Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
The only was she can advertise legally in Canada is to have her own media or host her own web server at home
Or resort to posting flyers on telephone poles. Supermarkets would be obliged to remove any offer for sexual services from their community billboards, l;est they be charged with carrying sex-for-sale ads.

Even if a sex-worker advertised successfully, likely through foreign ISP website hosts or classified ads. police could stalk their doors and nail clients on the way out. Reasonable suspicion will be cause to detain a suspect, and that reasonable suspicion is walking out of the home of a reputed sex-worker. Doesn't mean that he'll be charged; just means that the police will have the power to harass clients and ruin the sex-worker's client base. It will force the sex-worker out of the safety of her place of work or home in order to evade the surveillance of LE, and go to locations where police would not be available to help her if things go wrong.

The Bill makes anybody who hangs around a sex-worker to be presumed to be living off the avails, and the onus will be on a friend or boyfriend to prove that he's not exploiting her. So much for the presumption of innocence.
 

lovelatinas

Well Known Member
Sep 30, 2008
6,678
2
38
Just MHO, but not really realistic to believe that this will be done systematically in large urban centers. If the Bill had been announced with a massive injection of money and resources for LE to enforce its provisions, I would say maybe.

But that's not the case. LE might apply this strategy in a few cases, publicize them and then hope that this will prove enough of a deterrent.

But in smaller communities with low crime rates, and where LE has time to do this, that's another story.
I could see this being the case and I hope your right. It would be easier for LE to crack down on street prostitution.
 

lovelatinas

Well Known Member
Sep 30, 2008
6,678
2
38
The injustice minister Peter MacKay is not calling the shots. Joy Smith and Harper do. He has to take instructions from his bosses first and then answer any questions as such. What a lame powerless slave. If you watched him during the news conference yesterday you know what I mean,. He was scared, evasive, nervous and wanted to dodge questions and rush out.

drlove please refer to post # 400.
That's because Peter MacKay probably see's escorts himself. He has to quit the hobby all together. Wouldn't be great if were to be the first MP caught under the new law? LOL!!!
 

D-Fens

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2006
1,185
54
48
One big problem if instead LE was to enforce the provisions to their fullest extent, this approach would create an incentive for organized crime to get involved, as it could then become really profitable.

Pretty sure that LE doesn't want this.
well that is what LE is going to get. Criminals are going to make al ot of money now.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
Just MHO, but not really realistic to believe that this will be done systematically in large urban centers. If the Bill had been announced with a massive injection of money and resources for LE to enforce its provisions, I would say maybe.

But that's not the case. LE might apply this strategy in a few cases, publicize them and then hope that this will prove enough of a deterrent.

But in smaller communities with low crime rates, and where LE has time to do this, that's another story.
That's the whole point: deterrence. Make an example of someone, and it scares everybody else away. That way, they drive business away from the sex-worker. Then, the sex-worker has to venture out where it's not safe anymore.

As for budgets, LE are always after more money from politicians. Especially from the odd mayor who's out on a moral crusade to 'clean up' a city.

However, it would be unrealistic to expect police to undertake widespread crackdowns. That leads to selective application of the law. Crack down on those they don't happen to like that week. Keep the others on a leash. Maybe use them as intelligence sources. A retired cop I associate with said to me that, in a medium town in Quebec, police used some of the local prostitutes as informers on organized crime; the latter had no idea that everything they were bragging about when they were engaged in sex with the sex workers, was relayed right after to police. Police didn't bother them and looked the other way as they plied their trade. If one got arrested (by accident) for prostitution related offenses, one of the cops in the know would spring her out of jail. It's not hard to imagine though that they were placed in serious danger if the gangsters ever found out they were snitching on them.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
One big problem if instead LE was to enforce the provisions to their fullest extent, this approach would create an incentive for organized crime to get involved, as it could then become really profitable.

Pretty sure that LE doesn't want this.
LE chiefs are not smart enough to realise this. Prohibition of alcohol led to the proliferation of organized crime back in the '30's. Criminalisation of prostitution will result in the same. It's all a matter of supply and demand. When the supply goes down, demand goes up. More demand, more profit for those (the soldiers, not the crime bosses) who take the risk of going to jail to facilitate it.

