Abstract
Despite early ratification of the United Nations Trafficking in Persons Protocol, the <em>Criminal Code</em> offence of trafficking in persons in Canada has received little analytical or interpretive attention to date. Adopted in 2005, this offence has resulted in successful convictions in a limited number of cases and criminal justice authorities have continued to rely on alternate or complementary charges in cases of human trafficking. In particular, prosecutions for cases involving non-sexual labour trafficking remain extremely low. This article provides a socio-legal examination of why the offence of trafficking in persons in Canada is under-utilized in labour trafficking cases. Based on an analysis of data generated from 56 one-on-one interviews gathered from a variety of actors involved in counter trafficking response mechanisms and a legal examination of the key components of the offence, we argue that definitional challenges have resulted in narrow understandings and problematic interpretations of the Criminal Code offence. Such narrow interpretations have resulted in restricted applicability, particularly in cases of labour trafficking. More broadly, the article points to the need to address the limitations of the <em>Criminal Code</em> while formulating responses to trafficking that are not dependent on criminal law.
Highlights
Politicized and polarized discussions leading to the adoption of the international definition of human trafficking has resulted in a contested framework for understanding human trafficking in national contexts (Doezema, 2010; Gallagher, 2010; Hua, 2011; Jordan, 2002a; Kempadoo, 2005)
These debates, and the problematic discursive conflation between human trafficking and sex work, has impacted the resulting implementation of laws at the domestic state level, limiting the advancement of provisions to protect the rights of individuals working in sex industries (Chapkis, 2004; Doezema, 2010; Hua, 2011; Jordan, 2002b; Sanghera, 2005; Soderlund, 2005), and the implementation of measures that address other forms of exploitation1 falling within the broader rubric of human trafficking, including forced labour, debt bondage, and domestic servitude
Despite such perceptions that labour trafficking represents a small proportion of the overall “trafficking problem” in Canada, a number of cases have surfaced that demonstrate the existence of labour trafficking and illustrate the challenges associated with applying the Criminal Code offence in this context
Summary
Politicized and polarized discussions leading to the adoption of the international definition of human trafficking has resulted in a contested framework for understanding human trafficking in national contexts (Doezema, 2010; Gallagher, 2010; Hua, 2011; Jordan, 2002a; Kempadoo, 2005). All but one of the existing convictions involved sex trafficking, which points to a potential gap in the applicability of the legal framework to labour trafficking cases.5 It is possible this discrepancy can be accounted for by there being less labour-related cases, this article will demonstrate that law enforcement and social service providers in Canada perceive the Criminal Code to be less applicable in labour trafficking instances. Domotor represents a case of labour trafficking in which several accused pled guilty to charges, including of human trafficking under s.279.01 of the Criminal Code. In cases of sex trafficking, criminal justice authorities in Canada rely on alternate charges under the existing framework of offences in relation to prostitution: see Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c-C46, as amended by the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, SC 2014, c25.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
