Justice Committee on April 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number nine of the House of Commons 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 a 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.

Before I begin, we're going to condense the panels slightly to two 45-minute panels. We have some housekeeping at the end of the meeting, so I'll keep 20 to 30 minutes for that at the end. Hopefully, everyone is okay with that.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses. Before I get you to start, I will give each witness group five minutes. When you're at your last 30 seconds, whether you're being asked a question or in your time, I'll show a 30-second card. When you're out of time, it will be an “out of time” card. I'm pretty generous, usually, but I will have to end the conversation. If you need to complete the answer, you can finish off your answer when you are asked another question, but be mindful of the time.

For the first panel, we have Melissa Lukings, juris doctor, author and researcher, as an individual; we have from BC Coalition of Experiential Communities, Susan Davis, director; and from the Centre for Gender and Sexual Health Equity, we have Dr. Shira Goldenberg, assistant professor, and Dr. Andrea Krüsi, assistant professor, department of medicine at UBC.

Each group will have five minutes, beginning with Melissa Lukings.

[Melissa Lukings, Juris Doctor, Author and Researcher, As an Individual]

Thanks for having me.

Hi. I'm Melissa Lukings. As was just said, I just finished my law degree as a juris doctor from UNB Law. I have a B.A. from Memorial University in Newfoundland and Labrador. All of my education, so two degrees as well as life expenses, has been paid for entirely by sex work. In total, I have 14 years of lived experience in sex work. That includes experience working in massage parlours, managing a massage parlour, operating an advertising website, as well as years of independent work. In terms of scope, it spans Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador.

While completing my law degree, and prior to that as well, I was actively involved in sex work research and advocacy across Canada, specifically with the Safe Harbour Outreach Project in Newfoundland; SafeSpace in London, Ontario; as well as the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform.

With regard to exploitation, I have had experiences in sexual exploitation, which overlapped with but were distinct from my experiences in sex work, so I will speak to that as well. I've completed the sex trafficking and sexual exploitation course offered by the Arizona Trauma Institute, and I also volunteered with the Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre in Newfoundland.

I want to highlight the timeline. I started out in sex work in 2008. Between 2008 and 2014, when Bill C-36 went into effect, is six years, and from 2014 to 2020, when COVID happened, work slowed. That was also six years. So I have six years before, that year in between, and then six years after....

To put it into context, I was a sex worker before Bedford. I was a sex worker after Bedford, but pre Bill C-36. I was a sex worker after Bill C-36. I have experienced sexual exploitation. I can speak to the legal issues through the lens of advocacy, and lived experience in sex work, as an employee, an employer, an advertiser and an independent—that does make me a third party—as well as lived experience in exploitation, again which is separate from the sex work.

Very quickly, I just want to talk about what an expert witness is. Before meeting everyone today, I did a little bit of a—I'm not going to call it a deep dive—light dive into everyone's backgrounds. The majority of you seem to be law folk, so I want everyone to think back for a moment to those law school days when you were first learning about evidence. It's a required course for us, so I'm assuming it's a required course for everyone. It's a great class. Do you remember evidence?

In evidence, you learned what qualifies someone as an expert witness. We're talking about unbiased perspective, peer-reviewed, published and lists of qualifications. There are some issues with finding qualified expert witnesses for vulnerable communities. We've had that be a thing in the past. I wrote a paper on it. It's included in my brief, which you will get later.

Where does Paul Brandt fit into this? I can't not say it. I don't get it. I don't know who invited him. After my background investigation, I have some suspicions, but whoever it was needs to refresh their memory on relevant evidence and expert witnesses. A country musician involved with an anti-trafficking group has nothing to do with providing meaningful insight into how laws impact sex workers in the country. It doesn't make any sense.

When you have an expert witness, they're someone who is supposed to provide experience and insight which cannot be intuited without their testimony. I think that was a waste of time, and it made me sad that he was invited before I was, because we both applied.

I want to give you a metaphor.

