This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
This bill was previously introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session.
Maria Mourani Bloc
Introduced as a private member’s bill.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code in order to provide consecutive sentences for offences related to trafficking in persons and create a presumption regarding the exploitation of one person by another.
It also adds the offence of trafficking in persons to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime apply.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
moved that Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), as amended, be concurred in at report stage.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
(Motion agreed to)
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
moved that Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is a great victory that Bill C-452, a private member's bill, has made it as far as third reading. It is not my victory, but that of many groups. I feel it is important to name them because they are the ones who worked hard to develop this bill and who supported it throughout the process.
They are: the Council on the Status of Women, police experts from the SPVM morality branch and child sexual exploitation unit, the Comité d'action contre la traite humaine interne et internationale, the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale, the Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, Concertation-Femme, Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, the Collectif de l'Outaouais contre l'exploitation sexuelle, the diocèse de l'Outaouais, Maison de Marthe and the YMCAs of Quebec.
Many groups participated in the development of this bill. I thank them very much and I commend them for all the work that they did. These groups also appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain the importance of this bill and, in particular, the results it will achieve on the ground.
I would like to quickly mention the things that came up in committee that I found a bit surprising, since a significant number of amendments were made to the bill. First, no major changes were made to the provisions related to human trafficking, whether with regard to presumption or the reversal of the burden of proof, consecutive sentences for offences related to trafficking in persons, or the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime for people who are charged with human trafficking. These provisions did not really change, and that is a good thing.
The provision regarding the definition of sexual exploitation was changed. A government amendment removed this provision on the basis that it could make the definition hard to understand. These were not major changes. The principles underlying the provisions on human trafficking stayed the same. I am very pleased about that.
By the way, the NDP did not propose any amendments. The Liberals proposed amendments that were rejected and that I did not support either, and the majority of the amendments proposed by the Conservatives were kept since the Conservatives have the majority. Nonetheless, some of the amendments they proposed were supported by the NDP and the Liberals.
One of the government's amendments leaves me extremely perplexed. It is the amendment that replaced our wish to have the bill come into force 30 days after royal assent. The government's amendment would have the bill come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. It seems that the government wants to control the implementation of the bill.
If the bill receives royal assent, I hope that it will come into force very quickly because, as all the witnesses said, this is an urgent matter. It is essential that the police, prosecutors and victims advocacy groups have the necessary tools to combat human trafficking.
As far as the provisions on procuring are concerned, I was very shocked. I did not at all expect the government to propose amendments to the procuring provisions. On the contrary, I expected the consecutive sentences for pimps, and the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime of pimps, to be provisions that the government would support.
In committee, the government said it wanted to wait for the Supreme Court ruling in the Bedford case.
We know that 80% to 90% of people who are victims of human trafficking are trafficked into prostitution, especially in Canada.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if hon. members would stop talking.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
Order, please. There is a lot of noise in the House. I ask that the hon. members who wish to continue their conversations leave the House now.
The hon. member for Ahuntsic, resuming debate.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I was very surprised to see the government's amendments respecting procuring. I do want to point out that these amendments are supported by both the Liberal Party and the NDP. Their purpose was quite simply to delete forfeiture of the pimp's proceeds of crime and, of course, consecutive sentences from the bill. The argument advanced by the government was that, since the Supreme Court was reviewing the Bedford decision, it preferred to wait until the court had ruled.
The Supreme Court heard Ms. Bedford's case on June 13. I was in the court and heard the testimony. What impressed me most was the argument of one of Ms. Bedford's lawyers. In response to a judge who had asked him a question, he said that, if Parliament—and that means all of us here—had made the legislation coherent, they would not be there. In fact, he was saying in a very polite way that, if Parliament had done its job, the Supreme Court would not be considering the Bedford case.
Why? We currently have a nonsensical situation in Canada. Prostitution is not illegal, but prostitution-related practices are. When this law was passed, it created a nonsensical situation. You cannot say that prostitution is not illegal in Canada and, in the same breath, that we are going to criminalize all prostitution-related practices, such as living on the avails of prostitution, keeping a bawdy house, soliciting and so on. That lawyer was right: that is nonsensical.
I have been a member of Parliament for seven years and a few months, and I have been waiting for seven years for the government to find the courage to table a bill on prostitution, thus triggering and provoking this debate in the House. It is not up to the Supreme Court to decide this matter; it is Parliament the must decide the kind of society in which we want to live. The Supreme Court recognizes that. It is up to Parliament, it is up to each of us, who are elected by the people, to decide, to conduct this debate in the House.
I have been waiting for this act for seven years, and I hope that the Supreme Court's decision will compel the government to bring the debate into the House and that the debate will be held in the House.
