Justice Committee on July 9th, 2014

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

Bridget, if you don't mind, I'd like to call you by your first name.

I want to tell you how much I admire you. Coming here to tell your story is never easy. And I'd just like to thank you for sharing your experience with us. I'm sorry you had to go through what you did and that there are victims of human trafficking who need your help.

It's really commendable, so thank you very much for everything you do.

My question goes beyond Bill C-36.

Let's say that Bill C-36 is passed tomorrow as it currently stands. It is clear that provision 213 criminalizes sex workers. Would you be willing to accept the criminalization of women if the bill were passed as is?

[Bridget Perrier]

I would, and I'll tell you why: when my 15-year-old gets accosted standing outside at a bus stop, I will know I did the right thing.

My children are more at risk of being brought into prostitution due to race and having a mom who was exploited; they're more likely. I value my children. They're my life. I've already lost a child to prostitution, and I'm not going to lose any more.

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

I'm sorry to hear that.

It's still helpful to look at the big picture. Many of the articles I've read have focused on whether the government has been doing enough all these years to achieve gender equality, particularly as regards more funding for first nations communities.

If the bill were passed tomorrow, what would happen to the female drug addict who was on the street corner, as Ms. Miller talked about, for instance? What would happen in her case?

The minister for Manitoba said that $20 million over 5 years amounted to roughly $200,000 for his province per year. He said he is already spending $8 million to help young addicted women who are on the streets.

What will happen to those young women? What is needed to help them in their current situations so they don't end up in the hands of procurers and pimps?

[Bridget Perrier]

There's a solution for that. I work on a zero operating budget for Sextrade101. I make my money by public speaking. I have 400 girls who are clients across Canada who I work with. We have not gotten federal funding. We do everything within our speaking...and I have another job where I'm able to put in.

We haven't worked on our operating budget, and we have a 1% recidivism rate for girls who exit.

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

So you don't need—

[Bridget Perrier]

No, we do need funding, but we do our best with what little we have. You know, $20 million, that's nothing—

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

For five years.

[Bridget Perrier]

—for five years. Hopefully with the johns and the john schools we'll see revenue from it. We need to look at this. When these johns are fined, the fines should be geared to income. If they're making $100,000 a year, they should be paying a $10,000 fine, with that money going into direct services for prostituted women.

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

I still have time? Okay, great.

I'd like to ask Ms. Miller the same question.

You talked about a car that was cruising around and picked up that woman. If Bill C-36 is passed tomorrow, what would happen to that young woman? How could she be helped?

Provisions have been in place for years and they haven't helped. So what about that aspect?

The question we need to ask ourselves today is this. What do we need to do to wipe out situations of inequality and poverty, which are the root cause of the problem?

[Michelle Miller]

Yes. You are asking two questions; one on prevention and one on what she needs now.

On prevention, I would support guaranteed livable income, detox beds, access to treatment, job training and education, and affordable housing. Certainly in my city, I know those are incredibly important things.

As far as what that woman would need now, she needs some of those same things. She needs access to a way to exit. She needs immediate housing. She needs access to detox beds. She needs support. She needs job retaining.

I would also like to ask, how does this bill affect her? I'd like to talk about a generation later and talk about, potentially, her daughter. I think it would affect her daughter in that with Bill C-36, we're sending a clear message and a clear social norm that women are not for sale and that it's not okay to buy women.

For instance, right now in Sweden, where a similar law has been in place for 10 years, there are 10-year-old children who don't know the normalization of buying and selling women's bodies, so I think that her daughter would be less vulnerable and men would be less likely to be buying her.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. Thank you for those questions and answers.

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

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

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

Ms. Perrier, we've met before. It's very good to see you. I hope you won't mind if I call you Bridget.

I want to join with my colleagues in thanking you for sharing your story and the story of your daughter, Angel. I personally was very moved, and I'm pretty sure everyone who was listening to you today was equally moved.

I've had the honour to meet a lot of war veterans in my life, but I think you might be the bravest person I've ever met. We'll maybe have an opportunity later for that applause that's so deserved.

If I could award you a medal of valour I would, but one thing I do know is that you're saving lives today. I want to thank you for being here and for speaking out about the terrible things that happened to you, and to your daughter, and other people you know. Thank you for the work you're doing every day to save the lives of others.

I'd like to ask Ms. Lang some questions.

Ms. Lang, you mentioned in your opening statement the penultimate comments made by Chief Justice McLachlin in her decision, which I think are worth reading again because they are very important. She said:

Concluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes.

She then went on to say:

The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. It will be for Parliament

—that's all of us and the people we serve with every day in the House of Commons and in the Senate—

should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach, reflecting different elements of the existing regime. Considering all the interests at stake, the declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.

She threw it back in our lap. She could have said that the provisions are struck down, as of today, and we have wide open, unfettered, unregulated legalization of prostitution in Canada. She didn't. She passed it back to us. She said Parliament has a role to play.

There are some who would abdicate that role, but I think it's incumbent upon us, and I think the Chief Justice has asked us to read the decision and to look at all the issues surrounding prostitution, hear the stories of Bridget Perrier and so many others who have come before us, and then craft a response. She's talking about the jurisdiction of the federal government of Canada.

She knows very well the division of powers under the Constitution of Canada. She's not talking about zoning and business regulation at the local level. She's not talking about employment or occupation and health safety regulation. She's talking about those things that are in the purview of the Parliament of Canada—criminal law; banking insurance law; railway law; and certain other areas obviously; national defence; taxation. But within that purview, of the tools we parliamentarians have to regulate the way prostitution is carried on, the primary one has to be the Criminal Code.

