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.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Bill C-36 is our government's response to the Bedford decision. In our view, it meets every test of the Supreme Court decision and will be upheld by the Supreme Court in accordance with Bedford. It is the role of the government to propose legislation, and it is the job of all parliamentarians to debate that legislation. We are looking forward to the debate here in Parliament later this week.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the minister's job to make sure that the laws that he files in the House are charter compliant and constitutional.

The Supreme Court was clear in its unanimous ruling. The prostitution laws are unconstitutional because they endanger the safety and lives of those who are in this line of work.

The government's response must respect the charter and the court's decision. Many experts have raised serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill C-36.

If the minister thinks that his law will stand up in court, why does he not make his legal opinions public?

Instruction to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (violence against women)

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, women have the right to full equality and women have the right to live their lives free of violence. These two principles are inseparable because with the threat of violence there can be no substantive equality. The government can and must do more to support women's equality, especially when it comes to addressing violence against women. It is everyone's responsibility to reduce violence, but it is the particular responsibility of parliamentarians to take substantive action in this direction.

Motion No. 504 is well intentioned, however, when one realizes how widespread violence against women is in Canada, we feel it does not go far enough. Half of all women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16 and this number has remained stagnant over the past 40 years.

In first nations, the statistics are worse. Women are much more vulnerable with homicide rates seven times higher than that of non-aboriginal Canadian women. In the recent reports by the RCMP, there are nearly 1,200 cases of missing or murdered indigenous women in Canada.

Both Amnesty International and the United Nations have called upon the Canadian government to take action on this issue without success. Women in countless organizations across Canada have called upon the government to take action.

The Conservative government has claimed to have taken real action to combat violence against women, yet it has refused to develop a national action plan. In fact, in 2006, the government changed the Status of Women Canada women's program, making it impossible for Status of Women Canada to fund the work of organizations when it relates to advocacy, lobbying, or general research on women's rights issues. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has expressed concern on the impact of changes to the Status of Women agency, in particular on access to services by aboriginal and rural women.

The minister who changed the women's program mandate at the time, Bev Oda, said, “"We don't need to separate the men from the women in this country. This government as a whole is responsible to develop policies and programs that address the needs of both men and women."

First and foremost, the government must recognize that gender inequality is the root cause of violence against women. We know that women are 11 times more likely than men to be a target of sexual offences and three times more likely to experience criminal harassment. With these facts in mind and with the prevalence of violence against women stagnant in Canada while all other violent crime rates drop, does the government still believe that we do not need to work toward meeting the needs of women in this country?

As parliamentarians, we have the ability to enact a national action plan that would address the severity of violence against women, yet the government has taken no action in this direction despite the recommendations numerous organizations have made. In the absence of a national action plan, responses to violence against women, including education and prevention programs, are fragmented and inconsistent.

In order to fully address the root causes of violence against women, I urge the government to immediately pick up Motion No. 444 and consult with civil society in order to create a multi-sector national action plan. With Canada in the international spotlight, we must respond. We call upon the government to immediately commit to funding legal aid, shelters, transitions houses, social housing, health services, advocacy, and research in order to prevent and treat violence against women for all women in Canada.

In regard to Motion No. 504, I urge the government to make the necessary provisions that would allow for the issues associated with violence against all women to be addressed. First, we ask the study to include the examination of programs as well as policy. Second, we ask that the study look at best practices in Canada and abroad. Other countries like Canada, such as Australia, have taken strident steps toward a national action plan and their methods are working. We should take this opportunity to learn from them.

There is near consensus among Canadian civil society and violence against women service providers that a national action plan is urgently needed. Indeed, the Canadian Network of Women's Shelters and Transition Houses is spearheading meetings to discuss the creation of such an action plan. However, civil society, women's advocates, and service providers cannot accomplish this task alone. The federal government must be a leader at the table. It is incumbent upon the House to listen to what experts and front-line workers are telling us. Right now they are saying the same thing: we need a national action plan.

The Canadian Network of Women’s Shelters and Transition Houses wrote in its report:

It is clear that in the absence of a National Action Plan, responses to VAW in Canada are largely fragmented, often inaccessible, and can work to impede rather than improve women’s safety....A strategic and sustainable step toward meaningfully addressing VAW in Canada is to establish a multi-sectoral NAP that adheres to the guidelines and principles set out by the UN Handbook for Legislation on Violence Against Women...and the UN Handbook for National Action Plans on Violence Against Women...

