Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 16 - Evidence - September 17, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 17, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 4:15 p.m. to examine the subject matter of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon. Welcome, colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We are continuing our pre-study on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The committee has held three days of hearings thus far on this pre-study, hearing from 48 different witnesses.
On our first panel today, appearing by video conference from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, is a familiar face, someone who has appeared before us on several occasions: Tom Stamatakis, President of the Canadian Police Association.
Thank you for appearing once again before the committee. I would give you this opportunity for an opening statement. Please proceed.
Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association: Thank you and good afternoon, honourable senators and Mr. Chair. I, on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, appreciate having the opportunity to appear before your committee today as part of your study of Bill C-36. I believe I've had the opportunity to meet most you before, but for those who might not be familiar with the CPA, the CPA represents 54,000 front-line civilian and sworn law- enforcement personnel who serve across Canada in over 160 police services.
I will begin my brief opening remarks by saying that the Canadian Police Association is supportive of Bill C-36, though we certainly understand that this legislation, like prostitution in general, is a controversial topic.
As I mentioned during my appearance before the House of Commons committee, our association certainly appreciates that Minister MacKay and Minister Blaney, as well as the Departments of Justice Canada and Public Safety Canada, actively consulted with front-line law enforcement during the drafting process of this legislation.
As a front-line officer myself, I appreciate and understand that the issue before you here is a complex and controversial one, but I believe there are some areas where all sides can come to an understanding, particularly around the need for us to focus on protecting the most vulnerable and exploited members of our communities. That is where we believe Bill C-36 makes some very positive steps.
Provisions within this proposed legislation that clarify the definition of a ``weapon'' within the Criminal Code to include restraints, including handcuffs or rope which are used in the commission of certain offences, will certainly help provide additional and necessary tools to our officers.
Further, the increased penalties attached to child prostitution, child trafficking and related offences will hopefully send a clear signal that there will be absolutely zero tolerance given to anyone who preys on or exploits those who are most in need of our protection.
I know that a comment I made during my previous appearance stirred up a good deal of commentary, particularly online from those who have been following the study of this legislation, but I believe it important enough that I want to say it again. The fundamental point I'd like to stress is the absolute need for law enforcement and sex-trade practitioners to end the adversarial nature of any interactions between these two groups.
There is some misconception that pre-Bedford, law enforcement made it a priority to harass and arrest sex-trade workers on a regular basis as part of a targeted attack on what many might call the world's oldest profession. I can say both from experience with my own police service, the Vancouver Police Department, and from my conversations with officers involved in these investigations across Canada that that is just not the case.
When sweeps are conducted to target street prostitution, the instigation is usually complaints from the surrounding community, which need to be responded to by our police services. Officers involved in prostitution task forces receive specific training and have access to community support programs to help sex trade workers who might themselves be the victims of exploitative relationships, or suffer from some form of drug dependency.
Further, police services across the country have initiated john school programs to help divert those who are purchasing sex and to increase their awareness of the victims that may be created by their actions.
Regardless of whether C-36 is passed, I would suggest we need to continue to monitor and enhance these programs, where possible, to ensure that education is a key component for both the buyers and sellers of sex and that resources will need to be committed to further those efforts.
When it comes to prostitution, as with many other offences, Canadian police personnel exercise a tremendous amount of discretion in the pursuit of their duties. This will continue even if C-36 becomes law. Many of those involved in the sex trade come from the most vulnerable and marginalized members of our society, where violence and addiction are common themes law enforcement encounter.
Any legislative response to prostitution in this country needs to take those factors into account as the harm that is caused not only impacts the buyers and sellers of sexual services but also the surrounding communities.
To conclude, I want to reiterate that the Canadian Police Association endorses the approach taken with Bill C-36. This legislation will provide front-line law enforcement personnel the additional tools they need to help target the predators who seek to take advantage of the vulnerable. Our members appreciate the enhanced penalties for offenders who target children and those who try to draw minors into this industry through child trafficking.
The recent Bedford decision has had significant impact on policing in this country due to the uncertainty that has followed regarding the constitutionality of Canada's laws surrounding prostitution. We appreciate that this government has taken steps to address that uncertainty and that law enforcement was a part of the consultations that took place in order to draw up this legislation that you are considering.
I kept my opening remarks brief to allow as much time as possible for questions, and I look forward to participating in the continued discussion here this afternoon. Thank you again for inviting our association to participate.
Senator Baker: Welcome to the witness once again to give testimony before this committee. He's been very helpful over the years as far as legislation is concerned and vetting the various sections of the bills.
I do recall a great many reported cases in which you were involved — some drug cases, some shootings and so on — but I don't recall a prostitution case in which you were directly involved. Were there any?
Mr. Stamatakis: I've had many dealings with prostitutes over the course of my career as a parole officer, but I haven't been involved in any significant investigations involving prostitution or trafficking-related prostitution.
Senator Baker: But you have very good contact, as you mentioned, with your fellow officers because you were for many years the head of the union in Vancouver. We've read many of the arbitration hearing reports and you've done a great job for your fellow officers over the years.
Your message to us here today is that regardless of what is in the legislation, police officers will continue to use discretion as far as prosecutions are concerned; is that correct?
Mr. Stamatakis: Yes, that's correct.
Senator Baker: Could you explain that? The minister appeared before the committee. He made quite a big deal about the fact that, as he put it, for the first time in Canadian history prostitution will become illegal, unlawful. Do you see anything in the bill that would change the attitude of the police toward prostitution that may result in many more convictions of the prostitutes themselves?
Mr. Stamatakis: I think I see almost the contrary. There are specific provisions in the bill that provide exemptions, for example, for the actual sex trade worker if she is engaged in certain activities related to her. I think in many ways this legislation gives a strong message to law enforcement that it's not about targeting the actual sex trade worker herself who is often among the most marginalized or vulnerable people in our society; it's more about targeting people who exploit sex trade workers, people who take advantage of women in these vulnerable situations. At the same time, it provides the police with the authority to deal with sex trade workers when they are engaged in activities that could be harmful to other people in our community that we have an obligation to protect.
I think the bill provides the right balance and it does deliver, in my view, a strong message to law enforcement that here is where you should be targeting your activities and here is where you should not.
Senator Baker: The exclusionary clauses that you referred to in the bill, which exclude the act of prostitution on behalf of prostitutes, are in answer to the Bedford decision, and you feel that provides the necessary changes in the law to address the Bedford case.
Mr. Stamatakis: I think they do, and they do more than just change the law. Like I said, they deliver a message.
The other piece of it is that police officers use their discretion every day when it comes to enforcing the Criminal Code of Canada, provincial statutes related to motor vehicles and other statutes where there are laws established around certain kinds of behaviour, but we don't give a ticket to every person we pull over. We don't arrest every person where we respond to a call and there's an allegation that they have committed a criminal offence. We use that discretion every day, and I see police officers continuing to do that in this particular area probably more now than they ever have.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much for appearing today, Mr. Stamatakis. You provided a very important perspective to this issue, as you and your members across Canada deal with this issue of exploited women and children and others who are exploited through the prostitution industry every single day. Thank you very much on behalf of Canadians for doing that.
I appreciate what you just said, because we have heard from many witnesses over the course of the pre-study hearings last week that they were concerned about the possibility of prostitutes being charged; so I very much appreciate you confirming the significant discretion that police have and exercise every single day, and that will continue under Bill C-36 once it's passed.
You testified before the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee back in July, and at that point you were quoted as saying:
. . . communication gives us an opportunity to intervene; the provisions around someone engaging in sex trade activities in front of a school, in a park, where it's causing other issues; the provisions around preventing youth from being drawn into the sex trade. Those are the kinds of tools that Bill C-36 provides that I think the police can use to protect vulnerable people in our community.
Given that, you have said that the old communication provision contained in the Criminal Code allowed police an opportunity to intervene with the prostitute, determine if that person is being exploited, and then direct them toward sources. Do you feel that the provisions of Bill C-36 will afford you that same opportunity?
Mr. Stamatakis: Yes, I do. When we were canvassed for input as the legislation was being drafted, that was one of the key pieces from our organization. We needed to have the legislative authority to insert ourselves into situations lawfully so that we could determine what was happening in a particular situation. I think with the provisions contained within this proposed legislation, we are able to do that. This is where police officers will use their discretion to make decisions around how to proceed after that.
Without the lawful authority to intervene, particularly when you're talking about the most marginalized people who become involved in the sex trade, whether it's women or men — and I know it's predominantly women — without the lawful authority to intervene, how are the police ever able to determine whether someone is being exploited or if they're engaged in an activity because they voluntarily, on their own, choose to do so without being coerced in any way?
Senator Batters: Do you feel this bill strikes an appropriate balance between the safety of prostitutes and the safety of communities? As a law enforcement officer, what tools do you think Bill C-36 give you to achieve both of those goals, which are both very important goals?
Mr. Stamatakis: I think it does achieve that balance. I'll refer back to my previous comments around some of the exemptions of someone engaged in prostitution in a public place but not near a school, not near a place where children are present or typically go to, and providing that the activity is not causing any harm to a particular area in a community. Where it's not affecting the quality of life of other citizens or it's not exposing children not in a playground or in a school to risk or inappropriate behaviour, I would say that, generally speaking, the police will not get involved in those situations. Quite frankly, we don't have the capacity to be so focused on prostitution that we would be looking at those kinds of situations.
