Bill C-36 (Historical)

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose;
(b) create an offence that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale and to authorize the courts to order the seizure of materials containing such advertisements and their removal from the Internet;
(d) modernize the offence that prohibits the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution;
(e) create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre;
(f) ensure consistency between prostitution offences and the existing human trafficking offences; and
(g) specify that, for the purposes of certain offences, a weapon includes any thing used, designed to be use or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to my colleague. On the question of question period, as I have observed before, the tone of question period is overwhelmingly determined by the tenor of the questions asked.

There was a very worthwhile letter to the editor in The Globe and Mail yesterday on exactly that subject from a gentleman from Halifax, which I was most appreciative of. I am sure that if the members of the opposition take heed of that, we will see very high-quality question periods in the future.

In terms of the business of the House, for the balance of today, we will be continuing forward on the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act, Bill S-5. Tomorrow, it is our intention to complete the last day of Bill C-36. This is the bill to respond to the court's decision. The court has set a deadline for us in December, and we do want to respond to that. We will be proceeding with other matters on the order paper through the following week.

I do intend to identify Tuesday as an additional allotted day. I believe that it will be an opportunity for the NDP once again.

We have had some discussion in the House of the importance of the potential matter of the mission that is under way in combatting the ISIL terrorist threat right now. There is the potential for the schedule that I have laid out to be interrupted at some point in time by the need for a motion of the House, should there be a decision by the government to proceed with a combat mission.

I do not believe that I reported to the House exactly what we are going to be doing on Monday. On Monday, we will deal with Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, and Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, shame on the government and on the Minister of Justice, who seems to forget he is also the Attorney General of Canada, for the 78th motion for time allocation.

It is absolutely incredible.

Bill C-13, which is before us right now, is not just any bill. The same thing happened with the prostitution bill last week. We had roughly half a day of debate on Bill C-36. Third reading of that bill is planned for Friday. The same thing will happen with Bill C-13, but that comes as no surprise.

My request to split the bill was rejected. My request at committee to wait for the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which was rendered a day after we finished the clause-by-clause, to suspend so we could read it was denied. We have time allocation at second reading, time allocation at report stage and at third reading.

Manon Cornellier wrote an extraordinary piece on this a year ago, saying that time allocation was becoming the norm in the House of Commons: “There was a time when limiting debate was the exception and invariably caused outrage [including that of the Conservatives]”.

Last week, Michael Spratt, of iPolitics, wrote:

The Conservatives proposed a controversial law that would expand the state’s Internet surveillance powers.The bill was attacked by experts...as unconstitutional....The Conservatives have the gall to claim that the decision confirms what they’d been saying all along — that the new law is justified. Black is white, love is hate, peace is war—

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-36.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Opposition Motion—Changes to the Standing Orders

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to the New Democratic Party's opposition day motion brought forward by the NDP's House leader, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

As I understand it, the motion proposes to amend Standing Order 11(2) to empower the Speaker to enforce the standing rules of relevance used in debates for answers given in question period. Currently, the standing order applies to debates on legislation and motions.

I am going to try to take my partisan hat off as much as possible. I would like to start by discussing what I believe to be each of our general responsibilities in this place as it pertains to debate and discourse. The Parliament of Canada's website states that the chamber:

—is where Members help to make Canada's laws by debating and voting on bills. The Chamber is also a place where MPs can put local, regional or national issues in the spotlight. They represent their constituents' views by presenting petitions, making statements and asking questions in the House.

In late 2012, Speaker Scheer made a ruling, and per a CBC article, stressed that holding governments to account is an indispensable privilege of elected MPs and reminded the government House leader that Canada has a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy. There we have it. The role of members is to hold the government to account, and indeed the government also has a responsibility to legislate and ensure that the government continues to operate.

How does the execution of these responsibilities work in practice? I believe that the answer to that question is as varied as there are 308 members in this place, because each of us brings our own approach to this responsibility, some more successfully than others, because it is our own individual responsibility to execute our responsibilities here and we should all be individually measured by our electorate by our willingness and ability to do so.

In this, the member has an individual responsibility to respect the level of debate in this place by providing thoughtful, understood content and reasoned arguments, and the elector has the right to measure our capability in doing so. This is at the heart of the principle of civic engagement.

As an example, this morning I was asked by a reporter on my way into this place what I thought of this motion. I responded that I would comment once I had read the form and substance of it, as I had not at that time, and that I would form an opinion once I had reviewed the content. After I read it, I expressed a desire to speak to the motion in the House today and formulated by myself the content of this intervention that I am delivering at present. This is how many of us approach interventions in this place.

Last week I spoke to Bill C-36 at report stage, after speaking with several interested parties in my constituency and having read the testimony presented by witnesses at committees. There was a particular theme that I felt had not been adequately debated in the House: that of our broader emerging cultural, not legal, definition of sexual consent and how the variety of legislative options the Bedford ruling could present the House could potentially impact the same. I asked the Library of Parliament to complete some research for me and then spent several hours of personal time collating the information into an intervention which I delivered.

In another example earlier this year, the NDP presented the House with a motion which would effectively cut operating funding to the Senate for the remainder of the fiscal year. After reading this motion, I felt compelled to deliver an intervention in this place. I argued that the motion should not be supported given how our country's governance model is set up. Bills would not pass and the wheels of government could grind to a halt, including those bills currently in front of the Senate put forward by NDP members. One of the biggest compliments in my parliamentary career came on that date when I had one opposition member come to me and state, “Your speech made me change my vote.”

