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.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'll go over to you, Mr. Brandt. I will say your testimony was absolutely gut-wrenching. I know you didn't identify the country as you described the circumstances and what you saw, but your description brought me back to my days as a member of the Brantford Crown office, being responsible largely for all the Internet child exploitation prosecutions for the last 10 years.

It really brought me back to that dark period of my professional career, which really caused me to reflect on the vulnerabilities of our youth.

I have a quick question with the minute and 30 seconds remaining.

Bill C-36 made some amendments with respect to the penalties associated with trafficking of adults and trafficking of minors. As it stands right now, there is only a one-year differential with respect to the minimum penalties for trafficking minors versus trafficking adults. Given your advocacy, given what we've heard today, do you think that adequately denounces this type of heinous crime against the vulnerable members of our community?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Along a similar vein, we know that the court of appeal rendered a unanimous decision, so there is no automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court. If leave were granted—and this is all hypothetical— by the Supreme Court of Canada, do you foresee any constitutional vulnerabilities with any other aspects of Bill C-36?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Brandt, if I may, I would like to ask your opinion on this same question regarding the difference observed on the ground after the coming into force of Bill C‑36.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Allison.

Bill C‑36 came into force in 2014. On the ground, what differences do you see between the period before the bill came into force and the period after it came into force?

I am asking Mr. Brandt the same question. He can answer it after Ms. Allison.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin, I would like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for being with us today.

Human trafficking is a scourge. I was particularly moved by Mr. Brandt's testimony about children. I can't imagine that happening here in Canada today. I would add, however, that it is part of our job to try to clarify and improve the laws that are in place.

Ms. Allison, could you continue the answer you were giving when the chair turned the floor over to me? You were giving us your suggestions.

You also talked about standardization, and you were asking that there be consistent application across Canada. For example, you mentioned that British Columbia did not always apply the provisions set out in Bill C‑36, and that surprised me.

You also talked about the issue of criminal records. In a way, the existence of criminal records prevents offenders from working.

I would like you to continue to list the things that could help improve the situation.

[Gwendoline Allison]

One of the challenges, which I think Mr. Brandt touched on, is that Bill C-36, or PCEPA, is not being uniformly enforced across Canada. Particularly in B.C., it was declared very early on that the Vancouver Police Department would not engage in arresting purchasers of commercialized sexual services. That policy has been taken throughout B.C. in other police forces.

That's the first problem. The legislation has not been given a chance to operate properly in B.C.

I think a number of improvements to PCEPA could be made to protect the rights of women and those engaged in prostitution. I'll say that there's a big difference between PCEPA and the previous legislation. The purposes are completely different. They're in different sections of the Criminal Code. It's now a crime of violence rather than a property offence and a nuisance offence, so it recognizes that this is a crime of violence, as the Ontario Court of Appeal has just recognized.

I would say there are a couple ways we can improve the federal approach towards prostitution. First of all, we need consistent application across Canada. Second, when I appeared before Parliament back in 2013, everyone was unanimous in saying that section 213 should be repealed. I agree with that still. The communication provision outside schools and churches, although I recognize and appreciate the goal of it, has the effect of criminalizing those who are engaged in prostitution. Also, by criminalizing them, it prevents them from exiting. In my submission, that should be repealed.

There's also expunging the records of those who have been convicted of selling sexual services in order to permit them to gain employment. There are many pieces of legislation across Canada that prevent those with criminal records from working, particularly in the volunteer sector. That is a barrier to exiting, which tends to punish the more vulnerable.

Increased funding—

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

I will now address Ms. Allison.

Ms. Allison, you represented, as counsel, the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution, an intervener in the Bedford decision. You are therefore familiar with the findings of the case.

The court found, among other things, that the provisions of the Criminal Code then in force infringed the right to safety of persons selling sexual services.

Since the passage of Bill C‑36, do you believe that people who work in the sex industry are better supported and guided?

What would be your recommendations?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for their appearance today. I think this is very helpful for us in this study.

Ms. Kent, I appreciate the work you are doing in your collective. We're hearing a lot about Bill C-36, and I note that you raised the issue of survivors and said that listening to people who have had dealings in this industry would be advantageous for us.

From their feedback, what do you think would happen if Bill C-36 was completely repealed, meaning we have no criminalization whatsoever in this area?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Ms. Lam, just quickly, please, can you offer any suggestions by way of any potential amendments to Bill C-36 to offer greater protection to Asian migrant workers?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Ms. Lam and Ms. Kent, for attending today and providing us with some valuable testimony as we study this piece of legislation. It's a legislative review of the PCEPA. I want to thank you for your advocacy.

I'm going to start with you, Ms. Kent. I took an opportunity, in preparing for this hearing, to look at your website. You touched upon it in your opening remarks. We've heard so far—and I'm sure we're going to hear more on later occasions and at later dates—witnesses who are proponents of decriminalization. We've heard supporters, such as you, strongly advocating for continuing on with the benefits of Bill C-36.

Can you expand for us a little on some of the disastrous effects of decriminalization in New Zealand?

