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.

[Marion Little]

I think that one of the critically important pieces is that when any policy or law affects marginalized women, whether they're sex workers, aboriginal women, Inuit, first nations, Métis, women who have recently immigrated, refugees, or those with temporary status—whichever group it is—that group has to be consulted, particularly through peer-to-peer points of contact with that group. Then, the national research consensus on best practices and on the implications of various policy applications have to be very seriously considered. When we neglect both of those pieces, we end up with the kind of example, the very small example, that I gave about what happens when, among the very excellent police officers we have across Canada, one or two in each region are unethical. Those one or two literally decimate the possibility of sex workers or first nations women or whoever engaging with that particular authority. The same situation happens within the health system and within social services: one or two unethical people in positions of power and authority in each region decimate the capacity for marginalized women to access resources in an equitable way, which the rest of us assume everybody can access, without having to deal with exploitation.

So those consultations are important, and funding for the agencies is, of course, critically important. Basing law on research and information is important, and then, of course, we need prevention training for abuse prevention generally to shift the culture of violence. In Canada, we're looking at embedded issues around racism and classism and things like that, which are affecting people in ways that most of us don't imagine.

I'm not sure what to say. The pieces about doing those kinds of things are in front of us. I think these issues don't need to be divisive. In the case of Bill C-36, for example, had consultations involving women's agencies across Canada been more comprehensive, those conversations at the ground level would have led to more consensus at the table, in Parliament. We need to look at these issues as health issues. When H1N1 infected 10% of the population, we created the Public Health Agency; we created an office; we created a contingency fund. This is sustainable. It's ongoing. Violence against women is a threat involving 50% of the population. It's a far greater health and justice threat than any health epidemic that we've faced has been. We need to look at implementing the kinds of best practices we already know exist through having responded to epidemics within the health system.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Little, could you comment on how Bill C-36 will impact on the safety of women?

[Marion Little, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you so much for your invitation.

Please permit me to open and close with poems that invoke some of the voices of the many women and girls I’ve been privileged to serve over the years.

The first is from Jamie Jardine.

Wounds
I stand naked
Looking in the mirror
What do I see?
Not the flawless woman I so yearn to be
But a damaged girl permanently scared,
Scarred from unwanted abuse that will not fade,
No matter what I do.
Every time I look, I’m reminded of where,
And from whom they came.
I’ve stopped trying to change,
To cover or erase these scars.
I’ve stopped explaining these dark wounds.
These are my tattoos.

There are so many issues I would love to speak about with you today. Drawing on my experience, I will focus exclusively on the marginalized women who are many times more likely to be targeted by violence than anyone else. My primary point is that marginalized women require sustainably funded, tailored, responsive, unconditional peer-to-peer programs informed directly by their needs and the context in which they live.

I'm so nervous; I can hear my voice shaking. Pardon me.

This core best practice is recognized as the most accessible, effective, and cost-efficient way to increase wellness while decreasing marginalization and experiences of violence. Marginalized women are more likely to participate in peer-to-peer programs than in mainstream programs. Disclosure is more likely in trusted peer settings, making them critical for response, liaison with police, trauma recovery, and violence prevention.

My secondary point is that the best practice in policy development and drafting new law related to marginalized women requires that these peer groups be comprehensively consulted, alongside the national academic research consensus on the issues.

In the B.C. missing women inquiry report “Forsaken,” the Honourable Wally Oppal defines marginalization as “the social process by which individuals and groups are relegated to the fringe of society” and “systematically blocked from rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available in a society”.

It is related to the “endangerment and vulnerability to predation” of marginalized people, “creating the climate in which the missing and murdered women were forsaken”.

He says the following:

Three overarching social and economic trends contribute to the women’s marginalization: retrenchment of social assistance programs, the ongoing effects of colonialism, and the criminal regulation of prostitution and related law enforcement strategies.

