Justice Committee on Feb. 11th, 2022

[Dr. Claudyne Chevrier]

I think that this legislation is based on the idea of ending demand, as was mentioned, and it still criminalizes parts of the sex trade. It still criminalizes clients and sex workers in many ways. I think that as long as there's criminalization of the sex trade, we're going to see poor health outcomes and social outcomes. That is what the literature points to internationally as well as locally.

An approach centred on evidence and done in meaningful consultation with stakeholders—sex workers who are currently working—is something that would be very useful.

I think another way in which [Technical difficulty—Editor] sex workers in Canada. It contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that's something that should be looked at [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Just to summarize, I would say that the criminalization, such as PCEPA, pushes sex workers underground. It pushes them to report less to police and creates barriers to their accessing the services they need, be it social services or health services.

In my research, I spoke to many people who were endlessly debating and creating complex strategies about whether to disclose the fact that they were a sex worker to health care providers or social workers, because they feared the implication this would have for their lives, for their colleagues' lives and for their families' lives. This is pushed by criminalization—by the fact that the sex trade is still criminalized.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Dunn, can I ask you the same question about effectiveness—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Unfortunately, Mr. Naqvi, you're out of time.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Am I?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Yes. I'm sorry.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'll come back again. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We will go over to Madame Michaud.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for coming and giving evidence. We are very grateful to them.

I will in turn address you, Ms. Chevrier.

Bill C-36 was enacted in the context of the Bedford decision, which found that certain provisions of the Criminal Code at the time imposed dangerous conditions on prostitution. The bill had three major objectives: to protect those involved in prostitution who were considered victims of sexual exploitation, to protect communities from the harms caused by prostitution, and to reduce the demand for sexual services.

In light of your testimony, we understand that this bill has not protected people involved in prostitution. In fact, it has put them in even greater danger. I would like you to tell us more about this aspect.

I'd also like to hear you talk about the third objective, which is to reduce the demand for sexual services. Where do you think this goal came from? Do you think it has been achieved?

[Dr. Claudyne Chevrier]

Thank you very much.

You are right, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act was implemented in response to the Bedford decision. Unfortunately, the intention behind the Bedford decision was not followed. I am not a legal expert, but this is my opinion. As I explained earlier, sex workers—that is, people who sell sexual service—are still considered criminals.

I followed the discussions on Bill C-36, in which Senator Donald Neil Plett was one of the participants. I heard that the goal was to make it so difficult for everyone in sex work that it would force them to move on. But that's not what happened. Instead, the situation has been made very difficult for sex workers. New barriers have been created that prevent them from accessing the services they need.

The goal of reducing demand is a very strong idea among prohibitionists, among people who are against sex work. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this works. For example, Sweden adopted a similar legal framework, in 1999 I think, and it did not work. The only data we have is that the demand may have dropped a little bit at first, but it has not continued to drop in a sustained way.

However, we know that there has been an increase in violence and harassment against sex workers. As a result, they now have to hide more from social services and the police.

I don't think this approach works. Furthermore, I feel that it goes against the idea that I have been advocating and that is supported by the research evidence, which is that we need to focus on the safety of people working in the sex industry.

Regardless of what some people think or feel about the sex industry, it exists and will continue to exist. Citizens who work in the industry have a right to be safe. They must have access to the same resources as other citizens.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Sex work should therefore be decriminalized to ensure the safety of sex workers.

Having said that, I wonder about the legislation that we are currently studying. Do you disagree with all its provisions? Are you rather in favour of increasing the penalties for human trafficking? I would like to know your opinion on these provisions more specifically.

[Dr. Claudyne Chevrier]

I don't want to comment on something I'm not an expert on. My research area is sex work, not human trafficking.

However, I am not sure that increasing these penalties has really improved the situation of victims of human trafficking. I also want to mention that legislation that puts sex workers at risk does not help victims of sexual exploitation or victims of human trafficking, because it puts everyone at risk.

I think we need to think about this and perhaps use the excellent Canadian studies that have been done on the subject to find solutions that could help the victims of sexual exploitation and human trafficking. We must indeed help them, but without endangering the sex workers who are in this industry and who have the right to live off it.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I don't think I'll have enough time to let you answer my next question, but I'll ask it anyway.

Your research focuses on the situation in Winnipeg, but can you still talk about the situation in Quebec?

[Dr. Claudyne Chevrier]

My Ph.D. is on the Winnipeg situation. I can talk about the situation in Quebec, but not with as much certainty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Madame Michaud.

Next is Mr. Garrison for six minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to extend particular thanks to Dr. Chevrier for being with the committee this morning. I think it helps us focus on the purpose of this study, which is the impact of the law on those involved in sex work and not on moral judgments or ideological judgments of those who are involved.

I'd like to ask you a couple of specific questions based on your on-the-ground research. How does the current law, in criminalizing those who purchase sex, make the [Technical difficulty—Editor] work with their clients more dangerous?

