Justice Committee on March 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I'll call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number five of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on Tuesday, February 8, the committee is meeting on the review of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I think everyone still knows the mask policy. If you're not speaking, try to have your mask on. I think members are okay, as they're distanced six metres apart. Staff, if we can ensure that you have them on unless you're drinking or eating, that would be great.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses. We have Gwendoline Allison, from Barton Thaney Law, and Mr. Paul Brandt, a public figure. From the Pivot Legal Society, we have Kerry Porth. We're going to make sure she gets some technical help before she comes on. Also, we have Lindsay Watson, legal director of Pivot Legal Society.

Each of the witnesses, the two individuals and Pivot Legal Society, will have five minutes. I will start with Gwendoline Allison of Barton Thaney Law for five minutes, and at the end there will be rounds of questions.

[Gwendoline Allison, Barton Thaney Law, As an Individual]

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I am a lawyer with 26 years of experience in employment and human rights law. I have a number of clients who have appeared before you or who are appearing before you, and I was co-counsel in both the Bedford and Barton decisions. Although I'm aware of the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision upholding some of the laws, my introduction today will focus on the implications for employment-related laws should Parliament decide to repeal PCEPA.

I am mindful of comments I have seen, both in the briefs and in meetings, that decriminalization will endow those in prostitution with labour and employment rights and access to courts and tribunals.

In considering how those laws may protect the safety and security of those in prostitution, I will make a few introductory comments.

First, prostitution is highly gendered. The vast majority of buyers are men, and the vast majority of providers are women and girls. There are some boys and men who provide commercial sexual services, but the buyers are still men.

Second, prostitution targets the vulnerable. In the Bedford case, at paragraph 86, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that many of those in prostitution are not exercising a meaningful choice to engage in prostitution, but rather have no meaningful choice but to engage in prostitution.

Third, prostitution has a hierarchy that is both classist and racist. The poorest, the racialized and the most vulnerable are at the bottom. Not only that, but prostitution encourages racism, as buyers seek out experiences linked to racist stereotypes.

Fourth, the courts have recognized that prostitution is inherently dangerous. Women in prostitution are subjected to male violence at very high rates.

Finally, as the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized, the source of the harm is the men who buy and those who profit from prostitution.

I recognize that many employment-related laws are mainly within the provincial sphere of regulation and outwith the control of Parliament. If Parliament decides to repeal, your role becomes very limited.

Labour and employment laws will not protect those in prostitution. Those laws are targeted to the protection of employees. It's widely recognized that in every legal regime, regardless of whether it is described as legalized, regulated or decriminalized, and regardless of the setting, whether it be at the street level or in private homes, massage parlours, managed brothels or escort agencies, those engaged in prostitution are classified as independent contractors. That is the case in the bunny ranches in Nevada, the mega-brothels in Germany, the windows in Amsterdam, and in New Zealand.

While in Canada, that would permit those in prostitution to register for EI and CPP, it would mean no minimum wage, no overtime, no scheduled time away from work, no vacation pay, no paid sick leave, no bereavement leave, no severance pay, no benefits and no job security. As independent business people, those in prostitution would be responsible for remitting income tax and, depending on their earnings, collecting and remitting GST.

The mechanisms for labour and employment law enforcement would not be available to those in prostitution. That lack of protection has been recognized in recent studies in New Zealand and Australia. Even those studies that support decriminalization acknowledge that neither decriminalization nor legalization have had any substantive connection to improved labour rights.

Similarly, human rights legislation is inadequate. Although “employment” is more broadly interpreted than under the common law, the key requirement is that there has to be an “employer”, someone against whom the woman may seek a remedy. Human rights legislation could, at most, operate to protect women only in indoor, managed situations.

Decriminalization of the buyers and profiteers has implications that go beyond those in prostitution. Over many years—and it has taken many years—it has become unlawful to require a person to engage in sex as a condition of their employment. The question arises as to how, in a decriminalized environment, those unlawful activities could become lawful.

A final strand of protection is provincial workers’ compensation legislation, to ensure safety in the workplace and compensation for work-related injuries. That would require significant amendments to legal regimes, over which you have no control.