According to the Ending Violence Association of BC, most women and children killed or seriously injured by domestic or sexual violence in recent years were members of marginalized groups. Please see endingviolence.org. They identified gaps regarding specialized, domestic, and sexual violence services for marginalized women, in particular aboriginal women; immigrant women, including refugees and migrant workers; women with disabilities; women with mental health or addictions issues; women in rural areas; impoverished women; lesbians and transsexual women; and sex workers. And I would add the service gap for youth who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

According to Statistics Canada, women aged 15 to 24 are most commonly targeted by all forms of violence. This, combined with marginalization, makes it difficult to grasp the enormity of the issue, particularly since marginalized women are often reluctant to call police and more likely to access informal supports.

As you know, aboriginal women—first nations, Métis, and Inuit women—experience higher levels of violence and are disproportionately represented in the number of missing and murdered women across Canada. They have a heightened vulnerability to violence simply because they live in what the Honourable Wally Oppal calls “a society that poses a risk to their safety”. The report also said, “In British Columbia and around the world, vulnerable and marginalized women are exposed to a higher risk of violence including sexual assault, murder and serial predation.”

The B.C. Missing Women Commission of Inquiry says that it’s imperative we realize the broader forces of marginalization and societal dismissal and abandonment that contributed to the vulnerability of the women. That dismissal and abandonment also shaped police response. While aboriginal and sex worker groups have identified valid concerns about the B.C. inquiry, it also contains very thoughtful recommendations. I commend it for your consideration.

Please review the executive summary of the Honourable Wally Oppal's report, “Forsaken”, via the website of the Attorney General of B.C. I also invite you to review the October 1, 2014, letter to Parliament from the Secretary General of Amnesty International, which is available on their website.

The Supreme Court has recognized street-based sex workers as some of the most marginalized members of society. The first nationwide research on sex work is emerging just now from the University of Victoria Centre for Addictions Research. It offers new—and what some may find surprising—findings. Understanding the reality of sex work here is central to developing laws, policies, practices, and supports that will actually prevent violence and increase safety for all of us. Please see their website at understandingsexwork.com.

Peer-to-peer supports are a core best practice for marginalized groups. For example, PEERS Victoria and sister agencies across Canada provide rare, unconditional, and trusted peer-to-peer supports for current and past sex workers when they are distressed, experience violence, or seek help. Sadly, all are grossly underfunded.

The respectful relationship between PEERS Victoria, the sex workers they serve, and the Victoria police special victims unit routinely leads to the arrest and jailing of violent offenders, increasing public safety. Support for marginalized groups positively impacts the whole community.

Unfortunately, it takes only a few unethical officers to destroy that trust and the related benefits. Sex workers and research tell us that police are among their clients, and that there are unethical officers who are violent or abuse their power to coerce sex. It is a common enough experience for sex workers in Canada, such that they tend to distrust police as a group. The reality of unethical officers harming or exploiting sex workers poses a certain dilemma under Bill C-36, where those same officers now hold increased power over sex workers and an increased reason to silence them.

Education across the justice system about marginalized women is necessary to increase reporting, ensure effective responses, protect the vulnerable, and prevent violence. Ongoing abuse prevention training and strong policies to address abuse of power within government institutions, such as health, justice, and social services, are also necessary, because marginalized women tend to distrust them due to routine experiences that range from discourtesy and dismissal to exploitation and violence.

Sexual exploitation of minors is not sex work. It's child abuse. It and trafficking are separate issues and direct acts of violence with specific laws. However, laws are not enough to prevent these atrocities. As a primary prevention, we must provide stable housing, food security, and nurturing supports for the over 65,000 youth in Canada who are currently homeless or at risk of homelessness—see raisingtheroof.org.

Violence against marginalized women and girls is directly linked to our child poverty rates and our housing crisis—our home crisis, actually. If we're serious about violence prevention, we will mitigate the factors that increase marginalization at individual, relational, community, and societal levels. This requires accessible stable housing, legal aid, food security, and clean water. It requires enough affordable child care spaces, addiction treatment beds, and transitional shelters, as well as programs—particularly peer-to-peer programs—that support trauma recovery, skill development, and community building. We must invest in increased resilience and empowerment.