On the other hand, the legislation does provide us with the ability to intervene and take some action if, in fact, the activity is causing a harm to other people that we have an obligation to also protect.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
Senator Joyal: Welcome, Mr. Stamatakis. I would like to come back to your answer because, to a point, it puzzles me because I see a nuance in the proposed legislation to what you just mentioned, that if the prostitution happening is not an annoyance to a community and there is a complaint to the police, you would be, I would not say tolerant, but you would not be bothered by it. That's not exactly what the bill says. Section 213, page 7 of the bill, if I read it — do you have the bill with you, sir?
Mr. Stamatakis: I will have to look it up on my device. If you want to read, it I'll follow.
Senator Joyal: I'll try to read it slowly.
213(1) Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, in a public place or in any place open to public view, for the purpose of offering, providing or obtaining sexual services for consideration,
In other words it's an open-ended offence, whatever is the complaint. If the offering or the effort to obtain a sexual service is done in a public place, it is, per se, an offence. In your interpretation of the bill, does there need to be a complaint that somebody doesn't like to see a prostitute in front of his door or in front of his entrance? It is essentially an offence if a person is offering sexual services or another person tries to obtain a sexual service from a person, in other words, the purchaser or the person offering. Your interpretation seems to give some nuance to that. Could you restate your answer in relation to that?
Mr. Stamatakis: Sure. Clearly it's an offence. I'm not suggesting that it's not, but I think I was trying to explain that the police have a responsibility to respond to issues or concerns identified by the community, and we balance that obligation to respond against our capacity to do so, the resources that we have, et cetera. Going back to my earlier comments, this is where the office of a police constable in our society, in our democracy here in Canada, provides for that level of discretion.
From a front-line policing perspective, representing the members I represent, which are the people on the street who are juggling a lot of competing demands, I would say that in that circumstance, if there is not a harm being caused to some other person in the community, if there is not some aggravating factor, typically the response from a police officer would not be to charge that person with a criminal offence.
We don't have the capacity in the police community to set aside our discretion and charge every citizen every time they ever might be about to commit an offence or are committing an offence. We use our discretion; we take factors into consideration like where this is happening, who is affected by it and what kind of person are we dealing with. Is this a marginalized person who actually needs assistance that they can better get from other resources as opposed to being arrested and incarcerated? Those are the kinds of considerations that come into play any time a police officer is enforcing any provision in the Criminal Code, and I don't see police officers doing anything different with this legislation.
Senator Joyal: Were you consulted on the redefinition of the section of the Criminal Code that deals with the definition of common bawdy-house? As you probably know, the proposed Bill C-36 contains a redefinition of a common bawdy-house that removes prostitution from the definition. You might be aware of it. It's clause 12 of the bill, and I read the section slowly for you:
. . . common bawdy-house'' means, for the practice of acts of indecency, a place that is kept or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons;
Previously the definition of common bawdy-house meant for the practice of prostitution or acts of indecency. Were you the one who suggested there be a new definition for a common bawdy-house?
Mr. Stamatakis: No, we didn't make specific recommendations or suggestions around the definition. I have to say, though, in reading the proposed legislation, I was not troubled by the definition at all, again from a front-line policing perspective.
Senator Joyal: As you know, the bill proposes to criminalize the purchaser of sexual services. What approach will you have to that new offence or the fact that the offence would target a purchaser or customer? What will be the different approach you will have in relation to the way you have approached prostitutes in the past? You seem to be more concerned about the prostitutes themselves than the customers or the purchasers. Could you enlighten us on that on the basis of your experience?
Mr. Stamatakis: Let me just say from a personal perspective and then following on my experience as a patrol officer in the City of Vancouver, I don't have a lot of empathy for purchasers of sex and the activities that they engage in. These are people, in my view, who do exploit vulnerable women and often take a lot of advantage over those women who have no ability to defend themselves or protect themselves against often pretty abhorrent behaviour. I don't have a lot of empathy for purchasers of sex.
But I think the approach we would take is the one I described in my opening comments. I think there is a need to educate people around the harms caused by these behaviours. I think, again, we would use our discretion to find the best avenues to try and create opportunities for that education and prevent continued similar behaviour.
Senator Plett: Welcome, Mr. Stamatakis. It's good to see you again, and I also want to thank you for the many appearances you have made in front of this committee. I want to thank you for all the work you do for your association and for what you and your colleagues do for everybody in our country.
I want to specifically ask you about proposed subsection 213(1.1). Senator Joyal touched on it. Senator Baker has in previous meetings directly asked the question about how do you feel about it, and surprisingly he didn't ask that this time. I'm wondering whether he knew the answer.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Stamatakis, how you feel about subsection 213(1.1) of the bill, where it is specifically an offence for a prostitute to sell her services in a public place, next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre? Do you have specific comments on whether or not you support that? Do you think the ability of the police to arrest the prostitutes in these limited circumstances is a valuable tool?
Mr. Stamatakis: I absolutely support those provisions. They are, quite frankly in my opinion, long overdue. I can give you specific examples of where prostitutes have engaged in their trade at schools, at daycare facilities or other places where children congregate that have caused harms. Those harms aren't always caused by the prostitute herself. Often those harms are caused by the people who are either purchasing the services of the prostitute or the people who are exploiting the prostitute and perhaps forcing her to engage in those kinds of activities. I can give examples of the harms I'm talking about.
In Vancouver, parents have to get together before the school day starts so they can sweep the playground for discarded syringes being used by prostitutes and others who are intravenous drug users using those locations to engage in that kind of activity.
I've even personally experienced that as a resident of Vancouver. I unfortunately had the experience of having the public space around my home used as a place for sex by prostitutes while my kids were quite young and potentially could have been harmed by that behaviour, whether it's interrupting a transaction or something like that. Very serious harms could potentially occur in those circumstances.
There is an obligation, quite frankly, on the government and on the police to be proactive and protect, as I said in my opening comments, those very vulnerable people in our society, children, who need protection.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
Do you believe that either decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution would reduce any of the major harms associated with the industry? For example, we've heard so much about exploitation, violence, abuse and trafficking if the sex trade were decriminalized or became legal. Would those issues be lessened?
Mr. Stamatakis: No, in my view they would not, unfortunately, if you were to decriminalize or legalize it. The very people that a lot of well-intended witnesses are trying to protect would become even more vulnerable because those are the people who don't have the wherewithal to make sure they have the appropriate insurance coverage or access to Workers' Compensation benefits. They are probably the kind of people who wouldn't be welcomed into legal brothels or whatever you want to call them.
The most significant reason that I don't think legalizing it or decriminalizing it would really reduce the harms is that there are too many men out there who are interested in engaging in abhorrent behaviour. They get a charge out of doing risky things and will take advantage of women to exploit them whether for profit or some other reason. I don't believe that legalizing it would make any difference. We can look at the issues we have with alcohol and tobacco in this country, which are both legal products yet consume tremendous resources not only from the police sector but also other sectors, whether funded by the taxpayer or other means.
Senator Frum: Mr. Stamatakis, thank you for being here. We heard in our testimony that somewhere between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of the sex industry is street prostitution. For the other 80 per cent, if that is the correct number, how difficult will it be for police to enforce Bill C-36 on the non-street prostitution. I ask this in terms of collecting evidence or the resources, and you've talked about police discretion. How difficult will that be for you?
Mr. Stamatakis: To be clear, I'm not qualified to talk about what the numbers or percentages are.
These cases, particularly non-street sex trade cases, are extremely difficult at the best of times. That's why I said earlier that having the legislative authority to intervene will be of some assistance, for example in getting exploited women away from their pimp or the madam that's running the brothel in a residential house in a neighbourhood in some city across this country. If you can get the prostitute away from whoever is coercing them, you can get information that becomes the evidence you rely on to investigate and hopefully successfully prosecute these cases.
These are challenging cases because we're dealing with people who are being exploited, coerced. They're afraid because of the violence that's involved when they are being exploited. Obviously, the purchasers of the services are not the people that come to us and say, ``By the way, there is a bawdy house or some other off-the-street activity occurring in a neighbourhood or apartment building.''
There are always challenging cases. We rely on the neighbours, like in any other investigation, and other sources to initiate investigations. It's up to our members to use whatever investigative techniques they can to gather the appropriate evidence, but they're very challenging.
Senator Frum: The police will have to want to investigate. We did hear from one witness that effectively in many jurisdictions police haven't bothered prosecuting or trying to arrest anybody to do with the existing laws on prostitution. As you said, they've been exercising their discretion, and their discretion has been to not pay much attention to it. Will anything change with this bill?
Mr. Stamatakis: I think part of the reason for the lack of enforcement has a lot do with the uncertainty I referred to earlier. That has contributed as much to the lack of enforcement as anything. Quite frankly, police have been criticized often when they have tried to respond to concerns in their community by taking enforcement action. If we can end up with clear legislation that is not contentious, and I'm not sure how possible it is with this specific proposed legislation, it would go a long way to assisting police in being a bit more consistent and clear with enforcement decisions.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Stamatakis for your fine presentation. My question has to do with the definition of the term ``weapon,'' upon which you touched briefly a while ago. As you know, the definition of the term ``weapon'' in section 2 of the Criminal Code is extremely broad. Specific Criminal Code offences relating to weapons are, for example: carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence; assault with a weapon; sexual assault with a weapon. What's interesting with Bill C-36, as you noted in your presentation, is that it supplements the definition of the term ``weapon'' by adding the following: ``anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.''
