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.

The House proceeded to the 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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

There are 52 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-36. Motions Nos. 1 to 52 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 52 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting the long title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting the preamble.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 45.1.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Mr. Speaker, it is rare, and members of the House will know it, standing as the leader of the Green Party of Canada and member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, that I have not availed myself of the opportunity to present amendments at committee stage under new rules that were adopted last fall. I have objected to the opportunity because it has not amounted to a real chance to amend legislation.

Nevertheless, on bills that I find disturbing, I have gone to every committee with amendments of a substantive nature. In the case of Bill C-36, I found I could not find a way to amend the bill in a way that would actually fix it. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you have now read out attempts to delete the entire bill based on it being unfixable.

How do we find ourselves here? As we all know, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Bedford decision that our existing laws relating to prostitution were unconstitutional as they violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important sentence that constitutes a fundamental principle for all Canadians: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

In the Bedford case, the Supreme Court determined that Canadian laws and the Criminal Code are inconsistent with this section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to sex workers who are threatened by current Canadian laws.

With the Supreme Court saying that our laws relating to prostitution did not adequately protect the rights of security of the person for people who found themselves in this very marginalized and difficult place in their lives and that they were even more marginalized, even more stigmatized and driven into the shadows by the status of laws over prostitution in Canada, it was up to us, as Parliament, to come up with an approach that would respect, would protect and would ensure that people in the sex trade industry were not driven into the shadows.

After Bedford, I thought we would see a response from Parliament, a response from the Minister of Justice, that took into account the message from the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ironically, earlier this morning, I attended an international symposium on the subject of gender violence and health. The symposium is taking place a few blocks from here, at the Novotel, on Nicholas Street. Researchers from across Canada are presenting research on this topic, with people from around the world. It is a collaborative social science project in Canada on gender violence and health. It was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

I was able to stay long enough, before coming here to debate Bill C-36, to hear the preliminary findings of that work being done across Canada. I was pleased to see that members from my own part of the world, from University of Victoria and from the city of Victoria Police Department had all participated in this work.

Their area of research was restricted to people in the sex trade industry who were over 19 and who were not part of the quite horrific trafficking in people who did not have rights. I want to make it really clear that in the Green Party's stance against Bill C-36, we believe the full measure of the law should be used to crack down on anyone who is exploiting minors and people in sex trafficking. We believe laws in that area must be strengthened and that the laws are adequate, even as they now stand, to differentiate the situations between prostitution, in general, and this group of exploited workers under 19 who are trafficked internationally and lack the rights they should have under the law.

Research has been done that is being reported on just today, as I mentioned. It was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It was collaborative work done in six different cities across Canada by some of our best social science researchers, who examined the lives of sex trade workers who were not under the age of 19 or involved in human trafficking.

What the institute found as a foundational piece of information in early research is intuitive and is what the Supreme Court of Canada understood. It is that any laws that are punitive in nature, anything that in our social context that would further stigmatize sex trade work, means that the people conducting themselves in that work are more vulnerable and are less able to access the supports and protections found in our society.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision made it clear what Parliament needed to do: Parliament needed to find a way to ensure that people in the sex trade industry were not driven into the shadows and were not further stigmatized.

This is a tragedy, because we are talking about people's lives. We are not just talking about slogans for election campaigns or going for some sort of core vote from Conservative Party supporters. This issue transcends partisanship. This is about Parliament being asked by the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is respected when we bring forth laws that deal with prostitution.

On that fundamental requirement for our laws, Bill C-36 stands as a singular failure. It would absolutely not make the life of sex trade workers more secure. It goes in the wrong direction. As numerous legal commentators have noted, this law would make the sex trade more dangerous.

Just to give a sense of why that is, I would like to quote comments made by the Minister of Justice at a press conference on the day that Bill C-36 was tabled back in June. I am going to quote from an exchange that he had with a reporter.

The Minister of Justice said:

Some prostitutes we know are younger than 18 years of age. If they are in the presence of one another at 3:00 in the morning and are selling sexual services, they would be subject to arrest.

A reporter then asked:

That would still be considered a criminal offence?

The response from the Minister of Justice was:

That’s correct. They’re selling it in the presence of a minor.

The reporter said:

Okay, so if two 17-year-old prostitutes are standing side by side in the middle of the night in what is considered a public place, they will be committing an offence.

The response by the Minister of Justice:

And selling sex, yes.

A reporter said:

That’s effectively making them stay on their own and endangering furthering their own security.

The Minister of Justice:

Not at all. We’re not making them do anything. We’re not forcing them to sell sex.

That is a response in the absence of reality. If we are to take the Supreme Court's decision in the Bedford case seriously, then we should do everything possible to allow people in the sex trade industry to be with each other, to be near each other, to be protecting each other. There is a distinction between being on the street and indoor sex work. Anything that drives people in the sex trade industry onto the street and into the shadows is going to make their lives more dangerous.

This goes to the next piece of Bill C-36, which is likely unconstitutional: banning advertisement for sexual services and banning communicating for the purchasing of sex in particular.

Bill C-36 states that all of it would be illegal unless the sex trade workers are communicating directly. In other words, publishing their ads would be illegal. This again would force a prostitute to lose the intermediary. It would force the sex trade worker to lose the possibility of some form of screening, some way of ensuring they are not face-to-face in the shadows negotiating their situation. It would make their lives much more dangerous.

The decision in Bedford gave us guidance on this issue. The court said in Bedford:

By prohibiting communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution, the law prevents prostitutes from screening clients and setting terms for the use of condoms or safe houses. In these ways, it significantly increases the risks they face.

Bill C-36 is written as though the Supreme Court of Canada has given us no guidance, as though we are blundering around not imagining the narrowness of the ways in which communicating or advertising would remain legal in Canada.

It is as though the Bedford decision gave us no guidance, because what they have come up with is aimed at a new offence of advertising sexual services and is undoubtedly going to make life more dangerous for sex trade workers.

I could go on and on, but I know my time is at an end.

I just want to say that this law will only make the lives of hundreds of sex workers more difficult and more dangerous.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member went on at some length to talk about specific provisions in the bill what would restrict prostitutes from communicating in a public place for the purpose of prostitution. Apparently she does not know that there was an amendment proposed and passed at the House justice committee on that very point that would restrict the communication in a public place provision to the schoolyard, the playground, and the daycare centre. I wonder if she could tell the House if she thinks it is a good idea that prostitutes be allowed, and perhaps encouraged, to communicate for the purposes of prostitution in those three places?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware of amendments that were passed. In the judgment of many within the legal profession, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association among others, while this change would narrow the scope, it remains a section of the law that would clearly not survive a charter challenge.

The use of daycares and preschools and so on is designed to create electioneering and slogans and does not pay attention to ensuring that the laws we pass in this place are constitutional.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Green Party colleague.

I am very happy to be part of the committee that studied Bill C-36 very closely. Several amendments were proposed, and many of them were ruled in order.

There was a debate about the amendments. Clearly, the government had no interest in accepting them, but the resulting debates were interesting. With a little good will, committee members could have mitigated the potentially negative impact of the bill as written by the government.

At the beginning of her speech, my colleague from the Green Party said that she thought the minister would have presented something that would have been in answer to the Bedford ruling, so I would like to ask the hon. member what, in her opinion, would have been the proper answer to that ruling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. justice critic for the official opposition, who has done such strong work in so many areas of law in the country.

I and the Green Party think the kind of law we need is probably found most closely in the New Zealand law. I expected, by the way, to see something closer to what is described as the Nordic model. I did not expect to see so many areas in Bill C-36 that would criminalize behaviour in ways that would increase the risk for people in the sex trade industry.

However, having studied the Nordic model and the New Zealand model, we prefer the law that goes furthest in ensuring that the activities in the sex trade industry lose their stigma. We should be able to say that someone in the sex trade industry or someone who works for them—in, for example, security or scheduling or health care—is not stigmatized. Then we can concentrate on people who are in the sex trade because of addiction problems, or on those under 19, or on foreign workers. God help us; what a horrific case there is of sex trafficking and human trafficking. We should focus on those and eliminate them.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was a participant in the justice committee hearings on the bill over the summer, when we heard from over 60 witnesses.

There was a consensus on three points. One was that the $20 million that has been set aside for an exit program was inadequate. The second was that all of those who were trained in the law, except for the Minister of Justice and those in his employ, felt that all or some of the bill was unconstitutional. The third point was that those involved in the sex trade should not be criminalized. Probably the best suggestion we heard during the course of the testimony was that those who are carrying a criminal record as a result of the unconstitutional law should be given an immunity.

My question for the member is this: what does she think of that immunity suggestion, which was rejected by the Conservatives? Also, does she have any comments with respect to the stigmatization associated with a criminal record as a result of being in the sex trade?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the hon. member for Charlottetown. I thought his speech at second reading on this bill was the best that anyone delivered in comparing the Canadian laws on prostitution with a made-in-Moscow version for Canada.

