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 bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.

Sponsor

Peter MacKay  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Oct. 6, 2014 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
Sept. 29, 2014 Passed That Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.
Sept. 29, 2014 Failed That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting the long title.
Sept. 25, 2014 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
June 16, 2014 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
June 12, 2014 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

July 8th, 2014 / 9:30 a.m.
See context

Casandra Diamond Program Director, BridgeNorth

Honourable members of Parliament, justice and human rights dignitaries, thank you for the invitation to speak to this extremely important bill that will greatly impact the future of many of my friends, their children, and countless other women and children who are trapped in the prostitution industry.

Sexual exploitation is a human rights crisis for women and girls. The harm of sexual exploitation extends throughout our whole nation. It begins with the individual, extends to the community, and then to the country. Prostitution and trafficking restrict women's freedoms and citizenship rights. If women are treated as commodities, they are consigned to second-class citizenship. A country cannot be a true democracy if its citizens are treated as commodities, nor can a true democracy flourish when women who enter this lifestyle as a result of oppression or force are criminalized.

My name is Casandra Diamond. I am the director of a grassroots organization named BridgeNorth, a program of Grace Church Newmarket, that seeks to help trafficked and prostituted women understand their inherent value and dignity through mentoring and creating opportunities to gain healthy, full, and balanced lives.

I stand before you also as a survivor of the sex trade, echoing the experience of hundreds of women who cannot be here today. This is the perspective I'm speaking to you from.

Bill C-36 shows great promise with the preamble, an excellent framework, and the necessary perspective to replace the laws deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It was like medicine for my heart to read:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns about the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution and the risks of violence…; Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity; Whereas it is important to protect human dignity and the equality of all Canadians by discouraging prostitution, which has a disproportionate impact on women and children; Whereas it is important to denounce and prohibit the purchase of sexual services because it creates a demand for prostitution;….

That is real medicine and a prescription for healthy citizenship.

In the preamble, the Canadian government is sending a very clear message to its citizens that it wants safer communities for women and children and that prostitution is inherently violent and dangerous and a direct violation of the human rights of each person.

Speaking from a decade of experience in various capacities within the sex trade, I am intimately aware of the inherent dangers of prostitution, regardless of whether the trade occurs indoors or outdoors. If anything, working indoors offers even less choice to women. Unlike outdoor girls and women who are able to scan, see, and talk to a client before brokering a deal, an indoor woman or girl is lined up and then paraded before being selected by the client. She does not have a choice to say no. Plying the trade indoors often means more pimp control, with no place for the person to turn to for help.

Concealing prostitution behind doors is more socially accepted because it permits society to ignore the brutal reality that people are being destroyed by it. It allows people to romanticize the idea of prostitution, and to be blind to the degrading and dehumanizing treatment of women by the criminals who profit from it. The turning of the head of ordinary citizens helps to reinforce the power of the industry in coercing women. This makes them perfect prey for highly organized and deadly organizations to take over their lives. There is no such thing as a safe place to engage in prostitution.

Prostitution in Canada today is organized by criminals; namely, the mafias and gangs that operate the global underground economy, dealing for profit in drug and human trafficking. In my 10 years of experience, I have never not worked for organized crime and gangs.

Highly organized groups have infiltrated essential social systems, such as licensing and government agencies and police forces, where they have built influential relationships with officials within these systems. These hidden power structures keep prostituted women and girls acutely vulnerable to continued abuse and exploitation.

Decriminalizing prostitution is not the answer and will not wrestle this lucrative globalized industry out of the clutches of organized crime. As a matter of fact, it will only make it easier for worldwide criminal networks—many already well-established in Canada—to increase and expand their hold on trading in women's bodies. By instituting and enforcing Bill C-36 with an amendment to decriminalize women in prostitution, Canada will protect itself from becoming a destination of choice for organized crime and sex tourism.

In attempting to craft laws to end this exploitation, Bill C-36 must address these issues and consider that criminalizing women is a matter of revictimizing the victim.

Some people talk about prostitution as employment, as if it were a job like any other. It isn't. Legitimate employment has laws against sexual harassment and discrimination. It does not allow hiring a woman based solely on her breast size or hair colour or weight. Our labour laws have in place standards that protect us from such practices because they are discriminatory, unhealthy, and misaligned with society's views and values. In a regular job, I am not forced to willingly and knowingly subject myself to numerous sexually transmitted infections, life-threatening diseases, and violence.