[Dr. Claudyne Chevrier]

The current laws, because they criminalize clients, make it more difficult for sex workers to negotiate the consensual interaction they will have with their clients. That can mean that they make it more difficult to negotiate safer sex measures such as condom use. They can make it more difficult.

They also make it more difficult for them to communicate with their clients generally and use various safety measures that sex workers typically use. For example, some indoor workers might ask clients to provide some identification or some sort of proof of who they are [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Maybe they'd send it to someone they work with. All of that would be very difficult under the current laws because it provides documentation. The client might be very reluctant to provide identification in order to do something that is criminalized under these laws, which, of course, makes it more difficult to ensure sex workers' safety.

They also make it difficult for sex workers to be able to report to the police or in general. In the two examples I gave from my research, they made it difficult for sex workers to trust the police. The police are charged with enacting a law that criminalizes, that is steeped in and is based on a legal framework that seeks to eradicate the work they do. All of that makes it very difficult for them to trust the police, especially when situations occur like the one with Chief Smyth in Winnipeg denying that sex workers exist, in his opinion.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Dr. Chevrier, I'll ask you about another specific aspect, the provisions in the current law that forbid those who work on the streets from being near certain public institutions. Can you talk about the impact of those provisions on the safety of those who are working on the streets?

[Dr. Claudyne Chevrier]

For people who work outdoors, those specifications, if you think about them, say that there are extra penalties, even, for people who are, as you mentioned, working or communicating around prostitution close to day cares, schools and churches. If you think about it, those are most places in a city. I know that in Winnipeg I can't be really far from one of those things at any point. That makes it very difficult for sex workers. It makes them very nervous to work in certain areas. That pushes them to go to certain areas that might be more remote, where there might not be cell service, where there might not be passersby and where it might be even more difficult to work in teams or with other people. Of course, all of that increases the chances of being victims of violence, especially since sex workers can be targeted by people for violence.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Certainly the other two witnesses told us their goal, which is to eradicate sex work. Can you tell us what you would see as the best outcome from a study like this? I know many people involved in sex work have been skeptical of this review. Can you tell us what you think might be the best outcome of this for you?

[Dr. Claudyne Chevrier]

In my opinion, the best outcome of this review would be to take a hard look at the evidence that has been produced by researchers and the feedback that has been received from sex workers. I do hope that you will hear from many more sex workers who are currently working and who are the main stakeholders in this issue. You will realize that this law is not doing what I believe people want it to be doing.

It is not keeping people safer. It is not making life safer for sex workers and for victims of sexual exploitation and human trafficking. This law, in my opinion, is supposed to focus on sex work and on the safety of sex workers. I would hope that people will conclude that this is not the way to go.

Again, I would invite everyone to look at the literature on public health internationally that focuses on decriminalization. Amnesty International recently came out for decriminalization. I also want to point you toward a position statement from the Canadian public health agency, which came out after PCEPA, that speaks of the importance of decriminalization for better health and social outcomes for sex workers in Canada.

I imagine that I have to stop talking right away, but I'll just say that the evidence is clear in public health: For health outcomes, for social outcomes, decriminalization is the way to go.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Moore, you have five minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

You know, it's become clear that we could easily spend three hours with this panel, because there is so much great information being provided and so much expertise and real-life experience.

I think we have to be very clear as well. Bill C-36, which was a response to the Bedford decision, makes it very clear that selling your own sexual services is protected from criminal liability. It's already decriminalized. What people who are calling for full decriminalization now are saying that, obtaining sexual services for consideration, those who buy, sell and exploit.... As Cathy Peters and other witnesses have identified, the vast majority being exploited are women. That this should somehow be legal, that we should decriminalize the purchase and sale of Canadians, mostly women, many people, of course, reject outright.

You made a number of statements that I want to hone in on kind of quickly. One, you mentioned Canada's potential to become “America's brothel”. You drew on your experience in B.C., where you said that the legislation that was passed in 2014 is not being enforced. You're seeing evidence of how different provinces are treating it.

Could you explore that a little further and how the failure to enforce this law leads to more victimization?

[Cathy Peters]

Well, absolutely. I mean, I'm an inner-city high school teacher. I didn't choose to sign up for this. When PCEPA became law, I just started thinking that I would start speaking to law enforcement and to the public to see if they knew about the law and if they were going to enforce it. They had never heard of the law.

I am eight years into presenting this—every single politician in British Columbia knows me—and I cannot believe it: They don't know the law. Even the provincial bureaucrats at our provincial government in public safety don't really understand the law. The phone is ringing off the hook. That's all I can say. I work on this full time, almost seven days a week.

I do want to point out a book, if you want research that's Canadian and national, entitled Sex Industry Slavery: Protecting Canada’s Youth. This is the Ph.D. thesis by Dr. Robert Chrismas. I have been interviewed with him on radio and TV. He is a Winnipeg police officer, and he gets what this looks like.

The thing is that Ontario, because they understand about this—they have a human trafficking coordinator and their police are trained—are literally 30 years ahead of B.C. Manitoba has somebody called Joy Smith.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes.