Justice Committee on July 15th, 2014

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I simply want to thank Madame Boivin for the amendment. The government will not support the amendment. In our view it's inconsistent with one of the main objectives of the bill, which is to protect children from prostitution's harms.

We believe that, as drafted, Bill C-36 balances competing interests, including the interest of protecting sex workers from unreasonable harm. We think it addressed those in appropriate and reasonable ways in full compliance with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.

We also believe that vulnerable people, minors in our communities in general, also have a right to be protected. Children, Mr. Chair, have a right not to be exposed to prostitution. They have a right not to be put in a situation where they could be recruited into prostitution.

We heard very unfortunate stories from survivors of the sex industry, who talked about being recruited into the business in high school. We were told that, unfortunately in this country on a relatively regular basis, young girls are recruited in high school hallways into the business.

We need to send a clear message to the pimps and the johns, and everyone else involved in the sex trade that the schoolyard, the playground, the day care centre, and other places where children are, are off limits.

We believe children, at the end of the day, Mr. Chair, have a right to their innocence, and it's our obligation as a society to protect that right as well. We believe we're balancing those interests, and for those reasons we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Péclet, to the amendment, and then Madame Boivin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's important to note that children need to be protected, and I understand that. However, what we're talking about here is the criminalization of victims, regardless of the situation.

I want to point out that the government was clear in its approach with Bill C-36 and in the questions it asked to witnesses: the majority of women who are involved in prostitution are victims. We're talking about the interests of victims here. Furthermore, since we are talking about criminalization, I think that children should be protected. Do we need to criminalize people to ensure a balance between interests?

Furthermore, witnesses unanimously agreed that the government shouldn't criminalize women or victims when it's balancing interests, since we also need to protect these women.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

This is what I understand of the parliamentary secretary's comments.

We're talking about being open to amendments. We're talking about a substantive amendment, something that affects the substance of what we have heard here and not technical errors in how the bill was drafted before being introduced. What I understand is that the part of this bill called the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act has more to do with protecting communities. The parliamentary secretary made a point to confound the concepts of child prostitution and what is targeted by clause 15 and our amendment. This would decriminalize the victims themselves, meaning the ones we are talking about in this bill and who would be, as the witnesses said, sex workers and prostitutes, pursuant to section 213.

Now I see that this government wants to ensure that my amendment is defeated. I understand that it will just narrow the notion of what is considered public. That's the extent to which the Conservatives are prepared to go.

People will continue to be victimized, and I find that extremely sad and inconsistent with what we've heard and what we're hearing from Conservative members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to my colleague, I just want to remind her that Bill C-36 addresses the exact concerns of the three litigants who started that litigation seven years ago.

When they were out on the street, they were in danger. But the laws that were struck down prevented them from carrying on their business in a safe indoor location, where they could have security and properly screen their clients. Bill C-36 allows them to do that.

We know that all forms of prostitution are inherently dangerous. We've heard it over and over again from some of the very brave survivors of the sex trade, who told horrendous stories about the torture, the rape, the abuse, the beatings, and the assaults they endured for many, many years.

Some of them were recruited in the schoolyard and ended up in that trade. They were trapped in that trade and were treated as slaves long after they ceased to be children, once they were adults. Many of them were enticed into it later in life.

We know that being out on the street is the most dangerous thing one could possibly do in this trade. We are simply saying to them that there are certain places in Canada where these sorts of things are not welcome, inappropriate, and off limits. They are: schools, playgrounds, day care centres, places where young people are every day. We're simply saying, “Do not look for your clients in the schoolyard.”

I think that's a reasonable limit, under section 1 of the charter, Mr. Chair. I am very comfortable in stating to you that in my considered opinion, the Supreme Court would agree with that.

We have given them exactly.... Ms. Bedford, Ms. Lebovitch, and Ms. Scott asked to be able to carry on their business, not outside in any location, not in the schoolyard, but indoors. They can advertise. They can hire security and they can be safe. That is what they should do.

For all those reasons, we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Hopefully, the final word, Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

What do you mean “hopefully”? It will depend on the parliamentary secretary. He talks, I talk.

This is not a recruiting section. This is an actual doing section, where they can and where they can't.

I think that it's wishful thinking to think that this clause meets the criteria set out in the Bedford decision, when the bill allows someone to exchange or provide sexual services in a private location but not to purchase them. However, we can debate that later in another clause.

