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.

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks, my gosh, would it not be great if we could just legislate love, friendliness, and so on? However, we cannot just pass a bill and then things happen out there. There is a real world.

Anyway, the subject at hand is Bill C-36, and I want to touch on the first three key points in the summary:

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...

—subject to several exceptions—

...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....

Then there are several other sections, but I wanted to mention that to be sure that we understand where we are.

By way of background, it is critical to reference the now-famous Bedford case. This case is the reason we are here today.

The Criminal Code outlawed communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution, living on the avails of prostitution, and operating a brothel.

In a landmark case, a group of sex workers brought forth a charter challenge arguing that those three aforementioned provisions of the Criminal Code put, in the view of sex workers, their safety and security at risk, thereby violating their charter rights.

In its landmark decision last December, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with those sex workers and consequently struck down those three Criminal Code provisions, determining that they violated section 7 of the charter, which protects “life, liberty and security of the person”.

The Supreme Court suspended that ruling from coming into force for a period of one year in order to give Parliament the opportunity to enact new legislation if it chose to do so, and this past June, the Attorney General introduced this bill, Bill C-36.

I want to spell something out in the beginning. It has never happened before, I am sure, but there is some confusion over the Liberal position, so let me be clear: we do not favour the legalization of prostitution.

My colleague, the member for Charlottetown, made it clear that the government will do basically what it will because it controls the majority in both the House and the Senate. All of us in this place know that is what happens. We have seen at the committee hearings that the government seems to be taking the position of going full speed ahead on the optics rather than on the detail of what this new law may or may not do.

I believe what we have before us today will actually put the new law in the same place as the old law: because the government would not refer it to the Supreme Court, it will eventually be challenged and go there, and again we will be back here, in another Parliament at another date, trying to pass a law on this subject again.

There has been a fair bit of discussion on this issue. I have had many people in my office talking about their concerns, including sex workers and those who represent sex workers. The constituents in my riding are certainly on both sides of the issue. Some think the government's proposal is not bad and others think it is absolutely terrible. However, I can certainly say that sex workers who are in the business, some of them by desire and some not, are extremely afraid where the bill leaves them, and that is afraid for their safety and security.

In my view, the government did not do the in-depth consultations necessary in the beginning. It consulted, as it usually does, with those who tend to agree with its approach to criminal justice.

I have gone through some of the committee minutes. Based on what we have before us today, the government also did not listen to the witnesses who appeared before the committee, because we have virtually the same bill that went to committee. There were a lot of good suggestions coming out of the committee, and none of them were really listened to.

It is a little off track, but I had the opportunity this summer to attend a number of Canada-U.S. meetings with the Council of State Governments Justice Center. What I find remarkable about some of the states is that they are taking a different approach to justice. I would like to read one section from one of its papers. The paper is called “Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs Through Justice Reinvestment”, and it applies to our approach to criminal justice in Canada. This is what it says:

A number of these states have responded with “justice reinvestment” strategies to reduce corrections costs, revise sentencing policies, and increase public safety. Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach that ensures that policymaking is based on a comprehensive analysis of criminal justice data and the latest research about what works to reduce crime....

The reason I read that is because this bill is going in the opposite direction. It is based on optics, not detail.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to stand up for question period, so I will finish later.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join third reading debate on Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act. This bill would ensure that the Supreme Court of Canada's Bedford decision does not result in the decriminalization of most prostitution-related activities when the Supreme Court's one-year suspension expires on December 20.

Both the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied Bill C-36 this summer and heard from numerous witnesses, many of whom agree that decriminalization of prostitution would result in an increase in the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable groups in our society.

We have heard much about the proposed prostitution reforms of Bill C-36. These reforms reflect a fundamental paradigm shift toward treatment of prostitution for what it is: a form of sexual exploitation of, primarily, women and girls. We know that those who suffer socio-economic disadvantage are targeted by prostitution. We know that prostitution involves high rates of violence and trauma.

The committees have heard those stories from courageous survivors who came forth to tell their stories, stories that are supported by relevant research. This bill responds to this evidence. Its objectives are to reduce the incidence of prostitution, discourage entry into it, deter participation in it and ultimately abolish it to the greatest extent possible.

Bill C-36 contains other related amendments as well. I would like to focus on these aspects of the bill.

