Bill C-36 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Statistics Act

This enactment amends the Statistics Act to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada, including by providing for the appointment of the Chief Statistician to hold office during good behaviour and by assigning to the Chief Statistician the powers related to methods, procedures and operations of Statistics Canada. It also establishes a transparent process to issue directives to the Chief Statistician concerning those methods, procedures and operations or the statistical programs. In addition, it establishes the Canadian Statistics Advisory Council, no longer requires the consent of respondents to transfer their Census information to Library and Archives Canada and repeals imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent. Finally, it amends certain provisions by modernizing the language of the Act to better reflect current methods of collecting statistical information.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you on this occasion, as you mentioned at the outset, with regard to the tabling of the 2019-20 main estimates.

It's my intention to share with this committee the details of the continued implementation of our government's innovation and skills plan. That's what's reflected in the budget, and the estimates as well.

My comments will be brief. I want to allow the maximum amount of time for questions.

However, before I go further, I'd like to thank this committee for its ongoing review of the Copyright Act as well as its invaluable efforts and reports on the Canadian manufacturing sector; innovation and technology; intellectual property and technology transfer—which was very helpful for us when we unveiled our first national IP strategy—and broadband connectivity, of course. Your committee has also studied Bill C-25 and Bill C-36, as well as Canada's anti-spam legislation. Long story short, Mr. Chair, our government greatly values these contributions. They have helped shape our innovation agenda.

We are well on our way to accomplishing our goals, but we know there is much left to do. That is why I am here today to discuss the proposed budget allocation of $8.6 billion in the 2019-20 main estimates for the ISED portfolio and to answer any questions that you may have. I am seeking your continued support as we advance the innovation and skills plan.

Allow me to provide some examples of what's in that budget, particularly in the main estimates.

One issue that's very important to us, and that many of you are aware of, is CanCode. To develop the digital economy, our CanCode program has helped more than one million students learn digital and coding skills. It's more than simply coding. It's about collaboration. It's about teamwork. It's about preparing young people for the jobs of tomorrow.

Budget 2019 seeks to provide an additional $60 million over the next two years. Because of that initial success, we've allocated additional funds to help another million young students gain new digital skills. It's not only about the kids; it's also about the teachers. We're empowering many teachers to learn how to teach how to code as well so they can provide additional opportunities for future generations.

Broadband is another area that's very important and that's come up often in the many conversations this committee has had, and of course in our travels across the country.

To ensure we have the infrastructure to put the skills to use, which I just highlighted with regard to CanCode, budget 2019 proposes $1.7 billion for high-speed Internet access.

I look forward to working with my colleague Minister Jordan to implement this funding. Our government is committed to this initiative. It complements the connect to innovate program that we launched a few years ago, and we were able to leverage a billion dollars' worth of support in total through that program.

The next item I want to talk about is superclusters.

We've supported the creation of five innovation superclusters. These superclusters will strengthen key sectors of our economy, which will attract international investment.

In doing so, these superclusters are building innovation ecosystems that bridge the gap from idea to commercialization to growing global firms. It's really about creating this ecosystem. I think you'll find this stat very important as well. Superclusters are expected to create 50,000 jobs and to grow Canada's economy by $50 billion over the next 10 years. This is really about growth and jobs, and about continued global leadership for Canada when it comes to our innovation economy.

Complementing this initiative, we are providing new sources of capital for large-scale innovation projects, as well. One such project that is very important to highlight, and that impacts many of our communities, is the strategic innovation fund, SIF. Through the SIF, we have announced contributions of $1.2 billion, leveraging investments of $15.3 billion. We not only are making these investments but also have seen significant leveraged dollars. We're expected to create, again, tens of thousands of jobs. These range from, of course, the automotive sector, which is very critical to our economy, to the aerospace sector to food processing to digital technologies.