What would occupational health and safety regulations look like for the prostitution industry? How would we eliminate the risk of violence? How many sexual acts can a woman endure during any shift? How many hours should be worked? How much topical anaesthetic should be used? All of these issues are under-researched and are not covered by current regulations.

Arguably, one benefit of the scheme is the ability to obtain compensation for workplace injuries. Such a scheme could, but does not yet, compensate for the known injuries caused by prostitution—violence, mental disorders, occupational diseases, repetitive strain type injuries and pregnancy.

The scheme, however, is also employer-funded, so the practical issue is compliance. Who pays? Again, there has to be an identifiable employer. Otherwise, the independent contractor would be the one to have to register. Without being registered, there is no protection.

In my submission, the lack of attention to those in prostitution and the obvious inapplicability of the current mechanisms illustrate how ineffective employment-related legal regimes are to protect the safety and security of those in prostitution.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Allison.

Next we'll go to Mr. Paul Brandt.

[Paul Brandt, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today I’m pleased to present to you and this standing committee for your deliberation of the review of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, or the PCEPA. Thank you for your invitation. I'll be speaking in support of the PCEPA.

I’m here today as a private citizen, the father of two children and someone who has had the great privilege of speaking with many women and children directly impacted by human trafficking and the sex industry.

Aside from my 25 years in the music industry and two years as a pediatric registered nurse prior to that, you may be interested to know that I'm the founder of an organization called #NotInMyCity, which was formed to disrupt human trafficking. I've also recently completed my time as chair of the Government of Alberta’s Human Trafficking Task Force. It's my hope that the knowledge I’ve gained over the past 18 years of being involved with working on behalf of communities and exploited persons will prove useful to you as you review and make decisions on how best to move Canada forward to end the sexual exploitation of women, children and youth.

Fifteen years ago, I saw a glimpse of a horrific future for women, children and youth in a country using the decriminalization model. I was in an area internationally renowned for the trafficking of young children. It was rife with organized crime. On that street was a warehouse where children were given drugs—or downers—to force them to sleep during the day. They were then given amphetamines—or uppers—at night to wake them up before being taken by their traffickers, pimps and bodyguards to body rub parlours and brothels, where they were forced to sexually service men.

Across the street, a three-storey building was under construction, which was being financed by a California-based businessman to be used as a sex destination hotel to service busloads and planeloads of men from around the world who pay to rape and sexually assault young children. Children whose tiny bodies had been used up and had died were being buried in the yard behind the construction site. Those who had survived were sold to sex buyers until they aged out, were impregnated by their abusers or had HIV/AIDS. These children no longer had any monetary value to their traffickers. It was one of the most horrific places I've ever been.

I met a little girl that day on that street who was five years old and was being sold six to eight times per night to adult men for the purposes of sex.

Since arriving back in Canada from that trip, and until the current day, I've immersed myself in learning about how there are connections between prostitution, trafficking and the growing commercial sex industry. I've learned how sexualized violence thrust upon children creates a progression of subsequent abuse and victimization, often resulting in their being trafficked. I've learned how traffickers use popular online platforms to lure and exploit victims, who are often children. The two most common sites used to facilitate human trafficking in Alberta are Snapchat and Instagram.

I've learned that 75% of those in the sex industry were first exploited as children, and over 50% of trafficking victims in Canada are indigenous, despite their representing only 4% of Canada's population. I've learned how new data released on May 2, 2021 by Statistics Canada reveals that a record high number of human trafficking incidents were reported to police in Canada in 2019. Reports are up 44% from the previous year, and more than one in five victims are 17 or younger.

Crime investigators I spoke with detailed how the child abuse sexual material created to feed the demand in the sex industry that they had to view during investigations had become their nightmares. One former RCMP officer detailed that the worst part wasn't the visuals, but the sounds the children made while being sexually tortured. He couldn't get that out of his head.

While not to be conflated with the activities of those who willingly enter and stay in the sex industry, the sex industry and human trafficking are related. Many women with former experience in the sex industry have told me that while they were in the life, they would have inaccurately said that they had chosen to be involved in the sex industry. It was only upon exiting and beginning the journey to freedom that they were able to realize that they'd been victims of force, fraud and coercion during their time in the sex industry. They had only said they were willing participants because of their traumatization and in a desperate attempt to regain some sense of control.