The bill recognizes that prostitution is linked to human trafficking. In fact, research shows that jurisdictions that have decriminalized or legalized prostitution have larger sex industries and experience higher rates of human trafficking for sexual exploitation. This is not surprising. Allowing the purchase and sale of sexual services results in an increase in demand for those services, and an increase in demand results in an increase in supply.

Research tells us who is at risk of meeting that demand: society's most vulnerable, those who are disadvantaged by sex, youth, poverty, race, drug addiction, a history of abuse. This group is equally vulnerable to the coercive practices of those who would exploit them for their own gain.

Prostitution and human trafficking exist along a continuum. For example, a person may decide to sell their own sexual services to pay rent, feed their children or just survive.

That person may be recruited or forced to work for those who would exploit her, or she may seek out the protective services of those same people, thinking that they will protect her when engaged in an inherently dangerous activity.

The concern is that it is in the economic interests of those so-called protectors to exploit the prostitution of those they claim to protect. What may have been originally conceived of as a mutually beneficial relationship can quickly become exploitative and abusive.

Traffickers use all manner of practices to keep their victims providing the services from which they profit. They threaten their victims and their victims' families, they assault, they sexually assault and they forcibly confine them. They leave their victims with no choice other than to provide the services demanded of them.

Bill C-36’s reforms would assist in preventing this trajectory by criminalizing those who fuel the demand for sexual services and those who capitalize on that demand.

When prostitution-related conduct becomes human trafficking-related conduct, the bill would increase the penalties to ensure that traffickers would be held to account for the horrific human rights abuses in which they engaged.

Specifically, Bill C-36 would impose mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, any time a person commits any of the human trafficking offences against a child.

Although the Criminal Code currently imposes mandatory minimum penalties for trafficking children, it does not impose MMPs for receiving a material benefit from child trafficking or for withholding or destroying documents to facilitate child trafficking. Bill C-36 would fill this gap. MMPs of two years and one year respectively would apply to this conduct, which is consistent with the MMPs proposed for child prostitution.

The bill would also impose MMPs for the offence that prohibits human trafficking. Individuals convicted of human trafficking would receive a minimum sentence of five years if they committed kidnapping, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault or if they caused the death of the victim, and four years in all other cases.

This is consistent with existing penalties for child trafficking of six and five years in these same circumstances. Bill C-36 properly addresses the continuum of criminal behaviour associated with the provision of sexual services for consideration.

The fact that prostitution may, and does, result in human trafficking for sexual exploitation underscores the importance of prohibiting prostitution. The bill would ensure that the penalties for all of these related offences would be commensurate with the harmful conduct they censure.

Bill C-36 would also amend the definition of weapon in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

This amendment would ensure that offenders who possessed weapons of restraint, such as handcuffs, rope or duct tape, with the intent to commit an offence or to use such weapons to commit a violent offence would be held to account. Specifically, the amendment would clarify that.

First, possession of a weapon of restraint with intent to commit an offence constitutes criminal conduct under the offence prohibiting possession of weapon with intent to commit an offence.

Second, using a weapon of restraint to commit an assault or sexual assault would constitute criminal conduct under the offence prohibiting assault with a weapon or the offence prohibiting sexual assault with a weapon, depending on the facts of the case.

This approach would provide greater protection to all victims of these offences, including those who would sell their own sexual services. We know that sexual assault and assault are offences to which sellers of sexual services are particularly vulnerable.

Bill C-36 is more than just a response to the Bedford decision. It is also a response to the complex web of criminal conduct associated with prostitution.

It would provide law enforcement with powerful tools to address the many safety and societal concerns posed by prostitution.

Most importantly, it sends a strong message that Canada does not tolerate a practice that targets the most vulnerable in our society and places them at risk of suffering unspeakable and unimaginable human rights abuses.

Bill C-36 would clarify that it would not acceptable for those with money and power to buy sexual services from those without money and power.

I stand in support of this message and of a society that does not tolerate the many harms and abuses associated with prostitution. It will come at no surprise that I stand in support of Bill C-36.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that my colleague did not really listen to my speech.

He thinks it is the Nordic model, but that is not true in the least. This bill actually criminalizes women by taking away the means to do their job. Our priority is the safety of sex workers. It is obvious that this is not the Conservative government's priority with Bill C-36. The bill flies in the face of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Bedford case, which struck down three provisions of the law that put sex workers at even greater risk.

