SSLR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

º

1610

The Chair (Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.))

º

1615

Professor Christine Bruckert (Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa)

The Chair

Prof. Christine Bruckert

The Chair

Professor Colette Parent (Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa)

º

1620

º

1625

Prof. Christine Bruckert

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

º

1635

Prof. Colette Parent

Prof. Christine Bruckert

º

1640

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Réal Ménard

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Réal Ménard

Prof. Colette Parent

º

1645

Mr. Réal Ménard

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Réal Ménard

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

º

1650

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Prof. Colette Parent

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Mr. Inky Mark

º

1655

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

»

1700

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Prof. Colette Parent

»

1705

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Christine Bruckert

»

1710

Prof. Colette Parent

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Colette Parent

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Prof. Christine Bruckert

Mr. Chuck Cadman

»

1715

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Colette Parent

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Colette Parent

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Christine Bruckert

»

1720

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Parent Colette Parent

Mr. Richard Marceau

Prof. Colette Parent

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 004

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1610)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our review of the solicitation laws.

    I want to welcome from the Department of Criminology of the University of Ottawa, Professor Christine Bruckert and Professor Colette Parent. Thank you for coming on such short notice.

    You will each have 10 minutes to present, and then we will ask you questions.

    Ms. Bruckert.

º  (1615)  

    Professor Christine Bruckert (Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa): Our presentations work together. So we were hoping that Colette could present first, and then I would present immediately after her. We're speaking to the same research, but different aspects of it. Is that acceptable?

    The Chair: Do you each need 10 minutes?

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: It will probably take between 10 and 20 minutes for the two presentations.

    The Chair: That's fine.

    Ms. Parent, please begin.

[Translation]

    Professor Colette Parent (Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa):

    Yes, I will begin.

    We did a research project last year at the request of the Law Commission of Canada on marginalized work; actually, the commission did a call for tenders on marginalized work. Chris and I therefore worked together to develop a project. At that time, we had not chosen street prostitution for various reasons, one of which was that this was an area on which more research had been done than others. It also seemed to us that this was an industry where there was a higher correlation between the people involved in it and survival practices such as homelessness and certain mental health problems. We really wanted to look at the “work“ aspect, outside of these other considerations.

    We therefore focused on massage parlours and erotic establishments. We submitted a research project to the Law Commission of Canada based on a theoretical work framework. That is what I want to talk to you about, because the framework we developed applies to other types of sex trades, and also highlights the vulnerability of these women, to some extent, although their vulnerability in massage parlours and erotic establishments is less than for those who work on the street.

    First of all, we considered the sex trade as work in the service sector in an economic situation in which, since the 1980s, there has been a shift of activities to the information and service sectors, and an increase in casual, part-time work, and increased competition on the labour market. We therefore looked at the sex trade in massage parlours and erotic establishments in the light of this overall situation. Of course, we cannot specifically analyze the changes that have affected this industry, given that some of the practices are illegal. We did not have any data that allowed us to do that, but we can assume that the same type of changes have affected this industry. Moreover, the women who work in this industry told us about greater competition, lower rates and a similar trend.

    We also took into account the fact that the sex trade has certain specific features, including some illegal aspects, and, generally speaking, the fact that it is non-institutionalized work. We analyzed this issue based on the idea that the labour market traditionally refuses to associate sex and work. The labour market sees sex as something that must be eliminated. The thinking is that it affects productivity and the atmosphere in the workplace. There is the issue of the power of men over women, but there is a reluctance to take this dimension into account. When we look at the sex trade issue as such, we find that there is a very strong association between the two elements.

    We must also recognize that while we can observe empirically that this work exists, it is more difficult—in fact impossible—to identify the social role of the sex trade worker. I am referring to the social role governing normative expectations, which governs the behaviour expected of a sex trade worker and her duties, and which has an impact on the client, who, in turn, is in a position where his expectations and the ability to request a particular type of service are not governed by a set of rules associated with a social role.

º  (1620)  

    We noticed that this industry is similar to certain types of innovative work, where work standards have not been established. I am thinking, for example, of certain areas of the computer industry, where there is innovation. We noticed that there are no set expectations as regards work performance, but that the bosses tend to take the client's wishes as the norm. This creates tremendous pressure on these workers. This situation has a great impact on the work of sex-trade workers and affects their ability to negotiate services, to protect themselves in terms of the services and is therefore a factor that enhances the possibilities of “victimization” in massage parlours. However, we can also infer that this situation has an impact on the situation of sex-trade workers, both on the street and in massage parlours.

