currently proliferating. Prostitution is not illegal in Canada, but everything that surrounds it is. People who have just arrived, new immigrants, primarily find themselves in bawdy houses and massage parlours; in such cases they are criminalized. This casts a shadow and imposes a false belief on these women who find themselves in the world of prostitution in general — not only in the massage parlours —, the belief that prostitution is criminal. The pimps use this ignorance like swords over their heads to keep them under their control.

     I should have explained that my position and that of some of our colleagues is that we do not criminalize the victim. That would be totally wrong. When I say “criminalize”, I simply mean the user, not the victim. We need to ensure that victims are not considered to be criminals or criminalized, that they are considered to be victims. We should provide the kinds of supports they require, including those who are illegal with immigration.

    I personally think 120 days is not enough--possibly work permits to give them more stability so they're not afraid to come forward. I feel really strongly about that side of it, and I think some of us agree with that.

    You've already said that you agree with the criminalization of the user, which is fair. Now perhaps you can help me a little on the word “consent”. How can we get around that?

    As far as the issue of consent is concerned, it is relatively simple. As for the procuring of children, the way to proceed already exists. Currently, the way to go about gathering evidence is essentially to corroborate the victim's version. In certain cases, we are in a position to obtain one version. We often use videotaped interviews. In a case of children or adolescents, there is sometimes a change of attitude because they are psychologically fragile, and the video testimony becomes important. In certain cases, we have no video, but despite everything, we have complaints relating to individuals who exploit these children and we can still charge them.

    It is therefore an issue of corroborative investigations, that is to say that we use investigative techniques that confirm what we had at the outset. For example, we use shadowing, double agents or wiretap. These techniques are already used as far as pimps working child prostitute are concerned. They could also apply very well to pimps working adult prostitutes. We would use the same techniques and the same kind of charges. Furthermore, in several cases, we are talking about the same people. These people do not draw a line at the age of 18. In many cases, they have been controlling a young girl from the age of 14 to 16, and she is now 21, 22 or 23. These are exactly the same techniques and that is how, currently, we are able to get around the pretence of consent.

    On the other hand, I must say that these investigations are extremely cumbersome and complex. They do not just last a few weeks, particularly in a case where we do have no testimony from the victim. I believe that the law should protect the victims of these pimps or users—I am not sure what to call them—who create dozens of victims within their lifetime. I draw a parallel with pedophilia. A pedophile will destroy several lives over the course of his life. These pimps view women like merchandise. It is an issue of cashing them out, and when the merchandise is passed its due date, they throw them out and get another.

    It is therefore very important to act. If I understand correctly, you agree with me, even when we do not have testimony. That is what is difficult presently. As far as adults are concerned, we are not able to act if we do not have the consent or the testimony of a woman. Her pimp will continue to victimize others. Because he uses his threat and violence, women will be terrorized and will never file complaints.

     You're thinking about resources.

    Your time is up.

     Ms. Mourani.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I thank you for your testimony. I will continue along the same lines as Ms. Minna.

    I am having difficulty understanding. You said that it is easy when you are talking about child prostitution—well, we will agree on the definition that would have to be given to the word “easy” in this context—, but in terms of adult prostitution, it is more complicated because if we do not have the testimony of the victim, nothing can be proven.

    Have I understood correctly? Is it because of the law, the resources or both?

    Presently, it is because of the law.

    Which one? That is to say that in—

    We talk about procuring, because there has to be a victim. WIth regard to child prostitution consent is no longer an acceptable defence. Currently with regard to adult prostitution, the legislation remains in force and the defence centres on the issue of consent. In some cases, the victims will refuse to betray their pimp. I could make an analogy with domestic violence. In some cases, these women display behaviour typical of victims because they remain attached to the person exploiting them.

    So all that individual needs to do, despite all the evidence gathered during an investigation, is to have the woman testify that she is an adult and entitled to do what she wants with her body and that she is a consenting adult. The individual will never be convicted.

    The individual will not be convicted, despite of your shadowing, the investigations you have conducted, phone taping and collected evidence of violence, showing that they beat the woman, they forced her to commit such acts and so forth... The fact that she would testify in his defence will be enough to counter your case against him.

    Have I understood correctly?

    I am not a lawyer, but this is how such cases are handled currently in court. You need to understand that this is not a victim's crime but rather quite the opposite. When a charge is laid it is in particular against someone who lived off the profits of prostitution of a very specific person. If that person denies that or says that she consented, then this constitutes a reasonable defence.

    That said, I can corroborate, I can have—

    —a lot of evidence—

    I can have evidence showing that she gave him her money, that she prostituted herself for him and that he beat her but if she does not want to file a complaint and if she is comfortable with that, then there is nothing that we can do. It is the same as in domestic violence cases.

    There are some investigative techniques. We could use a double agent, for example. These are things that are being done, but in such cases, the sentence is lower than it would have been had there been a real victim.

