Justice Committee on July 7th, 2014

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Ms. Benedet, do you have any research on this? You've done a lot of studies on the age of entry into prostitution.

[Prof. Janine Benedet]

To give you an example, about 24 women testified in the Bedford case, called by both sides, the government and the applicants. They had the choice of whom they could get to testify, who wanted to come forward and be heard. That was a really interesting cross-section of the women in prostitution.

Among that group of 24, there were numerous women who started in prostitution at the age of 18 or younger, including the three applicants themselves in the case, who started at 15, 16, and 18. Those were the women they chose to bring forward to bring this case.

There were other women. I think the oldest among that group of 24 was 27. She had four children whom she had lost to child protective services when a boyfriend got her hooked on drugs and then pimped her out.

So it was a range of ages, there's no question. But there were significant numbers of women who had started as teenagers with very limited prospects, often fleeing either abusive situations in the home or state care that itself had become abusive.

I think it is true. I think Professor Lowman is correct that some of the studies that show a very young age of entry are focusing on street prostitutes as a population. We really have a lot more studies in Canada in particular about street prostitution than we do about off-street prostitution and the demographics there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Madam Péclet from the NDP.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. This is a very informative discussion.

All the lawyers in the room know that legal opinions differ from one lawyer to another. It's important to point out that the purpose of the discussion isn't to figure out which lawyer is right, but to figure out what bill is best for all Canadians affected by this issue.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision is as important as the rule of law. But we also have to take into account the health, safety and lives of all the women and men—since this isn't just a woman's issue—it affects.

I wanted to start by saying that.

Bear with me, please. I have a lot of questions and so little time.

My first question would be for Walk With Me Canada Victims Services. I just want to say, Ms. Nagy, I personally was very shocked by your testimony. Thank you very much for coming forward with your personal story. I don't think any woman or man should be beaten, should be sexually assaulted. I think everyone agrees here in the room that this is a particularly bad situation for the people you deal with, and it's a crime. What you described in your testimony is already criminalized by the Criminal Code in that it specifies that you cannot consent to being beaten up or being sexually assaulted. So I think this ought to be clear, that you cannot consent to this. Even if at the beginning you might have consented to the act, you cannot consent to being sexually assaulted. I think it is included in the Criminal Code, and I think it's important that this is noted.

I just want to ask you about all those women or men you deal with who are in particularly vulnerable situations. The government is proposing $20 million for five years and that covers all of Canada, so 10 provinces and three territories. As you mentioned in your testimony, we know that there are people living in very vulnerable situations. Do you think that's enough if we're talking about equality? Don't you think that the core problem of this situation is not necessarily the work that they do, but the conditions that they live in, like poverty or history? Do you think that $20 million from the government for five years for all of Canada is enough?

[Timea E. Nagy]

Thank you so much for your comments previously, and thank you very much for the great question.

I just want to comment quickly that there are already in the Criminal Code laws about sexual abuse and assault. Just because it's in the Criminal Code that doesn't stop the johns and pimps from beating up the girls, so that's just my comment on that.

About the $20 million, I don't know if you're aware of it, but in the United States currently they documented that 300,000 young girls between the ages of 16 to 21 are being trafficked into the sex industry, which is obviously prostitution. The American government gave $10 million to fight that. So I think when we look at our Canadian government and specifically human trafficking, 10 years ago when I was trafficked there wasn't even a law about it. Now you guys have done such an amazing job creating laws, and many laws, to protect.

Just a few years later you are announcing $20 million and last year you announced $25 million to fight this. So altogether in the last two years this government has already committed more money to Canada and the victims of both human trafficking and sexual exploitation than America did in the last two years.

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

You know we're talking about trafficking and not prostitution, but it's okay.

My second question will be directed to the Criminal Lawyers' Association. It's important because I haven't had time to ask questions to the fonctionnaire publique. What is the definition of publicity? In the article where there's the immunity, we talk about publicity for your own services, so does it include solicitation? What is your overview of this article and the immunity? Does it apply to the article 213 where there's communication/solicitation? What's the difference between them?

[Anne London-Weinstein]

I'd like to try to address your question briefly. But before I do that, I was wondering if I could briefly respond to something that Professor Benedet said.