    To conclude, I would like to tell you—and my colleague will be speaking more about the results—that we conducted our research in Montreal and Toronto, with the support of the sex-trade worker organizations Stella and Maggie's. We were able to speak to 14 sex-trade workers who work in different places. Generally, they were between 21 and 40. Most of them had quite a bit of work experience, between four months and eight years. They all had quite diversified work experience and about half of them had worked in other areas of the sex trade. We therefore questioned them about the nature and organization of their work, the hours, the duties, their relationship with their bosses, colleagues and clients, the risks associated with their work and the precautions they took, about the changes to the legislation that they would like to see and the changes in their work organization, and the changes they had noticed in their work, if they had been in the trade long enough to comment on that.

    As a result of this research, we were able to shed some light on one type of sex-trade work in which the illegal and non-institutionalized nature of the work must be taken into account in order to try to understand the greater vulnerability of these women to certain types of assault, certain types of “victimization” and their ability to protect themselves while providing the sexual services they offer. I will now let Christine continue.

º  (1625)  

[English]

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: The women we interviewed framed their decision to work in the in-call sex trade as opposed to other sectors of the industry in terms of personal trade, but also protection from violent customers and the lack of visibility. It's a less public forum than, for example, escort work or erotic dance. That being said, women in the in-call sex trade continue to be vulnerable to charges under section 210 of the Criminal Code, being an inmate of a bawdy house, and section 213, communicating for the purposes of prostitution.

    This criminalization of the industry has a number of implications for the women, which I'm going to frame in terms of issues around labour conditions in relation to clients and safety concerns, the experience of criminalization, and issues outside of the labour site.

    In terms of the labour conditions, the criminalization of the industry means that the women are outside the protection afforded other workers by federal laws, such as the Employment Insurance Act and employment equity, and provincial labour laws, such as health and safety acts. If their rights as workers are denied or contravened, they are not in a position to lay claims before, say, the labour board. Nor are they able to organize into labour unions to negotiate better working conditions with their employers. We found that for the most part, the employers expected free labour from the workers, including extra labour, such as laundry duties and receptionist duties. This was uncompensated. The split in the income between workers and owners was 50-50 or 60-40, with the largest share going to the employer. Unionization would have been one potential strategy for workers to negotiate better conditions, but of course this option is not open to them. Neither can workers join or create any kind of authorized provincial professional association, such as realtors and massage therapists enjoy, that might further their interests.

    In terms of the work itself, the labour is conditioned by the illegal nature. Owners cannot advertise the nature of the services. Even on the phone they're always operating in code because workers are trying to protect themselves from communicating charges. When the client arrives on the premises, this code often continues because the workers are still fearful that this might in fact be a police officer. Again, this is the non-institutionalized space that Colette was talking about as well as the illegal nature of it. The result is that you often end up with clients who are frustrated and angry and are in turn liable to make Criminal Code charges.

    Another issue that spoke to the illegal and non-institutional nature of the industry is that clients push the limits. This came out over and over again in the interviews. They ask for services that women are not prepared to provide. Specifically, one of the requests was often sex without a condom.

    As she negotiates with her client, the sex trade worker is trying to protect her boundaries and her health. But she is also vulnerable, knowing that he can lay a complaint. She is always aware of the possibility that if he isn't happy, he may lay a complaint with the police.

    The de facto illegal nature of the industry also means that some employers attempt to protect themselves from charges of keeping a bawdy house or living off the avails by creating a fiction that no sexual services are offered. In these establishments the women face additional challenges. If a client is aggressive, they cannot call on the owner for assistance. They are not provided with condoms, so they have to procure them for themselves and carry them and dispose of them discreetly. Of course, they cannot discuss the challenges of their labour with their co-workers.

    The next area is protection. When women are working in a non-institutional and illegal sector of the labour market, such as the in-call sex trade, they are unable to turn to police for protection. When clients are aggressive, threatening, or harassing, they're just not in a position to call on the police for assistance. Nor can they complain about things such as individuals who make endless obscene phone calls, which seems to occur. It is also possible that violence against sex trade workers is not taken as seriously by the police. One of our workers mentioned that. Clients are well aware that workers will not turn to the police, so they are much more likely to be physically or sexually aggressive, knowing that they have de facto impunity from official sanction.