PCEPA is effective when enforced, yet more can be done to ensure it is enhanced and utilized effectively and uniformly across the country. Removing or altering the PCEPA by introducing decriminalization or legalization will negatively impact women, children, youth and indigenous populations in Canada.

The evidence is clear. Since its introduction, more victims are being identified and supported, more children are being protected, and more sex purchasers are being charged because of the urgently needed framework and safety mechanisms created by the PCEPA.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Brandt.

Do we have the next witness?

We'll go over to you, Ms. Porth.

[Kerry Porth, Sex Work Policy Consultant, Pivot Legal Society]

Good afternoon, and thank you for having us here today.

Pivot Legal Society works in partnership with communities affected by poverty and social exclusion across Vancouver, B.C. and Canada to identify priorities and develop solutions to complex human rights issues.

Our work engages all levels of government, including federal laws and policies. Pivot’s work includes challenging laws and policies that force people to the margins of society and keep them there.

The last time I testified before a government committee on behalf of Pivot was in September of 2014, when PCEPA was in its study phase. At that time, Senator Donald Plett said this to me:

Of course, we don’t want to make life safe for prostitutes; we want to do away with prostitution. That’s the intent of this bill.

My first point is that the purposes of PCEPA, as expressed in its preamble, are contradictory. Laws that are intended to stop sex work from happening cannot help but put sex workers in harm’s way.

We have several recommendations to make to this committee. At the heart of all our recommendations is the necessity of centring the lived experiences of people who do sex work and experience the realities of criminalization.

One, don’t conflate trafficking and sex work. Sex work, which we define as “the consensual exchange of money for sexual services” is not trafficking, and trafficking laws should not be used as a reason to investigate sex workers and sex work businesses.

Two, repeal the laws that criminalize adult sex work. We recommend repealing all criminal laws that prohibit the purchase or sale of sexual services by adults and that limit adults selling sex from working with others in non-coercive situations. This includes the PCEPA and provisions such as section 213(1)(a) and (b), which were not constitutionally challenged in Bedford. We also recommend that you remove the immigration and refugee protection regulations that prohibit migrants from working in the sex industry.

Three, create appropriate provincial laws and municipal bylaws in consultation with sex workers. Decriminalizing sex work would not necessarily mean that there are no restrictions on sex work. However, the boundaries on sex work should be developed with sex workers, who are the true authorities in their lives and work.

Four, recognize the complex realities of indigenous peoples who sell and trade sex. Narratives about indigenous people in sex work tend to focus on their overrepresentation. Indigenous sex workers Pivot has worked with say this is due to their lack of economic opportunities and the fact that sex work is an occupation that does not require formal training.

Indigenous people across Canada also have a great diversity of experiences and may use sex work as a way of resisting the colonization of their communities, perpetuated through displacement from lands and the repercussions of the genocidal residential school system. Provincial systems for youth in care, also disproportionately indigenous, often do not meet their needs. As a result, indigenous youth often struggle to support themselves when they try to escape abusive circumstances.

The federal government should increase broad-based supports, thereby positioning indigenous people to decide whether they want to participate in the sex industry, and if so, under what conditions.

Five, learn from other jurisdictions. New Zealand provides a model for decriminalization of sex work, which was developed in consultation with sex workers and which respects and promotes their human rights and safety. Over the past decade, research has suggested that this legal regime has resulted in sex workers' having greatly enhanced control over the conditions of their work, including their ability to refuse clients and to insist on condom use.

Finally, six, work on undoing the stigma that surrounds sex work. The greatest commonality between sex workers in Canada is the stigma they face. Most sex workers live in fear that their work will be revealed to family and neighbours. This stigma perpetuates over-policing and supports conditions that have allowed predators to murder, sexually assault, rape and abuse sex workers with impunity.

Education is also needed to dismantle negative stereotypes about sex workers, but law reform is essential. Changing the law would be a first step towards undoing the stigma, accepting sex work as an occupation and accepting people who do sex work as full members of our communities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Porth.

I will now start our first round of questions. Before I begin, I want to welcome Mr. Fortin back to the committee. We like to see you back as always. Hopefully, your health is good.

