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.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Sure. Thank you very much, Ms. Ambler.

The amendments contained in Bill C-36, as I said my opening remarks, are meant to marry new sections of the Criminal Code with existing sections that deal with human trafficking. But you're absolutely right: there are many overlaps, if you will, particularly for vulnerable individuals and exploitative persons.

What we've attempted to do is ensure consistency with the human trafficking offences, which is very much related criminal conduct. Specifically, to answer your question, it would increase maximum penalties and impose mandatory minimum penalties for receiving a material benefit from human trafficking. Many of those who are trafficked are underage so there are already sections that apply, but regarding, for example, the withholding of documents for the purpose of committing child trafficking and the receipt of a material benefit from child trafficking, all of these types, shall we say, of collateral activities that need to be deterred will see increased maximum penalties under the bill.

What we're attempting to do here throughout this bill is to ensure greater protection for vulnerable Canadians. This is inherent in the bill. We have examined other jurisdictions that have decriminalized or legalized prostitution and found that higher rates of human trafficking and sexual exploitation have been the end result, and legalizing and regulating prostitution would create an increase in demand for those who provide sexual services.

That runs completely contrary to our intent to end the violence and exploitation that we think is inherent to prostitution, as I've said. It recognizes the societal harm that is caused by the commodification of sexual services. That is very much what we're attempting to do, to take these new sections and ensure they are consistent with the current provisions of the code.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

With regard to the new sections being brought forth under Bill C-36 in relation to police officers—because that's where my domain is—what does this do with regard to police officers enforcing and/or assisting them in this area of their work?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, 15 years ago the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in Gladue, which, you would agree, is the seminal decision with respect to aboriginal sentencing.

What measures have been taken to ensure that Bill C-36 is consistent with the Gladue principles?

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

Minister, can I ask you about that? You mentioned the consultation. You had over 31,000 responses. I know that you personally met with former and current sex workers.

What did they tell you that caused you to believe that there are victims, how does Bill C-36 respond to them as victims, and how does it fit in with the overall government strategy towards rebalancing our justice legislation to properly address the needs of victims? You brought in the Victims Bill of Rights. That's a general theme that this government has followed for many years. Can you tell us about why you think prostitutes are often victims, and how you think this bill will assist them?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you to you and your officials for being here this morning.

I'd just like to respond to my friend, Madam Boivin.

We're all lawyers. There are many lawyers here. There are many lawyers who have reviewed this legislation and the Bedford decision. I certainly have. I spoke about it in the House of Commons. I think that Bill C-36 very clearly responds to the Bedford decision and is supportable.

In terms of the decision, it seems to me that the NDP don't want to take a position. They want to throw it back to the Supreme Court and hide behind that. They seem to want allow the Supreme Court to take the jurisdiction of Parliament. We had a decision; it's pretty clear. From any group of lawyers that you will ask an opinion of you'll get slightly different variations, but this seems to fit directly with the Bedford decision. I find it curious that my friends in the opposition are afraid to take a stand on how they think prostitution should be dealt within Canada and want to throw it back to the Supreme Court to hear what the Supreme Court has to say about it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

But, you see, we're two lawyers, and obviously we're not necessarily seeing or reading the decision the same way. So that might be problematic. Instead of having us two lawyers discuss amongst ourselves and other lawyers, maybe it would be interesting to have the view of the court on the thing.

But you're talking about studies. What's wrong with you guys that you cannot send to this committee the studies on charter compliance that you had done? I know you're going to tell me that they're a matter of client privilege and so on, but I think these would help the committee see that the department did its job and did do the overview. I'd be interested in knowing what exactly was studied and how they analyzed the decision from the court, and did so in parallel with the actual BillC-36.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

It's possible. Every new bill runs the risk of being referred to the Supreme Court. Whenever our government introduces a bill in Parliament, experts at the Department of Justice review it carefully to ensure it's charter compliant.

I should mention, Madame Boivin, that in addition to testimony that will be heard by this committee, it's the intention of the government to present as well a technical bill, which has helped to inform this legislation. It's also explaining some of the research that informed Bill C-36. Of course we also have—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Do you expect Bill C-36 to be challenged and referred back to the Supreme Court, regardless of what the committee does? Whether the challenge comes from those who are in favour of decriminalization or those who support the Nordic model, do you expect the legislation to be challenged? Do you expect it to be sent back to the Supreme Court whatever we do?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Boivin.