You're tasked with hanging a poster on a vital community bulletin board. To accomplish this, you're given a few thumbtacks—simple enough. However, rather than using your thumb to press the tacks into the board, you decide to bring in your gas-powered, heavy-duty, reverse engine hammer drill from home. Do you get the tacks in the board? Well, yes, sure. However, in the process of doing so, that gas-powered, heavy-duty, reverse engine hammer drill also ended up fracturing the frame of the bulletin board, effectively breaking it. As a happy bonus, you also ended up causing extreme, extensive structural damage to the wall behind it. Will you be getting any gold stars for this assignment? No, you will not. Nobody's going to be handing out any gold stars to you for damaging the community's bulletin board, no matter how far you bashed that tack into the board before it broke and fell off the wall.

Did your method of completing the task end up creating a scope of impact much wider than you intended? It would seem so. I feel certain in saying that if the assignment you're given is to hang a notice on a bulletin board using thumbtacks and you break the board entirely, no one's giving out gold stars.

Let's talk about these laws. Do they target human trafficking and sexual exploitation? Yes, just as we targeted the notice and the tacks on the board—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Unfortunately, Ms. Lukings, your five minutes is up. You're going to have to try to bring it up in the questioning. I apologize for that.

[Melissa Lukings]

Oh, okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I will advise the rest of the panellists again that I'll try to wave this. You just have to pay attention to it.

Next we have Susan Davis from BC Coalition of Experiential Communities.

[Susan Davis, Director, BC Coalition of Experiential Communities]

Good morning. Thank you for hearing me today. First, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm on the lands of the three great nations of Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-waututh peoples.

For the purpose of this testimony, I represent the BC Coalition of Experiential Communities, which is a sex worker-led advocacy and research group. I myself am a sex worker of 36 years, if you can believe that. I sometimes I have a hard time believing it, but it's true. I will start by assuming that you've read my brief and understand that some of the information you've been receiving as evidence in the committee is false and would not qualify as evidence in a court of law, and would not meet the test of the Tri-Council Policy Statement. I'm happy to answer any questions you have in that regard.

I will focus today instead on recommendations that could ensure that your work is complete and could achieve the best outcomes in supporting health, safety and choices for adult consensual sex workers in Canada.

First, with respect to health, the 2016 report of the Canadian government to UNAIDS clearly identifies the need to remove laws that criminalize sex work. Canada also has international obligations to address the criminalization of people who are vulnerable to HIV and AIDS, and I quote, “Laws, such as laws on sex work...may discriminate by criminalizing conduct or identity.” and “States have a moral and legal obligation to remove discriminatory laws and to enact laws that protect people from discrimination.”

This committee heard from Justice Canada about arrest numbers and difficulties experienced by police and prosecutors in targeting exploitation. This committee must also hear from the Minister of Health, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Corrections Canada, International Affairs and all those responsible for the federal initiative to address HIV/AIDS in Canada. The impacts of criminalization on the health of sex workers and Canada's international commitments at the UN are critical to your work.

Now I'll talk about the law.

Canadians and witnesses here are all in agreement that sex workers should not be criminalized. Police and prosecutors have expressed confusion with respect to how to fight exploitation. They say that human trafficking laws are insufficient and often put the victim's safety at risk. The use of prostitution laws has become the default in the absence of effective human trafficking legislation. There are many laws that can be used to fight violence against sex workers without defaulting to prostitution laws. Victims of human trafficking exist in many industries, not just in sex work.

You've heard about exploitation of youth and children. The stigma carried by sex work also extends to youth who experience paid sexual exploitation. A child whose exploiter is charged under prostitution laws will be subjected to the stigma of prostitute for the entirety of their lives. People migrating to Canada who are fleeing economic hardship, climate change, discrimination and many other things also face risks if they engage in sex work. They could be deemed inadmissible and subjected to deportation if they are discovered. This makes it impossible for migrant sex workers to report violence when they experience it or to access health services without fear.

In spite of the misrepresentations and false information given to this committee, the most successful examples of protecting sex worker health and safety are in places that have decriminalized sex work. Part of the New Zealand Prostitution Reform Act's purpose is to protect sex workers and children from exploitation. On February 22, just over one month ago, the state of Victoria in Australia also decriminalized sex work for the rights and safety of sex workers and to prevent exploitation.

