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

Page: 86[208] Before the application judge, two police officers testified that the bawdyhouseprovisions are important in human trafficking investigations. We acceptthat human trafficking in the bawdy-house context is a terrible scourge onsociety. However, the advantage of investigating these cases through the indirectmethod of bawdy-house investigations has to be measured against the harmfaced by prostitutes because they cannot work in a safer environment.[209] The common sense of that proposition was emphasized in the testimony ofa police witness appearing before the Legislative Committee of the House ofCommons in 1985 when the enactment of (now) s. 213(1)(c) was underconsideration. The officer stated: 10If anything causes street solicitation, at least in the shortrun, it is the criminalization of bawdy houses. Lacking alegal place to sell their legal services, prostitutes moveout to the uncertain safety of the streets, where theproblems complained of tend to gather. Thedecriminalization of bawdy houses is not synonymouswith approving them in any moral sense: it merely is amore practical approach to the problems of pimping andstreet soliciting. If women were free to operatediscreetly out of their own homes, it would provide themwith more safety and mutual support and allow a lesspublic exit from the profession when the opportunityarises. [Emphasis added.][210] Because empirical evidence is so difficult to come by in this area, theappellants and the respondents resorted to anecdotal evidence to support theirpositions. The appellants‟ most compelling argument is that, because of their10House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-49(October 31, 1985), p. 7:10.