The decision to refer Bill C-36 to the House is up to the committee.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Colleagues, I am joined today by Donald Piragoff, senior assistant deputy minister at the Department of Justice, as well as Nathalie Levman, whom I would describe as an expert in this legislation. She has had a great deal of input into both the drafting and the preparation of the legislation that you see before you, Bill C-36.

I want to begin by thanking you, Chair, and all members of this committee for your decision to undertake this important work during the summer months. I think it reflects very well on Parliament and this committee to demonstrate the commitment to bringing forward important legislation, particularly the work that will be done over the coming days.

I very much appreciate the committee’s decision to sit—exceptionally—in July to study this bill. Bill C-36 is the government’s legislative proposal in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s Bedford decision, which found three Criminal Code prostitution offences unconstitutional. As you know, the court gave Parliament the opportunity to respond within one year.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, the government has made excellent use of the year to date. We are at, I note, the six-month mark since the handing down of the Bedford decision. We have undertaken and completed an initiation of a public online consultation, a process that garnered more than 31,000 responses. There have also been in-person round table meetings with a full spectrum of input from those who advocate for legalization to those who advocate for full criminalization, and participants in prostitution.

We then set about a drafting process, a legislative response, informed by those stakeholders but also by federal, provincial, and territorial and other stakeholder consultations, and the Bedford decision itself, as well as available research.

Time is of the essence, Mr. Chair. We are proceeding through a legislative process now, as you're aware and participating in, and we're anxious to hear the views of those who will appear before this committee. Importantly, if we do not respond legislatively within the year, most adult prostitution-related activities will be decriminalized.

For our government, to do nothing was never an option. The government does not accept the proposition that prostitution is inevitable and therefore that we must decriminalize and regulate it. This is not the position. On the contrary, the government maintains that prostitution's inherent harms and dangers would only grow and be exacerbated in a regime that perpetrates and condones the exploitation of vulnerable individuals through legalized prostitution.

Accordingly, Bill C-36 does not seek to allow or facilitate the practice of prostitution. To the contrary, its goal is to reduce the demand for prostitution with a view to discouraging entry into it, deterring participation in it, and ultimately abolishing it to the extent possible.

Mr. Chair, similar approaches have been adopted, as you may know, or are under active consideration in several other countries, including France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. We also know that very often there are related issues that influence and affect those vulnerable persons. They include such things as violence, drug and alcohol addiction, and exploitation. And of course the subject of human trafficking is very often associated with prostitution.

So let me be clear at the outset that Bill C-36 reflects a fundamental shift towards the treatment of prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation that disproportionately and negatively impacts marginalized groups and individuals. Bill C-36 recognizes that victims of prostitution are many, and in most cases they are vulnerable people, without doubt. Persons who sell their own sexual services are prostitution's primary victims. But prostitution also victimizes the communities in which it takes place, including children who may be exposed to it, and indeed society itself, by normalizing the gender inequalities inherent in prostitution and the objectification and commodification of individuals.

The cornerstone of Bill C-36's new approach is to reduce demand for prostitution by criminalizing the purchase of sexual services. The new purchasing offence is based on the existing offence that prohibits obtaining “sexual services for consideration” from persons under the age of 18 years.

Accordingly, case law interpreting that offence assists in defining the scope of the new purchasing offence, as does case law that interprets the meaning of prostitution, which is defined as the exchange of sexual services for payment. The court will consider whether sexual services in nature and whether the purpose of providing these services is to sexually gratify the person who receives them.

Here, Mr. Chair, case law is clear. However, this does not include acts related to the production of pornography or exotic dancing; ultimately, whether a particular act constitutes a sexual service for consideration is a factual determination to be made by the court. In other words, it will be up to the courts to interpret on a case-by-case basis.

To complement the purchasing offence, Bill C-36 also proposes to criminalize advertising—that is, the sale of sexual services—and authorize the seizure or removal of advertisements for sexual services. Prostitution, the sale of sexual services, is fuelled by demand, and advertising contributes to that demand. This is, I note, a departure from some of the other models that puts it in the category of a Canadian model.

Bill C-36 also seeks to continue to denounce and prohibit the exploitation of prostitutes by others, by third parties, commonly known as pimping. This includes the institutionalization of prostitution through commercial enterprise, such as strip clubs, massage parlours, and escort agencies in which prostitution often takes place. All of these capitalize on the demand created by purchasers.

