Justice Committee on July 10th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

This is meeting number 42 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this afternoon of Thursday, July 10. It's our second-to-last meeting, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, June 16, 2014, on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We have a number of witnesses with us. I want to point out that our witness from Calgary via video conference, Ms. Giacomin, is on video now. We're having difficulty with video conferencing from Calgary because, we think, the Internet is so busy out there with the stampede. She will be able to hear us and you will be able to hear her. We may lose the video feed on occasion. Don't be excited, if that happens; we'll get her back. But she can continue to hear us and we can continue to hear her.

The witnesses, as listed in the orders of the day, are as follows. From the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres we have Ms. Steacy and Ms. Sarroino.

How do you say your name?

[Mélanie Sarroino, Quebec, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres]

We say “Sarrino” to make it easy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

How would you really say it, though?

[Mélanie Sarroino]

It's “Sarroino”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Oh, that's much nicer. Thank you very much.

From the PEERS Victoria Resource Society we have Ms. Phillips and Ms. Potvin. From Glasgow in the United Kingdom we have, from the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation, Ms. Quinn. From Boston, Massachusetts we have, from Defend Dignity, The Christian and Missionary Alliance, Ms. Gerrard. From Calgary we have, with the Servants Anonymous Society of Calgary, Ms. Giacomin.

Thank you very much.

Each group has 10 minutes. We will start with the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres.

The floor is yours.

[Lisa Steacy, British Columbia, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres]

Good afternoon.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we're gathered here today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

My name is Lisa Steacy. I'd like to thank the committee for inviting Mélanie and me to speak on behalf of the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, which I'll refer to as CASAC to save time.

CASAC is one of the oldest coalitions of sexual assault centres in the world. Founded in 1975, CASAC-member centres continue to provide front-line crisis support and intervention to women from Halifax to Vancouver, in English and French, and in urban and rural communities. CASAC speaks publicly for the thousands of women who tell us their stories on confidential crisis lines.

By providing women across Canada with crisis support, CASAC has accrued unique and intimate knowledge about the causes and consequences of male violence against women, including prostitution. Every one of our public statements on prostitution and male violence against women is informed by the women who call our lines and disclose the previously private violations of rape, battery, incest, and prostitution to front-line workers.

Formerly prostituted women have joined our group in Vancouver, the group in Montreal, the group in Ottawa, and in many other centres to train as volunteers or to work on staff to assist women who are surviving and trying to escape the routine exploitation and violation of prostitution. I'm assured in my conviction and compelled to speak because of these women, as are CASAC members across the country.

I personally have spoken to, met, and can name women who are prostituted on the street and behind the closed doors of escort agencies, massage parlours, and strip clubs and women who advertise themselves online because they bought into the notion that prostitution is a viable, safe, and empowering way to earn the money that they need to put themselves through university. These women have been threatened, raped, and battered by men who purchase sex. They have been threatened, raped, and battered by pimps and procurers. Every single one of them has struggled to endure and survive the day in and day out dangers and violations inherent to prostitution.

In 2001, our members insisted on and passed a resolution that prostitution is a form of male violence against women. In 2005, we further articulated our analysis that prostitution is a harmful practice of sexist and sexual discrimination. It exploits and compounds women's social inequality, the economic inequality of women living in poverty, and the racial inequality of women of colour and aboriginal women.

The government's proposed change to the criminal law offers an opportunity for society, through law, to stand up for and alongside women who insist on more for themselves, and for all women than, being bought and sold in prostitution. The very existence of prostitution not only creates a subclass of women commodified as objects to be bought and sold by men, it sustains the sexual and sexualized inequality of all women.

The definition of “consent” in section 273.1 that follows the sexual assault offences in the Criminal Code provides a useful framework for CASAC to counter the assertion that prostitution is an equal transaction or a sexual activity to which women consent. “Consent” is defined as “a voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question”. The brutal forces of poverty, violence, and inequality that coerce the vast majority of women into prostitution effectively negate consent.

Bill C-36 rightly situates the criminal offences related to prostitution in the section of the Criminal Code for crimes against the person. The women who call and answer our crisis lines across the country have known for decades that prostitution is not harmful because it is a nuisance or a vice, it is harmful because it is a violation of a person, most often a female one.

