Justice Committee on July 8th, 2014

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

I've heard my colleagues across the way saying that money will be given to organizations to fund exit programs. Do you agree with me that the needs are much larger than only exit programs? Simply a yes or no would be sufficient. I see all the witnesses—

[Megan Walker]

Yes. In fact, we believe the $20 million is to accommodate the exit programs, the police training, and the public awareness campaigns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next question is Mr. Dechert from the Conservative Party.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to each of our witnesses.

Ms. MacLeod, I simply want to say that I really appreciate your being here and having the courage to tell us your story. It's not only that you're helping us as legislators with this bill, but that I also think you're helping all Canadians understand the situation. Far beyond the people in this room, people are watching across Canada and are hearing your words. That's true of all the women who have testified before us. I want you to know that, and I want, through you, to thank all of the women who have appeared before us to tell us these stories about prostitution in Canada.

Ms. Walker, I also want to thank you and your organization for helping to facilitate women's participation in the consultation that the government did. I know you did that. You mentioned it in your opening remarks, and I think it's really important.

I wanted to mention that earlier today we heard from Emily Symons of POWER here in Ottawa, who said that her organization did the same thing with respect to many of the sex workers they work with here in Ottawa. They gave them the opportunity to participate in an online consultation so that the government could hear their views, and that's very important to us. So I wanted to thank them as well.

Each of you has spoken a little bit about the whole issue of choice and whether the majority of people in the business of prostitution are actually making a free choice. You talked about it, Ms. MacLeod, and I know Ms. Audette spoke about it and, Ms. Edwards, I think you did. I think both of our witnesses who are in New York mentioned it. If you have no other option to support yourself and your family, to put food on the table, to pay the rent, if you have an addiction, whether it's drugs or alcohol or something else, are you really making a free choice?

I'd like to hear each of your views on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll start with you, Ms. MacLeod.

[Katarina MacLeod]

Thank you.

That is the point that I've been trying to get across. People talk about human trafficking and prostitution as two different things. In my mind, they're one and the same, whether you're being physically forced to do something or you're being forced because of social or economic situations.

For me, when I did get recruited at 21 years old, I was at a desperate point. I had kids, I was on welfare, I was coming in and out of abusive situations. I didn't know how to maintain anything, nor did I have an education because I had had kids at such a young age. So in my mind it was like, “Wow, I'm finally going to be able to do something, to make money to help my kids”. I didn't need to have a college degree or have them checking me out. I wasn't going to have to work in a warehouse for 12 hours a day and still not be able to afford babysitting. This is the problem that I'm seeing with a lot of women I deal with, the problem of trying to get the women out. What are we going to do with them? Are we going to put them on welfare? Welfare doesn't even pay their rent.

I'm facing this problem right now with the women that I'm dealing with.

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

So is it fair to say that in your opinion, for the majority of women who are in this trade it's not a free choice between two consenting adults?

[Katarina MacLeod]

Yes.

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

A lot of the people who support the industry ask why should the government be interested or involved at all? They say it's really just a free exchange between two reasonable, rational, equal, and consenting adults.

[Katarina MacLeod]

We all hate our jobs...some of us. I don't know, but some of us in life hate our jobs. But being a prostitute is a job that you're going to every day to be raped and to be violated and to be used and abused for a man's own pleasure. I don't see how that is a choice.

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

Okay, I'd like to hear the views of the Native Women's Association on that as well.

[Teresa Edwards]

If we were to look at this as a legitimate job and we were to have job fairs at universities, I highly doubt this would be a successful job fair booth that we would want to see as options for our children in future generations to be going to.

I would not want to see it legitimized in any way so that we would be telling our children that if they had one job at McDonalds and couldn't work anywhere else, a brothel was available, and that rather than going on EI they would be compelled to work at that brothel. I don't think any MP here would want that option for their children either.

That comes along with the concept that this is a legitimate choice, a decent work place, and equal power. We're not talking about morality, but about a power indifference here. We already know about the high rate of missing and murdered native women, because they're targeted for their race and gender, as they're seen by society as devalued and disposable. If society doesn't care about the missing and murdered, how is it possibly going to care about native women who are in prostitution, and how do these women have real choices?

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

Fair enough, thank you.

Ms. Pate, do you have a view on that question?

[Kim Pate]

While I think the notion of choice is often fallacious, I'm prepared to accept that there are women who argue that they are making choices. I don't think a position of decriminalizing the women interferes with those women at all. Certainly the evidence in other jurisdictions has supported that, and I think you've heard ample evidence of that.

But again, without the additional supports.... I think another thing you may want to put in the preamble, I would strongly urge, is something about the need for national standards. As has just been pointed out, the option of going on social assistance is not an option for most individuals to support themselves because, with the elimination of the national standards around those areas, we've seen a group created—predominantly women—who can be infinitely criminalized because they can't support themselves.

So again, it goes back to the need not just for $20 million, whether you call it “a drop in the bucket”, or “a slap in the face”. The reality is that we need some clear measures to say that we're fundamentally committed to women's equality, and the bill alone will not do that, even with the—

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

Thank you.