Bill C-36 would achieve these goals through offences that would prohibit materially benefiting from the prostitution of others and procuring others to provide sexual services.

The material benefit offence would criminalize receiving a financial or material benefit obtained by or derived from the commission of the purchasing offence. It would replace the “living on the avails of prostitution” offence that was found unconstitutional in Bedford.

Bill C-36 would enable those who sell their own sexual services to interact with others on the same basis as anyone else. This goes to the specific dangers that are inherent in prostitution. It would do so through legalized exceptions to the material benefit offence that would apply to non-exploitative relationships. This is the operative phrase: “non-exploitative relationships”.

For example, the material benefit offence would not apply to children, spouses, or roommates of those who sell their own sexual services; those who take part in legitimate businesses, such as accountants, landlords, taxi drivers, pharmacists, or individuals who work for security companies; or those who offer goods or services informally, such as someone who offers babysitting services. So what we're talking about here are services that would be readily available to all Canadians.

This approach, Chair, recognizes that the objective of deterring and ultimately abolishing prostitution will take some time to realize and that some may continue to engage in it. Accordingly, Bill C-36 would allow those who continue to engage in prostitution to implement certain safety measures. But Bill C-36 also recognizes the inherent risks in allowing the development, or in not prohibiting the development, of economic interest in the prostitution of others, which so often leads to exploitative conduct to maximize profits.

I should pause here to say that if the non-exploitative relationship at some point changes—that is, if an individual who is assisting a prostitute without any material benefit, who is taking part in some of those examples I gave, suddenly then invokes violence and begins to exploit the prostitute—then the criminal immunity would disappear. So it is very much informed by the relationship with the prostitute.

Mr. Chair, this approach in Bill C-36 recognizes the risks inherent, as I mentioned. If a person who fits within one of the legislative exceptions becomes exploitative—for example, using violence, abusing a position of trust—that person would lose the protection of the exceptions and would be subject to charge under the material benefit offence. The proposed procuring offence would require active involvement in the prostitution of others, such as causing, inciting, or pressuring in any way others to engage in prostitution. This is consistent with the existing Criminal Code approach, I note.

Much has been said about the asymmetrical nature of these new offences—namely, that Bill C-36 proposes to criminalize the purchase but not the sale of sexual services. This is not because Bill C-36 in any way condones the sale of sexual services. It does not. Rather, it is because Bill C-36 treats those subjected to prostitution as victims, victims who require support and assistance rather than blame or punishment. This is a clear departure, again, from approaches we have seen previously in Canada.

Accordingly, Bill C-36 would expressly immunize from prosecution individuals who sell their own sexual services for any part they play in purchasing, material benefit, procuring, or advertising offences, or what you would call the “transactional” portion of prostitution.

We believe that the best way to address the harms that prostitution causes those subjected to it is to help them leave it. In that regard, the government has also announced that it will provide assistance through complementary funding of $20 million over 5 years.

These funds—$20 million—will be mainly directed to groups that will deliver front-line services to assist prostitutes to exit this activity. We have already begun the important ask of identifying which groups to partner with, Mr. Chair.

In addition to criminalizing communicating in any place for the purpose of purchasing sexual services, Bill C-36 would also criminalize communicating for the purposes of selling sexual services, but only in public places where children can reasonably be expected to be present. Mr. Chair, this is an approach we have borrowed from other sections of the Criminal Code, mainly those that protect children. There is a legal definition or interpretation already in place in the Criminal Code that deals with places where children can reasonably be expected to be present. This approach accounts for the various interests at play, which include not only those of prostitution's primary victims—the prostitutes—but also those of children who may be exposed to prostitution and thereby placed at risk of being drawn into a life of exploitation, recognizing the vulnerability and the lack of maturity of children, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-36 would also clarify that the definition of weapon includes weapons of restraint, for the purpose of the offences prohibiting assault with a weapon, so current section 267; sexual assault with a weapon, section 272; and the possession of a weapon with the intent to commit an offence, section 88. This approach provides an extra measure of protection for those at risk of being subject to this type of violence, including those who sell their own sexual services.

It's fair to say, Mr. Chair, colleagues, that the country was very much riveted by the tragic events that occurred in British Columbia and the mass murder that occurred in that province. The use of weapons, restraint—zip cords, duct tape, etc.—were very much instruments of foul play, so we've attempted in this legislation to recognize that and create this new offence.

