Justice Committee on July 10th, 2014

[Jared Brock]

Yes. We just finished an 80-city tour across Canada, which took us a total of 37,000 kilometres, seven months in a car together. So it was a very good test of our marriage. We celebrate six years in three days, so that's exciting. That's good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Brock—

[Jared Brock]

Yes, thank you.

At so many events, girls would come up to us afterwards in tears to thank us for helping people to realize that it's not their fault. We would have guys come up to thank us for talking about sexual addiction. We met trafficking victims across Canada, in towns as small as 2,000 people and in cities as big as Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto. It's crazy.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Jay. I know you could go through an awful lot more. Watching the film, maybe you can say a few things about that.

By the way, the real test in your marriage is not going across country. The real test in your marriage is living in that trailer in the middle of the woods. That's a real test of your marriage.

Deborah, it is so nice to talk to you today. Our conversations over the years have been so beneficial, but I want to ask you something because you've been an RCMP officer. You've been on the streets. Why in the world are some of the police telling us that they have to have the ability to arrest for the good of the victims? Because that's what you're seeing reflected in the bill....

[Deborah Pond]

I think probably for many of the police it's just that this is a tool that they've always felt they've needed, and I think they just need to understand there's a change.

It's much like when I was a police officer and the charter came in. I thought it would be so difficult to arrest criminals on the street, and I think this is just an understanding of building that relationship with the victims so that when they have that interaction, they're able to separate them from their pimps, from the person who is buying the sexual services. They need to develop that relationship understanding that they are there to help them. They're not there to arrest them. They're not there to charge them. They're there to give a road out of an exploitative situation.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much.

Keira and Hilla, you've been amazing over the years. I've just loved partnering with you in so many ways, and you are in the real world, on the ground.

For the committee today, what is the most important message this committee has to get, because you deal with trafficking victims every day of the week? That's for either one of you.

[Keira Smith-Tague]

I think I'll just be repeating what I've said, but I think we do have to send a very clear message to men that it's not acceptable to buy women, at all. But I think equally that women shouldn't be criminalized. It will be the same message I've already said. I do think that the justice committee has a responsibility to listen to the consensus among almost all of the witnesses about decriminalizing the women and removing that provision.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

Alice and Suzanne, what can I say to you two? You're amazing.

I have a question that I need to ask you because in Vancouver, in B.C., and even across this country, women of colour, Asian women, and aboriginal women have a disproportionate visibility in prostitution and human trafficking. Now, you made some comments about what could protect these women the minute they come off the plane, the minute they hit the ground. We've talked about how some come off the plane and are immediately put into brothels.

Could you please repeat that for us? You touched on it a little bit in your presentation. Could you repeat that, please, for the committee?

[Alice Lee]

Yes, especially for Asian women it hasn't been recognized, either in the Bedford case or so far in the discussion here, that a high number of Asian women are in brothels, massage parlours, and also the illegal brothels, the homes, the apartments, and that's true across the country and around the world. All you have to look at are the countries like Thailand, Cambodia, all that.

There are very specific needs. Women who have no language skills or immigration status are put in an extra vulnerable position.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

So coming off the plane, what are the two things that you think they need immediately to just ensure they don't get trafficked or forced into prostitution?

[Alice Lee]

I think that they need to be able to have landed immigrant status, which would make a huge difference for women to be able to not be vulnerable to trafficking or prostitution, as well as concrete supports.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

Do I have one more minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have more than a minute.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Oh good. I've been rushing through this. It's killing me.

There's one thing that I wondered about, and over the years no one has ever done an analysis to follow the money.... I would like any one of you to comment on this. Prostitution and human trafficking are big money-makers, it doesn't matter how you look at it, whether it's the perpetrators who sell or whether it's the advertisements or whether it is all the people who are helping the sex workers.

Is there anybody here in this committee today who would like to comment on the money that's being made to hold these people in bondage with human trafficking?

The other question I have is on the appearance of youth, because we've also heard from people that there's no youth involved in this at all. So those two things, would anybody like to address them?

[Hilla Kerner]

About the appearance of youth, it's obvious, and we know this not only from the women who call our front-line, 24-hour, crisis line, but also from our own members who are women who have been in the sex industry in strip bars and prostitution, and exited prostitution. The majority of the women who called us entered into prostitution at very early ages, some in extreme situations at seven years old and 12 years old. So women themselves, including the women in the Bedford case, did testify that they entered into prostitution at a very early age. This is, I don't even think, contestable information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Anybody else?

Suzanne.

[Suzanne Jay]

Yes, I'd like to point to an RCMP report on human trafficking. Although I don't have specific numbers, there are studies about the money that's involved in human trafficking into prostitution, but it's an illicit activity so it's difficult to pin down those numbers. The most accurate ones are probably from police, and we can glean some of the understanding of how much money is at stake by looking at regimes where they've legalized and what the revenue flows are there.