CASAC is encouraged that Parliament has drafted a bill that makes it clear that there's a vital role for criminal law to play in condemning and curtailing the continued prostitution of women and girls in Canada. In both the 2001 and 2005 CASAC resolutions, we agreed that criminal law can and should serve to prohibit and denounce male violence against women. Bill C-36 is a necessary response to the demands of women and women's groups that the government recognize that prostitution disproportionately impacts women and undermines their Charter rights to dignity and equality.

The provisions that criminalize the actions of johns precisely target the men who demand unfettered access to women's bodies. The provisions that criminalize the actions of pimps and profiteers accurately target the men who coerce women and girls into prostitution, who capitalize on women's economic and social vulnerability to recruit them into prostitution, and who benefit economically from women and girls remaining in prostitution.

The provisions that apply to johns, pimps, and profiteers are consistent with an understanding of prostitution as a criminal act of male violence against women. However, from our decades of work with women who've experienced rape, wife assault, incest, and sexual harassment, we know that there is a systemic failure at all levels to arrest, charge, and convict men for violence against women using the laws that exist. We must not compound this failure by pardoning men and further abandoning women by decriminalizing prostitution.

Diligent implementation of the proposed laws will be critical if they're to be effective in achieving their stated aims. The federal government has the responsibility to play a crucial leadership role in setting the standards for police and prosecutors across the country in order to ensure enforcement of all laws that criminalize violence against women. Any criminalization of women in prostitution is inconsistent with an analysis of prostitution as violence against women.

We unequivocally oppose the government's proposal to criminalize communication in certain locations in the name of protecting communities. The laws that criminalize johns and pimps apply in all locations, and a further provision that applies to prostituted women in certain locations is entirely unnecessary.

Bill C-36 correctly asserts that prostitution is exploitive, harmful, and violent. The vast majority of women do not freely choose to be in prostitution, so it is therefore inconsistent that women in prostitution can choose the location in which they are prostituted. This provision will likely compound current bias in the delivery of justice in which the most marginalized women—the destitute, the racialized, and the addicted—in street-level prostitution are disproportionately targeted and punished.

The federal government's allocation of $20 million in new funding to programs that assist women who want to leave prostitution is simply not enough. Prostitution, like all forms of violence against women, prevents women's equality. Any lack of equality makes women vulnerable to violence. Working to aid women after sexist violent attack is not enough. We must end the inequality of women and the use men make of it.

All parties and all ministries at all levels of government will need to make a substantive commitment to eradicate the desperate inequality that prostitution exploits and entrenches.

Thank you.

[Mélanie Sarroino]

Good afternoon.

My name is Mélanie Sarroino, and I represent the Regroupement québécois des Centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel. We are members of CASAC and the Women's Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution.

For 35 years, we have been dedicated to developing a better response for women who are victims of sexual assault and for Quebec communities that want to prevent and address sexual violence. We have 26 member centres in all regions of Quebec. Our work focuses on three streams of intervention—direct services, awareness raising and prevention, and advocacy.

Various studies show that between 80% and 90% of women who have been involved in prostitution were sexually assaulted as children. It is established that being a victim of violence increases the likelihood of being subjected to violence again. That continuum often goes hand in hand with adverse social and economic conditions that contribute to women eventually ending up in the prostitution system.

In that context, the effect prostitution has on women's lives is similar to the consequences of sexual assault. Women who have been sexually assaulted, women who are involved in prostitution or those who have left it behind suffer from insomnia, anxiety, phobias, depression and dissociation. They can also have all sorts of psychological and physiological issues, including gynecological problems, not to mention the social consequences.

I am not going to repeat what my colleague talked about. Of course, we definitely agree with her when it comes to gender equality and the consequences of not repealing section 213. I won't go over that again in order to save time.

We often hear the argument that criminalizing clients will make prostitutes more vulnerable, since they won't have time to assess men. For those of us who work in the area of violence against women, that argument does not hold water. It is hard for us to believe that an additional 5 to 15 minutes will help a prostitute figure out whether or not a man is violent, either before she gets into his car or before he enters her apartment.