º  (1630)  

    In terms of arrests, this is another form, obviously. The potential for arrest is a continual stress factor in the women's lives and something that shapes their experience of the labour. Moreover, if they are arrested, it can be a very traumatic experience. One of the women described it as follows:

I opened the door. I saw six of them in the doorway, coming in with flashes and cameras. They took my photo and everything. I was wearing only a G-string, I was 21 years old. I was shaking like a leaf. I had the fright of my life! The fright of my life!..... You try to get dressed--three or four of them are looking at you. They are all men. 21 years old you know. I like getting clients but I don't feel like having four of five guys looking at my ass all at the same time.

    There's another aspect. Not only is arrest traumatic, it can have a long-term impact. The implications of having a criminal record for prostitution-related offences can have a devastating effect on people's lives, preventing them, for example, from getting a job once they decide to leave the trade. So for some women, it may in fact ensure that they continue to work in the trade, as other options are closed to them.

    Outside of work the illegal nature of the labour continues to resonate in the women's lives. Because the industry is illegal and stigmatized, in-call sex trade workers cannot as a matter of course talk about their job with family, friends, landlords, and so on. All the women we talked to kept the job hidden from at least some people in their lives, which of course requires continual identity and information management.

    Furthermore, accessing any of the things that demand a work record is a challenge. Getting an apartment or a credit card becomes problematic. Similarly, even if they have adequate income and a reliable employment record, because women are going to work regularly, they're not eligible for loans or mortgages. In a similar vein, although women in the industry develop a number of skills, which Colette spoke to, such as interpersonal skills, receptionist skills, and skills in dealing with the public, they cannot highlight these skills to secure employment outside the industry because they cannot make reference to their participation in the trade.

    To conclude, when we asked the interviewees about the issue of criminalization, a number of them expressed amazement that consensual sexual activity between adults would be condemned and criminalized.

    All identified decriminalization as the preferred tactic to eliminate some of the negative aspects of their labour. The argument presented was that with decriminalization, the women would be in a position to access their rights as workers. They would be able to negotiate labour conditions with employers. It would decrease the sexual or physical violence from clients and allow them to access the protection of the police.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today.

    I'll try to keep this brief because we will be called out in a while.

    There are those who suggest that the legalization or decriminalization of prostitution would have the adverse effect of promoting and increasing the trafficking in sex trade workers.

    As far as we know, organized crime has their tentacles into this in many ways. Has your research indicated that? In the areas you studied, did you find out what the involvement of organized crime was?

º  (1635)  

[Translation]

    Prof. Colette Parent: This research project has no information on that. No, that is not accurate: it all depends on the women. One of them was involved in some activities that seemed to be associated in part with individuals involved in organized crime, and she lived somewhat in this world. However, we found in our interviews that most of them were engaged in activities that were absolutely not associated with organized crime.

    We also have some research projects on trafficking in human beings. In an additional project, we review the literature on trafficking in human beings. This review, which we could send you a copy of, shows that the almost automatic association made between organized crime and trafficking in women for prostitution is much less evident when we look at the research that has been done, particularly that done by the International Organization for Migration, which is perhaps the most reliable research we have.

    The authors who did the research on this subject, including Skeldon and Okolski, do not think that trafficking in women for prostitution is one the main aspects of the work of organized crime. The most well-documented research tends to minimize this connection compared to other research based more specifically on the testimony of victims. There is no doubt that the testimony of victims is touching and poignant, but it does not give us a comprehensive view of the situation. The testimony is about concrete experiences, but, overall, the connection between these two activities does not seem to be as automatic as some might think.

    We also realized that when organized crime is involved, it is often in the form of small individual organizations made up of a few individuals in fairly lose networks that get in touch for certain activities. The more conventional structure of organized crime with the godfather at the top and all the rest of the hierarchy, is rarely seen. Our review of the literature showed that this link was much less frequent than most people think.

    I will now let my colleague Christine continue, because we are doing another research project on trafficking in human beings. Perhaps she will give you a few preliminary results. We have not yet completed this project.

[English]

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: We've interviewed both advocates and police officers specifically in the area of women who are undocumented workers. We'll leave the word “trafficking” aside for now and use the term “undocumented workers”. As Colette mentioned, the argument seems to be that these are loosely affiliated transient cells that bring women in. There's very little of the kind of organized crime where the women are recruited or lied to in eastern Europe, Taiwan, or Asia and brought over here in an organized fashion to be held in situations of virtual slavery. I think it's a much more fluid and flexible model. The alliances are quite difficult to pin down. They're certainly not on the model of the mafia or even the bikers.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I am pleased to finally have the opportunity to meet Ms. Parent. I had the pleasure of reading some of her articles, which had been recommended to me by Germain Trottier, a professor of social work who retired two years ago if memory serves me well.