Organized crime is largely out of the prostitution business since up to now, individuals don't need help to get clients, and there is not added value for the services of a facilitator or pimp. If police start reducing the demand by targeting clients, some sex-workers will resort to facilitators. Then all kinds of exploitation takes place, since the sex-worker is now embroiled in criminal activity, and cannot just turn to police for help (despite the assurances of idiot macKay). Exposure to drugs comes to mind, and certainly trafficking of women, some against their will.
 

anotherwebguy

Active member
Sep 23, 2004
204
40
28
Megan Walker @meggiewalk · 6h
It was just announced that Bill C-36 will begin debate at 2nd Reading next Thursday. #goCanadianmodel
I guess the opposition parties could stage a filibuster that would extend debate long enough for the draft bill to die on the order paper. However the government could simply invoke Closure and end debate and push it through with their majority.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
I guess the opposition parties could stage a filibuster that would extend debate long enough for the draft bill to die on the order paper. However the government could simply invoke Closure and end debate and push it through with their majority.

We still don't have any word from the Liberals and their leader Shiny Pony. Just waffling about, afraid to take a stand: watching too many polls. At least, the NDP has demanded that MacKay send the Bill right to the SCC.

The Greens seem to be against the Bill also.

The Bill should be going to committee sometime. Wonder when? I'd like to see Petey squirm.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
posting flyers on telephone poles in the street would be subject to the law against communicating in a place where children are expected to be.
I believe that communicating is a direct conversation. I don't think that advertising is classed as communicating. In any case, I doubt Petey and his mistress Joy Smith thought of that.
 

lovelatinas

Well Known Member
Sep 30, 2008
6,678
2
38
We still don't have any word from the Liberals and their leader Shiny Pony. Just waffling about, afraid to take a stand: watching too many polls. At least, the NDP has demanded that MacKay send the Bill right to the SCC.

The Greens seem to be against the Bill also.

The Bill should be going to committee sometime. Wonder when? I'd like to see Petey squirm.
How many Greens are there? One I think.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
Given the current budgetary issues facing all levels of governments, I think the plea for more money will generally fall on deaf hear in this context. LE will be lucky to keep as many officers as they already have, and maintain their salary, benefits, and retirement plans as they are, the way things stand.

The Montreal police, SPVM, recently unveiled their big three-year plan to deal with prostitution which is getting more into harm reduction, and also with a focus on coercive and/or underage prostitution. Part of their plan is the creation of mixed regional unit with other local LE agencies, which would require resources and more people. All they got from the province so far has been: "We'll think about it."
Fighting trafficking is always the façade. If you read a little closer, what they are really after is to 'clean up' the city, as per Coderre's campaign promise. If Bill 36 becomes law, they're going to go apeshit. With limited budgets, they will just spend less on measures to protect citizens from real crime, and spend more on morality.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
How many Greens are there? One I think.
2 in fact. There's MP Bruce Hyer from Thunder Bay who got kicked out of NDP caucus for voting against the party line on the gun registry. He then joined the Greens. He also convinced Elisabeth May to be friendlier towards gun owners.

As most gun owners are hunters, they are natural conservationists. The 2 million legal gun owners have been a significant part of Conservative's constitutency. many of which voted on a single issue : abolishing the registry and amending the Firearms Act. But with Harper disappointing more and more of these constituents because of other issues unrelated, you may see more gun owners swinging to the Greens, some as a protest vote, others because hunters being conservationists, the party would be a good fit for them.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
What about Bloc Quebecois ?
They're dead. Irrelevant. Only 5 or 6 MP's now. People tired of the old refrain of independence. That's why they kicked out the PQ in a stinging defeat.

The Quebec media seems to be against prostitution in Quebec, so Quebec based parties have to be careful they don't get blasted in editorials.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,149
2,690
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Notice how Petey repeating himself


yesterday during Question Period

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep playing photo-op politics when, really, they should be supporting our veterans.

The Conservatives have also been caught playing politics on their new crime bill. In less than 24 hours, the justice minister's new bill already has legal experts predicting long court battles over whether it respects the charter, the Constitution and the Bedford ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Will the minister skip his divisive talking points? Will he do the sensible thing and refer this bill to the Supreme Court of Canada immediately?