[Lynne Kent, Chair, Vancouver Collective Against Sexual Exploitation]

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.

I am Lynne Kent, chair of the Vancouver Collective Against Sexual Exploitation. We are a collective of organizations and individuals with many years of work and experience in this field.

Bill C-36, in my understanding, is now a law called the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. It is socially, legally and relationally transformative in its approach to addressing the objectification and commodification of women and girls. It is a leading-edge instrument, recognized globally, and it is focused on protecting the right to life, liberty and the security of persons, which the sex trade violates every day.

Our government has been a global champion of comprehensive health rights and gender equality, and PCEPA provides you with all the opportunities to achieve this. It addresses the most significant factor in the disempowerment of women: the commercialization of women's bodies, which comes from supporting male demand and a sense of entitlement to sex whenever, wherever and with whomever they want. PCEPA says no and, in a recent poll, five times as many Canadians agreed.

Safety for women is what we are all advocating for. Preventing exploitation within the sex trade has proven to be impossible. The harm done to the women and girls being exploited is well documented, and repealing the law will do nothing to change that. In fact, it will increase both the harm and danger to those in prostitution, all women and children, and communities.

It is a cruel lie to suggest that changing this law will make it safer for anyone in the sex trade. The evidence is everywhere. The lobby to repeal this law is more about safety for the exploiters. Don't be fooled; the pimps, johns and traffickers are the only ones to benefit here.

Yes, listen to those in the sex trade, but which ones? Do you listen to the privileged few who claim to be there by choice, or the vast majority, who are there because of lack of choice, who have been lured, seduced and coerced, want out, can't get out, are trapped and have no voice? You won't hear from them. They won't be at this table, because they are not free to speak up.

The closest you can get to the truth is from the survivors, those who manage to get out and care enough about others to endanger themselves—make no mistake—and tell the full story. Those who truly care about the safety and well-being of everyone in the sex trade know there is no meaningful harm reduction. Laws can't be made to serve a few. This law must focus on the protection and safety of the majority.

New Zealand prostitutes protested, campaigned and lobbied for full decriminalization, only to find out that their own agency was reduced and all the benefit, control and power went to the brothel owners, pimps, johns and exploiters. If you repeal, you will increase the harm and danger to all women and children, specifically those who are indigenous, immigrant, poor and racialized, as well as every single child from age 10 to 18.

Do you want that to be your legacy? Do you want that on your conscience? We will be here to hold you accountable, to point the finger and lay the blame where the fault belongs. It is your responsibility to protect exploited communities and persons, not to facilitate the sex trade and the inherent severe harm you have been told about again and again.

We have submitted a brief that identifies what is valuable about PCEPA. However, this gold-standard law will achieve its potential only if it is implemented. We need consistent enforcement across the country. We need training of the police, a public education campaign and robust support for those exiting.

Where will you align yourself, on the side of Canadian citizens and communities or on the side of organized crime? It's not the law that causes the harm. It is the men who buy sex. Until we address the demand, nothing will change.

[Elene Lam, Executive Director, Butterfly (Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network)]

Good afternoon.

My name is Elene Lam. I am the executive director of Butterfly (Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network). I have a master's in law and social work and have worked on human rights and gender-based violence for over 20 years, nationally and internationally.

Butterfly is a community-based organization that organizes and provides support to over 5,000 Asian workers who work in massage parlours and the sex industry across Canada. It includes permanent residents, refugees and non-status women.

As a sex worker rights organization, we are a defender of human rights and sex workers' safety. Today we will share the voices of Asian migrant sex workers with you, because we would like to tell you that this law does not prevent exploitation and does not protect women. It does the opposite and harms sex workers. It is a lie to say that sex workers can continue to work under this law. I can give you more evidence. We have done a lot of research and collected a lot of stories from sex workers about that.

Racialized and migrant women face violence, bad working conditions and exploitation every day in all industries, including caregiving and factory work. As a response, we do not see calls for criminalization of these industries; rather, we call for migrant and labour protections. Sex work is the way to resist oppression, access income, gain social resources and escape abusive relationships for many Asian and migrant women.

Most migrants dream that they can be free and safe when they move to Canada; however, reality is different. Criminalization of sex work and lobbying to eliminate the sex industry promote violence, racial profiling, discrimination and hate against sex workers. Hotel staff, landlords and even NGOs are asked to monitor sex workers. Cities shut down Asian massage parlours.

In the Atlanta shooting, six Asian women were killed. This is not unique in the U.S.; it has also happened in Canada. Seven Asian workers have been murdered. It's because of the hate of sex work. It's because of the criminalization of sex work. When you label sex work as violence, you don't recognize the real violence against the sex worker.

Criminalization means sex workers are often arrested and deported when they report violence. One sex worker who was seriously injured in a robbery said that she would rather suffer the violence than be arrested. When our Butterfly helpline rings at midnight, my heart pounds because I don't know if our member is being robbed, arrested or even murdered.