Bill C-36 would also amend the human trafficking offences—a nod to my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul for her good work—and attempts to ensure consistency with the proposed prostitution offences. It takes existing code sections and marries some of the intent there. Human trafficking and prostitution are often intricately linked criminal behaviours. Accordingly, criminal law responses to both activities require harmonization.

In conclusion, Chair, the government recognizes that Bill C-36's vision of a society free from prostitution's harms will take time to realize, and that some will remain subjected to prostitution while this transformation is under way. Therefore, Bill C-36 does not prevent implementation of certain safety measures emphasized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Bedford decision, such as selling sexual services, including from fixed indoor locations; providing protective services to those who sell sexual services, as long as no exploitative relationship or circumstances exist; and negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places, other than where children could reasonably be expected to be present. We're balancing public interest and protection, and the moral obligation to protect children.

I stress, Mr. Chair, that this approach is not intended to facilitate or in any way condone the sale of sexual services. Rather, this bill addresses this complex societal policy issue by taking into account all of the safety concerns posed by it. These involve not just the concerns outlined in the Bedford decision, but also the broader safety and societal concerns posed by prostitution more generally, which include the need to protect those subjected to prostitution from violence and exploitation; the need to protect communities from prostitution's harmful affects, including exposure of children; and the need to protect society from the normalization of a gendered and inherently exploitative practice. It infringes on values of human dignity and equality.

The government also recognizes that achieving this transformation will require sustained, cooperative efforts in a wide cross-section of society. That is why the government is committing resources to support front-line organizations to assist those engaged in prostitution to exit. We look forward to working with provinces, territories, law enforcement—many organizations—and social workers who have been on the front lines of this effort for years, and this committee, of course.

Mr. Chair, faced with the Bedford decision and the one-year timeline, the government had a choice: condone the exploitation of vulnerable persons and harms to Canadian communities, or protect them. Informed by the Supreme Court's judgment in Bedford, available research, and the government's public consultations and obligations, we naturally chose the latter. We believe that this is a sound sensible law and entirely defensible.

I thank you for the invitation. I thank you again for your work, and I look forward to your questions. Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Our friends from the media with the cameras have to leave now. This is a televised event and we don't need the extra cameras.

This is meeting 32 on Monday, July 7. The orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, June 16, 2014, 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.

Our first witness today is the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He is here with us for an hour, and then we have the officials afterwards.

Perhaps you'd like to introduce your colleagues with you today, Minister, and then the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to this bill without being restricted by the time limits that the Conservative government usually has in store for us.

Bill C-8 is important to me because the riding of Saint-Jean is in southern Quebec, on the United States border. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Jacques Villeneuve were born in this riding. It is a riding that has to deal with the problem of smuggling and trafficking in illegal substances. This mostly involves counterfeit cigarettes and drugs.

Although there is no real border crossing between the riding of Saint-Jean and the United States, in practice two government agencies are responsible for controlling the flow of goods between the United States and Canada. There is the RCMP station in Venise-en-Québec, in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi, and the border crossing at Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, which is in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry. Those are the two main points of entry for certain goods.

Goods are transported by standard means through Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, because they arrive by truck, even though some goods are counterfeit. However, the RCMP is responsible for monitoring the boats on the river. We are obviously not dealing with cargo ships, but individuals with small boats transporting goods they are not authorized to move. These two situations are different and are managed by two different government agencies that each have their own mandate: the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.

This is why it is also important for our riding. A certain number of people living in our riding work in Montreal—even though that city is not in our riding—in businesses where piracy and counterfeiting have serious consequences. As was mentioned earlier, there is the pharmaceutical industry.

There is another example, which is also important for those of us living in Quebec and in the Montreal area in particular, and that is the video game industry. This industry is very aware of piracy because millions of dollars are invested in research and development. Montreal companies need these protections to earn a return on their investments, which are investments in intellectual property. People working in these industries live in the greater Montreal area and therefore in my riding.

If I were also to digress and talk about the Conservative government, I would say that the people in my riding who are going to work in those industries—and who are therefore very sensitive to the issue of piracy and counterfeiting—are obviously using the famous Champlain Bridge, which the government has unfortunately neglected for a number of years. What the government, through the Minister of Infrastructure, has repeated today is unacceptable to the constituents in my riding. It is the infamous “no toll, no bridge”. That sounds a bit like the famous Asterix and Obelix quote: “No stones, no construction. No construction, no palace. No palace...no palace.”