How important is it for Bill C-36 to supplement the definition of the term ``weapon?'' How important is it for police officers?
Mr. Stamatakis: From my perspective as a front-line police officer, I think it's extremely important. This was a specific area where we provided input through the opportunities we had to consult.
I will come back to my experience again as a patrol officer on the street. I had many occasions when I would pull over a vehicle driven by someone often with no criminal record but with duct tape, ropes and that kind of equipment in their vehicle. I think this enhancement in the definition will give police officers an important tool to be able to at least continue an investigation or make more inquiries and perhaps be able to prevent more instances where sex trade workers are seriously assaulted by people who have these items in their possession for the purpose of harming sex trade workers.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Stamatakis, it is always a pleasure to see you. In your presentation, you said that police officers exercise a tremendous amount of discretion, and as a former police officer, I understand what you are saying.
Let me refer you to two situations. When witnesses appeared before us, they said that formal sex workers often ply their trade in well-established massage parlours. Clearly, the massage parlour offers massages, but the training provided to these workers consists of the speech they are to give to police officers in the event of a raid. To take action, police officers must obtain a warrant that follows a more elaborate investigation.
Am I to understand that police officers have discretionary power in the case of an established massage parlour that is known for conducting sexual transactions in a more organized way, compared to situations where police officers must intervene, such as when sexual relations are taking place near a school or park with vulnerable individuals, either teenagers or women? Perhaps that happens more with street gangs.
There was Operation Scorpion in Quebec City. The street gangs were recruiting young people to send them to other cities and sometimes even to other provinces.
Am I to understand that those are the cases in which police officers can use their discretion more easily and that they must do more in the regions or areas with people who are more vulnerable? It is more complicated in massage parlours.
[English]
Mr. Stamatakis: I think that's a fair way to describe it. Certainly if we were intending to take enforcement action in a premise or a dwelling house, the threshold becomes much greater in terms of gathering the evidence that gives you the grounds to enter the premise and take whatever enforcement action is appropriate.
It does apply in both. If I think back to working again on the street, there would be times, if I received a complaint that there was a sex trader near a playground, depending on the circumstances, I might choose not to arrest that person and try to divert them to some another service. It's very situational. There are many other occasions where I haven't had personal experience but where I talked with my colleagues that work in vice units, particularly in Vancouver where there is some serious exploitation that takes place in those massage parlours, where women are forced to work in them, where they are being assaulted whether by the customer or the operator of the facility, where it becomes a high priority to get into that place, take some enforcement action and stop the operation of that massage parlour. Again, it's all about what the situation is and police applying their training, knowledge and experience to respond appropriately, all with a view to protect whether it's the sex trade worker who is being exploited or whether it's the community member that happens to live in a particular area who is being exposed to harmful activities, or that person's child that potentially might be lured or otherwise coerced into considering a profession that, quite frankly, none of us should want any of our children involved in that profession period.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for appearing. Much of what I had to ask has been answered, but I did want to touch on a couple of issues.
The bill seeks to deal with safety of our communities and our citizens by reducing the demand for prostitution. The approach here, as you pointed out and as the bill points out, is to go after the johns and pimps and those that privateer off of this.
Police forces deal all the time with changes in law. You mentioned earlier that there was something like 54,000 personnel in Canada, 160 police services. This bill has a real shift in policy in that it will see prostitutes as victims and individuals that are being exploited. You said that you believe it will be accepted. Will it be adaptable, and how will you educate the shift here with the multitude of police officers that are in this country?
You mentioned this as well, but I wanted to just raise it because it was raised here and I read that there may exist inherently or subliminally a dim light or negative feelings between the police and the prostitution trade. That's natural because it's a dangerous industry. There are normally drugs involved, sometimes organized crime, that type of thing. Do you actually believe that they are treated and will be treated the way that this law is bringing about that they should be treated?
Mr. Stamatakis: Let me answer your first question first. I do think this legislation is very practical. I don't think it is going be a huge challenge for police agencies to communicate the changes in the law when the legislation is passed, but I don't want to understate the importance of education for the police and for the purchasers of sex and society at large in terms of what we're dealing with. If we really want to deal with this issue of prostitution and the harms it causes, whether to the individual sex trade worker or the community at large, we have to get at those underlying issues. Why do women find themselves being lured into this kind of activity? There are issues around literacy and domestic violence. It's important never to lose sight of those bigger issues. I do think that, as part of the introduction of this legislation, the government has said we're going to look at providing some funding and really paying attention to those programs. That's a very critical piece, but that has to include the police too.
In terms of your second question, we've made mistakes in the police community for sure, and there are some pretty horrific examples where mistakes have been made and where we've learned lessons from those mistakes. I do have to say that I think attitudes in policing have changed. We are shifting our thinking away from where it might have been 20 or 30 years ago and really starting to understand what kind of situation these women are actually in and that they need help and assistance. It's not about always arresting and enforcing and incarcerating. That doesn't just apply to the sex trade worker. It applies generally in our society and in policing in particular around really starting to understand the harms and balancing the need for appropriate enforcement and protecting society at large against trying to help people who are in vulnerable situations, whoever they are, and who are being exploited by someone or by a group of people or whatever the situation is.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
The Chair: I think Senator Baker has raised questions about john schools on a couple of occasions during our hearings. Are john schools an alternative measure to divert the accused from court, or are they part of the court process leading to a conditional discharge? How do they work?
Mr. Stamatakis: Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but my understanding is that it's both: You're either diverting or it is part of a court process where it leads to a discharge if you participate in the program. It just depends on the circumstances and how it's used. As I'm sure you know, the idea is to try and educate the purchasers about the harms their behaviour is causing.
I'm a big supporter of these measures to divert and focus on education, but there has to be a continued and sustained effort. When I talk to my colleagues in vice units who are engaged in this work all the time, they have a lot of people who go through john school and then they come across them again and have to start all over. I think there has to be a combination of ability to divert and some enforcement options.
The Chair: I guess my point is that you don't see this legislation deterring the ability to utilize that as a way to gain greater understanding of the people who have been charged under the new offence in this act.
Mr. Stamatakis: No, I don't think so. It's important to continue to try and use the tools that have had some success in that way.
Senator Baker: I have one question. I found your answer to the question from Senator McIntyre very interesting. He has been dealing with the Criminal Code for some 30 years now, and the enlarged definition of ``weapon'' takes on a new meaning — putting it in the Criminal Code. The way you explained it was that it would add to the indicia that an officer must examine in arriving at what is commonly called articulable cause or reasonable suspicion for a detention — at the roadside, was the example you used. That's interesting, because you're saying that entrenching it in the Criminal Code means it will be one more tool that the officer will have when making a determination of whether to detain someone on the basis of suspicion before you proceed further; is that correct?
Mr. Stamatakis: Not entirely. By expanding the definition, it becomes a chargeable offence in the right circumstances. It's not just a tool. It is a tool in the context you described, but also it is an opportunity for the police to actually charge with an offence because of the expanded definition in the right circumstances.
Senator Baker: That's what I understood you to say; namely, that if an officer sees in the back of a car certain ropes or, as you put it, tape, then that's another indicia that could assist the officer in making a detention. I think you said that in your answer to Senator McIntyre.
Mr. Stamatakis: I did say that. The context I was trying to give you was based on a personal experience where I have pulled over people with those items in certain circumstances where it caused me great concern, but I didn't really have an ability in the situation to taken enforcement action just on the basis that those items were in the vehicle.
Senator Batters: I thought you made a really important point in your one of your earlier answers or in your opening statement when you said Bill C-36 does more than change the law; it sends a message. That is very important. I am especially glad to hear from such a high-ranking person in the law-enforcement community that the police clearly understand the message we are trying to send by this particular bill.
Can you tell us about the programs across the country that you're aware of that have been successful in building relationships between law enforcement officers and prostitutes?
The Chair: Mr. Stamatakis, I will ask you to be concise. We are running overtime now. Please respond but do so in as concise a way as you can, please.
Mr. Stamatakis: Speaking specifically about Vancouver where my home service is, we have all kinds of outreach programs now with groups that represent prostitutes that have made a tremendous difference in the relationship. Those are the kinds of activities that police need to engage in right across the country and in all communities.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Stamatakis, I have the Vancouver Police Department's Sex Work Enforcement Guidelines in front of me. Can I read some quotes that you will probably be familiar with? Page 5 states:
When responding to sex work-related calls or situations, the Vancouver Police Department's priority is to ensure the safety and security of sex workers. Police calls regarding violence against sex workers are a priority for assessment and response.
Then on page 3:
The VPD does not seek to increase the inherent dangers faced by sex workers, especially survival sex workers. Therefore, where there are nuisance related complaints against survival sex workers, alternative measures and assistance must be considered with enforcement a last resort.
