Justice Committee on March 22nd, 2022

[Kevin B. Westell]

We should be targeting exploitation and coercion. We should be utilizing the criminal organization provisions of the Criminal Code, in addition to these provisions, when we prosecute those particular individuals. There are offences that can be added on, when offences are committed for the purposes of criminal—

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

Thank you.

I apologize for rushing you, Mr. Westell, but we're pressed for time.

In your opinion, are the lawyers currently working on these cases applying the criminal organization provisions in the Criminal Code, or is it too complicated?

[Kevin B. Westell]

I've had lots of experience seeing prosecutors utilize the provisions of the Criminal Code. They're there to be used, and they should be used.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

We'll now go to Mr. Garrison, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to continue with Mr. Westell, because what I was getting at earlier with Superintendent Byrne was using certain sections of the Criminal Code as ways of getting at real criminal problems.

I just want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting. When you're talking about precision, you're talking about that difference of the police using some of these general provisions on sex work to get at trafficking and exploitation. Is that correct?

[Kevin B. Westell]

I'm talking about precision in the way that we word these provisions so that they capture only what they're meant to capture, and not beyond that.

The CBA doesn't have a problem with these provisions being used against the bad actors they're intended to catch. The problem is that if it's broad enough to capture those other than the.... If the provision is struck in a manner that's broad enough to capture offenders, or potential offenders, beyond those bad actors, beyond those criminal organization members, then mischief can be made. Challenges will be brought to the courts, and taxpayer money will be spent litigating something that could have been solved at the root, at the drafting stage.

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

The other contradiction I'm seeing today is between the two people from the Canadian Bar Association. They seem to be presenting radically different approaches to this law.

When we look at what Ms. Grundberg has suggested, in terms of the public places definition, she's actually suggesting expanding those provisions further than those that currently exist. Are these provisions some of the ones you're talking about, where we need to be more precise? My understanding is that they apply around the clock, whether or not children are present, or are likely to be present. The current provisions are actually the ones that drive those who are forced to work on the street into unsafe conditions.

We have one part of the Canadian Bar Association saying those should be expanded. I guess I'm asking.... It doesn't seem as if you're in favour of that.

[Kevin B. Westell]

No, we're not at odds on that point. There's no public interest in having sex work occur in these public areas that are designated for children, families and certain types of uses, but if we're going to do that and quite rightly carve away those opportunities for sex work to occur there, we need to allow other provisions to give way so that it's easier for hotels, Airbnb and places like that to be used. Right now, if somebody engages in allowing Airbnb to be used for that purpose, they're a party to the purchase of sexual services and a party to a crime.

We're saying that we can expand it, but we also need to expand the private space as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

For the next round, in the interest of time, I'm going to ask that we do three minutes each, rather than five minutes, if that's okay.

Mr. Brock, you have three minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and co-operation in answering questions from my colleagues.

With the time that I have, I'm going to focus on Superintendent Byrne.

As a new parliamentarian, I was intrigued by your summary of evidence. I read that very carefully. I left a 30-year law career, the last 18 of which I was a Crown prosecutor. I do appreciate your commentary with respect to the challenges in prosecuting matters. That won't be my focus.

My focus is really on one of the elephants in the room that we've dealt with over the course of several weeks. I'd like your perspective, from law enforcement, as to what type of Canada you would envision should this committee, and ultimately the government, recommend repealing this particular act. Before you answer that.... We've heard from a number of witnesses. One in particular comes to mind, whose commentary was that Canada would turn into the brothel of the north and it would be a free-for-all for the sex industry.

I'd like to hear your perspective as an experienced police officer on that question.

[Supt Lisa Byrne]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

I'd also like to add my perspective as a female to this. I would like to see a Canada where we have a very balanced approach where women—or men in some cases, although it's mostly women—have the right to engage in lawful activities to support themselves. However, we need to strike a balance somehow because the sale of sex, and sex itself as an industry, can be used in a very negative way. I've already described all these situations.

Where I see Canada going is finding that balance. I think we're a country that can do that. I think we can look at examples from the rest of the world and really achieve that balance, perhaps with new legislation or modification of this legislation.

However, as the police, we have so many challenges in our investigations—I'm sure the Crown prosecutor, and you as a former Crown will understand—with constitutional challenges not even related to sex work, such as R. v. Jordan. There are certain disclosure issues and the burden of proof required in criminal court, which has only grown in the 20 years that I've been a police officer. These investigations can be very complicated. You start to talk about using other sections, such as the organized crime section. I've been the team commander on organized crime investigations. These are multi-year investigations with multi-year prosecutions in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Is that realistic for us to achieve in every instance, to balance the public safety that we're trying to achieve here?

I envision Canada finding that balance without having to do that extent of an investigation every single time, which would not be achievable in our current system.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Now we go to Mr. Anandasangaree for three minutes.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you very much.