I agree that when the law is unconstitutional, we need to look at immunity. As much as all of us have our own personal views that come from our own religious or moral context or backgrounds, the bottom line is that people's lives are at risk. Who are we as Canadians to turn our backs on them?

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

Mr. Speaker, what was just said aside, there is something that has not been adequately debated in this House, and that is using the statement “what two consenting adults do between them is not the state's concern” as an underpinning to argue that the asymmetrical criminalization that has been put forward through this bill is not an adequate response to the Bedford ruling.

That is because the concept of sexual consent is at the heart of the statement. Our Criminal Code provides a standard definition for “sex without consent” under section 273.1. Some of the provisions include:

(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant; (b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;

There are other provisions.

Through case law, we have seen that a sexual assault offence is established by the proof of three elements: touching, the sexual nature of the content, and the absence of consent.

Furthermore, case law has shown that the absence of consent is subjective by reference to the complainant's internal state of mind towards the touching at the time it occurred.

Beyond this criminal definition of sexual consent is the work that groups involved with prevention of sexual assault have been doing to educate the public on the relationship between knowing and celebrating one's sexuality in order to define the boundaries of consent.

I had a transformational moment last week. I had a chance to speak with Elsbeth Mehrer of the YWCA of Calgary. I asked her, “What do you define as sexual consent?” She talked about an enthusiastic response that is exhibited by both parties.

I am also very proud of the work of the University of Calgary's consent, awareness, and sexual education club. They ran a “Consent is Sweet” campaign to bring this more accurate, in my opinion, concept of sexual consent to their student body.

Since time immemorial, empowered, educated, enthusiastic sexuality, particularly female sexuality, has been written into literature, social mores, and religious practice as an evil, something to be avoided for fear of ripping the very fabric of society. It has only been in very recent decades that western culture, particularly through the feminist movement, has enshrined a new view of consent into our consciousness, yet we still struggle to protect this, from “rapey” chants at frosh week to requests for female airport security officers to be segregated. We as a culture are still challenged with the full acceptance of empowered, equitable sexuality.

Furthermore, at the heart of this new notion of sexual consent is the concept of equality, the concept that all parties are in equilibrium from a power dynamic perspective.

I feel that as such, the “what two consenting adults do” argument is flawed, as there is an overwhelming burden of proof that a large majority of sex workers are not in an equitable position.

Be it a young worker who entered into the trade before having an opportunity to define what an enthusiastic response means in terms of their own sexuality, workers who are selling out of desperation to make the rent, to support substance abuse, to support their children or any other determinant of poverty, or workers who are suffering from mental health issues, there is not equality in the power balance between the parties. In most such situations, I would argue that true sexual consent, this enthusiasm that Elsbeth speaks about and that we are striving as a culture to enshrine, is difficult to achieve.

In demonstrating this, several studies based on surveys or anecdotal evidence from sex worker advocates and service providers suggest that the prevalence of sexual assault in the sex industry is high, particularly in the case of street-level workers.

A 2005 Vancouver study said that 78% of these workers had been raped in prostitution. Studies carried in the mid-1990s by the Department of Justice showed that physical and sexual assaults on prostitutes were commonly carried out by clients, pimps, or boyfriends.

In 2003, the Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault published a briefing entitled “What lies behind the hidden figure of sexual assault? Issues of prevalence and disclosure”. It discusses the notion that women working in the sex industry are at a greater risk of sexual violence. The paper also briefly provides information about the treatment of sex workers by the courts and the judiciary in sexual assault cases.

We know that sexual assault is under-reported in general, I believe even more so in the case of sex workers. One of the issues raised in response to sex workers not reporting sexual assault is that they are afraid of being charged with prostitution-related offences as a result of making a statement. They also indicate that being exposed as a sex worker to friends and family is another reason to not report the incident to the police.

When we look at case law, defence strategies generally consist of attacking the credibility of the victim. I looked at some case law involving prostitutes, from 2004 to 2014, and these were some of the defence strategies:

The complainant consented on previous and future occasions.

The complainant is a drug addict and was under the influence when the sexual activities took place, suffers from depression, or cannot recollect the events due to memory lapses.

The complainant continued to work as a prostitute for many years after the event; therefore, she consented to the activity and was not traumatized.

How do these defences demonstrate our culture's acceptance of the value of full, enthusiastic, empowered sexual consent?

In the research completed for me by the Library of Parliament, several court cases showed the difficulty of defining consent in the context of case work. In R. v. House, R. v. Dyck, R. v. Lumsden, and R. v. Jakeer, the courts noticed that sex workers are particularly vulnerable and are entitled to the full measure of protection of the law, as is any other person. The review of cases tended to show that there was no general trend of the judicial interpretation of consent by sex workers. In this context, it seems that the consent of prostitutes is determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

I would like to read part of a ruling from the Ontario Court of Justice in relation to sexual assault with a sex worker.

In the circumstances of this case, although I am prepared to accept that she may have had grave misgivings and was in fact not consenting; her words and actions were such that a reasonable person might have an honest but mistaken belief as to her consent. She got into the car, asked for the money agreed upon and then apparently willingly complied with the sexual requests of these young men. I do not agree with the Crown's submission that the young men had any obligation to ask her if she was consenting to sexual contact when they entered the car. It was reasonable for them to assume that she was consenting when she met them with a request for the $30 fee before engaging in sexual activity and never by word or action indicated that she was not consenting to continue. Surely it is not the law that a client of a prostitute has to continually ask whether the acts engaged in are consensual....

I wish I had time to read this whole ruling because given rulings like this, websites which rate sex workers include comments like, “She didn't look at me when we were doing it” and “She cried a bit halfway through.”

I am not of the view that any person has a God-given right to have access to the purchase of sex or that the purchase of sex should in and of itself define sexual consent. To protect sex workers in this country, we need to stop and acknowledge that this is a fundamental flaw in any argument for the legalization of prostitution. By legalizing prostitution, we would degrade a hard-fought cultural understanding of the worth of humans and our sexuality, and make it harder for the victims of sexual assault, even those who are sex workers, to seek recompense and heal.

However, this is not to say that sex workers are in every instance incapable of giving consent. In contrast, by adopting Bill C-36 and the related funding we have announced, our country acknowledges we have the right to consent over what we choose to do with our bodies but that the burden of proof is overwhelming and shows that the majority of sex workers are degraded, assaulted, and abused. As such, we as a society and a nation recognize that the purchase of sexual services is an action we believe is criminal.

In the committee hearings, one of the witnesses spoke to the asymmetrical provisions and asked where it is that you can purchase something legally but not buy it legally, and why don't we do that with booze?

Well, a bottle of booze is not a human being. I believe that in order for us to show that we as a country have moved beyond a very limited range of sexual consent and that we as a culture believe in an empowered, willing, enthusiastic sexual consent definition, this proposed law needs to be adopted.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way.

I would like to get some answers to some very specific questions. On the one hand, I would like to know whether the member thinks that this is a way to make prostitution illegal. Is prostitution illegal in Canada? If the answer is yes, she no longer has to answer the rest of my questions. If the answer is no, without hearing any comparisons to alcohol, I am still trying to understand how purchasing something can be a crime but selling it is not.

While keeping in mind the current Criminal Code provisions on human trafficking and exploitation, which still exist without the three small clauses in question that were addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada, if the police have not been capable of doing the job when it comes to the exploitation of women who are in this business against their will, why does the member think that sex workers will be any safer with Bill C-36? Does she agree with the $20 million sum, when everyone else is saying that that is completely ridiculous?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this question because I think it is at the heart of this debate. How can that asymmetry protect sex workers, and why have we approached it? It is as simple as this: the Criminal Code in Canada is a statement of what behaviour we in this country believe is acceptable and what we think is criminal.

Given the burden of proof that shows sex workers are for the most part subjected to abuse, sexual assault, and so on, we are acknowledging that the purchase of sexual services is a determinant to the outcome we do not want to see happen. Therefore, we are putting that into law. We are saying, as a country, that the action of purchasing sexual services is not acceptable and is a determinant to causing abuse.

On the other hand, we acknowledge that humans have a right to choose what they will do with their body. Through social programming, we support people exiting the trade.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the minister said was an impediment to those involved in the sex trade reporting sexual assaults is the fear of being charged with a prostitution-related offence. This bill would not fix that. Those involved in the sex trade would still be subject to criminal prosecution and to a criminal record for communicating in certain circumstances.

Given that is one of the concerns that the minister has, would she agree with all of the evidence we heard at committee with respect to the criminalization of those in the trade?

I would also repeat the question offered by the member for Gatineau with respect to the adequacy of the $20 million that has been set aside for exit programs. What are the minister's views on that?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, the point I was trying to make in my speech was that we have difficulty both in getting sex workers to report incidents of sexual assault and then convictions.