    In my opinion, as legislators, we try to understand sex workers' motivations—like you, I think that we have to refer to this as work—and see what legislative adjustments we might plan for them.

    First of all, I would like to know if the clerk would agree to contact the Law Reform Commission to try and get a copy of the study you undertook, given the fact that Ms. DesRosiers usually cooperates with the justice committee and despite the fact that this study has not quite been made public. Even if it concerns an independent organization, I believe it would be useful to have access to the results of the study. You did not share a lot of data with us. I know this is all preliminary, and we will not hold it against you. Please do not read any veiled criticism in my comment, quite the contrary.

    If I understood correctly, you are saying that it would be better, in order to preserve these women's dignity and the peace of the community, to opt for decriminalization and to consider how we can treat these women as citizens. However, you're not saying that there should be neither legislation nor support.

    From what I understand, if you were in Parliament and you had to design the ideal legislative framework, you would choose to make these people eligible for social programs and you would decriminalize their activities. Well, Madam Chair, by the strangest coincidence, such a bill exists and it is mine. I do not want to put myself in a position of influence-peddling with you: others may deal with that.

    From the preliminary data available from your research, tell us about the advantages of decriminalization.

    Prof. Colette Parent: Even before carrying out our research, we were convinced that what we were talking about was work and that it was imperative to decriminalize these activities in order for these women to have the same status as citizens as any other member of our society.

    In order to do so we believe that we will have to give them the opportunity of reporting the skills and expertise they have developed on the job. For the moment, if they want to change jobs, even if they have developed skills in the areas of communication or business amongst others, they can in no way take advantage of this in their search for other work. The illegal nature of their activities prevents them from doing so.

    One issue we emphasized and which is the subject of one section of the report is the kind of skills and expertise that are developed in their line of work.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: At least insofar as interpersonal relationships go.

    Prof. Colette Parent: Not only in that area. Some sex workers are involved in domination or submission scenarios. It requires a certain skill to offer services in these areas while maintaining one's self-respect and respect for the client as well as the physical integrity of the persons concerned. I could make several other comments on the subject.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Clearly, if we were to ask the Canadian or Quebec manpower offices to recognize or classify this kind of experience, they would have a big job ahead of them, but I agree that in terms of skills...

    Prof. Colette Parent: Seen from the outside, this issue may not seem important, but for these women it is. This affects the way they define themselves, the recognition of the skills they have acquired and their ability to negotiate their own identity within the community.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Réal Ménard: That brings me to my second question, if I may.

    I have friends who are escorts. These are people I am close to and who mean a lot to me. Would you agree that in assessing the phenomenon of prostitution there are levels? There are street workers, which you have not spoken to us about within the framework of the study you presented. There are also escort services and massage parlours, which are at another level. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that being an escort allows for a certain freedom of choice, contrary to prostitutes who work in the streets, and who might be victims of any number of things.

    Escorts who work on Champlain or Sainte-Catherine streets in Montreal are often seen as luxury prostitutes. Do you agree that their situation is different? As far as legislation is concerned, what should our perspective be on this phenomenon?

    Prof. Colette Parent: I feel that these practices are different, but I don't think that we need different legislation. In my opinion, the decriminalization of sex work must be done fairly broadly. Obviously, insofar as those who are the least well-off are the ones practising these professions, the issue of sex work in the street poses other kinds of problems. I was talking about issues of homelessness or...

    Mr. Réal Ménard: ...of drug addiction.

    Prof. Colette Parent: ...about the whole issue of deinstitutionalization, of illness, of mental health problems. It is clear that for a certain number of people who find themselves in the street, sex work is an issue of survival. Even though we don't really have data on the subject, it is likely the case for more people who are on the street as opposed to those who work in other conditions.

    Have I answered your question?

