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

Page: 77[181] The phrase relied upon by the Attorney General of Canada, so far as wecan tell, is simply a description in the Fraser Report and was not intended as anexplanation of the objectives of the legislation. There is nothing in the discussionof the bawdy-house provisions in the Fraser Report following this description thatsupports the broader objective urged by the appellants.[182] The Attorney General of Ontario, consistent with its generally broader viewof the objectives of the challenged legislation, reads the bawdy-house provisionsas promoting values of dignity and equality by criminalizing a practice thatreflects and reinforces anti-egalitarian attitudes.[183] We agree that a modern, comprehensive legislative scheme dealing withprostitution could reflect the values of dignity and equality, but that is not thelegislative scheme currently in place. As the respondents point out, the FraserReport made a number of recommendations aimed at modernizing andharmonizing the existing patchwork of prostitution laws. Parliament respondedsoon after by introducing what is now s. 213(1)(c), the communicating provision.[184] When the bill containing the new communicating provision was introducedin the House of Commons in late 1985, the Justice Minister explained that it wasonly intended to address the problem of street prostitution, and not the “wholesocial problem of prostitution”. Rather, he declared that “the complicated, social