Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 138[347] Drug possession, drug trafficking, public intoxication and organized crimeare grave social nuisances that will persist regardless of whether thecommunicating provision is upheld or struck down. The objective of thecommunicating provision, as accepted by the majority of the Supreme Court ofCanada in the Prostitution Reference, at p. 1134, is to eradicate the socialnuisance that flows directly from street prostitution, namely, “street congestionand noise, oral harassment of non-participants and general detrimental effects onpassers-by or bystanders, especially children”. My colleagues‟ inclusion of thisother criminal behaviour therefore seriously skews their analysis.[348] Third, turning to the other side of the scale, I am not persuaded by mycolleagues‟ suggestion that because screening is fallible, the security of theperson infringement caused by the communicating provision should be assignedlittle weight. Screening may be imperfect, but the record demonstrates that it isnevertheless an essential tool for safety.[349] In particular, all the prostitutes who testified in the 2006 parliamentaryhearings on the solicitation laws agreed that working out the details of atransaction before getting into a vehicle, or going to a private location, wasimportant for personal safety: Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights,Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, The Challenge of Change: A Study ofCanada’s Criminal Prostitution Laws (Ottawa: House of Commons, December2006) (“2006 Subcommittee Report”), at p. 65. Summarizing the statements of 91