I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment and now as Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, I know it is my responsibility to understand my respective files to a degree where I can be prepared to debate and defend the government's positions on issues related to the same. I would argue that the majority of my cabinet colleagues take this responsibility to heart and have demonstrated great competence in this regard. Many of my opposition colleagues come well prepared to engage in meaningful debate as well. Occasionally, on all sides of the House, this is not the case.

However, being prepared for debate, engaging in it and preparing a rational argument should be separated from the notion of putting forward a position that all parties here say they would like. In fact, a large pitfall of the role of a member of Parliament and for those who would put seeking approval over good sound policy is that there are many who will disagree with one's opinion, but the opinion has been put forward and put forward a policy to debate.

A laudable goal in this place would be to use committee study and House of Commons debate to sway position, to develop personal relationships that balance the theatre which invariably accompanies politics with something that resembles work. In my experience, this happens far more often than is reported on in the media.

This goal needs to be further contextualized within the reality of our political system, as our political parties have positions on which they seek mandates. Indeed we will disagree with one another here and we will try to sway the public toward our position, as we believe that each of our respective policy stances is in the best interests of the country. This means at times we will vociferously disagree with the content of each other's debate, but this does not mean that the content is automatically irrelevant.

Let us carry this concept through to question period wherein members have the direct opportunity to question government on its business, the core of today's motion. I believe that the heart of the motion is related to whether members have adequate recourse if they feel their oral question was not adequately answered and subsequently propose new recourse that does not currently exist in the Standing Order.

Let us first discuss whether there are recourse options available to members. I will note that in 1964, this place debated recourse for members who felt that their questions were not adequately addressed. Again, this is from the Parliament of Canada website:

In a review of the Standing Orders in 1964, the House adopted a procedure committee proposal for the first-ever Standing Order to regulate Question Period. At that same time, the House agreed to the committee's suggestion that a rule on the Adjournment Proceedings be adopted to complement the Question Period Standing Order. The committee proposed a procedure whereby Members who felt dissatisfied with an answer given by the government to their question during Questions Period could give notice that they wished to speak further on the subject matter of the question during the Adjournment Proceedings.

At the start of this maximum 30-minute period, from 6:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded. No more than three brief exchanges are allowed on predetermined topics. Each of these topics may be debated for at most 10 minutes of the 30-minute period set aside for Adjournment Proceedings. No later than 5:00 p.m., the Speaker must tell the House which matter or matters are to be raised that day.

Certainly there are opportunities to follow up on question period, but I want to speak from my experience as a parliamentary secretary. My staff may disagree, but I did enjoy adjournment proceedings. They allowed for a fuller expansion on the government's position on an issue than the short time allowed for during question period, and oftentimes allowed for some personal engagement with one's opposition critic. Sometimes these proceedings became the nucleus for committee study, or provoked a minister to delve into a policy issue with more vigour. Sadly, adjournment proceedings are rarely reported on or followed by Canadian media or the public.

I should also note that members frequently submit written questions via a formal process to ministers. Again, from the Parliament of Canada website:

Provisions allowing for written questions to be posed to the Ministry have been included in the rules of the House of Commons since 1867. The rule, virtually identical to today's Standing Order 39(1), provided that questions could be asked of private Members as well as Ministers, although it appears that, from the beginning, the practice saw questions directed only to Ministers. That practice has continued to this day, and has been periodically reinforced with additions to the Standing Order referring to the manner that answers are to be provided to Order Paper questions; in each case, questions to Ministers appear to be assumed.

While oral questions are posed without notice on matters deemed to be of an urgent nature, written questions are placed after notice on the Order Paper with the intent of seeking from the Ministry detailed, lengthy or technical information relating to “public affairs”.

I believe that recourse as it pertains to the proposal of today's motion does already exist, and, as such, I do believe that today's motion is somewhat redundant. However, that said, I do believe this proposed new recourse is worthy of debate.

Earlier today, I believe that the leader of the Green Party said that question period resembled high school theatre. The government House leader responded with a point that the responses to question period are often set by the tone of the questions.

I think there are grains of truth in both of these statements, and why is this so? The press gallery is most populated during question period because QP gives the sound bites for 140 character tweets and the evening newsreel. It is also the time when the House is most populated by members, as ministries are required to be represented to answer any question from any topic pertaining to government business.

This indeed can be a recipe for theatre, including borderline slanderous opposition statements, which would not be made without the benefit of parliamentary impugnity.

Certainly there are times, found throughout Hansard since its genesis, where government members have given a response which was hot under the collar or ill-advised. That said, in the majority of cases, members on both sides of this House strive to bring light and statesmanship rather than heat to question period. Many of my opposition critics care more for their files than making sensational and farcical statements at the start of their questions. Many of my ministerial colleagues are subject matter experts on their files and bring that depth of knowledge to their answers.

Many of us here do not spend time away from friends and family for any other reason than to argue policy that will in our minds make Canada a better place. Unfortunately, these moments, which are frequent, do not make a provocative headline or tweet, and as such I would argue that these instances are vastly under-reported.

