Evidence of meeting #38 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was trafficking.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Can I just ask you a quick question before I move on? Would you still support the bill in its entirety if it still criminalizes women?
Lawyer, University of Glasgow School of Law, As an Individual
As I told you before, I don't support the bill in its entirety because I disapprove deeply of the criminalization of those who are victims in prostitution. I think that is unconstitutional and contrary to any gender equality or human rights measures. I do, however, support an amended bill that would be accompanied with access to services, funding, etc.
Also, I just want to say that we start somewhere, and then we change things as we go along.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Okay. Thank you very much.
Before I get to my next question, I'd like to read an excerpt from the minister's presentation. This is directed to Mr. Lambrinos.
So the Minister clearly said:
Bill C-36 also seeks to continue to denounce and prohibit the exploitation of prostitutes by others, by third parties, commonly known as pimping. This includes the institutionalization of prostitution through commercial enterprise, such as strip clubs, massage parlours, and escort agencies in which prostitution often takes place. All of these capitalize on the demand created by purchasers.
So what do you have to answer to that?
Executive Director, Ontario Region, Adult Entertainment Association of Canada
That was the concern I was trying to bring up with Mr. Dechert as well. I don't know what data the minister is trying to quote from, but it is erroneous.
The licensed adult entertainment clubs currently, the entertainers who work there, should not be in the same category. The reason is—and it's from a market demand perspective—that 75% of customers who go into a licensed venue, which I invite you to, Madam Péclet, as well tonight, go into the establishment but do not get a private dance.
They're there for three reasons. One is to socialize. These are party atmospheres as well. Socializing for the entertainers is very important. Two is to simply relax, and three is to watch something. Only 25% would get a private dance.
We know that the number of actual intercourse or sex acts that would happen in private dance is minimal because of the number of charges. Plus, the types of women who work as entertainers currently are students. There's an increasing number of students working there who can make their money lap dancing and don't have to be prostitutes, do intercourse, etc. So we know the demand is not there. We know we do an adequate job, a very good job. We actually work together in educating the workforce where sexe est interdit, as well. So we know it's a good opportunity.
It was unfair of the minister to group the licensed adult entertainment clubs in the category. It's unfair for them to group the women who work in the same category. If you look at the newspapers...and it is a bit of ignorance that this was done. The newspapers call it “adult entertainment”, and licensed adult entertainment clubs are strip clubs.
This whole business about a massage parlour.... It's nothing more than a grey area. We know what a massage is. What organ, what part of their body are they massaging? We know—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you for those questions and answers. I think you made your point. Thank you very much, everyone.
Our last questioner, for two minutes, is Mr. Dechert from the Conservative Party.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.
Ms. Lebovitch, it's nice to see you again. We met earlier in the year. Thanks for being here today.
I'm looking at paragraphs 11 and 12 of Chief Justice McLachlin's decision in Bedford, where she describes your situation, your experience.
Executive Director, Sex Professionals of Canada
I don't have it in front of me.
Conservative
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—
Executive Director, Sex Professionals of Canada
No, not that last point actually. No.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
It does address, at least, those issues set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 of Chief Justice McLachlin's decision.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
But she talks about the things that you were concerned about. Did she leave something out of her description?
Executive Director, Sex Professionals of Canada
I don't really understand the—
Conservative
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.
Executive Director, Sex Professionals of Canada
Could you let me speak for a second?
Executive Director, Sex Professionals of Canada
Are you asking a question or making a statement?
Conservative
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.
Executive Director, Sex Professionals of Canada
Okay.
How you didn't was that I cannot screen my clients. You are criminalizing my clients. The cops are going to be.... How do you think the cops find clients? It's going to be from the places that I work, out of the places that I work.
Conservative
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]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
As you see, from the York Regional Police, Thai Truong is here with us. He is a detective of the drug and vice squad.
I'll give you a few minutes to make an opening statement, and then there will be questions for you.
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.