Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws Committee on Oct. 30th, 2006

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We're all very busy and we've devoted considerable effort to this undertaking. It would be a good idea for each one of us to reread the report carefully, so that at our meeting, we can go around the table and find out if we've missed anything.

If Mr. Hanger finds that some viewpoints could be integrated into the report, then we can incorporate them. We all want the views of the witnesses who appeared before the committee to be reflected in the report.

Will the recommendations and action plans take into account these viewpoints and positions? That's another question. In my estimation, we need to determine any omissions in the report in terms of the testimony given.

I suggest that each one of us rereads the report one last time so that we can make some very pointed comments at the next meeting. Obviously, we can't add another 50 pages to this document but personally, I think we can make some changes, if Mr. Hanger thinks that there are certain omissions.

After that meeting, I expect that we will focus on future directions that we hope to see set out in the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Maloney]

Art and then Hedy.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I can support Réal's position, in part. I know we have to look at the report. We can do that quickly. For those who were on the committee before, it's just a matter of giving that briefing that puts things back into perspective.

But the report took a certain direction. There were some preconceived points. The terms of reference seemed to be established before all evidence was supported. In part, the report still may take that bent, if you will. But there's going to be some question of doubt, because you're looking at two philosophical points of view.

If you look at some of the things that are happening in other jurisdictions, then the recommendations in that report--not all of them--are going to fit that viewpoint. They're going to go off in another direction, and the recommendations could very well be substantially different.

How we are going to handle that, is the question. The minute you start incorporating another point of view, which was expressed from witnesses--and not just as a passing reference, they were substantial points of view--you're going to have a report that probably will be inconclusive, because there are two further positions that need examination. That's my concern about where we're at.

Now if we start incorporating all of the presentations and all the evidence, are we going to stay with the same trend that the report focused on, or are we going to incorporate other things? If so, then what is that report going to look like? If not--and this is going to have to be an agreement with the committee--then is a minority report going to be substantial? I know there are two points of view here that will be split.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Maloney]

That's probably a given. But that's the way the report was going the last time as well. If there is additional stuff, I don't think it will change the focus of a report, and a minority report with it. So no matter what comes into the mix....

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

So what you're suggesting—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Maloney]

I'd love to see a consensus report, but I'm not sure that's doable.

Dr. Fry, then Libby.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I see us doing exactly what we were doing the last time. We're getting onto the same railcar, where we're already beginning to start polarizing.

If we're going to have a report, it would seem to me that we may end up with a minority report as well, as you've just said, Mr. Chair. However, I like to believe that if we're going to consider all the evidence we heard, and if we're going to do that in as objective a manner as possible, then we will go with where that evidence leads us in order to come up with recommendations based on objective evidence and what we think of the evidence we heard.

If we start off with a conspiracy theory, if we believe there is some sort of predisposition to move in a certain direction purely because people are going to write a report that's going to go in that direction without referencing the evidence, then we're never going to get anywhere. We're going to be exactly where we were when we left off. We're just going to be facing off on each other.

There has to be some kind of decision that we are going to have a report, and that we're going to come up with a report by December 8. If that report doesn't seem to fit everyone's decisions and recommendations, then there will have to be a minority report. But if we start getting hung up on this before we even start, we won't even have a report.

We should go for a report. If there's going to be a minority report, there will be one. The references of everything we heard—all witnesses—will have to come into play, and based on all of those references, on all of the witnesses that we heard, obviously we will form opinions and recommendations. Those may differ or they may agree in some instances.

Libby's right. There are going to be things on which we're all going to agree. There are going to have to be a few recommendations that we all think are fairly straightforward and are going to agree on, and then there are going to be the ones that we don't agree on.

We've had committees before on which this has happened. I think all three of us—Réal, Libby, and I—were on one, on the report on the non-medical use of drugs. We ended up actually not having a consensus, but we ended up agreeing on about two-thirds of the recommendations.

So I think we should head into this by saying that if we all heard the same information, and if we're all going to reference it and are going to come up with recommendations, we should try to come up with the things we can agree on. Where we disagree, we will then have a minority report. But let's just get on with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Maloney]

Libby.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I agree with that, but it's really a question of what instructions we give to the researchers. We have this massive thing sitting here. What I remember is that as we were going through that, there were members—Mr. Hanger in particular—who felt that the way the body of the report was written, it was leading to the recommendations, especially where it said, “The committee believed that”, or “The committee, by majority”.

So what I'm suggesting is a different situation, where the report itself is written in a way that it just says, “Here's what the police said. Here's what the sex trade workers said. Here's what the people who support the Swedish model said. Here's what...”--and there might be others. You just lay those things out; you summarize them without saying the committee believes this or that, or that we concur.

We would just basically summarize the main viewpoints that we heard so that they're on the record. We would do so as quickly as we can so that we don't get bogged down in it paragraph by paragraph, line by line, and in whether we should say, “The committee is led to believe”. We just present it there as a more factual thing, knowing that some of it is contradictory. That would be one thing.

Secondly, it may be possible for the researchers, because they did a fabulous job, to say from there where it is that these different points of view actually agreed on some things, that there are these five things that everybody actually agreed on—or maybe it's only two, I don't know. So we would try to establish that.

And the third thing we would do is actually go directly to a debate on the recommendations, because I think that's really where it's going to sort itself out. What I'm really reluctant to do is to get into a huge debate over who said what. I will say right now that there were people here who said, “Don't do this, because it's going to be harmful. Adopt the Swedish model.” That's fine, put them in there. I don't have a problem with it. But I'd rather get into a debate amongst ourselves.

We could start with the ten recommendations and see how far apart we are on those ten recommendations, and then move back from that point. Within those ten recommendations there might be some agreement overall on some of them, and we might then end up with five of them on which there are very different viewpoints. I think that's where we could say a majority will go with these, or some variation of that, and a minority will go in a somewhat different fashion.