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time to ask a short question?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I met a professor whose name escapes me, who had published a book. She was very, very angry with me. Imagine that; we live in a crazy world—she was very angry with me. She wrote to me and I met with her. We are aware of the fact that prostitution is largely a female phenomenon, even if it is not exclusively so. She was saying—and this goes back to my colleague's question—that if we decriminalize prostitution, there will be even more trade in humans. We know that the most significant trafficking today involves human beings; it is no longer goods or drugs. She was afraid that Canada and Quebec would become hubs for this kind of traffic. She said that there were three places in the world, The Netherlands, Africa and another country I have forgotten, where experiences in decriminalization brought about trafficking in women. I responded that what I knew about prostitution did not concern people from abroad but people right here at home.

    What do you think?

º  (1650)  

    Prof. Colette Parent: I think we have to situate the whole issue of trafficking of women for the purpose of prostitution in the much broader context of the illegal migration of workers. That is a much more significant problem at the moment, given the widening gap between the rich and poor countries of our planet, caused by the phenomenon of globalization.

    I don't see why we would be more affected by that. On the contrary, I believe it would allow for safer, legally accepted practices, and it would make women less vulnerable to abuse and would allow them to be better able to organize themselves and protect themselves in the workplace. I think it could have the opposite effect, in terms of protecting workers, if we brought in decriminalization.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: You have 30 seconds.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: So I have time for another question.

[English]

    The Chair: No, you don't, Réal.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    On the same point, have you found any empirical evidence in your research to show that this society is ready for a change in mindset with regard to sex trade workers and that decriminalization may be the first step to legalization down the road?

[Translation]

    Prof. Colette Parent: Even if you go back to the Fraser committee, you can see that it found that Canadian society was not in favour of further criminalization of the sex trade. I have no recent data on what the Canadian public thinks, but it apparently increasingly feels that the sex trade is not a problem. Some questions do however remain. What kinds of practices are involved? Where will those practices take place? Is it a business? If it's a business, is a licence required? Will there be designated areas for the sex trade?

    I don't think that Canadian society would have much opposition to decriminalization, but you would have to see how people would react.

[English]

    Mr. Inky Mark: The problem with decriminalization is that it's taking a set of standards and then allowing it to happen in a relatively confined space, versus prohibition at the other extreme and legalization. Are we doing the job in terms of treating people like people? If it is a trade and a skill and that is marketable, then perhaps legalization is the step we should take and not decriminalization.

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: I would like to make a comment in response to the last question.

[Translation]

    Prof. Colette Parent: I find that to be a tricky question. Traditionally, the issue of legalization has been associated with a series of regulations under which sex-trade workers are treated as second-class citizens who don't necessarily have the same rights as all citizens. So in contemplating this question, it must be borne in mind that if we are to decriminalize and legalize prostitution, it must be recognized that a job in the sex trade is like any other job and sex-trade workers are full-fledged citizens. Therefore, there should be no regulations relegating them to the status of second-class citizen. I think that this is the challenge we have to meet.

[English]

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: I'd like to add to that. In places where they've moved to legalization, because the stigmatization continues, in some cases sex trade workers are not much better off than they were under criminalization when it comes to the expectations and restrictions imposed on them. I'm thinking specifically of Nevada.

    Mr. Inky Mark: So you're saying that decriminalization, as we understand it in this country, would be doing exactly that.

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: No. The idea is that there are sufficient laws and practices in place to take care of the problematic areas of the industry, such as exploitation and violence. You don't need to add any more. You can just remove the prostitution laws and allow the industry to regulate itself.

    Mr. Inky Mark: But it's still an illegal activity.

º  (1655)  

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: Not if you remove sections 210, 212, and 213.

    Legalization would mean we're imposing new laws on it. The state becomes the regulator of the industry. But with decriminalization, we allow the industry to regulate itself, but without these extra burdens of criminalization that make the women more vulnerable to violence and also render them less able to do things such as access the skills and be identified as workers.

    Mr. Inky Mark: My understanding of decriminalization is that it deals with the bottom end, which is trying to help people so that they aren't prosecuted by the enforcement agencies. Solicitation is still illegal under the Criminal Code. Am I correct?

    The Chair: I'm not a lawyer.

    Prof. Colette Parent: You're talking about only removing solicitation. If you only remove solicitation, then the work is still illegal because keeping a bawdy house would still be in there. We're talking about broader decriminalization to allow the women to really work.

    Mr. Inky Mark: You're talking about legalization, basically. Your activity can't be criminal and legal at the same time.

    Prof. Colette Parent: It would involve the decriminalization of different activities, such as solicitation, keeping a bawdy house, procuring, and so forth. That is decriminalization.