We need to say there is an issue in obtaining consent in a sex trade transaction. Boundaries can be broken quite easily, and then the person who is being assaulted is in the position of trying to show the burden of proof that this did occur.

By saying that we as a country do not support the purchase of sexual services and it is illegal, we are going to help raise awareness that sexual assault does occur in these situations. That was the point I was trying to make in my speech.

With regard to social programming, I fully believe that in order to assist sex workers who find themselves in the trade out of desperation or poverty that we have an onus as parliamentarians to ensure there is adequate programming available. It is not just about the $20 million; it is also about the myriad of other support services that we fund through government. We have increased transfer payments to the provinces for education and health care to record levels. We have all sorts of different employment services. I could speak at length just on that. Do we need to ensure that they are adequate and working? Yes, we do.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some moments in our careers take on a certain importance because of the wide-reaching consequences of the decision we have to make. Since Bill C-36 was introduced, and in fact since the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the Bedford case, we knew that something was coming. I believe that everyone with an interest in this issue, on both sides, was contacted for consultation purposes. Whether it was stakeholders at all levels, sex trade workers, feminist groups that are opposed to the sex trade, or legal and constitutional experts, we met with almost everyone in Canada.

The approach I recommended on behalf of the NDP was to be as open-minded as possible. Everyone has their own perceptions and experiences, everyone was raised in a certain way, and so on. We are therefore trying not to let those views take on a life of their own and influence us. I was hoping that the government would do the same, because obviously, that is what I would expect from any justice minister and Attorney General of Canada. That office holder has an obligation to introduce constitutional laws. We all know that law is not an exact science, so I am not asking for a 100% guarantee. However, some things hit us right between the eyes and make us realize that a particularly obvious problem is being created.

In any case, it has become quite obvious. The minister, who spoke just before me, mentioned $20 million in social transfers. For me, such transfers are an indication of good faith and a firm conviction in the measure that is being put forward. We heard from many people in committee. I counted some 75 witnesses. All of them, whether they were for or against Bill C-36, were unanimous in saying that $20 million over five years was a joke. Take for example the Manitoba justice minister. He talked about this problem in his province. We know that there is a serious problem in Manitoba with regard to forced prostitution and that it affects many aboriginal women. Poverty is a major issue here. This is an even bigger problem across the nation. Given the magnitude of the problem, $20 million over five years is a joke.

I will not get into all the arguments I will surely hear from my colleagues across the way to the effect that this is a start. If the Conservatives are serious and want as many people as possible on their side, they must show how serious they are with action. When the minister presented his bill at a press conference, it seemed like an afterthought. That really bothers me, because the Conservatives lack credibility in what they do.

Some of their other tactics also undermine their credibility and scare me even more. I am talking about online consultations. I was not born yesterday. I know that claiming to have consulted everyone around and saying that everyone agrees is the oldest trick in the book for a government that wants to get its way. The government has every right to do that, and I would even say it is a good idea. I am all for consultations. I too consulted the people of Gatineau a number of times to find what they thought of all this in order to be sure that the position of the member for Gatineau and the position of the official opposition justice critic sat well with the people she represents. Above all else, the most important thing to me is being the member for Gatineau and representing my constituents. The people told me that I was on the right track.

At committee stage, when we were studying this bill, we asked the minister if we could see the results of this grand online consultation. We knew the results were available, and we wanted to see all the details and the poll paid for by Canadian taxpayers. There was some indication that the results did not say exactly what the government was suggesting.

I will not describe the answers received, as I would be kicked out of the House of Commons. Some were simply unacceptable, such as when I was told that I would receive a response in due course. For the government, that meant when the committee finished studying the matter. The important information is conspicuous for its absence. For me, that is an indication of the government's lack of transparency on such volatile issues as safety. In fact, that is an aspect that has been virtually eliminated.

I referred to 75 witnesses, but we should not get excited and imagine that the study was uncommonly thorough. The study was done fairly quickly. In fact, it took place over a very short period of time and each intervenor had very little time. In total, five minutes were allocated for putting questions to constitutional experts, probably lawyers, who are one hundred times smarter than I am on this issue, to get a true sense of what is happening. Fortunately, we had done a large part of the work beforehand and during the study. We will continue working on this and trying to make the government understand that it is on the wrong track.

We presented amendments because that is what the job of all opposition parties, but especially that of the official opposition. As I said earlier, most of the amendments were deemed to be in order. Thus, they could have been debated and would have improved a bill that is indeed very harsh.

I was proud to propose an amendment, on behalf of the NDP, that would have prevented victims from having a criminal record. The Conservative government is always talking about sex workers as victims. If they are victims, their criminal record should be erased. Someone cannot be both a victim and a criminal. However, since there is nothing the Conservatives cannot do, they achieved the amazing feat of declaring these people to be victims and, at the same time, criminalizing them so that they are stuck with a criminal record.

Simple amendments like that would have given them the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. They refused. Amendments to reflect what all kinds of witnesses came to tell us were refused. These witnesses told us that extreme poverty and addiction are two of the major problems that lead people into prostitution. We tried to propose an amendment.

Aside from the phrase “...in response to...Bedford...”, there is nothing to show that this bill is truly a response to what the Supreme Court told us, which is that this is a serious problem. This is nowhere to be seen in the bill's preamble. There is no mention of it. Three sections were rejected by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that they were infringing on the right to security and to life. That is not insignificant. The bill needs to be evaluated from that perspective.

I proposed an amendment on behalf of the NDP. The Conservatives claim that they are going to eradicate prostitution. There could be a study every two years. Every year, the minister would have the opportunity to share with the House the details of what was done, of what was spent by whom and so on. No, once again, transparency is noticeably absent from the Conservative ranks.

To conclude, I would simply like to point out that the government was under no obligation to come back with Bill C-36. The Supreme Court of Canada was very clear: The question under section 7 is whether anyone's life, liberty or security of the person has been denied by a law that is inherently bad; a grossly disproportionate, overboard, or arbitrary effect on one person is sufficient to establish a breach of section 7.

The Supreme Court concluded that this does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes. We have been told that it will infringe on their rights. It is a delicate topic, and it is up to Parliament to take the necessary steps, should it choose to do so. There is therefore no obligation.

Stop saying that the Bedford ruling is behind Bill C-36, that there was no other choice and that there had to be a full-scale study because there would have been problems otherwise. I would not want to take the blame for the consequences this bill will have on many people. Do not forget that anything labelled “human trafficking” and “exploitation” is still part of the Criminal Code, which protects women and other victims of these crimes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the NDP justice critic, for her contribution and participation in the House of Commons justice committee review over the summer.

I note that in her speech today, and at other opportunities, she mentioned that she did not understand how something could be illegal to purchase but not to sell. I would remind her that when the bill was introduced, the Minister of Justice said quite clearly that for the first time in Canada, prostitution would be made illegal by this bill.

The bill would provide an exemption to the persons who would sell their services, because, in the view of the government, we see them as primarily victims. The Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification made a good speech earlier about consent and how many people in this business were really not in a position to give consent because they were forced by their circumstances to do this.

What I want to ask her very succinctly is this. If her party were to propose a bill, would it make the purchase of sexual services of another person illegal?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate somewhat uninspiring. In saying that it has created an exemption, the government is avoiding saying what it cannot legally say. It cannot legally say that prostitution is illegal in Canada. That is what I believe based on information that I myself received from some of this country's leading constitutional experts. Before I began my speech, the minister talked about how all people have the right to do what they want with their body. We subscribe to that principle with respect to abortion, the right to choose and so on. We have to apply that logic to everything, like it or not. It does not matter if it is not the way I am raising my girls. Our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms dictate the kind of society we want. It is not up to me to tell people what to do.

When we asked them to clearly state the basis of their intent to make prostitution illegal, they objected to that kind of amendment.

If they want to know what we intend to do, I can say that we will show them when we take power in 2015.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Gatineau a question about the amendments that were presented in committee. She put forward several amendments, and all but one were rejected.

My question is with respect to the only amendment that the government saw fit to accept from the official opposition over the course of the summer, and that amendment called for an automatic review of this bill after five years.

Given the numerous constitutional concerns that have been expressed, given the inevitable charter challenge that awaits, is it not really a pyrrhic victory, the passing of this amendment five years down the road? Will we not be well into the litigation process or have already passed the amendment process by the time this has any effect?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt that the hon. member heard that from me. I did not leave the committee jumping for joy because one of my amendments had been adopted. I think this is the same as a rejection. What we were asking for is that this be done in the first two years. That seemed perfectly reasonable to us, especially considering that the Conservatives rejected our even more important amendment. It sought to provide members of the House with key statistics such as where the money was spent, how many people managed to get out of the trade and how many people ended up trapped in the trade, in order to see how far the government managed to get with its so-called eradication of prostitution.