This bill criminalizes these men and women even more and puts them in greater danger. It runs completely counter to what the government claims to be doing, which is helping the people in this trade. It is awful to see this government constantly contradicting the Supreme Court and marginalizing Canadians.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to 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.

In December 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the Criminal Code imposes dangerous conditions on sex workers, which contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The sections prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients threaten sex workers’ right to security of the person.

This bill is meant to respond to the Bedford decision. However, the exact opposite is happening. The NDP consulted many legal experts, stakeholder groups, sex workers and authorities who are affected by this bill, and that is in addition to the 75 witnesses who appeared in committee. The vast majority of them said that they do not believe the bill is going in the right direction.

Unfortunately, there are many problems with the bill. In short, it forces sex trade workers to work in even more dangerous conditions. They are putting themselves in danger because they have to be more isolated. They will be on the streets and in alleys. The bill perpetuates and exacerbates stigmatization. It does not take into account the opinions of experts, education and advocacy groups or sex trade workers. It will have a negative impact on the important process of negotiating the parameters of the transaction, safety, the client's choice and the consent of the parties involved. What is more, for these reasons and in light of the 2013 Bedford decision, experts have found that the bill is unconstitutional.

In short, the Conservatives want a model where sex trade workers are only approached in the street late at night, where they are unable to ask questions or take safety precautions to protect their bodies and their lives.

I would like to read an open letter signed by more than 200 legal experts from across Canada. They are calling on the federal government to examine the harmful and unconstitutional impact of this bill. The letter reads:

Bill C-36...proposes a legal regime that criminalizes many aspects of adult prostitution, including the purchase of sexual services, the advertisement of sexual services, and most communication in public for the purpose of prostitution.

As the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford (“Bedford”), three of Canada’s current adult prostitution laws are an unjustifiable infringement of sex workers’ right to security of the person, pursuant to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”). These laws were found to create and exacerbate dangerous conditions and prevent sex workers from taking action to reduce or mitigate the risks they face. We are concerned that, for the very same reasons that caused the Court to strike down these prostitution laws, the criminal regime proposed by Bill C-36 is likely to offend the Charter as well.

The prohibition on purchasing sexual services (and communicating anywhere for that purpose) will have much the same effect as existing adult prostitution laws. Targeting clients will displace sex workers to isolated areas where prospective customers are less likely to be detected by police. Such criminalization will continue to limit the practical ability of sex workers to screen their clients or negotiate the terms of the transaction, as there will be pressure from clients to proceed as quickly as possible. Sex workers will continue to face barriers to police protection and will be prevented from operating in a safe indoor space, as clients face the potential of being arrested if they attend such spaces.

As a result, while criminalizing the purchase of sexual services is said to be aimed at protecting sex workers, this type of criminal prohibition will in fact do what the current adult prostitution laws do, which is to subject sex workers to a greater risk to their safety. This constitutes the reason why such laws were invalidated in the Bedford judgment.

Bill C-36 also proposes a law that will prohibit the sex industry from advertising. This type of prohibition will significantly limit sex workers’ ability to work safely indoors, as it restricts their ability to communicate their services to potential clients. This is concerning considering that the Court in Bedford clearly found that the ability to operate in indoor venues is a key measure for sex workers to reduce the risk of violence.

We would also like to address the proposed prohibition on communication to offer sexual services in a public place.... This provision continues to criminalize street-based sex workers, who are among the most marginalized segment of the industry, and is only marginally narrower than what the Court struck down in Bedford. The law will have the same effect of displacing sex workers to isolated areas where they are more likely to work alone in order to avoid police detection, and where they will continue to rush into vehicles without taking the time to screen clients and negotiate the terms of the transaction.

The letter has been signed by over 200 legal experts, and I think it explains very clearly why we, as legislators, cannot support this bill. The letter is readily accessible to all online; it can be found among the press releases on the Pivot Legal Society website. That organization, one of the signatories to the letter, works to address the root causes of poverty and social exclusion through legislation and policy, exploring what forces people to live on the fringes of society and what keeps them in difficult situations.

Whatever my hon. colleagues' personal beliefs are on the matter, we are going to have find a way to agree on how to respond to the requirements set out in the Bedford decision. This letter shows that the measures proposed in the bill go against those requirements.

