SSLR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 2, 2003

0905

The Clerk of the Committee

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)

The Clerk

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

The Clerk

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

Ms. Diane Diotte (Committee Clerk)

Mr. Andy Scott

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mr. Andy Scott

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

Mr. Andy Scott

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

Mr. Inky Mark

0910

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

0915

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

0920

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Lyne Casavant (Committee Researcher)

Ms. Libby Davies

0925

Ms. Lyne Casavant

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lyne Casavant

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

0930

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

0935

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

0940

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

0945

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

0950

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

0955

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Lyne Casavant

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 001

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 2, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members of the subcommittee, I see that we have a quorum. We can now proceed to the election of the chair.

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): I move that Hedy Fry be chair.

(Motion agreed to)

An hon. member: Congratulations.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Clerk: Now, for the election of a vice-chair. You are only six members on the subcommittee, so I don't know if you would like to have a vice-chair.

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): I would like to nominate Libby Davies.

The Clerk: Are there other nominations? Okay. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I guess we can also nominate a vice-chair from the government, too.

Are there any nominations?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I would nominate Ms. Paddy Torsney.

The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: Ms. Fry, would you come and take the chair.

The Chair: I think this has been a long time coming. I know that Libby's motion is one that many of us were excited about.

What I would like us to do, because we have taken such a long time getting started, is to just deal with the other business on the agenda. We have to talk about a schedule of meetings. We have members here who belong to the justice committee, which is going to be meeting five times a week, so we may need to look at how we splice meetings into that.

Does anyone want to decide how often we should meet? Does anybody have any ideas?

Mr. Andy Scott: Could I just ask one question, Madam Chair?

When during the week does the subcommittee on security meet? It's another call upon the justice committee.

Ms. Diane Diotte (Committee Clerk): I know they meet on Monday afternoon.

Mr. Andy Scott: Is there any overlap with this group?

There is one overlap.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): First of all, I just wanted to thank the members of the justice committee, and the chair, Andy Scott, who helped get this committee up and running. It did take awhile, but I know everybody has really wanted to do it, so it was just a matter of the logistics of this place.

I think it's going to be a really good committee, because I know there is a lot of interest in getting into a pretty open and frank discussion about on-street prostitution, safety issues, health issues, and what we can do. So I am looking forward to it very much.

I know the justice committee is really overloaded, so I was hoping there was a way we could agree to meet twice a week. I don't know if that's too much for folks if they are already overloaded. Obviously we have to meet at least once every week, and maybe we could look at Mondays. If there's a possibility of squeaking in another meeting time to get us going, I think it would be really helpful.

Mr. Andy Scott: Tuesday afternoon is open, which is a traditional time. So there is clearly one.

Inky, are you going to serve on all three?

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): I'll try to. Again, we're short on bodies, like other people.

Mr. Andy Scott: So there's one that seems to me to be.... I shouldn't have so much to say, as I won't be here, but I'm trying to protect the main committee from losing its members.

Mr. Inky Mark: The other problem, I think, is travel for most of us.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, I'm usually away on Mondays, but....

The Chair: Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I would be okay with Tuesdays, but I would be a little concerned about Mondays or Fridays. There are three of us from the west coast, and the way Air Canada is right now.... I wouldn't be averse to the odd meeting in the evening, if that were possible. I wouldn't want to make a habit of it.

But Tuesday afternoon is fine with me.

Mr. Inky Mark: How about Monday night?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, now you're conflicting with Monday night football. We can't have that, Inky.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman, would you like to suggest Monday evenings later, maybe 5:30 or something like that?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I don't know if we'd want to do that on a regular basis, but I'd be okay with that the odd time. It's just that Mondays and Fridays are difficult. The members from the coast can appreciate that.

The Chair: Yes.

Then are there any takers for late Monday afternoon, starting at 5:30?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Madam Chair, I am not available because I have something else planned for Monday evening. It would be difficult for me. But I am free on Tuesday.

[English]

The Chair: We have a suggestion for Monday, although that's difficult for Mr. Marceau.

Ms. Libby Davies: What about Thursday afternoons?

The Chair: No.

Ms. Libby Davies: Does that conflict with another subcommittee?

The Chair: Yes, it does--with the justice committee.