We know perfectly well that violent men are often skilled manipulators and cannot be identified quickly. Very often, the women already know and trust them.

The part of the legislation that criminalizes purchases will make things easier for us in the sexual exploitation prevention workshops we provide annually to thousands of young people. In Quebec, CALACS provide prevention education to over 25,000 students a year. Decriminalizing purchases would have been catastrophic. How can involvement in the prostitution system be prevented, be it in terms of recruiters or merchandise, when the law authorizes it?

The new legislation enables us to deal with the issue in the same way we deal with sexual assault. We use that topic to discuss violence in romantic relationships—the abusive power stemming from social inequalities. The new legislation helps make our message much more consistent for young people.

In addition to the legislation, Canada must also deal with the factors that contribute to women becoming involved in prostitution, including poverty, racism, the effects of residential schools, the shortcomings of the youth and child protection system, as well as the idealization of prostitution.

It is imperative to create social supports to provide women with sources of income other than prostitution. That includes a full range of exit services that would give prostitutes health care services—including detoxification care only for women—safe housing for them and their children, legal assistance, access to education and job training, quality counselling services and a guaranteed subsistence income.

Prostitutes must be eligible for all the compensation plans designed to support victims of crime and should have their prostitution-related criminal record suspended, so that they can find another job.

We also think that all the existing resources—including women's centres, sexual assault centres and shelters—should be able to provide, both through tools and an adequate budget....

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

It's 10 minutes per group, not 10 minutes each. You're well over your time. So if you could try to get to a conclusion relatively soon, that would fantastic. Merci beaucoup.

[Mélanie Sarroino]

In brief, if you provide us with funding, we will help women cope.

We are calling for a major national campaign to raise awareness across Canada about the harms and consequences of prostitution for women, but also about prostitution as a form of oppression specifically targeted at women.

In closing, we want to reiterate our solidarity and commitment to the defence of the basic rights of freedom, equality and safety for all women. As long as women's bodies and sexuality are seen as accessible for men, as long as women and young girls are thought of as sexual objects, and as long as violence is trivialized and denied, we won't be able to recognize it, let alone fight it.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Merci beaucoup. Thank you for that presentation.

Our next presentation is from PEERS Victoria Resource Society. The floor is yours, for 10 minutes, please.

[Dr. Rachel Phillips, Executive Director, PEERS Victoria Resource Society]

Thank you very much.

My colleague Natasha and I are very pleased to be here representing PEERS Victoria Resource Society, which is located in Victoria, B.C. We'd like to thank those who contributed to our joint presentation based on their experiences in the sex industry.

I am the executive director of PEERS, which has been in operation for close to 20 years. Our key programs include day and night outreach, a drop-in centre, a health clinic, employment and education support. We also prepare and circulate the “bad date” or aggressor sheet in our region.

Our programs collectively serve some 350 to 500 persons per year, depending on funding. Some of our program participants regard themselves as currently in the sex industry, while about a third would identify themselves as no longer in the sex industry but continue to use our services because they require assistance with housing, health care access, and other forms of social support.

I'm also a social scientist affiliated with the University of Victoria. In that capacity, I have conducted research on the social determinants of health in the sex industry for over a decade. Currently, I am conducting a national study of managers of escort agencies and massage businesses as part of a large CIHR-funded study led by Dr. Cecilia Benoit.

I want to begin with a few contextualizing statistics about our region specifically. Over the past 15 years, Dr. Benoit and her colleagues have conducted three large health studies of people in the sex industry. Great care was taken in the methodological design, including reaching a diverse and large sample. Looking across these studies, it was found that the median age of first transaction in the sex industry was the early twenties, with a significant minority of participants reporting selling sexual services before the age of 18. Close to 80% identified as women and just under 20% identified as aboriginal. The mean age at the time of the interview was early to mid-thirties. We did not find an over-representation of ethnic minorities, but rather an under-representation.