We also need to guarantee the safety of sex workers, as directed by the court in the Bedford decision. However, this bill does the opposite by treating sex workers like criminals and putting their safety and their lives at risk.

Furthermore, this bill is unconstitutional, like many bills this government introduces, and too often they put the safety of the most marginalized people in Canada at risk. This includes aboriginal populations, women, transgendered people, refugees, people in the LGBTT community, and so on.

Again and again, the Conservatives try to protect the people they judge to be victims. However, in doing so, they marginalize them more. The government takes away their capacity for self-determination, which is just as important to human dignity as it is to protecting oneself, being safe and living a full life.

Everyone in Canada has a right to live free from violence and the risk of violence. As legislators, it is our duty to think about at-risk populations and help them reduce that risk. Bill C-36 flies in the face of this duty by increasing the risk of violence and death for a population working in an extremely dangerous profession.

Almost all experts agree. Not only did the Conservative government fail in its attempt to draft a proper bill, but because of it, we are also faced with the very disturbing possibility that the lives of sex workers will be deliberately and intentionally put in danger.

I therefore ask all of my colleagues in the House to vote against this bill.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act.

Bill C-36 would fill the gap created by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Bedford decision, which would result in the decriminalization of most adult prostitution-related activities if Bill C-36 is not in force before the expiry of the court's one-year suspension. I know with deep appreciation that the House of Commons justice committee and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied the bill during the summer recess in recognition of the Supreme Court's one-year time limit.

We have heard numerous criticisms of Bill C-36 from those people who oppose its approach, an approach that reflects a fundamental paradigm shift toward the treatment of prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation by criminalizing those who fuel the demand for prostitution and continuing to criminalize those who capitalize on that demand.

These criticisms include that the bill does not respect the Bedford decision, assertion one; that it should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for determination of its constitutionality, assertion two; and ultimately that the Bedford decision requires decriminalization of adult prostitution, assertion three. I propose to address each of these three assertions in turn.

With respect to the first assertion, that the bill does not respect the Bedford decision, the Supreme Court of Canada defined in Bedford the objectives of the three impugned prostitution offences narrowly as addressing primarily the nuisance aspect of prostitution rather than its harms. In doing so, it came to the conclusion that the effect of these offences was either grossly disproportionate or overbroad with respect to its objectives because they prevented sellers of sexual services from taking steps to protect themselves when engaging in a risky but legal activity. Specifically, existing provisions do not permit selling sexual services from fixed indoor locations, which was found to be the safest way to sell sex; hiring legitimate bodyguards; or negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places.

Bill C-36 comprehensively responds to these concerns. First, it articulates its new elevated objectives in its preamble. No longer would the law focus on addressing the nuisance aspects of prostitution. Bill C-36 is clearly targeted at addressing the exploitation involved in the practice and the harms it causes to those involved, to communities and to society at large by normalizing a practice that targets those who are disadvantaged, including because of gender, race, youth, poverty or a history of abuse.

Second, the scope of Bill C-36's proposed new and modernized offences is consistent with its objectives. Bill C-36 primarily targets the purchasers, those who fuel the demand for prostitution, and third parties, those who capitalize on that demand. Moreover, the proposed purchasing offence would make the prostitution transaction illegal. No longer would prostitution be a legal activity.

Bill C-36 would also immunize from prosecution those who are viewed as the vulnerable party to that illegal transaction, the sellers. Only in certain narrow circumstances would that group be held criminally liable, where their actions harm other vulnerable members of society, our children.

The justice committee narrowed the proposed “communicating offence” to apply only where communications for the purpose of selling sexual services occur in public places that are next to locations designated for use by children, namely, school grounds, playgrounds and daycare centres. The Senate committee heard that this narrowed offence clearly delineates the parameters of criminal liability and strikes the right balance between the protection of sellers and the protection of children who could be drawn into prostitution through exposure to the practice or harmed by dangerous refuse left behind, such as condoms and syringes. Furthermore, Bill C-36 would not prevent the implementation of certain safety measures noted in Bedford.

Specifically, Bill C-36 would not prevent selling sexual services from a fixed indoor location, hiring legitimate bodyguards or negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places, other than in those three child-specific locations I have already mentioned. This does not mean that Bill C-36 would facilitate or authorize the sale of sexual services. On the contrary, just as the bill seeks to reduce the purchase of sexual services, so it also seeks to reduce the sale of those services. While we work toward achieving the bill's objectives, those who remain subjected to prostitution should not be prevented from taking the measures that the Supreme Court of Canada found to be the most safety-enhancing.