Canada must meet its international obligations and address these issues by repealing PCEPA in its entirety, repealing IRPR sections 183(1)(b.1) and 196.1(a), and considering additions to section 279.01 of the Criminal Code to better counter the exploitation or human trafficking of a person, ensuring that additions to that law are based in fact and written in consultation with all stakeholders, and by implementing a national policing policy and guidelines highlighting sex worker rights and the changes to the Criminal Code.

The truth is that we are working-class people, citizens and newcomers who are simply trying to feed and house ourselves and our families. Comments made in support of laws against being near churches, schools and parks are hurtful and totally discriminatory. We have families. Our children go to school. We are diverse in our spiritual beliefs. Children are not prostitutes. We should not be subjected to the narrow ideology of a very vocal few.

Sex workers who are migrating should not be deemed inadmissible.

Police are asking for more effective tools to fight exploitation.

Please, work with us to meet Canada's obligations to sex workers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Davis.

I'll go over to the Centre for Gender and Sexual Health Equity next. Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Krüsi, you have five minutes.

[Dr. Andrea Krüsi, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Centre for Gender and Sexual Health Equity]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, everyone. Thank you for very much for inviting Dr. Goldenberg and me to today's hearings.

We are both assistant professors at the University of British Columbia at the Centre for Gender and Sexual Health Equity in Vancouver.

I'm here to speak to our empirical research on the occupational health and safety impacts of PCEPA, which was summarized in our brief.

Our longitudinal research project was initiated in 2010 and was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The project includes qualitative research on the lived experiences of sex workers and third parties, and an epidemiologic cohort of over 900 cis and transgender women sex workers across diverse work environments in metro Vancouver.

As a rigorous, prospective, mixed-methods study, our research is uniquely positioned to empirically evaluate the impact of PCEPA on sex workers' occupational health and safety. We drew on longitudinal data, collected with the same participants prior to and after the implementation of PCEPA in December 2014. To our knowledge, this is the largest and most rigorous research available evaluating the health impacts of PCEPA.

This research highlights the ways in which PCEPA reproduces the harms of previous legislation deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Of note, findings from our study were submitted as evidence in the Bedford case as well.

I am now going to very briefly summarize the main findings of our research, all of which have been peer-reviewed and published in highly reputable scientific journals.

We found that after the implementation of PCEPA, 72% of participants reported no changes in their working conditions. Thus, they continued to work under unconstitutional and unsafe working conditions. Concerningly, 26% reported experiencing negative changes. The most common negative changes reported included a reduced ability to screen clients and negotiate terms of transactions, which are essential for consensual sexual transactions. Immigrant sex workers were significantly more likely to report negative changes.

Our research indicates that sex workers continue to face significant barriers to reporting violence to police. This is despite the objective of PCEPA to encourage the reporting of violence, as stated in the preamble. In the analysis of access to justice over nine years, rates of reporting violence did not improve post-implementation of PCEPA. Only 26% of sex workers who experienced violence reported it to police. A staggering 87% of racialized immigrant sex workers and 58% of Canadian-born sex workers did not report violence to police.

Our research also highlights the negative effects of the criminalization of clients and the communication provisions. Key mechanisms by which criminalization and targeting of clients impact sex workers' working conditions identified by our research include barriers, again, to screen clients and negotiate terms of transactions, and displacement to isolated areas.

Our research, in line with other important Canadian research by Professor Bruckert, debunks important myths around the role of third parties. While our research demonstrated that third party security and administrative supports are linked to improved access to occupational health and safety, results showed that after the implementation of PCEPA, there was a 31% reduction in the odds of accessing third party supports for sex workers.

Finally, our research indicates that after PCEPA, sex workers experienced a 41% decrease in access to health services and a 23% reduction in the odds of accessing community-based services.