This type of recourse has also been studied in previous Parliaments, and I would like to discuss some of those findings. As today's debate has shades of a question of decorum, let me turn to previous studies undertaken on the same subject.

Under Standing Order 10, the Speaker already has the power to preserve decorum. This power has been a duty of the chair since 1867.

The Speaker's responsibility to preserve decorum was a significant challenge in the early years of Confederation. In fact, Speakers at that time were regularly confronted with rude and disorderly conduct that they were unable to control, including the throwing of papers, books, and, in one case, firecrackers.

O'Brien and Bosc note that this disorderly behaviour by members in the early years of Confederation may have been due to the fact that “a much-frequented public saloon plied “intoxicating liquors” to Members seeking “refreshment” during lengthy evening debates”. The saloon was closed in 1896, and O'Brien and Bosc noted, “The early twentieth centre House was calmer and more austere [...]”

A review of O'Brien and Bosc also indicates that the current challenge of preserving decorum in the House has been an ongoing challenge since at least the 1950s. It is not unique to our time.

These challenges have led to committee recommendations to enhance the power of the Speaker to preserve decorum. For example, in 1985, the McGrath committee recommended “that the Speaker be empowered to order the withdrawal of a member for the remainder of a sitting”. This power was included in the Standing Orders in 1986, and it is a power which has indeed been used.

In 1992, the special advisory committee to the Speaker on unparliamentary language and the Speaker's authority to deal with breaches of decorum and behaviour released its report dealing with decorum in the House of Commons. The report included a number of draft amendments to the Standing Orders, which would have strengthened the Speaker's power to suspend sittings of the House and set out specific guidelines for the suspension of members.

The revised Standing Orders would have provided for a range of suspension periods, depending on the number of suspensions imposed on a member, with a 20-day suspension period imposed for members having three or more suspensions. The amendments would also have allowed for suspensions from serving on committees and the loss of right of access to the parliamentary precinct.

This report was never tabled in the House, nor were its recommendations implemented or formally debated.

In the 39th Parliament, the procedure and House affairs committee also studied the issue of decorum in the House. The committee conducted its study in light of concerns raised by Canadians about noisy and boisterous behaviour in the House, particularly during question period. The committee was tasked with revising the amendments to the Standing Orders proposed in 1992 by a special advisory committee to the Speaker.

The committee heard from a number of highly respected witnesses, including the clerk and a former clerk of the House of Commons. The witnesses noted that the lack of decorum and respect for the rules is not a new phenomenon, nor is this only an issue in the Canadian House of Commons.

While the committee's report noted the Speaker's powers under the Standing Orders to maintain decorum, the Speaker requires the co-operation and assistance of all members, since the Speaker is the servant of the House and reflects the collective will of the chamber.

During this committee's hearings on decorum, witnesses urged the committee to proceed with caution in recommending rules-based changes to decorum. These witnesses noted that such changes could weaken the traditional authority of the Speaker with respect to decorum, which would be a fundamental change to House practices.

Given these concerns, the committee came to the conclusion that the existing powers of the Speaker are extensive and encompass a range of options. The committee urged the Speaker to exercise the full extent of his disciplinary powers, firmly, forcefully, and fairly, to improve the decorum in the chamber.

On this point, former Speaker Peter Milliken noted in the Ottawa Citizen last week that adding new black letter rules may not be the most effective means of enforcing standards of decency. He relied upon the uncodified principle that one must catch the Speaker's eye to be called upon to address the House. He stated in the article:

There was one member who used unparliamentary language, and I asked him to withdraw the remarks and he refused. I didn’t kick him out because in my view that isn’t any punishment.

I told him he wouldn’t speak again in the House until he apologized to the Chair and withdrew the remarks, and he never did and he never spoke again … for the rest of the Parliament. A year and a bit, I think,...

Specifically on the content of replies in question period as it stands, O'Brien and Bosc note, on page 510, “The Speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions”.

This is based on a ruling by Speaker Gilbert Parent from October 9, 1997. At that time, Speaker Parent had this to say:

With respect to all members of Parliament, I am not here to judge the quality of a question or the quality of an answer. I am here to see to it that a question is properly put and that the minister, the government or the person to whom it is directed has a chance to answer.

What the member is asking me to do is outside the purview of the Speaker. If that were the case, should I judge on the quality of all questions in the House?

I urge all hon. members to pose questions that will be of interest to most Canadians, or at least to a certain part of the country, perhaps a constituency where a specific answer is needed on something.

I decline to ever judge on the quality of either a question or an answer.

This is what I believe is at the heart of the matter in front of us today, and I am trying to be as non-partisan as possible. Our roles as members of Parliament, as well as the choice of how we choose to execute those responsibilities or not is each of our individual responsibilities.

Getting to the core of the matter put forward here today, should this additional recourse be supported? Again, if civic engagement is a partnership between a member taking personal responsibility for providing thoughtful content in debate and the engagement of the electorate in the same, I would argue that the further recourse proposed by the opposition in this motion is not looking in the right place. Rather, we each, regardless of political stripe, need to look inward and to our constituents as the true sources of accountability on how question period and debate here is governed.

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak against Bill C-36 at report stage. I am really glad to have an opportunity to do so despite the Conservatives' use of time allocation once again.