I think that five years from now, we will not even see this review of the act itself, given the fact that the issue will likely end up in court. However, when we look at the Bedford case and the time it took for a final ruling by the Supreme Court, I am not sure that we will have a final ruling. However, I am sure that we will no longer have a Conservative government, and it will be part of our job at that point to review many laws to ensure that we are adhering to the principles set out in the Bedford ruling.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-36 at report stage. I stated in the last session that the bill would likely be unconstitutional. This was confirmed by virtually all of the legal witnesses who testified at committee with the exception of the minister and those employed by his department.

Let there be no doubt that this unconstitutional bill will pass the House because the Conservatives hold a majority of the seats in the House. Once it has completed its perfunctory process here at report stage and then third reading, the legislation will proceed to the Senate. That chamber is also controlled by the Conservative majority, and it was decided that it would undertake a pre-study of the bill, meaning that even before the legislation is passed in the House, the Senate Conservatives were holding hearings. Senator Linda Frum was quoted in the media today confirming that any changes to the bill were highly unlikely.

Please allow me to provide an overview of what has transpired with the issue of prostitution, including an overview of the legislative process to date.

As it currently stands, prostitution is legal in Canada and has been since 1892 when the Criminal Code was first enacted. It was the activities surrounding prostitution that were illegal until the Supreme Court ruling in Bedford. Specifically, the Criminal Code outlined communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution, living on the avails of prostitution and operating a common bawdy house, otherwise known as a brothel.

By way of background, it is critical to reference the famous Bedford case, the reason we are here today. In its landmark court 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 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 the ruling from coming into force for a period of one year to give Parliament the opportunity to enact new legislation if it chose to do so. This past June, the Attorney General introduced Bill C-36, a legislative response to the Supreme Court's ruling.

As I have stated, prior to the committee hearings in July, I share the consensus view of legal commentators who strongly believe Bill C-36 is unconstitutional in whole or in part. I do not believe the legislation complies with the Supreme Court ruling. Nor do I believe it complies with the charter. Furthermore, I indicated that the legislation might very well put sex workers at a greater risk of harm or worse.

The Conservatives claimed that they consulted widely about the bill without providing evidence of these consultations. They further claimed that they checked that Bill C-36 was charter compliant, again, without producing evidence in the form of legal opinion despite repeated requests.

The Conservatives rejected a request to refer the question of the bill's constitutionality to the Supreme Court of Canada. They claim to have relied upon evidence in the form of an online survey of Canadians. This survey is really a pretty obvious effort to provide cover from the inevitable critique that they once again defaulted to ideology in crafting the bill. This survey is passed off as evidence by Conservatives.

The Conservatives fail to mention how unscientific online surveys are, especially when the possibility of organized interest groups target the survey in order to skew the results. Is this really what Canadians want from their government, conducting surveys with inherent flaws as the basis for making serious changes in law, or even more worrisome, as the basis of responding to a Supreme Court's decision? Yet we have the spectacle of the Minister of Justice waving around this survey as some sort of conclusive evidence of the current thinking of Canadians.

Then there is the $175,000 Ipsos Reid poll the government commissioned seeking the actual views of Canadians about prostitution. Time and again, the Liberal Party and my colleagues in the official opposition called on government to release that poll, a real poll, to Canadians and to do so before the parliamentary hearings, held this past July. The minister steadfastly opposed releasing the contents of that poll, despite the fact that the information contained might have been helpful to the justice committee's deliberations. In fact, at committee, when questioned about releasing the data from the poll, the only substantive comment came from a Department of Justice official, who said the poll contained useful information in crafting the bill.

Let us recap again. The Conservatives create a ruse. They create a scientifically unreliable website-based survey and use that as evidence. At the same time, they have in their possession actual evidence from their Ipsos Reid poll, evidence that they refuse to release to Parliament or to MPs serving on the justice committee. At the parliamentary hearings last July, I asked the minister about this poll and why he would not release that evidence. Allow me to highlight the exchange because most members would not be familiar with some of the exchanges at committee.

Here is an excerpt from the official parliamentary record of that exchange.

I asked the minister:

I want to come back to [the member for Gatineau's] question with respect to the $175,000 survey or poll that was done by Ipsos Reid. You have indicated that we're going to be able to see it once these hearings are over. Mr. Minister, you have the power to allow us to see that sooner, do you not?

The Minister responded:

The survey itself was not particular to this question of prostitution only, and so there is a normal six-month time period that is invoked for when that polling information will be released. I should note for the record...that you're aware there have been other surveys done and other polling information available that has been released or is in the public domain.

I asked:

Mr. Minister, do you have the power to abridge the time in which we see this $175,000 Ipsos Reid survey? Do you have the power to give that to us before we examine all these witnesses?

The Minister responded:

There is a six-month timeframe that we will respect.

I persisted:

So you have the power, but you're deciding not to exercise it?

He responded:

I didn't say that. I said we'll respect the six-month timeframe.

I asked him:

Do you have the power to abridge it?

He said:

We'll release it when the six-month timeframe is up.

I said:

Is that a yes or a no?

He said:

We'll release it when the six-month timeframe is up....

I asked him again:

You won't tell me whether or not you have the power to abridge it, but if you do, you're not going to exercise it.

He responded:

What I'm telling you is that you'll have the information when the six-month period is up.

There it is: Conservative obstruction in full view. The Minister of Justice repeatedly refused to release that evidence before the justice committee, evidence he knew completely contradicted the government's line about Canadians' views on prostitution. We can only conclude that information, that evidence, was purposely withheld from Parliament and concealed from MPs serving on the justice committee. It was withheld because that evidence tore a gaping hole in their false narrative.

We now know that shortly after the parliamentary hearings on Bill C-36 were completed, some brave whistle-blower leaked the contents of the Ipsos Reid poll to the Toronto Star. It is very clear why the Conservatives did not want the Ipsos Reid poll made public. Contrary to the misinformation of the Conservatives, the evidence in the poll suggested Canadians were very much split on the subject.

As I have said before, the Conservatives are entitled to their own ideology and their own opinions. They are not, however, entitled to their own facts. Withholding key evidence from the committee was deliberate, and that should trouble any Canadian who values honesty and integrity regardless of what side of the prostitution debate she or he may fall on.

I will leave it at that for now. I look forward to the third-reading debate, where I will go over and highlight what the justice committee heard at our hearings in July.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Liberal justice critic for his speech and for his participation in the House of Commons justice committee proceedings this summer.

First, I would like to respond to something he mentioned in his speech. He said no lawyers, other than government lawyers, confirmed the constitutionality of Bill C-36. That is not true. Professor Benedet of UBC, one of Canada's foremost constitutional law experts, certainly did confirm that it was constitutional, as did several other lawyers. If he has forgotten, I would be happy to share the transcript of the parliamentary committee's work with him.

My question, though, for him is the same question I proposed to the NDP, which responded, when asked what it would do, that it will wait and find out. We do not know what either of these parties would do with respect to prostitution. What is the Liberal Party's position? Would it propose a bill to make the purchase of the sexual services of another person illegal in Canada?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the parliamentary secretary up on his offer of showing me where Professor Benedet indicated that the bill was constitutional. I was at the hearings. I listened very carefully to Professor Benedet, so if he has a transcript, then I will stand corrected.

In fact, the only lawyer, the only person with legal training, who testified at committee that they felt the bill was constitutional was one who represented the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and that lawyer was contradicted by her own client. The other lawyers who indicated that the bill was constitutional were the Minister of Justice or those in his employ. Therefore, I will take him up on his offer, if that is not the case, absolutely.

As to the Liberal Party's position with respect to prostitution in Canada, we believe that the government should have passed a bill that complied with Bedford, that complied with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that protected the vulnerable. It did none of the above.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of my constituents have indicated to me, by email and in person, that they believe that biological and pragmatic, and even political, reality as well as human nature indicate that we should legalize it, tax it, and regulate it. The bill, obviously, would make things worse, in terms of protecting women from violence.

My question for this hon. member, after his fine speech, is a political question. Why does he think the Conservatives are bringing forward a bill that is clearly unconstitutional, totally irrational, and makes no pragmatic sense, at all?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is really difficult for me to try to get into the heads of the Conservatives and understand the rationale, because I am wired differently.

However, allow me to speculate here, in this sanctum of parliamentary privilege. A tough-on-crime party wants to look around to criminalize whatever and whomever it can. Therefore, the bill would succeed in attaching criminal sanctions to many of the aspects of this complex social problem. The only other thing that I can think of is that it must have some appeal for its base.