This type of mindset assumes that, when there is no P3 project, residents will be asked to pay for infrastructure that they already use, national infrastructure used not only by Quebeckers, by people in the region, but also by our American friends when they trade goods with the Montreal area. Contrary to what the Prime Minister said in a speech in the Quebec City area, the Champlain Bridge is not local infrastructure, it is not a small bridge over a small river, it is national infrastructure, as highways 10 and 15 converge on the Champlain Bridge, where Brossard is. That is why it is major infrastructure.

I will end my digression by saying that the NDP will oppose the toll for replacing the Champlain Bridge. In fact, the NDP has always been opposed to a toll.

This part of my speech had to do with the economic consequences of counterfeit and piracy in general. Clearly, the economic consequences for the Montreal area and for Quebec are critical, because the Montreal industry relies on high tech.

We are also talking about aircraft manufacturing. As surprising as it may seem, there is also counterfeiting of high-tech components, which are vital to aircraft safety. There are two aspects to consider here. First, companies that manufacture the parts are losing money. Second, there is the issue of health and safety. If an aviation accident is caused by a defective part, both of those consequences of counterfeiting come into play.

I would like to come back to information and statistics for a moment. It has already been said that various agencies have figures on counterfeiting. That is the case in Canada as well as the United States and Europe. Government agencies provide figures. As I said before, there is a paradox in that the figures we have are just a snapshot and not the entire picture. Criminals obviously do not fill out packing lists when they ship counterfeit items, let alone when they traffic drugs. If only criminal organizations did fill them out, check the box marked “counterfeit goods” and then send them to the Canada Border Services Agency when shipping counterfeit toys, medication and so on. All we know about this type of crime is the information that has been gathered from seizures. It only makes sense that the amount of goods being seized would be proportionate to the effort being put into seizing them.

If the number of people working to seize goods is reduced and those who remain are no more productive than before because no one has found a new way of seizing goods, it is only logical that the snapshot will not be as good. If we extrapolate based on the quantity of counterfeit goods that are being moved and add in the fact that the number of people working on these investigations is going down, it only makes sense to assume that the market is larger than we envisioned.

This is not being taken into account, and when you look at the raw numbers, you can see that the number of goods seized increases considerably—exponentially, even. We can only conclude that the statistics we have are not representative of how this fraud has evolved and that the statistics are under-estimated.

We know that the Conservative government does not particularly like statistics. We saw evidence of that in 2010 when it decided to get rid of form 2B, Statistics Canada's long form census. That is a classic example.

For decades, we had continuous knowledge of populations and communities, since form 2B enabled us to ask more specific questions to 20% of the population, which is a more-than-representative sample. No other Statistics Canada study asks specific questions to 20% of the population. Form 2A was sent to 80% of the population and form 2B was sent to 20% of the population.

This provided specific information. The survey asked questions about language spoken at home, modes of transportation—which is very useful for projecting public transit needs—and other important topics such as the representation of age groups, which is useful when municipalities are creating schools, day cares or sports facilities. This enabled us to get a detailed and localized view of the needs of the population.

Unfortunately, in 2010, when the Conservative government made the decision to stop collecting the data we had been collecting on an ongoing basis for decades, we lost our ability to learn specific information about our communities. It spoke to the fact that the government had only a short-term vision and did not have a long-term vision for how crucial this accurate, specific, and localized information was to making extrapolations about the public, its needs and the infrastructure required by different communities.

This is a pattern. We are seeing the same thing with how the government deals with skills training needs, particularly in the case of the renewal of labour market agreements with employment insurance. That information is missing. I am obviously not going to talk about information from Kijiji, since I am not in the know about that. However, we know that information is missing.

The Conservative government has this strange logic of not gathering information and statistics from reliable sources that use a proven methodology, such as Statistics Canada. The statistics used by the government are usually concocted out of thin air or wildly unrealistic. We also saw that with Bill C-36 on prostitution. The statistics used are bogus because the government does not want to know what is really happening on the ground. When they do not have statistics, they make up their own. This is like the old saying, “give a dog a bad name and hang him”.

It is always the same thing. They make up their own statistics to support their views and to introduce bills that reflect an ideology, rather than the statistical reality measured with scientific means and representative samplings, like Statistics Canada does with its social surveys.

