SSLR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

º

1610

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.))

Ms. Lee Lakeman (Regional Representative for B.C. and the Yukon, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres)

º

1615

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Senator Landon Pearson (As Individual)

º

1625

Senator Landon Pearson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Senator Landon Pearson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lee Lakeman

º

1630

Senator Landon Pearson

º

1635

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Senator Landon Pearson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Senator Landon Pearson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Senator Landon Pearson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Senator Landon Pearson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Senator Landon Pearson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

º

1640

Senator Landon Pearson

Mr. Réal Ménard

Senator Landon Pearson

Mr. Réal Ménard

Senator Landon Pearson

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Lee Lakeman

º

1645

Mr. Réal Ménard

º

1650

Senator Landon Pearson

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Senator Landon Pearson

º

1655

Ms. Lee Lakeman

»

1700

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

»

1705

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

»

1710

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Lee Lakeman

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Ms. Lee Lakeman

Ms. Libby Davies

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Ms. Libby Davies

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

Ms. Lee Lakeman

»

1715

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney)

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 005

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1610)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order, with an apology for being late.

    For the first 45 minutes, until about 5 o'clock, we have two witnesses with us. They are Hon. Landon Pearson, an amazing member of our Senate, who is appearing as an individual, and from the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Lee Lakeman, who came all the way from B.C.

    We'll give each of you 10 minutes for your opening remarks, and then we'll turn to questions.

    We'll start with Ms. Lakeman.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman (Regional Representative for B.C. and the Yukon, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres): I am Lee Lakeman, and I'm the regional representative for B.C. and the Yukon of the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres. I've been working with victims of rape and sexual assault since 1973, so I embody much of the Canadian history of the development of rape crisis centres and transition houses. I'm now part of the national decision-making body of CASAC, which includes CALACS from Quebec and other provincial associations. I am newly elected from the Canadian Women's March Committee to the international committee discussing prostitution.

    I have been taking positions on prostitution for as long as I can remember. In the first years of transition houses, it was a big surprise to realize that many of the women who came to shelters had also at some point or another experienced prostitution, usually on a temporary basis. We had to very quickly realize that there was a connection between women who had suffered incest, women who were dealing with prostitution, and women who were dealing with wife assault. For me, it is impossible to separate those issues. I come at the issue of prostitution as being violence against women. They're not separable in my mind.

    What I would like to talk to you about, though, is that I think the current discussion in the Canadian situation has everything to do with changes in Canadian governance and the economic situation in Canada. It has much more to do with that than with the issues of prostitution that were being discussed during the Fraser commission. I think this is perhaps the most important thing that needs to be considered.

    For five years I have received research funds from the Department of Justice for a five-year, cross-Canada project examining how cases of violence against women manage to be pushed out of the criminal justice system. How is it that we have such a low conviction rate? How is it that so many are pushed off stage? During the course of that research, it has been made clear to us that the changes in governance in Canada are a big factor in what's going on in the prostitution discussion as well as in the criminal justice discussion. That project is called LINKS. Its report will be out by December 6. It will be released in Vancouver. It examines the changes in Canadian governance that have meant not only a complete change in the relationship to NGOs, particularly women's groups, but it also talks about the loss of welfare as a level of redistribution of income within Canada, not as a service. It talks about the promotion of prostitution, which is how I would now categorize the political process we're part of.

    The changes in the informal economy are evident in every major city. There are now more women--and young women and young men, but I'm speaking particularly about the situation of adult women--on the street than there ever have been in my lifetime. It is a phenomenon that cannot be separated from the changes in the economy, including the loss of welfare and the loss of the public sector. It's not for me to talk about the loss of the public sector. I think other people can do that much better. But from answering a crisis line and being in a transition house and a rape crisis centre--which I still do every day, and that's where my work is centred--I can tell you that it is impossible not to recognize the relationship between the changes in the economy and what's going on with prostitution. That's the first thing I want to say. Unless you go looking for it, I don't think you'll hear that in this discussion.

    The research will substantiate some of what I'm saying, but I largely have to bank on the fact that I have a lifelong reputation of doing this work and I do know some things. You can take that for what it's worth.

º  (1615)  

    I can tell you very clearly that we are pushing numbers of people out from under the law-and-order agenda, which I've always worried about. We are now pushing more and more people out to the rule of motorcycle gangs and criminal elements of that sort. Organized crime is a serious phenomenon in the major cities and in relation to prostitution. I don't know how anybody can think we're going to change exit services, the policing of violence against women, and prostitution without dealing with this issue. It is a matter of governance. It has been dramatic in the major cities, but it has also been dramatic in cities as small as Winnipeg. I think it would be foolhardy to make recommendations about prostitution that do not take those issues into account.