Finally, on page 4:
Often, the sex industry involves consenting adults who may never come to the attention of the community or the police. Sex work involving consenting adults is not an enforcement priority for the VPD.
I generally agree with the objective of your directives and the way they are labelled. The problem I have with those objectives — where the Vancouver police have been targeting the purchaser, as you stated clearly — I have in front of me an article from the British Medical Journal from 2014, put forward by a group of experts who study the Vancouver Police Department experience in relation to targeting the customers.
The Chair: Senator, we are running tight on time.
Senator Joyal: Here are their conclusions: ``Enforcement police policies targeting clients do not decrease the frequency of sex work for marginalised street-involved women. Instead, enforcement aimed at clients forces sex workers to more isolated spaces to avoid police detection and results in longer hours spent on the street. These enforcement practices also result in sex workers agreeing to see clients or provide services they would otherwise refuse, thus placing them at direct risk of violence and poor health outcomes.''
The problem I have with some of the objectives of the bill is that they run counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bedford that seeks to ensure the security of sex workers. What is your comment in relation to the conclusion of the report?
Mr. Stamatakis: Let me say a couple of things. First, I'm not a high-ranking police officer. I'm actually a constable. Also, that's not my report and I do not speak on behalf of the Vancouver Police Department. I'm here to speak on behalf the Canadian Police Association and the front-line members that I represent.
I would say that if anyone thinks the police are solely responsible for this kind of sex trade activity among our most vulnerable and marginalized, I would strongly disagree with that. In fact, I would argue — particularly in Vancouver, based on my knowledge of my colleagues — that there are police officers every day in Vancouver who go out of their way to refer these most vulnerable women to programs and put them in touch with organizations that are specifically established to support marginalized sex-trade workers.
I just don't agree that somehow the police are to blame for these harmful situations that these poor exploited and marginalized women find themselves in. There are other drivers of that kind of activity. The fact is that police officers have a lot of empathy for people in that situation.
Senator Plett: Mr. Stamatakis, we had one witness who said that it had been her lifelong dream to become a prostitute and there were others who suggested that this was mostly consenting adults.
In your opinion, what age do most girls start in prostitution? Do they wake up on their eighteenth birthday and say, ``I would like to become a prostitute?'' Or are they already coerced and started well before that?
Mr. Stamatakis: My opinion is based on my experience as a patrol constable in Vancouver, and we are coming across women engaged in prostitution long before they are 18. These are basically children that are being lured, whether it is because they are involved in a conflict at home and they ran away, or whether they were in an abusive environment at home and they ran away to the wrong person who lured them with promises of money or nice clothes or drugs. In my experience, particularly in the Downtown Eastside, women who get involved in the sex trade are generally pretty experienced and in pretty rough shape by the time they hit 18, let alone starting to engage in this activity when they are 18 years old.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stamatakis, for once again contributing to the deliberations of this committee.
For our next panel, please welcome Alan Young, Associate Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School. Professor Young is joining us to speak about his role as counsel for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal in Canada v. Bedford in 2007; and also appearing via video conference from Vancouver is Georgialee Lang, Lawyer. She is appearing to speak about her role as counsel for one of the intervenors in the same case, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
Georgialee Lang, Lawyer, as an individual: My name is Georgialee Lang, and I'm a Vancouver lawyer. I support Bill C-36, and I congratulate the Canadian government for recognizing prostitution for what it is — the degradation and commodification of women and girls in order to please men.
I would like to debunk several of the myths that have been advanced by those who oppose Bill C-36. The first one is that prostitutes choose to work in the sex industry and they like it.
I say that because some women have the ability and emotional maturity to voluntarily choose this work does not mean that one ignores the massive library of research showing that prostitution is a survival strategy. It's a last option, and the very edifice of prostitution is built on the lie that women like it.
A 1998 United Nations International Labour Organization report found that prostitution is one of the most alienated forms of labour in the world.
Second, the opposition says that Bill C-36 will drive and push prostitution further underground. The empirical evidence from Sweden is that street prostitution was cut in half by the Nordic model, as working girls were free to sell their services without legal consequences in indoor locations. This research comes from the Swedish government itself in a 2010 report entitled The Ban against the Purchase of Sexual Services. An evaluation 1999-2008.
With the decriminalization of common bawdy houses in Canada, women and girls will be free to set up their own indoor situations or go online and advertise their services.
They also say that Bill C-36 will make prostitutes less safe. It can't be sugar-coated. Prostitution is a dangerous way to make a living, and making it legal for women to sell sex will not change this. However, research shows that safety issues are present whether prostitution is legalized or decriminalized. If one works as a prostitute, no matter what the legal structure, there are very high odds of physical and sexual violence, as well as long-lasting trauma. For this proposition, I cite a report done by Dr. Farley and seven other researchers, a recent report including a researcher from Vancouver Coastal Health, Ms. Jacqueline Lynne. The report is Prostitution and Trafficking in Nine Countries: An Update on Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
They also say that Bill C-36 is a conservative moral crusade. Let me tell you that governments throughout Europe are adopting laws that embrace the Nordic model, including socialist governments in Sweden and progressive governments in Iceland where the sex industry has been virtually shut down.
The 12-year legalization experiment in Holland and Australia has been a debacle. Prostitution has increased. Trafficking of foreign sex workers has increased. Pimps are now legitimate businessmen. Women and girls work underground rather than registering and paying tax. If one considers that equality for women is a moral issue, then yes, I agree it is a moral issue.
Finally, they say that Bill C-36 will not withstand Charter scrutiny. This proposed law is a radical departure from its predecessor. Under the Criminal Code, prostitution is legal. Under Bill C-36 it is illegal for men to purchase sex. The law is no longer directed at activities related to prostitution, such as soliciting for sex on a street corner or operating a common bawdy house. This law calls a spade a spade — prostitution hurts and exploits women and children.
Bill C-36 treats women who sell sex as the victims they are. They will not face criminal sanctions unless they ply their trade in the immediate vicinity of school grounds, playgrounds or daycare centres. All of these are easily avoidable.
The nuisance premise that our current law is founded on is excised. The act spells out the purpose and goals of the legislation, and the effect and the object is entirely different from what it was under the Criminal Code. The new goal is to combat exploitation of women, to address the risks of violence, to protect human dignity and to promote human equality for all Canadians.
The current legislation was struck down because the connection between the effect of the law and object of the law, i.e., public nuisance, was illusory. It was taking a sledgehammer to maintain public order in respect of a legal activity. It was grossly disproportionate. Bill C-36 clearly states its goals, the illegality of the purchase of sex and the abolition of prostitution.
Thank you for inviting me to speak today.
Alan Young, Law Professor, Counsel for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal, Canada v. Bedford (2007), as an individual: I'd like to speak to you briefly on the merits of the law and leave the constitutional analysis to the questions. I have a feeling that's what you want to hear from me, but I have a lot to say, and please stop me when I overstay my welcome. Just tell me when I've hit my point.
I thank you for the invitation and opportunity to appear before this committee, but to be frank, I did not really want to attend because I'm deeply sad and disappointed by the aftermath of the Bedford decision. I'm disappointed because in 2014 the Government of Canada was given an opportunity to make history, and instead the government choose to repeat the mistakes of history; and I'm saddened because in repeating the mistakes of history, this government has created a regime which will hurt communities and is contrary to the public interest as this law will push workers back into dangerous street forums.
Now, look, reasonable people will disagree over whether sex work is inherently degrading and destructive of the social order. That's a debate that happens in academic settings, but those who support the criminalization of purchasing sex, in my view, are just a passionate and vocal minority who do not represent the views of the majority of Canadians.
The government has chosen to endorse and support an interesting ideological perspective which does not represent public opinion. In fact, since 1970, public opinion, in my experience, shows the majority of Canadians tolerate sex work as long as it is not being pursued in public forums. Most people believe criminalization is not an appropriate response, unless people are doing their business on the streets or in the backyards of the nation.
In pursuing an ideology not supported by most Canadians, this government has created a regime which I believe will lead to an exponential increase in street prostitution as happened in the 1980s. The bottom line: The law gives Canadians the exact opposite of what they would like to see accomplished by the legal regulation of commercial sex.
Turning to the challenge which triggered this disaster, I have a couple things I want to say. I started this in 2002, but it took four years to file in court to allow for extensive research and study. The research demonstrated the current laws put sex workers in harm's way, and this challenge was brought to create a safe haven or forum for workers to do their business. This case was fuelled by research, not by some pro-prostitution lobby. I don't know even know what a pro- prostitution lobby is. Nobody in my case, and we had a lot of people involved, was interested or involved in large-scale business operations or the so-called industrialization of sex work. The case was done on a pro bono basis with the involvement of some 30 or 40 volunteer law students because everyone believed we had an irrational law and we wanted to invalidate it to prevent another Pickton disaster. We called it the Safe Haven Initiative as the objective was to provide a legal foundation for workers to move into a safer forum.
Now, in spite of the fact that all the attention is put on street prostitution, as was alluded to by this committee, the police themselves have said 80 per cent of the sex trade over the last 20 years has moved indoors. The case was designed to give a legal blessing for this move because this move was a safety-enhancing choice.