    In some cases of legalization, it has been associated with rules that really penalize the workers, such as having to work under certain conditions, having to undergo medical exams on a regular basis, not being allowed to get out of some neighbourhoods, and so on.

    Mr. Inky Mark: I don't think this bill is going to tell the world that solicitation is legal in Canada. I don't think it's going to do that.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cadman, would you like to go ahead?

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Isn't the government side going to ask questions?

    The Chair: I know that Paddy has just left.

    I will take the government round.

    Oh, here's Ms. Torsney. Would you like to ask a question?

    Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): About my insanity perhaps.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Not at this minute.

    The Chair: You're trying to be in two meetings at once.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Three, actually.

    I'll sit out this round.

    The Chair: Last week we heard from a witness who had been in the sex trade. She suggested that decriminalization continues to see this as a business and allows for women to be exploited. She felt that was an unfair thing to do. She said a lot of women did not choose to go into the sex trade. Many of them started as children who had been commercially sexually exploited, and they then stayed on because there was nowhere else for them to go. She said it was violent in many ways and that it was the exploitation and commodification of a person's body.

    At the same time, you make some important points about the fact that here we have services. You've put it in an interesting way. You've said these are social services being delivered. There's the need for food, clothing, and lodging, and there are other services the human needs, and sex is one of them. There is therefore a need to see it clearly as a service delivery model and to protect the people who are providing those services. Right now they have no recourse. That's an interesting perspective.

    What we are trying to understand here is where one starts and the other begins. Do you exploit women when you do this? We've seen how you are therefore using a woman's body. Is it possible to say this is happening, so let's agree that from a practical point of view, we need to decriminalize and set some regulations so that these women can have recourse to the police, protection under the law, unionization, fair wages, and health and safety mechanisms? How do you walk the line between that and in effect condoning the exploitation of women? Is there an answer to that? Do you feel that you can? That's what I'm struggling with.

»  (1700)  

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: I will start, and maybe you can then jump in. We'll do this in a partnership.

    I don't think the decriminalization response would undermine the fact that some women may be exploited in the trade. Of course, people are exploited in all sorts of different social areas, such as the labour force. But at least with decriminalization, even those women who perceive themselves to be victimized by the trade would be in a position to access how not to face the additional condemnation of things such as a criminal record.

    The women we interviewed entered the trade as adults. Incidentally, the research shows that most women who enter the sex trade do so as adults. They entered it for economic reasons. Obviously, it was a way to make money. But there were other elements as well. They specifically chose the massage trade on the basis of the autonomy and anonymity. They also enjoyed the flexibility and the comradery with the other women. In some of the cases, particularly in the case of women doing bondage, it fit in with the other aspects of their lives. These women were not driven to the trade by absolute desperation. It was in fact a choice.

    We didn't talk to young women. We don't do research on youth in the trade. I think there we're looking at a very different set of issues. You're looking at children who are runaways and who are perhaps fleeing situations at home that make the sex trade appear to be a viable alternative.

    We're looking at women who enter the trade as adults, and that is the majority of them.

[Translation]

    Prof. Colette Parent: What I would like to point out here is that if you consider this to be an exploitation issue, it is quite clear that there is a group of feminists who view the sex trade as being fundamentally exploitative of women. That doesn't stop them, the vast majority of those feminists, from advocating decriminalization of prostitution, precisely because decriminalization might reduce the victimization of sex-trade workers. They by no means approve of the activity, but their reasoning is situated on a different level, one where sexuality is not defined as being necessarily related to an emotional bond between two individuals.

    By contrast, our position is that sexuality may have different meanings. And in the case of sex-trade workers, for some of them, their work activities are completely separate from their sexual activities within intimate relationships. That is how they define their sexuality, and we think that it is open to individuals to choose to live out their sexuality that way; i.e., partly in a work setting, where there aren't necessarily intimate relationships, and partly within the context of an intimate relationship.

    Obviously, that is a disturbing idea to some people, and it leads to the notion that women are exploited, etc., but as my colleague was saying, women are exploited in various settings and in very traditional institutions that are highly accepted. So, for us, it's about defining practices based on a factor that may be present, to some degree. If it's too present, the practice becomes unacceptable, and when it is no more present than in other dealings between men and women, it becomes just like any other practice in a society like ours. So that's more how we see the issue. It's more about separating the work dimension from the intimate sexual relationship dimension, which is in fact what many sex-trade workers do.  