I remain opposed to the government's rush to recriminalize sex work in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in the Bedford case. Once again with Bill C-36, the government has refused to listen to the Supreme Court, which sent a clear message in the Bedford decision that sex workers have the right to safety and should not have their situation made more dangerous by having new prescriptions put in the Criminal Code.

Like most Canadians, I could not tune in to all this summer's justice committee hearings, but I did hear and see a great deal of testimony, and I read much more of it. I was struck by two things. The first was the selective nature of the government's witnesses, most of whom had experienced a great tragedy concerning a family member who had been involved in sex work or who themselves had been victims of crime while involved in sex work.

Each of these stories, for me, had a common theme. I do not in any way wish to diminish the extent of the harm suffered by those individuals who testified. In each of these cases, the harm done was the result of a criminal act that was and would remain a criminal act whether or not there are restrictions placed on sex work in the Criminal Code. Murder remains illegal. Assault remains illegal. Human trafficking and coercion remain illegal.

I draw a different conclusion from these tragic stories than members of the government side. What these stories tell me is that we ought to do everything we can to make sure that sex work is safer. That is the theme of the Bedford decision from the Supreme Court.

The second theme I noticed coming from both government witnesses and from government members themselves was the tendency to label all sex workers as victims, to see them as poor, unfortunate people who need to be saved.

Most of the sex workers, themselves, who testified rejected this label of victim. Many asserted that they chose sex work, some entirely freely and some as a result of the limited choices they had in front of them, but the vast majority of sex workers emphasized their own choice, their own autonomy, their own control over their lives, and they have been very clear that they wish to retain or enhance that freedom to choose for themselves.

Just this week, we had an important research study released, which had been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Researchers interviewed 218 sex workers in six communities across the country, plus 1,252 clients and 80 police officers. This is actual evidence with regard to sex work. The researchers found that sex workers, in general, overwhelmingly rejected this characterization as victims, with more than 80% of both sex workers and clients saying that sex workers control the terms of these transactions.

There was one other thing I noted in these hearings, though perhaps even more in the Senate pre-study hearings. I must say at times I felt that sex workers who appeared were shown an astonishing lack of respect by Conservative committee members. This has been communicated back to me as a member of Parliament directly by more than one witness who appeared.

As I said in debate at second reading, I have long had contact with sex workers in my riding, stretching back to my days as a city councillor. In my community, we are fortunate to have a sex worker-run self-help organization called PEERS. PEERS is an acronym that probably still means something formal but in our community it has simply come to mean an organization that cares for and helps those involved in sex work.

PEERS has offered everything from bad date lists to a drop-in centre to education and housing assistance. Unfortunately, like many valuable organizations in the community, PEERS is now struggling with severe funding issues. The amount the government has allocated, $20 million, will do little to help out these organizations in their very important work.

As a result of my contact with PEERS, I have had several opportunities to meet with sex workers to discuss the Bedford decision, both before it came out and then after it came down, as well as this legislation before it came to second reading. Before speaking today, I was fortunate to be able to participate, last Friday, in a community forum organized by PEERS, called “Decriminalizing the Sex Industry: Beyond the Myths and Misconceptions”. The format was a diverse panel of eight members responding to audience questions after some brief opening statements. The panel was moderated by Jody Paterson, one of the founding sisters of PEERS, and someone I much admire for taking her journalism and turning it into advocacy for sex workers.

I have to say I was surprised to find more than 120 people in attendance at a panel on a very sunny Friday afternoon. I was privileged to be one of the panel members as it gave me a chance to interact with seven real experts on sex work, and to learn from their experience. There were three sex workers, or former sex workers, on the panel: Catherine Healy, the national coordinator of the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective; Natasha Potvin, a PEERS board member; and Lisa Ordell, a Métis woman and registered massage therapist. The panel also included Staff Sergeant Todd Wellman, head of the Victoria Police Department's special victims unit; and Gillian Calder, a professor of family and constitutional law at the University of Victoria.

It also included two scientific researchers on sex work: Dr. Sarah Hunt, a Kwagiulth researcher who has done work with first nations women involved in sex work for more than 20 years; and Chris Atchison from the University of Victoria Department of Sociology, one of the researchers on the study that was published this week.

I spent a lot of time describing this panel in the House today because this panel, and indeed virtually every person attending the forum, agreed on some common themes and a common conclusion. Their conclusion was that Bill C-36 would make the lives of sex workers even more dangerous.

Professor Calder made it clear that the Supreme Court sent us in the House a clear message that it was our responsibility not to re-criminalize sex work, but to legislate it in a way that makes sex work safer and provides greater protection for the rights of sex workers.

I have already spoken of Chris Atchison's study and its rejection of the argument that sex workers are ipso facto victims. He also spoke eloquently of the direct connection between sex workers being able to communicate openly with their clients and the safety of their work. His research shows how criminalizing johns would make that communication inevitably more furtive, more hurried and therefore make sex work more dangerous.

Staff Sergeant Wellman spoke eloquently from his perspective as a 27-year veteran police officer and his five years as the head of a special victims unit. He identified the importance of sex workers feeling able to communicate freely with police. If that is not the case, he stressed, investigating things like violence and exploitation of sex workers becomes even more difficult for the police; and preventing the kinds of tragedies that many government witnesses spoke about becomes nearly impossible. Clearly those provisions in Bill C-36 that criminalize sex workers would make police work harder.