There is another question I think is important to ask, and that is that many critics say that criminalizing the purchase of sex will drive the sex trade further underground and make the sex trade more dangerous than it currently is in Canada. All of you accept that the criminalization of the purchase of sex is a positive step forward. What do you say to those critics?

I will start perhaps with you, Ms. Pate.

[Kim Pate]

I can't see how it could be any more dangerous than it already is for most of the women. Certainly for the women that I've lived, worked, and walked with for the last 30 years it couldn't be more dangerous than it already is. As I mentioned, many of the women we work with, particularly those who have already been criminalized, are being bought and sold not just for sex, but also by men who want to degrade and abuse them—everything from punching, to electrocuting, and to murder. So it is a dangerous area for women now and I don't know how it could be made more dangerous.

I can understand why that is a position being taken, but much as we've seen people lobby for other approaches that are harmful, the reality is that in jurisdictions where they have actually developed resources and social supports and economic supports combined with a change to the law, we see a very different result.

When I was in Amsterdam last year, as well as in Thailand, where we have seen decriminalization, demand goes up and in fact we see all women who go into areas being at greater risk, including those of us who may not be engaged in prostitution at the time. So I think that's fallacious.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ms. Audette would like to answer.

[Michèle Audette]

Thank you very much.

I have a question for all of us right now, and for those who are listening. How many pimps, johns, and buyers in the sex industry are criminalized right now? How many of them? We know that 90% of them are men. How many of those men are criminalized?

When we reverse the question for the women, and aboriginal women—I think Kim Pate can confirm this—we know that we are the ones who are criminalized right now, so with this legislation we will reverse that hopefully.

Can I finish?

We have to remember, for those who say that back in the alley women will be in greater danger, that this is where programs and services are so important. The police forces also have to change their culture in the way they're dealing with women in prostitution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, thank you very much.

That's it, I'm sorry, but we're way over time, so thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Jacob.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here this afternoon.

My first question is for Ms. Pate and any other witnesses who can answer it, including Ms. Kilroy.

In your opinion, if the federal Conservative government was more proactive in promoting gender equality, would that make a difference in the fight against the exploitation and violence women face?

[Kim Pate]

I hope I've been clear that I would think so. I don't think that's part of the bill at this stage, and I just want to pick up on the last point, the question that was raised earlier and the point that Michèle Audette raised, which is that when we fought initially to have women decriminalized—and I'm talking now back before the last set of amendments to the prostitution laws—we argued that in fact women should be decriminalized. Instead of the asymmetrical application of the law against women that was happening then, we were offered by the government of the day the de-gendering of the law and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. When that happened, we immediately saw exactly what Michèle Audette has spoken about, which is the continued criminalization of women and the development of diversion programs for men.

I don't know how many men who have pimped and who have been procurers or exploiters of women are coming before the committee. I dare say probably not many, if any, but I've certainly been raising this question across the country. When I worked with men, when I worked with young people and since I've worked with women, I've yet to see a man jailed only for pimping or for buying sex. Not a man in this country has been jailed for that. If they've been jailed it's because they have also harmed, assaulted, killed, or done something else.

I'm not suggesting that we want to see more people jailed, but this notion that in fact we're going to see increased numbers of people at risk when we have a whole culture that has supported men buying and selling women for a long time is fallacious. It's nonsense. We're not likely to see that.

Absolutely, that doesn't mean that women should be criminalized. Absolutely, if there's any doubt, take all of those provisions out and put equality provisions in. Make sure there are supports in place, re-inject national standards, and have supports for a guaranteed liveable income. I'm repeating myself now, so I'll shut up, but we really need to see a fundamental approach that puts women's substantive equality front and centre.

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

Who would like to answer?

Ms. Walker, go ahead.

[Megan Walker]

It is a really important question, and what I would like to see is governments at all levels, and all parties, investing more in equality rights for women. That's the very reason we are all here advocating for the passage of Bill C-36, with the exception of those amendments we've proposed, because we believe it will promote equality rights for women.

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

Thank you, Ms. Walker.

Ms. Kilroy, do you have anything to add?

[Deborah Kilroy]

Yes.

I agree with Ms. Pate. We need to come from a position of substantive equality. I'd be more than happy for the bill to bring in any laws that are about equality for women, and that it is gendered as such. When we have degendered legislation, we see that it's the women who catch the brunt of the negatives of such legislation.

I can think about a piece of legislation in Australia, in our jurisdiction, around domestic violence laws, and how we as women advocated for protection against domestic violence. However, the legislation was degendered and women are now being criminalized. The police come into the homes. They issue a domestic violence order to the man and the women, and then if there's another incident—this predominantly happens in aboriginal communities—the police come back, and it is the woman who is arrested for breaching the domestic violence order and a reactive violent offence, because she's protected herself from the violence that the partner perpetrated against her.

We see more aboriginal women, for example, criminalized because of domestic violence laws that are degendered.