That covers the part on information.

I will now return to a point raised by several members, namely the issue of resources. Investigations are conducted by the RCMP, among others. As recently as May 22, operation Pangea VII was conducted in 111 countries and led to the arrest of 237 individuals. During this operation, more than 9.5 million unauthorized pharmaceuticals with an estimated value of $35 million were seized.

These specific examples show the need for resources to conduct such investigations. This operation is an example of an international investigation completed in May 2014 that required the co-operation of 111 countries. It is really a huge operation. We are talking about 140,000 counterfeit pharmaceuticals seized at the Canadian border alone. There were also seizures in other countries. Between May 13 and May 20, a total of 2,282 packages were seized.

Incidentally, these packages are often delivered by Canada Post. The corporation does not have the mandate to monitor the content of these packages, or to determine whether the pharmaceuticals are genuine or not. This requires special expertise that Canada Post employees do not have and that border services officers do not all have.

As was mentioned earlier, counterfeit products are very sophisticated. They look so much like the real products that, in the case of drugs, some holograms are the exact replica of genuine security holograms. Therefore, it becomes increasingly complicated for law enforcement agencies, for the Border Services Agency in particular, and for the RCMP to detect counterfeit products when they arrive at the border. Counterfeit products are increasingly sophisticated. This means that more advanced investigations relying on international co-operation are required.

This example shows that resources are necessary. We need the same number of trained resources, not less. The government did the opposite in 2012, when it announced that over 500 members of the Border Services Agency would lose their jobs. In fact, the number is higher. Indeed, in 2012, more than 1,000 employees received notice that their position was potentially threatened by the restructuring of the Canada Border Services Agency.

Since I have one minute left, I will end my speech here and take questions from my colleagues. There is a contradiction between wanting to move forward with this bill, which would target counterfeiting and piracy, and wanting to cut the amount of resources allocated to doing so. This is a contradiction that the NDP has pointed out.

Unfortunately, the government has set a goal to reduce spending, as part of its opportunistic attempt to garner votes in 2015. It wants to be able to claim to be a government that balances its budget, when in reality, it is balancing the budget at the expense of Canadians' safety, whether we are talking about medications or the profitability of our businesses that invest in research and development. We need to speak out against this.

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how that rambling question has anything to do with support for victims. She can read from her BlackBerry from some NDP lawyer who is sending in this important pressing question about how our criminal justice agenda has improved things for victims.

I just mentioned the victims ombudsman. We have a victims fund program at the Department of Justice that has dedicated resources to help victim services across Canada. We work closely with the provinces and territories.

We have put in place some of the most forward-looking legislation when it comes to the protection of children. We have made some 600 appointments to various courts across the country, judges who are now adjudicating over important legislative matters. We have more bills in the queue, including a bill, as the member would know, with respect to the protection of those who are falling victim to cybercrime and those who are being bullied online. We have important legislation before the House that pertains specifically to plugging the hole that was created by the Supreme Court of Canada when it struck down important provisions of the Criminal Code that pertained to prostitution. These are very critical initiatives.

Sometimes time is of the essence, as is the case with Bill C-36, where we have one calendar year, six months of which has already passed. That is why we have to sometimes invoke this provision which allows the members of the House of Commons to have their say.

In this case some 26 members of the opposition have already weighed in on this. If they sit on a committee, they will have an opportunity to similarly voice their views.

However, what I hear from these speeches is the same patented pablum that does not put forward any constructive ideas. It is the same regurgitated speeches from the opposition, rather than the members saying how they would do it, how they would substantively improve the bill and these are their ideas. There is none of that. It is just absolute criticism without anything in place that would be positive or would help improve the legislation.

Respect for Communities Act

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise this evening in this quiet chamber where only New Democrats seem to want to talk about how to make a better future for Canada and Canadians.

I am talking tonight about the misguided Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We are at second reading in the legislative process, but it is certainly early enough to say an unqualified no to this proposed piece of legislation.

It comes to us, into this chamber, in response to the 2011 Supreme Court decision that concluded that the Minister of Health's refusal to grant an extension to InSite's exemption under that act was:

...arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the [Controlled Drugs and Substances Act], which include public health and safety.

Here we have Bill C-2. It is typical legislation from the government in a number of respects. First and foremost, it reflects a government unable to deal with, and unwilling to acknowledge, the complexities of real life. Consequently, it is a government unfit to govern.

