Bill C-36 (Historical)

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

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

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose;
(b) create an offence that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale and to authorize the courts to order the seizure of materials containing such advertisements and their removal from the Internet;
(d) modernize the offence that prohibits the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution;
(e) create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre;
(f) ensure consistency between prostitution offences and the existing human trafficking offences; and
(g) specify that, for the purposes of certain offences, a weapon includes any thing used, designed to be use or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We're at meeting 39, and this meeting is being televised.

Our order of reference of Monday, June 16, 2014, is the examination of 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.

In this panel we have from Sextrade101, Mrs. Perrier, a co-founding member. We have Professor Atchinson—I think I can call you professor—from the department of sociology at the University of Victoria. And by video conference we have three people: Michelle Miller from Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity, from British Columbia; Ms. Lang, as an individual, also from British Columbia; and Madam Dussault, a member from Prostitutes Involved, Empowered, Cogent—Edmonton.

Each group gets approximately 10 minutes.

First to start is Madam Perrier.

The time is yours.

[Det Thai Truong]

First of all, this topic, as the chair and the committee know, is a hot topic. There are so many different perspectives. Again, when I speak, it's speaking directly from the voices that are trapped. From my view, when I talk about the human trafficking crime, you can't disassociate prostitution from human trafficking. Every single case of our human trafficking cases has been the commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls except one. One was similar, but involved labour. This is York Regional Police. With York Regional Police, amongst all the police services, with respect to human trafficking cases, we are definitely one of the most aggressive police services out there.

With Bill C-36, in the previous laws that were struck down, the living on the avails of prostitution was the tool that we utilized. It's a very important tool because it criminalized everybody around the victim. With our victims, when we come in contact with a human trafficking victim, especially in the hotel rooms, you can see—and I'll give you a real example—a black eye and her eye swollen. I can come in contact with her, I know she is working in the sex trade, and I can say, I'm a police officer. This is who I am. Listen, I want to help you. Let's talk about some strategies, what we can do to help you. I'm not here to criminalize you. I'm concerned about your well-being. I'm concerned about your eye.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you for the job that you do every day. On that point, I'm pretty sure it's unanimous that nobody wants to see human trafficking happening or exploitation of women or girls or boys or men, or anybody, any human being.

I'm trying to understand your job as it is right now. I don't know if you heard my questions to your chief, but I'm trying to see what you see in Bill C-36 that gives you tools that will make your job easier. Like you said, people might disguise themselves as bodyguards. I'm not sure that by the passing of Bill C-36 suddenly your job will become easier.

What do you see that I don't necessarily see in Bill C-36—and maybe pinpoint it to me—that is not yet there? In view of the sections in the Criminal Code on human trafficking that are already there, and those on sexual exploitation and dealing with sexual exploitation against minors, and so on, that are already there, what tools do you see in Bill C-36 that you don't have already?

[Detective Thai Truong, Drugs and Vice, York Regional Police]

Thank you, sir.

I want to say thank you to Mr. Chair and the committee for letting me speak today. I've been a police officer for 13 years. The last nine years I've been attached to organized crime. Within the last six years, I have been tasked with being a supervisor in the vice unit. The primary mandate of our unit is the sexual exploitation of women and girls, and essentially all human trafficking cases in York region.

The sexual exploitation of Canadians is happening each and every day. Their backgrounds vary. Some are more vulnerable than others, but I've seen victims from all walks of life. One common characteristic is the age at which they begin selling their bodies. In two recent operations by York Regional Police, we found that the average age of entry into prostitution was less than 15 years old.

Once under the control of a pimp, it's nearly impossible for a victim to walk away. Pimps are abusive. They are manipulative. They control with violence, sometimes drugs, and the harshest forms of coercion. They spin a web of lies around their victims, to the point where these girls cease to believe they have anyone to rely on or run to. Families, friends, law enforcement, and all those looking to give a helping hand become an enemy who cannot be trusted or understand their oppression. The psychological trap is complete and inescapable.

Participation in the world of prostitution is very rarely a choice. It is a desperate act by individuals who have been victimized by pimps, addiction, or mental illness, and sometimes a potent combination of all three.

