The Administrative Labor Tribunal (TAT) ordered a woman to repay social assistance benefits because she failed to declare “work income” obtained through prostitution. A practice that goes against the recommendations of the Special Commission on the Sexual Exploitation of Minors – and federal law –, argue experts.
The facts date back to 2015. The Ministry of Social Solidarity then decided to investigate the situation of this woman following an anonymous denunciation. The person behind the approach alleged that the lady had been earning $2,000 a week for several months in a massage parlour.
At the end of its investigation, the department is claiming $2,874.25 from the woman — the equivalent of three months of benefits — as well as $100 for “false declaration”. The lady then appealed the decision to the TAT, which finally decided the case in March 2023.
In court, the woman confirmed that she earned $2,000 a week at a massage parlour. However, she claimed that she gave “all of her earnings” to her pimp. In exchange, the latter paid him “his cigarettes, his cannabis, his alcohol” as well as the rent. The evidence further indicated that she had a dependent child and was in receipt of child benefit.
She argued that she had “not been able to enjoy” the money from her work and therefore it could not be considered employment income. The ministry argued that these revenues, “even illegally earned”, should be accounted for.
In violation of federal law?
The law governing social assistance in Quebec, the Individual and Family Assistance Act, stipulates that, to have access to financial assistance, a person must demonstrate to the government that his or her resources are less than the amount necessary to support herself.
However, the Special Commission on the Sexual Exploitation of Minors, created by the Legault government, had recommended in 2020 the review of the social assistance files of sexually exploited people who were the subject of an investigation because of earnings from of prostitution and, where appropriate, the cancellation of reimbursements and interest claimed.
In the eyes of Martin Gallié, professor of social law at the University of Quebec in Montreal, the decision of the TAT is downright shocking. “It’s still a bit characteristic of the hypocrisy, even the cynicism, that the state and the judicial system can show… What is the claimant’s fault if it turns out – as she asserted in court without being contradicted – that she paid all the sums collected to her pimp? »
“We are talking about a person who is considered a victim by Canadian law, who says that prostitution is a serious affront to human dignity”, he underlines, citing the amendments made to the Criminal Code in 2014by federal law C-36 in order to protect victims of sexual exploitation.
“How does the ministry expect her to repay the money?” It is a clear violation of the objective of the law, which aims to help people get out of prostitution, ”he says. By proceeding in this way, the government even risks encouraging him to continue prostituting himself in order to reimburse the sums claimed, he believes.
The duty was unable to find the woman to inquire about the consequences of the TAT’s decision on her situation.
Not a unique case
One thing is certain, this is not an isolated case, according to Professor Gallié.
In 2019, he and author Martine Côté conducted a study of prostitutes who receive social assistance claims for undeclared income. They had then identified 26 cases, in which the Ministry of Social Solidarity had claimed between $1,100 and $84,000. They concluded that these demands for recovery could harm the efforts of women seeking to leave prostitution, and even encourage some to return to it.
According to research conducted by criminologist Maria Mourani, social assistance is a source of income for about half of the women who work in the sex industry or who have left it.
Ginette Massé, the director of the Maison de Marthe, an organization that helps women who have lived through prostitution, believes that the government has not taken action against the right person in this case: “It’s the pimp who should have been prosecuted. Not the woman struggling to free herself from his grip. »