It is a government that provides ample evidence of this to us every day, as with Bill C-36, the government's response to the Supreme Court's Bedford ruling, and the monkeying about with judicial appointments in response to the Supreme Court's Nadon ruling. This is a government that does not take advice from, but responds with infantile defiance to, that body in our system of government that is the guardian of basic rights and freedoms for Canadians.

However, there are constraints on its conduct, thankfully. In this particular circumstance, the Supreme Court was clear on the constraints the government had to work within. It was section 7 of the charter in this case. To quote the court on this decision specifically:

...the Minister must exercise discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. In accordance with the Charter, the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

There we have it. No clearer an articulation can be imagined, I do not think.

Now, in defiance of that clear statement, we have a bill that will require InSite to reapply for an exemption, but under the new proposed prejudicial criteria, criteria that make no effort to hide the anti-safe injection site animus.

Under this bill:

The Minister may only grant an exemption for a medical purpose under subsection (2) to allow certain activities to take place at a supervised consumption site in exceptional circumstances and after having considered the following principles:

(a) illicit substances may have serious health effects;

(b) adulterated controlled substances may pose health risks;

(c) the risks of overdose are inherent to the use of certain illicit substances;

and so on and so on.

However, nowhere do we find, along with those principles, anything that even remotely resembles the findings of the Supreme Court in its decision, in which they said:

InSite has been proven to save lives with no discernible negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada.

How does this bill make any effort on the mountain of evidence that has accumulated in support of injection sites, and InSite in particular, as mechanisms for finding a balance between public health and public safety?

The Supreme Court, in its decision, turned its mind to all the facts, to the studies that demonstrate the beneficial impacts of InSite and other like sites around the world. The evidence in favour of safe injection sites is overwhelming. Thirty peer-reviewed studies in deeply respected medical journals, the names of which we all know in this House, are dealing with InSite itself. The studies are supported by findings confirmed by research on the other 70 safe injection sites around the world.

What the studies show, and what the Supreme Court had before it for consideration, was the following: between 1987 and 1993, which is pre-InSite, the rate of overdose deaths in Vancouver increased from 16 to 200 per year. Since InSite opened, the rate of overdose deaths in East Vancouver has dropped by 35%.

One study showed that over a one-year period, there were 273 overdoses, but not a single life was lost. Over a one-year period, 2,171 referrals were made to InSite users to addiction counselling or other support services.

Finally, studies found that those who used InSite services at least once a week were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visited infrequently.

There are more studies, but let me point to one more important finding. There was a significant drop in the number of discarded syringes, injection-related litter, and people injecting on the streets one year after InSite opened.

I raise this issue not just because I know it is a particularly compelling finding for parents like me, but also because it stands in complete contradiction to the Conservatives' anti-InSite sloganeering, “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. They call on Canadians to support the bill in order to keep “heroin out of our backyards” as though, by abolishing the safe injection site, they will also abolish heroin, as though it will just disappear somehow, as though it was not there before InSite, as though it would not return if we abolish InSite.

This is ideology in the most pejorative sense of the word, a believe that is held tight, not just in ignorance of the facts but in fact in contravention of all outstanding evidence, evidence that is before the Conservatives in plain site that one cannot miss, that the Supreme Court examined in the process of arriving at its decision. Even beyond that, it is the belief that is fundamentally illogical and irrational. This, being prepared to govern a country this way, is why the Conservatives are unfit to govern.

Governing is not some blue sky project where reality changes just because we wish it is different, where heroin disappears because we close safe injection sites, where addictions go away because we do not have harm reduction programs, or climate change does not happen because we silence scientists, empty the libraries and discard the research. It is not as though the charter disappears because the Conservatives can force legislation in contravention of it through this place.

This should properly be the role of government, not to be receiving applications as though we lived in a country without section 7 charter rights, as though the issue of harm reduction was not otherwise a matter of active government concern.

For these reasons, I stand against Bill C-2.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill C-2. It is an example of a trend in the government. I will explain myself throughout my speech.

I am concerned about the way in which we go about making laws in this country. This legislation is an example of the Conservative government's leadership when it comes to drafting legislation and bringing it to the House. How the government acts in public really flies in the face of the Canada that I grew up in and the Canada I am proud to be a part of. Now when I stand in the House I feel very sad for our legislative process.