If we tolerate violence against marginalized women, sex workers and aboriginal women being the starkest examples, then we allow that to stand as a threat to all women, a graphic threat that violence is tolerated against any of us, depending only on circumstance and social whim, and that neither our laws nor our rights and freedoms as Canadians will protect us from it. Socially condoned or ignored violence against marginalized women is an open attack on every woman, an open attack on the justice system, and an open attack on the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens.

I will close with one final, very brief poem from a poet at PEERS, who uses the metaphor of a maze full of dead ends contrasted against a labyrinth that is one circling contemplative path:

Puzzle
My life is a maze.
I’m always running into a dead end
No matter which way I turn,
Even when I take the next right step.
I strive for my life to be a labyrinth;
To go in, and no matter which way I go,
It’s the right path to that place
Where I am always centred.

Thank you.

Violence Against Women

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Canada's National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, which commemorates the 14 young women who were brutally murdered at École Polytechnique in 1989.

Women and girls continue to face violence and harassment in their homes, schools, and workplaces, as well as online and on the streets.

Women's equality advocates identify prostitution and human trafficking as two of the most serious forms of violence against women. It is fitting, therefore, that Bill C-36 will come into force tomorrow. This is a historic moment for Canada.

Under Bill C-36, Canada's laws will uphold the equality of women as human beings, not objects to be bought and sold. It will seek to end the violence against women that is inherent in prostitution and human trafficking, tomorrow and every day of the year.

Let us remember the victims, and let us be resolved to continue to stand against violence against women in all its forms.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today.

I am pleased to be this afternoon with this esteemed committee to answer questions regarding items in supplementary estimates (B) as Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

This is my 50th appearance before a parliamentary committee. Joining me today are deputy minister William F. Pentney, associate deputy minister, Pierre Legault, and, senior assistant deputy minister of policy, Donald K. Piragoff.

This has been a busy session. We have three bills that have passed through Parliament. We have three more that are approaching that stage, six in fact when we consider some that are just beginning the process, six or seven more that are in the queue, and 13 private members' bills.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I am tasked with helping ensure a fair, relevant and accessible justice system for all Canadians.

A continuing priority and challenge for all of us involved in the justice system is to ensure that all Canadians have access to justice in a timely and meaningful way. I believe this is certainly a sentiment shared by you and participants in the justice system across the country.

Governments in all jurisdictions have obligations in tackling this through multiple initiatives. At the federal level we have been providing ongoing funding for programs to provinces and territories to promote access to justice. Mr. Chair, colleagues, the Department of Justice funded and supported the work of the national Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, which brought together major stakeholders throughout our system.

The DOJ continues to promote access to family justice by working closely with its provincial and territorial colleagues. I would share with you that I recently attended the annual FPT meeting this September, and it is certainly a sentiment shared by my provincial and territorial colleagues that we continue to improve on this system. People are very motivated, as is the bench.

To that end we've renewed the funding, the grants and contributions available for supporting families experiencing separation and divorce initiatives, for three years. With this renewed funding provinces and territories can access up to $15.5 million annually for the next three years for family justice services that include mediation and support enforcement services. Non-governmental organizations can also access up to $0.5 million annually to help them inform separating and divorcing families about family law. This is a big issue, particularly given the number of unrepresented persons now in our system.

Funding for federal activities under this initiative was also renewed for two years. These activities support the department's mandate with respect to federal family laws and provide legally mandated support enforcement and divorce registry services to provinces and territories, and to all Canadians.

This initiative funds many services and projects that make it easier for separating and divorcing families to access the family justice system, as well as ensure that parents comply with their obligations under family law. An evaluation this year concluded that the initiative achieved its objectives in promoting access to the family justice system for Canadian families. I am pleased to see that we are having measurable and tangible progress, and we hope to replicate this across the entire system.

In addition to promoting access to the family justice system, our government's efforts also include two major initiatives funded under the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018 to develop and enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and promote linguistic duality in the justice system.

The Department of Justice also promotes access to justice through our justice partnership and innovative program, which provides resources for projects that address access to justice, family violence, public legal education and information, and violence against aboriginal women and girls. This department plans to transfer $1.26 million earmarked for contributions from this program towards grants.

