Justice Committee on July 10th, 2014

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

Thank you, Mr. Kirkup.

Would anyone else like to say anything?

Ms. Ka Hon Chu, go ahead.

[Sandra Ka Hon Chu]

I just wanted to underscore that I think it's very important that any kind of funding not be contingent on exit from the industry. As I emphasized in my submission, all sex workers are entitled to human rights, whether they identify as being victims or not. I think $20 million is a start but to make a meaningful difference, it needs to apply to all sex workers and the number of social programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Jacob, Ms. Allison would like to comment.

[Gwendoline Allison]

Sorry, I just have one comment.

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

Okay. Go ahead.

[Gwendoline Allison]

Obviously, $20 million is a start. I would imagine that after this bill is passed my clients will be advocating for more money to be spent, as they have done throughout. So I would expect more money to be requested and sought for the social programs, the living wages that they've asked for today.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Ms. Allison.

My second question is for you, Mr. Kirkup.

You talked about the New Zealand model, which has been more effective, and I would like you to explain why that is later. You said that this specific model prioritized human rights, safety and dignity.

I think poverty is among the main factors that lead to prostitution. The Swedish model is effective because it contains various social assistance and anti-poverty measures. However, with the Conservatives in power, such measures tend to disappear.

Do you think it would be possible to reduce prostitution while reducing the state's involvement in society?

[Kyle Kirkup]

I think what I would say, first of all, is that one thing that distinguishes sex work from so many other forms of labour is that sex workers don't have labour protections. They don't have any employment standards. They can't seek recourse if they're working in a dangerous condition, and I think that's a really important distinction between sex work and so many other forms of labour.

So what I find useful about the New Zealand model and what the empirical evidence, I think, demonstrates is that labour protections are very effective in responding to often power imbalances between purchasers and sellers of sex. I don't know that the Swedish model, which continues down the path of criminalization, is really going to be effective in terms of improving the lived realities for sex workers.

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

Would anyone else like to answer my question?

[Gwendoline Allison]

I can answer the question with respect to the New Zealand model.

The Prostitution Law Review Committee recognized, when it reviewed the success of the plan, that exploitative working conditions were long-standing in the industry and that decriminalization made no significant difference to the working conditions for women in prostitution. Nonetheless, the committee decided not to interfere, leaving the matter to be one of negotiation between the women and the brothel itself.

The committee decided not to recommend that women in prostitution be granted employment rights. The committee recognized that most women in prostitution were independent contractors. Under their system, as I understand it—and this is something that's beyond your jurisdiction, obviously—they have an employment relations authority that is roughly equivalent to the employment standards plus an industrial tribunal. The remedies there are not available to independent contractors.

In fact, the only provision that those authorities have is that they can provide a dispute resolution. It's a voluntary process, so a woman in prostitution would have to go to the authority to say she is actually an employee and convince them that she's an employee; then she'll get benefits. Otherwise, she's an independent contractor with no rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ms. Ka Hon Chu, you wanted to answer this question too.

[Sandra Ka Hon Chu]

Yes.

The same prostitution review committee also found that the law decriminalizing sex work in New Zealand had a noticeable effect in safeguarding sex workers' rights. There's an explicit provision in the law that says sex workers do not have to accept any client. There is no coercion in their employment.

There was even a decision just three months ago in New Zealand in which the human rights tribunal awarded a sex worker damages for sexual harassment by a brothel owner. This would not have been possible in a criminalized environment.

So there are examples. If you listen to the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective, which is the largest national organization representing sex workers in New Zealand, you hear that for their membership there is a palpable effect based on the Prostitution Reform Act. There is a safeguarding of their employment rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our last questioner for this panel and for this review of Bill C-36 is Ms. Ambler from the Conservative Party.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you for being here today. We appreciate your testimony.

My question is for Mr. McConaghy. We've heard a fair bit today about consent. I'm wondering, in the context of helping women who have been involved in prostitution to exit the profession, what you say to those who say that the woman—because it's mostly women—needs to be ready to exit.

If there is little choice, do you believe that they are capable of or can freely choose to leave the life? If they can, how can we help them do that? How can police, in particular, help them?

If it's okay with you, I'll just ask all the questions and then let you go at it without saying anything else.

Finally, what powers do you believe that parents of young Canadian girls who are at risk of being brought into this life of prostitution want police to have?