Mr. Andy Scott: No, there are no Thursday afternoons.

The Chair: There are no Thursday afternoons at all on the justice committee?

Mr. Andy Scott: We go until one o'clock.

Mr. Inky Mark: But people are leaving town. That's the other problem we have on Thursday afternoons.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Andy Scott: If you'll recall--I don't know if anyone was around then; Chuck was--the subcommittee that did Bills C-15A and C-15B met Wednesday nights from 5:30 to 7:30. It worked quite well, frankly. We often started late because of votes, but we found it to be actually the best time to be able to bring people together outside of the normal schedule of Tuesday morning until Thursday at noon, which seems to be the common schedule.

That's easy for me to say.

The Chair: I know, but there are four of us from the west coast, and the direct flight leaves at 6 o'clock on Thursdays. There is a 7 o'clock on Thursdays, but that goes through Toronto and gets you in at a quarter to midnight.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: By the time I'm home in Surrey, it's 2 o'clock in the morning.

Ms. Libby Davies: We were saying Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday evening. What about that?

The Chair: Let's see what the other members of the committee think about those times.

We have to decide on two things. Do we need, to start off, meetings twice a week? If so, we have some suggestions now from Ms. Davies for the two days. One is Tuesday afternoon--although we still have late Monday on the table--and late Wednesday evening.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My preference would be Wednesday, since Andy brought that up.

The Chair: Tuesday and Wednesday?

Mr. Inky Mark: Wednesday.

I don't know if we need to meet twice a week initially, at this point in time. Maybe we need to find out what we're doing first, before we decide to meet twice a week.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I would suggest just the opposite. I'd rather go with the Tuesday, just the one day for now. Then if we find that we need the extra day, my preference would be the Wednesday evening, as opposed to anything else.

But I would suggest meeting on the Tuesday afternoon. That's an open slot and just about everybody is here, and for now, we could just go with the one day.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I agree with what Chuck said.

On the other hand, I would like to introduce the idea that even if the House is not sitting after November 7, we might consider continuing our work. That could be interesting; we could work more intensively. It is a suggestion. I do not know what Libby thinks, but in any case, we have all planned to be here until the middle of December, so there is some leeway. I was going to suggest the same thing about motion M-288 to my chair when we see each other.

Think about it and if Libby agrees, we could meet after November 7.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Do the rules allow for that if we prorogue?

The Chair: It would depend. We're now going on a lot of supposition here.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes.

The Chair: I don't know that this is anything more than a rumour.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Is the clerk aware, can we do that if we prorogue?

The Chair: The question is, will we prorogue or just rise? In that case, if we just rose for the Christmas vacation--

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Well, you guys know that better than we do.

The Chair: --then one would be able to continue to meet. We can't make those decisions until we know for sure. So right now, let's just stick with setting some dates for meetings that we can actually do, and see what comes up. We can go back to the drawing board then and see what we can do, depending on what the decisions are.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Because we are facing the possibility that the House may prorogue or rise, I still think we should push for two meetings, just to try to get us going. I can tell you there are a lot of people who want to be heard. I've been stacking up various names right across the country, so I know there is a tremendous amount of interest. It would be great if we could get some work underway, and I agree, depending upon what happens with the House, we'll have to discuss how to proceed.

My own interest would be that if there is any way we can keep working even informally, I would like us to do that as a committee, because there is a huge amount of interest out there. Once it gets going, people will want to stay with it. We'll obviously discuss that later.

If it's possible we could meet Tuesday afternoons and Wednesday evenings to see how it goes and whether people can manage to make the commitment, it would get us going.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: All right. We have discussed this a bit. Why don't we make some decisions?

There is a suggestion for two meetings at the beginning, Tuesday afternoons and Wednesday evenings, and there was a suggestion for only one meeting. Let's go first for the question of who would prefer to have one meeting only. Is there assent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: There seems to be a general preference for one meeting. We should do that on Tuesdays. We will have a meeting on Tuesdays and see how that goes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Can we start this week?

The Chair: Yes. What time would you like to meet? What would be a good time? Would it be 3:30?