Mr. Chairman, I know you follow this type of activity very closely. This transfer is a positive move that will reduce the administrative burden on the public legal information organizations and non-governmental organizations. Ultimately, it will make it easier to access funding using a high-risk based approach and ensure that the justice system remains accessible, efficient, and effective.

On the issue of legal aid, at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meeting I referenced, my colleagues and I reiterated our commitment for continued collaboration to strengthen legal aid and the justice system for Canadians. In these supplementary estimates, the total annual federal funding has increased by $14.4 million for 2014-15 to 2016-17. This comprises funding for immigration and refugee legal aid, court-ordered counsel in federal prosecutions, and program operations.

Part of ensuring access to justice is ensuring that Canadians are protected and that our streets and communities remain safe.

Our government is moving forward with several criminal justice initiatives in order to keep our citizens safe. It is indeed the foremost responsibility of any government.

One of these initiatives is the aboriginal justice strategy, which was renewed in budget 2014 at $22.2 million over two years. This program, operated on a cost-shared basis with provinces and territories, supports community-based justice programs that have been proven to be effective in reducing crime and providing alternatives to incarceration for less serious crimes in appropriate circumstances.

We also continue to work through the Department of Justice's youth justice fund to encourage a youth justice system that is fair and effective. This fund offers grants and contributions to various organizations. While demand for grants to support small-scale projects has declined in recent years, the demand for contributions to support multi-year pilot projects continues to increase. I can give you a number of examples, particularly in urban settings: the guns and gangs initiative, drug treatment, mental health treatment, and, particularly important for prairie provinces but I would suggest across the country, programs aimed at addressing the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome disorder. To meet the growing demand of these requests, Mr. Chairman, we are transferring $600,000 from the fund's grants funding to contribution funding, so that it is better able to meet the current needs of our partners.

Another one of these initiatives to keep our citizens safe was in response to the Bedford decision. Members here will recall when the Supreme Court struck the three major sections on prosecution last December. The government took steps to protect our communities, vulnerable people, and those involved in this inherently dangerous activity by focusing police resources on the consumers and the perpetrators.

I'm pleased to say that Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, will come into force next week. I want to take this opportunity to thank this committee for their attention and the fact that you reconvened the committee over the summer months to focus on this important issue. Through this bill we're ensuring that the laws protect those who sell their sexual services and prosecute those who exploit them. This bill will protect communities as well from the harms of prostitution, and reduce, we hope, the demand for sexual services.

In addition, the justice and public safety departments will be providing support for exit strategy programming for those involved in prostitution. That amount, as you know, is $20 million. There will be more to put forward in the coming days about how to enhance such things as education, job training, helping with child care, counselling, and mental health and addictions. All of these figure prominently in this complex problem.

Mr. Chairman, our government has also continued to move forward on new initiatives that ensure that victims of crime are treated with the courtesy, compassion, and respect they deserve. For example, over the past seven years, we have designated more than $140 million to give victims a more effective voice through initiatives delivered by the Department of Justice. This amounts to money allocated to the Department of Justice's victims fund, a grants and contributions program that provides funding to provinces, territories, and non-governmental organizations whose projects, activities, and operations support the objectives of this fund.

We also work closely with other departments; Public Safety, as I mentioned, but certainly Labour and the minister responsible for the Status of Women.

Mr. Chair, other initiatives include, as you are aware, the victims ombudsman's office, which is key to enhancing victims...and include a strategy of $10 million to support the child advocacy centres set up across the country.

I can table more information with respect to these advocacy centres, but suffice it to say that this is, I think, one of the most compassionate initiatives we have undertaken in decades, which goes directly to the effort to lessen the harms that inevitably flow from child sexual abuse. This work, which is being done in some 22 centres now across Canada, is having a profound impact of improvement upon our justice system, vis-à-vis this devastating problem of child abuse. In my time as Minister of Justice, the child and youth advocacy centres are the most impressive initiative I have seen.