    Does this mean that the section of the Criminal Code on human trafficking is used very infrequently?

    Currently, it is not used.

    It is not used at all!

    Correct, because it is new. It came into force in January. It is not used. I can tell you that it is not being used at all. There is a lack of understanding and it is not well known. People need to be informed about it. There is a misunderstanding.

    What is that lack of understanding related to?

    It is related to the definition of trafficking.

    Oh, that is what it is. It is always the same old story. I understand.

    When we talk about trafficking, the legal community always thinks of international trafficking. They imagine someone who came here against their will who is being held prisoner and forced into prostitution. Such cases are extremely rare. If we had more resources, we would see more cases like that. We could also take action in those locations that I mentioned, and where we are not able to work due to a lack of police and crown resources.

    Is this section on trafficking sending a message that trafficking equals organized crime and that, consequently, the case must be made that organized crime is involved?

    The City of Montreal Police Service would be the only force who could use this statutory provision. It is not being used because of a lack of understanding. At this time, as I mentioned, I am not even able to lay charges of procuring or keeping a bawdy house, because keeping a bawdy house is considered a frivolous crime.

    You say frivolous, but this is still considered an infraction under the Criminal Code. The law must be enforced, must it not?

    Yes.

    Is it more of a legal problem meaning a problem with a legal process? You arrest individuals, and this is where the problem occurs. Is that correct?

    Currently, the problem is largely related to the number of officers and funding allocated to deal with this phenomenon. Currently—

    So this is what you mean by the word “frivolous”.

    That is correct. It's setting priorities.

    So, ultimately—

    It has to do with the use of officers. Officers could be used to fight street gangs, organized crime or violent crimes. There are different types of pimps. Some, in fact the majority, use psychological control, which is not considered a violent crime. Women involved in these crimes consent. Education comes into play; there is a lack of understanding. So people call this a frivolous crime.

    That is why I said at the outset that I have to fight every day to defend the idea that this is not a frivolous crime.

    Okay. I understand.

    Did some of the $6 million amount that was invested to fight street gangs in Montreal go to your service?

    No.

     We'll go to Ms. Smith.

    Thank you.

    I thank both presenters for the presentations today.

    I am very interested in a couple of comments you made, Dominic.

     You're on the ground every day. The thing I've been hearing and that this committee has been hearing from police forces is that human trafficking across Canada—your comment was that it's very rare—is not very rare. It's just that there are no police resources there to deal with it.

    We're struggling with the definition of human trafficking. In my view, it is forceable confinement and forcing people to have sex for money, whether they come from another country or from our country. We had a model here the other day who was talking about how middle class Canadian women have been trafficked, and they do it through modelling agencies. There are many agencies, many ways to do it.

    The fact of the matter is that it keeps coming back to more police resources and more training. Right now the RCMP has a video out, which is just being launched, for the RCMP detachments so they can be trained in human trafficking. Do the other police forces have any of those videos available or any training available? Would it be useful to have a mandatory course in police academies to ensure that they do get training in human trafficking? Is that useful? Could you make a comment on that?

    This is one of the points I had noted.

    There is a play called Le prince serpentshowing in Montreal right now that talks about child prostitution. It's very helpful, very educational and has had excellent results. It refers to measures that have a real impact and that can help. This is a monster that we have to fight. Our fight, with our means and prevention, which puts us up against the current culture is equivalent to the fight between David and Goliath. We're talking about essential means.

    I want to talk about police training. About two weeks ago, I met with the head of the Canadian Police College about training on sexual exploitation. Such training has been in place for about one or about two years now, specifically on child pornography, but it's really new. There are not really any bases or specialists in exploitation. Right now, there are no courses at the Canadian Police College. Nor are there any such courses at the École nationale de police du Québec. It's essential. The techniques used, the way we need to approach victims, the psychology we need to use requires advanced training. Otherwise, the officers who will do this work will get discouraged. They will not feel supported, they will not have the knowledge to follow through on what they will have to deal with. Right now, even at the legal level, judges and prosecutors need to be educated. We are doing some work in this area because there has been a huge change since 2002 with regard to children. Training has to take place at all levels.

    Thank you.

    Do I have time for another question?

    You have three minutes.

    Thank you for your very wise and insightful comments.

    The frustration, as you say, is getting the experts there. I have worked quite a bit with the Manitoba ICE unit--the integrated child exploitation unit--over a period of about five years. What they were saying is that the guys on the ground, these joint forces units, develop their own techniques, and when they are very successful, those techniques obviously work. Would there perhaps be a way that these units could come in to train new police officers? The boots on the ground are the ones who really know what goes on. That is my first question.

    Second, in terms of the victims, we are trying very hard, on our side, to put protection in for victims. That 120 days includes counselling and medical care, and that 120 days can be extended. We need to do more, and we know we need to do more, so we're looking to people like you.