My question is directed to the superintendent.

I'm wondering if you can comment. Since PCEPA came in, do you feel that those who work in the sex industry have been protected? Has there been increased protection for them? Are there specific measures, including the repealing of this act, that could ensure the increased safety and security of those who work in the industry?

[Supt Lisa Byrne]

It's a hard question to answer without specific examples. When I meet with community, I can say that the key to protecting sex workers is having open dialogue and encouraging them to come forward to report crimes and to feel comfortable with the police. That is the largest barrier I see, more so than any of the Criminal Code offences or any amendments. It's engagement with the community and building that trust that can be the largest barrier.

I can't make any recommendations just offhand. We at the CACP do recommend that the law remain the same, because we are using it effectively and we are managing with it as is.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

We have heard from a number of different agencies and those in the industry that the application of the law has not been consistent across the board. I know you've alluded to that as well. So how do we ensure that the application is consistent? Does it require us to revisit some of the provisions that will ensure that police services can enforce it, or are some of these provisions completely unenforceable?

[Supt Lisa Byrne]

No, I believe the provisions are fine as they stand.

It's funny because when you talk about the enforcement of the law, it's not just these laws that are not enforced equally across the country. In my experience, many of the laws are enforced differently and to different extent throughout Canada. I think it is the nature of our system that different court cases and the case law in one province may not necessarily be binding in another. Without that, I just don't know how we're going to get consistent enforcement unless we look at something like a national guideline on enforcement.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

This is my final question. Do you think this act adversely impacts indigenous, Black and other racialized communities?

[Supt Lisa Byrne]

I do not think that. In fact, the indigenous communities that I have met with here in Vancouver support this act and they believe that it is valuable to protect the women in their communities who are being targeted by organized crime. Again, this is the higher level of violence and the offenders we truly want to target.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Anandasangaree, and thank you to the witnesses.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We'll now be going into our next panel, and I believe I have the consent to go to 5:45, if that's okay. I see nodding heads. I think that should be good since we started late. We'll run until that time.

Our first witness will be Andrea Heinz, as an individual. Also, from Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, we have Diane Matte, and from Defend Dignity, we have Glendyne Gerrard. Each will have five minutes, and then rounds of questions will commence.

We'll begin with Andrea Heinz for five minutes.

[Andrea Heinz, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all members of the committee for this opportunity to join you today.

My name is Andrea Heinz. I reside in Edmonton, Alberta on Treaty 6 land. I have a diploma in correctional services and am presently a fourth-year student completing a B.P.A. in governance, law and management. The focus of my studies has primarily been violence against women and the impacts thereof. I am a published scholar on commercialized sex and have spent nearly a decade interacting with a variety of individuals, agencies and groups such as those entering and exiting the sex industry, sex buyers attending the Edmonton sex trade offender program, health care providers, university students and politicians, as well as members and recruits within the Edmonton Police Service.

Prior to this work, I spent seven years in Edmonton's licensed and regulated sex industry, from 2006 to 2013. When I entered, I was 22 years old, drowning in debt, and had no viable education or skills. It was then that an ad in my local newspaper targeting women 18 to 30 caught my eye. It said, “Adult entertainment, make $2,000 a week.” It was an ad for a brothel. It was licensed by my city, and it appeared safe. Little did I know that men's entertainment would be something that would gravely impact my life thereafter.

Five minutes is not enough time to share with you all the indignities and trauma I witnessed and personally experienced from being bought for sexual use over 4,300 times. It only took a couple of months before I experienced a severe mental breakdown. After that, something changed in me, and I suddenly began to tell myself that it was my choice, a job like any other, and that the harm was on the account of the owner I operated under or the specific studio I was in. I told myself it was a labour issue. I started identifying as a sex worker, something I can now recognize that I did as an act of self-preservation.

As Canadian survivor Natasha Falle stated in the Bedford challenge, “I couldn’t admit that I was not there by choice. We couldn’t live in our own skin if we admitted that. We needed to believe that it was our choice.” That mindset didn't stop the harm, though.

At age 25, I built a licensed brothel of my own, convinced that better working conditions would make it safe for me and the other women. That regrettable decision revealed to me that the source of the harm is the men who buy sex, just as Trisha Baptie accurately stated. Prior to then, I was under the illusion that I held power, but it was the misogynistic, sexually charged and entitled men who had the power and used it to choke me, slap me, bite me, spit on me, verbally abuse me, remove condoms, secretly film me, stalk me and more.

Commercial sex is a patriarchal system of thinly veiled rape that affords men the opportunity to use money rather than physical force in order to meet their demands for immediate sexual gratification.