Mr. Chair, other important priorities for the government for protecting Canadians include combatting impaired driving, still the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. To that end, I remain committed to bringing forward legislative initiatives to modernize and strengthen impaired and drug-impaired offences as they pertain to provisions of the Criminal Code.

In conclusion, all of this is to say, Mr. Chair and colleagues, that the money that has been allotted to our department has been well used and is accounted for.

To conclude, I would like to thank you and your committee members for the important work you do, and for giving me the opportunity to make these opening remarks.

The funding that the Department of Justice portfolio has received has brought results for Canadians, and I will do my utmost to ensure that these funds will continue to be spent wisely.

I now look forward to taking your questions.

Thank you.

[Lisa Steacy, Representative, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres]

First I would like to thank the committee for inviting the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres/L'Association canadienne des centres contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, which I'll refer to as CASAC, to present today.

Founded in 1975, CASAC member centres continue to provide front-line crisis support and intervention to women who have experienced men's violence, from Halifax to Vancouver, in English and French, in urban centres and rural communities.

One of the crucial functions of CASAC is to speak publicly for the thousands of women who tell us their stories on confidential phone lines. Every woman who calls a CASAC centre takes the risk of speaking honestly and deliberately about the violence she has experienced. I would be doing these women a disservice if I did not speak similarly here today.

Any discussion of promising practices to prevent violence against women requires an honest and deliberate definition of what exactly we are trying to prevent. The phrase “violence against women” elides a fact that must be central to this study, namely that men are responsible for the continued rape, battering, harassment, incest, and prostitution of women.

December 6 this year will mark 25 years since 14 women at L'École Polytechnique were separated from male teachers and peers and then gunned down by one man specifically because they were women. There is still no public or private place in Canada, other than rape crisis centres and transition houses, in which women are completely safe or free from the threat of men's violence.

Battering husbands or ex-husbands in B.C. have been responsible for attempting to murder women, and in some cases their children, in their homes on 17 separate occasions so far this year.

In May, the RCMP confirmed 1,181 cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women, deaths and disappearances for which men were overwhelmingly responsible. Since then, men's lethally sexist and racist attacks on aboriginal women have continued unabated. We know that at least Rinelle Harper in Winnipeg and Marlene Bird in Saskatchewan were sexually assaulted, brutally beaten, and left for dead by small groups of men in public places.

In February, at least two male athletes and students from the University of Ottawa's hockey team raped a young woman in Thunder Bay. Last year female students at UBC and St. Mary's were oriented to their university experience with male-led chants promoting their rape.

Rehtaeh Parsons was raped by young men, and young men continue to attack her by creating and distributing pornographic images of that rape.

The buyers of sex who will soon be criminalized by Bill C-36 for the exploitation of women in prostitution in brothels and on the streets are overwhelmingly men.

More than 330 women RCMP officers and employees have exposed that they were systematically sexually harassed on the job by their male colleagues.

Women have come forward and gone on the record to say that CBC's Jian Ghomeshi used his power and status to attack a number of women he worked with and dated.

These recent and highly publicized cases of men's violence against women echo what we hear when we respond to women who call the crisis lines, from the women who reveal and resist the routine and myriad acts of violence that enforce and exploit women's unequal civic, political, economic, and social power in relation to men. The inequalities of poverty and racism further compound the vulnerability to and effects of men's violence on impoverished women, women of colour, and aboriginal women.

If any practice or policy to prevent violence against women is to be truly promising, it must be grounded in and tested against the promise of women's right to be free from all forms of sexist discrimination and violence. This promise is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and articulated in international instruments, including CEDAW, to which Canada is a signatory.

I'll take today's opportunity to reiterate two of the elements of policy change on violence against women that CASAC has advocated for, for decades: first, the responsibility of the criminal justice system to prevent and respond to men's violence, and second, the need for the government to invest in and actively and respectfully consult with the independent women's movement.

Since CASAC is a coalition of rape crisis centres and time is limited, I'll focus on criminal law responses to sexual assaults.

