My God, there's so much to say.
I would understand the argument, if it were all about the buying close to the school and so on. The problem with the clause is that they are victimizing the prostitute, even if they limit the description of where they're going to be victims.
I now understand that this amendment is solely on the basis of the people, especially children, who might be in school or
in a day care centre or on a playground.
It's to avoid these people—these young children—seeing what is going on.
But, again, the disposition reads: Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who communicates with any person—for the purpose of offering or providing sexual services for consideration—in a public place, or in any place
—and then comes in the suggested amendment of the government—
open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre.
I'm surprised that the parliamentary secretary learned about what happening in the world with trafficking here at committee. The stories of Ms. Perrier and others that we heard are stories that, if you open your papers and see how human trafficking and prostitution in those circumstances are happening everywhere in the world, are humongous. There are billions of dollars—we heard about it in the committee—that circulate in that industry.
I hate to use the word “industry”, when it's such a criminal action. This is something that happens for which we need to provide our law enforcement officials with tools to address it.
This is not what it's about. The way they are recruited into that situation is more about whether we believe they are victims or not.
When are they victims and when do they stop being victims? That is the problem with the logic of the government on that issue.
The Supreme Court said that the legislator had the power to make decisions about where and how prostitution may be conducted. We need to look at the full context. Every provision of the bill needs to be read in its entirety.
The government tells us that it was listening to the Supreme Court and that it wanted to get people off the street because in the Bedford decision, it was shown that street prostitution was by far more dangerous than prostitution carried out in a person's home, behind closed doors. This type of prostitution provides an environment in which prostitutes can get information on the type of clients they are meeting, conduct checks and maybe even have security guards. We want to ensure that the definition of pimp isn't as broad and vague as it was before.
The Supreme Court did not give us, as legislators, the mandate to do whatever we wanted, as though we'd been given a blank check. The court said:
Concluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes. The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter.
This is the proof of that. It's up to the legislator to act if appropriate.
I want to make a point of saying this because the impression always seems to be that members on the front bench had the duty to introduce a bill by December 2014 if they felt it was appropriate. They certainly felt it was appropriate to come up with a new approach. However, does this new approach integrate the various aspects of the current system, as requested by the Supreme Court?
I'd like to point out another very important passage from the Supreme Court decision. The court talked about the notion of qualitative instead of quantitative. I'll explain. We know that a large percentage of prostitutes don't necessarily participate voluntarily. I don't have the exact figures, and it also depends on what statistics you look at and the models used.
We know that the vast majority of people who work in this field are under the control of a pimp or are addicted to drugs or alcohol. No one has denied that.
However, in its decision, the Supreme Court said that it is a matter of protection—even of a single person. You have to read all of these provisions. I think that there's a danger when you start picking and choosing what to read, as the parliamentary secretary is doing.
They are saying that they simply want to prevent young people from witnessing prostitution in their schoolyard, near a playground or elsewhere. It's hard to say that anyone is against that, but I want to clarify for those listening that this isn't what the clause says. It doesn't reference that at all. Instead it asks whether someone is being victimized. That's the only question asked.
The Conservatives' wonderful bill is supposed to push people to conduct these activities in private, but we'll have to see what happens with the provisions on advertising, which may not necessarily be a big deal, and we'll have to see what happens with the fact that johns will not be able to purchase these services. They can't purchase these services, unless the parliamentary secretary tells me that what goes on behind closed doors is private and that police officers won't be showing up wherever the prostitute is. This is creating a rather strange system.
In short, the government is choosing to victimize sex workers with its amendment. Even though it has limited the victimization, in this context, prostitutes will still be victims.