Peter MacKay Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, this legislation goes to the objectives that I hope my friend and all members of Parliament would share, and that is protecting vulnerable Canadians and communities ensuring that we are not only giving police the necessary tools to support communities and the country, but also putting in place new programs in partnership with various groups across the country, in our provinces and territories, to see that we are able to help women, predominantly vulnerable women, who are in this profession through no fault of their own to exit and find a better, safer, healthier life.


Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC

Yes, Mr. Speaker, $20 million, a drop in the bucket, not even budgeted yet.

We cannot trust the Conservatives to protect women's rights. This issue is at the heart of the debate and the Supreme Court ruling in Bedford. With Bill C-36, pimps and prostitutes will be criminalized, but not drivers. Soliciting will be prohibited on the streets, but not on private premises. Private advertising will be allowed, but not public advertising. There is a very fine line and the balance is precarious.

Will the government make public the legal opinions it received before introducing Bill C-36?



Peter MacKay Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, that of course will happen, as it always does. In all cases it will be made public.

We had a very extensive consultation, as the member knows. Some 31,000 Canadians took part in that consultation. I sat down and had a round table with a wide variety of groups expressing a wide variety of views on this issue. We have acted in response to that input, to those consultations, also in consult with the police, and respectful of the Supreme Court decision in Bedford.

We believe this is a better path and a more productive path for those involved in prostitution, while protecting Canadians at every level.



Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to reading the scientific survey the minister still has in his possession and is avoiding to give to everybody.

Six months ago, the Supreme Court forced the government to review the legislation concerning prostitution in order to better protect the lives and safety of sex trade workers. Several of the provisions run counter to this objective and even seem to contravene the Supreme Court ruling. We are afraid that Bill C-36 will push prostitution further into the shadows, drive it underground and make it more violent.

Will the government refer its bill to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible to ensure that it complies with the charter and the Bedford ruling?



Peter MacKay Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we believe that we have acted on the advice of many within the legal community in addition to policing and respecting the Bedford decision. We are moving forward in a way that we believe protects Canadians, communities, individuals and children.

At the same time, this is not as simple as passing laws, as the member would know. This will require extensive work with organizations to help vulnerable women and many young women, in this case under the age of 18, to exit a life of prostitution, to find a better path, to find a way forward that does not involve exposing themselves to violence and the inherent dangers that come with prostitution.



how long can he keep up with this repeating himself tactic.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,149
2,690
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Scheme to offer Vietnam's sex workers loans to quit hooking doomed to fail

Sex workers who quit the trade will become eligible for low-interest loans this month of up to VND20 million (US$940), following a decision issued by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung in May.

But the scheme beneficiaries apparently don't buy its efficiency.

Nga, a sex worker in Ho Chi Minh City’s District 3, doesn't believe the scheme will work due to a stipulation that loan applicants must produce certification from high-ranking commune-level authorities that they have given up sex work.

“What sex worker is going to tell the local authorities that she used to be a sex worker? No! Never!” she said. “How are they going to identify ex-sex workers?"

The requirement has sparked wide concern among social and sex workers alike who believe the program is fraught with problems.
Nevertheless, the pilot program is set to run from 2014-2016 and will afford loan recipients three years to pay back the money.
The project will begin on June 15 in 15 cities and provinces before going nationwide in 2017.

http://thanhniennews.com/society/sc...ans-to-quit-hooking-doomed-to-fail-26934.html



 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,149
2,690
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Why MacKay’s prostitution bill is doomed

Justice Minister Peter MacKay’s body language at his press conference to introduce the Harper government’s new prostitution bill didn’t really inspire confidence. A justice minister is supposed to at least act like his legislation can survive a court challenge; MacKay looked like someone had shoved him out on the stage to read a speech someone else wrote.

Citing the need to protect women working in the sex trade, in December the Supreme Court struck down legal bans on street soliciting, bawdy houses and living off the avails. The SC justices ruled that the old law pushed women into remote locations to work and forced them to jump into clients’ cars before being able to check them out properly.

MacKay’s bill will criminalize customers — but there is growing evidence that this approach might not make women any safer. If customers are worried about being arrested, they’ll go to isolated areas. If sex workers want to make a living, they’ll have to follow them.

Making it harder for customers makes it harder for women. They’ll still be forced to put themselves at risk. They may have to work longer hours — and they may be forced to do things they wouldn’t normally do.