If you're counting, that's more than 100,000 jobs from just those two initiatives. I'm talking about superclusters and SIF. I just wanted to highlight some of those key initiatives in my opening remarks as well.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about the recently launched digital charter, which is central to the next phase of our innovation and skills plan. Under the digital charter, individual privacy and business innovation are complementary, not competing, priorities. This approach supports an environment in which business models that rely on leveraging data for growth put an even bigger premium on trust. This is really about creating and building trust in the digital world. Trust and growth should be mutually reinforcing principles. You can't have one at the expense of the other.

Our government's investments under the innovation and skills plan are working. Since October 2015, Canada's economic growth has led the G7 and unemployment is at a record low.

By building on Canada's competitive advantages—the most highly educated workforce in the world, unrivalled access to global markets and low costs for doing business—companies are growing in Canada, coming to Canada and investing in Canada.

Let me give you a quick snapshot. I'm an accountant; I like numbers. In 2018, we saw the highest levels of venture capital investments since the early 2000s. It was $4.6 billion. That's clearly an indication of how we're turning a corner. We're seeing additional investments—particularly late-stage investments—in companies that are scaling and growing. Foreign direct investment grew by nearly 60% as well, which is really important to know.

We're seeing nearly twice as many Canadian companies on their way to the billion-dollar mark, which is a true sign of global competitiveness. We call them unicorns. How do we create more Shopifys? How do we create more large-scale companies that are growing and creating jobs? Right now, we have 20 in the pipeline that are well on their way to doing that.

Canada has become one of the world's best places to live and do business. We saw that recently at two conferences. Collision in Toronto and C2 Montreal highlighted again how the world is coming to Canada to take advantage of all the opportunities here.

Our world-class workforce and cutting-edge infrastructure is attracting investment and opportunities.

Our government is committed to building a strong and innovative economy that benefits all Canadians.

Once again, I thank this committee for its work and for giving me this opportunity to speak today.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Criminal Code

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to parlay a little off what my hon. colleague before me had to say. It was very interesting that she very much went around the concept of standing up for violence against women.

This bill is, again, one of these things where the Liberals say they are trying to do one particular thing, and then they go off and do something completely different. When this bill was introduced, the minister said that this was going to improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and reduce court delays. The Liberals then just seemed to water down a whole bunch of sentences to reduce backlogs in the courts. They also wanted to improve and streamline bail hearings.

The goals they stated off the top were laudable. I think everyone in this place has the goal to make the justice system work better. That is something I think everyone who comes to this place can agree on. How we get there is where we disagree. If Bill C-75 actually accomplishes some of these things, we would definitely be on the right track.

Conservatives always look at the justice system from the point of view of the victim. It seems to me that the Liberals always want to look at it from the point of view of the perpetrator.

My first concern about this bill is that it is an omnibus bill. It is a mashup of various other policies. We have seen, over the time I have been here, that bills are introduced, and they keep being added to. I think Bill C-36 has been put in here, and a number of other bills have been lumped in with this bill. We have seen the progression of that. Now it is this monstrosity of a bill that is fairly unmanageable. As my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton pointed out earlier, we had the opportunity to fix a number of these things earlier on, but the government has dithered on some of them.

A lot of people say that I am always criticizing the government, so could I just point out every now when it does something good. There are some good pieces in here. Bill C-75 would increase the maximum term for repeat offenders involved in intimate partner violence, and it would provide that the abuse of an intimate partner would be an aggravating factor in sentencing. I am totally supportive of that.

I am also supportive of the reverse onus for bail in the case of domestic assault. Indeed, I have written letters to the justice minister on that as well. Women who have been violently assaulted by their spouses should have confidence that the justice system will protect their interests and put their safety first.

Another important element of Bill C-75 is that the act of strangulation would be made a more serious level of assault. I am totally fine with that as well.

There are a number of areas I have concerns about in this bill, particularly the way it treats human trafficking. With such significant changes, we would have expected the government to consult widely. Over the last number of years, I have been working with a lot of groups that are concerned about the human trafficking happening right here in Canada. We suggested that these folks contact the justice committee to try to become witnesses at the committee.

The justice committee heard from 95 witnesses on Bill C-75. Over 70% of the witnesses at the justice committee were justice system lawyers, which would totally make sense if this bill was about streamlining the justice system. We would want lawyers to show up. However, this bill is not predominantly about that. It is predominantly about lowering sentences for a whole raft of different offences.