In conclusion, public health evidence from Canada and internationally is unequivocal. The criminalization of sex work undermines sex workers' occupational health, safety and rights. Prohibitionist scholars argue that sex work normalizes violence and gender inequalities. However, the public health literature suggests that it is, in fact, criminalization which achieves this by undermining sex workers' working conditions, restricting access to justice and reinforcing the marginalization of already marginalized sex workers, including those who are indigenous, those who face immigration policy restrictions and those who work in street-based settings.

Thus, our evidence points to the full repeal of all provisions of the PCEPA.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Dr. Krüsi.

I will now start the panel of questioning beginning with Mr. Brock for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your participation and attendance today.

I'd like to start with you, Ms. Lukings. I know that you had much to say and, unfortunately, your five minutes ran out pretty quickly. That's usually what happens in this format.

I have six minutes. Would you be able to complete your summary in a minute or less?

[Melissa Lukings]

Yes, thank you.

I wanted to talk about how exploitation is about the relationship between parties but not the relationship between a sex worker and client; it's the relationship between the sex worker and a third party. Often this overlaps with domestic violence cases, so the solution, if we want actionable solutions to this, which we do, is to repeal all of the PCEPA, all of it, and then implement the offence for coercive control, which I believe was tabled either last night or today, and that's to criminalize coercive control of another person, which targets exploitative behaviour.

We already have the trafficking laws and sexual assault laws, so decriminalization plus coercive control allows us to hit the nail on the head, and we're not harming other people, so we're fixing the issue by helping those who need the help without harming others.

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

Thank you.

I want to start off by asking you some questions, Ms. Lukings. First I want to congratulate you on your recent graduation, as you've indicated.

[Melissa Lukings]

Thank you.

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

You have done a bit of a dive with respect to our backgrounds. You'll probably note that I come from an experience of 30 years in lawyering, the last 15 of which I've been a Crown prosecutor. I've taken some great pride in dealing with numerous human trafficking cases involving children and adults and dealing with other child exploitation offences, not so much on prostitution, but there is an intersection between the trafficking component and prostitution under the current legislation.

You spent some time talking about experts in general. I'm going to use these words, and these are my words. Whether you agree with them or not, you're very critical of Mr. Brandt's testimony.

As you know, we have heard from numerous, numerous witnesses, and I can assure you that none of them have been qualified in the traditional sense of being an expert witness. This is not a court of competent jurisdiction. It has not met the legal definition of what an expert should bring to this particular committee, but everyone we have heard from in cases such as yours has brought not only an academic perspective to things but a lived experience.

In Mr. Brandt's case, in his defence—he can speak well on his own behalf—his evidence was helpful to us in the sense that it enabled us to get a full picture of the pros and the cons of this particular legislation.

I know that, ultimately, you see no path forward other than a full repeal of PCEPA, and you also referenced some other aspect to something that's being introduced into the House either today or soon thereafter to offer some protection to workers.

Ultimately, as a committee, we have to decide whether we are going to recommend that the act be given a further chance of seeing its strengths and its weaknesses or to recommend changes, tweaks, amendments or things of that nature.

On that particular point, should this committee ultimately conclude that we are not going to repeal PCEPA, I'd like to get your perspective on what amendments or what sorts of adjustments you think we should be looking at to try to find a nice balance between reducing the overall demand and protecting the exploited.

[Melissa Lukings]

If we're not open to repealing all of it, you have the easy way out, which is to take away the most obvious harm. That would be getting rid of the advertising provision, as well as communicating, purchasing, procuring and third party material benefits. Those are the most obvious ones.

There are some other issues with the PCEPA as well, but I think we can all agree that the basic sex work laws are the ones that are causing the most trouble. Material benefits, advertising, purchasing, communicating and procuring would need to be repealed for sure. I think that would be the most obvious answer.

I had six years before and six years after. Prior to PCEPA, I hadn't known any of my peers to die. After PCEPA, I think we're at seven or eight now. That's ridiculous. If it's supposed to help and not harm people, then how come there are actually people dying for fear of reporting to police? These are huge issues. We're talking about people's lives.

To me, the bare minimum is to repeal those main provisions. The ideal situation, if you want the A+, is to decriminalize. Absolutely.