     It seems to me that what you've said is to change the laws, because consent means nothing. As soon as someone says they consented to this, they get off, no matter what video you have on what's been happening to the girls. So it seems to me that laws, education, and police resources are huge components to help combat this monster that is growing too fast across our nation. I'd like to have your comments on that.

    Everything you are saying is very true. In terms of training, in fact, the expertise is scattered across Canada. There are very few of us and we are under enormous pressure.

    I know that, in Ontario, at that time, there was a squad called the Child Exploitation Unit, which has changed and continues to grow. It now operates solely in the area of child pornography. The child prostitution unit was dismantled.

    So that is what we are facing. We must continue to fight to justify ourselves and explain why these investigations are so demanding. Furthermore, given the dismantling of squads, the survival of others and the lack of officers, the specialists on those squads don't have the time and the ability to train anyone.

    I don't want to sound dramatic, but I can assure you that, on Montreal island, my squad has no more than eight investigators. In every region there are some sixty investigators of narcotics. So it is a little inconsistent. In the field of narcotics, the expertise is shared because there are resources and funding and the system works well; when it comes to exploitation, there are too few officers to be able to share anything.

    Could you remind me about the second half of your comments?

     I'm sorry, the time is up. Maybe we can try to get around again.

    Ms. Mathyssen.

    Thank you very much.

    I have so many questions. I'll begin with Dominic, please.

    One of the suggestions that has been made to solve the issue is forming a stronger bond between police departments and NGOs, those facilitators on the ground, the people who provide services and support to women. We heard that on Tuesday from Professor Tie from NAWL, and she went on to say that the NGOs are the first contact for women who have been victimized.

    What do we need to do, in terms of this committee and parliamentarians, to help these NGOs, to make sure they're there and can make these connections with the police departments?

    In my opinion, this problem need the presence of joint units. Here is what I mean by joint units. These units use police officers. I want to start with the police and then I will talk about NGOs.

    This is a transborder crime. In a number of cases, the pimps are transporting women from Quebec to Ontario, from Ontario to New Brunswick to mislead or complicate the investigations. It is a transborder crime.

    Consequently, when I talk about joint units, I am talking about units staffed by police forces from the various locations. In these joint units, NGOs...

    I would like to hear your exact definition of NGOs, because I am not sure I understand.

    Non-government organizations.

    Okay.

    There are two things. The victims may turn to the police, but in some cases this can be problematic because some victims still see the police as a threat. It is often useful for them to be detached from police services; in some cases this can be helpful.

    I am bothered because I do not have the answer to your question. Furthermore I don't know if I am the best person to answer it. Perhaps Shauna Paull would be in a better position than I to answer your question.

    Obviously, there should be very close cooperation between NGOs and the police but I don't know how this should be done in concrete terms. Nevertheless, both sides must work in close cooperation.

     Thank you.

    I would like to pursue this with Ms. Paull. We heard at the same time that Status of Women Canada was taking a lead role in addressing trafficking, that there had been some very important work.

    Now, as I'm sure you know, there have been changes to the mandate and there have been funding cuts. I'm wondering, from your perspective, what kind of impact that has on the work of the community and your work in particular.

    I think there are a couple of areas where the changes to the terms and conditions are going to be very, very difficult for us. One is with regard to advocacy and lobbying. Certainly without the work that has happened across the country with regard to advocating for protections, we would not have had even the temporary resident permit, which is not a good solution, but we wouldn't have even had that. The work continues for full legislative protection for trafficked persons. Unless we have adequate funding to continue that work, the women who are working directly with the trafficked persons will not be able to partner with them in informing the policy that fits for women who are being victimized. So it's very, very important that funding for lobbying and advocacy be continued.

    In terms of our work as well, while there is a great deal of research that has happened around trafficking, the particular area that Status of Women has for independent research, the independent research fund, enables us to do certain kinds of research with vulnerable populations in ways that are different from, say, an academic researcher. What does that mean? Again, it involves community-based strategies. It involves participation of the women who have the lived experience, and it privileges those.

    We aren't sure exactly what will be happening with the independent research fund, but it's of concern to us, because in the past it has funded things in ways that no other funding agency would have funded, and in particular, the methodologies that we're able to use in those constructs are very, very important to reducing that “us” and “them” dichotomy that exists.

    Thank you.

    Have I more time?

    You have one minute left.

    Oh, dear.

    I must apologize. I was late because I was doing a media interview. Ironically, I was not being taken seriously. I was talking about the sexism and the sort of institutionalized attitude towards women, and I was dismissed as clearly not understanding what I was speaking of. I think that underscores precisely my concern.

    Canadian women are facing a lot of issues, the lack of proactive pay equity, child care, housing, and the loss of the court challenges program. Does that sort of institutionalized attitude that women don't deserve contribute to this situation that we're talking about in terms of the vulnerability of women and the trafficking of women?