Dr. Sarah Hunt challenged us to ask those national first nations organizations that have expressed support for this bill to demonstrate that they have actually spoken to first nations women involved in sex work or in sex work research and support roles. She challenged their right to speak for first nations without doing this work. The very presence of two first nations women on this panel spoke volumes about whether those claims to speak for all first nations women should be accepted.

Catherine Healy, in turn, challenged us to ask those who cite New Zealand as a negative example of the impacts of legalizing sex work to present their evidence. She clearly showed that the evidence in fact shows a reduction in violence against women in the sex industry in New Zealand. She challenged the assertions made before us in this House that there has been an increase in underage women in sex work in New Zealand or an increase in trafficking of women to New Zealand as entirely without foundation, as simply false.

Let me begin to close by citing just two more things from the forum. One was the importance of a safe space it created for sex workers, like Natasha Potvin and Lisa Ordell and members of the audience, to tell their stories. There was moving testimony in the form of Lisa Ordell's mother simply showing up and identifying herself as “Lisa's mother” in order to support her daughter. There was moving testimony from audience members about the stigma attached to being a sex worker, and the resulting social isolation, making their struggles to escape alcoholism, addiction and violence even more difficult.

My conclusion is that our decision on Bill C-36 should not be about whether any of us like or do not like sex work. Instead, it should be based on what would make these women, men and transgendered Canadians who are already involved in sex work safer, whatever their story, however they arrived there.

I want to close with some questions we must ask ourselves as members of Parliament before we vote on this bill.

As a result of Bill C-36, would sex workers be able to conduct negotiations with potential clients in ways that allow them to be sure of who they are dealing with and in ways that help them avoid bad dates? This would help keep them safe.

As a result of Bill C-36, would sex workers be able to communicate openly with police when they need protection against violence, coercion and exploitation? This would help keep them safe.

As a result of Bill C-36, would sex workers be able to participate in society without the stigma attached to their work denying them access to services and rights that the rest of us enjoy without a thought? This would help keep them safe.

As a result of Bill C-36, would there be less violence against women in Canada?

For me, Bill C-36 clearly fails on all these counts. I am sorry that this bill will pass this Parliament. I am even sorrier for the harm that will result in the time it will take to challenge it in court, and the time it will take for the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional, just as the Criminal Code provisions that preceded it were invalidated in the Bedford decision.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that Bill C-36 is a made-in-Canada approach that has two essential parts. The first part is criminal law reform. The second part addresses support for vulnerable persons to help them leave prostitution. This two-pronged approach aims to criminalize those who fuel and perpetuate the demand for prostitution through the purchase of sexual services and to protect those who sell their own sexual services, vulnerable persons and communities from the harm associated with prostitution.

The legislation is our government's comprehensive approach toward addressing prostitution. I encourage that member to support it.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the debate about the harmful effects of prostitution has been long-standing, long before the Bedford decision was handed down and the one-year suspension. I have heard from community organizations, individuals and communities. They are calling for a change to our prostitution laws as the awareness of their harmful effects continues to grow.

Bill C-36 would put Canada squarely among other jurisdictions that have taken, or are considering taking, an approach that would treat prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation that targets the victims, primarily women and girls, including those disadvantaged by socio-economic factors such as youth, poverty, drug addiction or a history of abuse. This approach aspires to abolish prostitution as a harmful gendered practice and avoids the negative effects of decriminalization or legalization.

I call upon all members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party to support this important piece of legislation.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP highlighted that it wanted regulations and harm reduction regarding prostitution. It sounds to me that those members want legalization with harm reduction.

What has my colleague heard from her constituents and from Canadians, particularly with respect to consultation that went on prior to Bill C-36? I heard that Canadians do not want prostitution to be legalized. They want to follow the Nordic model. What has my colleague heard? What does she think of the NDP's position of legalization?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the report stage debate in support of Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act.

Bill C-36 was studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in July 2014, and pre-studied by the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs in September.

The bill is well on its way toward enactment before the expiry of the Supreme Court of Canada's one-year suspension of its December 20, 2013 Bedford decision, which would otherwise result in decriminalization of most adult prostitution-related activities in Canada.

Bill C-36 places Canada among other like-minded jurisdictions that have taken, or are considering taking, an approach that treats prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation that targets the victims, primarily women and girls, including those disadvantaged by socio-economic factors, such as youth, poverty, drug addiction or a history of abuse. Such an approach aspires to abolish prostitution as a harmful gendered practice. It has been garnering widespread international support, and not just in those countries that have implemented it.

For example, in March 2014, an all-party parliamentary report in the United Kingdom recommended implementation of a version of this approach. Both the Council of Europe and the European parliament have endorsed it. This is not just because the approach has been effective in achieving its objectives, it is also because it avoids the negative effects of the alternative: decriminalization or legalization.

Research shows that decriminalization and legalization lead to growth of the sex industry. Demand increases in a decriminalized or legalized regime, as does the supply required to meet that demand, which is disproportionately drawn from vulnerable populations. The result is an increase in the exploitation of vulnerable groups.

Facilitating prostitution for those who claim to freely choose it results in a greater number of those who do not freely choose it being subjected to prostitution. This is what would happen in Canada if we failed to respond to the Bedford decision.

Research also shows that decriminalization and legalization are linked to higher rates of human trafficking for sexual exploitation.