Ms. Libby Davies: I have one conflict on Tuesday that I've just remembered. That is the House leaders meeting at 3:30. It's usually a short meeting. It's over by ten to four or four o'clock, but it would make it really hard for me to be here right at 3:30 p.m.

The Chair: There is a suggestion for 4 o'clock. How do we feel about 4 o'clock. Is there a consensus around the table?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It will be 4 o'clock on Tuesdays.

We need to discuss witnesses. Ms. Davies says she has a lot of witnesses on line. We need to talk about how we see those witnesses. That would tie into the third item, which is travel. Do we travel to meet with witnesses? If we're bringing witnesses, we'll bring them to Ottawa. Do we travel to meet with people outside of the country? Can I hear some suggestions on this?

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: We can all begin submitting names of witnesses, but at our first meeting it would probably also be important to have some discussion among ourselves about how broad we see this committee. The motion that was approved by the House is actually pretty open. I deliberately put it that way because I didn't want to confine what the actual debate would be. There are probably issues around youth involved in the sex trade that we should be looking at, for example. I know Chuck is dealing with that in Surrey. I am dealing with it in Vancouver as well, as are you, Hedy, in the downtown area. Could we agree we'll start thinking of witnesses and can start submitting them to the clerk?

I think at our first meeting it would be really useful to see whether there's a consensus about how we're going to tackle this issue and how broadly we are looking at it. How are we going to define it? We did a similar thing on the drug committee, which was huge, and we tried to give it some terms of reference. I don't know whether that's possible to do for this committee, but I think it would be helpful.

As for travel, at the very least we have to visit some of the key locations across the country and actually see what's going on and talk to people. We can hear witnesses here, but to actually see what's going on....

On the drug committee, when we got out into the communities, it was a huge eye opener to see what is taking place and to hear directly from people who are involved in the sex trade, or helping people, and so on. I hope there is a possibility we may even go further afield than that, because there are other countries that are doing some very interesting things and that we might learn from in terms of various directions we could take.

The Chair: Does everyone have the motion?

¿ (0920)

Ms. Libby Davies: I don't have it.

The Chair: If you don't, I can read it for you.

The motion reads:

That a special committee of the House be appointed to review the solicitation laws in order to improve the safety of sex-trade workers and communities overall, and to recommend changes that will reduce the exploitation of and violence against sex-trade workers.

As Ms. Davies says, it is broad. You may want to decide whether sex trade workers means only persons over 18, or whether you want to discuss the issues of commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth, because they can be loosely termed to be sex trade workers as well.

Is there any discussion on the issue of witnesses and travel? Ms. Davies has suggested that we sit down and look at terms of reference for the committee. In other words, do we want to focus, or do we want to go as broadly as the motion seems to suppose?

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Travel undoubtedly has to be on the agenda, but because we don't know what's happening with Parliament, I think we're going to have to wait to see how things shake out there. We will have to travel out of the country at some point, but I don't see that happening until some time down the road. I think we will have to look at other jurisdictions and the way they deal with these things.

On the issue of the terms of reference, youth is undoubtedly a major part of the issue, so they have to be included in this.

The travel has to come, but I can't see us doing that for a while yet. I think we should try to concentrate on getting people here, for the first part.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is fine.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree with what's been said. In fact, I would be more comfortable if we knew what the terms of reference were. At least we'd have an idea, if we're going this far, of what we're also going to concentrate on. There's no doubt the future of the House is going have a huge impact on what this subcommittee does. It's unfortunate that we're sitting here not really sure what's going to happen. We're only looking at five weeks, with the break.

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott: I hesitate to say too much, because I'll have to live with what I say. Having done a few of these myself, my sense is that the first order of business might be to have expert testimony on the history of the issue in Canada, as it has played out in both Parliament and the provinces, so there's a sense of where we are on it. A second expert could give us an overview of the history of the issue, as it plays out in other jurisdictions, so we can frame the discussion as it stands right now, this day, this year, internationally, nationally and provincially in Canada, even before other decisions are taken as to the scope of the issue. Ultimately it assumes that we understand it now, and I don't think we probably do. Otherwise, what's the point of having all these experts?