The individuals interviewed in these studies, as well as those we work with at PEERS, hold diverse views of the sex industry. That is really an important point: they do hold diverse views of the sex industry informed by a range of experiences. However, most take issue with being characterized fundamentally as victims. As one of our members commented, “Although I feel like I had to become a sex worker to support my little girl, it was still my choice, and if I had to do it over again I would.” Another commented, “When women like myself proclaim they are in the business by choice, but people insist on viewing it as victimization, it insinuates that we are not capable of making decisions for ourselves.” Another commented that “The only thing that pushed me towards escorting was my own curiosity.”

One of the very positive developments we have in our region is with the Victoria police. There are two units—the special victims unit and the community liaison unit—that work with PEERS to reach out to sex workers, to encourage them to report crimes and other concerns.

In preparing this for presentation, one of our police liaison officers informed me that there had not been any trafficking charges in our regions in many years, and few if no prostitution-related charges. Instead, their focus has been on targeting only those who exploit or harm sex workers. For example, there have been six reported incidents of what are commonly referred to as “bad dates” this year, and the persons who committed these crimes—not all of whom were sex buyers, by the way—are the priority for law enforcement, as opposed to sex buyers as a whole.

Below I would like to briefly comment on some specific sections of Bill C-36, although I realize it's been discussed extensively already this week. We agree with others who have detailed why proposed section 286.1 and section 213 will continue to constrain communication between sex buyers and sellers, and we also emphasize the need for sex workers to freely communicate with purchasers in order to assess them, set the terms of service, and obtain key pieces of information. Screening is only one aspect of it. You also have to require information from people, and people have to be willing to give you that information. That's part of establishing security as well.

The evidence of this was carefully considered in Bedford versus Canada, and painstakingly considered, I think. Moreover, section 213 fosters a climate of stigma and discrimination as it identifies people in the sex industry as threats to rather than members of the community. It will predictably be disproportionately applied to street-based sex workers. These individuals do not have the means to pay fines or obtain legal support, and their fear of police is already substantial and more deeply rooted than in prostitution law alone, particularly for those who are substance-dependent, without secure housing, or have been subjected to racial discrimination.

Proposed section 286.4, which criminalizes advertising also potentially impedes workers' ability to communicate for the purposes of safety and security. I won't go into that much because I think it's been covered and we have limited time.

Proposed section 286.1, which criminalizes material benefit from sexual services, places constraints on sex workers who wish to engage with others in assisting them. While we recognize that there are noted exceptions, and they have been discussed this week, this law is nevertheless very problematic, from our point of view, as it potentially places an onus on these parties to prove that they fall within these exceptions.

There was some discussion the other day regarding the meaning of the “no exception” clause in proposed subsection 286.2(5), which seems to suggest there is no form of material benefit permissible within a commercial enterprise. I'm hoping for a little more clarification today as this section—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ms. Phillips, I know you're trying to meet your time. I'll give you a little extra time, but could you slow down a little bit so our translators can translate. Thank you very much.

[Dr. Rachel Phillips]

Okay, sure.

I'm hoping for a little more clarification, if possible, as this section is worrisome to many people in our region. We have heard the term “pimp” used in relation to Bill C-36 with little clarification of what is meant by this term. My colleagues and I recently interviewed 61 persons who manage commercial enterprises. We found that 60% were women and just over 70% of these women identified as current or former providers of sexual services. Therefore, if this provision aims at so-called pimps, it is likely that it will capture other women, many of whom are or were sex workers themselves.

I'm going to run short of time here, but as a support person in an escort agency in our region noted:

In addition to supplying safer sex supplies, safe rooms equipped with alarms, indoor agencies provide a lengthy screening process.... We brainstorm tactics for boundary setting and coping with the small percentage of clients that are disrespectful, drunk, aggressive. I hold the safety and security of people in the agency I work in highest regard.

Another person who worked in an agency commented, “It allowed a safe place to work, and the company of other women with whom I felt a closeness.”

In closing, I'd like to reiterate that engaging women, men, and trans people in the sex industry can only effectively happen when you respect their varied perspectives and the complexities of their experiences and the complexity of factors that give rise to those experiences.

I will end with another quote:

I wouldn't have gone to PEERS if I thought they would tell me how to live my life or try to make my decisions for me. I went to them because I knew they would provide emotional support and a free medical exam in a non-judgemental environment.