To me, that's a different tack from what we took before. Otherwise, I think Hedy's right. We're just going to get on this same track and we'll never finish this. If possible, I do want to see something finished that reflects what we heard. And if there's a split in this committee, then we'll respect that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Maloney]

Mr. Hanger.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you.

I don't disagree with you, Libby.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Is that written down somewhere?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I don't. I think you may have hit the nail on the head when it comes to sectioning the report off, as far as content or points of view are concerned. I think there are just two, basically. I'd be willing to go at it in that fashion--at least it's all upfront--and then we'll go after the recommendations afterwards.

But to go back to what Hedy said, don't get me wrong, in my opposition and my statement when it comes to the formulation of this report, I don't look at it as some sort of conspiracy. I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it's two opposing points of view that are shaping the law. So we go either with that one or with another one. That's basically where it is. I don't think because you may look at things from a certain point of view, or all of you together, that it's a conspiracy. I just think you adhere to that philosophical point of view. Even amongst the feminist movement, it's definitely a split. The feminists look at the position you might take, one half of them, and the other half says, “No, it's exploitation of women and it is abuse”, and they look at it from that point of view. I think those things should be pointed out. I'm not saying there's a split there, but those points of view should be pointed out, because one supports and one does not. Maybe there isn't enough evidence just yet to say this is the way we should go, and that may be a recommendation in the report too.

I think what's confusing this issue is some direction where Mr. Ménard wants to take this whole thing. I don't understand where he's coming from on this thing, because we started out with solicitation and now the whole gamut is up for grabs here, including the issue of bawdy houses and the whole bit. I know what his--

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We did hear testimony on that, though.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Yes, we did, but I guess that's sort of on the other side of the issue too.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Maloney]

Dr. Fry and then Réal Ménard.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I'm very glad to see that Mr. Hanger doesn't believe there is a conspiracy, so that's a great start. We're now ready to roll. But I do think Libby is making the point I was trying to make. There is objective data we heard; there is data. Let's put the evidence down and say this is what we heard. Many of them conflict with each other, but we're putting them down and not drawing any conclusions from them, but then come the recommendations. I think we should focus on that. We might find there are one or two that we agree with, and we may find there are a whole lot that we don't, and then that will lead us to make decisions about where the recommendations will go. But I think if we're going to be objective about the testimony we heard, we will place the evidence and the witnesses, we will just put them there, and we will say, look, these were conflicting; there were different points of view, and here they were, and so on.

Maybe we heard evidence from only one group of people in a particular place, like in Sweden, where we just heard from one group. We didn't hear from anyone else. But that's neither here nor there. That's what we heard; here it is. The readers of the report will be able to draw their own conclusions, and then the committee will draw its conclusions--that is, through recommendations, which they will agree on or disagree on.

But we have to get this thing finished by December 8. I think it's an injustice to the communities and to the women out there if we don't get this done. We need to get it done and finished just in terms of the fact that this, the whole idea of this whole thing, was to ensure the safety of communities and of women in the sex trade. Let's just make sure we don't drag our feet on it any more, because we've seen that more and more women are dying in the sex trade in Edmonton and now in Saskatchewan. So I think we need to just get on with it for their sakes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Maloney]

I see a consensus slowly developing.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have two comments.

I have not read the report recently, but I plan to do so over the weekend.

From what I recall, I agree with the thrust of the report, the themes explored and the recommendations made, with two exceptions.

One of the recommendations concerns aid provided to drug addicts. I want to be certain that jurisdictions are being respected. I want to be clear on my position, in so far as Mr. Hanger is concerned. I have no problem whatsoever with the report's tone.

I'm not outraged that people hold different views. That's a good thing. However, can we agree on a common denominator, on the lowest common denominator?

On the drug issue, we have agreed on two or three common denominators. On the other hand, prostitution continues to be problem in major urban centres. This is something that falls under federal jurisdiction. More needs to be said about this problem.

Mr. Hanger, I don't think we're going to be able to sway you, as far as the tone of the report is concerned. I'll be making a presentation to my caucus on this issue. However, as an individual and as a parliamentarian, I can say that the philosophy underlying the recommendations and the tone of the report are quite consistent with my position on this matter.

In 2001, I headed up a party working group, From Anathema to Dialogue. Prostitution was a big problem at the time in Montreal. Our findings were similar to the ones contained in this report.

Although I still must make a presentation to my caucus, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the philosophical tone of this report.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Maloney]

Is there any further comment? I think there's a growing consensus on the approach we're going to take, and that's very positive.

Ms. Davies

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I think we need to hear from our very able researcher, who did an incredible job, on what we're suggesting in how to deal with the body of material. For example, on page 19 it says, “Thus the subcommittee refuses to accept the idea that sex workers are victims simply because they sell sex”, and that's what we'd be taking out. We would just be listing these points of evidence or points of view. Then when we get to the recommendations, we would figure out where we agree or not.

So if you now have to take this and redo it, how is that, from your point of view? Are we asking you to do something impossible, or is it something manageable in terms of categorizing things? I think we need to know what we're putting on you or not.

[Lyne Casavant, Committee Researcher]

If the next meeting is tomorrow night, then it's impossible and I'm not going to do it. We can go to all the pages and take out all the information that puts the committee in a position on the material we heard. The material we heard is there, but some of the information from Sweden and New Zealand is not. That could be put into another section.

What we can do at the beginning is just clean it up and bring forward the evidence. In the meantime, I suggest that the committee start discussing the recommendations, because it could take some time. I don't see our being able to do it in one week. If we have two weeks.... There's translation involved in this and the publication process, so it's going to take a while.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I think that's a really sensible idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Maloney]

Art.