I am not talking about women who are independent sex workers and claim that it is their profession. These are not the women I am talking about. I'm not talking about those survivors who have been fortunate enough to exit the sex trade. I'm talking about the women and girls who don't have a voice, the ones who are not public and not speaking out. They are the ones our police services try to find, who are in total isolation and truly need help.

If we are lucky enough to find these women and girls, they typically deny that they need help, even though obvious bruises, injuries, and wounds are seen. I see this on a daily basis. These are the ones I am talking about. I am not talking about any of the other perspectives and views. I'm talking about the victims we find every single day who don't fit into these categories. These are the girls I'm talking about. These are the ones we're mandated to rescue.

I'll give you a typical example of a human trafficking victim. When you see a human trafficking victim, first of all, if you're lucky enough to identify that this is a human trafficking victim, they are not going to say, “please help me”. They are not going to say, “come rescue me”. In normal criminal offences—I'll use that term loosely—if I'm a victim, say of a robbery, a gun is to my head, I'm working at a gas station, and somebody robs me, I'm going to call the police when they leave. The gun is to my head, “Don't call the police, or you're going to be killed”. I'm going to be terrified, generally speaking, but I'm going to call the police. I need help and I need to report this.

Human trafficking victims will not call the police. As a matter of fact, we will respond and they will deny it. These are the girls I'm talking about, the ones who are completely isolated and trapped.

There is no question that this is a complex topic. There are many ideas on what to include in Canada's new laws. Some argue for complete legalization of prostitution. They say it's the world's oldest profession and we shouldn't waste time trying to control it.

I say that a society that allows the purchase or sale of the human body is a broken one. The ripple effect this could have on the future of our girls, boys, and society is unimaginable.

Others say that by raising awareness about prostitution and its harms, providing exit strategies for prostitutes, criminalizing the purchase of sex but decriminalizing its sale, prostitutes will voluntarily walk away from their pimps if they are given options. That is not going to work on the women and the girls we are looking for.

Many of these women who entered or were recruited into prostitution due to addiction, abuse, and violence will not overcome this type of victimization. Pimps won't go away, and therefore choosing to leave is not an option. I am not talking about the victims that you have heard about, the pro-legalization, the independent sex workers. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the ones who you haven't heard from, the ones who we deal with, and the ones who need our help but do not tell us. They are trapped.

The women trapped in lives of sexual exploitation need many things from us. They need exit programs. They need counsellors, professional help, and they need ongoing empathy, support and respect, much like what this bill is proposing. But before any of that, they need rescue. Best intentions won't heal the bruises left by pimps. We need to separate prostitutes from their abusers and end their isolation. The only way we can do that is if police have the power to intervene. Again, I'm talking about the victims who don't have a voice, the ones who are trapped.

In the past year I've spoken to many community groups about this very issue. There's always a concerned or helpless parent who approaches me about their daughter or a family member. At the end of each conversation they always ask me what tools I need to rescue these girls. The simple answer for me is this. I need time. I need the legal tool and the legal right to take a young woman away from her pimp and enable a serious conversation with that vulnerable young woman—not arrest her, not charge her or put her in jail. But under Bill C-36 that's going to be challenging for me to do. Some of the tools are challenging. Pimps will mask themselves as personal bodyguards and continue to exploit women and girls right in front of police officers.

For the sake of the people trapped in this life, I'm asking this committee to consider this when addressing Bill C-36. Again, I am talking about the victims who don't have a voice and have yet to be heard.

There are some very good things with respect to this bill. There are some things I'm asking the committee to consider. I'm here on behalf of the chief and our organization. I'm also here on the front line, telling you exactly what we deal with on a day-to-day basis and subject to any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses today for their first meeting this morning on this discussion of Bill C-36. I want to thank you for taking the time and providing your views.

We'll be going in camera for a half-hour period.

To our friends from the Adult Entertainment Association, thank you for the invitation, but I don't think you'll have much of a crowd tonight, from this table anyway. But you never know.

With that, we will suspend while we go in camera.

Thank you for joining us.