My sense is that the first order of business is a review of the literature. If you were doing an academic exercise, that would be the first order of business. Then discussion on how broad, how narrow, what focus--all of those other issues--makes much more sense, once we've framed the discussion we want to take.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, the research branch prepared an extraordinary document for us on same-sex marriage, which showed us what was happening not only in the various provinces but also in various countries. That document was prepared as background to the discussions about same-sex marriage. The researchers have probably already started putting ideas on paper. That is the first document I would like to see and I agree with Andy that we should see what is happening elsewhere, and what solutions have been tried elsewhere. Of course, the Netherlands springs to mind, but New Zealand has also passed a bill on the subject recently.

Let us look at what is happening elsewhere before we decide where we are going or even if we are going anywhere.

[English]

The Chair: Some of that information could be ready for next Tuesday.

Ms. Lyne Casavant (Committee Researcher): Yes, some of the information could be ready. The international overview, though, might be ready at the end of the week. But it's ongoing.

Ms. Libby Davies: If we follow Andy's suggestion, actually.... At the drug committee, did we hear from expert witnesses first--I can't remember--or did we do terms of reference first?

¿ (0925)

Ms. Lyne Casavant: We did our terms of reference. We had documents already.

Ms. Libby Davies: It was again a huge, open-ended subject and we gave it some sense of framework. I think that's a good suggestion from Andy, and if we do that, presumably we'll have officials from Justice come.

I would also like to see whether we could get somebody who was involved in the Fraser commission, because that was the last major review, back in 1985. They did an enormous amount of work, so perhaps we could have somebody who is connected with that come to speak with us.

Then the other person who I think has a very long track record and is probably the foremost academic in tracking changes in the law and their impact is John Lowman from SFU, who is a criminologist. He's actually done reviews for the justice department, looking at the changes in the communicating law. So he might be a very good overall person as well, and he would give us almost a 20-year or 30-year history of what has happened and what some of the issues are.

Those are a couple of people who would come to my mind, including from the justice department as well, obviously.

The Chair: John Fraser, who was a chair of this committee, the Fraser committee, is in Vancouver, so he might be a person to talk to.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Is that his report you're referring to?

The Chair: That's his report. It was done in 1985. It's the last report that was done on this. I don't think any of it was adopted at all.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Is there any way to get those to each of us?

Ms. Lyne Casavant: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Get a copy of that report to each of us. It would be something to start with.

The Chair: It's pretty short, actually, pretty easy to read.

The other thing, however, is that if we want to travel, we cannot make that decision in the middle of the committee's work. We have to decide now what we want to do if we want to factor in travel, if it's going to be Canada-wide and international, because we have to submit a budget; and we have to do that before the House rises, because we have to have the committee make a decision on the budget and the travel once we've submitted it.

So we need to be able to do that. If we can get a sense that you would like to look at a budget that would include travel across the country, then maybe we might want to talk about that. Let us look at what we think we can afford to get and decide what you think are the places we should go to in Canada and what are maybe two places we should go to somewhere else in the world and see what that would come up to.

Can I have some suggestions on that?

Ms. Libby Davies: I know two places in Canada where I've gotten a lot of e-mail, phone calls, and correspondence from, Vancouver and Edmonton. They've also had a whole issue there with women being murdered and going missing.

We have Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto, and I'm not sure about anywhere east of that. I actually haven't had any contact with people, so I don't really know what the scene is, say, in Halifax. But there are those places for sure.

Internationally, I agree with Richard that if we were able to see what is going on in the Netherlands and what kinds of positions and programs they have.... Beyond that, I have some material--unfortunately I don't have the file with me--either on Australia or New Zealand, so from a travel point of view it's that part of the world. New Zealand, I believe, has just done a whole bunch of stuff on decriminalization. It may be well worth our while to look at what's going on there.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I was just saying that I was in New Zealand in the summer, and theirs passed by one vote in their Parliament. There are some people there who are not very happy right now. That was my experience.

The Chair: Mr. Scott, you wanted to say something.

Mr. Andy Scott: This will be my last intervention.

The Chair: Look, don't limit yourself, because we have to get on and make some decisions.

Mr. Andy Scott: I should let the record show that I suggest the meetings be held on Friday afternoon, and Paddy won't miss another meeting.