There is a lot of talk about harm reduction. Harm reduction suggests that any harm done is minor and can easily be treated or healed. However, harm minimization does not eliminate harm, and that should be our ultimate goal. There is overwhelming evidence to show that PTSD, dissociation, and depression are rampant among women in prostitution. This would not be acceptable in other jobs. We must try to not only reduce harm but to eliminate it.

I am encouraged that Bill C-36 speaks to both of these issues in that it provides funding for exit strategies for women plying the sex trade and safe havens for women who experience violence or need medical care while involved in the sex trade. The funding of $20 million tells us how important the government believes this issue is, and I'm very thankful for that. However, continued financial backing will be imperative to achieving the desired results that this hard-working bill is seeking.

Bill C-36 gives us a chance to name prostitution for what it is, and it is an extreme manifestation of exploitation and violence against women. By decriminalizing the prostituted, those who are primarily forced into prostitution by desperation or are direct victims of human trafficking and sex slavery, there is public recognition that, by and large, women in the trade are not exercising free will and there is no criminal intent on their part.

By criminalizing those who are exercising control over the prostituted for their own financial gain, the harm to the prostituted is recognized and validated. To be clear, many women in the middle positions of these power hierarchies are themselves victims of coercion and should not be included in this criminalized group. By criminalizing the johns, the law recognizes that men who solicit women for services are willingly, albeit perhaps unknowingly, engaging with organized crime to coerce and hold women in sex slavery. Clear laws like these, and the social commitment to implement and enforce them, will offer hope to women who are now trapped. This is why I support Bill C-36.

I do dream of living in a Canadian society that believes and practices gender equality. When we reach that pinnacle, women and girls will no longer be bought and sold by men. I want to live in a country that protects all of its citizens, and whose country's value system creates and provides laws that enshrine the safety, equality, and value of its people above all else, simply because they are human beings regardless of sex, class, race, and economic standing. I want to live in a country that prohibits the sale of its citizens as commodities to be bought and sold. This is why I stand before you today.

I think that Bill C-36, amended to remove criminalizing the prostituted themselves, will help us to find our way to that country. Please do all that you can to make this a reality.

Thank you.

July 8th, 2014 / 9:30 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number 35. The orders of the day, per the order of reference of Monday, June 16, 2014, is on 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.

We have a number of witnesses here today in this first panel this morning. I will introduce them all, and then we will have you each give your 10-minute presentation. We will do it based on the order in the agenda.

From BridgeNorth, we have Ms. Casandra Diamond. From Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work Educate and Resist, we have Emily Symons, chair. From the Calgary Police Service, we have the Chief of Police, Rick Hanson. Welcome.

From Stella, l'amie de Maimie, Robyn Maynard is a spokesperson for them. By video conference, all the way from Lisbon, Portugal, we have José Mendes Bota, member of the Portuguese parliament, who is here to talk to us about violence against women in the Council of Europe.

Let's begin with BridgeNorth. You have 10 minutes.

July 7th, 2014 / 5:30 p.m.
See context

Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Manitoba

Andrew Swan

The prostitution diversion program continues to run in Manitoba, even though very few charges are being laid and very few threats of charges are being made. It is our intention that even if Bill C-36 passes as amended, we will continue to run that program, and we will be able to find victims of sexual exploitation who want to take that program. Again, the program is three days' long right now, which is barely enough time for somebody who has been working the streets in the north end or the west end of Winnipeg to get themselves to that window of being able to see that maybe there is something more.

I would love to expand that program: the number of days, how often we offer it, and perhaps to provide more meaningful assistance up front to assist people in making that change.

I wouldn't quite phrase it that you can't help people who don't want to help themselves, but what I've learned from organizations like Sage House, the Salvation Army, and TERF in Winnipeg is that the best we can do is to provide a platform and a safe place for people to start to make that decision to change their lives.

July 7th, 2014 / 5:25 p.m.
See context

Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Manitoba

Andrew Swan

Sure. I mean, one of the reasons I'm here as a Manitoban is that, of course, we have the tragedy of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Now, just so it's clear, not every aboriginal woman who goes missing or is murdered has been sexually exploited. But if you are an aboriginal women who is being sexually exploited, your odds are not good.

We know from the work that's been done....and I know that Joy Smith and Irene Mathyssen and others were on a committee that looked at human trafficking several years ago. Many of the recommendations include ways to deal with poverty, to deal with education for first nations, where many of the young people are being trafficked from. You're absolutely right that there is much to be done on poverty, on housing, on educational opportunities. That doesn't change the fact that I believe, with the amendments I've asked for, that Bill C-36 goes a great way further downstream to try to prevent loss and damage and more tragedies.