I think it's important to note, when we're looking at the purpose behind this legislation—and there are laudable aspects of it—that just because we are now criminalizing the purchaser does not eliminate the potential for criminalization of the seller. You're still going to be getting those arguments on section 7 and the liberty and security of persons. There is still a potential for challenge. They have not been eliminated, even though we are now criminalizing the purchase as opposed to the sale directly.

For example, you have workers who are working together. Both of them may be under 18. That would be an offence. We've talked about the number of young people who are involved in prostitution. We'd be criminalizing both of those young people, saddling them with a criminal record, making it much more difficult for them to safely exit once they have that stigma.

So I just want to say that we're not going to be getting rid of that section 7 argument.

In relation to publication and communication, based on some of the background reading that I've done, and this is admittedly anecdotal—just my own research—there is a concern that some of the advertisers may be targeted by the broadness of this legislation. They may be implicated by providing advertising services. As I read the legislation, I understand that you can advertise, but it's sort of in a private way. How much utility it would be to a sex worker to advertise privately, I'm not sure. It also is going to have an effect on the ability to screen, which I understand is a safety concern for workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is from the Conservative Party, Monsieur Goguen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony today. There's certainly a wide swath.

I want to focus on Ms. Nagy, if I could, please.

It's interesting. At the start of your statement here you described yourself as a survivor. There's no question that you are definitely a survivor. There's an old adage that says if it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger. Certainly you've made your organization, Walk WIth Me, stronger, and you're to be commended for all the work you have done with them, and will continue to do, I'm sure.

We'll talk about the $20 million later.

[Timea E. Nagy]

I'll be waiting for your call.

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

There's been some discussion of the charter, as would be expected. Of course, one of the things that Bill C-36 focuses on is the protection of those who are subjected to prostitution, violence, and exploitation, such as yourself.

A while ago, Mr. Russomanno said that in his view Bill C-36 was in breach of subsection 2(b), freedom of expression, and section 7, life, liberty and security of the person.

You were describing a scenario where you were being raped, I believe, by three Russians. Let's suppose that the police authorities had broken in and rescued you. Would your freedom of expression have been in any way breached? You couldn't possibly have been doing it freely.

[Timea E. Nagy]

I don't understand the question. It's just the way you framed it. English is my second language still. Sorry.

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

Sure.

What I'm saying is that you weren't freely expressing yourself by being raped by three men.

[Timea E. Nagy]

You mean, if I would have been able to say that I was just raped?

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

No. If you were rescued, you wouldn't feel that your rights were violated.

You don't get it. Okay.

[Timea E. Nagy]

I'm sorry.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Timea E. Nagy]

My answer is no.

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

That's kind of what I thought. Very good.

Okay, I'll try this one.

With this section 7, there's the life, liberty, and security of the person. When you're being coerced into doing sexual acts, you're not doing them freely. That definitely goes against your right to life, liberty, and freedom of the person.

You're not participating in this freely, right?

[Timea E. Nagy]

Absolutely not.

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

Now if the authorities came to you and said, “Look, Ms. Nagy, we want to help you get out of this sex trade; you're not here voluntarily”, would you disagree with that kind of thing if it happened? Would you be angry at the authorities? Would you say that your right to life, liberty, and security of the person was being violated and you don't want to be rescued?

[Timea E. Nagy]

No, I wouldn't.

As a matter of fact, this is what we do on a daily basis with police officers. That's exactly what we do. We are not targeting. We are not raiding. There are no police raids like the opposite parties have said in the media. By the way, in the first three weeks that's all you heard in the media. The other side of the story was never heard. That's just my other comment.

But there are no police raids. When we go in the room with the police, we talk to the girls, and you better believe that in a week or two or three, when the person is indeed trafficked, they will call for help and they will ask us to take them. There are times when they beg us to get them out of the room: “I was just kidnapped. I've been forced. I can't leave my hotel room. Please take me”.

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

So the great work that your organization does by getting the girls out of this scenario that they don't want to voluntarily participate in is actually empowering their life, their liberty, their freedom.

That's what you do so greatly, right?

[Timea E. Nagy]

That's right.

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

There was talk about the $20 million from the federal government to fund organizations. I don't know exactly which organizations will be funded but I suspect they will be like yours.

Can you give us some examples of what types of programs you would put in place if you did have such funding? What would you do to help get the girls out?