Some witnesses before the two committees found this approach contradictory and therefore constitutionally suspect. I cannot agree. In my view, this approach recognizes the power imbalance that often accompanies the prostitution transaction. In too many cases this transaction does not involve two consenting autonomous individuals

Asymmetry in the application of the criminal law to the prostitution transaction recognizes that so often prostitution involves the purchase of sexual acts by those with money and power from those with little money and less power. In particular, prostitution allows men, who are primarily the purchasers of sexual services, paid access to female bodies, thereby demeaning and degrading the human dignity of all women and girls by entrenching a clearly gendered practice in Canadian society.

This brings me to the second assertion, that Bill C-36 should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for constitutional analysis. I stress that the Bedford case constitutes a constitutional analysis on these very issues and I have just referred to the many ways in which the decision influenced the development of the bill. Moreover, we have heard academics tell the two committees that constitutional cases need a solid evidentiary foundation as to the effects of the legislation. The evidence adduced in Bedford does not provide that record in respect to Bill C-36, which has different objectives and proposes new prostitution offences. In short, it would be premature to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for its constitutional analysis at this stage.

I note, however, that the Minister of Justice tabled a technical paper with both parliamentary committees that summarizes the evidence relied upon in the development of Bill C-36. The technical paper is also available on the department's website.

The third assertion is that Bedford requires decriminalization. There are those who claim that Bedford stands for the proposition that the law must allow the purchase and sale of sexual services in fixed indoor locations; the employment of bodyguards, receptionists and others who may enhance safety; and all public communications for the purpose of selling or purchasing sexual services. However, this reading of the Bedford case ignores the fact that the court analyzed the three impugned provisions in their existing legal context. This context makes adult prostitution a legal activity and as held in Bedford, reduces the objectives of existing prostitution-related offences to combatting primarily the nuisance effects of prostitution. Moreover, this interpretation of Bedford ignores the Supreme Court of Canada's clear statement that Parliament is not precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted.

Those who read Bedford as requiring decriminalization appear to have forgotten the premise of the Supreme Court of Canada's analysis, that prostitution is currently a legal activity. In that context, the court found that sellers cannot be prevented from implementing safety measures. However, Bedford does not stand for the proposition that prostitution must be recognized as work like any other and those involved in the trade, be they sellers, so-called managers, or other third parties.

Bill C-36 fundamentally alters the premise on which the Supreme Court of Canada's constitutional analysis was based. It makes prostitution illegal because it is too dangerous and poses too great a harm to those involved, the communities in which it is practised, and society at large to entrench it as a form of work recognized by law. Bill C-36 posits that doing so would increase the sex trade, and concomitantly, increase the risk of vulnerable persons being drawn into it. The Bedford case does not preclude such an approach, rather it opens the door to it.

Bill C-36 is a welcome change to the criminal law's approach to prostitution. It recognizes that entrenching prostitution as a legitimate profession by facilitating it through decriminalization would result in more vulnerable persons being drawn into it. I do not think this is the type of society to which we should aspire.

I implore my fellow parliamentarians to stand with those who have been subjected to prostitution by force or through lack of meaningful options, some of whom courageously testified before the two committees and were silenced by prostitution's oppression. I ask all members to stand with me in support of the bill, which was specifically developed to protect vulnerable persons from oppression.

The House resumed from September 22 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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, on the question of missing and murdered aboriginal women, I was pleased that last night the House of Commons had an opportunity to vote to concur with the excellent work in the report done by the committee of parliamentarians that examined that issue, one of well over two dozen such studies that have been undertaken on the subject. They have been helpful in forming the government's action plan that is taking place to help address this problem and help to improve the conditions of aboriginal women on reserve and elsewhere.

In terms of the government's agenda, this afternoon we will continue the second reading of Bill C-41, the Canada-Korea economic growth and prosperity act. This important bill would implement our landmark free trade agreement with South Korea, Canada's first in the Asia-Pacific region, I might add. It would provide expanded access for Canada's businesses and workers to a growing G20 economy, Asia's fourth largest.