[Brian McConaghy]

To address the first question, basically the power and ability to choose to leave, I think, is in doubt on a lot of occasions. When women are under the control of pimps or addictions, we have seen them consent to horrendous circumstances of bodily harm. To assume that they all of a sudden have the clarity and judgment to get out under those circumstances is fairly naive.

This leads right into the problem. Forgive me if I sound somewhat schizophrenic here, but this is where the clauses within 213 provide the ability for police to remove a girl or a young woman who is abused and give her enough time to think clearly. I totally accept that and in so many ways that's necessary.

There are so many issues that fall out from using the Criminal Code to do that in terms of the victim being criminalized, but a lot of times I don't think there is much ability to consent to leave. There is not the mental preparation to be able to walk out of this.

With minors, that's easy. With minors, we can simply go in and rescue them. We've dealt with situations where minors can be removed very readily because there's the understanding that consent is not an issue. But as soon as a young woman crosses that line and becomes 18, then there's an expectation that she can make her own decisions, and it becomes very problematic because she trusts nobody and wants to participate on many occasions with no one.

So it is really problematic and I don't know how to attack that. In this whole Bill C-36 legislation, this issue is so problematic. How do we help the individuals and give them the tools to make free decisions to get out without imposing legal restrictions or criminalizing them in a way that is counter-productive. I don't have an answer for that. Perhaps that's for the committee and Parliament to hammer out, but it's very difficult.

In terms of parents and what tools parents have, I honestly don't have expertise and can't speak to that, but obviously, there needs to be much greater education. We've heard from some witnesses on committee already who have spoken—

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Sorry, my question was what tools do you think parents of young Canadian girls expect police to have, because we've heard that girls are now being recruited from shopping malls at the age of 12 and in high schools by older kids, things like that.

[Brian McConaghy]

Yes, I think parents would expect the police to be able to intervene to save their daughters from spiralling into a world that they can't get out of, and I think that's exactly what has been spoken to by police officers who are for the clauses in 213. Now where there are minors involved, it's much easier. But where they're adults, it's problematic.

From a parental standpoint, I know exactly how I'd feel. I'd want to completely give the police power to go in and extract my daughter from that kind of situation.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Me too. Thank you.

Mr. Stamatakis, do you have a comment on any of those questions that I asked Mr. McConaghy?

[Tom Stamatakis]

I agree. Canadian parents expect the police—to use Mr. McConaghy's term—to rescue their children when they're being recruited, when they're being exploited by often older impressive people who want to take advantage of them. That's the expectation.

I also want to echo some of the comments around the need for more education, including for the police in terms of emphasizing the fact that sex trade workers are victims and the intervention needs to be focused on assisting as opposed to criminalizing. I think that policing has changed. Our culture has changed and we're wrapping our minds more around that, but we still.... I'm just seeing too many examples of where just having casual contact with a police officer on the street results in a sex trade worker being beaten up.

So the tools are important and I think the idea here is to prevent people from being victimized even more than they already are. As a front-line officer, I agree with Mr. McConaghy. It's just horrendous what women will consent to for very little money. It's often because they're in the throes of addiction or because they're being horrifically exploited by a pimp or by someone who purports to be a boyfriend or a husband or whatever. Somehow we have to be able to intervene in that.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you very much, and thank you for the work that you do and that all of you do. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Ms. Ambler, for that.

That brings us to the end of this panel. I want to thank each of our panellists for being here today.

I want the committee to thank J-F, our clerk, for his fantastic job of putting together very good panels, which met the needs of all committee members, I think. Thank you for all the work that you did.

We will be adjourning now.

We will be reconvening on Tuesday morning, at 9:30, to begin the clause-by-clause discussion. I will remind committee members that the sooner the better for amendments, but we need them by Saturday at 5 p.m., if possible.

Mr. Dechert.

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

I'd like to make a motion, if I could, and I hope it would be unanimous.

I would like to sincerely thank the clerk, the analysts, and all of the staff of the committee, everybody in this room. I would also like to thank the people we don't see in this room, our interpreters, everyone who was involved in doing this very hard work, bringing all of these people together this week in such a very professional way, and a very technically excellent way.

I want to give my heartfelt thanks to all of them, and to all of our witnesses. I hope we can have the unanimous support of all members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Do we have support for that motion?

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

What motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Boivin, he was thanking the chair for the great job that he did.