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

My next area is, from your own personal experience—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Unfortunately, Mr. Brock, your six minutes are up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

The next round of questioning will be with Ms. Dhillon for six minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Davis.

Can you please elaborate on the New Zealand model, particularly with respect to the improvement of health conditions of sex workers under the model? I understand there have been several parliamentary reports done, including in 2009.

Would you be able to share your comments with the committee? Also, could you table the executive summary for the committee, please?

Thank you.

[Susan Davis]

Sure.

I am a layperson—as we all sort of are—working on these issues by default because I am a sex worker and it applies to me. My friends have also died. I'm with Melissa. This is not a joke for us. This is not about ideology. This is supposed to be about the safety of my community. This is why I struggle with some of this.

From what I have read of it, the New Zealand prostitutes' collective worked really hard with all stakeholders, including police. They came up with a legal framework that would work to protect people from exploitation and try to ensure that business operators had the tools they needed to ensure they were being fair in the way they were treating their employees. They came up with the Prostitution Reform Act.

Shortly thereafter, there was a bit of a surge in numbers of registered massage parlours/brothels or whatever you want to call them. That has sort of trailed off over time. Many people think it's easy to open up a sex industry business. It is not. It is gruelling, horrible work with late hours. By horrible, I just mean late hours, no time to cook for yourself, being tired all the time and those kinds of things.

There was an initial sort of surge in numbers of registered places, but that has trailed off a bit. As well, estimates of the number of sex workers in New Zealand have become more clear and were actually lower than what they thought.

The same thing applies with youth who are at risk of being engaged in sex work. They've had a lot of success in being open with business operators and sex workers generally to find youth who are at risk and intervene before youth in those positions are exploited. They've also been able to redirect resources towards better support for youth.

In this country, we should know better than anyone else that we need to do better for youth and provide them with choices, so they don't land in a situation where they feel like this is their only option. There's been no discussion of that in relation to these laws. It's only about once they've been exploited. Well, can we do a little prevention?

I think one thing that is the most important and key about New Zealand is that they're talking to one another. They're identifying issues as they arise and trying to deal with them as they go forward. Some municipalities, for example, have been really reticent to adopt the law in its entirety and have created no-go zones and things like that. That works counter to the intention and the purpose of the law, which is, in part, to prevent exploitation of sex workers and children in New Zealand.

I hope that is a bit of an answer. It is quite a comprehensive report, so I will definitely table the executive summary for the committee to consider.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

If you could deposit the whole report, that would be better—

[Susan Davis]

Sure. That's no problem.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

We could get more information.

I'd like to ask you a follow-up question. What do you think will happen if we remove all criminal penalties related to sex work? Do you think criminalizing sex buyers helps sex workers?

[Susan Davis]

It certainly does not.

In screening my clients.... I'm very lucky. After 36 years, I have a large, regular clientele base. For the most part, I know my clients. That's the thing. If you can't screen clients and you're having a hard time finding clients, every client you see is a new person and you don't know what to expect from that client. Screening is almost impossible under this legal regime. They don't want to give their full names. They don't want to risk their families, jobs or lives in a screening process, because they're afraid of being captured by this law.

For the workers on the street, it means you have to jump in the car and drive away before you can negotiate the terms of your employment. We used to be able to lean into the window of the car and see if they have a rape kit and if they're sober. Now, you're already in the car and you're left to negotiate your way out.

In terms of having clients come into my home, I want to know who they are before they come into my home. My home is the safest place—or massage parlours when I worked there—because it's on my turf. Going to a hotel or a client's home remains extremely risky, as it was before the Bedford decision. I gave evidence in that case. I've been in this battle for 20 years this year, which is really sad in a way.

The criminalization of sex buyers is not helping the situation at all. They are a critical ally in the fight against exploitation. The Vancouver police will tell you that, during their operation that netted 47 men who were attempting to buy from a youth, they had phone calls from clients saying, “There's a youth advertising sexual services on LeoList”. They were trying to refer that youth, who was actually a police officer, to the counter exploitation unit. The clients are not these boogeymen.