Free trade with South Korea is projected to create thousands of jobs for hard-working Canadians by boosting Canada's economy by almost $2 billion annually and increasing our exports to South Korea by almost one-third.

That debate will continue next week, on Tuesday.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will see the conclusion of the report stage of Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. The House will recall that we are working to implement this legislation before the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford takes effect before Christmas.

Monday shall be the third allotted day, with the New Democrats choosing the topic of discussion.

I am designating Monday as the day appointed pursuant to Standing Order 66.2 for the conclusion of the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

On Wednesday, the House will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime legislation.

Thursday morning should see the end of the third reading debate on Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act. Then we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-40, the important bill to establish the Rouge national urban park. After question period we will start the second reading debate on Bill S-5, which would also, in a similar vein, create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

Friday will be set aside for third reading of Bill C-36.

Physical Obstruction

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today to raise a question of privilege regarding a worrying incident that took place today on Parliament Hill. I feel that it was a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member.

The incident took place just after 10:40 a.m. As we all know, earlier today, the government proposed a time allocation motion, the 76th of its kind, at the report stage and third reading of Bill C-36.

At approximately 10:40 a.m., the bells were ringing to call in the members for the vote on this motion. The bells were still ringing when I was physically blocked from entering the House of Commons at the appropriate time.

I was denied access because of security measures put in place today for an official visit from a foreign dignitary. An RCMP officer prevented me from entering the parliamentary precinct, saying that he had received very strict instructions not to let anyone pass. That obstruction was a serious breach of my privileges as a member.

I got here just in time to vote. Regardless of whether I was late, access to the parliamentary precinct, whether it is to vote, to participate in a committee meeting, to attend question period, to deliver a speech, or just to listen to the debate, is a strictly protected privilege.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 108 that:

In circumstances where Members claim to be physically obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary functions, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct—as well as occurrences of physical assault or molestation have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.

I would ask you to consider my question and the facts I just related. I believe you will also find that my privilege was breached and that I was prevented from carrying out my functions as an elected member of the House of Commons.

If you find that there was a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Bill C-36--Time Allocation Motion

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the tone coming from the opposite side of the House is deeply disturbing. MPs are raising legitimate issues with regard to the time allocation on Bill C-36. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands posed a question to the minister, but the minister failed to respond directly to the request from the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The minister continues to cite that the Department of Justice has reviewed the current legislation and continues to assure the House that it is constitutional. Once again I ask the minister if he will table the opinion of the Department of Justice on the constitutionality of this bill, given the number of people who have raised very serious concerns that this bill may well face another court challenge?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since October, when we had the last Speech from the Throne, this is the 22nd time allocation motion. I look forward to the Speaker's ruling on my question of privilege. The repetitive and nearly constant use of time allocation violates our responsibilities and our ability to do our work here as parliamentarians.

I have a small side comment for the Minister of Justice. I find his gratuitous and ad hominem insults toward the members for Charlottetown and Burnaby—New Westminster to be unworthy of a minister of the Crown.

I would ask him this one simple question. If he is so sure that this bill is constitutional, which I and most legal experts do not believe it is, would he please table the legal opinion of the Department of Justice lawyers that Bill C-36 is in fact constitutional?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, being concise is not my strong suit, especially since this is the 76th time the government has used a time allocation motion. Today it is about a bill that was studied in committee, and many witnesses appeared before that committee.

If I understand correctly, the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would make tomorrow the only day set aside for speeches that are essential to alerting Canadians about the implications of Bill C-36 at second reading and report stage.

According to the daily order of business in the House, that happens to be Friday, and everyone knows that on Fridays, the House discusses routine proceedings until 1:30 p.m. That means very little time will be spent on the debate.

If memory serves, on Monday, we had barely two and a half hours of debate on Bill C-36 at report stage. That is the height of indecency. I am learning how Parliament works. Not only have I learned that we are not entitled to receive answers in the chamber, but I have also learned that we do not have the right to speak or even air our opinions.

I have a question for the minister. The theory underlying Bill C-36 is that sex workers are victims. However, according to a report published this week, many sex workers do not consider themselves to be victims.

Is the government afraid of letting people have their say on Bill C-36, which experts have condemned as unconstitutional? If the minister tells me that it is because the Supreme Court gave them until December to bring in legislation, then he misunderstood the Bedford decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a tightly run machine over here and as a result, I move:

That, in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-36—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that agreements have not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Justice

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact what my hon. friend says is incorrect.