Now look at how the government has responded. It's a very confused response to a very clear judgment. The government says, ``Oh, yes, we have listened to the Supreme Court.'' The law now allows sex workers to set up an indoor business, hire employees and advertise services; yet, in the very same breath, the government in the preamble asserts that all sex work is degrading and should be eradicated.
It is a legal oxymoron to say someone is engaged in self-degradation when you can also say these very same victims have the ability to advertise a business they've established at an indoor location. This sounds like the government knows there is autonomous choice being made by independent and informed individuals, a far cry from the notion of inherent degradation.
To say something is inherently degrading or exploitive is not an empirical statement, people. It's a statement of belief and faith. Legislation should not be built on faith and belief. It's no different and as hollow as saying, ``Are people inherently good or bad?'' It's just a matter of an opinion.
I know this committee has heard very sad stories of those abused by the trade, but I'm sure you've also heard uplifting stories of workers who could not be seen as victims except through the distortion of an ideological lens. There are many stories and many different experiences in the sex trade, and this law ignores that nuance. No doubt there are survival street workers who truly are victims of poverty, broken homes, drug addiction and abuse. For this vulnerable group we need to construct meaningful safety nets to help these victims escape the cycle of violence and exploitation. But there are also, both on the street and in indoor locations, sex workers who have made autonomous and informed choices to engage in this work. If we look over history, over the big period of time, we will find powerful sex workers who have been influence makers and respected members of the community. Yet the government in this bill is saying they are all being exploited by purchasing men, therefore it's necessary to prohibit the purchase of sex from any worker, regardless of the worker's level of autonomy and independence. This is nothing short of myopic and foolish.
They don't even call the purchase of sex exploitive in the legislation. They called it ``commodification.'' Exploitation is real, people. Commodification is a purely abstract concept. I have to tell you that it is puzzling to me in the modern era that we say we will now set out to combat commodification and sex in the context of a highly sexualized society where everyone in this room, if you choose to, can leave this place, go home and watch hard-core pornography on your cable provider. I mean, commodification is there whether you like it or not. It's kind of a weird battle to fight in the modern era.
So in trying to address the Supreme Court of Canada decision, while at the same time trying to introduce a new ideological perspective, we have ended up with a law which sends out contradictory messages. What is the practical implication of this? This is what I say will happen: Common sense dictates that the purchaser will not come to a place of business and will prefer to do business on the street. People will always choose to be moving targets over being a sitting target at a business premise which may be raided at any time without warning. Sex workers will always go where the business is, and the business will now be on the streets.
So after twenty years of moving people indoors, which was in the interests of the community, we're now moving people back out again. In the process, sex workers will once again be compelled to do business in the most dangerous of forums, on the streets; and communities will once again, as in the 1980s, be exposed to nuisance and disruptions of having sex work conducted in the streets and alleyways of Canadian cities.
We have endangered workers and members of the public all in the name of fighting commodification and eradicating sex work. For some, this may seem like a worthwhile battle, but for most Canadians this will be seem as a failed policy, which will please a small group of ideologues at the cost of safety, security and autonomous choice. Please do not lend support to this half-baked irrational and constitutionally suspect proposed act of Parliament.
Thank you.
The Chair: We will begin questions with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Is there anything else you wanted to say, professor?
Mr. Young: I worked on this for about 12 years and there are lots of things I want to say. I want to give everyone a caveat and a warning because I listened to the presentation by Ms. Lang: Please check all sources when people say there is an overwhelming body of evidence that supports something or other. You have to look at the evidence carefully. That's what happened in the court case. People have been making these assertions about what sex work is and who is involved in sex work. We provided 88 volumes of evidence, and that's why every level of court could understand what is going on in terms of sex work. In a lot of statements people say, ``It's inherently degrading and Melissa Farley has done a study in nine countries that proves that.'' Read the study and then come back and tell me whether it proves that.
Senator Baker: On that note, I want to congratulate you on your initiatives at Osgoode Hall regarding the wrongfully convicted.
Mr. Young: Thank you.
Senator Baker: And all the other initiatives. You've made law in Canada. You've challenged laws that should be challenged, and you've done it, as you mentioned, pro bono. You did it under the civil rules.
Mr. Young: Correct.
Senator Baker: Under the civil rules, and I'm sure you would agree with me that you run the chance of ending up with a big fat bill if you lose. The simple way to do this is through the criminal court with somebody charged and then you can challenge the constitutionality of a provision without ending up with a big bill. I have seen some of these bills, over $100,000 in costs, by the Justice Department when somebody loses a case. Is there a simpler way of doing this? It took you five to seven years before the court. Why did you choose the civil route instead of the criminal court?
Mr. Young: Sex trade laws are considered to be fairly minor. If I waited for a charge and then raised in the criminal court that I was going to challenge the constitutionality, they would always withdraw the charge — better to save the law and lose the case. I had to take the initiative to make sure I couldn't be derailed by the Crown withdrawing the charge. It was the same thing in the pot world with the marijuana case. It was very hard to raise a challenge. We lost in the Supreme Court of Canada on marijuana possession.
Law is expensive. Law is slow. Law is procedurally laden. Is there an easier way? Yes. Get the legislation right in the first place so you do not have to do the constitutional challenge. That's the only solution.
Senator Baker: Can this bill be amended?
Mr. Young: No. It's inherently contradictory. The government has to decide what they're responding to. Is it the Supreme Court case or is it a new ideology? They can pursue the new ideology, but put it to Canadians and let them debate it. We've never really heard whether Canadians accept this as inherently exploitive and that all johns are to be demonized. This is something that the government has listened to a small group of people say, which doesn't represent Canadians. It can't be amended because the homework wasn't done before this bill happened.
I do appreciate that the government was under the gun because they had a timeline, but when Justice Himel invalidated in 2010, that was when they needed to start working on it, not in 2013 when the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld Himel.
Senator Batters: Ms. Lang, you testified in front of the House of Commons committee in July. At that time you referred to an Australian study by Sheila Jeffreys and Mary Sullivan about the effects of legalizing prostitution. In your short opening statement, you didn't have an opportunity to discuss that. Can you tell us what that particular study found?
Ms. Lang: That study found that rather than helping prostitutes in Australia with the legalization of the law, prostitution was expanded. What happened in Australia was that businessmen came to Australia from various other countries and started building large casinos — very opulent, attractive businesses that men and women both would want to attend. In these casinos, they opened legalized brothels. They had foreign businessmen investing money in Australia opening casinos and brothels and making millions and billions of dollars.
They then found that many of the girls working on the street could not be hired by any of the casino brothels because they were drug addicted and had social and mental problems. These girls couldn't benefit from these legal brothels. They also found that the small businesses envisioned with the legalization of prostitution in Australia could not compete with these opulent casinos — picture something like the Bellagio in Las Vegas. That's what they were building.
The researchers you referred to found that trafficking exploded. Sex workers were brought in from other countries. Particularly in the State of Victoria, they were brought in from China. Asian sex workers were brought in and trafficking exploded. The consequence of legalization, as I said in my brief remarks, was a debacle there, as it has been in Holland. The plan to make this all better for women by legalizing it just has not panned out.
I agree with Professor Young that one has to scrutinize the research. There are pro-prostitution groups as there are anti-prostitution groups. A Swedish government study done in 2010 completely debunks most of what Dr. Young has said with respect to the increase in street prostitution and driving it underground.
Senator Batters: Thank you for your comment earlier when you said that Bill C-36 is a radical departure from its predecessor. You indicated to the House of Commons committee that the Bedford case found that denying prostitutes the safety of working in a permanent indoor location was grossly disproportionate with the objective of public nuisance and disruption. However, the preamble of C-36 sets much broader goals, fighting exploitation, protecting human dignity and equality and encouraging those in prostitution to exit the industry. Am I correct in assuming that those much broader goals set out in the preamble of Bill C-36 bolster its constitutionality in your learned view?
Ms. Lang: Absolutely. We're looking at a whole different plan or program. We're looking at law that now says it's illegal. It was legal under the Criminal Code. In the Bedford case, we were dealing with a legal activity. Now, the government has clearly said it's going to be illegal: ``We will not sanction women because we say they are victims and are exploited.'' Certainly the whole constitutional landscape has changed with Bill C-36, and I believe it will be upheld.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Joyal: Welcome, professor. You might have expected the question to be asked of you on the constitutionality of Bill C-36. We have heard from Minister MacKay, his assistant deputy minister and some lawyers that this bill will pass muster because it changes the premise on which the sections of the Criminal Code have been struck down by the Supreme Court. As you know, the preamble of the bill states that any sexual selling of services is exploitative, any sexual services are harmful to the community, and any sexual selling of services breaches the principle of equality of men and women. We heard it from Ms. Lang before.
So having a different basis or objective for the legislation, the court would give precedence to those objectives that seem to be more important than the former ones, a nuisance or public impediment for peaceful enjoyment of public space. How would you answer the court in relation to that argument?
Mr. Young: It's a good question. In my mind, on the merits, the legislation is clearly bad. In terms of the constitutional analysis, everyone thinks you just come up with your opinion within a week or two and it's conclusive. It's an evolving matter. I have read this legislation three or four times, and each time I have seen something a little bit different that I think may be constitutionally problematic.
On the objectives, there is no question, as was mentioned by the members here, when you elevate the objectives, you change the analysis. There is no question about it. The more serious the objective, the more you can justify the government's position.