    My original position on prostitution was that we should immediately decriminalize in order to protect the women. I am now not so sure that's the right thing to do at this moment. With the absence of services and funding and with the cuts and the devolution of powers, I am very worried that decriminalization will simply abandon women in very large numbers to the streets of the urban centres, where they will be pushed around for the purposes of real estate. I can't say this strongly enough. I think the context is entirely different from the last time we discussed this issue. So I would urge you not to make any decriminalization moves that don't take into account that you are in essence legalizing a huge threatening trade. I urge you to think about this as a growing industry that is completely beyond regulation. If you decriminalize, you remove the largest power we have to deal with that industry. This is my worry. It has also been articulated by people working in other countries. I'll give you some websites and contacts with regard to other people's research on that.

    We held a forum in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago. In Vancouver, the city government was elected because the public is very concerned about the plight of the people in the downtown eastside. I think it's important to recognize that no government has been given a mandate to end welfare. No government has been given a mandate to carry out the destruction of services that have actually been carried out. In Vancouver we've gone even further. The city government was elected to help solve the problem of the ghetto. It was out of people's goodwill that they were elected. It is, of course, cynical politics since I don't see how that city government has any chance of actually affecting the income of those people or the problems they're facing. That's exactly what you will be generating if you devolve this problem to the city level. Cities cannot cope with this issue.

    It's a basic issue of women's human rights and of the redistribution of income. It's a basic issue of what we are all entitled to as human beings, including the protection of the state. I urge you not to take it out of that context. That's my strongest message. I can back it up with statistics and contacts. I wanted to communicate that concept. This is not 1970. In 1970 I argued decriminalization. I'm saying to you now think twice. Be very careful about this.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Thank you, Ms. Lakeman.

    Senator Pearson.

    Senator Landon Pearson (As Individual): Thank you.

    I don't have a great deal of familiarity with the adult side of this issue. I have a lot of familiarity with the child side of it. I've not done what Ms. Torsney has done, which is go around with policemen and see some of these people operating. I don't have that kind of experience, but I have spoken with a great many young people who have been in the sex trade. So I think that gives me a kind of authority to speak on the issue.

    I have two messages to give. While I support what you're saying about being careful about decriminalization overall, I do feel very strongly that those under the age of 18 should not be criminalized. It's something that has come from the conference in Stockholm, and it came from the Yokohama conference on the sexual exploitation of children. Even though I know now that the number of young people who are being criminalized has diminished--at least that's what Justice tells me--I think it still should be quite evident that those kids are victims and are being sexually exploited. They shouldn't be charged for communicating, or whatever other charge is used against them. We need to do everything we can to help them exit.

    I take very seriously your comments about the economic issues around why so many more women and young men are getting into the trade. It's an economic issue, with welfare cuts and that kind of thing.

    For me, the important way to go on this issue is to have more resources for exiting, not less, and more resources for support. All the young women I've talked to, and the young men, aren't particularly keen to stay in the trade; on the contrary.

    When I was here last week just listening to the group, the witnesses stated that the majority of women went into the sex trade as adults. That doesn't fit with the evidence I have, which indicates that up to 80% entered the sex trade as children. I co-hosted the International Summit of Sexually Exploited Youth with Cherry Kingsley a few years ago. We did research in Canada as well as in the Americas. It indicated that the average age of entry into the sex trade--we were not talking to just those under 18 at this time--was between 14 and 15. I'm convinced by that research and by other research I've seen. That is available on my website, if you ever want to look at it, along with the opinions of the young people who are in it and would like to get out of it but don't see ways out because those opportunities are not being given.

    My first message, which is in conformity with what Cherry Kingsley said to you a couple of weeks ago, is that very few young people in the sex trade wanted to go into it. They've gone into it for some of the reasons Ms. Lakeman has stated. It's hard to talk about choice when they're under 18.