Bill C-36 specifically responds to the major concern in the Bedford case, which was the inability of sex workers to carry on their trade from a fixed, safe indoor location where they could have security and properly screen their clients. Bill C-36 allows exactly that. That is what each of the litigants in the Bedford decision asked for, and that is what Bill C-36 delivers to them.

Some are saying that decriminalization of prostitution is the only way to ensure the safety of those subject to it, and that Bill C-36 will increase prostitution's risks by criminalizing both the purchase and the sale of sexual services in a narrow range of circumstances. They also question the compliance of Bill C-36 with the charter. These assertions are not true.

First, Bill C-36 reflects a fundamental paradigm shift away from treatment of prostitution as a nuisance toward treatment of prostitution for what it is, sexual exploitation. Consistent with this transformative objective, Bill C-36 would criminalize the purchase of sexual services, but generally, not the sale. Those who sell sexual services are viewed as victims of an exploitative practice, and accordingly, they would be immunized from prosecution for any part they may play in the new purchasing, material benefit, procuring or advertising offences.

I would also note that decriminalization has been linked to higher rates of human trafficking in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. I therefore reject the assertion that decriminalization is the only way to ensure the safety of those who offer sex for sale.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, today I will speak about Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act. Specifically, I would like to discuss how the Supreme Court of Canada's Bedford decision informed Bill C-36's proposals for law reform.

Under the current law, neither the purchase nor sale of sexual services is illegal. However, certain activities related to prostitution are prohibited. The Supreme Court found that three of these offences were unconstitutional on the basis that they violate section 7 of the charter, the right to security of the person—in this case, individuals who sell their own sexual services—by preventing them from taking measures to protect themselves while engaging in a risky but legal activity. These protective measures include independently selling sexual services from a fixed indoor location, hiring bodyguards and drivers, and negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places.

The offences were found to be grossly disproportionate or overly broad in scope with respect to their legislative objectives, which, in the court's view, target primarily the nuisance aspects of prostitution.

In response, Bill C-36 would make prostitution an illegal activity by criminalizing the purchase of sexual services, which represents half of the prostitution transaction.

Bill C-36's preamble explains why it would make prostitution illegal. It clarifies that Parliament sees prostitution as an inherently exploitative activity that always poses a risk of violence.

Bill C-36 also seeks to protect communities from the harms associated with prostitution, including related criminality and the exposure of children to the sale of sex as a commodity.

For these reasons, Bill C-36 seeks to reduce the incidents of prostitution with a view to abolishing it as much as is possible.

These new statements of purpose, which are reflected in Bill C-36's preamble, would serve as a starting point for any future charter analysis of Bill C-36's reforms. The court would have to analyze the new offences, offences that would restrict an exploitative and therefore illegal activity, through this lens.

Moreover, Bill C-36's provisions would provide that persons who sell their own sexual services could not be prosecuted when they sell sexual services from a fixed indoor location, whether independently or co-operatively. This approach responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's safety concerns about the ability to sell sexual services indoors.

Bill C-36 would also carefully balance the Supreme Court of Canada's safety concerns regarding the availability of protective services with the need to ensure that exploitative third parties are criminalized. Specifically, Bill C-36 would limit the scope of the new material benefit offence through legislated exceptions that would apply to several groups of people, including those who provide protective services to persons who sell their sexual services, but it clearly stipulates that those exceptions would not apply in exploitative circumstances.

Finally, to address the Supreme Court's concern that persons who sell their own sexual services must be able to take steps to negotiate safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places, Bill C-36 would significantly narrow the scope of the existing communicating offence.

The current offence applies to all communications made in any public place for the purposes of purchasing or selling sexual services. However, under Bill C-36, the new purchasing offence would also prohibit communicating in any place for the purposes of purchasing.

A separate offence would apply to communicating for the purposes of selling sexual services, but only in a public place or in any place open to public view that is, or is next to, a schoolground, playground, or daycare centre. It would only be in those places.

This approach strikes a careful balance between the interests of two vulnerable groups: those who are exploited through prostitution and those of children who may be exposed to the sale of sex as a commodity, which is a harm in and of itself.

I hope that this clarifies any concerns about Bill C-36's compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada's findings in Bedford.