But you're right, there are many big questions to be answered.

July 7th, 2014 / 5:05 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

So maybe they do. Perhaps they will clarify. If I got it wrong, I apologize. I believe I heard them say they oppose Bill C-36 because they believe that criminalizing the purchase of sex will make the practice of the sex industry more dangerous.

Do you believe that? Do you agree with that statement?

July 7th, 2014 / 5 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses.

I just want to say to Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Falle, and through you, Ms. Gallant, to Monica Forrester, that I think you're very brave for coming here and telling us your stories, and I want to thank you for doing that. It's very difficult for us as legislators to really understand what takes place in an industry like this without hearing your stories, so thank you for that.

I just want to respond quickly to Ms. Sullivan. You were concerned that Bill C-36 would criminalize a sex worker who was carrying on the practice in her home where her children would be present. The answer is simple: that is not a public place so it wouldn't be caught under that provision. I just want to reassure you on that.

For Ms. Forrester through Ms. Gallant, she said that she asked to be corrected. She was wrong that we weren't hearing from any other indigenous people in the sex business—

July 7th, 2014 / 4:50 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First off, as a matter of courtesy to my colleagues on the committee and to the witnesses, I apologize for coming late to the meeting. Mr. Dechert, Mr. Scott, and I were on Power & Politics in-between sessions. That the reason we were a bit late.

Mr. Minister, I came in the middle of your statement so I didn't hear it all, but I did read it in advance.

We're now on the second panel of the day, and although there's been a great divergence of views through the day, there is one thing on which every single witness, except for Peter MacKay and the Justice officials, agree on. Walk With Me Canada Victim Services, the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform, the Criminal Lawyers' Association, Professor Janine Benedet, and Professor John Lowman all agree, as did each of you in your testimony today, that the criminalization of sex workers under the communication provisions is problematic and should either be amended or completely wiped out. That is one point of consensus from all of the witnesses, except for the minister and his officials today.

I want to come first to Ms. Beazley and Madam Matte, because I know that both of your organizations have done an extensive survey of models in other countries. Around here we constantly hear about the Nordic model. We know that it is an approach that criminalizes the purchasers, but what we have before us is something that not only criminalizes the purchasers but, in many instances, also criminalizes the providers and criminalizes advertising.

A witness we are going to be hearing from later in the week is a fellow by the name of José Mendes Bota. He was the rapporteur at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He also did an extensive survey of the different models around the world, and in his report he describes a prohibitionist system, which bans prostitution by criminalizing all aspects of it, including the sale of sex and all the people involved. He said a number of European countries have chosen this approach, including Albania, Croatia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, and Ukraine.

My question for you, Ms. Beazley, and for you, Ms. Matte, is given all of the things that have been piled on top of the basic Nordic model in Bill C-36, are we not in fact much closer to a prohibitionist model with what we have before us?

July 7th, 2014 / 4:50 p.m.
See context

Representative, Sex Trafficking Survivors United

Natasha Falle

Certainly. In fact, I believe that Bill C-36 will actually give people who are being prostituted more leverage when dealing with violent johns, in enabling them to call the police and not fear being blamed for the abuse they are experiencing. I also believe it will give them an opportunity to screen because they can do so without having to answer to pimps and johns, because now men are going to be targeted. I also believe that by teaching society that this is an issue of male violence against women and children mostly, we are going to teach future generations of boys to grow up and understand that this is something they shouldn't contribute to.

I also believe that focusing on women and looking at them as victims in this industry will actually provide more opportunities for them to exit it, which we're not seeing right now. I think by pumping in money to organizations such as Maggie's it actually enables people to stay there. They did mention that there are some women whom they believe can't get out, and I don't believe that is true at all. I think that anyone who wants something is able to make that a possibility. I am a living testimony of that. In my last two years I had drug-induced schizophrenia and today I am in this position that I am today.

July 7th, 2014 / 4:45 p.m.
See context

Community organizer, Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle

Diane Matte

The other point where we agree with groups like Maggie's is the decriminalization of women in prostitution. Bill C-36 can't produce the desired outcome if women in prostitution continue to be criminalized in one form or another, regardless of whether they work on the streets or indoors. The exact opposite will happen. I have the feeling that continuing to criminalize them at all sends the message that they should go indoors because they'll be safer there.