What do you think she was referring to? Do you think she was asking us to re-examine the Criminal Code and find a way of making it work in a way that protects the Charter rights of the prostitutes, and do you believe we have done so in Bill C-36?

[Georgialee Lang]

She looked at the law, and she recognized that the objects in the Criminal Code on prostitution were not prostitution laws; they were nuisance laws. So when the court examined that, they then weighed the benefit of having a nuisance law against the safety issues that we recognize are inherent in prostitution.

What she said in the statement, that Parliament is not precluded from imposing limits, is certainly a fundamental principle. It is the federal Parliament that makes the criminal law in Canada. It is then the court that can determine whether that law is constitutional.

With Bill C-36, I believe the honourable justice minister and his committee have addressed the issues that were raised by Madam Justice McLachlin, and her colleagues in the Supreme Court of Canada, and they have done that in a very effective way.

There are numerous law professors across Canada who have examined whether this new law will pass constitutional muster, and there are many who agree that it will. There is no doubt that it will be challenged, but I think the justice minister has done an exemplary job of crafting a law that speaks to the interests of the parties involved in prostitution. It decriminalizes it for the women, unless of course they are selling sex around children. It speaks to the buyers of sex, who are the exploiters. The preamble to this bill clearly says that's what we're after, the harm, and that we, as Parliament, have the right to make that determination and make that law.

This bill is a good bill. It's addressing what the justices raised in the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe it speaks to the real issue, which is the exploitation of women and the commodification and the commercialization of women's bodies, which is a frontal assault on human dignity and a breach of human rights.

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

If Parliament were to do nothing, as Ms. Scott and Ms. Lebovitch urged us earlier today.... They were two of the litigants in the Bedford case. They said, “Just let it fall. Don't do anything. Let the provisions that were struck down by the court fall away as the court has determined to do so”.

What would the regulation of prostitution look like in Canada, in your view, if Parliament were to do nothing?

[Georgialee Lang]

I think the biggest concern about the legalization of prostitution is human trafficking. In every jurisdiction where they have legalized prostitution, the explosion of human trafficking is well documented.

For example, when Germany legalized prostitution, there was an influx of women from South America, and then later, when the Berlin Wall fell, all of these Third World women living in eastern bloc countries were brought into Germany.

The same thing happened in Australia. In Australia, there was an explosion in human trafficking. Apparently there was a large influx of Chinese prostitutes because many of the business people, the procurers of sex—these pimps, now businessmen because it's all legal in Australia—brought in women from all different countries.

That is the biggest fear. Human trafficking is insidious, and I think it's recognized, and well recognized in Canada, that it is unlawful.

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

Thank you.

I have one final comment. Mr. Casey and others have raised the point, and you talked about it earlier, that there was a letter that was received from 220 or so lawyers who take a different view.

I am a lawyer who agrees with you. I was a member of a law firm with over 900 lawyers. I practised in the city of Toronto, where there are over 14,000 lawyers, so 200 doesn't seem like that big of a number to me. I think we could find an equal number who support our view.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those comments.

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Mr. Jacob.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us this afternoon.

My first question is for Mr. Atchison.

You're a pragmatic research associate. You said you didn't have a moral position on the sex industry and that you were relying on empirical evidence. You also said investments were needed to stop violence and victimization.

The government is investing $4 million a year over 5 years, for a total of $20 million for the entire country. Does that strike you as a serious investment in terms of combatting violence against women and their victimization?

[Chris Atchison]

No, I absolutely do not, particularly when we talk about....

If we take seriously the goal of ending demand and changing attitudes and behaviours around the purchase of sexual services, I don't see how that's going to happen with $20 million. If we are going to do this—and I don't think we should—I don't see any mention of widespread education and outreach programs to the people with whom we actually want to curb the demand.

Are we expecting to see that the pure application of sanction is going to end demand? Part of that money will have to go to education, public education, i.e., general deterrents—and none of that is going to go—in addition to putting money to the well-needed funding of the existing organizations that provide vital support services.

So, no.

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

Thank you kindly, Mr. Atchison.

My second question is for Ms. Lang.

You're a lawyer and, in your opening remarks, you stressed the importance of respect for human dignity.

If the federal government was more proactive when it came to promoting gender equality, do you think it would make a difference in terms of preventing the exploitation of women and violence against them?

[Georgialee Lang]

I believe that men using women for sexual purposes is inherently violent and an absolute affront to human dignity. On your question as to whether there are provisions to provide equality between men and women in Canada, that simply is a separate issue. There can't be equality between prostitutes and johns because of the very nature of the services being rendered. So I say, no, that's not going to change what we're grappling with.

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

Thank you, Ms. Lang.

My third question is for Ms. Dussault.

In your presentation, you talked about New Zealand's experience. I'd like you to elaborate on that.

[Elizabeth Dussault]

I'm sorry, but I haven't actually been to New Zealand. I was in Australia.

What differences do you speak of? I could ramble for hours about it.

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

I have another question for you.

How helpful would affordable housing and poverty reduction measures be with respect to helping sex workers exit prostitution?

[Elizabeth Dussault]

That's not my area of expertise. I would think that affordable housing and whatnot would be good for all society, not just for sex workers.

Again, speaking for women who are human trafficked or abused, I don't believe that's what this bill is in regard to. I'm very sorry for Ms. Perrier's experiences, and I would be very happy to stand behind her, or beside her for that matter, and work with her to stop human trafficking and underage prostitution.

But I choose to be a sex worker. I've had a very different experience than she has had, so I don't have that education to speak to something that she's gone through.