Justice Committee on July 10th, 2014

[Kyle Kirkup]

Right. Thank you very much. I think it's an excellent question.

In Bedford, as I mentioned, one of the reasons the court was led to conclude that the former legislative scheme was unconstitutional and was grossly disproportionate was that the purpose was public nuisance when weighed against the effect. What we see with the new bill is an attempt to try to turn up the volume on the preamble, turn up the purpose, and make it more important and elevated so that the government can eventually argue that the effects are not so grossly disproportionate that they cannot be rationally supported.

So I would say there is still an argument to be made that, even though the government has changed the legislative purpose in the preamble, the same effects that led the court to strike down the old piece of legislation are very much still in play. I would argue that while the gross disproportionality analysis is now going to be a bit more challenging for those who are trying to strike down the legislation, there is also now a strong claim that can be made about arbitrariness—that when you look at the purpose and you weigh it against how the legislation will actually work in practice, it seems arbitrary.

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

My second question would be for both Mr. Stamatakis and Mr. McConaghy.

I would just like to know, because my colleague started you on the tools that you need to do your job in the field.... I was just wondering if you could talk to me about what Bill C-36 will bring for you in the field and what it would have given you, because I know Mr. McConaghy represents an organization other than the police.

What will it give you? What tool do you need to do your job that you didn't have before? If I read the Criminal Code, prostitution and trafficking and exploitation are all addressed already.

Mr. Stamatakis, and then Mr. McConaghy....

[Tom Stamatakis]

At the very basic level, from my perspective, what Bill C-36 provides to police is the ability to respond where there's a community concern, where we identify a concern in a particular part of our community that we're serving, or where we see women being exploited. It provides us with the tools to be able to intervene to find out what situation the woman might be in and whether there's anything we can do to help and whether there are services that we can refer the woman to.

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

But you couldn't do that before?

[Tom Stamatakis]

For policing, it's really at the front line—

Sorry?

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

You couldn't do that before with the current legislation?

[Tom Stamatakis]

I think we could have done that before. The issue, though, is that with the Bedford decision, the provisions that were most commonly relied upon by front-line police officers were struck down, so—

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

Yes, but that was only one year ago. The exploitation and the trafficking weren't struck down, so they're still in force.

[Tom Stamatakis]

Right, but when we're talking about the most marginalized or vulnerable women, we were using those provisions before to intervene, to intercede, and to try to make a difference. The issue is what do we do now, since Bedford. I think that Bill C-36 provides us now with some of those tools that we can continue to employ.

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

But what kinds of tools...? This is what I want to know.

Okay, so yes, both what kinds of tools and which clause of the bill or which definition or which...whatever?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Would you like Mr. McConaghy to answer?

[Tom Stamatakis]

Well, it would be the provisions around 213 where the communication gives us an opportunity to intervene; the provisions around someone engaging in sex trade activities in front of a school, in a park, where it's causing other issues; the provisions around preventing youth from being drawn into the sex trade. Those are the kinds of tools that Bill C-36 provides that I think the police can use to protect vulnerable people in our community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm sorry, Mr. McConaghy, we're out of time. Maybe somebody else will answer that for you.

Thank you for that question and answer. We're next going to the Conservative party.

Mrs. Smith, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you. I want to thank all the members of this committee for coming today and all our guests today for your input.

Mr. McConaghy, it's nice to see you. You've done so much good work with Ratanak and the Willie Pickton file. It's a great honour to have you here.

When you listen today.... I have a question and I'll try to frame it. The Bedford case gave us a year to respond. We don't send it back to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada said Parliament must come back with a decision before December 19, with a response. Bill C-36 came about and when we're asking.... We heard so many voices of survivors, so many. The survivors came in and bravely sat in these chairs and talked about what happened to them behind closed doors. They told us that Bill C-36 was very important. Why? Because the buying of sex was going to be put in place and they had something that could bring them out in the open to be able to defend themselves because now the perpetrators were targeted.

It was a compassionate bill. For the first time in Canadian history, Canada produced a compassionate bill that looked at what was happening to the victims of human trafficking and of prostitution, which are really one and the same, because often.... We heard at this committee that there are no people under 18 who are trafficked or prostituted. In fact, when we listened to the survivors, all of them started underage and things progressed.

When we look at this whole thing, there is an urgency for Canada and an urgency for all parliamentarians to understand what's going on and to get busy and do the job instead of dragging their feet and letting it fall under the bus. We've talked about this law and that law, and the other thing. Human trafficking laws and mandatory minimums came in June 2010. It is now July 2014. That's four years ago. Following that was another law on human trafficking in 2012, and there was one in 2005. So the laws on human trafficking are new. So what do we have? We have a police force that has done a remarkable job on human trafficking. If you google human trafficking, it comes up all the time. Canada, I think, has done a remarkable job at finding out what's going on. Our government has done that; found out what has gone on behind closed doors. Now the voices of the survivors are out there.