    The second message I want to share with you, which has been a concern to me, has to do with the current climate around sexuality. You talked about why things have changed since the 1970s. I think sex has been increasingly commodified. Something very curious is happening. Some of what I'm going to say is obviously anecdotal because I'm not sure that anybody is actually doing studies on this. The greatest amount of sexual activity is now happening among very young people. My gynecologist in Ottawa says that nobody over the age of 30 is having sex any more because they're all too busy doing something else.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

º  (1625)  

    Senator Landon Pearson: I think it's symptomatic of something that has happened, which is that having demystified sexuality to a great extent through the media and other ways, the kids are seeing it as being disconnected from relationships and so on and so forth. It makes them much more vulnerable than if they had a strong sense of the importance of themselves as sexual beings in relationship to others. One example that always irritates me, although it's amusing in some ways, is the Viagra ad. It shows a man jumping up and down. There's no woman there. There's no sign of a relationship. It's saying sex is about me and male potency. I think that's characteristic of the attitude out there.

    My real point is that I think we should be spending a lot more effort pursuing the clients and trying to change attitudes toward what's being done and not on decriminalizing to the same extent. It's a huge issue. It's not something we're going to be able to solve with laws.

    Doctors I know who are treating young girls are finding that the degree of sexual activity they're engaged in is astonishing. Maybe some of the rest of us don't see this, and I hopefully won't see it in my granddaughters. I don't think so.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Or grandsons.

    Senator Landon Pearson: Yes. Something has permeated our culture and has really changed it in 30 years so that it has become a commodity, and therefore it's into this trade issue. When you talk about services, trade, and so on, you get into a different mindset.

    I feel very strongly that one of the things we have failed in as a country over all these years is providing adequate sexual education in schools. The Finns have developed an extraordinary program on helping children understand what it is to be a sexual being, including the fact that developmentally there are nine stages, with intercourse being the very last stage. That has been in place in the school system for more than 10 years. They've reduced the number of STDs and abortions. They've reduced the number of young people in the sex trade. It's one of the tools that I think we have not used properly. But there is nothing we can do at the federal level about that. To me, one of the answers will be to return to ourselves as sexual beings some of the mystery, which I think puts a glow around the whole thing and not a black cloud.

    I think those are enough comments. We can maybe get to some dialogue.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Thank you, Senator Pearson.

    Mr. Cadman.

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

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

    You left beautiful B.C. and ended up facing this type of weather. If you are going home tomorrow, I'll be on the plane with you.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Ms. Lakeman, you made the point that we should not consider decriminalization without considering a lot of other things. That is the dilemma. Are you suggesting that we should not maintain the status quo? I would like to know what we have to do. We all understand that there is a problem out there. What in your mind do we have to do? I'd open that question up to the senator, too. What would your suggestions be?

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I'd work from the bottom up. I think that the federal government can play a role in making sure that enforcement does not come down on the women and children. It's not true that you don't have some say over that--for instance, through the Solicitor General and through the promotion of attitudes and policing policy. In some places it has been experimented with. I think it's an immediate thing that can make an immediate difference. Do not arrest women for being sold in the street, and do not support the Secure Care Act response to children who have been bought and sold.

    There are laws against the raping of children that should be applied. It's already criminal to behave as men do, buying women in the street. I don't know why anyone is tolerating the diversion programs that do not work, such as the john school, which is silly nonsense, rather than an immediate criminalization of that behaviour. That's what I would recommend. If I were going to recommend law reform, I would recommend the Swedish model. It's the most hopeful thing we've seen so far. Criminalize the traffickers. Criminalize the men who buy women in the street. They're also buying young men, but they're mostly buying women. That's the alternative I would choose.

    But along the way, I would say enforcement can make a difference. That enforcement has to mean not penalizing the women and making it so that men don't think they're going to get away with it. Men get picked up on the charge, they get diverted to john school, and they end up with no record and no embarrassment for their family. It's almost as if they're getting a pass. How does that work as community censure of the event? I don't think we need to draw and quarter men or jail them for it, but I do think that, unequivocally, we need to criminalize it. So that would be my first move.

    What I'm saying is that there is an impoverishment of women going on. We might debate how we're supposed to deal with the feminization of poverty, but there is a feminization of poverty. There's an increased number of women on the street because there's an impoverishment of women.

    It's also because of a reliance on tourism. In Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto the tourism element of this is terribly important. I also think you should make yourself aware that you're dealing with the pressure of big city mayors who are being told by the worldwide discussion that tourism and prostitution is a cash cow they can rely on. I understand this debate as asking to remove the criminal sanctions so that the cities can take on the devolution of the income problems and the social service problems and in return get the cash cow of the tourism and the prostitution. It's a very bad trade for the women of Canada.

    I'd work up from the bottom against all those things.

º  (1630)  

    Senator Landon Pearson: One comment from Ms. Lakeman that I'd like to pick up on is around the secure care move, where they have the capacity to take into care a young person in their own best interests. I think the intentions of these laws are very good, such as the one in Alberta. I'm not sure what has happened in B.C. Did it go through?