Past improvements to Canada's criminal laws and policy on sexual assaults have been made because of the demands of women and women's groups that criminal law protect their right to equality by preventing and sanctioning the violence that is perpetrated by men against them. Two examples of the hard-won achievements are the criminalization of rape in marriage in the Criminal Code and Supreme Court articulations of the legal obligation to obtain explicit and ongoing consent to sexual activity.

Sexual assault is a deeply gendered crime. Women are the most likely victims of this crime and the least likely to commit it. The criminal justice response to sexual assault is abysmal. Only 0.3% of rapes committed result in a criminal conviction. Statistically speaking, the criminal justice response to rape is one of virtual impunity.

Since the 1970s the statistic that 70% of women who report all forms of sexist violence to front-line anti-violence workers do not engage the police has remained steady. Less than 10% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. Several of the cases that I mentioned earlier have fiercely reignited a public discussion of and debate about the way that the criminal justice system routinely fails women who have been raped. The hashtag “been raped never reported” allowed women to say on social media what rape crisis workers and raped women have known and said publicly and privately for years: women do not and cannot rely on Canadian authorities to live up to their responsibility to enforce the laws that criminalize sexual assaults and violence against women.

In the Ghomeshi case, women came out in a significant number to expose the actions of a violent man and to explain why they did not report these attacks to the police. A tremendous amount of media attention was paid and in turn public pressure was exerted. Feminists reiterated our criticism of the failures to apply criminal law to levy consequences against men in cases of violence against women. Yesterday Jian Ghomeshi was arrested for and charged with several counts of sexual assault and one count of choking a woman. This demonstrates that when there's substantial political will, police and the criminal justice system can and do have the power to swiftly investigate and lay charges when a man attacks a woman.

Rehtaeh Parsons reported her rape to the police before it was public knowledge and national news. After her suicide, pressure from her grieving parents and an outraged public, including feminists, for a response from the criminal justice system mounted. Earlier this week two young men pleaded guilty to charges of making and distributing child pornography in that case. The creation and distribution of the images of her attack have been acknowledged as a crime. No one has been charged with the attack itself.

Rape is ultimately the responsibility of the men who commit it. The inadequacy of the criminal justice system's response to sexual assault provides one stark example of the systemic failure to adequately prevent and respond to the injustices committed against women, both individually and collectively. Criminal laws contain the promise that men will be held accountable for the violence that they commit. Accountability through assiduous application of existing criminal law would demonstrate that the government is committed to preventing the rampant continuation of these crimes.

CASAC research has shown that when a woman is provided with information, accompaniment, and advocacy from a rape crisis centre, her slim chances of having a proper police investigation done and charges laid increase.

Rape crisis centres in Canada were formed in a period when women across the country were uniting to challenge and transform the status quo of women's lives. They were established in the 1970s with, by, and for women of different ages, races, classes, and backgrounds who were taking direct action against men's violence. Rape crisis centres have received no operational funding from the federal government. In British Columbia, where I live and work, no rape crisis centre, including the one I answer the lines at, receives operational funds from the provincial government.

The increased impoverishment of women and the systematic dismantling of social welfare systems means that the remaining unfunded independent women's centres are pressured to tend to all the effects of women's desperate inequality, including hunger, homelessness, addiction, and mental health. Yet CASAC centres continue to connect women to the meagre supports to which they are entitled, to services, and to each other. They connect women's experiences of and responses to men's violence to advocacy campaigns for specific reforms and systemic social change locally, provincially, and nationally.

In 2012, the largest ever global study on violence against women concluded:

The autonomous mobilization of feminists in domestic and transnational contexts—not leftist parties, women in government or national wealth—is the critical factor accounting for policy change.

The development of policy and practices to prevent violence against women will be ineffective without a substantial investment in and incomplete without an active and respectful consultation with the independent women's movement.

The piecemeal projects proffered and funding promised so far in these hearings by the federal government are not an adequate substitute for a substantive and sustained commitment from all departments at all levels of government to preventing and eliminating women's civil, economic, social, and political inequality.