Brian, you've had a lot of experience in this. You know what you're talking about and I want to talk to you about police training. What we've heard here in the committee is that the police sometimes think the victims should be arrested and sometimes think the victims shouldn't be arrested. They're all well-meaning because they all want to take care of the victims. But I've also heard from some of the victims. Some of the victims have said, “Well, you know when they arrest me they bargain with me. Turn over the goods and then I'll get you out of harm's way.” If they don't, they don't take them out of harm's way. That's the reality of what I've heard from the victims.

My son is a police officer. I love the police. I'll do anything for the police but I find that disturbing.

The other thing is that police are saying, “You know, if we don't have some laws, somewhere along the way, we have no tools.” I find that disturbing.

Could you talk a little bit about police training and could you talk a little bit about the realities on the street? Because we have to get this show on the road.

[Brian McConaghy]

I would agree with you that Canadian law enforcement has made absolutely tremendous strides in this past decade in terms of these very complex issues, and I would say there is a cultural change under way in terms of how police officers view the prostituted. However, I don't think the application of good principles that have been spoken to in committee already by some law enforcement officials are universal in any way, shape, or form.

We are dealing with a long-standing culture where prostituted women were the criminals. It takes time for that to work through the system, where we really understand that they are victims. A 29-year-old young woman on a street corner, in my opinion, is just as much a victim as a nine-year-old, and we need to start balancing how we respond to that. I think there's been tremendous success and tremendous work done, but I would like to see, as part of the cultural change, if you will, as we move towards really accepting these women as victims, that this is really embedded in police training, so that becomes universal and national, and that the culture is changed. We've had several witnesses already speak to the cultural change they're seeing in Sweden. I would love to see the same kind of thing happening on a police level.

In terms of tools, which perhaps strays back into the question asked by Ms. Péclet, I think it's fascinating that the biggest tool I believe police have is the intangible tool of a non-adversarial relationship. It is police officers having a measure of trust with prostituted women, where they're not seen as the enemy and they know it. This is the rub for me. While I totally understand the requirement of tools in the eyes of the police, there's a disconnect here because the biggest tool I believe police have to help prostituted women is trust and relationship. Proposed section 213 is problematic because that reintroduces the adversarial relationship, whereas the rest of this act would indicate the women are not in an adversarial relationship and they can build those trust relationships that are going to be so valuable.

So that's one of the things I would like to see basically part of the whole process of this, that relationships would be built that are fundamentally not adversarial.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have one minute left.

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

One minute left only, Brian, so I have to talk fast. Sorry about that.

We have heard over and over again that the paradigm has changed in this country, that suddenly it's from prostitution and human trafficking being the country's oldest profession to the oldest oppression, and we need to have exit strategies for victims to get out.

You've had a lot of experience with victims of human trafficking and the exit strategies that are needed. Can you talk about those a little bit?

[Brian McConaghy]

Yes.

Exit strategies are both vital and expensive. If we look at the models between Sweden and Norway, I think there's more struggle with the system in Norway because I'm told they have not applied the same degree of emphasis or budgets to exit strategies. I think it's absolutely key that if we're going to say to prostituted individuals that we want to get them out, that there are other options for their lives that are much less violent and much more beneficial for them, we need to have the tools to help them do that. That, by definition, is going to be expensive and it's going to be long term.

With the young women we work with in Cambodia, sometimes that's a 10-year process of trying to deal with the medical issues first, then the psychological issues, then the reintegration back into society. This is something that as a nation, as a society, as a government, we have to come to terms with. This is not easy or quick.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you for your 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 all the witnesses for participating in our meeting this afternoon.

My first question is for Mr. McConaghy. He can't get a break.

You said in your opening statement that exit strategies were very important. You added at the end that adequate budgets were needed for exit strategies.

What kind of tools would we need to help vulnerable women on the ground avoid falling back into the hands of pimps? Do you think the government is serious about rooting out the causes of prostitution?

Anyone who wants to answer the question can do so after Mr. McConaghy.

[Brian McConaghy]

Yes, from a budgetary standpoint I can't give you a total for that, and I have heard evidence already of people complimenting $20 million, particularly in comparison with the United States and their population, and saying it is very significant and will have a significant impact. I've heard others say that it's a drop in the bucket. I would say that in a weird way both are true. We don't know what the number is. Is there room for more money and greater budgets? Absolutely.

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

We are talking about the amount of money allocated over five years.

[Brian McConaghy]

I think one of the things we need to be careful of here is that we're not critical of what is a substantial start to this process. But I would hope that increased funding would come later as those programs would kick in, that the $20 million would not be the beginning and the end of this. I think there is a need for more.

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

Mr. Kirkup, do you want to answer my question?

[Kyle Kirkup]

I'd be delighted to.

When we're talking about the underlying social realities of sex work, I think that we actually have to be having a deep, broader conversation about a housing strategy, about social and economic inequality, and about changing the ways in which we create a more equitable society. I don't know that placing $20 million in a criminal law bill is in any way really going to make any dent in that. I think we actually have to think much more broadly about social inequality.