However, you can't just say in a preamble, ``These are our objectives,'' or have this high rhetoric, ``We're going to create a utopian society where men and women are all equal.'' It's a nice idea. You have to look to see whether the text of the legislation supports the rhetoric, and it doesn't. When you look at what it's saying about how degrading and divisive sex work is, how can you have a provision that says a woman can advertise her sexual services? How can you do that? How can you say you can hire someone to assist you? If it's that bad, in accordance with the preamble, then there should be an absolute prohibition. That's the confusion I'm talking about.
Frankly, as a criminal constitutional lawyer, whether I do this case or not, I will have a field day with that because it's not a very straight message. You're still debating whether sex work is legal or illegal, based on this legislation. You should know that by opening the first page. You shouldn't have to look at some circuitous drafting of legislation to figure that out.
I can tell you that the case in Bedford won on gross disproportionality, which is more harm than good. We will have to see whether or not this legislation does push people into dark alleys and makes it more dangerous.
Even putting that aside, in terms of evidence, there are so many other things constitutionally suspect. We won on over-breadth. It goes too far. We won because the court would not accept that all sex work is inherently dangerous. The safety can be enhanced. Now the government will have to justify that all sex work is inherently exploitive. I'm telling you that the court doesn't like these inherently exploitive statements. It's not nuanced enough. We're going to call some great evidence to show it's not inherently exploitive. You have over-breadth because this law applies to rich people with their mistresses. They may frown upon that and think that's morally degrading, but I don't think there is a person in Canada that thinks the Criminal Code should be addressed towards rich people who hire mistresses.
As well, we're going to have real questions about arbitrariness, which the court didn't deal with. The law has to achieve its goal. Well, if we find out in five years that everybody's been pushed out to the street because the johns won't come indoors, then it's an arbitrary law that undercuts its very purpose.
There are also things I would work on out of the Morgentaler case, about manifestly unfair laws. How can you advertise to men, johns, and then, as soon as they show up, entrap them into a criminal offence? That's manifestly unfair. There is something wrong about it. I can't articulate it yet, but I'm not in court so I don't have to.
There is the obvious equality claim about the differential treatment. There are even BNA problems. You can't grant immunity in criminal legislation. That's a prosecutorial task. If they say, ``We will not prosecute women,'' the federal government actually can't do that. They create generic laws, and they leave it to section 92 of the BNA Act for the administration of justice by the provinces. They decide on immunity on a case-by-case basis, to be nuanced. That's where things stand.
In terms of inherent harm to sex workers, we're going to have to wait and see. If you rush to court as soon as this bill is enacted, that argument may not be on the table. There are enough arguments to knock out this law, but that's the one that I think we want to hear about because the Supreme Court of Canada was clear: Don't create laws that harm people. The law doesn't directly harm now, but it indirectly harms by its structure of moving the johns back onto the street. It's what called a causation issue for the Supreme Court to deal with. It could go either way, but I'm not worried about it because of the other constitutional claims that I've mentioned.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations.
In the Bedford decision, the Supreme Court invalidated three sections of the code: 210, 211 and 213. Keeping those sections in mind, I draw your attention to paragraph 165 of Bedford. As I recall that paragraph, the Supreme Court talks about how all prostitution provisions are interrelated; in other words, they impact each other. There could be greater latitude in one measure and less latitude in another. For example, permitting sex workers to obtain the assistance of security personnel might impact the constitutionality of another measure, such as forbidding the nuisances associated with keeping a common bawdy-house.
I understand you have two different positions. Ms. Lang, as I understand your presentation, do you believe that Bill C-36 strikes this balance?
On the other hand, I believe you would disagree, Professor Young?
Ms. Lang: Yes, I do think that this bill strikes this balance.
Just to follow up on a couple of points that Dr. Young made, this is not about immunity. This is not an immunity issue at all. This is about our Government of Canada, duly elected, making laws for the good of the people and saying that women that are in prostitution will be decriminalized unless they operate in these areas. Dr. Young suggests that it's an oxymoron because you're saying it's degrading, but you're also saying than you can sell and you can advertise.
The fine line is that the government has to make a law that will not be struck down. I think they have walked that fine line and created a bill that will survive. I heard that many of the members of Parliament in the Conservative Party would wish that prostitution would be completely made illegal in Canada, but it is not any more. It was legal. It's now illegal for men to purchase sex, and women will not face criminal sanction. I think this does walk the fine line and will survive a challenge.
With respect to the other issues, arbitrariness and the BNA Act, et cetera, I would like to hear those arguments fully explained, but I understand this is not the day for that.
Mr. Young: You're correct. It's all interrelated and you can have a strong part of the bill compensate for a weak part. That's what the Court of Appeal of Ontario did. They upheld the communication law because they felt the safety issue would be solved by invalidating ``bawdy-house'' and ``living on the avails.'' The Supreme Court of Canada didn't accept that, so I'm not really sure how they see the interrelationship.
I will answer your question about proper balance. How can you even talk about balance when you're using the word ``asymmetrical,'' because I know that's the word being used to justify the imposition of liability on one sector of the population and not the other side of the transaction. Asymmetrical generally is not balanced. It means it's teetering and sitting on a precarious foundation. That's my rhetorical answer to whether there's a proper balance.
Senator Plett: Ms. Lang, thank you for appearing today and for all the great work you're doing on behalf of the marginalized women and the exploited women and everything you're doing. We really appreciate that.
Ms. Lang: Thank you.
Senator Plett: I want to get back to section 213 of the bill and get your specific view on proposed subsection (1.1). Tom Stamatakis, President of the Canadian Police Association, offered his support specifically for this part of the bill, where:
(1.1) Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who communicates with any person — for the purpose of offering or providing sexual services for consideration — in a public place, or in a place open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre.
I know you supported the legislation before that amendment came in. Do you support that piece of the legislation?
Ms. Lang: I do. I supported it the way it was, and I believe that the amendment is necessary so that this legislation will pass constitutional scrutiny. I believe that change is important. I think it gives detail so there's no mystery as to what areas women have to keep away from to avoid criminal sanction. I agree with that amendment.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
There has been much said, like that this won't work or this will drive it back underground. We've heard that here today. Very simply stated, though, if you take away customers, if no one has customers, if they're all either in jail or being punished in some way, does a business not shut down?
Ms. Lang: That is right. That's what happens. That's what happened in Sweden. That's what their government report from 2010 says. Street prostitution was cut in half, a lot of women started working inside, but that they were able to the curb and control prostitution because the purveyor of the sexual services wasn't around anymore. They don't want to be criminalized. They don't want to have their wives, girlfriends and children know that they go to prostitutes. It's as simple as that, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our two witnesses. Ms. Lang, you heard Mr. Young say at the beginning of his presentation that the public might be tolerating prostitution to a certain degree. I would suggest that perhaps the public has been turning a blind eye to the exploitation of women and children. You did a great job of expressing your view. The bill clearly seeks to protect women and children, especially in places where children may be present.
Among the witnesses who came to speak here last week, former prostitutes told us that prostitution was not a profession for them, but rather a form of oppression 90 per cent of the time. I would even go so far as to say that it is a form of exploitation, and I think you did a great job of expressing that. Several told us that they feel like ``sexual puppets.'' I would imagine that this echoes your comments.
[English]
Ms. Lang: Yes, that's correct. I see young Aboriginal women on the streets of Vancouver who come from their reserves throughout the province because they have no options there. They live in an alcoholic community and they've been raised in a family where there's abuse.
They come to the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, and you can't tell me that these girls are making an informed, voluntary choice. It is their last resort. They have no money. They can't get on welfare and are quickly scooped up by the men who prey on these women — and they prey on them.
I've been involved in a number of organizations that provide services to remove women who want to leave the street; I'm involved in that activity. I lived in the west end of Vancouver during the 1980s when prostitutes were all over the streets. They were plying their trade and it was a nuisance, but the fact is they are victims.
Our government is now recognizing it for what it is. They are victims. They are oppressed. They don't choose this. The ones who do can continue to choose it and they won't be criminalized, so I don't see why they complain.
Senator Frum: Ms. Lang, I thought you did an excellent job deconstructing the myths around the arguments of the critics of the bill.
One you did not address is some of the critics say those of us who support the bill conflate prostitution with human trafficking and underage sex. Is that a false equation? Can you separate prostitution from human trafficking and underage sex?
Ms. Lang: That's an interesting question, and thank you for that.
My submission in the Supreme Court of Canada was solely related to human trafficking. That was the topic that I advanced in the Supreme Court of Canada. I've heard the argument that they're conflated. The fact of the matter is that prostitutes are trafficked. We know that.
We know that Canada, in 1959, signed a treaty where it recognized that prostitution was the forerunner to human trafficking and that human trafficking was wrong, bad and had to be stopped. That treaty is the still there, but we seem to ignore it.
When you talk to police departments around Canada, there is human trafficking. These are women in various locations from Eastern Bloc countries, from Asia. The fact is they're not trafficked to work as nannies: They're trafficked to provide sexual services to men in Canada.