Finally, this is something that, quite frankly, just kicks this problem down the road. That is why the Conservatives refused our call to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. They know it is unconstitutional, but this will get them past the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-36. As members know, I am supportive of the bill as a response to the Supreme Court of Canada's December 20, 2013, Bedford decision. In December last year, Canadians received a Christmas present. For the most part, they did not know what was happening as they were busy getting ready for Christmas. The Supreme Court of Canada deemed all of the laws around prostitution unconstitutional. It allowed the government a year to respond to that and there has been a tremendous amount of work that has gone into the bill, including a lot of study of this important legislation. It is possibly one of the most important pieces of legislation and I am totally convinced that it will keep our youth and our people safe.

We heard from a lot of people, including front-line support workers, police services, chiefs, and experts from the legal profession. I must say that Professor Janine Benedet, one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in this country, who had worked on the Bedford case as well, fully expects the bill to be and has said that she firmly believes it is constitutional. As members know, many bills are defeated on a charter challenge. However, without a doubt the bill is constitutional.

I am especially impressed by all of the victims who came to committee and the survivors who came to testify at both committees, because that is what this is all about—survivors finally talking about what happened to them. Human trafficking and prostitution were under the public radar for years. Everyone felt that if young girls or boys sold sexual services that was what they wanted to do. However, at committee we found out it was totally opposite to what the public thought. Why is that? Because more and more families across this country are being impacted by predators who come on as their friends and lure them into the sex trade and then they get into drugs and all sorts of things.

However, they have no voice. Bill C-36 allows those victims of human trafficking and those who have been forced into the sex trade to have a voice and the freedom to come and testify before us. They are the ones who need our attention and protection and we must not forget them.

After sitting around the table listening to these survivors, I would say that every Canadian should read the testimony of that committee because they would learn a lot about what is happening to a lot of children in communities all across this country. We have learned that predators earn about $260,000 to $280,000 a year per victim. That is why they do it. It is all about the money. A lot of the people connected to those predators earn a lot of money too. Hence, what is happening in this country is that a lot of people are protecting their cash flow at the expense of modern-day slavery.

During the hearings, law enforcement agencies also came forward to express their overall support for Bill C-36 and applauded the strong message it sends to all Canadians, which is basically that we will go after the pimps and johns and we will put support systems in place for the victims of human trafficking and those people who have found themselves in the sex trade without ever intending to be there. The police officers agreed that prostitution is an inherently dangerous activity and emphasized a need to prosecute those who profit from the sexual exploitation of others. I spoke earlier about predators making between $260,000 to $280,000 per year, which is a lot of profit. The police also emphasized the need to have in place the necessary tools to protect our communities from the harms of prostitution so that parents do not have to sweep away syringes and condoms from the school grounds of their children.

It is not about arresting victims at all. The only provision within Bill C-36 has to do with schools, playgrounds and pools, right on the grounds themselves. The fact of the matter is that Canadians agree that children should be protected. More and more Canadians in communities across Canada are starting to understand that they are also protecting their own beautiful children and vulnerable children from predators, due to Bill C-36.

We heard a lot of things in committee. We also heard another perspective that said people have rights to choose any profession they want, and, of course, that is true in Canada. However, we listened to the survivors of forced prostitution, human trafficking, and all of those stories that came forward. I cannot help but emphasize the contrast between the stories of the people who said that prostitution is an industry and government is circumventing their rights if it starts addressing it, and the stories of those who have experienced pain, suffering, and victimization while at the mercy of pimps, drug dealers, brothel owners, criminal organizations, and human traffickers. It is just unbelievable. When they bravely came to committee for the first time to tell people what happened to them, it was all we could do to keep our composure.

For someone who has worked with victims of human trafficking and those who were forced into prostitution, it was very profound to see these courageous people get up at committee to talk about it.

Statistics and research show that those who are most vulnerable to becoming involved in prostitution are marginalized, disenfranchised, and vulnerable, and the vulnerable can come from middle-class Canada.

We had many cases across this country where middle-class young people came forward. They were trafficked because of the way that the predators operate. They come on as their boyfriends, and they believed they were in love and that nobody wanted to exploit them. It never crossed their minds, until all their identification was taken away and they were forced to sexually service men or women. Those are vulnerable people.

We also speak to the homeless and those who have suffered abuse as young children or have suffered from addictions. A lot of those young, underaged people who are victimized are not addicts when they go into it. It is to camouflage their pain and to get through the day that it happens.

It is critical that Bill C-36 prioritizes this vulnerable group that people are talking about more and more, to protect them from harm.

It has been seen in many countries, many jurisdictions, that targeting the johns and the pimps is the right thing to do. In this country, human trafficking and forced prostitution was under the public radar screen for a very long time. We hear over and over again that $40 million is not enough. Well, it is a very good start.

Provinces, municipalities, and others need to contribute to this as well. Bill C-36 would address, in a very bold way, a problem that has remained under the public radar screen for a very long time. It is not about taking away some person's right to choose whatever profession they want to be in; that is up to consenting adults. That is not what the bill is about. The bill is about making sure that these vulnerable populations I have been talking about are protected, that they have a chance, even if they are caught in the horrible trafficking or forced prostitution field. Now they are protected because they are able to report the abuse to the police and they are able to get out and be rehabilitated.

I am very proud of Bill C-36. I am very proud of what our government is doing. A lot of people across this nation are listening to this debate and listening to what other people have to say, on all sides of the House. There is a very strong contrast between our government, which is standing up for the vulnerable, and those who are not on the other side of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying how admirable the work is that my colleague has been doing for the past years with victims of exploitation and human trafficking. I would like to commend her for her leadership on the issue.

My question is mostly technical. All the situations the hon. member has described in her speech are already touched on by the Criminal Code. Article 279.04 talks about exploitation, and article 279.01 talks about human trafficking. I would remind the member that the sentence for human trafficking is life in jail.

None of the police officers at the committee were able to name new tools that Bill C-36 would give them to help victims of trafficking. I would like my colleague to name new legislative tools, not only the money, to help people get away from human trafficking.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my own son is a police officer who works with trafficking victims. He has done that for a number of years. One tool we were talking about the other day that is so important is how victims now have the ability to report abuse to the police.

They would not arrested under Bill C-36. The only place from where they would be asked to move along is in front of schools and playgrounds. That does not mean that they would be formally arrested. In every other place, the victims would have a right to say to the police officer that they have been abused, that this is what is happening to them, and to please help them out. That is a big tool.

What happened before was that the victims were controlled by the pimps and the traffickers. If they went to the police, they were arrested. In fact, before this bill, when there was a takedown, between the pimps and the prostitutes, more prostitutes were arrested than anybody else.

We have to change our language around prostitution. It is modern-day slavery, for the most part. There are very few people who choose to go into something like this. When we stop to think about it, what woman would get beaten, give all of her money to somebody, and then keep silent about it?

This is a huge tool in Bill C-36.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member opposite and to the proponents of this legislation is this. You have identified where you think this bill would be effective—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Again, I would remind the hon. member to direct his questions and comments to the Chair rather than directly to his colleague.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through the Chair, I apologize.

The member has identified that the legislation would attack the system of advertising these services. The legislation talks about the system of reporting to the police and the conversations that would be possible between people who have been trafficked and the law enforcement agencies. The member talked about a series of systemic approaches that need to be changed in order to change the culture around this issue.

However, when it comes to missing and murdered indigenous women, the same government responds to it as an individual situation, that there is no sociological or systemic reason there.

I would like the member, through the Chair, to explain to the House exactly why this is a systemic problem, but the other one is not; it is rather one of individual choices and individual situations.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be very candid, when we look at backpage.com and other advertisements, we will often see advertisements like “Asian women”, “young women”, “fresh women”. Those advertisements are done by organized crime and traffickers. They are selling their product.

There is a provision for the prostitutes themselves. If they want to individually advertise, that is fine. The bill would not touch that. What it would go after is the control of these women.

I am an honorary chief. I have been on reserves. I have the red shawl from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. My own family is aboriginal. I have such a heart for the murdered and missing women. I can tell the House that there has been so much talk about inquiry and no action, and now we need to take action. We need to put the money into programming and into solving the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I attended the meeting of the special committee that examined Bill C-36.

I would like to point out that we are once again hearing the Conservatives' unilateral view that justice can solve the problems inherent in prostitution.

I have an eye infection. This may not seem to have any relevance to the bill before us. However, yesterday, I went to the pharmacy to get some eye drops, and the pharmacist told me that merely putting one or two drops in my eye would not cure the infection. He said that the infection needed to be treated and that it would take several days for it to be cured.

My Conservative colleagues' remarks about Bill C-36 give the impression that this bill is like some sort of magical cure for an infection that will solve all of the problems in one day. It is as though every victim will be saved, prostitution will be eliminated and all the pimps will be sent to prison on the day Bill C-36 comes into force.

We are not living in a comic strip or a world of make-believe. We are living in a real society. Justice is not the way to eliminate the problems inherent in prostitution. We can put anyone we like in prison but it will not solve the problem. We spoke about poverty, vulnerability and drug use. To my knowledge, Bill C-36 does not address any of those issues.