I think it might be important, particularly in light of what Chuck said and what we experienced in the context of the same-sex marriage hearings and so on.... I think it would be necessary to at least touch down in a part of Canada where they wouldn't see the urgency of the issue, because at the end of the day all of the country is going to decide; it's not just where the issue is urgent.

Consequently, I think it is helpful--it didn't necessarily work that way for other reasons in the last one--to expose the communities that don't see this issue as beating down their door so they realize it is a big issue in other parts of Canada. Ultimately, the people who are voting in the end, when this thing comes all the way through the system, represent all of the country. There will be a whole bunch of members who don't live in Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto, or Winnipeg who will be forced to bring their attention to this issue, and we have not even thought about it in the context of what other people think about some of these laws that are going to apply to them as well, who don't feel any need for them because they don't see the problem. We'll call it the Steinbach of--

¿ (0930)

Mr. Chuck Cadman: The Steinbach syndrome.

Mr. Andy Scott: I think it's important. I think it's an important feature; otherwise, you do good work and then you haven't generated the kind of understanding of the issue that will allow it to actually become accepted more broadly.

The Chair: But, Mr. Scott, if you recall the experience of the committee when we went to Moose Jaw, it would seem to me that we don't want to do these things in the winter weather, given the chances of a blizzard.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I don't want to travel in the Prairies in the winter. I've had enough of that.

Ms. Libby Davies: Does that mean, then, we get stuck on the roads?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Not stuck.

The Chair: Did you have a comment on that, Mr. Cadman?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I don't want to be anywhere near Moose Jaw in the winter.

The Chair: Are there any further comments on this issue?

Mr. Andy Scott: I think, as a rule, stay out of Dick Proctor's life altogether.

The Chair: Then if there are no further comments, I wanted to follow up on what Mr. Scott said, if I may.

When I was Secretary of State for the Status of Women...I do know that the small towns have a problem in that a lot of young people are lured from small towns into big cities. This is not just a passive thing whereby young people just pick up and go. There are actually syndicated crime groups that lure young women especially, and young boys, out of their homes in the small communities and into.... So they have a huge problem. It's a different kind of problem, but it is a problem of their being lured, and then they're lost somewhere in Toronto and nobody knows where they are. They're taken to Edmonton from a small town in Nova Scotia, and nobody knows where they are.

So there is a huge trade that goes on of moving people across this country that I was astounded to hear about. I think there is merit to going to some small towns.

Ms. Libby Davies: Is it too much to think that by our next meeting we could have some sort of very broad budget drawn up? If we are going to get it in, we have to get it in pretty quickly. If we could look at something next Tuesday, then we could submit it.

The Chair: Yes.

Is that possible?

The Clerk: We just have to decide if we want to go, and we have to decide how much money we'll spend.

The Chair: The question is about witnesses who come here, because that will have to be factored into the budget. Do we want to decide how soon we start to travel and how many witnesses we think we're going to be seeing here in Ottawa? I think that may be something we need to limit if we're going to get funds for this at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Given that we do not know if the House is going to continue sitting, we should try to bring as many people as possible to Ottawa. In any case, we will have to sell the idea of the budget we need. After the Radwanski affair, people are very touchy about international travel. Besides, the trip by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to look at Arab and Muslim countries was cancelled. Considering the context, we must, realistically, try to get as many people here as we can.

I do not mean to say that we should eliminate all travel; still we will have to demonstrate that we are making maximum efforts to reduce costs and to demonstrate that we are not out on junkets. Moreover, the House leaders are not involved in this.

Just imagine if a journalist decided to announce that a subcommittee was off on a world tour to discuss prostitution, after having toured Canada to discuss gay marriage, and never having produced a report. The general public is already a bit touchy on this question. Therefore, if we want our work to be taken seriously—and it is a very important subject—let us avoid giving anyone the opportunity to criticize us for things which are, after all, secondary.

¿ (0935)

[English]

The Chair: That's an important point.

I would like to see whether people look favourably on teleconferencing. It's also a very cost-effective way to travel, so to speak, and we used it quite well in the health committee on Bill C-13. We had a whole town, where people would all congregate in a particular room; there would be teleconferencing, and we would have witnesses go on for half a day. I think those are things to think about as well.

