Evidence of meeting #32 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prostitution.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, as Mr. Piragoff has clarified, it's not about whether or not a child is actually present. To use the minister's example with regard to two teenagers in a bar, a bar is not a place where children could reasonably be expected to be present, so it's likely—
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
But if they were in front of the school or the playground, it would be.
11:20 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
At 2 o'clock in the afternoon, it would be far more likely that a court would find that it met the test in that case.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
The opposition seems to be concerned that if you criminalized the purchase of sex, instead of purchasing it in front of the school at 2 p.m., the customers, the johns, for lack of a better term, are going to go into the back alleys or into the industrial parks. I find it hard to believe. You don't have to answer this, because it's more of a comment than a question, but I find it hard to believe they think that customers are looking for prostitutes in front of the Rideau Centre in the middle of the afternoon or in front of a school in the middle of the afternoon, or in front of the Eaton Centre, in Toronto, in the middle of the afternoon. It seems to me that it has always taken place in the back alleys, in the shadows, if it's out on the street. Whether or not you are criminalizing the purchase isn't determinative of where the prostitute's going to go to try to find her client if she's doing it in the street. But we know that they have other options: they can go inside, to a fixed indoor location, with security. And that's all provided for under this legislation.
What is your view on where these things are likely to take place? Do you really believe there's a distinction that the safety of the prostitutes will be harmed by the provision that (a) they can't communicate for the purposes where children may be present or (b) because the purchase of the service could be criminalized?
11:25 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Perhaps it would be helpful to the committee to review paragraph 165 of the Supreme Court of Canada's Bedford decision, which talks about how all prostitution provisions are interrelated and intertwined. The Supreme Court is asking us not just to look at what is criminalized, but also what is not criminalized. That informs the constitutionality of each individual provision. I think that your comments are fair. We have to look at the other aspects where Bill C-36 says it doesn't prevent certain safety measures when we look at another provision that criminalizes other aspects of prostitution.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay, thank you very much for those questions and answers.
I want to thank our officials for joining us today and I appreciate all the questions and answers that were provided.
That brings us to the end of our panels. I have one thing that I want to discuss, and then another item that I need to bring forward.
We have budgets in front of us, members of the committee. One is for $39,000 and the other one is for $66,050. Now that's not in addition to the $39,000, which is an accumulative one. I need approval for both.
I'm going to put it right on the table. The way the process works is that we offer but don't require video conferencing. I've had individuals who had said that they'd like to come here. As chair, I made the decision that if they want to come and they don't want to do video conferencing, the Government of Canada should pay for them to be here because they've been asked to be witnesses. There were others who said that they would pay for their own way. I wouldn't allow that to happen; if we are paying for one, we should pay for them all.
We are allowed, as a committee, to approve the $39,000, done by the clerk. I will have to go back to the Liaison Committee—after the fact, but I'll have to go back—and ask for some more money for this particular study during the summer time on this bill. But I do need approval for both, so would somebody move the $39,009?
It's been moved.
All those in favour?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On the $66,000, it's just a budget, not actual spending. We will be back to you with the actual spending. On behalf of this committee, I will be going back to the Liaison Committee and saying that maybe we need to change the process and require video conferencing, such that it's not choice, that a witness is either doing video conferencing or not appearing, because we need to get some control over the costs.
Yes, Madame Boivin.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am inclined to share your view on that. But, from my experience, there is a tendency to forget about witnesses who appear via videoconference. It puts them at somewhat of a disadvantage. That's my only caveat. And that may be why some witnesses prefer to appear in person. It's similar to doing a radio interview: it's better to be in the studio than to phone in, as my colleague realized on Saturday. Be that as it may, if it means we can keep costs under control, I agree.
I have a question for you. What happens if the liaison committee refuses to give you the money? Would it come out of your pocket in that case?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
I don't disagree with you, Madame Boivin. I think it should be a committee decision on video conferencing—i.e., this is where we're spending, and this is what we have. It should be a committee decision.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
With that, will somebody approve the $66,000, or move it for me?
Thank you very much.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We don't have to do it now, but we have a notice from one of our future witnesses that I think we need to discuss in camera. I'd be happy to move in camera now. I don't think it will take more than a couple of minutes to discuss this particular witness, who has asked for a discussion in camera.
Could somebody move that we go in camera?
It's been moved. All those in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
We'll suspend for a few minutes while we move in camera. It should take only a couple of minutes.
[Proceedings continue in camera]