Essential systems for migrant sex workers, including friends, third parties and clients, are being framed as traffickers. They are arrested when they help each other. Almost 200 women were charged for procuring and advertising in the last few years. One of the sex workers was arrested just because she helped other workers to advertise, communicate and screen clients.

Instead of protection, law enforcement is the major source of violence. Thirty percent of sex workers report that they have been harassed, sexually assaulted and abused by law enforcement.

Due to the conflation of sex work and trafficking, law enforcement keeps targeting sex workers. The police broke the door with a warrant when a worker was sleeping. She was handcuffed and not allowed to get dressed before answering questions. Her ID was taken; her money and phone were taken away, and she was asked if she was safe. She told the police that she was safe before they came. She was terrified because she didn't know whether she would be deported, charged or outed.

The stereotype about Asian and migrant sex workers is that they are passive, ignorant trafficking victims, yet migrant sex workers have been vocal about the need to decriminalize sex work and remove the criminal law, immigration law and bylaws that invite the police into our lives. This law creates vulnerability. We are not victims. We are workers. We know best about our lives. We know how the law harms us.

In the words of migrant sex workers, you should not criminalize and take away our work. You should not control our bodies. If you really care about the rights and safety of the workers, you should respect our agency and listen to us. You should not put more harm and danger into our lives.

It is not only Butterfly that has witnessed this harm. Many organizations of violence against women and human rights organizations, like the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres and the Global Business Coalition Against Human Trafficking, all bear witness and have shown opposition to the criminal law against sex workers.

We urge the government to listen to the community and repeal Bill C-36, which harms and kills sex workers.

Thank you.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say, for the record, that I too was here when Bill C-36 was passed, and despite some implication here that there was broad support for the bill, only Conservatives voted for it. The Liberals and New Democrats did not.

I want to go back to the representatives from Halifax and talking about a public health approach. I'm assuming the situation in Halifax is the same as it is in my community, where you find an overrepresentation of indigenous people, racialized Canadians and often those who are from my community—the LGBT community—represented in sex work. I wonder if that is in fact the case in Halifax and whether the general causes you're talking about are the same: the lack of access to the basic necessities and to good employment opportunities.

[Joy Smith]

Bill C-36 is very valuable. I think we could strengthen it even more by putting the prevention piece in it.

Also, something that comes up over and over again, and what we've found at the foundation, is that once you work with survivors, they need a way out. They need education and they need a different path, because when they start out, they're innocent victims, really. Someone lures them into the sex trade. In Canada, 93% of our traffic victims are Canadian born. They need to have a pathway whereby they can get re-educated and find a job to support themselves. That's the reality. A lot of them stay in it because they have no way out.

Then you have the enhanced addictions. You have all the trauma they go through when they can't provide their own children with the necessities of life.

We could go even further as parliamentarians, by adding to Bill C-36 to make that component a reality, bridging among all the levels of government—federal, provincial and municipal—because I think that is neglected in a lot of ways. All these levels of government are very important in the solutions we need for the victims of human trafficking.

[Joy Smith]

I appreciate that question, because Bill C-36 was the basis that I built my bills on. We have evidence every day of Bill C-36 being very effective.

The shutdown of licensing for body rub parlours and escort services, for instance, was very important in the city of Winnipeg. The last victim I pulled out of one of those body rub parlours was 13 years of age. Because of Bill C-36, the emphasis now is on the perpetrator or on the john. They are the ones who get brought to justice. Before Bill C-36, it was the women who were arrested. Now that doesn't happen.

We've had many cases out of the 6,000.... The other day, I had my assistant bring some information to me in preparation for today. We've had 1,223 cases—I think; I don't have it in front of me—of victims who actually went to police because we were saying to them that this is the law.

The danger is that a lot of people don't know what the real laws are. If people belong to a certain group or to one organization, they all think the same way. We have to think outside the boxes.

That's what I did when I was in Parliament. I had friends on all sides of the House, including Liberal, Bloc Québécois, NDP and everybody who really wanted to end the horrendous torture that some of these young girls went through in human trafficking. No one talked about how a lot of these young people were targeted. They became boyfriends and girlfriends of the perpetrators unknowingly. They didn't realize that eventually they would be trafficked and their lives would be changed forever. The rehabilitation side takes a very long time. The reintegration into families takes a very long time. The girl who left home is not the girl who comes back, if she comes back.

I'm very positive that if we have that education out there and we work together on all sides of the House to support Bill C-36, keep it there and build on it....

When we talk about root causes, since the beginning of time we've talked about housing and education and all of that. That's very valid. I found in our intervention program that providing a pathway to education after coming out of human trafficking and providing a pathway to housing so they can live in a safe place was a game-changer in Canada. It would be a travesty not to have it there, because we've had clear evidence all across Canada.

We are a registered, not-for-profit, national NGO. From all the provinces, and that includes Nova Scotia, we've had evidence of Bill C-36 being a really big asset to the victims of human trafficking. We have to be very careful when we put away a bill that was the basis for the voice of the victims of human trafficking. I think it has to be there and I think it has to be enhanced.