There is significant profit to be made from prostituting the disempowered who are so often unable to enforce their rights, and the unscrupulous stop at nothing to maximize their profits. They may tout themselves as a helper or legitimate bodyguard, but it is in their interest to encourage and even coerce the prostitution of those they claim to protect. This is another reason why a regime that treats sex work as a legitimate profession results in higher rates of exploitative conducts. Exploiters can hide behind a veneer of legitimacy.

Some who disagree with the approach of Bill C-36 have said that it is bad policy to work toward abolishing prostitution when some freely choose to sell their own sexual services and are content with that choice. The two committees that studied Bill C-36 heard from some individuals who said that they chose sex work as their profession and that they should not be prevented from earning a living in the manner of their choosing.

I accept that some support decriminalization and condone the trade in sexual services between consenting adults, but I do not accept that such a policy choice is better for everyone implicated in the prostitution industry, including the communities in which it is practised and society as large.

All agree that those subjected to prostitution disproportionately come from marginalized backgrounds, and all agree that high levels of violence and trauma are associated with involvement in prostitution. The disagreement lies in how the law should address these serious concerns.

Why does Bill C-36 reject decriminalization in favour of an approach that treats prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation? The research on jurisdictions that have decriminalized or legalized prostitution provides one answer to this question.

As I have already outlined, research shows that decriminalization is linked to growth in the sex industry and higher rates of human trafficking for sexual exploitation. That means an increase in vulnerable people being drawn into prostitution, an increase in abuse of those in positions of vulnerability, an increase in use of coercive practices to draw the vulnerable in and keep them in, and at the end of that continuum of exploitative conduct, an increase in human trafficking. Bill C-36 would prevent the harmful effects of decriminalization.

Those individuals who claim to freely choose prostitution also say that they do not need its proposed prostitution offences. They say that offences such as human trafficking, forcible confinement, assault and sexual assault provide them with sufficient protection against abuse while involved in a trade that is well known for that abuse. That may be so for those who have some control over the sale of their own sexual services, but what about those who do not?

We know from the committee hearings that many do not choose prostitution. Many are subjected to it by force meted out by those who would profit from this trade or because of seriously constrained options from which to choose. Should we afford this group the law's protection only once someone has committed a violent offence against them and how do we ensure they are sufficiently empowered to report such abuse when it occurs?

It has been well recognized, including by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1992 Downey decision, that the fear of reprisal from exploitative third parties too often keeps the exploited silent. They are afraid, and understandably so. Exploiters have an obvious incentive to keep the vulnerable in prostitution and many do so through horrific forms of abuse.

How do we stop this trajectory? The answer is simple. We say “no” to prostitution by targeting those who fuel the demand for it and those who profit from the trade. Bill C-36 would do that. It prioritizes those who do not choose prostitution.

Prostitution targets the vulnerable, so Bill C-36 targets those who buy their sexual services and those who capitalize on the sale of those services. This means that law enforcement has the tools required to intervene before any member of that vulnerable group is assaulted, sexually assaulted, forcibly confined or trafficked and can prevent the more serious crimes associated with prostitution from happening in the first place.

These are the reasons why Bill C-36 says “no” to decriminalization. These are the reasons why Bill C-36 says “no” to prostitution. Put simply, there are too many risks associated with this practice. A burgeoning sex industry means: an increase in vulnerable persons selling their own sexual services because of lack of meaningful options, or through force; a corresponding increase in the violence and trauma caused by subjection to prostitution; an increase in associated crime, such as drug related offences and human trafficking; and the normalization of a gendered practice that implicates the equality rights of those vulnerable groups so at risk of subjection to it.

I stand with those survivors, some of whom courageously testified before both committees and detailed the horrific abuse they suffered in prostitution. They have told their stories again and again to ensure that this type of abuse stops. They also told the committee that Bill C-36 would send a message. The message is that we are all deserving of dignity, equality and respect. The law should not allow the powerful to use and abuse the less powerful.

I ask my colleagues to stand with me and the brave women who shared their stories of pain and suffering to improve Canadian society. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of Bill C-36.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today about the government's response to the Bedford decision and its amendments to sections of the Criminal Code concerning prostitution.

The summary of Bill C-36 says the following:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, (a) create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose;

As I said earlier when I asked my colleague a question, there will always be things that are against the law but are done anyway in our society. This bill does not necessarily provide a solution because this is not how we are going to get rid of prostitution. That will never happen.

I think that in this type of situation, it might make more sense to take a harm reduction approach instead of a repressive approach like the one the government has proposed.

In addition, this bill flies in the face of the Supreme Court decision and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court asked the minister to go back to the drawing board and find a real solution. Based on my reading of this bill, I can see that the minister did not do that. In fact, he even said that he expects this bill to be challenged in court. This is really messed up. I do not understand how we even got to this point considering the number of options that could have been explored and the number of things that could have been done. There have been so many discussions about all of this that I just do not understand how we got to this point.

Many legal experts were consulted, along with stakeholder groups, sex workers, and authorities with an interest in this bill. Over 75 witnesses appeared before the committee. How did we even get to this point when most of the witnesses said that they do not believe in this bill?