    It absolutely does. I think we are in a moment where we need to give some deep consideration to emerging models for women's equality. Obviously I don't want to underestimate the effect of sexual exploitation on women, but I also think that if we continue to speak about women as unable to identify solutions for themselves, and if we disarm women from being able to access avenues for advocacy and for change, we will continue to reiterate a marginalized place for women. In particular, women who are involved in irregular migration really need substantive partnering from a women's equality perspective in order to ameliorate these issues.

    Thank you very much.

    Ms. Minna.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Ms. Paull, what have you learned so far about the factors that fuel trafficking within Canada? What are the factors that actually fuel trafficking? We could maybe address the root causes of some of them.

    Absolutely, and I think it's very important. As we talk about resources for prosecution, we need to be reminded that there's a prevention element, there's a prosecution element, and there's a protection element. Within that protection element we can go to what the root causes are of migration.

     It's very important not to homogenize who is a trafficked woman and why she is moving. Every woman has her own particular reasons for her migration; however, there are obviously some root causes. Largely, poverty is one, and I think that's important to address, not only in transnational migrations, where global economic disparities are at play, but also within Canada as well, where intergenerational poverty and other historical factors are fueling the vulnerability of our aboriginal women in particular. As I noted, there's also the dispossession and displacement of people as a result of armed conflict and disasters.

     By and large, the women I work with are economic migrants. I think we need to decriminalize that notion. We need to understand that we are now a generation into the effects of globalization, and there isn't an economist alive who thinks that globalization is a good idea anymore. Now we're having to pay the price, which is that we have 190 million people who are travelling the planet without homes. We know that we have the resources to actually provide, from a human rights perspective, but we need to be courageous and do that. We need to act on it.

    I just have two very quick questions for you.

    How does your organization define “trafficking”? We're looking at the definition and we have an idea of what we want to put down, but maybe you could help us with how to define that.

    My other question, and maybe you could deal with them together, is whether you have any data or estimates with respect to how many women--and children, obviously--are victims of trafficking each year in Canada and which parts of the country are the most affected.

    What we have is the RCMP data, which is that 800 people are trafficked into Canada, and 1,500 to 2,200 are trafficked through Canada. Now, NGOs don't have the surveillance and other kinds of resources to do statistics that way, and I actually think the request for statistics, from the NGO perspective, anyway, is coming to us from a need to document and identify the experience. Our response is to say that these are people in migration; these are people who are vulnerable. The numbers should not be the issue--one woman is too many.

    In terms of definition, we pretty much use the protocol definition, even though it's problematic in our work. I think it's important to understand that extending our understanding of what we mean by trafficking is really important, and the conflation of sexual exploitation to the exclusion of other forms of labour exploitation also does a disservice to those who are having their labour rights violated.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Stanton.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I have just a couple of quick questions for Ms. Paull.

    On this question of funding, in particular for advocacy and lobbying--I suppose I could call it--I'm not too sure how you've come to the conclusion that this is something you no longer will be able to receive. Have you made application under Status of Women Canada, or has something been communicated to you directly that would suggest that your activities won't be eligible?

    No. I think in terms of project funding, probably we would be able to access funding for projects for services, but in terms of creating a combination of service and advocacy that addresses the need for the lived experience to inform policy and law making, the funding for lobbying and advocacy groups may not be available to us anymore.

     You don't know that for sure, though.

    That's what seems to be clear from the changes to the terms and conditions, as I understand them.

    Okay, but you don't have any experience to this point that would suggest that will be the case.

    No.

    Okay. In respect of your funding in general, what percentage of your activities would be in the former that you mentioned, the actual programs that you do on the ground helping victims of trafficking and vulnerable people, as compared, shall I say, to the administrative side in your organization?

    I think if you look at the history of women's equality movements in our country, it's impossible to understand equality rights without an awareness of the contributions of women's equality movements across the country. And that goes all the way back, including the section 15 consultations, where the women's equality lobby was key.

    But if I could, my question was, how much of your funding is directed to sort of community-based delivery of services versus administrative costs?

    I'm trying to get to that. Philosophically, advocacy and service provision are connected. It's in the taking apart of those things that women's equality is damaged and is at risk.

    But you really won't know whether that's ineligible until you apply--

    I know for sure, because I live in British Columbia, where the Ministry of Women's Equality has been dismantled and where funding to women's centres has been dismissed, and the effect on not only women's equality awareness and the public discussion around women's equality as well as the services and the ways in which women can be empowered by accessing those services...has been reduced dramatically. I know that for sure.

    Do you know the names of those organizations? Was that in the last month or so? You mentioned that these organizations that have been--

    I think what we're dealing with is an historical moment where women's equality is being attacked, and I'm saying that in terms of addressing issues of trafficked women, which is what my work is about, it will have an ill effect.

    Attacked by whom?

    The changes to the terms and conditions.

    But we don't really know how that's going to actually play out until we have applications and programs are applied for.

    You know what? When someone travels across this country to speak to you about the work she is doing with other women, for whom our country has an obligation to meet their human rights...I am not going to be played with here.