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: It's hanging there.

    Senator Landon Pearson: We do have a model in Saskatoon that in fact uses voluntary methods, and it's working better. In Alberta some of the young women say that this opportunity has helped them to exit. But in Saskatoon a higher percentage has done so without coercion. So it seems to me that one should be looking at the models that don't use coercion but put in place the kinds of resources the young people will turn to and that do not assault their dignity to the same extent.

    What else can we do? Millions of dollars are being spent on forensic tests for those women in B.C., plus the millions of dollars that are going to be spent on the trial, etc. Many of the people in B. C. must be thinking if only that money could have been spent up front on giving these women ways of getting out. To me, that's the irony of it. You end up paying these huge amounts at the end because you haven't solved the problem at the front end.

    When it comes to charges, one of the problems is adequate protection for the kids as witnesses. We're improving that. But we're still not getting as many charges as I think we should be in order to discourage this. Not being a man, I don't know, but I'm told by men who are prepared to say this that most of the people who buy sex from kids are not pedophiles. They're situational users. Kids may be cheaper or whatever. In most cases they're fairly normal people. They're not wild-eyed, strange, odd people. As Cherry would say, they could be somebody's brother or uncle. They can be dissuaded. If we could do some public shaming to some extent, it would be more effective.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Is there a specific age? Is it 14 to 18 versus under 14?

    Senator Landon Pearson: It's under 18.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Surely there's a difference between someone who's involved with a 12 year old versus someone who's involved with a 15 or 16 year old.

    Senator Landon Pearson: No, there's no difference. It's a crime.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): It is a crime, but in terms of your analysis about whether or not they're more inclined to be pedophiles, the younger--

    Senator Landon Pearson: I would agree. But I think that nowadays there are an awful lot of 13 and 14 year olds, indeed 12 year olds, who look a lot older than they are. In my mind the pedophile tends to be the one who is into those who are prepubescent, and I think that's where the pathology really kicks in. The rest of them are--

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Less likely to be.

    Senator Landon Pearson: Yes. That's a whole different issue. When you're dealing with a pedophile, you're into a whole different type of crime and punishment, so to speak.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Monsieur Ménard.

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I'm going to speak French.

[Translation]

    I think that we have a lot of time this afternoon, but we should not go overboard, of course.

    I am the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in the east end of Montreal, and one of the first issues I had to look after, when I was elected in 1993, which is already 10 years ago, was street prostitution. For many years now, between 125 and 150 women or girls have walked the streets in my riding. I have to admit that I haven't taken an active interest in the issue of pedophilia, because I have been kept busy with the prostitution problem in the last several years.

    Our researchers had us read the federal-provincial-territorial report on prostitution. The first version was tabled in 1998 and I believe it was reviewed in 2000. I remember what was said at the time, but I did not get the feeling that the reality of the situation was much discussed. I would like you to give us the context for both street prostitution and the escort business. I would also like you to provide us with some statistics. It doesn't make the problem any less serious, revolting or any more acceptable, but I don't think that is the issue members of Parliament should tackle first, since that is not the major problem in our cities.

    However, I'm not sure. I may be mistaken, but based on what I know about what's happening in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, I think that people are mostly bothered by streetwalkers, which is a problem for communities. Do you have any statistics with regard to child pornography in major cities? My question is specifically addressed to you, Madam Senator, since you have a lot of experience with regard to these matters.

    I have other questions with regard to how this problem should be addressed.

º  (1640)  

[English]

    Senator Landon Pearson: It's a question I can't totally answer, but I can direct you toward some of the information. I have learned from Cherry and her friends that it's one in ten in terms of kids on the street. For every one on the street, there are about nine who are doing sex somewhere else. That was their estimate. We got some pretty graphic descriptions. It happens in the back of stores and in rooms where people spend hours and hours. I don't have any statistics on that. Maybe Ms. Lakeman has. But as far as children are concerned, an awful lot of it does not take place on the street.

    The other study that Cherry did, which is available, is the one with the aboriginal families.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you think that the phenomenon of sexual abuse, which I think is more in line with your description, and the issue of pornography are two distinct realities which legislators should distinguish from one another? When a person is being abused in a back alley or in a store, that's not prostitution. Our first witnesses, officials from the Department of Justice, said that there were three elements to prostitution: there has to be compensation; it has to be carried out in a public place, which, under the Supreme Court's ruling, includes a vehicle; and lastly, there has to be a client and a person who solicits. In fact, I shouldn't use the word solicitation, since we now talk about “communication”. Therefore, the thing you are describing, if I understand correctly, seems to be more like sexual abuse, which is not the same as pornography or prostitution.

