Justice Committee on July 9th, 2014

[Josh Paterson]

There are I think two things. The first is that by not having those provisions there... And I'm not going to go through an exhaustive list, as there is a list in your report from 2006 of all the different possible offences from trafficking, to extortion, and whatever. You are well familiar with them. By not having the provisions that were struck down in Bedford, we think it is actually more likely that sex workers who are suffering, who are in vulnerable situations, the kinds of people who were victims of Robert Pickton, will be able to come forward and avail themselves of the existing protections of the criminal law, because they will not be concerned that somehow they or their clients are going to wind up being affected by new criminal provisions. That's thing number one.

Thing number two, sir, in answer to your question—and this is where you mentioned federal jurisdiction—is that we take the position that there is likely a fair degree of overlap with provincial jurisdiction here, because the kinds of measures that we would be suggesting.... We don't have any particular prescriptions, but it may very well be appropriate that there be time and place restrictions, that there be zoning restrictions, that there be different health and safety restrictions. I'm sure the committee has heard about things in New Zealand. We don't endorse what New Zealand did wholesale because we haven't studied it, but there are various different options out there. Some of those would involve the federal government and some of those would—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Paterson, we're way over time. I'm sorry for that. Maybe the next questioner will get to you.

From the New Democratic Party, Mr. Jacob.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses here today and those participating via videoconference.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague Ève Péclet.

My first question is for Mr. Paterson.

In your opening remarks, you said Bill C-36 should be withdrawn because it was impossible to improve.

I'd like you to explain your main reasons for saying that.

[Josh Paterson]

Thank you, Mr. Jacob.

We are convinced that the bill is unconstitutional and violates sections 2 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In our view, there is no way to fix the problems with the bill.

That is why we would like the government to withdraw the bill or even refer it to the Supreme Court for its opinion. Otherwise, the community will have no choice but to institute legal proceedings that will once again eat up a considerable amount of time and resources. And in the meantime, the same problems and harms will persist in society.

For that reason, we are saying it's time to put an end to this bill, to take a step back, assess the situation and try a different approach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Paterson.

My next question is for Ms. Dilley.

You said in your opening statement that you really focus on violence prevention. What steps could the government take that would go a long way towards helping you prevent violence?

[Laura Dilley]

Thank you for that question. I'm going to refer it to my colleague here who is our violence prevention coordinator at PACE and who would be more suitable to answer that question.

[Sheri Kiselbach]

I think one of the very important things is to be able to communicate with customers what you will and will not do, and negotiate your terms—where you want to be taken, where you don't want to be taken—in a way that you can do it thoughtfully and you don't have to be rushed, and you can use your senses—your eyes, your intuition—to really take your time to consider if this is safe or not.

When a person is forced to jump into a car, then you are almost trapped in that car and you have no options, and then it can turn into a dangerous situation.

When you're not able to communicate exactly what is going to transpire, that's when the dangerous situations occur. But the client may have thought, because I'm talking vaguely, because of the law.... If I can't say exactly what I'm going to do, they may think I'm going to do something else and I'm not willing to. There have to be very clear negotiations to help keep you safe.

That, for me, is the number one safety thing about the communication law.

Also, to be able to work indoors with others is another safety mechanism that sex workers should be able to have at the forefront. We can help each other in many ways in creating our own safety. When you're indoors you have control over your own environment. I need control of my environment, so that will help keep us safe.

I think there is a great distinction we need to make: the difference between predators and a client. A predator is no longer a john or a client. He is just that—a predator. Predators have a plan. They've done this before. They know what they're doing.

Looking back on my experience, I had very violent episodes happen to me many times. I didn't see cues to assault because the predator had a plan. This was all planned out.

So people can learn these kinds of things and we can learn about our safety, too. I wish I could educate more sex workers about their safety before, during, and after sex work, and what they can do to help negotiate terms and to be safe and to be able to defend themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have one more minute.

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

Thank you kindly, Ms. Kiselbach.

I am going to give the rest of my time to Ms. Péclet.

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

I have just a quick question for Sheri, if I may call you Sheri.

The first part of the question is, how does criminalizing the client help women you deal with every day get out of prostitution?

My second question is—and it's the same question I've asked everybody about the resources—do you think the existing laws.... Would it change something to adopt Bill C-36, or are there problems in the existing laws?

I don't have much time left so I'd like your comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Who is it you are asking?

Sheri Kiselbach.

[Sheri Kiselbach]

If you criminalize clients, sex work is not going to stop. It's just going to be pushed further and further underground, and that's where the exploitation and coercion and abuse is more likely to thrive and nobody will know about it. That's my fear.

It's not going to stop. I don't understand why the government thinks they can stop prostitution or sex work. It's going to keep happening, so we need to keep the sex workers safe.

If you criminalize the clients, they are going to be afraid and they'll ask the sex worker to go down this alley and meet, or let's do this, let's do that. They're going to be hiding, plus we're going to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We're all out of time, Ms. Kiselbach, but you can finish your statement and then we'll be done.

[Sheri Kiselbach]

Plus, when customers do see abuse and exploitation, many are willing to report those things if they don't fear the law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, thank you very much.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. We have one more day of witnesses, all day tomorrow, and then we'll be doing clause by clause on this bill next Tuesday.

Thank you for that. Have a good evening.

This meeting is now adjourned.