I very much hope that Canada will follow in Sweden's footsteps—that is my personal opinion—by making sure that it eliminates and eradicates this form of violence against women by criminalizing pimps, by criminalizing johns and, of course, by decriminalizing the people who are prostituted and providing the resources that must accompany that legislation in order to help these people.
Prostitution is not a job; it is a form of violence committed against another human being who is considered as merchandise. Prostitution is not the oldest profession in the world; it is the oldest lie in the world. Prostitution is not a job; it is a means of survival.
My mind is made up, and has been for a long time. I work with these women on the street, and I know all about it. All caucuses could debate this issue. Many wonder if the legalization of prostitution will result in the protection of prostitutes.
I wanted to talk to the House about a good example, that of Germany. Germany legalized prostitution 10 years ago and there have been assessments. Recently, the magazine Der Spiegel published its May 26, 2013, issue entitled, “German Brothels--How the State Encourages Trafficking of Women and Prostitution”. It is a very good issue and I recommend that my colleagues read it. It discusses how the legalization of prostitution in Germany has failed because it does not protect prostitutes.
According to estimates by the industry association Erotik Gewerbe Deutschland, there are between 3,000 and 3,500 red-light establishments in Germany. There are an estimated 500 brothels in Berlin, 70 in Osnabrück and 270 in the small state of Saarland. Travel agencies offer tours to German brothels lasting up to eight days. Prospective customers are promised up to 100 “totally nude women” wearing nothing but high heels. Customers are also picked up at the airport and taken to the clubs in luxury cars.
Large brothels have become established in Germany. They now advertise their services at all-inclusive rates. For example, management of the Pussy Club, which opened near Stuttgart in 2009, advertises the following: “Sex with all women as long as you want, as often as you want and the way you want. Sex. Anal sex. Oral sex without a condom. Three-ways. Group sex. Gang bangs.” The price: €70 during the day and €100 in the evening.
That is how they advertise.
According to the police, about 1,700 customers took advantage of the offer on the opening weekend. Buses arrived from far away and local newspapers reported that up to 700 men stood in line outside the brothel. Customers wrote in Internet chat rooms about the unsatisfactory service, complaining that the women were no longer as fit for use after a few hours.
These are examples from a country that legalized prostitution.
Consider the following example: a guy named Marian handed over a 16-year-old girl named Sina to “No Limit”, a brothel with all-inclusive pricing. She served 30 clients a day.
In 2001, a law was passed that was supposed to improve Germany's prostitution legislation. Did it improve anything for women like Sina? Absolutely not.
According to the report on human trafficking recently released by the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, that country has over 23,600 victims of human trafficking. Two-thirds of them are being sexually exploited. Axel Dreher, a professor of international and development politics at Heidelberg University, tried to answer the following question: did Germany's prostitution laws somehow increase human trafficking and encourage traffickers and, therefore, prostitution? He did an analysis of 150 countries. The results: in countries where prostitution is legal, there is more human trafficking than elsewhere around the world.
I could go on and on with examples of the horrors of prostitutes being mistreated and neglected, all in a country that legalized prostitution. Post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse and repeated rape are all common problems. I could go on.
However, the big question I want to ask today is this: do we want to live in a society like the one I just described? Do we want to live in a society that passes the legacy of prostitution on to our children and our daughters?
I have always fought to stop this kind of thing from happening in our society. I do not want my sons to grow up in the kind of society that treats women like commodities.
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Ahuntsic on her bill and on having done a great deal of work to promote it. I know she has worked very hard on this bill. That is why we are proud to support it.
When the bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, there was a very clear discussion concerning sexual exploitation. This bill goes even farther with respect to exploitation and trafficking by protecting people who do domestic work or forced labour. I would like my colleague to talk about that.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
In point of fact, he is quite right. The bill addresses human trafficking, and in Canada, most victims are also victims of sexual exploitation. About 80% are victims of sexual exploitation, but that figure can sometimes reach 90%.
In Canada, forced labour represents a minority of cases. Elsewhere in the world, however, the phenomenon is extremely widespread. I shall provide some recent data. Worldwide, for example, 115 million children are reportedly victims of forced labour. When I saw that figure, I admit I fell off my chair.
Human trafficking for the purposes of forced labour exists, and it also exists in Canada. We must confront this new form of crime. I have spoken to a number of people in the field and I have reached the conclusion that this issue is becoming increasingly prevalent in the area of domestic help, for example.
Yes, the bill will also protect those people.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Ahuntsic for bringing forward this legislation. She gave a very compelling speech today.
We hear many speeches in the House, and sometimes we forget to listen to the kinds of things that very young people go through. I would like, for those who missed what the member said, for the member to talk about the pain that these young people go through when they are exploited and trafficked in such a horrendous manner.