Justice Committee on July 9th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's your time for both of you. Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

It is now the New Democratic Party turn, Madam Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by thanking Trisha, Larissa and Heather for sharing their stories with us today. It mustn't have been easy for you.

You're bringing a lot to the discussion today, and I wanted to thank you for that. I applaud you for having the courage to appear before the committee.

You talked about the exploitation, trafficking and violence women endure. But it's already an offence under the Criminal Code to exploit someone. In a nutshell, any situation that endangers a person's safety is considered a crime.

Human trafficking is also a crime under the Criminal Code. Anyone who is using assault, aggravated or otherwise, to control another person, or who is exerting physical or mental control over someone else would be sentenced to life in prison.

How would Bill C-36 enhance the existing provisions to punish these acts? It is truly unfortunate that you had to go through what you did, and I am deeply sorry for that.

How exactly does Bill C-36 differ from the current provisions making it a crime to exploit or traffic minors or adults?

[Trisha Baptie]

It is changing behaviours and it's changing a mindset. When I was growing up there were no domestic assault laws. Now there are domestic assault laws. The way my sons grow up and the way men treat women in this country is different because of those laws. Laws set a trajectory in the way we want our country to go.

So if we criminalize the purchasing of sex we are changing the trajectory in the way this country is going and saying men can no longer sexually subordinate women any longer for their own benefit.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I'm 25 years old. I was elected when I was 22. I'd stake my life on the fact that none of my friends, male or female, consider violence against women as acceptable, or that men have the right to torture or exploit women as you described for us today.

As the president of the Young New Democrat Federal Caucus, I often get to speak to young people about how important it is to condemn violence against women. It's a shame that today's society and government accept the fact that a woman has to resort to selling her body simply to feed her family. That shouldn't be allowed; it's unacceptable.

That brings me to another point.

We could pass all the legislation in the world, but it wouldn't change the fact that inequality, at its root, is a financial and societal issue. In the bill's preamble, the government merely mentions the inequality between Canadian men and women, an issue the committee has heard a lot about. But the government doesn't talk about wage inequity for women or their lack of equal access to jobs in companies.

The government's $20-million investment over 5 years amounts to $4 million a year, and roughly $200,000 per province per year. That's the case for Manitoba, for instance.

Does the government really have your full support on this matter? Whoever wants to answer can go ahead.

[Larissa Crack]

I can only speak for myself. I would definitely like to see more money put in and allocated by the government. If the bill were passed today as it is, I would still stand behind it because it's a start. As organizations, as people that work with women, we have worked for a long time with next to nothing. We have become very resourceful. We have become all of these things. So $20 million isn't enough to fully do the work that we want to do, but it's a start. It was brought up that the United States put $10 million in for a population a lot bigger than ours. For the Canadian government to offer $20 million, right off the hop, is huge. I don't think we should minimize that and forget about the other 95% of the bill that is beneficial, that is good, for the 5% that maybe needs a little bit of changing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ms. Dukes, you had your hand up.

[Heather Dukes]

We're definitely not in a position to tell the government how to do their job. We are grassroots. We're non-profit. Larissa and I work in a position where we have received no funding at all as we're working with women. If you could try to empathize with where we're coming from, I don't think it's politically correct for us to say to you, “This is what's going on and we want you to do this, this, this, and this”. We need to have some type of dialogue and this open relationship in order for both parties to understand.

We don't want to sound like we're being ungrateful also. Is $20 million enough? Probably not. I feel that when we discuss social services, there are a lot of negative attitudes towards it. There may not be enough money in all areas.

As Larissa said, for them to actually to say, “Okay, there's a problem--we see it and we're willing to do this”, is an excellent attitude, as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the Conservative Party, is Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to each of our guests for your very important testimony and answers to our questions today.

I'm going to return to the words of Chief Justice McLachlin. I think they really are important and special. They're unusual and not something that the Supreme Court normally says. She said:

The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. It will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach....

They could have just left the provisions that they had struck down last December. Presumably, if those provisions were making the lives of sex workers more dangerous last December, they are still making those lives dangerous today, six months later. They left them in force. They said:

Considering all the interests at stake, the declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.

That's not what they typically do. She gave it back to parliamentarians to actually do something.

I was sent here by the people of my constituency of Mississauga—Erindale to do something, to make choices, and to make better choices. I think all of us, as members of Parliament, are sent here by Canadians across the country to actually do something and not to do nothing.