Ms. Libby Davies: I hear what Richard is saying. I know we have approved some trips for subcommittees. There was the trip to the Muslim world. I believe that's a subcommittee; it's not the full committee. So a few have been approved.

I don't have a problem with our hearing witnesses in Ottawa, but I can tell you that what we learn out in these communities will be huge. It will give us a sense of realism about what it is we're facing. You know, we have to do it. We have to go out to some of these key places and see what's going on; otherwise, we just won't have a full understanding.

I would hope we could go to a couple of places abroad because, again going back to the drug committee, I think having that experience really gave us a sense of what was working and what wasn't working elsewhere. It doesn't mean we're just going to import something and do it, but it gives a sense.... We went to the U.S. and to Europe for the drug committee, and it really gave us an idea about what was going on in some of these other models.

I think if we can put together a good proposal and defend very well why we're doing it.... This is a huge issue. If we ever counted up the number of women who have been murdered as a result of the sex trade, I think it would be the highest number of any homicides, but those statistics aren't even kept across the country. I really feel we're dealing with something here that is of great urgency in terms of people who are at risk. I agree, young people who are being lured into this trade. I feel we can defend what we're doing. We don't have to be extravagant; we have to be very strategic about where we go.

So I wouldn't want us to rule out that possibility.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree there's a sense of urgency, but just remember, we can't do it in five weeks. I understand--and I've done it myself--you have to be on the ground to really understand the problem. At the same time, with the time constraints, I believe we should be doing as much as we can in Ottawa, even if we have to use video conferencing. It's very effective as well. But I think there's enough work to do before we get to that stage in just finding out what this whole issue is about.

The Chair: We need, however, to make some decisions now so that a budget can be drawn up. We need to decide, if we go to other cities, how many witnesses we intend to see. Do we intend to spend a day? Do we intend to see 10 witnesses? That will have to be how the budget is built.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I think we should make a distinction between various kinds of witnesses. Experts and academics, for example, could very well be heard here; the place they appear is not important. If we are to travel—and please understand that I am completely favourable to that idea—we must be going to see the situation as it is, out on the street. In Vancouver, for example, my priority would not be a university professor, who could make a presentation equally well in Ottawa or Vancouver. It would be to hear social workers from the streets and the prostitutes themselves. These people cannot get away and are really involved in the day to day reality of that scene.

That is how I would make the distinction, anyway.

[English]

The Chair: Then let us decide how many cities we are going to go to. We have to make that decision to get a budget. How many cities? We have here at the moment Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, and, as Mr. Scott suggested, a couple of non-large cities. That gives us eight places to go to.

One of the things you may also want to think about--and let me know how you feel on it--is whether the whole committee should travel to each city. Would it be more cost-effective to have maybe three people go to one set of cities and another three people go...? We did that as well in some instances in order to save money.

So do you want us to visit eight cities?

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Excuse me, I am talking a lot.Still if we are going to look at the question of juvenile prostitution, we must remember that the biggest ring of this kind was discovered recently in Quebec City. We must not miss out on current events, the ones that are still making news.

[English]

The Chair: So I'm hearing a plea for Quebec City as opposed to Montreal.

Ms. Libby Davies: No, I think he meant Quebec City as well as Montreal.

The Chair: And Montreal; he meant both.

Ms. Libby Davies: There's a lot going on in Montreal.

The Chair: So we have moved now from eight cities to nine cities.

How long would we expect to stay in each one of those areas? One day only?

Ms. Libby Davies: And will we look at splitting the committee?

The Chair: So we would look at three people plus--

Ms. Libby Davies: Are we six members?

The Chair: There are six members, including the chair, so we could look at how three people would go to each place. Visits would be based on three members of the committee.

Let us talk about going outside Canada. Where do we want to go? One may want to consider that New Zealand is very far away and it would cost a lot of money to get there. We may want to decide we can go to places that are closer. Everyone has made the point that the Netherlands is the place one must go to, but is there a suggestion for any other place we might want to go to?

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am new to this issue: if I what I say does not make sense, please let me know.

One of the problems I see getting worse is the importation of sex workers and the sexual slavery these people are forced into. They come from Eastern Europe and other places. They are promised work as models or waitresses but in fact they are locked up in strip bars and they cannot go out. They are enslaved.