The fact is we can study component pieces of the solution to violence against women and it will only be a drop in the bucket of the work that must be done, right now, to end violence in women's lives. Education and prevention are critical, but we must move beyond that.

A national action plan would be coordinated with governments across the country. It would set out a framework to be followed over the course of many years. It would uphold Canada's commitments to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as well as the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. It would be based in evidence, new research and extensive consultation with experts and communities. The plan would include evaluation and accountability measures for government and civil society alike.

With all of this working together, it will have a real effect on women’s lives and the lives of all of those who depend on the well-being of women in our society.

We have international examples of national action plans. Belize, Liberia, Peru, France, Australia, Spain and many more have comprehensive and coherent programs of activity.

I have spent the past year travelling to different parts of the country in order to hold consultation sessions with the people in Canada who are at the front lines of fighting violence against women. I sat down with the directors of emergency shelters, transition houses and drop-in centres. I listened to lawyers, advocates and social workers. I heard the concerns of sexual assault service providers and rape crisis line workers. I met with women who were survivors of violence themselves. Across the board we heard the same thing: the government does not provide enough funding or support to even come close to ending violence against women.

I cannot name or quote these individuals, for fear that the government may slash what little funding their organizations are receiving, but I will paraphrase some of the messages we heard.

Service providers are subsidizing the government with unpaid hours of labour. Two people work for one person's salary in order to provide desperate women with the bare minimum of what they need to exit violence. One of the organizations said, “We tell women that it is possible to leave a violent relationship and start her life again, but the reality is that without sufficient housing, legal aid and welfare that simply is not true”.

I heard from others that, “Repeated cuts to this sector have devastated our capacity to work together as a community to provide the best services”, and “We cannot advocate for women to the government when we are barely able to keep our doors open”.

We heard again and again about how frustrating and insufficient the Status of Women agency was since the Prime Minister made those substantive changes to its granting system. Short-term, two-year grants ensure that best practices will necessarily end with no hope of renewal. It means that service providers are in constant grant-writing mode instead of working to help women. The fact that organizations are explicitly forbidden from applying for advocacy and research means that all their work is short-sighted and never allowed to address the major systemic barriers.

Perhaps most telling is that for a time, the government took the word “equality” out of the Status of Women's mandate. The absence of that one word speaks volumes about the regressive attitude the government has taken toward women.

I also want to point to the most recent bill, Bill C-36, which aims to save prostitutes. We in the NDP have expressed our high concern that this new legislation places sex workers in danger and we believe it does not uphold women's charter rights.

For a government that constantly claims to be standing up for victims, it refuses to give vulnerable people what they need to achieve equality. Therein lies the fundamental difference between the NDP and the Conservative approach to women. The government paints women as victims who are in need of protection, but we know women must be empowered to claim their full rights. Women in Canada deserve better. We deserve commitment and leadership from the government to end violence against women.

In conclusion, I move, seconded by the member for LaSalle—Émard:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “education and social programs” with the words “education programs, social programs, and policies”.

Justice

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, several analysts have concluded that Bill C-36 does not do an adequate job of protecting prostitutes as required by the Supreme Court in Bedford. A number of experts and sex workers believe that Bill C-36 will force prostitution further underground and expose people to more violence.

Will the government disclose the legal opinions it received and refer its bill to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible to ensure that it is charter compliant and in line with the Bedford ruling?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

Justice

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to reading the scientific survey the minister still has in his possession and is avoiding to give to everybody.

Six months ago, the Supreme Court forced the government to review the legislation concerning prostitution in order to better protect the lives and safety of sex trade workers. Several of the provisions run counter to this objective and even seem to contravene the Supreme Court ruling. We are afraid that Bill C-36 will push prostitution further into the shadows, drive it underground and make it more violent.

Will the government refer its bill to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible to ensure that it complies with the charter and the Bedford ruling?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, $20 million, a drop in the bucket, not even budgeted yet.

We cannot trust the Conservatives to protect women's rights. This issue is at the heart of the debate and the Supreme Court ruling in Bedford. With Bill C-36, pimps and prostitutes will be criminalized, but not drivers. Soliciting will be prohibited on the streets, but not on private premises. Private advertising will be allowed, but not public advertising. There is a very fine line, and the balance is precarious.

Will the government make public the legal opinions it received before introducing Bill C-36?