When we are dealing with a bill that would lower sentences, or hybridize these offences, which I think is the term that is used, certainly we should hear from some of the groups that represent the victims of some of these offences. However, we did not hear much from them at all. Just over 10% of those groups came to committee.

With respect to law enforcement, we would think that because they are the people who have to enforce these laws and use the Criminal Code to charge people that perhaps we should hear from them as well. Do members know how many police officers were heard at this committee? Out of 95 witnesses, one police officer showed up or was asked to come. That was also kind of disturbing.

From my limited experience travelling across the country, I know that the issues people face in northern Alberta and in Peace River country are quite a bit different from the issues people face in downtown Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver and across the territories. To hear from one police officer how the bill would affect his job seems to me to be limited, particularly when it deals with a whole bunch of different areas the police work in.

The police work every day to keep us safe, and they rely on Parliament to make sure that they have laws they can use. It seems to me that we should have heard particularly from victims and police officers. To have only one police officer, out of 95 witnesses, seems a little interesting.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-75 would make significant changes to some of our human trafficking offences, changing them from indictable to these hybrid offences. As legislators, we are about to vote on these changes. It is important that we make informed decisions. Are these amendments going to be useful for police officers fighting human trafficking? We do not know, because again, we heard from only one police officer, and he was not able to address specifically the human trafficking aspect.

What we know is that at committee, not a single organization that works to fight human trafficking across the country was consulted on these changes. In fact, many of these human trafficking units across the country have no idea that these changes could even be coming into effect, which could be a problem, given that the police are investigating crimes as we speak but would now have pieces of the Criminal Code disappear or be reduced. It may be a problem for them.

I would also urge my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that there is better representation of victims and law enforcement during the Senate hearings on Bill C-75. As we know, the bill will be going to the Senate quickly, as just this morning, we were voting on the closure motion for this particular bill.

Clause 106 of the bill would change the material benefit from trafficking offence and the destroying documents trafficking offence. These offences would be changed from indictable to hybrid offences.

The chair of the justice committee was here. I have debated him before on this. He said that we need to ensure that there is leeway within the law, and I agree with him. He used the example of assault and said that there is a great variance in assault, from minor fisticuffs in the parking lot to someone being left for dead. He said that we need to be able to have variance in the law for that, from being able to issue a fine. My point to him on this particular section is that there should be a minimum for material benefit from human trafficking. Could he give me an example of a fairly minor human trafficking occasion? That seems to me to be ridiculous.

Modern-day slavery is an affront to humanity, and there ought to be a minimum sentence of more than just a fine. I think all of us standing in this place would agree. I do not care if one is the nicest slave-owner on the planet, it is still slavery, and there ought to be a minimum sentence for that and not merely a fine. I was very frustrated by that. The other thing is that this will be downloaded to the provincial courts.

We know that the vast majority of human trafficking victims in this country are female. The vast majority are very young, and about half of them are indigenous. We need to ensure that the risk of being caught for human trafficking outweighs the ability to make money from it.

The justice committee in the past, in a different study, heard that human traffickers make between $1,500 and $2,000 a day from a trafficked individual. Under Bill C-75, the trafficker would face a maximum $5,000 fine. A trafficker who is trafficking a young person in this country can make up to $300,000 a year. A $5,000 fine is ridiculous. That is just be the cost of doing business for that individual.

The other thing is that this would take away consecutive sentencing for human trafficking. Victims of human trafficking are afraid to come forward because they fear that it would then just be a short time before their pimp would be back out on the street hunting them down.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Wayne Smith, the former chief statistician, said that Bill C-36—this is your bill that you had in the House of Commons—does nothing to prevent a repeat of the uproar after the 2011 switch from mandatory to voluntary long-form census.

We're back here now, and I can understand the reservations of people, because the reality is that data will be mined down to your postal code in terms of influencing consumer behaviour. Bill C-36 is different on a couple of things from the bill I had, and I would like your opinion on these things to end this meeting.