    I'm not taking anything away from you, Ms. Paull. I'm simply trying to get at the root of your assertions.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Stanton.

    We have time for one last questioner. Ms. Deschamps or Ms. Mourani.

    This will be our last questioner. Then we need to get on to committee business.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you, Ms. Paull, for your courage. I have a question for you. Your organization undertook a project in 2005-07 on, among other things, an analysis of the structural policy factors fostering human trafficking.

    Am I mistaken?

    Yes. I think that was undergone by Annalee Lepp, who was actually meant to be here today and for whom I'm pinch-hitting.

    Could you tell us about it?

    If you have a particular question, possibly. I do have a paper that I could forward to the committee.

    In fact, since the beginning of such studies, it seems that this is difficult to quantify and assess and that there is a lack of clarity about human trafficking. We met with the RCMP and Mr. Dandurand. I would like to understand, but I cannot.

    I am not a research centre. However, I was able to describe what was happening in Montreal in terms of street gangs. I am unable to understand why major research centres are unable to determine what is happening in terms of human trafficking in Canada. I recently received an article on the famous seminar which took place in Sydney, during which participants determined that our efforts are failing.

    I would like to understand. Other than the definition that says it all and means nothing at the same time, is there a lack of political will? Are there any specific interests that mean that this phenomenon is more or less taken seriously or studied? Are there any major economic issues tying states to this kind of trafficking? What is the problem?

     A variety. And if you'll permit me to rest in the insubstantial for a little bit, of human experience.... Trying to define the power dynamics that exist between vulnerable people and people with more power is so subtle it's very difficult to come to a clear definition of what that means. What's required is an organic response on a case-by-case basis.

    One of the other barriers to coming to terms with numbers and statistics also has to do with the fact that although we might want to prosecute the pimp or the trafficker, there's still nothing in place to protect the woman. If she is out of status or if she is in an irregular immigration position, the practice remains to detain and deport. Not only is she at risk for something the NGOs don't want to have happen to her, detention and deportation, but then she's gone and we don't have access to her story.

    Who defines trafficking is a question that's still up for grabs, and it's of deep concern to us. For example, we have had domestic workers in the LCP who are not only experiencing severe forms of exploitation, including economic exploitation, but also sexual and physical violence. For whatever reason, because money for sex is not involved, we're unable to get enforcement support for that person.

    When we think about the enforcement community in addressing this issue, we have people like Dominic who are trying to support the victim as much as they can. Then we have the Canada Border Services Agency, which has a different mandate, and then we have CIC, which has a different mandate again.

    We have been working on a collaborative model in British Columbia, but we haven't been able to come to terms with the competing agendas. Part of the inability to come to terms with all of this has to do with the fact that we haven't seen enough evidence and we're not sure enough that women's rights will be respected and that there are adequately funded social services and access to legal support for women to encourage them to come forward.

    Thank you very much, Ms. Paull and Mr. Monchamp, for coming this morning and sharing your knowledge with us. The committee is much more enlightened as a result of your testimony this morning. Thank you both very much.

    We will suspend the meeting for one minute so the witnesses can leave, and then we will get to our committee business.

    I call the meeting back to order.

    We have several issues we need to focus on. A list of witnesses has been submitted, and we have to decide a variety of things. How many meetings do we want to have. What should the deadline for submissions be? How many groups should appear at each meeting? And so on. There are quite a few questions and quite a few associations that have already sent in their names, and I suspect more may be added to this list.

    The first question is, to be fair to everyone, when do we want a deadline for submissions?

    Ms. Smith, a comment?

    Yes, two comments. Number one, someone's just put a list together and whacked it here. This is a huge, huge list, and my concern is we have to decide on the number of meetings. I can only see one or two. It should be done before Christmas, because we have to close off what we're doing now. This is not human trafficking. This is our mandate and we're getting away from our mandate.

    I can see something like this happening after Christmas. We could plug these people in after Christmas, because we're doing the economic side of it and that goes hand in hand with.... Right now we have Christmas break coming up, we have a break next week, and I'm concerned we won't do it as well as we'd like to.

     I have a suggestion. The first 58 on this list have been submitted by members of the committee. Where you see one asterisk or two asterisks, those particular requests came in from several members of the committee. We could try to deal with what we have from the committee and have the analysts take a look at the other lists that are attached here and come back with a suggestion after break week on whether or not we want to meet with those groups.

    The first two pages contain submissions by the committee members. I suspect that Mr. Stanton may have some others he wants to add to this list, and then the clerk would have to sort out where we are going.

    As a suggestion, we could do Wednesday November 22, 3:30 to 5:30, and Monday, December 4, 3:30 to 5:30 or 3:30 to 6:30, and just set aside two meetings and say we will do that, so that it doesn't interfere with the other work of the committee, but I'm not sure there will be sufficient time.

    Go ahead, please Ms. Minna and then Ms. Mourani.

    Ms. Mourani goes first.

    Ms. Mourani is first. I'm sorry. Thank you for correcting me.