Once again, I think that the parliamentary secretary is confused about recruitment. I challenge him to tell me which witness told us that prostitution was going on in schoolyards or behind churches. I didn't hear a single witness talk about that. Perhaps I missed part of it. Nevertheless, I didn't hear many witnesses talk about that.

I see a danger there. It's wrong to claim that people could do it comfortably in their own homes, with a security guard. No one will be able to purchase these services, since purchasing will be illegal at all times. On the contrary, those people will head into public places, which are dangerous.

I do understand the Conservatives' argument, and it shows just how open they are to amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Ms. Boivin.

Mr. Dechert.

Mr. Dechert.

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

Briefly, to respond, my honourable friend will remember that we did in fact hear from witnesses, who said that not only does solicitation go on near schools, young girls are actually prostituted in school bathrooms. That's horrendous. That actually happens in Canada sometimes. I hope it doesn't happen very often, but we did hear that.

It's not simply about the ability for children to be recruited, although that is a very important thing. If the pimps are around the schoolyard, we know from the witness testimony that the customers are looking for younger and younger women all the time. Youth is one of the main things that they're selling in this business. When one of the prostitutes they are forcing to be out on the street is working in front of the schoolyard, they'll be scanning the schoolyard to see who the next one might be. So recruitment is important.

In addition, Mr. Chair, children have a right to their innocence. They have a right to be in those places, those very few places in Canada, and not have to see prostitution, or the communication for the purposes of prostitution, going on in front of the swing sets, the sandbox, or the slide. That is what we're asking this committee and all members of Parliament to consider in their deliberations.

Again, on that basis, we cannot support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Madame Péclet.

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

I think it's an awful example that the parliamentary secretary used, talking about young girls being prostituted in the school bathrooms, because under those provisions they would be criminalized. I think the example is an awful one because it actually proves to the committee that criminalizing those victims won't pass the test.

I think it's an awful example. All we're saying is that criminalizing the women won't help the government achieve its goals. That's it. I think we heard unanimously from the witnesses that criminalizing women would not only put them in more danger but would also affect the relationships. We heard that from former police officers, that the relationships between the victims and the police officers are key for targeting prostitutes and human trafficking.

Any form of criminalization will just harm the government's goal, whatever goal they want to have. It would harm the victims and it would harm the women. That's all we're saying. The awful example of kids being prostituted in schools, well, under those provisions in Bill C-36, they would be criminalized. All I'm saying is that with whatever goal the government has, criminalizing victims won't help them, and they know it. We've heard it for four days in a row.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madam Smith, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Quite clearly, Bill C-36 is the first bill we've ever had in Canadian Parliament that is compassionate towards the victims of prostitution and human trafficking, and for the first time, money is there to help them exit.

In Canada, or in any other country, children are the perpetrators’ prime targets. Why? Because they get a higher price. All the components around this bill support and are really well aware of the victimization of the prostitutes and trafficked people. That's the whole essence of this bill. That, and the targeting of the johns and pimps, criminalizing the johns and pimps for buying sex.

It's a great step forward, one that I think this committee can be extremely proud of. I commend Madam Boivin for talking about victimization because that's precisely what Bill C-36 is aimed at preventing. It will also prevent pimps and the johns having the opportunity to help prostitutes solicit in front of schools. In actual fact, in many cases that I've personally worked on, children have been solicited in school, on school grounds. There have even been narcs put in the school itself to look for the vulnerable people so that the traffickers could traffic them. I had an incredible case, out of Edmonton, of a young girl trafficked to Toronto just from that. She was a victim. But she was forced into prostitution from the school itself.

It is a very wise, balanced move for this bill to say, very specifically, that schoolyards and places where children are, are just off limits. Nobody can do that. It's not harming the prostitutes at all. In fact, very few police forces today arrest prostitutes because they recognize them as victims. They ask them to move along.

As MP Dechert, the parliamentary secretary, said, children have a right to their innocence and they have a right not to be targeted by the johns. Johns don't care. They don't ask how old a person is. And they do target the younger ones, the younger-looking ones.

I think that this is a well-balanced way. The argument that it's victimizing the prostitutes is absolutely absurd. For the first time, this whole bill, and the essence of this whole bill, recognizes the tragedy these victims go through.

In closing, I think we have to be very mindful that we don't want anything like this around our schools. It's just not something that we want to happen. Having the provision where we single-out places specifically where children are is a very wise and balanced move for the Canadian public.