Senator Frum: Professor Young, I wanted to understand your suggestion that Bill C-36 will create more street prostitution. If I understood your argument, you were saying it's because it will change the behaviour of the men, that they'll be afraid of entrapment with indoor sex. What I don't understand, because you said this will increase dangerous street forums, how do the same customers who were non-violent indoors now become violent when they have to have sex outdoors?
Mr. Young: It's not the people who want to go indoors who are violent that I'm worried about. It's the Picktons, the Arthur Shawcrosses and the Joel Rifkins who are trolling the streets of Vancouver and Toronto. They're always going to be going outdoors. We're not seeing abductions from indoor locations. We never heard of a Pickton fiasco.
To go to the argument, this is where it gets tricky. Before, the law prevented women from taking safety measures. The law doesn't now, but what will happen de facto, as I mentioned the analogy, you don't want to be a sitting target; you're going to be a moving target.
I will, if I have to do this case, interview hundreds of johns, do a survey, to show that no one's going to go to these indoor locations that women are allowed to construct. This is about money. The sex workers will go where the money is. If the johns are on the street, they will go on the street, which defeats the whole purpose of what the Supreme Court of Canada did and what the legislation should do.
People will go where the business is. Will it be more dangerous than before? No one can say. People talk with a lot of rhetoric. It will just be dangerous. No one should be working on the street, but that's part of the street trade.
I just want to say, when we talk about the survival sex workers, is that the paradigm in which we're creating our legislation? The police themselves have said that 80 per cent of the trade is indoors. Those are not survival sex workers. Survival sex work is a huge issue for us in terms of social services and welfare taking care of it, but it should not be the paradigm for a criminal justice proposal on sex work. I'm sorry to have digressed there.
Senator Frum: To be clear, you're saying it's not necessarily the case that outdoor sex work is any more or less dangerous than indoor sex work.
Mr. Young: No, that was our whole case. All the empirical data was that you get a fourfold increase in morbidity and mortality when you work on the street. To me, it was common sense. I didn't even feel that I needed empirical evidence, but there is a lot of empirical evidence to demonstrate that.
You want to avoid having a burgeoning street trade because, one, the community doesn't want it and, two, it's the worst place that you can do your business. Some people have no choice. Those are the survival sex workers; those are the people we need to help get off the streets. But we don't want to compel people to go to where the business is on the streets because we've said you can create a business, but anyone coming into your business, that you advertise and invite in, becomes a criminal. It's Kafkaesque.
Senator Frum: When you asked if we had heard uplifting stories at this committee, I didn't hear a single one, myself. I heard stories of women being forced to have sex on merchant ships and in massage parlours.
There's a case this week of Reza Moazami; all his victims were forced to have sex inside condos. The idea that indoor sex is some great panacea, I strongly disagree with you on that.
Mr. Young: Senator Frum, if you would give me the opportunity and have another meeting, I will bring you those stories for you to hear, because I don't know who you're inviting.
Maybe ``uplifting'' was too strong a word, but I wanted to say there are stories of people who are content with their choices and want to continue those choices unimpeded by state interference and ideology. If you haven't heard those stories, let me bring them to you.
About public opinion, I would do that, too. You say you're not sure what public opinion is. We've done so many surveys since 1970 that have all been erased because the government says they sent out some questionnaire before this legislation that wasn't even monitored for multiple submissions.
If you want further evidence to make an informed decision about the bill, I'm the person who will provide it for you, if you want.
Senator McInnis: Very interesting, professor.
I kind of sensed the manner and style, procedurally, of how we got to this point today of this bill being before us that you, I would say, vehemently disagreed with.
The Supreme Court stated that the government would have a year to bring in new legislation, and without that, I think it's December 13 to 16, it would be open skies. Pimps would be running businesses and would be business people, but you can take a deep breath; you have lots of time to respond. You, of course, disagree with the Nordic model, but we hear evidence that it has worked.
I think just now you've alluded, in not a good way, and I think you were talking about the consultation that was done by Justice where specific questions were asked. It was not like a poll; it was individuals taking the initiative to respond. There was a paper put out. There was Facebook and so on. So the direction of this bill got a majority, pretty substantial majority in some instances on the questions.
Then the Department of Justice drafts the legislation. In addition to that, the lawyers in the department say — and because of client-solicitor privilege, we don't have that before us — as it has been mentioned earlier in this setting, that it will meet the muster of any challenge. You say it won't.
Then it appears before the Commons, where you have a majority of elected individuals, but all elected officials have a right to discuss it, debate it. It goes before the Commons committee where it's debated and discussed, and I'm sure the public are talking to those politicians.
It comes to the Senate. We have hearings, and we've heard professors who disagree with you and we have had many who come before us who disagree with you and some who agree with you. Democracy can be challenging, but I have yet to see a better system anywhere in the world than what we have, the democracy we have. That is the system that we have.
You have every right to come here and disagree. In fact, you remind me of a friend of mine who is a professor at the law school at Dalhousie University who has the same approach, and I always respected it. I respect you for having the right to come before us and state it, but I'll just say this and close it off: Look, this is the system; this is where it has come to and, as I say, if it is challenged, and whether you are the person who does it, you have every right to do that, but I suggest to you that the manner and style in which this legislation has come before us I think quite candidly is second to none.
Mr. Young: Am I allowed to respond?
Thank you. You said a lot so I'll see if I can deal with it.
The Chair: You are time-limited in your response.
Mr. Young: I realize that.
I appreciate that you think I have a right to disagree, but the real question is whether anyone is listening. That is the real question.
In any event, you mentioned the Swedish model. I have to point out that it is not clear. There are a lot of conflicting studies on it and it is probably the worst jurisdiction to rely upon because it didn't have a real problem with the sex trade. You have to know a little bit about the historical evolution of sexuality in Sweden to understand what I'm talking about, but it was an ideal experiment because it couldn't fail, because they don't have a big sex trade.
In terms of democratic theory, I'm not taking on democracy. I understand the system works. Sometimes it's dysfunctional, but you can't tell me that what the government did before this bill in terms of consultation was meaningful. You can't have email submissions without controlling what are called multiple submissions. There is no pro-prostitution lobby, but there sure as hell is a strong abolitionist lobby. I know; I've been dealing with them for many years as they've been criticizing me and condemning me. They'll sit there and send 20 submissions in saying, ``I think it's degrading; I think it's degrading.'' So it's not surprising that the government would get the response they wanted to get, because they set it in a way that there were no controls for it.
Second, there is no privilege to a legal opinion done by Department of Justice lawyers. You're entitled to see that. I can't believe we would say solicitor-client trumps what the public is entitled to know. With Edgar Schmidt going to the Federal Court suggesting the Department of Justice does not review the bills for constitutionality, I can't sit here and feel good about this being vetted extensively by this department in the couple of months they put it together.
Finally, in terms of the House of Commons, if you want to know what people think about the bill, do an independent vote. Don't vote on party lines. You've got a majority; you're going to get what you want to hear. But if you were to ask people individually, you will find there is a great deal of tolerance for this. Not everybody wants to run to criminalization as readily as this government.
The Chair: That was a fulsome response. We will go to a second round with Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Senator McInnis mentioned the hearings in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, and to me it defies logic, I don't think Alan Young was invited as a witness before the House of Commons.
Mr. Young: I was. I couldn't make it on the day. I asked for another day. As I said at the beginning, I am saddened and disappointed by this. This is the first time I'm talking about it, which may be why I'm a little bit more hyped up than I should be. I apologize for that, but I've been keeping very silent vigil watching this.
Senator Baker: It's nice to have you hyped up.
Here is the key question on a lot of people's minds: When this new law comes into effect, you suggested that we need an evidentiary foundation in order to challenge the bill. Some people have suggested that the evidentiary foundation is already there with Bedford and therefore the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion right now. What are your views on this?
Mr. Young: I think that might be a mistake, and I was actually one of the people to have said that. That was my first response to the bill.
I didn't say this earlier. The communication provisions are so clearly unconstitutional. Just read the decision; you can't simply replace the same verb and say it's constitutional. That could be challenged immediately and should go to the Supreme Court. But the other stuff is more complicated, and the evidentiary foundation that is before the Supreme Court — the 88 volumes, 27,000 pages — helps, but the focus has shifted. The Bedford case was about the demographics, the lifestyles and choices of sex workers. This is now going to be about the johns because that's what's fuelling this legislation. Are they all inherently exploited and should they be demonized?
There are john studies. I know them. They were tendered in our case. But the focus now has to shift. Has the government created an overbroad piece of legislation because they have lumped all johns into one category? That's what happened in Bedford, where they lumped all sex workers into one category, inherently exploited, and the court didn't accept it.
Some homework has to be done. There are some researchers in Canada who have looked at johns, but they've also done studies in Sweden and Scotland that aren't favourable for what we would try to achieve. That's why I'm saying it's a bit complicated.
The evidence gets us halfway there, but the one thing I know about constitutional law, if you don't have a good evidentiary foundation you're not going to convince a court. To run to court right now with rhetoric and say, ``Oh, my God, what has the government done?'' would probably be a mistake, though I would like to see somebody do it on communication alone. But you generally can't refer one section; you have to refer the whole thing.
Senator Baker: So we are looking five, ten years down the road before we get an answer as to the constitutionality of this legislation if it were done in criminal proceedings or if it were done in civil proceedings. Do you have any prediction and do you agree with me that it will take that long period of time before this challenge takes place, and whether or not it will be challenged, under what rules of court: criminal, civil, federal? What do you think?