As I said earlier, I truly admire my colleague for all of the work that she has done for victims of human trafficking and exploitation. The main point of her speech and that of the minister of state was that these people are in an extremely difficult situation. This may be because of family problems, drug problems or poverty. However, regardless of the underlying problems, these people did not make a free choice. How can someone be given the opportunity to make a free and informed decision? They must be given options.

The government would have us believe that these men and women will be able to make a free and informed decision and get out of the situation they now find themselves in. I would be happy if we could all live in utopia and everyone could be equal. However, a bill such as Bill C-36 is not going to resolve the issues of poverty and drug use. The very basis of the Supreme Court's ruling was that no one can freely and safely engage in an activity if everything associated with that activity is illegal. In this case, we are talking about bawdy-houses, pimping and prostitution itself or the issue of soliciting.

The Conservatives are now saying that we should forget about all those offences but that, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, prostitution will be illegal. According to the minister of state, only purchasing the services of a prostitute is illegal. This is not clear.

Does this really respect the basis for the Supreme Court ruling? If we listen carefully to the Conservatives' speeches, some say that prostitution is illegal while others say only purchasing the services is illegal. Does that provide a legal, secure and safe framework for the individuals? That is the question.

According to the witnesses, making illegal everything surrounding a legal activity does not make this activity any safer. That is the very basis for the Supreme Court ruling. Most of the witnesses said, unfortunately, that the bill will be challenged because you cannot criminalize victims for an activity that is not illegal. That is unconstitutional. Even the witnesses invited by the Conservatives to appear before the committee clearly said that the victims cannot be criminalized.

Toughening the laws as they do, without any consideration for the problems inherent in an activity and a situation—I spoke about poverty—does not solve anything.

This bill does not solve anything. As I mentioned, it is like a magical cure for an infection. It does not work. It does not exist. It is like continuing to put a Band-Aid on a wound that will not heal. We are only adding a legislative framework and that is not a solution to a problem.

My colleague said that victims are now able to report and are able to get out and that we are now offering them the option to do so. Could they not report before?

All of the police officers who testified in front of the committee said that police officers do not prosecute and arrest prostitutes. They do not do it anymore. They have not done it for at least the past seven years. Is she saying that the police officers lied in committee and that they would arrest prostitutes? Is she saying that before they were not able to report, and now they are?

I would like to remind the hon. member that exploitation, rape, and human trafficking are already criminalized under the Criminal Code, and the sentence is jail to life imprisonment.

I would like my colleague to read sections 279.01 and 279.04 again. They are clear: human trafficking and exploitation are illegal. I already asked her the question, but she could not answer me. What new tools would Bill C-36 give to police to get young people out of prostitution? I did not ask about money, for that is another matter entirely.

All 75 witnesses said that $20 million over five years is completely ridiculous. I think the answer was clear. I repeat, 75 out of 75 witnesses, 100%, said that it was completely ridiculous.

When I asked the question, none of the police officers could name a single new tool that Bill C-36 would give them to help the victims of prostitution and human trafficking get out of it. This bill does not provide any new tools. I asked all the police officers who appeared before the committee.

According to the Conservatives, the Criminal Code is ineffective. Does that mean that section 279.04 on exploitation is ineffective? Should we get rid of that section and draft a new one? According to the Conservatives, section 279.01 of the Criminal Code on human trafficking is also ineffective. Does that mean we should take it out of the Criminal Code and draft a new one?

According to the Conservatives, no victims of human trafficking could get out of it before Bill C-36 was introduced. What, then, is the purpose of the Criminal Code? Are police officers incapable of enforcing the existing sections of the Criminal Code? In that case, we are talking about another problem, that is, whether police on the ground have the resources they need to do so. We heard from many police officers, and their message was clear: there is only one person in the police squad for an entire region.

If human trafficking in Canada is so extensive that the Conservatives want to do something, why not allocate more resources to police so they can take action on the ground? As it stands, Bill C-36 simply makes something illegal that may or may not already be illegal, according to the Conservatives. They cannot even give us a straight answer on that.

The minister of state spoke about the defence strategies used by pimps and johns, as she calls them. I must remind her that none of the defence strategies she listed in her speech can be used under the Criminal Code. She talked about drug use. Under the Criminal Code, drug use is clearly not an acceptable defence in a court of law. She also talked about consent. The section of the Criminal Code dealing with rape and sexual assault is clear: even if the victim previously consented to sexual relations, that does not mean that the person consented to rape. All of the examples of defence strategies used by pimps and johns, as she said, are unacceptable and would not work.

Will Bill C-36 truly solve the problems associated with prostitution? Not at all. The bill does not respect the very basis of the court's ruling, which is that people have the right to be safe when carrying out an activity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to ask some questions, because there is a bit of a vacuum in some of the comments that were made.

Why is Bill C-36 here? It is what we have been talking about all morning. The Supreme Court collapsed the laws. The laws the member was talking about that are in the Criminal Code were actually deemed unconstitutional. The government was asked to take this up and produce a bill that would respond to that. That is the answer to that.

Again, the tools, which I talked to very explicitly, are that now the victims could talk to the police. Just because there is a little provision in section 213 that if they solicit in front of schools, daycares, or kiddie pools, and that kind of thing, they can be moved along does mean they are being arrested. What happens is that often police get them to the police station and explain to them why this is not acceptable.

This is one of the best bills this country has ever put forward to address this terrible problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was on the same committee as my esteemed colleague. I can guarantee you that no police officer was able to say that Bill C-36 would bring anything new to the legislation to help victims break free from human exploitation. I guarantee it.

If the member can show me testimony from committee, I will apologize to the House, but I can guarantee you that I have reread my notes, and not a single police officer was able to name a new tool.

The basis of the Supreme Court's ruling was that a person must and may carry out an activity freely and safely, but how can a person do this if everything surrounding the activity is illegal? That is why the court removed those sections from the Criminal Code. The Conservatives are essentially saying that prostitution itself is not illegal, but the purchase of prostitution is. We are going in circles here.

Is this truly in keeping with the basis of the Supreme Court's ruling? No, it is not. The member said that, before, victims could not report to police, which is absolutely not true. The police officers who testified in committee were clear. They had not been arresting prostitutes for years, and they had been working with them precisely to try to combat pimping.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech.

She spoke about tools, and that truly is an important issue because not every problem has a legislative solution. Sometimes, a problem requires fiscal measures. In committee, we heard from a witness named Kyle Kirkup.

One of the things Kyle Kirkup said was this: “Got a complex social problem? There's a prison for that.”

In invite my colleague to expand upon the non-legislative, non-Criminal Code matters that undoubtedly the government has not thought of in addressing this complex social problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question.

As I said, the Conservatives' unilateral view is that justice can solve all the problems inherent to a situation. Whether we are talking about prostitution or something else, the activity must be criminalized for it to be controlled.

In their speeches, the government's parliamentary secretaries and the ministers of state clearly said that prostitutes and victims have no choice because, unfortunately, they are extremely poor, are addicted to drugs and may even have mental health issues. However, from what I can see, Bill C-36 does nothing to address those problems. There is no additional money for social housing or mental health treatment. The government is simply criminalizing an activity that, in and of itself, is not illegal.

I would really like it if the Conservatives could tell us how criminalizing something can help people who are dealing with much deeper issues, such as poverty, mental illness or drug addiction. Putting them in prison or criminalizing them will not solve the problem. All of the experts agree. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is true that when a crime is committed, the person needs to pay for their actions, but what happens to the victims in that case? Do they get help? No, the government prefers to make it illegal to advertise or buy services. What happens to the victims? Do they get help? No, not at all.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, which amends the Criminal Code in order to create an offence that would prohibit purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose.

I am very familiar with this bill because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In July, our committee studied this bill for five consecutive days and heard from 75 witnesses.

We find that this bill does not comply with the Supreme Court ruling, and therefore we will oppose it. The government should have sent Bill C-36 to the Supreme Court to ensure that it is constitutional. The Minister of Justice said that he expected that Bill C-36 would face a legal challenge. As usual, the Conservatives' bills are designed to garner votes, not improve our society.

We consulted many legal experts, stakeholders and sex workers, as well as the authorities concerned by this legislation. Everyone agrees that Bill C-36 does not stand a good chance of getting by the Supreme Court.

There are many sex workers who choose this profession of their own free will. They must be protected from abuse. However, they are not the ones I am concerned about. What I do worry about is the government's lack of action on fighting poverty, which is the main factor that leads to sexual exploitation.

The measures announced by the Conservatives to help prostitutes exit the sex trade are inadequate. Sweden has adopted the model that criminalizes the buyer of services. Some wrongly claim that Bill C-36 is the Canadian version of the Swedish model. In Sweden, these legislative measures go hand in hand with extremely important social measures. The Swedish model cannot work if the authorities do not have the necessary resources to help people in need because, quite frankly, the main cause of prostitution is poverty.