The RCMP looked at human trafficking in Canada, and they saw that human trafficking and prostitution proliferate in cities where there's a large enough Asian population that organized crime will operate there. The massage parlours are a network across Canada that is obviously controlled by organized crime, and they don't do things for fun; they do things for profit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's your time, Ms. Smith.

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

Our next questioner, from the Liberal Party, is Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

After the opening statements, I thought we had yet another panel of witnesses who unanimously agreed that Bill C-36 is flawed to the extent that it continues to allow for criminal charges against persons who were prostituted or sex workers.

I'm a little less clear on that after your answer to Ms. Smith, Ms. Pond, so I'd like to start with you.

The question you were asked by Ms. Smith relates to testimony that we've heard at this hearing from police officers, who have justified the continued ability to criminally charge victims on it being a tool that they need to be able to detain them and talk to them, even if they're not going to charge them. Am I correct that you feel that section 213 should not be in Bill C-36, that the continued ability to charge those involved in the sex trade is not something that should continue?

[Deborah Pond]

I believe it should not be in Bill C-36.

I believe that officers can have other tools. The women, the youth who are criminalized would....

They need to be able to treat them as witnesses. They can talk to them as witnesses. They do not have to arrest them if they're not going to charge them. I think they just need to understand that they need other tools to do that.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

So it is unanimous.

Ms. Big Canoe, everyone here stated their objection to section 213, which gives the police the ability to continue to charge—and it continues to make it an offence for those involved in the sex trade to communicate for the purpose. Everyone here agrees that it's bad policy. You're the only one who has made a comment on its constitutionality, and that, as you indicated, formed the basis of your case before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Given that your position before the Supreme Court of Canada was that the old provision was unconstitutional, what we've heard before this committee from all lawyers who have testified, except for those who worked for the Department of Justice and the minister, and the lawyer for the Evangelical Fellowship who disagreed with her client, was that the change in the objectives will save the new provision.

I think I understood your opening statement to say that you disagree with that position—that the change in the objectives will not make this new provision constitutionally sound. Is that right?

[Christa Big Canoe]

Mr. Chair, if I could address the member's question, yes, I agree with your characterization. I don't believe it meets the constitutional muster, as it's currently drafted. In fact, it basically does the same thing.

People will rely on the preamble, or they'll say things. But when you actually have to weigh in a court.... It could happen at numerous levels, but if it makes its way back up to the Supreme Court, the court will have to apply the constitutional and fundamental principles of justice, which require them to weigh and balance the risk and harm and the objectives. The objectives are so broadly stated that, in my opinion, the challenge will likely be successful on those grounds.

Minister MacKay had mentioned on Monday that people are going to challenge it just because they want to challenge it. We don't enter into litigation lightly. We go in based on human rights and constitutionality. Quite frankly, diminishing those rights and weighing life, liberty, and harm, death of individuals, with something written in law that's not constitutional is an easy decision to make. We spent months at it in Bedford.

I think it's safe to say that a number of allies will probably do it again if it's passed through this way, and on the same basis that we challenged it in the first place. Legislation should meet the constitutional muster. It should be something that you know is going to succeed. In this case, it is my opinion it's highly challengeable and it would be likely successful that it might be seen as a constitutional breach.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I want to thank you for addressing the principles in Gladue. I've been trying to get witnesses to talk about it all week. Now we have the expert in front of us, so I want to ask you about that.

You were very clear that you felt Bill C-36 runs afoul of what the Supreme Court of Canada had to say in Gladue. Can it be salvaged? Are there amendments you would propose that would make it consistent, or is it fundamentally flawed?

[Christa Big Canoe]

Mr. Chair, if I could address the member's question, a direct answer would be that parts of it are fundamentally flawed. The reason they're fundamentally flawed is in relation to the mandatory minimums that exist and actual charges that exist, because things like exploitive relationships aren't necessarily defined as well as they could be.

For example, aboriginal people, communities, who aren't necessarily in an exploitive relationship as it relates to sex work, or someone who is engaged in sex work, could also face criminalization. Because of that, it's fundamentally flawed. Mandatory minimums fail to leave the decision to a judge to take into account the circumstances of the aboriginal offender before them.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I asked the minister about compliance with Gladue, as you indicated in your statement. Immediately after that question, I asked him whether he would agree that first nations are uniquely vulnerable when we're talking about prostitution and exploitation. He agreed with that. But then I asked him whether there were any specific measures taken in the legislation to account for that unique vulnerability, and he said that all of the sections are intended to protect all vulnerable individuals.

How would you react to that?