Mr. Young: It probably will be the same sort of process that I adopted, which is an action for declaratory relief because in the charges that they lay against johns they'll just pull the charge, so you can't do it. You have more control that way.
You're right; it's five to ten years, sadly. There probably are ways to speed it up. There are provisions in the Supreme Court of Canada Act where they can request evidence, so you can put it to the court and let the court wait some time for the evidence to be put before them.
There is something else that is interesting. When the communication law came out in 1985, a lot of people said, ``Oh, my God, it's going to hurt people; it's going to cause a dangerous situation.'' The government said no. You know when we knew? After the five-year study, which is required in this legislation, too.
I don't want to wait for five years. I don't think that's fair to sex workers or to the communities that are affected by this. But that will be our first communication as to the effect of the bill. For constitutionality, it's not just the purpose of legislation; it's also the effect, and the effect is always about evidence. There is evidence now that we could run this challenge, but to do it properly I think we'd have to wait. I don't know if I can wait or other people can wait because every day people are being exposed to the violence on the streets and we need to have a conclusion to this debate.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
Ms. Lang, I wanted to tell you that I really appreciate the comments that you made about Aboriginal prostitutes in Vancouver. I come from Saskatchewan, and what I have seen in Saskatchewan is that the average prostitute is probably a 14-year-old Aboriginal girl who has probably been beaten up by her pimp that morning and is likely drug addicted. That's what we're dealing with in large parts of the country. I appreciate your comments about that.
Professor Janine Benedet testified before us last week, and she talked about section 15 in the context of Bill C-36. She said to us:
. . . the way that the constitutional challenge was constructed, it was strictly a section 7 question and attempts to bring equality into the balance and to demonstrate the ways in which the prostitution industry is deeply gendered; the ways it preys on inequality were kept out. . . . these laws were not designed to address equality. That was not part of their objectives and that they had much narrower objectives.
What is gratifying about the way in which Bill C-36 is constructed is that those objectives are now clearly in the bill. . . . sex equality is a principle of fundamental justice and we need to consider that in the analysis as well.
I would like to get your comments about that.
Ms. Lang: Yes, I absolutely agree. When I was making submissions in front of the house, one of questions was: Why wasn't section 15 dealt with in the Bedford case? And of course it wasn't structured that way.
I agree that with Professor Benedet that with the clear preamble that talks about equality of women and how prostitution is something that denigrates women and does not make them equal; it makes them sex providers for men. I think that equality will be an issue if there is a challenge, and I expect there will be.
Senator Batters: Just a brief question to Professor Young.
You spoke in your opening statement about all the pro bono work that was done on this particular case. When Ms. Bedford was here last week, she talked about spending $500,000 on her case. Who did she pay that money to if so much pro bono work was done?
Mr. Young: I wasn't here. I heard there was a bit of a ruckus. I'm not exactly sure what she was trying to say. The simple truth is —
Senator Batters: So she didn't pay that to you?
Mr. Young: No. I wouldn't be here if she had. I'd be in the Bahamas right now.
The case waited. I had to wait a few years because the Court Challenges Program turned me down in 2002. That was after the Pickton pig farm. So then in 2006, I went to Legal Aid Ontario and they gave me $40,000 under the test case fund for disbursements so that I could pay for witnesses to fly from Vancouver and Edmonton to be cross-examined by the Crown. I did the work pro bono. The students did the work pro bono. Most of the other lawyers did it pro bono. At the Supreme Court of Canada stage, my co-counsel — we were on legal aid certificates. If this was through a regular law firm, it's probably about $1 million in terms of total.
Senator Batters: But it was not?
Mr. Young: No, no, no. But the thing is, that's the tip of the iceberg. Because it was me; I was up against eight government lawyers. You start doing the calculations about how much money the government spent to defend the legislation. That's one of the reasons why I made that comment, a little bit sarcastic, ``Get it right the first time,'' because these constitutional challenges are hard to do and beyond the resources of most people. I'm fortunate that I can do this work because I have a team of students — that you may say I exploit, because we like to talk about exploiting today — but that I can utilize so that I don't have to do a monumental amount of work myself. Because this was a big case, probably the biggest case I've worked on in terms of the volume of evidence.
Senator Batters: Thank you for that clarification about her claim.
Mr. Young: Yes. I'm not sure where that came from.
Senator Joyal: Professor Young, I want to come back to the immunity provision of the bill, proposed section 286.5. You have described it simply by saying that if you are allowed to offer a service, to communicate to the public that you are available for the service, if you can hire people to help you to provide the service, how can you, in reality, declare that anyone who purchases your services is a criminal?
I put that question in those simple terms to Mr. Piragoff, who happens to be the assistant deputy minister, policy sector, at the Department of Justice, and his reasoning is the following: Well, prostitution is illegal per se, and what is given to a person who offers his or her own service is immunity from prosecution, but the act per se is still illegal. So it is possible, in legal terms, to criminalize one aspect of the reality, which is the purchasing, and keep a blind eye to the other part of the equation. How do you respond to that legal interpretation of 286.5?
Mr. Young: It just makes the law seem so confusing when you're saying how Don Piragoff is saying it works. That's not the way law should work. It should be a lot clearer and more linear.
I don't know. I have to think about that more, but I can tell you this, as a criminal law professor: When you're just criminalizing one side of a transaction, this is the first time this has ever happened. There's no historical precedent for this. I can't even imagine one, and I tried on the plane; I tried to think of some example historically, at common law or by statute, where we've done it. So it's an oddity right from the beginning. What's going to be the real claim is a claim that does emanate from the Morgentaler case and the medical marijuana cases. You can't set up a manifestly unfair regime.
So it doesn't matter whether you call it legal or immunized. The reality is that nowhere in the history of law have you ever allowed a private citizen to say, ``Come to me; I can sell you something,'' and then turn around and arrest them for coming. That person who is doing the selling is either the main perpetrator — and I understand what the different logic is here, but at a minimum they're a party to that transaction.
So when the government says you cannot prosecute for it, they've made a mistake. They've created the offence. Party liability exists under section 21, and the only level of government that can immunize for prostitution is the province.
So they've gone about it in a very strange way. I don't know what it means, and that's why I was a little bit reserved, saying it's going to still take me some time to come up with a conclusive opinion. But I can just tell you: I've never seen anything in the history of criminal law that sets up what they're calling asymmetrical prohibitions. It cuts against the grain and it's hard to justify, and I think the government's going to have a hard time ultimately justifying it, whether they say everything is legal, everything is illegal. It's just not a very clear way to go about stating what your government's position is.
Senator Joyal: But would you say it's a criminal policy issue, or is it a constitutional issue?
Mr. Young: No. It's a constitutional issue. That's why I use the words ``manifestly unfair.'' That comes right out of Morgentaler, a very different type of scenario. It was a situation where they set up a regime, but it simply could not work for women who were seeking abortions because procedurally it was cumbersome. But they say it violates the principles of fundamental justice to establish liability in a manner that is manifestly unfair. I say, not holding any torch for johns, but if you're advertising your services, you're opening your door, you can't criminalize that activity without criminalizing the very people who have encouraged it. You've actually just legalized entrapment. That's what's happened.
So I'm not able yet to articulate the constitutional dilemma. But if you asked me in 2003 what my constitutional argument was for Bedford, I didn't have it yet either. These things evolve. Let's say the Insite case in British Columbia fuelled a lot of this too. I'm waiting to see what comes out of the court over the next couple of years. Again, I come back to my comment: I'm just sad that may have to wait for a couple of years. But I strongly feel that the way they set it up in criminal law is a trap, and I take criminal law seriously.
Senator Plett: Ms. Lang, I would like to ask you two quick questions, and I'll put them to you at the same time.
The first question is: What would you say to critics of Bill C-36 who say that it is not the place of the government to interfere with an act between two consenting adults?
My other question will be speculation, I know, in some respect, but I would like your thoughts anyway. We have not had a barrage of johns wanting to come here and testify. Why do you believe that is?
Ms. Lang: With respect to the issue of government interference in a private sexual act, in fact, the only people who can interfere our government legislators. We elect our legislators. They are elected democratically. They can create law. If the House of Commons passes a law, those are the only people who can.
As far as judicial activism is concerned, judges are not empowered to legislate. They shouldn't make the law, and in fact they are not elected. They are appointed. I say it is within the government purview to make law to protect women and to enshrine equality in our law.
As to the second question about why the johns won't come, well, it's pretty obvious. In my view, they know that what they are doing is exploitive. They know it's wrong. They're embarrassed. They're ashamed, particularly the ones who are having sex with underage children, and there are plenty of them doing it. I think that it is going to be very difficult to get information from johns because they're not going to say, ``Pick me; I'm one of those people,'' and that's the problem.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Young answered all my questions without my having to ask them. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Young: I hope adequately.
The Chair: Thank you to both witnesses for very interesting and helpful testimony. Much appreciated.
Mr. Young: Thank you very much.
Ms. Lang: Thank you.
The Chair: Members, just to remind you, we meet again tomorrow morning at 10:30. I will see you all then.
(The committee adjourned.)