[Natasha Potvin, Member, Board of Directors, Peers Victoria Resource Society]

Good afternoon.

My name is Natasha Potvin. I am a Métis woman.

I am proud of having worked in the sex industry. I was involved in it from the age of 21 to the age of 37. That was admittedly a choice I made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

There is a technical problem.

Go ahead, I'm sorry.

[Natasha Potvin]

As I was saying, I worked in the sex industry from the age of 21 to the age of 37. This was a choice I made for my daughter, and I am proud of that. It was also my choice to come testify before you today.

I have had two children and a husband for 11 years. I live in Victoria. I am on the board of directors of the PEERS organization and a member of the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform. I was also part of Dr. Cecilia Benoit's research team. I currently hold a position at AIDS Vancouver Island in a harm-reduction program.

I am outraged by Bill C-36. I think it disrespects our human rights by stressing the fact that I am a victim because I chose to work in sex trade. However, I chose that job of my own free will. Referring to me as a victim or treating me as such ignores and denigrates my reality. It disregards my choice.

I had a good relationship with many of my clients. I was very fond of some of them, and others a bit less, but I never felt abused. However, I was a victim of discrimination. I was visited by youth protection service workers, who threatened to take away my son because I was a sex worker.

Afterwards, I became very reluctant to tell people that I was part of the industry. I felt very alone and defenceless. Consequently, had anything happened to me, I would not have reported it. I do not feel that Bill C-36 will help improve the situation. It will not put a stop to the stigma and judgment toward people who engage in this activity.

As Mr. MacKay said in his speech earlier this week, Bill C-36 should lead to a reduction in the supply and demand. Unfortunately, this bill will not have the desired effect. Instead of resolving the situation, the legislation will shift the problem and force sex workers to conduct their transactions in a context of increased pressure. There will be much more potential for conflict, and client screening will be inadequate. At the end of the day, the bill will make individuals involved in that occupation more vulnerable.

It will become more difficult for stakeholders—such as PEERS—to provide services, build trust, establish an open relationship with female and male sex workers or transgendered individuals, as it has been shown that street workers see criminalization as a threat.

I think that Bill C-36 could even endanger mobile response teams—which patrol the streets every night to provide frontline support—by prompting them to take to isolated areas like the clientele. Moreover, they will be doing their work in poorly lit locations, with no eye witnesses around.

I would like to bring up a relevant comment made by a PEERS member:

I am deeply concerned by Bill C-36. If that legislation is passed, it will impede my ability to screen and select my clients and negotiate my conditions—my own work conditions—during those meetings. The criminalization of my clients will make my job more difficult. I am already starting to plan ways to work around those new laws. I feel very nervous about my future and my safety.

In closing, I do not think Bill C-36 contains provisions that will enhance health and safety. I think it is very important to separate our moral positions regarding a so-called appropriate sexuality from our legislation and the consideration of our human rights.

I would have preferred to see a model mainly based on progressive principles, such as those implemented in New Zealand—a model that discourages the exploitation of young people while encouraging sex workers to practice their trade in a context that enhances their right to safety. Those principles do not force anyone to work in the industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for that presentation from PEERS Victoria Resource Society.

Now we're off to Glasgow in the United Kingdom to hear from the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation.

Ms. Quinn, the floor is yours.

[Kate Quinn, Executive Director, Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and honourable members of Parliament and all my sister and fellow panellists.

I also want to thank the technicians who made it possible for many of us to videoconference in to this important democratic process.

Our organization did send a letter to Madame Boivin and Mr. Casey and to Mrs. Smith, as well as a brief, which may have been translated in time. In our letters to the members of Parliament, we included a letter from a woman who was in massage and escort for seven years, a woman who was exploited through street prostitution for 22 years, a mother whose daughter is among the murdered victims in Edmonton, a man who was a former buyer, and a therapist who works to help women in their recovery from complex trauma. So they are with me, even though I am here alone.

Also, I carry the stories of grassroots community action to address the heavy impact of men cruising our communities. I remember the fear of children being harassed as they tried to go to school and being asked if they were working girls. Women standing at bus-stops, just trying to go shopping or whatever they had to do, were being harassed by men.