Ms. Scott and Ms. Lebovitch, who were two of the litigants in the Bedford decision, said earlier today that we should do nothing; let the suspension end, let the laws fall, and let legalization roll.

Let the good times roll.

Some people we've heard from on this panel, such as Ms. Dilley, and Mr. Paterson from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, say pretty much the same thing: let the decision take its effect and don't do anything.

I want to ask each of you: Do you think that we, as parliamentarians—you're talking to 10 members of Parliament here today and I guarantee you there are many more watching right now—should choose to do something, or should we choose to do nothing?

Can I start with you, Ms. Dukes?

[Heather Dukes]

If you don't do anything, then how can I help others? If there isn't change on your end, then there can't be any change on my end.

I stated in my testimony today that I had to change my entire life. I understand that when you say something you have to defend it with behaviour. I'd like to continue helping others in this area but I might hit a lot of roadblocks if we don't see the passing of this bill.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What do you say, Ms. Crack? Should we choose to do something?

[Larissa Crack]

We have to do something. I missed a part of my speech when we ran out of time, but I talked about how I was trafficked through legal establishments, and how through that, I disappeared. I'm worried that if nothing happens, many more women and children will effectively disappear.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Ms. Baptie.

[Trisha Baptie]

We have to do something. Just like we owed it to my mother to implement domestic violence laws when she was being beaten, we need to protect the women who are involved in prostitution right now by passing laws that stand and interfere with the abusive behaviour inflicted on them.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What do you say, Ms. MacDonald?

[Linda MacDonald]

We absolutely have to do something. This is an evolutionary process of seeing violence against women and children from spouses, etc., and child and human trafficking, being addressed in new legislation.

There are statues of the “Famous Five” close to where we are now, and in the 1920s they fought for women to be considered persons. Until prostituted persons are treated as persons instead of as a nuisance, and recognized for the suffering they're going through, it's a travesty in this country, in my opinion.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Ms. Sarson.

[Jeanne Sarson]

I think we're asking you to do something. At least I'm here saying that you change 269.1 on torture because, certainly, it makes a difference to the people whom we have talked to.

Actually, around funding, it makes a difference for funding in some ways because what Linda and I have found as nurses is that for the people who know that some victimization is so serious as to represent torture, if the health care providers know that, they can intervene more effectively.

We have examples that we can see that it's cheaper, so you don't have to spend as much money on care because you're more effective in the beginning. When we're talking about dollars and cents, I think we have to do something, and you can do something and it can improve quality of care and still spread the funding more effectively.

Yes, we have to do something. We should not let this die.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I think what I'm hearing from an overwhelming number of people, especially from all the survivors we've heard from over the last several days, is that doing nothing is not an option.

I want to give Mr. Paterson an opportunity to respond. He said there may be a time and a place where prostitution can be regulated, and that may be a good reason to restrict or regulate.

I'd like him to tell me how we would do that, in his opinion, and if he thinks the chief justice was giving us the option to do something. She's clearly suspended the effect of her ruling for one year and said to think about it and decide if we need to do something.

So he said there might be a reason to regulate it in some way. I wonder, when he tells us what he would suggest we do, relate it to what is actually in the jurisdiction of the federal Government of Canada.

Mr. Paterson.

[Josh Paterson]

Thank you very much.

Yes, it is very clear that the court does say that maybe you do want to do something. It is your option—as you yourself recognize, Mr. Dechert.

What we say is, that something, whatever it is, ought not to be within the criminal law or using these criminal law provisions. So one of the reasons we say that—

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What other law would you suggest?

[Josh Paterson]

If I may, sir, and I'll come to that, one of the reasons we say so is that it's very clear in the law as it currently stands, and this has been recognized by the justice committee in its own study in 2006, that there's an exhaustive list of different criminal provisions that are already there to get to just about every single harm that we have heard of, from the panel in Ottawa today—

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

But if I may just interject, sir, she said—

[Josh Paterson]

—from Ms. Kiselbach.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Hang on. Let me ask this question. I think it's very important.

The Supreme Court struck down three provisions of the current Criminal Code. It didn't strike down any of those other provisions that you're talking about.

Last December, it said that in relation to the three things that we're striking down today, we're going to suspend it for one year and give it back to Parliament, give them the option to consider whether they should choose to do something to replace those three provisions that we're striking down.

What do you think we should do to replace those three provisions?