It depends on where you stand in the debate. The NDP seems to think women will be safer indoors, but the reality is that, no matter where they are, they can fall victim to violence at the hands of clients or pimps.

The bill is endeavouring to change society's views on prostitution. It gives women an opportunity to exit prostitution voluntarily. And that needs to be pointed out.

July 7th, 2014 / 4:45 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Thanks. Obviously we'll leave that. We can find that out.

Madam Matte, I really liked what you were saying about the issue being the dignity of women, and, Rose, you underlined that.

Could either one of you voice what you think is so beneficial in Bill C-36? You've given some suggestions for amendments as well.

Rose, you came today and you said that you fully support Bill C-36. What is it about Bill C-36 that would help, in a practical way, those who need that help on the streets?

July 7th, 2014 / 4:45 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Our time is going, so I have another point to make. I have a couple of more questions with the others.

Thank you.

What stands out, and what I've heard, is the symbiotic relationship between provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction—a partnership. For the first time, the federal law, Bill C-36, is working in partnership with what you're doing in the province of Manitoba. I dare say it's one child at a time or one victim at a time, isn't it?

I also want to ask Jean McDonald a question. You were saying you are helping to lessen the risk to the prostitutes on the street. Can you tell me whether you get paid for this position, or do you do it voluntarily?

July 7th, 2014 / 4:40 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming here today to give us your opinions.

Mr. Swan, I applaud you for all the work you do in Manitoba. I really applaud your support of Bill C-36, and your advice on some amendments. For the first time in Canada, the purchase of sex will be illegal, and that will help a lot of things. First-time advertising by third parties will be addressed, and for the first time we have compassion in the bill.

Having said that, could you expand a bit on what a victim actually needs? With living in the part of Winnipeg you live in and being on some of the streets that both of us have been on, perhaps you could give the committee insight as to what really happens.

I applaud Natasha and Rose for speaking today. It was fantastic. But could you give an overview as an elected person?

July 7th, 2014 / 4:40 p.m.
See context

Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Manitoba

Andrew Swan

There are some big questions here.

Back in the fall, at the ministers meeting in Whitehorse, I advanced on behalf of Manitoba our view that the Nordic model was the way to go. I wrote to Minister MacKay early in February. I know that MP Joy Smith and I had discussed it. I made sure every Manitoba MP got a copy of the letter. I haven't heard from Mr. MacKay since the letter was sent early in February.

In terms of the kinds of services needed to help sexually exploited victims leave behind their life, it is difficult because of the trauma they've sustained. Attached to the submission is Tracia's Trust, which is a summary of the various things Manitoba is doing. There is no one simple answer. In many cases it may be people who have physical trauma, very much like that of returning soldiers. In some cases it's addictions problems or mental health issues.

One of the things we found very helpful, which I think maybe we've understood a bit more about this afternoon, is how helpful it is to have experiential people, who have the credibility of talking about what their life was about, who maybe have the best ability to work with people to try to effect that change.

We have the prostitution diversion program. This is only a three-day program, run by the Salvation Army. We intend to continue that program. Whatever Bill C-36 looks like, that, in and of itself, does not work miracles. We are not going to get somebody who's been sexually exploited to magically, in the course of those three days, change their life. But if they can get into that camp, get cleaned up, eat properly, sleep, which oftentimes is not possible, and then at least have an opportunity to be lined up with various agencies that can help them to make that choice, then we'll be further ahead. But it is not easy.

I don't want to be flippant, but the amount of money Manitoba will get every year, if it goes per capita, may allow us to help one person, or two people, and we know there's a greater demand than that. These are people who have suffered tremendously.

July 7th, 2014 / 4:35 p.m.
See context

Community organizer, Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle

Diane Matte

Indeed. The bill does what Bedford did not and could not do on its own, and that is change the objectives of the law, the Supreme Court justices, themselves, acknowledging that fact. A review of the evidence before them could not have produced the same outcome.

I didn't have time to discuss the concept of security in detail. But in our view, it would be beneficial to have Bill C-36 go much further and set out definitions of what constitutes a sexual service and the advertising of that service, as you were asking about this morning.

July 7th, 2014 / 4:35 p.m.
See context

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Thank you.

Ms. Matte, you said the Supreme Court adopted a very narrow view of the concept of security in the Bedford ruling. Right afterwards, you said that Bill C-36 rectified that to some extent. In other words, Bill C-36 does what Bedford does not. Did I understand you correctly?