[Pursuant to a motion passed by the committee, the following proceedings are now public]

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

I'm trying to make the case so that people understand, people in the larger audience understand, Ms. Lebovitch, that my interpretation, my reading of Chief Justice McLachlin's decision is that she stated what your concerns were. The government read those concerns and addressed them in Bill C-36.

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

I'm simply trying to point out that I think those were addressed by Bill C-36. The things that Chief Justice McLachlin said you were concerned about are specifically addressed.

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

She said that you had worked in the past with an escort agency, as an employee of an escort agency. You had worked on the street and you had worked in your own private indoor location.

In paragraph 12 she says, “Presently, Ms. Lebovitch primarily works independently out of her home". She went on to say that one of your fears is that you might be charged with being found in a common bawdy house under the laws that were struck down and therefore might actually lose your home. Bill C-36 provides an exception for you. You don't have a concern about losing your home.

She then went on to say that you were concerned your partner might be charged with living off the avails of prostitution and obviously suffer criminal consequences. Bill C-36 allows specifically an exemption for partners and legitimate live-in arrangements, so that concern is dealt with.

Finally, she said that you were concerned that if you went out on the street, it would be inherently much more dangerous. But if you could carry on the business indoors from your own private location, where you could properly screen your clients, then you would be safer. Bill C-36, to that extent, I think—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for their remarks. I am going to proceed quickly, because, as you know, we don't have much time.

My first question is for Ms. Ekberg.

I think it's important to point out that the Nordic model should actually be referred to as the Swedish model. Finland, Denmark and a number of other countries in northern Europe haven't adopted the exact same model as Sweden.

Sweden opted for a model that criminalizes the individual procuring the sexual services. It's important to keep in mind, however, that, along with the legislative component, Sweden also adopted an array of very significant social measures. This type of model is doomed to fail if authorities lack the resources needed to help victims get out of their situations, as claimed.

I'd like you to comment on two things. First, we're considering a bill that deviates from the so-called Nordic model because it still criminalizes women. That's what you talked about in your opening statement. Second, the government isn't introducing any social measures to complement the bill, as Sweden did when it passed its legislation in 1999.

Can all the figures being discussed here really be applied to the context of Bill C-36? I have my doubts.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony. It's certainly very diverse and it will be helpful in our deliberations.

Of course, Mrs. Grant, as the other members said, certainly the best of luck in rejoining your beloved daughter.

I want to address my questions to Mrs. Ekberg. Your testimony has been long awaited, as the author of the Nordic model, of course. As you know, Bill C-36 has taken a number of the elements from the Nordic model, particularly targeting the pimps and the johns in the criminalization.

I trust that as the author of this model you've followed its results on the prostitution industry afterwards in Sweden?

[Amy Lebovitch]

He is talking about how Bill C-36 will impact sex workers' lives. I sort of mentioned in my talk that for those working on the street, when you target our clients it puts us in danger. We see that in Vancouver and we see that where it has been done. It's a way of pushing us further away from our communities, away from the services that we need.

As I mentioned, clients are paranoid of the police and will go into areas that are out of the way, and that's where we have to go, right?

For indoor workers...very concerned about the advertising. We see in the U.S. that sites are closing down. We're not able to advertise. Then again, for indoors, our clients are targeted.

In Sweden we see that they get information on the clients by going to areas where sex workers are working out of their homes or hotels, and they watch those hotels to see when clients are coming. So we are afraid of that.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Very well.

You mentioned the New Zealand model. What direct repercussions will Bill C-36 have on your day-to-day life?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Jolliffe.

My next question is for Ms. Scott and Ms. Lebovitch.

What I gather from your remarks is that Bill C-36 is very flawed, because it doesn't satisfy the criteria set out by the Supreme Court in Bedford and that it won't make women any safer.

My question is this. How relevant would affordable housing and poverty reduction measures be in terms of helping sex workers get out of prostitution?

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

I understand. So you're not really concerned that Bill C-36 will affect your members. You said earlier that the laws that were struck down under Bedford didn't affect you in any way.

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

Very good. Welcome to you all.

As I understand it, Mr. Lambrinos, the concern of the Adult Entertainment Industry Association is the definition of sexual services in Bill C-36. You're concerned that the types of activities that go on in your members' clubs might fall under that definition. Is that correct? Is that your concern?