In that context, perhaps we should go to the countries these women come from. If I remember correctly, this week in the French daily newspaper, Le Monde, there was quite an interesting story on the organizations that rescue such women and try to return them to their countries of origin and help them resume a more normal life. I do not know if the importation of sex slaves is very widespread in Canada. If it is, it would be interesting to take this aspect into consideration. It seems that this problem might be growing. Of course, I might be mistaken on this subject.

[English]

The Chair: On a point of information, Status of Women did a study and a very detailed interview with eastern European women who came here as models and as ethnic dancers. It's a report that came out about three years ago. It is a significant problem in Canada. Most of these people came from Russia, from the Ukraine, and from eastern Germany. I think that's a huge problem here in Canada.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: On the international thing, I'm questioning why we would want to go to New Zealand. They've just passed some legislation. If we were heading for that part of the world to look at this issue, I think we'd probably be further ahead to go to some place in Asia, such as Thailand or Bangkok, to take a look at—

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Or the Philippines.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes, something like that. If we wanted, we could certainly get somebody to come in from New Zealand to testify. I know the high commissioner here, Graham Kelly, would be glad to talk about it.

If we have to make one trip to that part of the world, I'm not so sure New Zealand is where we'd get the best bang for our buck, if you want to put it that way.

The Chair: Given that, we need to discuss whether we only want.... Given what Mr. Marceau said, did you want to go to two countries, or did you want to go to three? Mr. Marceau suggested eastern Europe. That's a huge problem. You suggested Asia. And obviously the Netherlands is one of the places we need to go, because they have the longest history of dealing with this issue.

Perhaps we could discuss that. Do we go to three places or do we go to two?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I think the Netherlands is certainly one place to go, because of the history there and the length of time they've had experience with it. I guess what we have to ask is whether we want to look at some of the really ugly parts of it and go to a place like Asia to see what's really going on there and how to avoid getting into it. There's the whole sex-tourism issue in parts of Asia, and I think that's well worth looking at.

Dealing with the eastern European experience, maybe we could get people to come here rather than our doing all the travel. If we're going to be limited to two places internationally to travel, I think we want to get the most experience we can out of it.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Can I have a comment on Mr. Cadman's suggestion? Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree that Southeast Asia is a place we need to consider. But I was thinking perhaps we need to go to Paris to see.... If it's legitimate in a country like France, maybe we need to look at how they operate.

The Chair: Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: The situation with trafficking is huge, as you said, Hedy, and there has been a fair amount of work done on it. There have been international conferences held—in Victoria, for example, with Cherry Kingsley. Senator Pearson has done a lot of work on it as well. There has been some work, and Canada has been involved in some of the international agreements.

My priority is what's happening here on the ground and how it relates to our own criminal justice system. I think the trafficking issue is a part of that, but there's also a much bigger picture. If it comes down to a matter of priorities, I would prefer that we go to the Netherlands, because I think we can learn about what they're doing and whether there's stuff there we could learn from, in terms of changes we might make to our laws or programs.

From my point of view, that would be the priority. If we could add on the more international picture, that's great. Maybe we can look at a budget that has the domestic travel in it, then add going to the Netherlands so we can learn from it what might apply here, and then look at a more international section with Russia and Bangkok or the Philippines—I don't know, one of those—and see what we'd be looking at. Maybe that's a second part of what we do; maybe it's something we can go back to.

We might have a better idea of this once we've started hearing some of these expert witnesses, and do it in stages.

The Chair: Are there any other comments? Mr. Cadman, Mr. Mark, or Mr. Scott?

We have a suggestion from Ms. Davies that we look at Canadian travel, plus the Netherlands, as our budget, and then perhaps have a side piece that tells us what it would cost if we wanted to go to Southeast Asia or to eastern Europe. Does everyone feel comfortable with that? Then, when we look at the budget, we can talk about what we think at the next meeting. So that's reasonable.

How long would you like to stay in the Netherlands, if we do go, or in any of these places? That's important, because we have to add up the numbers.

Ms. Libby Davies: Three months?

The Chair: That's a good idea.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have a lot of family there.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Libby Davies: It would have to be at least two days.

The Chair: Yes, and then the travel itself takes time.

