Justice Committee on July 7th, 2014

[Diane Matte]

The other point where we agree with groups like Maggie's is the decriminalization of women in prostitution. Bill C-36 can't produce the desired outcome if women in prostitution continue to be criminalized in one form or another, regardless of whether they work on the streets or indoors. The exact opposite will happen. I have the feeling that continuing to criminalize them at all sends the message that they should go indoors because they'll be safer there.

It depends on where you stand in the debate. The NDP seems to think women will be safer indoors, but the reality is that, no matter where they are, they can fall victim to violence at the hands of clients or pimps.

The bill is endeavouring to change society's views on prostitution. It gives women an opportunity to exit prostitution voluntarily. And that needs to be pointed out.

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

Thank you very much for your answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have one minute.

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

I know, and I'm trying to rush through this.

Natasha, could you please give us your opinion about targeting johns for the first time—arresting them. Do you think that's going to be beneficial to help keep the women safe?

[Natasha Falle]

Certainly. In fact, I believe that Bill C-36 will actually give people who are being prostituted more leverage when dealing with violent johns, in enabling them to call the police and not fear being blamed for the abuse they are experiencing. I also believe it will give them an opportunity to screen because they can do so without having to answer to pimps and johns, because now men are going to be targeted. I also believe that by teaching society that this is an issue of male violence against women and children mostly, we are going to teach future generations of boys to grow up and understand that this is something they shouldn't contribute to.

I also believe that focusing on women and looking at them as victims in this industry will actually provide more opportunities for them to exit it, which we're not seeing right now. I think by pumping in money to organizations such as Maggie's it actually enables people to stay there. They did mention that there are some women whom they believe can't get out, and I don't believe that is true at all. I think that anyone who wants something is able to make that a possibility. I am a living testimony of that. In my last two years I had drug-induced schizophrenia and today I am in this position that I am today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Casey from the Liberal Party.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First off, as a matter of courtesy to my colleagues on the committee and to the witnesses, I apologize for coming late to the meeting. Mr. Dechert, Mr. Scott, and I were on Power & Politics in-between sessions. That the reason we were a bit late.

Mr. Minister, I came in the middle of your statement so I didn't hear it all, but I did read it in advance.

We're now on the second panel of the day, and although there's been a great divergence of views through the day, there is one thing on which every single witness, except for Peter MacKay and the Justice officials, agree on. Walk With Me Canada Victim Services, the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform, the Criminal Lawyers' Association, Professor Janine Benedet, and Professor John Lowman all agree, as did each of you in your testimony today, that the criminalization of sex workers under the communication provisions is problematic and should either be amended or completely wiped out. That is one point of consensus from all of the witnesses, except for the minister and his officials today.

I want to come first to Ms. Beazley and Madam Matte, because I know that both of your organizations have done an extensive survey of models in other countries. Around here we constantly hear about the Nordic model. We know that it is an approach that criminalizes the purchasers, but what we have before us is something that not only criminalizes the purchasers but, in many instances, also criminalizes the providers and criminalizes advertising.

A witness we are going to be hearing from later in the week is a fellow by the name of José Mendes Bota. He was the rapporteur at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He also did an extensive survey of the different models around the world, and in his report he describes a prohibitionist system, which bans prostitution by criminalizing all aspects of it, including the sale of sex and all the people involved. He said a number of European countries have chosen this approach, including Albania, Croatia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, and Ukraine.

My question for you, Ms. Beazley, and for you, Ms. Matte, is given all of the things that have been piled on top of the basic Nordic model in Bill C-36, are we not in fact much closer to a prohibitionist model with what we have before us?

[Julia Beazley]

We are a hybrid, I would say. We are not fully prohibitionist. I don't think it's fair to say that, because there is an awful lot in the bill that recognizes the status of most persons in prostitution. As I said, the overall spirit and intent of the legislation is that those who are prostituted not be criminalized.