I also want to welcome Mr. Cooper, our new member of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, for joining us.

It's over to you, Mr. Moore, for six minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing on what is a really important study of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.

I was pleased to be part of a government that brought in that legislation, which criminalizes those who fuel and perpetuate the demand for prostitution by purchasing sexual services; protects those who sell their own sexual services; deals with the most vulnerable in our society; and makes sure the law is responsive to court decisions, but that we're doing our best to protect those who are vulnerable.

I want to ask a question of Mr. Paul Brandt. Thank you for appearing today. This is something you don't have to do in your time, but you spoke with great passion about what you saw in other countries. We heard from previous witnesses that the complete decriminalization of prostitution in Canada could lead us to becoming the brothel of the United States. It was really horrific to hear the description you gave about a country where this has been completely decriminalized.

Could you speak a bit more to that, as well as about #NotInMyCity, which is combatting human trafficking? I'm interested in hearing a bit more about that. There's a perception about human trafficking as being a big-city issue, but I'm from New Brunswick and, in some of our smaller Atlantic Canada communities, human trafficking is happening now. The corridors where people are trafficked are right across Canada.

If you could speak to that, I'd appreciate it.

[Paul Brandt]

#NotInMyCity is an organization I founded about five years ago here in Calgary, where I am right now. The idea behind this organization was to raise awareness about the issue of human trafficking and to disrupt human trafficking and sexual exploitation, especially as they relate to children.

You're right. Looking at places around the world where we've seen legalization and decriminalization, like Norway, Amsterdam, Germany and where I was in Cambodia, these are examples where the failed experiment of legalization and decriminalization occurred. We see brothels. We see drive-through sex boxes at truck stops, where buyers pull into walled stalls to buy women by the hour. Clubs with small flat rates will buy unlimited sex with as many women as a man wants during his stay.

Five years ago, when we started #NotInMyCity, it came to my attention that it's well known within the anti-trafficking community that one common menu item available to sex buyers occurs once a year during the Calgary Stampede. There's high demand by local and international sex buyers who visit the city at that time, specifically for indigenous women and girls, to facilitate their sexual fantasies.

Undercover investigations here in Alberta have turned up online communications on the dark web between traffickers. They say they don't deliver to Calgary, but they can get “it” across the border. The “it” that they're referring to is the trafficking of victims forced into the sex industry to meet demand.

I would say my home province of Alberta has made great strides in the last five years by uniformly and consistently applying the tenets of the PCEPA, and the momentum is changing communities for the better. We're seeing a lot of co-operation. Recently, #NotInMyCity introduced the position “safety network coordinator” through the Alberta law enforcement response team, ALERT, which handles crimes of this nature and organized crime. The safety network coordinator assists those wanting to exit the sex industry and was introduced by the Alberta law enforcement response team to be there to effectively and efficiently intervene.

I'll finish with this, and it was really telling to me. I was speaking with staff sergeant Colleen Bowers the other day, with the Alberta law enforcement response team. She's heading up the human trafficking counter-exploitation unit, and she said that the Nordic model approach of the PCEPA is the most effective middle ground for addressing the connections between human trafficking and prostitution. Uniform application of the PCEPA, along with increased public education about the links between human trafficking and the commercial sex industry, are improvements that she would like to see to enhance safety within the community.

She further said that ALERT's client-centred approach, recently implemented in Alberta through the safety network coordinator position, has been a great success in assisting those involved in the sex industry who would like to exit, are being trafficked, or are at risk of being trafficked. The SNC's success at intervening on behalf of those in the sex industry who need immediate support depends on the protections available within the PCEPA. The activities of the SNC were developed with the PCEPA in mind.

Finally, she said that the repeal of the PCEPA would be disastrous to both willing and non-willing individuals who are involved in the commercial sex industry. The risks are simply too high. International evidence of the failures of decriminalization and legalization is clear. Law enforcement jurisdictions across Canada do not have the capacity to address the amount of organized crime and victimization that is likely to occur should the PCEPA be substantively altered.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I see that I only have 30 seconds left, but I do have one quick follow-up question.