»  (1705)  

[English]

    The Chair: I just wanted to recognize Senator Landon Pearson. She was to appear as a witness. But because we have votes, she is going to come back another day. She is sitting in as an observer.

    Ms. Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.

    First of all, my apologies for being late. I got tied up somewhere else.

    But I've picked up the thread of what you're saying. It is a very complicated issue. What I've learned is that it's very important to distinguish between what I would characterize as the survival sex trade and other elements of the sex trade where one could argue that a choice is being made. In the former situation women are being terribly exploited. There's a great power imbalance. They're often drug users. There's the situation in the downtown eastside, for example, where women have gone missing.

    Regardless of which element we look at, I feel that the way we have to approach this issue is to look at the harm that is being created. I'm interested in the harm that's being created by the law itself--for example, the communicating law, which is forcing women into more and more marginal environments. For example, they are forced to get into cars and then be driven away. One could look at the bawdy house laws as well.

    I think that children involved in prostitution is a separate issue. We should look at that as child sexual abuse. We should be extremely heavy on that in terms of the predators and the people who buy those services.

    Perhaps you could address the issue of the law itself. There's a lot of misinformation and maybe a lack of understanding about what we even mean by decriminalization. It seems to me that the use of the law as a primary tool for dealing with the sex trade has actually created a lot of hardship and harm and has even contributed to the violence that takes place. I wonder if you could address that and tell us how you see decriminalization and what the impact of that would be.

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: I couldn't agree with you more about the issue of violence. The question was posed earlier about whether people are ready for change and a move toward decriminalization. I think that following the events on Vancouver's eastside, people are ready to stop the violence against women, including women in the sex trade. So I think there's real movement there.

    In terms of decriminalization, I see it as the removal of the laws without replacing them with state regulation. When we move to state regulation, we end up, as we mentioned earlier, with situations that can be equally negative for the women. So it's actually the removal of sections 210, 212, and 213.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So you support the removal of those.

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: Absolutely.

    Ms. Libby Davies: But you're not arguing that it be replaced with something else.

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: That's correct.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So you're saying it should be just left.

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: That's right. Until we actually move to the position that the sex trades are not stigmatized, any laws that are put in, even regulatory ones, are liable to do more damage than good for the women in the trade.

»  (1710)  

    Prof. Colette Parent: There could be some sectors of the city where you could have your trade, as for any other type of trade. It would not be zoning that says that's the only place you can have the sex trade. It would be like commercial and residential zoning, where you can have hairdressers and different types of services, and you could have this type of service as well. From my point of view, that would be a reasonable thing to do.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Do you have an example of where this has worked, where you have decriminalization without anything replacing it in terms of regulation and there isn't clearly one district? I try not to use the phrase “red light district” because it's so loaded and people react to it. I feel that we have to come at the debate in another way. Is there any way you can show us that what you're proposing is actually in operation somewhere?

    Prof. Colette Parent: No.

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: There's the situation in Holland, the great experiment. We understand from sex trade worker organizations that things are actually getting worse for the women in Holland.

    It hasn't happened yet, but Canada can always be the leader.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We have 15 minutes left. So we can go to Mr. Cadman for three minutes and then to Monsieur Marceau.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'd like to get a clarification from Ms. Bruckert. You said the research shows that most of those who enter the sex trade do so as adults and not as young persons. Are you speaking of the sex trade in general or just the areas you were looking at?

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: It's always difficult to find any kind of representative sample, but the work of John Lowman, for example, clearly indicates that most women enter the trade as adults, defining adults as 18 years and over.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: That includes street prostitution.

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: That would include all forms. I suspect that you'd be more likely to find young women doing survival sex in street prostitution because it's easily accessible and they don't have to go through the controls. Massage parlours will try not to hire underage women because they don't want to bring the heat on them. So the street becomes the place where those young people end up. I don't have solid research on that part. Deborah Brock's research has also shown that most women enter the trade as adults. Occasionally, the media constructs prostitutes as all youth. That's when you define youth as up to the age of 21, and sometimes 25, as they did in Toronto for a while.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: HRDC calls 30 year olds youth.

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: That's appealing at one point in our lives.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have one other brief question in the area of youth exploitation. If we were to get rid of the laws and decriminalize it, do you feel that what we have in place now would be adequate to address those who exploit youth or indeed adult women? If we were to relax the rules on solicitation, would the Criminal Code be adequate, or would we have to beef it up in order to go after those who do the exploiting?