So I speak from a grassroots experience of people in Edmonton trying to do something about a complex issue. I think it's very important for us to state that we do not see this as a partisan issue. We do see it to be a human rights issue, a social justice issue, and a women's equality issue. Our organization would say that we come from the stance where we do not want to see any vulnerable person of any age or persons in vulnerable circumstances such as poverty or homelessness, or having no other jobs or sources of income, or with mental health or physical challenges. We want to live in a country that creates equality for all, and we do not want to see vulnerable people preyed upon in any way.

I think it's also important to remember that in our history as a country and a colony, the weight of the law and discrimination has been focused primarily on women. What we're seeing here is a shift. This is a shift that we would like to support. We see it as a 30-year generational shift. We won't see the fruits of the shift in this law for a few years, but we do think it's very important to shift the accountability for a harm that is generated to those who create that harm.

In Alberta and in the province of Manitoba, there have been many united actions of community groups, of groups led by women who have lived experience, by political leaders, by crown prosecutors, and by police. We have developed resources over the years that are appropriate and respectful of the persons seeking health care or any part of the continuum of harm reduction.

At the same time, the exploitation does continue, so we feel that it's important to shift the accountability to those who are demanding sexual services and creating that market for that industrialization of children and women.

In our brief, we do say that the criminalization of the activity of buying will have a positive effect, but that the criminalization of those who are providing has a very detrimental effect. We do not support the ability to arrest children, youth, and women who are in places where children might be present. We would like to see that section of this bill totally removed. We've lived too often with the discrimination that others have mentioned, and I can cite how in Edmonton, our capital region, the housing commission will not allow anyone with a criminal record to get subsidized public housing and how people who have a history of solicitation are not welcome in that housing.

Women who want to become social workers at our university cannot apply, because they have a criminal record. Many jobs that women apply for require criminal record checks. Many women just give up, because they do not want to talk about what they've been doing, because of the stigmatization.

In 1995, our organization wrote to the Minister of Justice of the day. We said that as ordinary people, we see that there's a power imbalance between the person who's cruising and the person who's standing on the corner, and we think we need to create different options. We went to work in our own city and created, with the crown prosecution office and the mayor and the Minister of Justice, the prostitution offender program.

The Minister of Justice of that day said that because the community raised this issue, we will charge the men the equivalent of a fine, about $500, and we will return that money to the community to help heal the harm. So a multi-stakeholder group, including women who survived exploitation, parents whose daughters were on the street, front-line workers, and all the parties, identified that the priorities are poverty elimination, trauma recovery, bursaries so that people can rebuilt their lives, and public awareness and education.

In Alberta we have had a number of public education initiatives, but this education must be continual; it must be in the schools, around consent.

We must send a message. I'd like to see a message in every airport that in Canada we do not tolerate the buying and selling of people, so that men who are newcomers to our country know that in our country you cannot buy sexual services.

We'd like to see age-appropriate education directed at both those who may become vulnerable as well as those who may become perpetrators. Sadly, we're seeing that many young men are perpetrating violence against women, so we know that we need to look at how to educate our young men about what it is to be in a healthy and respectful relationship.

Our recommendations are that we support the direction of Bill C-36. We would like to see section 213 of the Criminal Code removed. We would like to see the investment in creative and positive social media and prevention education.

We would like to see more than $20 million. I misunderstood; I thought that was $20 million for one year. I can tell you that the groups working across the country, from PEERS Victoria Resource Society all the way across the country, would know well how to put that money to use to support women, men, and the transgendered wherever they are on the continuum.

We also think that it's important to establish a monitoring and evaluation process. Any law is a blunt instrument. There will be positive intended consequences; there will also be positive unintended consequences.

We had the past laws for almost 30 years. We think that we need to monitor every five years or so that we know what we are accomplishing by trying to set normative values in the law.

We also would like to see an easy mechanism established to wipe away and expunge the criminal records of anyone charged with section 213 in the past—any prostituted woman, male, or transgender—to remove this burden from their shoulders and welcome them into the fullness of our Canadian society.