Thank you.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin my speech on Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The Conservative government does not have a very good record to start with. We can look at Bill C-10, a piece of legislation that substantially amended the Criminal Code. When that bill passed, the Barreau du Québec said, “Canadian justice is in mourning [and the passage of Bill C-10] is a setback for Canadian criminal law”. Such is the Conservatives' record on changes to the Criminal Code.

If we look at this from a financial perspective, as I was saying earlier, the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs announced two days ago that the cost of incarcerating offenders has increased by 11%. That expense was passed on to Quebec without the federal government assuming any of the additional cost, which ultimately was created by criminalizing certain elements that were not criminal before and likely could have been resolved either through prevention or by providing support to the people concerned, to ensure that they did not reoffend.

Finally, we have a different vision of the fundamentals of society than the Conservatives do. We want to live in a safer society, with less crime, and we want to be able to prevent crime before it happens. That is not the case for the Conservatives, who always adopt repressive policies and think that imposing longer prison sentences will resolve the problems associated with crime in Canada.

That brings to mind something that the member for Gatineau often says. When an offender is about to commit a crime, he does not bring the Criminal Code with him to read up on what the maximum penalty will be, whether there is a mandatory minimum sentence and whether the trial judge will be able to have him serve his sentence in the community or not. That way of thinking is is completely absurd and out of touch with reality.

The crime rate is dropping as a result of a number of factors, including demographics. The population is aging so crime is dropping, which makes sense in any society. If we want to reduce crime, we need to invest in prevention and in rehabilitation when a crime has been committed. However, the ideal would be not to have criminals or crime.

With this bill, the Conservatives are falling into the same repetitive cycle of behaviour that they always fall into, which involves a simplistic and very election-minded approach. This approach consists of convincing Canadians that they are going to do away with crime by imposing longer sentences, criminalizing activities that were not crimes before and imposing minimum sentences, or in other words, by not putting any faith in the justice system.

One of the methods used by the Conservatives involves playing on the public's frustration. It is true that we are all sometimes frustrated when criminal convictions are not in line with what we personally think they should be. We may be angry about verdicts that we think are too soft considering the seriousness of the offence. However, the Conservatives always play on people's emotions and hope that they will not have any faith in the justice system.

Along the same lines as imposing mandatory minimum sentences or increasing existing minimums, the Conservatives also discredit the judiciary and undermine judges' ability to evaluate criminals' personal situation and ability to reintegrate into society. They play on people's sense of fear, as they do with other issues, especially safety-related issues.

We will clearly support this bill at second reading, because it contains a number of worthwhile provisions that should be studied. My colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice will examine the validity of each of these provisions. However, we still need to remember that our objective should be prevention and that the federal government, which is responsible for enforcing and developing the Criminal Code, should also assume the financial costs associated with creating these new crimes.

One recent example was Bill C-36. Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to speak to that bill because the Conservative government yet again limited the time allocated for members of the House to debate this bill. It was the same thing. Bill C-36 created a criminal offence that had never before existed in Canada's history, in order to give the public the impression that the government was fixing a criminal problem. The problem was one that had never existed before. This bill takes us to the next step in the criminalization of society. The government invented a criminal offence that did not exist before. In a few days, in December, we will see whether police forces enforce this new provision of the Criminal Code that now criminalizes activities that were not crimes previously.

Bill C-36 was one specific example. However, we are seeing the same behavioural pattern here. As was the case with Bill C-36, the government is using children to get the public on board. Of course, the NDP has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to crimes against children. That is a no-brainer, and I think that any Canadian in their right mind would condemn crimes against children. That is a no-brainer. Everyone agrees, and no one opposes virtue. However, the Conservatives always use sensitive issues and bring children into the mix so that their bills will pass. After a more detailed study in committee, the hon. member for Gatineau will tell us whether these provisions are constitutional or not. I leave that to the experts. What I have seen, as someone who is not an expert, is that the Conservative government always wants to criminalize and increase prison sentences instead of focusing on prevention and rehabilitation. Above all, it does not want to assume the related costs.