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: My understanding is that there are sufficient laws in the Criminal Code to regulate all of the negative areas. There are certainly laws around child exploitation, sexual abuse of children, sexual assault, physical assault, fraud, and harassment. I'm thinking of the nuisance factors. If a woman is on the street and is being disruptive and undermining the peace of the neighbourhood, there are laws to take care of that. We don't need the communicating law.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: The government likes to talk in terms of maximum sentences. I think we'd maybe have a job tuning up the courts to deal with some of these cases on the exploitation issue.

    I'll leave it at that.

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you very much. Thank you to the witnesses. I too am sorry I got here late.

    Your presentation surprised me a bit, in that you advocate decriminalization without recommending that there be any regulations; in other words, without any provision for a specific legislative framework. And you didn't react to the argument of my colleague, Réal Ménard. And yet, I can't really think of any profession that isn't regulated in one way or another. Furthermore, we know that there are many risks associated with the sex trade, including violence, exploitation and health problems.

    How can we just decriminalize without providing some regulation that would allow, for example, for medical supervision or perhaps some form of zoning. What then? We take it out of the Criminal Code and let things take their course? Is that what you're telling us?

    Prof. Colette Parent: What matters to us is not having regulations that make sex-trade workers second-class citizens. To date, that is what all attempts at regulation have led to.

    You referred to violence and you also raised the issue of regulation. That could conceivably be taken on by associations and applied within the profession, for example. However, you can't have government regulation coming from the outside imposed on women. That would clearly make them second-class citizens.

    The fact remains that in general, they don't take to this kind of attempt at control, and we can easily see why. You have to try to see how these activities could be structured as work.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm going to ask a question, and it's not meant to be critical; I'm a neophyte in this area. When you say they shouldn't be subject to any regulation, aren't you in fact making them into second-class citizens? The other trades and professions are regulated, like construction workers, who, in Quebec, have to be certified. To my knowledge very few aren't subject to some kind of regulation. So to say that they wouldn't be able to deal with the situation, isn't that like saying that they are by nature inferior to the rest?

    Prof. Colette Parent: No, we are talking here about two completely different dimensions. To date, the regulations have had to do with zoning and have confined sex-trade workers to certain parts of the city; they were required to work in specific areas or for a set number of hours. Literally and objectively, the regulations made them into second-class citizens.

    In opposing regulation, that's what we're reacting to, not the potential to bring some structure to the work.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Everyone has working hours.

    Prof. Colette Parent: We're talking about 12 hours without being allowed to leave the premises.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Mark wants to ask a question.

    Mr. Inky Mark: If you believe that sex trade workers are part of society and a profession, should society promote it or deter it? What's the role of society?

    Prof. Christine Bruckert: If it's a job, then it's not a matter of promoting it, any more than we promote or prohibit waitressing. At this point we cannot simply remove the laws and therefore remove the stigma. But I think as society moves toward a more progressive acknowledgement of this as a labour site, whether or not we promote it is no longer an issue.

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau, in spite of the very titillating question of how you define competency in this trade, you wanted to ask a question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, and perhaps it will be the last one, Madam Chair, because we could debate this issue for hours.

    A truck driver has a schedule to respect. An entrepreneur who wants to set up a business in a city has to abide by zoning by-laws. So I don't understand why, when you're talking about making this work like any other profession, which appears to me to be the main purpose of your intervention, unless I'm mistaken, you would object to the idea of it being regulated. That's completely inconsistent with what you say you want, i.e. to turn this work into a job like any other job.

    Parent Colette Parent: You referred to the hours that have to be kept. Obviously, when there are hours of business, you have to abide by them. Personally, I have no schedule in my work: I can work on Saturday, Sunday, in the evening and at night, if I want to.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: But you don't get paid for overtime.

    Prof. Colette Parent: You're absolutely right. However, my schedule is not one of my job requirements. It goes without saying that we don't want truckers driving for more than a certain number of hours, for fear of them falling asleep and causing a disaster. And yet we don't necessarily control the schedule of a hairdresser and the number of consecutive hours that she may work. In one week, she could easily, if she wanted to, work 40 hours. She could also organize her work another way.

    In contemplating regulation, the idea is to be able to rely on professional associations. But so far, this kind of association cannot exist because the practices are not legal. Government control implies no connection with professionals working in that field, whereas for most of the professions that we are aware of, professional associations, for example, are run by the people who make up the field.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We must go to vote.

    The meeting is adjourned.