Back in December, everyone seemed to agree on one point: The law shouldn’t criminalize sex workers. This bill will do just that — if they communicate (for the purposes of selling sexual services) in public places where a child could reasonably be expected to be present. MacKay gave the example at his press conference of two underage sex workers together in a public place; if one of them communicated for the purpose of selling sex, she could be arrested. A government that claims to champion victims is pushing a law that may criminalize sex workers — including young people who are not legally capable of choosing to be a sex worker.

MacKay says prostitution is a complex issue — but he sees it in simplistic, black-and-white terms. He sees all sex work as degrading and all sex workers as victims. Not all sex workers see themselves that way. They believe they actually know what’s good for them — better than MacKay or anyone else.

some of those involved in sex work are victimized; they deserve the same protections under the law as anyone else. If they are victims of human trafficking, if they are sexually assaulted, if young people are recruited and forced into sex work, their persecutors should be charged and punished under the existing laws in the Criminal Code.
Some women sell sex to survive on the street; they are among the most vulnerable. No doubt they’d rather be doing something else. They were the ones most affected by the old law — they’ll be the ones most affected by the new law as well. They may have addiction issues, mental health issues. They may live in poverty. There may not be a pimp forcing them to do sex work, but they may have limited choices regardless. Offering more options — like the programs the government says it will fund with the $20 million it has committed — is essential, but taking away options may be counterproductive.
The countries which have embraced the so-called ‘Nordic’ model — which makes selling sex legal but outlaws paying for it — did so to abolish or eradicate sex work. It didn’t work there; it won’t work here. The Nordic model was the Harper government’s favoured approach from the very beginning. No one seriously believes they really considered other approaches — like the New Zealand model, which treats sex work as work and offers sex workers the same protections that other workers receive.
There will always be men who lure or coerce young people into the sex trade, customers who assault or rob sex workers and organized crime gangs that exploit women. But what they do is already illegal.
For those women who want out, there should be services and programs to help them. But that means concentrating our efforts on the things that put them on the street in the first place — like poverty and mental illness — not taking away the only source of income many of them have.
MacKay knows the Supreme Court’s decision was all about safety; if he can’t show his new law makes sex workers safer, it’s dead in the water. He knows his government is headed back to the Supreme Court to defend another piece of legislation that’s highly unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge. If he’s being honest with himself — and fair to Canadian taxpayers — he’ll send it to the Supreme Court now.
If MacKay is right, the issue is settled. If he’s wrong — and I strongly suspect he is — then getting the court’s verdict early would save public money and get him back to the drawing board sooner, rather than later.
But maybe MacKay isn’t interested in getting this right. Maybe he just wants to maintain his government’s pose as a champion of victims, keep the Conservative base happy in the short term and push the problem off his plate for a couple of years.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/06/05/...paign=why-mackays-prostitution-bill-is-doomed
 

baby_blue

Banned
Mar 27, 2006
332
0
0
This might sound crazy but lets say we all got arrested? I mean like one million people in the GTA getting arrested. ..wouldn't the court and the jailhouses be congested and overcrowded? The police would be overwhelmed by the shared volume of arrests? It will take up a lot of the police resources and manpower. And also all the lost productivity from all the arrested individual. Dont you think the economy of the GTA will be effected?
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,149
2,690
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
When the Conservative caucus met on Parliament Hill in the last week of May, MPs were given a thorough explanation of the new prostitution bill — not only by Justice Minister Peter MacKay, but also by the prime minister.

Stephen Harper’s intervention was designed to shore up support for the bill, in the face of staunch opposition from a number of caucus members.

A rump of social conservatives have made it known they are unhappy with the bill — and would have preferred outright prohibition, banning both the sale and purchase of sexual services. For a number of Conservatives, the bill’s ban on the purchase and advertising of sex does not go far enough.

But Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay presented the bill as a compromise between the harder line of the prohibitionists and outright legalization. “It was done to bring people into the fold,” said one MP.

Mr. Harper told the Tory caucus the bill was crafted to survive a constitutional challenge. In an effort to rally support, he said that if the courts throw the new bill out, the government will have no option but to introduce full legalization of prostitution.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...sition/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 

DigitallyYours

Off TERB indefinitely
Oct 31, 2010
1,540
0
0
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/06/06/escort-mackays-prostitution-bill-will-kill-people/

Escort: MacKay’s prostitution bill ‘will kill people’
By Olesia Plokhii

When Caroline Newcastle first posted a photo of herself on an escort website four years ago, she wore a green dress.