There is, however, this nod to a prohibitionist approach that still allows.... The first two sections of the original communications provision weren't challenged, so they stand. Then there is this new section dealing with public places where minors might be present, and you've heard each of us on that and how we would like to see it narrowed, removed, amended, those sorts of things. We all share that concern, but I don't think it's fair to say that this approach has gone fully prohibitionist. It's kind of a hybrid. I would say it is a nod to the prohibitionist approach.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The Canadian law is somewhere between Sweden and Russia.

[Julia Beazley]

I wouldn't say Russia. No, I don't think that's—

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madame Matte.

[Diane Matte]

I would say that it's not a prohibitionist approach at all, and that we surely count on every political party around the table to get rid of what we want to get rid of.

Perhaps I can give you this image. For us, it's like we have the right map to go where we want to go. We know where we want to go. We have the right map. But we have a little rock in our shoe, and that little rock in the shoe is the criminalization of women, particularly in the streets. So we have to make sure that we keep on the track we're on but get rid of what is not working.

I think it is unfair to use the prohibitionist jargon when we talk about what we have in front of us. We can say that the prohibitionist approach has not been successful at all, and there's not only Russia that we can think about. There are many countries around the world who actually criminalize only women in prostitution, and not men. I don't know what you would call that, but for me this is like the sum of what patriarchy can do: criminalize women for being actually sexually exploited.

For me, we have to be careful about how we use words. The prohibitionist legal model, because that's mostly what we're talking about, would be a model that says in its objectives and in practice that all parties involved in prostitution should be criminalized, and this is not what this bill is saying.

So we just have to get rid of the rock that we have in our sock, in our shoe—but don't lose the map.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Merci.

Ms. Falle and Ms. Sullivan, both of you have described being in the sex trade and successfully exiting,

if I've understood you correctly.

Have either of you been saddled with either a youth criminal justice record or a criminal record as a result of your time in the sex trade?

[Natasha Falle]

Yes. The first time I ever stood on a street corner, at 17 years old, I was arrested by a police officer.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

So that was a youth record.

[Natasha Falle]

Yes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Describe the difficulty that the youth record caused you in your exit.

[Natasha Falle]

Yes, certainly. It wasn't just the youth record. It was also my adult record with soliciting that hindered me from being able to do what other people are able to do, from reintegrating into society.

When I was arrested, I basically just gave up. I thought, “This is it. I have a criminal record for prostitution. There's nothing else out there for me. I might as well just accept this environment.” What I did was I made the best of that environment; albeit abusive, I needed to embrace it for my own survival.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madame Sullivan.

[Rose Sullivan]

I don't have a criminal record. I was very lucky.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

Mr. Minister, you indicated that the money that's been put on the table, if a per capita formula is used, won't make a whole lot of difference in Manitoba. We don't much care for per capita funding in my part of the world, believe me.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I'll ask a couple of questions in that regard. First, given that you put $8 million a year into these programs now, what is the right number to make a meaningful difference?

As well, if I may, because I know I'm just about done here, all too often we see criminal justice measures introduced in this place that have significant impacts on the budgets of those who have to administer the justice—your departments, the provinces. Do you have any concerns in that regard with respect to this legislation?

[Andrew Swan]

With respect to the legislation, no, since we called for the Nordic model to come to Canada; we accept that there could be some additional costs. To some extent we think we can manage that. It will be our intention to continue running what we call john school, which is operated by the Salvation Army. We think with some minimum fines that will allow us to raise the amount that people will pay for john school so that they don't have to go down to court and maybe have a reporter or their neighbour hanging around the corner. It would be my hope that with that money from john school we'll be able to expand the prostitution diversion camp and provide, again, that first window into changing people's lives.

Overall, the $8 million a year, I can tell you right now, is not enough. There is not enough support that we can provide to assist people. Of course, many times it's co-occurring mental health and addictions issues. It's dealing with trauma. It's dealing with many complex issues. At $8 million a year, we're struggling to provide a modicum of services. Certainly we look forward to something more than a temporary small investment from the federal government. We'd like it to be more substantial. We'll continue to shoulder the majority of the burden, and we accept that's the case. We think this is important to Manitoba.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

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