Many women who have no way out turn to prostitution to survive. Those situations give rise to abuse and violence. What have the Conservative and Liberal government done to fight poverty? Nothing at all.

On the contrary, over the past five years, only 20% of Canadians have seen an increase in their incomes. The other 80% have seen their real income shrink. Households in Canada have the highest level of debt in the entire OECD. It is a disaster. Young people are paying more than ever for tuition and are incurring more debt than ever before. To make matters worse, for the past few years, the federal government has been refusing to invest in social housing. By 2030, $1.7 billion in federal funding for social housing will have been lost. This amounts to 85% of the federal housing budget.

In Canada, more than 620,000 social housing units were provided through long-term agreements, with a lifespan ranging from 25 to 50 years. These agreements allow social housing providers to financially support their tenants to ensure that only about 30% of their income is spent on rent.

In 2014, the federal government is still refusing to renew these agreements as they expire.

If we do not change course by 2030, over three-quarters of the federal education budget will have been cut. However, social housing is one way of getting people out of poverty and out of prostitution. For instance, by spending less than 30% of its income on housing, a needy family can invest more money in education. That is why we will continue to call on this government to renew federal funding for social housing, in order to preserve rent subsidies and provide funds for necessary renovations. Furthermore, to help women get out of prostitution, more needs to be done to treat substance abuse problems. Once again, we are up against this government's failure to act.

The Minister of Justice promised $20 million for treatment and prevention as part of Bill C-36's implementation. However, that amount is not even enough to meet the needs of existing organizations throughout Canada. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, witnesses criticized the cuts made to women's centres. This is on top of the funding cuts to mental health services and other medical services, as well as the absence of sufficient legal aid.

If the government is serious about fighting sexual exploitation, it has to allocate substantial resources. It has to provide these women with income support, as well as education, training and treatment for drug addiction. That is the only way to combat prostitution because criminalizing johns, which Bill C-36 would do, will not put an end to sex work. All that will do is further marginalize it. Marginalization is what leads to exploitation and violence. If johns are criminalized, they will be afraid. They will ask sex workers to meet them in out-of-the-way places. They will force them into different circumstances.

Bill C-36 will make life even more unsafe for many prostitutes. If they cannot advertise their services to persuade the johns to come to them, many more are likely to take to the streets in search of business. This bill will make it much more difficult for sex workers to safely assess and vet their clients and ensure they can meet them in relatively safe places on their own terms.

We believe that this bill is not consistent with the Supreme Court ruling or the charter. The measures announced by the Conservatives to help prostitutes exit the sex trade are inadequate. The government must refer the bill to the Supreme Court. We do not believe it is consistent with the Bedford decision.

Finally, concrete efforts must be made immediately to improve the safety of sex workers and help them exit the sex trade if they are not there by choice. The government must provide significant resources for income support, education and training, poverty alleviation and treatment for addictions for this group of people.

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.

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[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.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a subject that has captured the interest of many people across Canada. I remember near the end of the summer having a number of ladies visit me in my office and urge me to support the bill. They are very concerned about the protection, especially of women and girls.

One of the things that many constituents have also suggested is that we should just legalize it and that would end the problem. I was wondering if my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, could give some feedback from other jurisdictions that have used various models. We have sometimes heard in the House about the so-called Swedish model. We have heard about legalization. I would be interested in helping myself and my constituents understand better what the implications are and have been for those jurisdictions that have gone ahead with legalization.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very relevant question.

Studies that have been conducted on other countries that have legalized or decriminalized prostitution—New Zealand, Australia, Holland, Germany—have found that in cases where it has been legalized, there has been a direct increase in human trafficking. There has also been a huge increase in the number of very violent crimes against the sex workers, so those who are vulnerable, because of legalization, have become increasingly more vulnerable.

However, in the case of Sweden, which is the Nordic model, from which we drew some of the best parts and of course formed our own Canadian model, what was found was that the number of sex offences decreased, the number of workers withdrew, there were social programs put in place to help those who wanted to withdraw, and there was notably a decrease in the sex trade, which is what we are trying to do with this very bill.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague opposite. Does he feel that this bill will criminalize someone who is severely disabled, has no sex life and calls on an escort?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a somewhat exceptional situation, but I see no exception for people who are disabled. It will never be legal to purchase sexual services in Canada. The goal is to protect the vulnerable because we know that this activity is extremely dangerous.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the criticisms of this government has been its general attitude in dealing with some of the social issues in communities. In Winnipeg North, for example, there are many entry points where individuals get involved, whether it is with prostitution, drugs or other issues. These are very strong social concerns.

Could the member explain why it is that the Conservatives seem, despite talking about $20 million over x number of years, to have really fallen short? Why not support our communities by being more proactive, by looking at ways in which we can prevent our young people in particular from getting into activities such as prostitution, selling drugs and some of those minor crimes, and invest in our young people? Why is that not happening with the government?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly on the topic of prostitution this government is committed to initially, and I do say initially, invest $20 million over five years to develop programs to withdraw those who willingly want to withdraw from the area of prostitution.

When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable, obviously our children, we have struck a balance and made it an offence to sell sexual services in areas where children could be available, because we do not want to expose them to used condoms or to an otherwise unacceptable social activity.

[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.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest. She recently heard the response of the parliamentary secretary in response to a question I posed regarding the experience of other jurisdictions that have implemented some form of what we sometimes refer to as the Nordic model. It is clear that the bill we have before us is crafted after that but is a huge improvement.

I am wondering how she can ignore the lived experience of communities, jurisdictions, and other nations that have gone a different route and experienced a rise in prostitution. Those who have implemented a variation of the Nordic model have seen an increase in safety for women and girls who are vulnerable to trafficking.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is because of the Supreme Court ruling in Bedford that we have legislation before us today.

One of the challenges that the government has failed to meet is the whole issue of future constitutional challenges with regard to the current legislation if it were to become law. When we have asked for legal opinions to support that the legislation being provided is constitutionally sound and would pass, our understanding is that the response has been very negative.

In presentations at the committee stage, from what I understand there was lawyer after lawyer suggesting that the current legislation will not pass constitutional scrutiny. I am wondering if the member wants to provide some thoughts on the fact that when the House of Commons passes legislation there should be some sense that it will meet constitutional requirements.

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

Mr. Speaker, we should not have to read in the House letters signed by 200 legal experts stating that a bill is contrary to a Supreme Court decision. This government clearly does not know how to govern on behalf of Canadians or how to work with the Supreme Court and respect Canadian law. By contradicting Supreme Court decisions, the Conservatives show that they have no respect for law and order, even though they claim to champion these ideals.

The NDP wants to work in a progressive manner to develop a comprehensive strategy to protect and support the men and women who do this work and to empower them. That is what needs to be done in order to take them out of dangerous situations.

Once again, this government is doing the opposite. It is marginalizing Canadians, our permanent residents, our refugees and members of our trans community. It constantly flies in the face of Canadian law and puts Canadians in danger. That is really appalling. This government has got to go.

[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.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague from Ottawa—Orléans for his speech. I do not agree with him, but his speech was well thought out.

Unfortunately, the bill before us does not seem to reflect the Supreme Court's ruling, which dealt with the safety of women and not with criminalizing prostitution. As the parliamentary secretary and member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe said, this does not prevent women from engaging in prostitution in a protected area away from the street.

As pointed out in the Supreme Court ruling and the testimony, a safe and secure place is not necessarily a place where women can engage in prostitution.

Does the member agree with the leader of the NDP, who says that the bill should better reflect the Supreme Court's ruling and not just focus on criminalization?

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill clearly does not criminalize sex workers. The bill criminalizes the pimps—the people who profit off of these vulnerable people.

I have been here for nearly nine years. In everything I do here I try to help the most vulnerable people. I do not understand why members of the official opposition cannot recognize that the most vulnerable members of society are those who are forced to sell their bodies. These people will not be criminalized by this bill. This bill will criminalize those who abuse these vulnerable people and who mistreat them with impunity.

When I was a municipal councillor, I was against objectifying women. I did the same as a library trustee, and I will do the same here, in Parliament.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I shake my head at the member's comments. He talks about the fact that this does not criminalized those individuals who are involved in the sex trade, and that is true. However, the end result of this legislation would certainly put their safety and security at extreme risk. This is the reality.

The Minister of Justice, when he was announcing the bill, said something along the lines of “prostitution ends here”. Are the Conservatives dreaming in Technicolor? This legislation would drive the trade underground and put at risk the safety and security of those individuals. The government has failed to look at that point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the objectification of women should be a proposal in the House.