Then 23 years old and studying for an undergraduate degree in Quebec City, she was nervous. She had never traded sex for money, and the encounter wasn’t exactly what she was hoping for.

Caroline, who uses a pseudonym, was half naked within five minutes. The sex lasted the full hour she had negotiated. She felt it was too formal, too black and white. But it was work, she figured, and once she counted her money, she decided it wasn’t so bad.

Caroline’s second experience, a two-hour visit with a client, was better.

“We talked for an hour, had a glass of wine, he was really nice and well educated and we really got along well — and the sexual experience was much better,” she said.

Now 27, the well-spoken, educated girl-next-door-looking Caroline is pursuing a PhD at an Ottawa university — and earning a living in the sex industry.

But she worries about her safety and the safety of her friends if Canada’s new prostitution law passes.

“It’s devastating,” she says.

*********

Caroline is young, but sophisticated. She speaks well, describing how sex work is like any other type of work — undesirable working conditions in the escort business are similar to poor labour standards elsewhere, she says. The only difference is that sex workers are denied the right to complain.

She has agreed to meet me at a local coffee shop, but prefers I don’t say where. She is wearing 60s style cat eyed glasses, a loose leopard-print grey sweater, jeans and Converse shoes. She seems down-to-earth yet well-groomed – no makeup, manicured nails and a dangling crystal on her neck.

After her second sexual encounter, she tells me, her career “just flowed.”

She started up a website that catered to men longing for “the girlfriend experience,” and built up a loyal clientele of men, women, couples and the disabled. She sees up to eight clients a week and makes enough money to live comfortably in one apartment, finance another for encounters with clients, and put herself through school. Hourly rates for escorts in Ottawa go between $200 and $600.

“I don’t anticipate stopping,” she says. “I’m in for the long haul.”

Even if the federal government’s new prostitution legislation, which criminalizes clients and prostitutes, passes, she says she’ll “just adapt.”

It won’t be easy, though, because she knows what’s at stake.

In addition to her studies and two jobs, she also works as a researcher on campus — Caroline advocates on behalf of Ottawa’s sex workers. Calling herself an “activist for sex workers’ human rights,” she volunteers for Power, a group that seeks protection and recognition of sex workers through decriminalization.

When the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s prostitution laws in December because they endangered prostitutes, Caroline was gleeful — and she felt safer. On Wednesday, when Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled his bill — which could make it illegal for her to have a website, share a residence with other escorts where they take clients, and screen her customers — she was “heartbroken.”

During a news conference Wednesday, MacKay made clear that this is both a moral and legal issue for him, calling prostitution “degrading” and johns “perverts.”

“Minister MacKay in his press conference yesterday said no one chooses to do this, it is inherently degrading, inherently violent,” said Caroline. “The laws make it violent and this speech was degrading. The most degrading thing that happened to me yesterday was hearing his speech. It was awful hearing him speak about something he knew nothing about.”

Under the law, she could also be arrested if she is seen communicating for the purposes of sex near minors — a provision critics say encompasses every public place, forcing sex workers further into the shadows.

“The reality is this legislation will kill people, as the former legislation did before.”

Caroline has never had a bad experience with her clients. As an indoor escort, she arranges sex by phone or online and has sex indoors (her second apartment, a hotel or her client’s place, usually). Her screening rules are unbreakable: people must give their real name — first and last — their place of work, sometimes their home address, and they must be willing to talk to her over the phone before they meet. Once she has that in place, she checks a “bad date list” circulated by safe sex work groups, takes her cell phone to all jobs and prefers repeat clients she trusts.

She’s never had a real problem. But if Bill C-36 passes, her work could get much more dangerous.

“No one’s going to want to give me that information,” she said.

*********

Caroline admits she’s lucky. She knows those most at risk of violence and arrest are the poor, homeless, mentally troubled, drug addicted street workers who work when Ottawa sleeps.

Street workers also have unbreakable rules — make sure there are door handles inside the car to avoid being locked in, memorize a license plate, remember a face. But with johns or clients fearing arrest, Caroline says street workers will have only seconds to screen men looking for sex, and will be more likely to get in a car with anyone in the event demand drops as a result of the law.