One of the biggest things was that the chief statistician would be responsible to Parliament, similar to the Auditor General, and wouldn't be the creature of the office of the Minister of Industry, as it is right now. Would you agree to that change?

Another thing would be, would you actually fulfill the promise that you had in your election platform with regard to making a new appointment process that's different from what we have right now?

Last, will the Statistics Canada department continue to be the one that actually gets the data from Canadians, and not Shared Services Canada?

Those were the divergent points. I agree that data is a very important point, but what is just as important is the quality of the data and also the empowerment and the personal confidence people have in giving it. In this situation, the chief statistician has undermined his own process, because people will change their banking ways with what's taken place.

On those three things, can you give at least some guidance in terms of whether you would change Parliament and the Statistics Act to create a culture of inclusion and accountability for the position of the office?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Yes, the deputy can speak to the specifics of what that's for. As I mentioned before, though, we do have a proud record when it comes to Statistics Canada. On day one, we reintroduced the mandatory long-form census. As we committed in the platform, through legislation, Bill C-36, we dealt with its independence, reinforcing and strengthening the independence of Statistics Canada.

Right now, we're going through a modernization process to make sure that it is able to succeed going forward in the new knowledge economy, to make sure that we use other datasets and administrative datasets to provide good-quality, reliable data for policy-makers.

With respect to the $7.5 million, Deputy, do you want to speak to that?

[Michael Chong]

I understand that.

Look, it's important to acknowledge that the previous government made a mistake when it cancelled the mandatory long-form census. It was clear that Munir Sheikh resigned as chief statistician as a result of that, but your government has not done a very good job of managing Statistics Canada either.

You had Wayne Smith, the subsequent chief statistician to Munir Sheikh, resign in protest to your government's management of Statistics Canada. You promised to make Statistics Canada fully independent from the department in the last election campaign. On page 37 of your platform, you said you'd make it fully independent, but Bill C-36 doesn't in fact do that.

In fact, before the election you argued that the chief statistician should be nominated by an outside committee, but when Wayne Smith resigned, you unilaterally appointed his successor. Now we have the fiasco of this pilot project, where the proposal is to obtain the personal financial data of millions of Canadians at a granular level that's never been seen before.

You know, when people fill out the mandatory long-form census, they imply their consent or face consequences for not filling it out, and they know exactly what information they're providing to the Government of Canada. With this pilot project, you're basically getting the data through the back door, through the banks, and it's very personal information. It's about whether somebody purchased personal hygiene products at Shoppers Drug Mart, or whether they paid for psychological services at a therapist, or whether they purchased a beer at a bar, and when they did it. This is data that is far more intrusive than anything we've seen before at a level that would make Alphabet and Amazon blush. We're talking about very personal information from millions of Canadians—hundreds of thousands, if not millions of households.

This is why this has raised the ire of so many people. What's particularly egregious about this pilot project is that it's going to be used by some of the largest corporations in the world. Yes, we know that the data will be scrubbed and cleaned up and aggregated on a postal code basis, but nevertheless the reality is that this data is going to be used by some of the largest companies in the world in order to market their services to Canadians. Your government proposed to use the coercive power of the state under the Statistics Act to get this data. It's a big-time overreach on the part of your government, and I think it reflects poor management of Statistics Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Bill C-36 actually moved the statistical analysis and collection from Statistics Canada to Shared Services.

Do you still support that decision? It is what led to the problem we have now. It's a new data collection, and you're describing it in House of Commons testimony as a “pilot project”. Are you going to confirm right now that this is absolutely a one-time thing that's happening, or now that it's moved to Shared Services this is actually the practice that was in the legislation?

[Natasha Falle, Co-Founder and Director, Sextrade101]

Thank you for the invitation to speak today. I'm going to briefly tell you a little bit of my background.