Sex work ideology is rampant and, when not examined through a critical lens, appears very palatable. If we hear these labour euphemisms enough, we eventually start to reframe and excuse what is inherently sexual exploitation. The next time you hear the term “sex work”, examine the word exactly as it is. It will show you what it is: It is sex being placed in front of women being objectified, raped and killed. There is a continuum of harm, and even at its best, sex work still entails the objectification of our women.

The PCEPA is a well-written and balanced law. Decriminalizing the demand removes Canada’s strongest tool for deterring and addressing exploitation. Repealing the purchasing offence, section 286.1, supports market expansion. With no social deterrent, sex buying is given the green light. This money incentivizes exploiters to cash in and more agencies and brothels to open, and pimping and trafficking increase as a result to meet an unfettered demand for women’s bodies.

Human trafficking is a specific offence and requires that a high threshold be met for charges. Repealing PCEPA means that Canada has no tools for the coercion that is happening, the pimping and the profiteering. These are addressed through the advertising, procuring and material benefit offenses, sections 286.4, 286.3 and 286.2 respectively. Full decriminalization is what exploiters and profiteers pray for.

Canada is already failing to address the volume of victimization happening. What is our nation’s plan to prepare for a potential mass influx of women into the sex trade and to provide the extensive supports that most of us come to require long-term? Charities and NGOs addressing the subsequent harm are grossly underfunded and overwhelmed with requests for service.

At the end of the day, whatever law exists, laws don’t sit in the private rooms as the exchange occurs. More exchanges equate to more harm on a quantitative level, because harm is inherent to the activity. We need to shrink the market and finally endorse and uniformly enforce this law. Only then can we do an honest review of its effectiveness.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Heinz.

Next we go to Madame Diane Matte for five minutes, please.

[Diane Matte, Co-coordinator, Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle]

I'd like to thank the committee for having us. I want to begin by thanking all women survivors who have come to testify at your meetings. I want to acknowledge their contributions, and particularly Andrea Heinz, who is here with us today.

The Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle (CLES) is a group that's been working with sexually exploited women and girls in Quebec for over 15 years. We support around 200 women per year, as well as their loved ones who come to us for help in supporting the women or girls in their lives. We meet with women who want to get out of prostitution and others who do not. However, they all want to prevent other women from going into prostitution. That should tell us something.

Since we have just five minutes, I will go straight to the fundamental issue that we feel Canada is facing, particularly you as the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Do we in Canada wish to say that men—because the buyers are mostly men—have the right to purchase sexual services from women and girls—because it's mostly them being purchased?

If the answer is yes, we want to see total decriminalization of prostitution and the purchasing of sex. This will have a huge impact on women and girls. Countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and New Zealand have made this choice to varying degrees. They are all now experiencing an exponential increase in men looking to buy sex and, as we heard earlier, even in young men wanting to become pimps. This leads to more human trafficking, and some of these countries are currently changing their response because they are seeing the impact of full decriminalization.

If more men want access to commercialized sex, more women and girls will have to accept it or be coaxed into it. Beneath prostitution lies an industry we don't talk about enough that's greedy for profit and wants to maintain the concept that men have the right to buy sex and women are doing it by choice.

We already know that some of the most marginalized women, indigenous women, migrant women, women from racialized communities, are overrepresented in the sex industry. Totally decriminalizing this industry and the purchasing of sexual services makes that tolerable and and keeps it invisible. In addition, we've noticed that, though they would never question the fact that a reality like that exists, women from these groups are often manipulated by those lobbying for total decriminalization in order to defend this patriarchal practice under the guise of keeping women safe. It's outrageous!

If the answer to our question is no and you want to put an end to this patriarchal practice, you will be interested in what's happening in countries like Sweden, Norway, Iceland and France, which have chosen the so‑called equality model rather than the “Nordic” model. The 2014 legislation was inspired by this model, by the way. It seeks not only to repress, but also to prevent entry into prostitution, to question this practice, apparently the world's oldest, to support those who are struggling with prostitution and want to get out of it, and a majority of them do.

The equality model also seeks to target those responsible for exploitation, the buyers and the pimps, the ones who have a real choice in this situation. France passed its law criminalizing the purchasing of sex in 2016. It was assessed in 2020. I urge you to look at the reports they produced. The assessment is positive, despite the fact that the law has not been uniformly enforced across every department of France and that too little money has been invested, among other things, to support pathways out of prostitution. The assessment is therefore positive, and the law has been upheld and reinforced.

The Quebec government has already answered no to the question I asked you at the outset. It adopted an equality policy in 2007, which states that prostitution is a form of violence against women. We have to start from there. Quebec has since adopted a government strategy to address sexual violence and, most recently, a new action plan against the sexual exploitation of minors.

We're counting on you and the fact that you understand the situation our society is facing. We must reject this practice, which places women in unsafe situations and also goes against equality for all women. We believe—