“They’ll need to screen that much faster,” she said.

Ottawa’s street workers agree. Power brought several of them together at a Sandy Hill clinic in March to answer a government survey about prostitution. One anonymous worker told the group that a constant police presence often leads to danger.

“If we see cops around, that means we have to refuse dates until they leave or have to go hide,” the woman said. “We have to wait out in the cold. The longer you are out there, the more chances you have to run into a psycho.”

Another sex worker said criminalizing clients will lead street workers to “resort to stealing or other crime.”

Another forecasted an even more sinister future.

“What we do is important,” the woman said. “If we can’t do it, there will be more rape and more violence in families and on the street.”

According to Statistics Canada, 156 prostitutes have been murdered since 1991. Recent figures on other prostitution-related crimes such as battery and rape are less readily available, but Simon Fraser University professor and prostitution expert John Lowman said the evidence of crimes against prostitutes is “overwhelming.”

Sex workers, either street or indoor, also fear the new laws will make them more vulnerable to police – even when they are not trying to arrange sex in public.

In January, police from across Canada conducted sweeps of hotels, motels and massage parlors as part of “Operation Northern Spotlight” in an effort to free those who have been trafficked into the sex trade. They also visited, undercover, an indoor escort who later complained to the police and got few apologies. A police officer posing as “john,” a client, came to her door in plain clothes. In the elevator, he told her he was a police officer and three of his colleagues would be joining them.

All five entered her apartment and searched her home. They resisted giving their names, and refused to leave even though the woman, who goes by “Quinn,” told them she was safe and did this work willingly. When she tried to stop one of the officers from opening a closet, he told her not to touch him — that it could be assault.

“When they asked why I was so upset, I told them that as a woman, as a woman who has experienced sexual assault, and as someone who was not fully clothed or expecting police officers, that I was feeling harassed and intimidated,” Quinn told Power. “One of the officers laughed.”

*********

Caroline didn’t grow up dreaming to become an escort.

Nearly four years into the business, she says she has good and bad days, but that she’s something close to happy.

She feels offended that the federal government wants to abolish prostitution, which is a “job like any other.”

“I pay my taxes,” she says.

She enjoys her clients, who “love their families” and are usually more interested in intimacy than sex.

Most of her family, close friends and colleagues at university know what she does, and she is proud of it. And while she’s expecting her life to change under the new law, she’s not giving up on her job or her advocacy.

“It’s not the end but it’s not the beginning, and the fight will continue.”

Plus, she says, she can’t really think of a better alternative right now.

“Like a really shitty job at Chapters?”
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,149
2,690
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Here comes Petey the living tape recorder

http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/6/nycole-turmel-1/

Nycole Turmel Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's Bedford decision was about ensuring the safety of vulnerable women, but the Conservatives' legislation is raising concerns across the country. It has provisions that most likely do not respect the charter and do not appear to respect the Supreme Court's ruling. This will be dragged through the courts for years.

Will the government do the sensible thing and refer this legislation to the Supreme Court before proceeding further?


Peter MacKay Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member insofar as we have made genuine efforts to address the inherent dangers of prostitution. More than just the legislation, we have put in place significant resources to help prostitutes exit this life and find a better, safer, healthier path. That is what is happening in addition to the legislation.

With regard to a Supreme Court reference, it was just six months ago that we received the Bedford decision. It is the role and the responsibility of parliamentarians to examine legislation and bring forward laws we feel are good for Canadians.



Nycole Turmel Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, several analysts have concluded that Bill C-36 does not do an adequate job of protecting prostitutes as required by the Supreme Court in Bedford. A number of experts and sex workers believe that Bill C-36 will force prostitution further underground and expose people to more violence.

Will the government disclose the legal opinions it received and refer its bill to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible to ensure that it is charter compliant and in line with the Bedford ruling?



Peter MacKay Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, once again, our government has no intention of compromising the authority and responsibility of Parliament.

With respect to the concerns around prostitution and the inherent dangers, clearly that was reflected in the bill itself. What we are attempting to do is protect Canadians, protect those who are most vulnerable, protect communities as well, including children, from the exposure to prostitution.

This is a complex issue. To suggest that there is an answer that is going to solve all of these issues overnight is simply not realistic. I would encourage the member to examine the bill.
 
Toronto Escorts