In Scotland, while they still had some charges around prostitution, they just went away. No one had to apply for a pardon; the charges went away. We can do something; we can be creative: we're calling for this expunging of all the records of the past 30 years.

Those are our primary points. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Now we go to Boston, Massachusetts via video conference. We're with Defend Dignity, The Christian and Missionary Alliance.

Ms. Gerrard, the floor is yours.

[Glendyne Gerrard, Director, Defend Dignity, The Christian and Missionary Alliance]

Thank you.

Thank you for the privilege of being able to come before you today, the justice committee, to discuss Bill C-36.

I am the director of Defend Dignity, which is a justice initiative of the Christian and Missionary Alliance churches in Canada. We act as a catalyst for individuals and churches to get involved in ending sexual exploitation in our country.

The first step in ending sexual exploitation is to educate people on what is happening in their city and region, and so to that end we partnered with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to hold awareness events in 28 locations from British Columbia to the Maritimes in the last two years.

We've been in large cities and in small cities following the same format in every location. There are presenters from front line local agencies, from local police officers, from survivors, a policy analyst, and a police officer who is part of the Defend Dignity team who addresses the issue of demand. Governmental and non-governmental agencies are invited to network at each event, giving audiences further opportunities to learn about the issue in their region.

A number of the agencies and survivors we have partnered with at these events are witnesses here at these hearings.

These information forums have given Defend Dignity a national perspective and awareness of the scope of the issue, the services that do exist and the services that do not exist in many regions of Canada, as well as with the inconsistency with which police enforce prostitution laws and protect those involved.

As part of the C and MA churches we are seeing a growing number of congregations doing their part by providing service delivery to victims. Dignity House in Winnipeg is a second-stage restoration and healing home for women exiting prostitution that's operated by Kilcona Park Alliance Church in that city. U-r home is an incorporated safe house that's about ready to launch in Newmarket, Ontario, also supported by one of our Alliance churches. Other churches are exploring ways to provide services to victims.

Defend Dignity's mandate stems from our core belief that each person has intrinsic worth and value, and consequently every individual deserves to be treated with dignity no matter their gender, their race, their colour, or their socio-economic status. We do believe that prostitution is inherently violent, that it objectifies, oppresses, and commodifies people. Sadly in Canada, it has become a means to survive for the most disadvantaged and poor among us.

I was in Ottawa just last week and met with Jason Pino who is the founder and director of an organization called Restoring Hope, which is a weekend teenage shelter in downtown Ottawa. It initially opened just last February 2013 for teenage boys, and within weeks they had teenage girls coming to them saying could we please have a place for shelter because we're being forced to sell ourselves in order to have the basic need of shelter met.

Canada can and must do better for our young people. We need legislation in place that will protect our most vulnerable.

Defend Dignity believes that Bill C-36 has strong elements that will prohibit the exploitation, violence, and abuse that characterizes so much of prostitution. We strongly support the new offence prohibiting the purchase of sexual service in section 286. Research from Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, from Eaves in Great Britain, and the outcomes from the Nordic model in Sweden tell us that the greatest deterrents to johns purchasing sex would be criminal charges, fines, jail terms, and having their names publicized. Holding men accountable for their actions will result in societal change, putting a stake in the ground that says it is never acceptable to buy another human being, and that women are not commodities.

In addition to this offence which criminalizes a buyer, and because we believe in the value and dignity of the offender as well as the victim, we do urge the government to consider mandating that each offender participate in prostitution diversion programs. There are only a few cities in Canada that offer john schools, but those that do report that many of the men, upon completion of the program, have a new understanding of the harm done to the women they had purchased, to their families, and to themselves. The john school run by the Salvation Army in Saskatoon reports that there have only been eight reoffenders out of the 699 men who participated in their school that began in 2002. These programs need to be mandated and expanded to cities across Canada so that criminalized men can begin to make behavioural changes. The fines collected from these offences and from the john schools should be put back into exit services for people leaving prostitution.