    Madam Chair, on November 29, I think we will be talking about gender analysis, unless I am mistaken. Is this scheduled for the 22 or the 29?

    Yes, it is.

    The interpretation service is saying November 22. Is it November 29?

    No, we had to change that to November 29 in order to ensure that all our members would be here.

    So, the gender analysis will be November 22. Correct?

    You want us to set December 4 to hear witnesses on the cuts?

    The first meeting on the issue of the Status of Women's cuts could be on November 22, which is a Wednesday, from 3:30 to 5:30—

    All right.

    Then we could have one on Monday, December 4, and that would give us two meetings.

    Madam Chair, I regret that I will not be here on Monday. You had scheduled it for a Monday, if you recall... This is what I wanted to tell you.

    I have a final point: if you could add the Collectif fénimisme et démocratie to the list. I received the request this morning.

    I recognize Ms. Mourani isn't available on Mondays, but is the rest of the group here on Mondays, or is that not possible at all?

    An hon. member: No.

    The Chair: Then we will eliminate Mondays. So we're either going to—

    Wednesdays are preferable, Madam Chair.

    Yes, but there are only November 22 and December 6 as Wednesdays, unless we can do an additional meeting on a Tuesday or a Thursday.

    Ms. Minna.

    I would like to say two things, Madam Chair, if I could.

    November 22 would be fine, as a start, I think. I'm just checking my own schedule here. That looks fine. It's the evening you're looking at, right?

    Yes, I'm looking at 3:30 to 5:30. Or should it be longer? Should it be 3:30 to 6:30?

    It could be. We could have some sandwiches brought in, and we could do more work. We could have two round tables.

    Ms. Minna, you still have the floor.

    Okay.

    Madame Chair, we vote for food—

    Oh, we definitely have to have food--

    —and we never eat. I would like to know why.

    We're always watching the budget. I have to commit to being a chairman that watches the budget, but if we go to 6:30, we have to have food.

    I'm sorry, Ms. Minna, you had a suggestion?

    November 22 sounds fine, obviously. I know Thursdays people like to go home. I don't mind doing that either. Tuesday evening is another possibility. So you have two evenings, November 21 and 22, after committees are finished. Most committees are over by 3:30 or 4, if I'm not mistaken. So you could possibly have two days, November 21 and 22.

    The only thing I want to point out, Madam Chair, is that on November 29 you would put in the GBA one, but keep in mind that's the Wednesday night, and most of our caucus is gone, because that's our leadership week. And registration deadline is the next morning, so it becomes a little bit difficult. The night of Tuesday November 28, would be fine.

     I think the question is, how many meetings do we want to have? If we want to wrap this issue up before this session, do we want to try to find three meetings, two meetings...?

    We were suggesting two or three meetings. We weren't looking for a whole raft of things.

    Three is too many.

    If three is too many, we should try two.

    Just two.

    Maybe we should have two meetings, from 3:30 to 6:30, and we'll encompass whatever groups we can within the confines of those two meetings, on the Tuesday night and the Wednesday night.

    So is that the 21st and the 22nd?

    Madam Chair, I'm trying to get your attention.

    I'm sorry. Yes.

    We have a problem with November 22. Two of our members cannot make it, so whatever night that is--

    That's a Wednesday.

    If we have two meetings, we also have the 29th, which is a third meeting. So we have three extra meetings between now and December.

    My concern is that our mandate is to have an interim report or a report by December on human trafficking, and then we're going to spend all of January until the spring on the socio-economic issues. We have more time, then, to schedule these meetings and do a really good job and get adequate witnesses.

    I did want to add Samantha Smythe to the list. I don't have the name of her association here--I just didn't bring it with me--but I'd like to add her. She is with a group that is funded by Status of Women and she's in human trafficking, so that sort of ties in.

    Good. Can you forward that also by e-mail, Ms. Smith? We now have that into the record, but if you could just back it up as well....

    But my question is, what can we do to make sure that we don't let our report languish? What can we do so that we don't let this languish? It's very important. I don't want members opposite to think we're trying to not do it. We agreed and passed a motion last time. I'm just wondering if we could maybe do it in January or--

    The motion didn't say that. Can I suggest...?

    Just a second.

    I'm just trying to be practical. Maybe we could have one meeting now and two in January.

    I have a suggestion.

    Excuse me, Madam Chair, I do have the floor.

    Yes, you do have the floor.

    If I could just finish my sentences, then we could continue on in an orderly manner.

    What I'm trying to do is look at it very practically. We have a huge and very important agenda, and we said at the beginning of our work agenda that what we wanted to do was complete something and then go on to the other. Then we passed a motion and agreed that we wanted to have these extra meetings.

    So I think we could have maybe one or two before December, and then one in January, just to take the pressure off, because the MPs, all of us, have so many other obligations, and I don't want anyone on any side of the House to be spread too thinly. That's the only thing.

    I appreciate that.