You mentioned that PCEPA is effective when enforced, and you mentioned the Alberta experience. I know you're an Albertan, but we have heard of other provinces where it's not being as effectively enforced.

Can you speak quickly to that?

[Paul Brandt]

I would say that misapplication of the act causes harm. It has to be applied the way it was intended and the way it was written. Where it's uniformly and consistently applied, we are seeing that it's working. It's gaining incredible ground in Alberta right now, and in the work we're doing across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Now, we'll go over to you, Ms. Brière, for six minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue in the same vein.

Mr. Brandt, what would your recommendations be?

In what direction should we take our study?

[Paul Brandt]

I would say that supporting and maintaining the PCEPA, and enhancing the legislation as it is, would be valuable for Canadians. Women, girls, youth and children, and a disproportionate number of indigenous people, are lured into the sex industry. The PCEPA addresses this issue. By enhancing measures within the act, the PCEPA can be made more effective.

In the brief I submitted to the committee, I outlined a number of steps that I would recommend.

More focus should be placed on prevention within the act. I've heard in previous testimony that you can't legislate prevention, but we're actually seeing the exact opposite happening in the work we're doing in Alberta. When the act is applied as it was intended, we see prevention being one of the main mechanisms that are triggered.

Resources and additions should be made available, within the act, for re-education and vocational opportunities for survivors. My friend, Ms. Trisha Baptie, who has also testified before this committee, talks about how, for her, it was not a choice—it was the lack of choice. We're really seeing, in the client-centred approach we're taking in Alberta, that it is all about choice. Additions to the act to enhance access to addiction and trauma resources, I believe, are key.

Next is strengthening the act to encourage and support the PCEPA as a bridge among all levels of government, including municipal, provincial and federal levels. We're just starting to get to a place now, in Alberta, where we're seeing those connections happen through a newly formed community response model and the creation of coalitions across the entire province, where all levels of government are being engaged and working together.

Next are requirements and provisions of resources within the act to ensure the use of shared definitions in relation to trafficking. This is extremely important. Consistent approach and training, universal branding and public messaging, and universal and consistent ongoing training, I believe, are key.

Finally, although it's not available because it has not been released by the Government of Alberta yet, a study has been turned in to the Alberta government recently by the human trafficking task force. I would suggest looking at suggestions within that report on trauma-informed, most promising practice detail. I would suggest that you contact the Government of Alberta to review the report, called “The Reading Stone”. I think this committee might find some of the suggestions within that report very helpful.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

I will now address Ms. Allison.

Ms. Allison, you represented, as counsel, the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution, an intervener in the Bedford decision. You are therefore familiar with the findings of the case.

The court found, among other things, that the provisions of the Criminal Code then in force infringed the right to safety of persons selling sexual services.

Since the passage of Bill C‑36, do you believe that people who work in the sex industry are better supported and guided?

What would be your recommendations?

[Gwendoline Allison]

One of the challenges, which I think Mr. Brandt touched on, is that Bill C-36, or PCEPA, is not being uniformly enforced across Canada. Particularly in B.C., it was declared very early on that the Vancouver Police Department would not engage in arresting purchasers of commercialized sexual services. That policy has been taken throughout B.C. in other police forces.

That's the first problem. The legislation has not been given a chance to operate properly in B.C.

I think a number of improvements to PCEPA could be made to protect the rights of women and those engaged in prostitution. I'll say that there's a big difference between PCEPA and the previous legislation. The purposes are completely different. They're in different sections of the Criminal Code. It's now a crime of violence rather than a property offence and a nuisance offence, so it recognizes that this is a crime of violence, as the Ontario Court of Appeal has just recognized.

I would say there are a couple ways we can improve the federal approach towards prostitution. First of all, we need consistent application across Canada. Second, when I appeared before Parliament back in 2013, everyone was unanimous in saying that section 213 should be repealed. I agree with that still. The communication provision outside schools and churches, although I recognize and appreciate the goal of it, has the effect of criminalizing those who are engaged in prostitution. Also, by criminalizing them, it prevents them from exiting. In my submission, that should be repealed.

There's also expunging the records of those who have been convicted of selling sexual services in order to permit them to gain employment. There are many pieces of legislation across Canada that prevent those with criminal records from working, particularly in the volunteer sector. That is a barrier to exiting, which tends to punish the more vulnerable.

