Who's Who testifying on Bill C-36

This post focusses on exploring the various groups that testified to the Justice Committee regarding Bill C-36 the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act or formally An Act to Amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in the Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The Justice Committee meetings ran from July 7, 2014 to July 15, 2014, hearing from 44 organizations and a number of individuals and undertaking a clause by clause review before passing the amended legislation on to report state. Report stage and third reading is scheduled for the fall when Parliament returns from its summer break. This is part of a concerted effort on the part of the Harper Government to pass this legislation quickly illustrated by the Peter Van Loan’s motion to allocate time “of not more than five further hours” for the second reading.  

In the testimony to the committee there is a clear divide between organizations that advocate the abolition of prostitution who generally support bill C-36 and those who argue for the decriminalization of prostitution and oppose bill C-36. There are a number of points on which most, if not all, the witnesses agree: 1) that legal policy that criminalizes prostitutes is problematic as it victimizes those who offer sex in exchange for money (there is an underlying disagreement over what entails a victim and victimization), 2) authentic consent is an indispensable requirement of legitimate commercial and non-commercial sex,  3) sex workers are often subject to economic coercion and disproportionately the victims of violence, and that any policy addressing prostitution must address these issues, and 4) addressing prostitution must significantly and seriously lead to harm reduction.  

It is over how harm can be reduced that significant disagreement emerges between those who advocate abolition versus decriminalization.   

For abolitionists prostitution is inherently harmful because it is the sexual use and abuse of women by men. It is not about work or a service but fundamentally about men's sexual pleasure and possession to use the female body. It part of a continuum of violence against women that runs from harassment to domestic violence to rape. There is no free or authentic consent because women come to sex work because of homelessness and economic deprivation, drug addiction, or coercion – women are not prostitutes (noun) they are prostituted (verb). Therefore, abolitionists argue the only way to eradicate the harm is to eliminate prostitution, prosecute and punish those who purchase sex to decrease and deter demand, and set up programs to help prostitutes find alternatives ways to make a living. 

For those who advocate decriminalization, harm arises from the secretive and illegal nature of the work. The illegal nature of the work means that prostitutes cannot come forward to report customers who commit violence, report pimps, or access health care programs regarding substance abuse and sexual health. It also means prostitutes find it difficult to organize workplaces to enhance their safety such as setting up brothels with security and screening procedures. Decriminalization would require government to repeal laws that make voluntary and consented sex work a crime and allow for control and oversight of the profession through health and safety regulations, occupational health regulations, and business and commercial codes. Through this taxation could be used to fund programs for those wishing to exit the profession, deter those at risk to being forced into sex work, and governments could prosecute those who broke regulations, committed violence, and traffickers. According to those advocating decriminalization regulation, transparency and oversight would eliminate the harms encountered in sex work.  

The following is a quick view in table form of the positions taken by the groups that testified to the committee. Clearly those advocating a decriminalization position were opposed to bill C-36 while those with an abolitionist position were supportive. However, the position of a number of the abolitionist groups was qualified. While they supported bill C-36’s adaptation of the Nordic model (more on this in a later post) and preamble which outlined the victimization inherent in prostitution, they did argue the continued criminalization of prostitutes though sanctions against communication and solicitation undermined the intent of the bill. 

More detail on the various groups will follow after the table or in a follow up post. 

Organization	For or Against C-36	Abolition	Decriminaliz -ation	For/By Sex-workers	Intervener in Canada v. Bedford	Religious
Walk with me Canada Victims services	F	X		X
Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law and Reform	A		X	X
Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Canada	A		X
Government of Manitoba	F	X
Evangelical Foundation of Canada	F	X			X	X
Concertation des lute contres l’exploitation sexuelle - CLES	F	X			X
Sex Trafficking Survivors United	F	X		X
Maggie’s: Toronto Sex Workers Action Project	A		X	X
BridgeNorth	F	X		X
Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work Education and Resist (POWER)	A		X	X
Calgary Policy Service	F	X
Stella l’amie de Maime	A		X	X
London Abused Women’s Centre	F	X
Native Women’s Association of Canada	F	X			X
Rising Angels	F	X		X
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies	F	X			X
Sisters Inside	F	X
Canadian Women’s Foundation	F	X
Pivot Legal Society	A		X		X
SIM Canada	F	X				X
Adult Entertainment Association of Canada	A		X
Mother’s Against Trafficking Humans	F	X
Sex Professionals of Canada	A		X	X	X*
York Regional Police	F	X
Sex Trade 101	F	X		X
Resist Exploitation Embrace Dignity (REED)	F	X				X
Prostitutes Involved Empowered Cogent – Edmonton (PIECE)	A		X	X
EVE – Formally Exploited Voices Now Education	F	X		X
Northern Women’s Connection	F	X
BC Civil Liberties Association	A		X		X
Providing alternative Counselling and Education (PACE)	A		X	X	X
Asian Women’s Coalition Ending prostitution (AWCEP)	F	X			X
Hope for the Sold	F	X				X
Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter	F	X
Aboriginal Legal service of Toronto	A		X		X
U-R Home	F	X				X
Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres	F	X			X
Peers Victoria Resource Society	A		X	X
Centre to End all Sexual Exploitation	F	X
Defend Dignity: The Christian and Missionary Alliance	F	X				X
Servants Anonymous Society of Calgary	F	X
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network	A		X		X
Ratanak International	F	X				X
Canadian Police Association	F

*Amy Lebovitch, Executive Director and Valerie Scott, Legal Coordinator of Sex Professionals of Canada were co-listed plaintiffs with Bedford in Canada v. Bedford

 Other interveners in Canada v. Bedford were: Attorney General of Quebec, Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS Legal Clinics, Ontario, Action Ontarienne Contra la violence faile aux femme, Christian Legal Fellowship, Catholic Civil Rights League, REAL Women of Canada, and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights.