On Parliament Hill

As the Member of Parliament for Provencher, I am concerned about the Supreme Court’s decision to unanimously strike down Canada’s prostitution laws.

The three sections of the criminal code that were struck down are:

• Prohibition against keeping, working in, or being found in a common bawdy house;
• Prohibition against living on the avails of prostitution (pimping); and Solicitation.

It is troubling that the Supreme Court found these sections of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional. Our Government is reviewing the decision and is exploring all possible options to ensure the criminal law continues to address the significant harms of prostitution which affect our communities and endanger vulnerable women and children.

Protecting vulnerable people must be a top priority for any government. My most pressing concern about the Supreme Court’s decision is that it puts vulnerable women and children at risk. The average age of girls entering the sex trade is between 12 and 14 years old. This is a disturbing fact that must be considered in any debate or discussion on prostitution.

Fortunately a number of other Criminal Code provisions surrounding prostitution still remain. These include:

• Prohibition against procuring a person into prostitution;
• Prohibition against procuring a person to enter or leave Canada for the purpose of prostitution;
• Prohibition against exercising control, direction or influence over the movements of a person in order to aid, abet or compel that person to engage in prostitution;
• Prohibition against living on the avails of the prostitution of a minor;
• Stopping a motor vehicle in a public place for the purpose of prostitution; and,
• Prohibitions against human trafficking.

Although I am comforted that these provisions remain unaffected, as a father, an MP and a resident of Provencher, I worry that the Supreme Court’s decision may ultimately lead to further exploitation of vulnerable women and children.