When it comes to this bill and to many of the bills that have been introduced in the past three years, I have to wonder why the government is not listening to the experts. Why is it not listening to the people who are actually in the situation? I do not understand, and as an MP, I take issue with this. The minister should have gotten the information he needed and consulted people. That would have been to his credit. It is easy to consult people, to sit down with them and listen to them, but what is the point if the government does not really listen and just pushes the agenda it had from the start? It is easy to say that people were consulted, but nothing was done as a result.

We on this side of the House are pretty unanimous. We all agree that the measures announced by the Conservatives to help prostitutes get out of prostitution are grossly inadequate. They do not address the real problem. As I was saying earlier, this new bill creates new offences related to prostitution, specifically purchasing sexual services, receiving a material benefit, advertising sexual services and communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services in a public place. In my opinion, the real problem is that people who work in the sex industry are being more and more marginalized.

As I said earlier, there are many illegal things that are done in our society in any case. We cannot get around that by simply criminalizing everything. This reminds me of the prohibition period in the United States. In the 1930s, there was a huge spike in smuggling and alcohol-related problems. As soon as prohibition was lifted, the problems died down. In the end, people realized that the law was unnecessary. The situation we are in right now is similar, for the Conservatives want to marginalize men and women who really could use a helping hand. We also need to remember that some people are in it by choice. I think we need to respect that.

One of the measures announced was a $20 million investment to help prostitutes get out of the sex industry, but that is not enough to solve everything. Concrete action is needed. We need to properly consult the people involved. What do these people really need? Do they want to get out or are they there by choice? Where are we headed? This bill does not address these questions at all.

We also need to commit significant resources: income support, education and training, poverty alleviation, which I can never stress enough in this House, and substance abuse treatment for those in this group.

Rather than taking an approach that further marginalizes people who are already vulnerable, the government should instead work in partnership with those people to bring in a strategy to protect and support the men and women who are in this situation.

What we need is a nationwide discussion and genuine consultation on prostitution, on women's safety and on the fight against organized crime. That is what needs to be tackled.

According to Statistics Canada, 156 prostitutes have been murdered since 1991. That is 156 too many. If the practice were a bit more regulated, this type of crime could likely be prevented or at least reduced.

It is much more difficult to obtain recent statistics on other crimes related to prostitution, such as assault and rape, because the people involved are marginalized. It is like trying to collect statistics on homelessness. It is more difficult because these people do not always fill out a census form.

However, John Lowman, a professor at Simon Fraser University and expert on prostitution, has indicated that the data on crime against prostitutes are overwhelming. This type of crime is the problem that we need to deal with.

Forcing these women deeper into the shadows will put them in even more danger and these numbers will grow. That is not what we want. The government needs to protect its citizens, particularly the most vulnerable among them, as is the case here.

Prostitution has always existed and it will continue to exist, whether we are for or against it. We therefore need to regulate it and protect the health and safety of these workers.

In my opinion, Bill C-36 fails to do that and puts many lives in danger.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's discussion of France and the French experience shows that each country is trying to address the harms inherent in prostitution in a variety of ways.

This model, Bill C-36, is very similar to what Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and some others have tried. As I said in my remarks, the Council of Europe actually recommended it for its wider 47 members, as an attempt to reduce harm and to get at exploitation, specifically. It is not a perfect solution, but it is one that has been studied carefully to try to minimize the demand for services that has led to exploitation.

I would also add that we have made it a critical part of Bill C-36 that transitional funding, $20 million, would be there to help people to transition out of sex work. This is a critical part of this discussion. We have to show the vulnerable that there are alternatives and we have to support groups who are already helping people make that transition.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to the House on Bill C-36, which, as members of the House know, is the government's response to what is known as the Bedford decision. That is a decision of the Supreme Court from last December that struck down several Criminal Code provisions related to prostitution, such as solicitation and living off of the avails.

It seems that my friends in the House, rather than looking at the substance of this bill, started looking at future charter challenges. They should look at what the Supreme Court did. In fact, it invited Parliament to step in and fill the void caused by its striking down of some of these provisions under the charter. It gave Parliament one year to come up with adequate rules to address the social harms that are caused by prostitution.

All members of the House would agree that when it comes to human trafficking and exploitation, there are vast and immense risks for Canadians within prostitution and the sex trade. It is important for Parliament to make sure that the public good and public safety are protected.

What happened was the creation of the Canadian model. After consultations within the department, with stakeholder groups, and with people who have worked with women who have left the sex trade, the Canadian model was our government's response to the invitation from the Supreme Court of Canada to make laws to protect vulnerable Canadians.

I will take a few moments to talk about the main pillars of Bill C-36, which is our response.

First, it would criminalize demand. This is recognizing that in the vast majority of cases, the prostitutes—mainly women, but some young men as well—are victims. Law enforcement resources and criminal justice resources should not be focused on them but on exploitation, so the first pillar is to try to stem demand by focusing on the johns and criminalizing that activity.

The second is to criminalize exploitation in prostitution. We have heard some members of Parliament talk about human trafficking, the traditional pimps, and the people who lure young women into this trade and entrap them in it.

The third is a restriction on advertising sexual services and their sale. An important distinction in the Canadian model is the criminalization of communication in public places for the purposes of prostitution when children could reasonably be expected to be in those public places. This bill would ensure that certain public areas would not see the sex trade on a daily basis.

There are increased penalties for child prostitution. I am sure that all members of the House agree with that provision of Bill C-36.