    Senator Landon Pearson: But it's done for money.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you saying that the young people who are being abused are being paid?

    Senator Landon Pearson: Yes, that is what they've told us. It's in the definition of what constitutes commercial sexual exploitation of children.

[English]

    Commercial sexual exploitation is an act of sex in return for material support. It doesn't have to be money. It can be food. It can be survival. This to a great extent is called survival sex. It can be for a bed for the night. That's clearly within the definition of the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Sexual abuse, particularly familial sexual abuse, doesn't have that connotation. That is different. There are a very large number of young people who are not on the street but who are sexually exploited in that way.

    People are concerned about what they call the safety of the neighbourhood. If there are some young people on the street, there's probably even more in the stores and other places around those young people. So you won't have solved anything by getting it off the street. You'll just have put it into these other places. You're not going to have less people around who are drinking and doing that kind of thing. I think one has to be careful not to make too much distinction--I didn't realize that's how the justice officials did it--between what's actually happening on the street and what's being done in a bawdy house or other places. Many of these activities take place, as I say, in stores. Girls are there for hours on end servicing customers one after the other, who are being brought in by pimps. It's horrible. Those are the people we also want to stop.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine. Is there anything else you would like to add?

[English]

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: Yes. I would support the senator's impression that what you see in the street trade is the leftovers of the main industry. The majority of the abuse of women and children in prostitution is now going on indoors, much of it licensed by cities. There is already a protection of a legal trade in the flesh of women and children, which is at a level that should never be tolerated by the federal government or by anybody interested in human rights, social development, or the well-being of women and children. It is a huge phenomenon. Those on the street are the ones who have been rejected by that trade, because they've been used up and spit out or because they can't comply in some way or another with the regulations of that trade. So it's the drug addicted, the uneducated, the mentally handicapped, the children who cannot be hidden away quite so well, the illegal immigrant, and the woman who has now grown old or is diseased and cannot be kept as a profitable commodity indoors by the larger trade who are on the street.

    Those who have the illusion that you can clean up the street and move those people indoors are just fooling themselves. In Vancouver, the pretence that we will somehow have these nice little bawdy houses, private businesses run by independent women, and women in a condo in a very nice part of downtown Vancouver having afternoon sex with gentlemen who think of them as pretty women is just absolute bloody nonsense. These women can't manage from one day to the next. They are not going to be running little self-regulated businesses in Yale Town.

    I can't say strongly enough that part of what we're dealing with is whether or not the government will involve itself in the plight of the destitute and the powerless in the streets of the cities. UN statistics are telling us that all around the world the ghettos of disenfranchised people are becoming enormous. There was a statistic recently that one out of eight people in the mega-cities of the world will be without government services and the rule of law. I suggest to you that what's happening in the ghettos in Canadian cities is an example. It's the same process. It's moving very quickly now. So we have to update our attitudes.

º  (1645)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I agree with you, but the federal government is first and foremost responsible for criminal law. Both of you said something I liked, namely that we need more social workers to step in, something I greatly believe in. But you said something which I don't understand: that the status quo is unacceptable because it leads to the exploitation of children, boys or women, and yet you did not call for decriminalization, since, in your opinion, it is a growing industry which is already very deregulated. That's all very well and good, but what should we do?

    What I would like, and I want to know what you think about this, is to take prostitution out of the Criminal Code. Sex between consenting adults should not be an offence anymore. I don't think anyone would ever tell us, and I don't think anyone has ever written, except perhaps Mr. Sharpe, to say that sexual relations with minors should be allowed... I think most Canadians would not want the law to permit sex with minors. But if two consenting adults wish to engage in sexual relations, in exchange for compensation, why should that be an offence? I know that some people feel that sex workers don't really have a choice and are always victims. I am willing to listen to that argument, but society has to jump in and help those who wish to exit the sex industry. You can't force people to lead successful lives and not to engage in prostitution through legislation. People should have the right to make their own choices.

    Do you agree with me that you can't force someone out of prostitution? You have to create the conditions conducive to doing so. You can't simply pass legislation forcing people to quit the sex industry. But if you remove prostitution from the Criminal Code, what does that mean? It means that you can go after people for other types of offences. As far as I'm concerned, these other types of offences should include engaging in sexual activities outside of designated zones and appropriate places.