Ms. Libby Davies: We were there for two days. So it's at least two days on the ground, and then whatever....

The Chair: That ends up being three days, four days if you want to travel, two days on the ground and one to go back home. So that's a four-day trip.

I think we have finished. We've talked about witnesses and the travel budget. Perhaps between now and Tuesday's meeting you could think about witnesses that you might want to call forward.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Did we settle on Canadian cities? Could we have a list of those again, where we're looking?

The Chair: I think we said nine cities: Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Halifax, and two others to be decided on, two other cities that are not so large.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I think we might want to look at someplace on the Prairies. Saskatoon has some issues--and how about into the far north? We're talking about kids leaving small places.

The Chair: What is the feeling about that?

Ms. Libby Davies: Saskatoon?

The Chair: Saskatoon and the far north.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Possibly somewhere in the far north--not that I particularly want to go back to Iqaluit.

The Chair: There is a suggestion that on Tuesday, because we don't have a budget yet to bring in witnesses, we bring in people from the justice department. Would you like to suggest that's fine, that we bring in witnesses from the justice department? All right.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: How far ahead into the future are we looking? I personally am functioning such that we're going to be out of here on November 7, because that seems to be what the rumour is.

The Chair: I would suggest that we have a budget to deal with this subcommittee. If we rise on November 7, then everything has gone out the window--

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I just mean in terms of witnesses, Chair.

The Chair: --but if we don't, then we already have our budget. Although there may be a really low risk of that, if we don't rise on November 7, we're stuck without a proper budget to run the committee. So let's do it.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Are we looking at the break week? Don't forget, we have a break week coming up, too.

The Chair: That is something we should discuss on Tuesday, whether we would come in on the break or not.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, for family reasons, it will be impossible for me to travel during the non-sitting week in November. I absolutely have to stay here that week.

[English]

The Chair: What about the October week, the week of October 13?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: In October, I could be available, if it does not take all week.

[English]

The Chair: I would think most of the Liberals wouldn't be able to use the November week off, either. So we will look at the October week off, then.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have a problem for the latter half of the October week--definitely not October 16, and Saturday, October 18. I have to be home.

The Chair: Perhaps we can discuss this on Tuesday, when people have looked at their schedules and decided what they can and cannot do.

Is there anything further that you wish to discuss?

We still have one other piece that we need to find out for our budget, and that's how many witnesses you would like in Ottawa, because that's going to cost money. If we're bringing academics from across the country into Ottawa, how many do you think we need? Go with a ballpark figure.

Ms. Libby Davies: Do you mean a dozen?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: It depends on how many meetings we're going to have, for starters.

Ms. Libby Davies: We'd probably have three at a meeting, right?

The Chair: Yes.

¿ (0955)

Ms. Libby Davies: So that would be four meetings. If we just need to give you a ballpark figure, there could be 12 experts. That wouldn't include the justice department, though.

The Chair: That means people we would have to pay.

Ms. Libby Davies: I couldn't see it being more than 12. I doubt it would even be that.

The Chair: I don't think 12 would stretch you to get experts from across the country. I would say you need more than 12.

Ms. Libby Davies: Let's say 20.

The Chair: These witnesses would be coming from across Canada. They would be our expert witnesses.

Is there any further discussion? Is there anything else we need to know? No.

Does the research staff need to know or say anything? Is there any piece of information you know about that you would like to give to the research staff to distribute? Is there anything you've been reading that we don't know about--except for Ms. Davies, who has been reading too much?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I know that Ms. Casavant and Ms. Cool are both very diligent and very intelligent women.

In contrast to the position being taken by some countries on the issue of prostitution, France has recently toughened its laws, under the firm direction of Nicolas Sarkozy, the minister of the interior. I would like someone to explain the context, the reasons and the effects of this hardening, even if the events are recent.

[English]

The Chair: That's good.

Ms. Lyne Casavant: We can also try to come up with more material, like an overview of the Canadian situation, as well as an overview of the international situation on prostitution. If you want to include trafficking, we can start to look at the trafficking issue at the same time.

The briefing book should be ready for the next meeting.

The Chair: Good.

Thank you very much, and thank you for the honour of asking me to be your chair.

The meeting is adjourned.