This is a very well written, well-balanced bill, in both these regards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Wilks, go ahead.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to continue on with what Ms. Smith had been saying with regard to vulnerable children. Having served as a police officer for some time, certainly, the areas in which young children normally congregate are in those areas where they feel comfortable, where they feel protected, and where they feel they have some sense of innocence left. That would be, certainly, school grounds, playgrounds, and day care centres, where their parents have left them for the day to ensure they are taken care of by those that have been put in their hands.

We've heard testimony and understand that those that start to target these young girls at very young ages go to areas where they know they will be, and where they know they will be less watched because they will be in a group with their friends. A lot of times that's when these young kids let down their guard because they are amongst friends, they are amongst their peers, they are having some fun in a place which they believe is one place where no one will come and harm them.

I think that by expressing to the Canadian public that there are certain places that no one, and I mean no one, can start to target our children, sends a very clear message that this government will ensure that children are the top priority, and that would be in schoolyards, playgrounds, and day care centres.

There's another hinge to this, Mr. Chair, as well. I look at it as the small box that we're talking about, and the small box is that section to which the parliamentary secretary has alluded to with regard to playgrounds, schoolyards, and day cares, but there's a larger box.

The larger box is what we have brought forward in this bill with regard to targeting johns and pimps. That box includes, for all intents and purposes, all of Canada. It brings it all in. There isn't a place in Canada to which a john or a pimp is going to be able to do anything without having the law come to their full brunt.

I believe that is what encapsulates this bill. We recognize, as Ms. Smith has said, there is no argument that prostitutes and those that have been brought into that trade unwillingly are victims. We must be very cognizant of that, but there are places no one should be going to do that type of activity, and that would include schoolyards, playgrounds, and day cares.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I definitely hear Ms. Smith and Mr. Wilks. We are not, I repeat, on the trafficking or recruiting section.

It says in proposed subsection 213(1.1) of clause 15 that:

(1.1) 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 open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present.

This is the clause that touches on the prostitute, the sex workers, solely. It's not the recruiting. It's who we've heard about from every side of the equation as being victims.

If I hear Mr. Wilks correctly, they're victims up to a certain point. If they cross the line and do it in a public place, that they define as a school, a church, and so on

a day care centre, schoolyard or playground nearby,

in their amendment G-4, then they're not victims any more.

That's basically what we have to understand. All the rest is covered in other sections, either through Bill C-36, against the pimps, the johns, or through the trafficking sections that are in the Criminal Code, either with some amendments in Bill C-36 or the actual case.

So as for all of the explanations that I heard from Ms. Smith, of course course nobody wants to see a kid being prostituted in a school, but this is not what it is about. It's about whether or not we want to victimize the person in one of these aspects. That's the question we have to ask ourselves as committee members. What I'm hearing from the government is clear. Finally it is clear: prostitutes are not victims any more when they do it at that point in time.

While Ms. Smith says that policemen do not usually arrest prostitutes, that might be true in certain parts of Canada.... Not necessarily, because when there is the actual section.... We heard some of your witnesses come to the committee on the last day and say that they wanted section 213 to stay for the sole reason that it would help

investigation. They could catch the person. If they can't arrest them, it could be hard to know who is behind them, who was the john, who was the pimp, and so on.

Some police officers would like to have that provision at their disposal, since it could be useful for them. Except that almost all the witnesses told us no. They told us that these are victims.

At least the message is clear. I can't fault you since your message is clear. These people are victims, to a certain point, as long as it doesn't interfere with protecting communities and it isn't conducted in certain well-defined areas.

What a ridiculous concept. I think we've heard everything on this subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

We continue with Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly don't want to repeat very much. I believe we're getting close to having had a full discussion on this point. But Madam Boivin keeps making the point that it's not about recruitment, that there are other provisions in the Criminal Code and in this bill that refer to recruitment.

She's missing, with respect, the point that children have a right not to see it, not to be exposed to it. A 10-year-old child has a right to go to the playground, to their school, and for a small part of their life not to know that prostitution is out there, that it doesn't even exist.

Can we not give them that little place? Can we not say to the women who choose to continue to go out in the street and do something that everyone tells them is extremely dangerous, “Please, not in the school yard, not in the playground, not in front of the daycare centre? Give those innocent children that little space to be children, so they don't have to see prostitution going on in front of them.”

Is that too much to ask?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Dechert.

That is the end of my speakers list on amendment NDP-2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now on to amendment G-4.

Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask the committee members for their indulgence for a few minutes so that I can confer with my colleagues before we...[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

On the amendment?

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

Yes, on the rest of the bill.

If we could just take a break for 15 or 20 minutes, I'd appreciate it.