Increased funding—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Sorry, Ms. Allison. Thank you. We're out of time. I have to go to the next witness. Hopefully, we'll catch up on that later.

Mr. Fortin, you have six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin, I would like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for being with us today.

Human trafficking is a scourge. I was particularly moved by Mr. Brandt's testimony about children. I can't imagine that happening here in Canada today. I would add, however, that it is part of our job to try to clarify and improve the laws that are in place.

Ms. Allison, could you continue the answer you were giving when the chair turned the floor over to me? You were giving us your suggestions.

You also talked about standardization, and you were asking that there be consistent application across Canada. For example, you mentioned that British Columbia did not always apply the provisions set out in Bill C‑36, and that surprised me.

You also talked about the issue of criminal records. In a way, the existence of criminal records prevents offenders from working.

I would like you to continue to list the things that could help improve the situation.

[Gwendoline Allison]

Thank you. I have only a few more.

One way is to have increased funding for exiting prostitution. We know from experience, in countries like Sweden, that it takes a consistent investment in the exiting programs.

The fourth one is to commit to a long-term education plan. When the “end demand” laws were introduced in Sweden, they were highly unpopular. The government committed to an education program that led, within a few short years, to a complete reversal of that. The laws in Sweden are actually very important and very popular among the people now. They've been accepted by them.

So it's a recognition and an understanding of what the law actually means. I've certainly had discussions with law enforcement and lawyers in B.C. who haven't really appreciated what the law actually says. They have a mistaken impression of what is involved in the law. We need a consistent and long-term education plan in order to assist that.

Thank you.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Allison.

Bill C‑36 came into force in 2014. On the ground, what differences do you see between the period before the bill came into force and the period after it came into force?

I am asking Mr. Brandt the same question. He can answer it after Ms. Allison.

[Gwendoline Allison]

In my experience in B.C., I advise groups who advise frontline workers. What they're telling me is that since the law hasn't applied at all in any great sense, nothing has really changed from before or after.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Brandt, if I may, I would like to ask your opinion on this same question regarding the difference observed on the ground after the coming into force of Bill C‑36.

[Paul Brandt]

We're just starting to see a change in jurisdictions, where it is being applied uniformly. It has taken this long to start to see the co-operation that is needed for positive results.

The fact that this committee is meeting, and how it's already been revealed through the process that there are incredibly diverse opinions and approaches to the issue of the sex industry, right down to the words that are used to describe it, is proof that PCEPA is working. This is too important an issue to allow only one view to be upheld. We must look at the lived experience of all who are impacted by the sex industry.

When the Supreme Court of Canada decision acknowledged there were inherent risks in the sale of sexual services, that was key. There are risks inherent whenever individuals are prostituted by others, or are of their own accord prostituting themselves. In the Swedish law, which PCEPA was fashioned after, it's written into the legislation that prostitution, by its very nature, is discriminatory against women.

The way we apply that in Canada...PCEPA states that people who are providing their own sexual services are not criminalized; rather they're viewed as needing support and assistance, not blame and punishment.

In practice, we're starting to see an understanding that is developing with frontline agencies, law enforcement and the public, that there are very subtle and nuanced ways to look at this issue. I believe that's a result of the framework that was created by the PCEPA.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Brandt, in your experience in the field, besides criminal sanctions and criminal penalties, such as imprisonment, what would convince an abuser to stop buying children—I have trouble using the expression “buying children”, because I find it unbelievable—to commit such acts?

What can we do to discourage them from doing this? Are there other ways to convince them aside from criminal penalties and the like?

[Paul Brandt]

Aside from penalties to the crimes of this nature.... There's a question that I asked a group of young men hockey players here in Alberta just this past Friday night in talking to them about this issue. They were 17 to 20 years old, young men about to enter adulthood and the world. They have influence because they're hockey players, and people look up to them.

What if the people of this committee, these boys, and the people of Canada determined to change the culture and industry of exploitation, so that by the time young people of today grow up, they no longer live in a society in which men are emboldened to purchase another human for their own gratification? This requires a cultural shift, and the PCEPA creates a framework for that cultural shift.