We also have serious concerns about section 213, and ask that it be removed from the bill. Our concerns lie with the issue that these sections target the most vulnerable in prostitution, street prostitutes, most of whom only sell themselves to survive. They see themselves as having no other option, due to the issues of poverty, homelessness, mental illness, addictions, and coercion. To add the penalty of a conviction and possible fine to someone who is already way down would be adding an unnecessary burden. We do not believe that this reflects the intent of the law as described in the preamble, which we think is wonderful.

In our work with survivors, we hear of how prostitution-related charges have kept them from finishing education and securing good employment. In one such instance, in Ontario, a young woman exited prostitution as a single mom, was furthering her education, and needed a criminal check for a required placement in order to graduate. Upon learning of the prostitution charges, no employer would place her, and consequently she did not graduate from her program. She was revictimized due to her criminal charges.

Defend Dignity also believes that it is unreasonable to state on the one hand that prostitution is inherently exploitative, with most prostitutes facing the risk of violence, and then on the other hand to lay charges against them. Since most prostitutes are victims of violence, no charges should be laid against them. In our work with prostitutes and with survivors, violence seems to be a recurring theme. In no other instance in the Criminal Code are the victims of violence charged. Only the perpetrators of violence should be charged.

In discussion with the office of the justice minister, Defend Dignity has been given the rationale that these offences will be handled at the discretion of the police, and this does cause us some concern. In our interaction with police across Canada, at our 28 events, we discovered that there is inconsistency in how police view prostitution, deal with prostitutes, and enforce criminal offences relating to prostitution. In some locations, police services are already operating under the new paradigm described in the preamble of the bill. They see prostitutes as exploited victims of violence, work to help them, and offer access to exit services.

However, in some locations, police deny prostitution's existence and did not know, until it was pointed out to them, that there were online ads for women for sale in their city. In that same location, youth workers were dealing with underage girls selling themselves for drugs, and yet the police refused to admit that prostitution was occurring. Other police at our events described charging the women and putting them in jail as their method of dealing with prostitutes.

New legislation regarding prostitution necessitates consistent training of police, from coast to coast, on the realities of prostitution and the inherent exploitation and violence involved. It is essential that this training begins as soon as the law is implemented. We just can't stress this enough.

My concerns for having well-trained police also come from a trip to Nunavut, where I listened to the stories of women being sexually exploited by family members. Police in the north need to be made aware of the familial prostitution that occurs and taught how to handle it.

If Bill C-36 is to be successful, then education for all, in the justice system as well, including crown attorneys and judges, must be part of the implementation.

Defend Dignity is appreciative of the $20 million in new funding that the government has promised for exit services. However, when compared to the $8 million that Manitoba spends each year on this issue, it simply is not enough. We also encourage the federal government to collaborate with provinces, front-line agencies, and faith communities in much the same way that this is being done with the “National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking”.

Canada stands on the cusp of creating a better country for countless children, women, and men currently being sexually exploited, and also for those who are at risk of exploitation as the new laws are put in place. Canada will be a better place as this law begins to shape society. It will be a Canadian society where people are not commodities, where men are held accountable for their actions, and where all are safe from predators. Therefore, it is crucial that the new prostitution legislation recognizes the social and individual harms of prostitution, that it aims to discourage it, and that it works to abolish it.

Defend Dignity supports Bill C-36, and suggests that the following improvements be made to create the best legislation and policy possible:

One, remove section 213 from Bill C-36 so that no prostituted person is charged for communicating for the purpose of offering or providing sexual services.

Two, provide standardized education for police, crown attorneys, and judges that would explain the paradigm shift of how prostitution is viewed as part of the implementation of the new law;

Three, mandate crime diversion prostitution offender programs, also known as john schools, with funds charged going directly to exit services for prostituted people.

Four, increase the amount of new funding for exit services to proportionately match what the Government of Manitoba spends each year on sexual exploitation.

And five, work collaboratively with provinces, faith communities, and front-line agencies to provide off-ramp services for prostituted people.

Thank you so much for giving consideration to these comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for that presentation.

Ms. Giacomin, can you hear us?

[Marina Giacomin, Executive Director, Servants Anonymous Society of Calgary]

I can hear you. Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We can hear you. But it's kind of ironic, based on the name of your organization, that we can't see you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

The floor is yours for 10 minutes.