We are trying to protect the most vulnerable people in society. We are doing this, not by punishing them but by punishing all those around them who profit from their misery. I wish that the ideology of those who would want to objectify women would get out of the way and help us to do this and protect them.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I apologize. I need to interrupt the member for Malpeque.

The time for government orders has expired. He will have three minutes remaining in his speech when this matter returns after question period.

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Malpeque had three minutes remaining in his debate.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

Let me quote what a couple of other people said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He went on to say:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments by the hon. member for Malpeque.

I wonder if the member shares my concern that this legislation is likely to be thrown out by the Supreme Court. It is going to make sex work more dangerous, and there will be a whole bunch of harm done in the period of time of maybe two to four years before this question is back before the Supreme Court.

Does the member share that concern?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I work with this particular member on the public safety and national security committee, and I will admit that over time I have begun to realize that we do share many of the same concerns.

He is absolutely right in this case. I do not know if the Department of Justice or the ministers or the government backbenchers on the other side just did not allow themselves to meet with people who are in the sex trade because they are opposed to it—and it is acceptable to be opposed to it, for sure—but these individuals in the sex trade are fearful of what this bill would do. It would drive prostitution, the sex trade, underground, make it much more risky for those individuals involved, and certainly risk their public safety.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of the analysis that took place during committee. I was wondering if he could provide more detail on that analysis and on what was provided, especially regarding any pending judgments by the Supreme Court on this particular piece of legislation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote from the analysis:

The concern of the Charter and the Court is not whether prostitution is good or moral, the concern is the right to safety of all Canadians, which the Charter enshrines. C-36 also creates some new issues of constitutional validity.

At the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, legal experts suggested that there are a number of charter issues. They relate to life, liberty, and security of the person; they relate to equality rights; they relate to freedom of expression; they relate to the presumption of innocence; and they relate to cruel and unusual punishment. Legal people have all identified those areas as concerns with regard to constitutionality.

I would like to make one other point. One of the members from Manitoba spoke on human smuggling and the fact that some people are forced into the sex trade. That is absolutely true, and that is repulsive.

I did a study on human smuggling and individuals who get forced into the trade. The problem is that be as it may, this bill would not prevent that from happening. In fact, the bill would worsen the safety of those individuals, and that is what we have to be concerned about.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on what my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca talked about in terms of the constitutional provisions, or lack thereof, in this bill.

We have asked the Minister of Justice a number of times in the House of Commons to provide Canadians with any evidence that this measure has been through a constitutional check. For those watching, the reason this is so important is that the current government has become very good at writing laws that are unconstitutional. We go through the whole exercise of drafting these bills and going through the committee process, where the Conservatives ignore the witnesses and ram the bill through anyway. Then, lo and behold, it gets a constitutional challenge, a charter challenge, and it fails.

If the minister is so concerned about all the victims of this particular crime, then we would think he would want to have legislation that would improve their lives and their lot in life. That means they need legislation that actually becomes law and maintains itself as a law.

This question is for my friend. Did the committee at any point see evidence from the Government of Canada, the Conservative Party, that shows that this bill would in fact survive a constitutional check and actually become law in this country, and remain there?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, no, I certainly have not been made aware of that constitutionality reference or check.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is absolutely right. That constitutional reference would have ensured that this House of Commons would pass a measure that is likely not to be turned down by the courts and do it right, a measure that would not, as the member said earlier, put the safety of individuals in greater jeopardy for several years.

I would actually make the accusation of the government that it is doing this for political purposes, because it sounds good. The Conservatives are doing it for political optics, and in the process they are risking the safety and security of individuals, people whom they may not like but who are Canadians regardless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have what I consider to be a rather pertinent question for my colleague.

From his speech, we can see that he truly believes that criminalization will actually help eliminate prostitution. I personally do not believe that to be true. There are many things that are against the law but are done anyway in our society. I do not think the bill will fix things. In my opinion, the only thing it will do is make people working in prostitution even more vulnerable. How are we going to protect these people?

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

Mr. Speaker, our laws are there for a variety of reasons. We have laws on the books that are broken, Violent offences, like murder and manslaughter, still take place, but what laws represent is, in many ways, an attempt to discourage these activities, to show society's condemnation of some conduct. In this case, we are trying to show condemnation of exploitation around prostitution.

Will it root out every case? Absolutely not. I would be foolhardy to even suggest that.

However, this approach, the Canadian model, looks at the successes and the approach that many countries with similar economies, similar populations, like Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and others, have tried to take to reduce the social harm.

Will it eradicate it? No, but I think it is a responsible response from this government to the Bedford decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite a question about the fact that approximately a year ago, France's national assembly passed identical legislation. When the bill, which criminalizes the purchase of sexual services, went to the upper house—the French senate—it rejected the key provision, criminalization, and sent the bill back to the national assembly.

The member said that other countries similar to Canada have legislation or are going in the same direction as this legislation. However, the French senate recently looked at the key provision and realized that it was absurd and should be withdrawn from the legislation.

Can the member explain to us how Canada's approach is the same as the one being used by other countries that have similar problems?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The summary of Bill C-36 says the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way and she is focused on sex trade workers being marginalized. There are different models around the world and some have been somewhat successful, like the Nordic model. Canada's proposal is similar to the Nordic model, in that it focuses on the johns and the pimps as opposed to the prostitutes. It is one of the few models that actually work, in that it makes it much safer. It still is a very high-risk vocation. As the member pointed out, it likely would never disappear.

However, I have heard from a number of my constituents who support the Nordic model and have encouraged Canada to consider the Nordic model. Our government has a made-in-Canada model, but it is very similar. Would the member support the Nordic model and if not, why not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not support such a model. As I said in my speech, I am much more in favour of harm reduction than repression. I do not believe that repression can work in a society, either from a safety perspective or from a perspective of preventing the marginalization of the most vulnerable individuals.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. I think that her conclusions are of particular interest. We often hear from the other side of the House that the bill before us is based on the Nordic model. Quite frankly, that is far from the truth. It is outright criminalization of prostitution. Unfortunately, the bill does not in any way respond to the Supreme Court ruling.

I was wondering whether my colleague could comment on the fact that the Conservatives are not listening to the Supreme Court. The NDP has said many times that we should respect Supreme Court rulings and rely on them in order to take the right approach when drafting our bills.

Does my colleague agree that the bill before us does not reflect the Supreme Court ruling and requires drastic changes to gain the support of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. The bill needs to be greatly improved. As my colleague mentioned, it does not really follow the Nordic model. That model is not ideal either.

As I was saying, there has to be real consultation. We must listen to the people involved in this situation and consider what they say. That is very important. We must also work with the Supreme Court, which does a great job. As legislators, I find that we are really in no position to disregard the Supreme Court and say that we are going to move forward nonetheless. That is not the ideal way to go about this.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate with great interest. We know the Supreme Court has struck down our existing rules and we know we need new rules. We have come up with what we believe is a solution that would deal with this.

However, from what I hear from the New Democrats, is their position that we should legalize it? They speak very nice words and have very generic kinds of comments, but I have not heard what they believe we should do. Is the hon. member saying legalization?

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

Mr. Speaker, we need a regulated system and consultation. I have said this over and over again. I am almost tired of hearing myself say that. We must consult the people to know what they need, and we have to regulate this profession to protect the health and safety of the men and women who make their living from prostitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. Of course, we have rather different views on the approach, but there is one thing we might agree on, and that is the support that could be given to the women who want to get out of this industry.

Does my colleague not believe that the proposal to allocate $20 million, which would have to be shared among 10 provinces and three territories, is completely ridiculous? That could well have been the cornerstone for a bill that would bring about real change.

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

Mr. Speaker, the $20 million in new funding to assist sellers of sexual services is in addition to other related federal initiatives, including the national action plan to combat human trafficking, the national crime prevention strategy, the victims' fund, the aboriginal justice strategy and funding to address the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women.

The provinces and territories, which are primarily responsible for the delivery of many of the services needed by persons seeking to exit prostitution, such as housing, social and medical services, occupational training and victim services, also provide significant resources.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's views and concerns for those who are affected by prostitution. I take her on her word that she is concerned about these things. One would assume then that the bill that the government has brought forward would be a charter-proof bill, a bill that would pass a charter challenge, in order to come into law and then affect those that she is concerned about. We have sought evidence that the government knows and has good confidence that the bill would pass through a Supreme Court challenge. Otherwise, this is all for naught. All her words, all the gestures within the act are meaningless if the bill can never be enacted into law and maintained in law.

Would the member be able to provide the House with some evidence, some advice given to her by the justice department and counsel, that the bill is constitutional and thereby will change the lives of the people we are talking about today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, September 25, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings, and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1, and a vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 52.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Monday, September 29, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 52.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at my watch. If you look at your watch, I think that the time is now 1:30 p.m., if you agree.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 52.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #235

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 52 defeated.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[And five or more members having risen:]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #236

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.