Sure they will.
Evidence of meeting #39 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 c-36.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #39 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 c-36.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:15 p.m.
Research Associate, Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, As an Individual
Sure they will.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay, that's your time. Thank you, Ms. Ambler. Thank you for those questions.
We're now on to the Liberal Party, and, Mr. Casey, it's your time.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Lang, I want to ask you about your representation at the Supreme Court of Canada. I understand your client was the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Is that right?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Is that your only client? Do you work for them, or do you work in a firm?
2:15 p.m.
As an Individual
No, I have my own law firm. I don't work for them. I was retained as counsel for them.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you.
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada actually appeared before us on Monday afternoon. Their witness was Julia Beazley. Did you see her testimony?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
One of the things that she expressed concern about was section 213. She was concerned that it continued to criminalize sex workers or prostituted persons, depending on which language you prefer.
You, as counsel for the organization, if I understand what you've said so far, are completely okay with section 213. How do you explain the inconsistency in your position before us with that of your client?
2:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, it's not an inconsistency. I'm appearing as an individual who has an interest in this subject matter. My retainer with the Evangelical Fellowship ended when Madam Justice McLachlin handed down her reasons in December 2013. They're not my current client; they're a former client.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Okay. When you appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada, I think what you said to Madam Boivin was that you emphasized section 1 in your presentation.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Is the reason for your emphasizing section 1 in your presentation to the Supreme Court of Canada was because you conceded that there was a violation of section 7?
2:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, no, I didn't concede that there was a violation, but my submission was that if the learned justices of the Supreme Court believed there was a violation, I believed it should be saved as a reasonable limitation in a free and democratic society. That was my submission.
Furthermore—
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
You are the first witness to appear before us trained in the law with the viewpoint that you've expressed, absent those who are the Minister of Justice or who work for the Minister of Justice. In fact, yesterday we were given a letter signed by 220 of your colleagues at the Canadian Bar, addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada, that expressed a different view.
Are you a lone wolf, or is there a community of lawyers who would be able to sign a letter that shares your view?
2:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes: my position is not a popular one, but I think there are many lawyers that I know of personally who would sign such a letter. I'm not sure that any group has been formed with the purpose of supporting the prostitution law, but I know from personal experience, in speaking to my colleagues, that there are many who agree that this bill is the right way to go.
Like I said, I know I'm not the most popular person amongst the CBA these days.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
It would be nice to meet some of your colleagues someday.
Ms. Miller, you indicated that you have some concerns with section 213. That's the section that has the potential of continuing to criminalize sex workers.
What we've heard today in testimony is that oftentimes the police use this section not to charge a sex worker but to use it as a threat to be able to separate them from pimps, to be able to try to extricate them. So it's a tool they apparently use to hang over the head of the sex worker to get them into a conversation. Does that make it okay?
2:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity (REED)
I'm not sure what you mean by using it as a “threat” to get them away from a pimp. Can you clarify what you're saying?
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Sure. You arrest a sex worker and say to them, “The reason for your arrest is that I am considering charging you under section 213 for soliciting for the purpose, so come with me.” Then you spend a couple of hours in conversation with that person. You don't charge them, but the possibility of a charge is hanging over their head in order to get them into a conversation. Does that make it okay?
2:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity (REED)
No. I'm not in support of that.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you.
Ms. Perrier, thank you very much for your testimony. It was particularly powerful. If you are not comfortable answering the question that I'm about to ask, just tell me and I'll move on.
You indicated that you spent some time in the sex trade and you have successfully exited. Do you have a criminal record?
2:20 p.m.
Co-Founding Member, Sextrade101
I did have a criminal record, and I was able to get a pardon. But I did have a lengthy record.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Can you talk about the effect that record had on your ability to exit?