To begin, I want to talk a bit about what the bill is really about. It is not really about respecting communities, again a trend in some of the bills that we see, for example, safe communities and so on. This legislation is not at all about communities. It is about marginalizing those who are already marginalized. It is about putting further violence in the lives of those who already live with so much violence. It is about putting in danger those who are already in danger.

Essentially, this entire legislation is about InSite. For those who may not be familiar with InSite, it is a place in the Vancouver area where those who are addicted to drugs can go for safe injection. We all understand what addiction is, at least those of us on this side of the House, and that there are ways to make it safer for individuals to break a habit so they can escape the cycle of drug abuse. If they cannot break the cycle, and that can be the case for some, at least they would not be put in a more vulnerable position.

Following an increase in the number of overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993, Vancouver Coastal Health and community partners set up InSite. Since then there has been a huge decrease in diseases such as Hep A, B, C, and HIV/AIDS.

InSite was originally exempt under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In 2008, the exemption under Section 56 in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act expired. That has caused us to be in the situation we are in now. The minister of health at that time denied its renewal and that resulted in subsequent court cases. It was brought up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite, to not renew the exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, was a violation of the charter rights of those who were part of the program. The minister's decision was “...arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which include public health and safety”.

That is an overview of why we are here. We are here now because the Conservatives are not in agreement ideologically with the Supreme Court's ruling. This legislation would impose extremely stringent conditions on places like InSite and would really dissuade any other communities that have the need for such programs from participating in them.

In a sense this legislation is only about InSite. In a sense the bill exemplifies a trend in the Conservative government.

The Conservatives have such profound disrespect for any Supreme Court ruling that comes forward and that goes against their ideology. They have a complete disrespect for the judicial branch in this country and the fact that when a decision is made by the Supreme Court, if they do not like it, then too bad. They are not the defenders of rights and freedoms in this country, the courts are. That is why we have a separate judicial process. Unfortunately, the Conservatives keep finding ways of going around any of those decisions that are made by bringing forward legislation that flies in the face of it, sort of goes around it so that it fits their ideology.

For instance, the court in this case based its decision on section 7 of the charter, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of a person and the right not be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.

This is extremely common. We are seeing the Conservatives disagree with fundamentally, ideologically, in Supreme Court rulings things that have to do with people's security, people's health, people's right to life. That is what is so scary about this trend. The Supreme Court did rule that InSite and other supervised injection sites must be granted a section 56 exemption when they decrease the risk of death and disease and there is little or no evidence that they have a negative impact on the community. InSite does not have a negative impact on the community, quite the opposite, it has a very positive impact on the community. The Conservatives now have to go through this bill to try to create stringent conditions for InSite.

This is blatant disrespect and disregard for the InSite ruling. it completely flies in the face of it. This is in the context of a government that has challenged the Supreme Court over and over again through these backward ways of bringing in legislation to the House that flies in the face of a ruling.

For instance, we are thinking of a very close case in my opinion, the same type of situation. Bill C-36 was recently put down. It really flies in the face of the Bedford decision, which was very clear that given the dangerous conditions of sex work, those who are engaged in it need to be able to take the steps to protect themselves. Now we have a bill that is so disempowering. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives would be put at risk due to this legislation.

We also have Bill C-24, which is the immigration bill that creates dual citizenship. Dual citizens are treated as second-class citizens who potentially would be deported and put in danger in countries they may never have even known.

This is also in the context of several crime bills that have been returned due to their unconstitutionality. We see over and over that the Conservatives are marginalizing at-risk Canadians and further marginalizing already marginalized groups.

The many justice bills of the Conservatives, as I mentioned, follow the same model. They ostracize, isolate, and divide people. Instead of trying to address the root issue, the Conservatives tackle symptoms without even looking for the source of the problem. They throw people in jail without helping them reintegrate into society, and that does not solve the problem.

Let us not forget the unelected and unaccountable Senate blocking my colleague's bill on gender identity, creating rights for trans Canadians who are so marginalized and are put in situations of violence. I do not think I have time to get into the difference between an unelected, unaccountable Senate going against the elected thoughts of the House, and the judicial process, which is to protect the rights of Canadians despite the democratic processes that happen in this House.

The Senate works against that process, but over and over, the government is choosing ideology over facts. In these cases, every time the government is going to outrageous lengths, really, to subvert the courts, and these bills. I am not exaggerating, I know am out of time but I really want to get this out. These bills are putting people in danger--