Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with the hon. member's bill, I first want to congratulate him for trying to find a solution to a problem in his riding and in his province.
This being said, I do not think the amendment proposed in Bill C-206 will achieve its purpose. Prostitution is indeed a very serious problem, but amending the section to provide for a longer prison term will not achieve the goal sought by the hon. member.
It is true that prostitution brings along various negative things on a street, in a municipality and in a province. Associated with this type of illicit trade are all sorts of illegal activities, such as drug trafficking, various types of offences, theft, violence, etc.
I am convinced that providing for stiffer penalties will not solve the problem. This was tried before by our predecessors. The hon. member is right when he says he is proposing a technical amendment. He is not proposing anything innovative.
Section 213, which deals with prostitution reads as follows:
Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view a ) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle, b ) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or> ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or c ) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Section 213 has evolved over the years. At the very beginning, it primarily dealt with communicating. Following recent changes, it now also deals with soliciting.
I think the section was amended appropriately and that, in its present form, it addresses the problem. The member's amendment merely adds to what I read. He would add the words “an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty” to the first sentence.
As for the rest, I understand that the member is happy with the wording of the section. He finds the sentence inadequate and he would like to see it increased to ten years. But, as I was saying earlier, it must be understood that in Canada, and this may seem strange, prostitution itself is not illegal. It is brothels and the prostitution trade that are illegal. To go from there to wanting to criminalize these individuals at all costs and sentencing them to ten years in jail is quite a leap.
When I heard the parliamentary secretary say that it was a disproportionately harsh sentence, I am forced to agree with her. If the sentence for prostitution is ten years, what will it be for rape? What will it be for the violence we see on a regular basis? I think the sentence has to increase in proportion to the crime.
I know that prostitution is wrong and immoral. I know all that. We must, however, compare this offence with other offences in the Criminal Code. I sincerely believe that this is not the way to resolve the problem of prostitution and, as the member who introduced the bill said, clean up our streets. This is not the way to go about it. Nor will we clean up our streets by gathering up syringes and other assorted objects from the sidewalks the next morning. Increasing the sentence is not the answer.
There is a problem, however. There is obviously a problem because, although prostitution is said to be one of the oldest professions in the world and to have been around forever, we can see that it is not on the decrease. Should there be more policing? Maybe. Should preventive efforts be stepped up? Of course. Education also comes into it, as does the tolerance of certain communities for this sort of activity. I think there has to be a global approach, with adequate enforcement of the legislation, zero tolerance, and youth education and prevention activities.
The member said earlier that young women, and even young men, were leaving home, assuming a new identity, and so on, to go into prostitution. I think that if young people do, they do so because of a much more important underlying reason, which is not prostitution. Prostitution is the result, not the source of the problem, which we have to look for in our society. If any energy is to be invested in this issue, I think it should be concentrated mainly on the source. It should be concentrated on young people.
This same party has been arguing against the Young Offenders Act for the past few days. There are all kinds of things we can do to ensure that timely action is be taken to help young people, to educate, reform and rehabilitate them so that they do not end up on the street, using an assumed name to live off prostitution.
By now, you will have figured that I am opposed to this bill. I think that Reformers are trying to address problems that do not really come under section 213. This section deals with sexual solicitation or communication: stopping or attempting to stop any motor vehicle; impeding the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; stopping or attempting to stop any person or in any manner communicating or attempting to communicate with any person.
In an instance the one mentioned earlier by the hon. member, where there is prostitution but drugs are also involved, as he seemed to indicate, I think that, then again, the Criminal Code contains provisions to deal with drug related offences, be it trafficking, use or what not. If violence was used, then again, I think that there are sections in the Criminal Code that deal with assault and violence. That too is provided for.
What I would like all parties to do more than anything else is for members each in their riding to bring pressure to bear so that the authorities, the community, the people in the area where there is a problem show zero tolerance and strongly support the police in properly enforcing the legislation.