I am a survivor of both independent prostitution and forced prostitution. For seven years of my 12-year stint I was trafficked by a known pimp and felt pressured by the sex industry to gain his protection due to the amount of violence I dealt with on a daily basis by entitled and often abusive men. I was then abused not only by sex buyers, but by my pimp as well. Once he was shot twice by a pimp whose intention was to shoot me. He stabbed another man seven times for assaulting me. We were taught not to go to the police. We were taught to deal with violence with our own hands in the sex industry. Involving the police brought bad attention to their establishment. He would often tell me that I owe him my life for what he did and no one would love me the way he did. It's now been two decades and he is still a pimp, promoting himself as a stag manager with a website he probably built for free and a business licence he probably paid $120 for.

I'm going to talk a little bit about our coalition.

We are Canada's leading survivor activists regarding the sex trade industry and organized pimp violence. We offer public awareness and education on all aspects of the sex trade in order to eradicate myths and stereotypes about prostitution by replacing them with facts and true stories for women who have been enslaved by this dark and lucrative industry.

We are a group of very diverse and unique Canadian women. Our backgrounds and our stories are quite different. The common thread is prostitution. We have come together under the organization Sextrade101: Public Awareness and Education, to promote ourselves as sex trade experts, front-line workers, speakers, teachers, advocates, and activists for the rights of sex trafficking victims and prostitution survivors. Our reasons for this unity are personal to us. Our main goal is to offer a deeper insight into what the sex trade really consists of. Our stories differ one from the next. Some of us have horror stories, heartbreaking stories, stories that will make your jaw drop, and likewise powerless stories.

Aside from the sensationalism that surrounds prostitution, we want to be bold about telling you the truths within the trade. We have been collectively afraid, raped, beaten, sold, and discarded. Most of us were also children who were forgotten, neglected, abused, used, led astray, abandoned, and not protected. We believe every one should be shown a viable way out of the sex trade, not encouraged to stay in it. We believe in helping people understand the full picture of life in prostitution before they get involved and in helping women get out alive, with their minds, bodies and lives intact.

We are ready for a dialogue, for sensible, healthy communication with others who believe as we do. It's going to take a collective effort for us to abolish the world's oldest oppression. We offer first-hand knowledge of the barriers people face when trying to get out, and stay out, and we create opportunities for positive change for those enslaved by the sex trade and/or sex trafficking.

One of the items up for discussion today is the human trafficking strategy to combat human trafficking. This strategy is divided into four parts: the prevention of human trafficking, the protection of victims, the prosecution of offenders, and working in partnership with others both domestically and internationally. The only major comment we have about the human trafficking strategy is about prevention. These are the steps that were to be implemented for the goal fo prevention: promote training for front-line services, support and develop human trafficking awareness campaigns within sex trafficking, provide assistance to communities to identify places and people most at risk, and strengthen child protection systems within the Canadian International Development Agency's programs targeting children and youth.

That's all good, but there has been no coordinated effort do defund the sex industry. Reducing the money that fuels the sex industry requires that men be discouraged from purchasing sexual services. This is the only way we can expect to see a reduction in sex trafficking.

Some will say that traffickers are really bad and sex buyers aren't doing anything wrong, so we must go after the bad guys, the traffickers. Traffickers do it for two reasons, mainly for the money and secondarily for the notoriety. Therefore, if the market demand is high, if the money is available for the taking, trafficking will happen. Police enforcement against trafficking does not reduce human trafficking rates because being pursued by law enforcement, and even going to prison, helps the traffickers achieve the same notoriety as a gangster. Contrast that with police enforcement against buying sex; sex buyers are much less likely to buy sex if they know being arrested is a realistic possibility.

Sadly, john sweeps have been greatly reduced since the Bedford challenge to the prostitution law. Even with the new prostitution legislation, Bill C-36, purchasers of sex are supposed to be criminalized, yet very few are.

Academic studies do not support the notion that normalizing and regulating prostitution reduces human trafficking. However, there are many academic studies from around the world that indicate that enforcement against the purchase of sexual services does achieve that goal. Information to the contrary, used by the pro-prostitution lobby, is merely anecdotal. It is not credible and must therefore be disregarded.

Prostitution is violence, sexual violence, and discrimination at the hands of sex buyers for the profits of the sex trade, including pimps and brothel owners. Prostitution is gendered and preys on the most vulnerable women and girls. Of the 40 million to 42 million prostituted individuals in the world, 80% are female, and three-quarters are between the ages of 13 and 25.