    Ms. Davidson.

    I have committee meetings on Tuesdays, too, right from our meeting in the morning. I quit with committee meetings at 8:30 at night, so Tuesdays are out for me as well.

    Okay.

    Ms. Mourani.

    I just realized, Madam Chair, that I will not be in Ottawa on November 22 and 29. I will be here in the morning but not in the afternoon.

    It's going to be difficult.

    Ms. Minna.

    December.

    Understood. We all have busy schedules.

    Okay, we have busy schedules. What I was going to suggest was that if we chose a Monday night, a Tuesday night, or a Wednesday night...we're looking at those evenings. The work on the trafficking is moving along pretty well. We've given the researchers some suggestions and directions concerning what we would like them to start drafting.

    I think the House sits until at least December 18, so it's not as if we have no time.

    December 15.

    Okay, December 15. I didn't remember the exact date. We have a couple of weeks, anyway, in December.

    Perhaps we could get one meeting on this, maybe on the GBA one, in November, and then the other two in December. In January, the House doesn't sit, so we wouldn't be back until the end of January anyway, and then we're into other things. So I don't see why we couldn't do one meeting on the GBA in November and find a day that works.

    Do you mean, other than November 29?

    Other than...?

     We have November 29 there now.

    The problem with that is that our colleagues and I are supposed to be in Montreal, as you very well know. That's a problem.

    Well, Madam Chair, I'd be very interested in helping out. We can readjust that timing, then, and maybe put it—

    Is the 28th any good for anybody?

    No. We can't do the 28th.

    What about the first week of December?

    Why not the first week of December?

    Yes, December works for me.

    Wednesday December 6 and 13.

    That's perfect, on Wednesday of the first week.

    On Wednesday December 6 and Wednesday December 13 from 3:30 PM to 5:30 PM?

    Yes.

    Good.

    So the 6th and the 13th are two good days for this. And then we need the GBA.

    Hold on. It's getting confusing here.

    Ms. Davidson can't make it on the 13th. And Wednesdays I can't do it.

     We may end up not being able to have every single member here—

    Well, we would have as many as we can to hear this. If we did it—

    —because I might miss some.

    —on December 6th and December 13th, it gets the issue behind us. We could go from 3:30 to 6:30 and do two meetings and whatever we can fit in to the program. Making sure we have a balanced agenda of groups from a variety of sides on this issue would be helpful as well.

    Ms. Smith.

    Madam Chair, I know we have a member missing, and I'm very unhappy about that, because Ms. Davidson really wants to be a part of this, but we have to be flexible too. As to December 6th, if we have two meetings, or the three meetings, then—I'll negotiate here—three meetings are just too much. With our members missing, it's not fair. To have two meetings on the 6th and the 13th to get this wrapped up is fine, as long as it doesn't take away from the human trafficking, because we have lots of time in the second.... The House doesn't sit, and we're doing things to present in the House, so that argument doesn't wash.

    We have from when we get back until the spring to finish this off. But we passed a motion, so this would address compliance with the motion from Ms. Stronach.

    I think the consensus was that two meetings would be sufficient.

    It's all we were asking for, anyway.

    The aim is two three-hour meetings with sandwiches, on December 6 and December 13. The analysts have indicated that they have someone else who is also going to be helping them, so this doesn't take away from the human trafficking report we're working on.

     Is that agreed on?

    Madam Chair, those two meetings have to do with the witnesses we're asking to come.

    Could the meeting for the GBA, though, with the officials, be on the 21st or the 22nd?

    You'd like to move the GBA one to the 21st or the 22nd?

    Or the 28th.

    Or the 28th.

    Yes.

    With all due respect, Madam Chair, what we said is we can have two meetings. We can have the GBA and then one on the other issue and then bump the second one up until the spring. It's not a matter, Madam Chair—

    No, no—

    Excuse me, Madam Chair, may I just have a minute to get my thoughts together?

    What we're trying to do is to do this in a way such that we do the best possible job. What we're saying is that in the short time we don't have a big enough time span, so instead of doing it the other way, if we were to have two meetings between now and the end of December, one on the GBA and one on the other, and then bumped up another meeting, which goes very nicely with the economic kinds of things that we're doing leading to the spring, I think logically we would do a much better job of it this way.

    Our members cannot make the Wednesday night; I'm very concerned about that. It's okay to say that not every member can make it, but it just so happens that our side of the House can't make it.

    If we're talking about postponing the GBA meeting and having a GBA meeting at.... We could do the GBA meeting in February when we come back.

    Yes, we could.

    Let's focus on completing our response to this motion and get it behind us. If December 6th and December 13th are two dates that work with the committee, we'll have two nights of hearings from 3:30 to 6:30 on those two nights, if that works for everybody. As to those it doesn't work for, we have an obligation to move on and get it done with and put it behind us.

    Then when we come back in February, we could do the GBA.

    Is that a suggestion that works?

    The GBA in February is not good enough, I'm sorry.