    Have you thought about this matter? If the Canadian Solicitor General issued licences for brothels, if we had designated municipal zones, if social workers were involved, and even organizations in charge of enforcing the law in these zones, don't you think it would be a way of improving the lives of prostitutes?

º  (1650)  

[English]

    Senator Landon Pearson: I speak mainly about the children's issue, but I also speak about the issue of trafficking. We'll begin to get some statistics in January based on the new law. I think we'll be quite startled by the number of women and children who are being trafficked into Canada for sexual purposes. An awful lot of people have been trafficked into Canada and placed in terrible situations. Cherry described an Asian girl she met in a hospital. That girl was in a back room on a mattress day after day after day. I don't think that decriminalizing is going to solve that problem.

    I think you're in a better position, Ms. Lakeman, to answer that question.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: First, I'd like to speak to trafficking. I agree that there's a false division in the discussion at the moment between the international trafficking and the trafficking within our borders. In Vancouver we are dealing equally with women trafficked across international borders and women trafficked, for instance, from Prince George or Prince Rupert down into the cities. I think it's very much the same in every major urban centre. We shouldn't console ourselves by thinking that what's happening to women in the urban ghettos is any different if they come from the third world or from the parts of Canada where third world conditions exist.

    I think there is now evidence everywhere in the world that legalizing prostitution does not improve the conditions of the women involved. What it does is make honest businessmen out of bikers. It makes the rule of law extremely difficult. You have less chance of going in and finding the children in the bawdy houses and of actually intervening with the women involved. I can't say it strongly enough. There's plenty of evidence. There's UN evidence, American evidence--

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time for another question?

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): No, your time is up. It was a very good round.

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: You made reference to passing laws and setting up some nice little houses. I assume you were referring to that ill-fated motion of the Vancouver city council.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: Yes.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: It lasted one day, from what I understand.

    On the issue of trafficking, we heard some testimony last week from individuals who said that the majority of women did not get into it until they were adults. You had some issues with that and felt that they started younger.

    I was concerned about the comment by the same individuals that there was very little involvement of organized crime. I'd have to go back through the transcript to see what the context of that was. I'd like to get your views on the involvement of organized crime in the trafficking of human beings and in the sex trade itself. Is it as big as some of us believe it to be, or is it to be minimized, as it seemed to be by some witnesses last week?

    Senator Landon Pearson: I had two opportunities in the last year to take part in conferences on the trafficking of children for sexual purposes, in Washington in February and in Helsinki in June.The one in Helsinki was more about the trafficking around the Baltic area and from eastern Europe. The one in Washington was about all areas where trafficking is going on.

    The United States has taken the issue of trafficking in persons very seriously, and this is one area where I'm really happy with what they're doing. This predates 9/11. It has nothing to do with that. It comes from earlier stages. They have an office on trafficking in the state department. They've gathered statistics over a number of years, which we haven't yet been able to do, although we will now because the new law is going to make it possible for us to track trafficking. They state--and I have no reason to doubt them--that the involvement of organized crime in this is now greater than the combination of involvement in the drug trade and small arms. One of the reasons is that you can trade the drugs only once and they get consumed, but you can trade people over and over again. So there's a movement toward trafficking in persons, which is increasing. It's not only for the sex trade, but it's largely for the sex trade.

    Of course, once organized crime comes in, they apply all the methods of commercialization, including advertising. I was shown some of their ads. They've increased the consumer base, so the dimensions of this trade have been increasing. It's another one of the elements that has changed since 1970. Once organized crime gets into it, it's a whole other ball game.

    We're taking it very seriously. We now have an interdepartmental committee on trafficking in persons, and we have, of course, ratified the treaty against the trafficking of women and children for sexual purposes. It's a very serious issue. It's one that I find very scary because we have at the moment in the world the largest number of adolescents between the ages of 15 and 25 we've ever had. These are the ones who are being engaged in this and who are vulnerable to it. Those demographics aren't really true in Canada, but they are to some extent in the aboriginal population.

    I think that this whole issue of organized crime related to the trafficking of persons is something that has to be taken really seriously, and we're beginning to take it seriously. I'm not sure what more we can recommend on that. We are seeing evidence of it.

º  (1655)  

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I can also support that. I'm fairly freaked out about it. Now I'm saying very loudly that people can safely tell me information about this, so I'm beginning to get information about this. I can only give you anecdotal information. The Canadian government does publish information, which you certainly have access to. We're only talking about international trafficking, not within the borders, which I say is 50% of the problem here. Organized crime makes as much money from international trafficking as it does from drugs and small arms. It is now clearly established in Canada.