There is a clear message in the bill to immunize prostitutes and sex workers themselves, recognizing, as I said earlier, that most often they are victims in this trade.

Finally and, perhaps, most importantly, the seventh pillar that I take from Bill C-36 is direct aid. There would be $20 million to begin with to help with transitional work for some of the vulnerable people who feel that there is no way out of the trade that they might have been lured or exploited into. Some of the exceptional Canadians, volunteers, and groups working with them would receive this money to help people transition.

My friend from Malpeque said that this bill does not see the reality of the world. Some of the MPs in the NDP seem to think that this measure is bound to be struck down at a future date by a court because it is a Conservative ploy or some political ploy. If those members of the opposition actually looked at the substance of Bill C-36, they would see that Canada is not really out of step in trying to deal with the harms of prostitution.

In many ways, the Canadian model builds on the Nordic model, which was introduced in Sweden in 1999 and followed subsequently by Norway and Iceland. These are European countries we have strong relationships with, free and democratic societies that have tried to address the social harms of prostitution through a model that criminalizes the demand and goes after the exploiters, not the women.

In 2014, the EU and the Council of Europe actually recommended the Nordic model, on which our model in Bill C-36 is clearly heavily based, to all member countries, so I would suggest that the NDP and Liberals are the ones who need to hit the reality of the world when it comes to how to address the evils and the harms caused within the sex trade.

The bill is supported by leading figures among those who try to deal with human trafficking and exploitation. It is supported by many people who work as advocates in abuse centres and rehabilitation shelters. The Canadian Police Association firmly supports it.

Members of Parliament have been reaching out and talking to stakeholders. I met with sex workers to hear their perspective. They were very earnest in their presentations to me, and I appreciated that. I also listened to law enforcement and researched the Nordic model, as every MP should.

I would like to thank a constituent of mine from Newcastle, Tony Ryta. I have had several exchanges with Tony, a 32-year veteran with the Toronto Police Service who for decades worked with vulnerable women on the streets in Toronto. He sees the Canadian model that we are bringing in response to the Bedford decision as a way that will reduce harm. That should be all parliamentarians' goal in this place. I would like to thank Tony, law enforcement workers from across the country, and people working in shelters and with abused women for their work in getting vulnerable Canadians out of this trade.

Finally, this topic goes to the root of parliamentarians as Canadians. I am the MP for Durham, but I am also a proud father of an eight-year-old girl, who is the apple of my eye. I cannot stand in the House and say that there is any public good in creating and promoting a legalized sex trade. In fact, it is abhorrent to suggest to young women that the sex trade should be an industry that is worth consideration. I want my young daughter to sit in the House one day, perhaps on the front bench, to go further than her old man.

Young women can do anything in this country, and supporting the normalization of sex work is not in the public good.

It reminds me of philosopher John Stuart Mill, who said, “No person is an entirely isolated being”. Ms. Bedford and a few sex workers who may feel that they are empowered and that there are no social harms from their participation in the sex trade do not speak for homeless aboriginal youth in Winnipeg. They do not speak for abused women who have been forced into sex work by pimps, in some cases by ex-boyfriends. They do not speak for the vulnerable, and the vulnerable are the vast majority of people drawn into prostitution.

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to ensure that our response to the Supreme Court decision in Bedford is a response that reduces harm and that discourages people from going into a practice that has drugs and crime at its centre. I once again say that I do not think our response as a Parliament should be to normalize the sex trade as an option for many of our young people and young women. That is certainly not why I ran for Parliament.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I outlined the government's attempt to push forward Bill C-36 on the basis of optics rather than the reality of the world.

I outlined as well the fact that the government has failed to listen to evidence provided at committee on the safety and security of those involved in the sex trade, and on the constitutionality of the bill. I feel the new law will end up where the old law did, and that is, it will likely be tossed out.

Let me quote what a couple of other people said.

John Ivison in the National Post wrote that the member for Central Nova's role:

—as Attorney General of Canada requires him to be the guardian of the rule of law. He is mandated to protect the personal liberties of Canadians and advise Cabinet to ensure its actions are legal and constitutional.

By introducing a new law on prostitution that is all but certain to be struck down by the courts, he has failed on all counts....

This bill is likely to make life even more unsafe for many prostitutes. If they can’t advertise their services to persuade the johns to come to them, many more are likely to take to the streets in search of business.

What he is speaking to is the safety and security of citizens. We cannot judge morally, but the fact of the matter is that it is responsibility of government to protect the safety and security of individuals. This bill does not do that. It makes it worse.

The other statement is by Michael Den Tandt for Postmedia News. He said:

Because C-36, in its effect, will be no different than the laws it is intended to replace, it is bound to wind up back at the Supreme Court – where it will quite likely be tossed, just as the old laws were tossed. So, why bring it forward?

He went on to say:

Calculated for political gain it may be; that doesn’t make it right. Until it is overturned, C-36 can only put prostitutes at greater risk. It is irrational, misguided and recidivist social policy, in a country that has gotten used to better.

There are several other quotes that came up at committee. I would refer members and Canadians to look at some of the statements made at committee with respect to the constitutionality of this legislation. There was an analysis provided at the committee on constitutional concerns. Individuals should look at that.

This law is not doing what it should do. It is very problematic. I ask the government to reconsider it. Let us just do it right.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.