I will end there and leave it to the experts. It is important that Canadians realize that the government cannot always use children as the justification for getting bills passed. These bills are smoke and mirrors, not a real amendment to the Criminal Code that has been deemed necessary by experts and people who work on these issues.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has now gone from Bill C-26 to Bill C-36. In Bill C-36, the one we worked on this summer, $20 million were put forward for the rehabilitation of victims. That really helped in that area. In Bill C-26, there are multiple tools, which have been mentioned today over and over again, to help protect children from perpetrators.

When we look overall at the laws we worked on this summer, Bill C-36 definitely added significant money and we need input from provincial and municipal jurisdictions to support it as well. Our government provided $20 million for the rehabilitation of victims. When the U.S. first did this, it provided $10 million, so I think Canada has stood as a leader in stepping forward to help victims and help solve this problem in a meaningful way.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall Ottawa

November 5th, 2014

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 5th day of November, 2014, at 5:26 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco); Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act; 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; and Bill C-501, An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day.

Prostitution

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act, passed third reading here in the House only two nights ago.

Our Conservative government has provided the necessary leadership to ensure that Canada has the laws and safeguards to fight prostitution and the many evils that come with it: the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases, the degradation and exploitation of women and girls, the scourge of human trafficking, and the involvement of organized crime to name only a few. It would be naive to think that these serious harms would be eliminated if prostitution were to suddenly become legal.

It should also be stated clearly that prostitution harms marriage and the family, both of which are fundamental to a healthy and strong nation.

As the father of five children, four of whom are daughters, I am glad that the purchase of sex through prostitution will remain illegal, thanks to Bill C-36. I personally thank each parliamentarian who voted in favour of this important legislation.

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

Call in the members.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple.

I would like my colleague to tell us precisely what new tools Bill C-36 adds to the law. The minister's proposed money and programs aside, what section of the Criminal Code affected by the bill does not already deal with human trafficking and human exploitation? Sections 279 and 279.01 are clear: human trafficking and human exploitation are offences that, committed together with violence, assault or confinement, are punishable to life in prison.

What tools does Bill C-36 add to existing legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul for her question. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous work she has done over many years to fight for the rights of trafficked persons in Canada and around the world. She deserves a lot of credit for that.

The Liberal member said earlier that he had a letter from 200 lawyers saying they thought the bill was unconstitutional and did not live up to the test in the Bedford decision. I practise in a law firm of over 950 lawyers, and there are 14,000 lawyers practising in the city of Toronto, if my memory serves me correctly. I think there are plenty of lawyers who agree with the constitutionality of this bill, and I am one of them.

The bill was crafted to directly respond to what was requested by the three litigants in the Bedford case. They asked for the right to carry on their trade from a fixed indoor location where they could adequately screen their clients and protect themselves, and Bill C-36 provides exactly for that. It allows them to get off the streets, to do it in a fixed indoor location, a safe place which has a receptionist and bodyguard, paid for on reasonable commercial terms which are not exploitive.

I believe those things, coupled with the statement of the purpose of the bill, which is to reduce prostitution and the harm done to both society and communities by prostitution, would ensure that the bill is found constitutional by the Supreme Court if it is ever tested in the future.

I want to say one further thing. Criminal lawyers know that if they cannot defend their clients on the facts, they always challenge the constitutionality of a bill. That is just common law practice.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, we were deeply moved by the testimony we heard in committee, especially that of Bridget Perrier.

I was at least happy to know that the Criminal Code still has very strict provisions regarding human trafficking and sexual exploitation. I would like to repeat that, because the Conservatives would have people believe that without Bill C-36, Canada would have no such protections, when in fact those provisions provide an excellent framework.

Since this will probably be my only opportunity to do so, I would like to ask the same question.

If at first we do not succeed, try, try again.

I will ask this again to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. Can somebody please define for me what Bill C-36 means when it talks about sexual services? It is not an idle question. It is important. Does it cover sexual acts that are done that are pretty close to—whatever, I will not qualify it—but that happen in some clubs? Does it touch escort agencies? That is a very important question.

On the review and report, why did the government push back to five years our motion to get a review and report in two years?