    In the case of the disappearance of the women from the downtown eastside, to someone in my position who is operating in a transition house, there are obvious links between organized crime and what happened on the pig farm. But you won't hear much discussion of it in the public at the moment. I find that pretty alarming. I don't see any arrests. I don't hear any questions. A couple of investigative reports have been done, but that's it. That's exactly the symptom you have to worry about.

    The women I'm working with who come out of street level prostitution, bawdy house prostitution, or massage parlour prostitution are saying very openly, “I can tell you about a lot of things, but I can't tell you about the guys in the motorcycle gang or the guys in the big circle”. They can name the gangs, and they do.

    I don't want to separate this from the rest of what I was saying. With the social policies that are being constructed by the federal government, we are forcing women into an informal economy where they are being governed by such men. They don't get a police officer when they call, and they don't get social services. A few exit services are not going to be enough. You should be supporting exit services, but that's not enough. We are saying if you're destitute and you're in the streets, instead of health, education, and welfare, you can turn to drug sales and prostitution, and that's what is happening. It's a very alarming situation.

»  (1700)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Thank you.

    Ms. Davies.

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

    First of all, my apologies for being late. The House leader meetings get longer and longer every week.

    Thank you for coming today.

    I want to focus on Canadian law and what we think needs to be done. It is a very complex issue. I was wondering whether you think we need to be looking at some sort of law reform. I think exit services are extremely important, and we have virtually nothing. There's often an equation made that any suggestion of decriminalization equals exploitation. I wonder why we shouldn't be looking at both issues. We should be looking at the impact of the harm that is created by the law, such as the communicating law, as well as exploitation issues. I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. So that would be one question, what you see in terms of the need for law reform.

    I'm interested to know what kinds of direct services you're involved with in terms of women who are involved in the on-street sex trade. I know that groups such as Pivot have actually obtained affidavits, where they're hearing directly from women in terms of the safety issues and how they see the impact of the law.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I'll start the other way around, if you don't mind. Pivot and our group just presented to the same session of the finance committee. We are saying the same thing. The solution is not mindless decriminalization. We have to be mindful of the context in which we're doing this. I'm a little worried that we're not being offered the equality of women, the minor level of redistribution that welfare offers--

    Ms. Libby Davies: Who's offering you anything at this point? I'm not clear on that.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I think that this committee is in danger of getting decriminalization without those other two things. That's part of where I'm coming from.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I'm not sure where that's coming from. I can only speak on the B.C. issue, but I think that whenever the issue is raised, it's always on the basis that the other things that are contributing to the exploitation certainly include the cuts, which are forcing more and more women into the on-street sex trade. They're related issues. We're looking at the possibility of law reform, but I think we have to look at it in the context of what's happening in terms of the environment that's being created by cutbacks or women living in poverty. I see those issues as being related.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I know you do, and I'm glad that you do. However, I'm dealing with the government that's in office and Martin coming into power and the conditions that are already in play. I've received no assurance at all that I'm going to get some economic protections for women.

    What I'm worried about is that you will support decriminalization in a context that will effectively legalize prostitution. You were asking what bad outcomes I could possibly see from legalizing. I don't particularly relish the thought of job boards, such as in Australia, where a local worker says, “I don't really want to put up a sign that says you can have a job as a prostitute”, and where people will be told, “It's a constitutional right. It's the equality of women. You get to have a job as a prostitute”.

    We do have to look at what will happen in a Canadian context if you move the federal government out of that legal responsibility. It has already devolved the economic responsibility for its citizens to the provinces. How will these things work together at this moment? That's what I'm concerned about.

»  (1705)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: Do you think the current laws are working in terms of--

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: No. I've already argued that I think you could play a significant role in getting the law off women. I do think that the enforcement issue could be very much affected by decisions at the federal level. I would much rather have the Swedish model. I don't think I'm going to get it right now. I think the second best would be to get changes in the implementation of the law. I'm very nervous that more and more women will be pushed into the informal economy, with no access to the rule of law on this matter, and that there will be no pressure on the federal government to do anything about it. That's the concern.