    Okay, suggest a date that works then.

    I think Madam Mourani has a suggestion.

    Or should I get the clerk to look for a date for the GBA meeting--separate? Have we all agreed on our Status of Women cuts? We'll do it December 6 and December 13, from 3:30 to 6:30.

    That's fine.

    Could we do GBA on the 28th? Are there three meetings?

    Two meetings on Status of Women cuts. Then we will have a meeting on the GBA at another date.

    Not in February. It's too long. How about the 28th?

    On the GBA, what if I have the clerk circulate a memo to see if we can find a date for the gender-based analysis. I need a determination now.

    Ms. Smith.

    Madam Chair, I don't believe it is too late. I believe that we're working on two different issues. We've gone off the human trafficking--not gone off it because we're having extra meetings, but we've agreed to those two extra meetings, and then have the GBA, as you suggested, in February. It makes sense because we're not so compressed for time. We don't lose a thing. We just do a better job of it. That's the logical way to do it. Our side of the House would support that.

    Is everybody in agreement? We're okay with that?

    No, we're not. I don't agree with putting GBA off to February. It's far too long.

    There's just not enough time. There are only four weeks when we come back. We want to do justice to everything we're doing. There's no sense starting and having one meeting on one thing, then moving on to GBA. If we had the GBA meeting the very first Wednesday--

    It's only one meeting.

    It's an extra meeting. If we had the GBA meeting the first Wednesday when we come back after the break, this way we're able to complete this work and we're able to focus on that when we come back. The GBA meeting I'm suggesting we would do the first Wednesday when we come back in February.

    Right.

    We'll never get to it.

    I would suggest the 28th. I think Madam Mourani would agree.

    I can suggest November 28, but if we are not unanimous, we are not left with much choice.

    No, we do have a choice.

    There is a proposal, though. She's suggested November 28 for the GBA.

    There was a motion that we do this.

    No, we can't do that.

    If they can't do that, it's not an agreement.

    We will do the GBA meeting in February. We will have these ones in December--

    All I can say, Madam Chair, is that there was a motion passed that we deal with this issue early.

    I realize that. But there is a difficulty with the amount of time and the amount of work we have.

    I think it's unacceptable. The GBA is lost.

    That's the way we're going.

    The GBA meeting we will have the first Wednesday when we come back after the Christmas break.

    December 6 and 13. Are there any other suggestions from anybody as to the witness list for these two meetings?

    Mrs. Smith had one.

    Give us an e-mail on any other witnesses. I suggest that if we call a deadline on submissions for the cuts issue by--

    Could we have it maybe the end of break week, just so we have a chance? We only have one day left. So if we have it by next week, Wednesday or Thursday, to the clerk...?

    Is the committee comfortable? The deadline for submissions for our issues on the cuts to the Status of Women, if there are any additional ones, would be next Tuesday by 5.

    Ms. Mathyssen.

    I submitted a list and there was a slight error. I wanted the Canadian Labour Congress. I just wanted to make that clear.

    All right. It is on the list.

    Ms. Mourani.

    Would it be possible, Madam Chair, for the clerk to send this information to all the groups on the list, meaning to have her inform them of the deadline for tabling their briefs? Would it be possible to do this?

    These names have already been submitted. The first two pages have been submitted by the committee members. The others are requests that have come in from the organizations.

    Yes, No—

    Yes.

    Would you like to clarify, Ms. Tittley?

    Ms. Mourani, may I make a clarification?

    Yes.

    There are two different situations. The names on the list are those of groups that requested to appear before the committee. The committee must decide at some point—perhaps not today—if it will accept briefs or briefing notes from groups that are unable to appear before the committee. That is another aspect of the discussion. In all probability, we will not make that determination today, but it is up to the committee.

    The deadline needs to be postponed because if we decide next week to let everyone table a brief, it will be too late for them. So we need to postpone the deadline so that, when we make our decision, we will be setting a deadline for the submission of briefs by groups who will not have the opportunity to appear before us. At least they will have been able to make their views known through their briefs.

     Well, I think if there are any groups that want to make a comment, they can submit it in a brief form to us. The clerk needs time to line up these witnesses and get everything organized. It's difficult already with the timelines we're trying to have.

    So if you know of any groups in particular that will want to make submissions, or whatever, I suggest you--

    Something in writing is always accepted.

    Exactly. So they can be submitting something in writing at any time. We will receive those at any time on that particular--

    Madam Chair, just to confirm the format, then, this is going to be what you'd call more of an open forum where we're not necessarily having to put every witness up at the table here. What did you call that, Madam ?

    We would try to do a round table.

    A round table format--

    We can have ten or twelve at the table.

    Right. Okay. And that will be the format for both meetings then.

    I think so. But if we keep the witnesses to three minutes and questions and answers to three minutes or so, so that we get enough groups through and we get their points and they get ours, we should be all right.

    All right. Thank you all very much.

    The meeting is adjourned.