    I don't disagree at all with the concerns that the law students in Pivot are organizing around. There's no doubt at all that the policing of prostitution and of the addicted people in the streets is abominable. We agree that 24-hour detox places, places women can go to with their children, and exit services have to be plentiful. We have to have lots of that. I'm stuck with the problem of what transition houses will mean when we don't have welfare, as we increasingly don't. How will anyone ever transit to anything? The same problem is going to exist with exit services. What do women do after they come through that exit service? The lack of jobs and services for women Canada-wide is the problem. The targeting of prostitution can't work like that. I think it's a bit cynical--

    Ms. Libby Davies: There have to be alternatives for sure.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: Yes. There have to be exit services. But much more importantly, we have to deal with at least a minimum level of redistribution in Canada that protects people from starving in the street and from having to sell themselves and their children in the street, which is what we're dealing with.

    Ms. Libby Davies: What have you seen as the impact of the communicating law since 1985? It hasn't prevented on-street prostitution. In fact, the enforcement of it, I would argue, has further harmed women. I just wonder what your view is on that.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I'm not sure I could say that the communicating law has further harmed women. I did see a moment when police were backing off. I would say that it came out of the crime prevention discussions that were going on at the national level. There was a moment when some of the pressure was taken off those women. But at the same time, there has been a toleration of massage parlours and bawdy houses, which are generating huge support for this industry and enriching men in this industry. So I'm not sure what we gained.

    I'm very concerned, as I said earlier, that the majority of the trade is already indoors and is already regulated through the cities. For the women who come through our centre or the women I know who are in and out of the trade and sometimes stuck permanently in the trade, I worry about them having a virtual tattoo. What's really going to happen is that they're going to be regulated through city departments, including city health departments, and they'll have no access to charter law or anything else. They're going to be abandoned to a permanent life of a numbered provider of sexual services. Cherry Kingsley has a great line. She says, “If we're really interested in good policing for women, housing and social services for women, and providing things that make life better, why do women have to provide sexual services to men in order to be eligible?” There's something wrong with that paradigm.

»  (1710)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: Exit services have to be there. Alternatives have to be there. But I think there is the issue--and there has been lots of evidence about this directly from the women themselves and other organizations--that criminalization produces the kind of stigma and marginalization that makes it even more difficult. We're grappling with that issue. That's why I'm interested in the communicating law, because I think it has increased the risk. Women are basically being forced into a business where they're more and more at the margins because of the communicating law. It's out of sight, out of mind. You get into a car, and you're driven away. I'm curious about the impact of the communicating law itself.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I don't think prostitution is out of sight and out of our minds, and I'm very worried that it will be.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I mean in general society.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I don't agree with you that's the major danger. I think the major danger is the economic pressure that's forcing women out there in the first place, and I think we need to attend to that.

    Ms. Libby Davies: What services are you engaged in now in terms of on-street prostitution?

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I operate every day in a transition house that houses women from the street. I've done so since 1973 in Ontario and B.C.

    Ms. Libby Davies: How many of the women are involved in prostitution?

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I've never gone a month without working with a prostitute.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Is it one person a month or 20%?

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: I don't think I've ever counted the percentage. But I can tell you that it's a more normal experience for women than you'd want to know, and it's a much higher percentage of the transition houses in an urban centre than most of us would want to know.

    Ms. Libby Davies: After women go through your transition house, where are they likely to end up?

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: It depends. We talk to more women on the phone than we house. Some women are already incapable of self-care, which means we can't house them adequately in our shelter. In that case we'd refer them to somebody, and we'd hang on to our relationship with them until we could get them some kind of service. There is not near enough of those services, such as 24-hour care services, detox services, and actual housing.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Are mental health issues a concern?

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: Yes, mental health issues are on the list.

    I'm also saying that this is an issue of women's oppression and of the basic needs of all Canadians and that there's something fundamentally wrong with targeting this at only those women on the street. There's something wrong with coming at it from that direction, and I think it's a manipulation of the debate that's wrong.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I don't think anyone is saying it's only that. I'm not sure where that's coming from. The committee is actually quite broad, and the range of what we're dealing with is huge. So it's not a matter of only, because it is a very complex social and economic issue. What we're grappling with is trying to come at it from different perspectives and look at how we can reduce risks and harm and improve safety.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): On that point, Ms. Davies will have a chance to read the transcript of what you said earlier, which will inform her about where you're coming from.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I'll do that.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Thank you both very much for coming.

    Ms. Lakeman, sometime we'll have a debate about the constitutionality and who provides what in terms of social services. We won't do it here. I hear you, but recognize that it's not all federal government. The provinces have a fair bit to do with it. There are different services across different provinces, and some work better than others.

    Ms. Lee Lakeman: My point was CAP, and that's completely the responsibility of this government.

»  (1715)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): We will talk. I appreciate your perspective. I think you've given us lots of food for thought. We really appreciate your coming here.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]