Prostitution in many countries, and in Canada, under the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, is seen as incompatible with women's equality and human rights.

The PCEPA already decriminalizes prostituted women in almost every situation, so why would the Liberal Party want to decriminalize pimping?

With no debate or information provided, the Liberal Party voted in favour of a resolution calling for the decriminalization of pimping and the repeal of Bill C-36, despite the fact that both the Conservative and Liberal parties had legal experts review Bill C-36 and found it to be unconstitutional.

We are survivors, and very few of us have been asked for our input at the tables. Also, we are extremely disturbed that you would refer to exploited women and girls as sex workers. Sex work and sex worker are terms that were invented by the sex trade to normalize exploitation and mask the harm of prostitution.

We are asking why the government is being influenced by the pro-decriminalization, pro-pimping lobby, in violation of Canadian and international law.

All women and children have a right to equality before and under the law, as well as the right to dignity and the right to live free of prostitution and violence in all its forms. We have the right to be protected from men who proposition us for sex and think their money can buy all women and girls.

You must understand the relationship between prostitution and sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is the engine that pimps and traffickers use to bring their victims to prostitution. Without a vibrant sex trade, there would be no sex trafficking. It is the male demand for prostitution that fuels sex trafficking.

You already have the tools to decrease—

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Well, it's funny, because I thought I heard you talk about—perhaps it was another witness—the importance of keeping the law. You certainly said that about Bill C-36. Among your recommendations at the end was the plea that we keep it, but I understand from material available to us, a report that Public Safety Canada did a couple of years ago on the national action plan to combat human trafficking, that between 2012 and 2016, there were 307 trafficking charges, cases brought, and only 45 convictions, so that law doesn't appear to be working all that well. So rather than simply keeping these laws, maybe reform is required within those laws. I just put that to you.

[Diane Redsky]

Thank you. I'm going to do a quick time check so that I use my eight minutes wisely. I'm reading from notes that I sent in advance.

I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to be here and for accommodating the video, as well as thank Joy Smith for helping me get on this important agenda.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Anishinaabe territory, both in Duluth and in Ottawa, that we all have the privilege of being on.

I have broken up my presentation into three areas. I'm going to talk fast, so I feel bad for the interpreters, but I have lots to say and I'm going to use my time wisely. Those three areas are national recommendations, promising practices, and how this committee can help the front lines. My speaking notes have been provided.

The focus of my presentation on human trafficking will be on the purposes of sexual exploitation, also known as sex trafficking. There are several intersections between labour and sex trafficking, but for the purposes of this presentation I'll only be focusing in on sex trafficking from a national, front-line, and indigenous perspective.

Please keep in mind that human trafficking is based on supply and demand. There will be always be a supply as long as there is a demand for human trafficking. Girls and women will continue to be bought and sold as long as the laws allow men to buy them. Sex trafficking is rooted in greed, misogyny, racism, classism, and sexism at its very worst. Sex trafficking is a 100% preventable crime.

Before I begin, it is important for all of us to acknowledge the survivors of sex trafficking, whether they are currently being victimized or on their lifelong healing journey. Their voice is often not heard, and I strongly encourage this committee, in a trauma-informed way, to seek their input, advice, guidance and, most importantly, their support and blessings of your recommendations.

My first point is on the national recommendations. In 2014, I was part of a national task force on sex trafficking of women and girls in Canada with the best experts and leaders in Canada. This remains the most relevant report and research on the issue and can be found on the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre website. The final task force report, entitled “No More”, outlines 34 recommendations on how to end sex trafficking in Canada. There are seven recommendations that are specific to this committee, and they are about the laws.

Number one is to enforce the human trafficking and sexual exploitation laws that we currently have.

Number two is to give trafficked women and girls a reason to come forward. We need to change the Criminal Code to focus on the traffickers' actions and not the victims' beliefs, history, or behaviour. We need to increase the civil causes of action and civil forfeiture procedures to return the profits of traffickers to victims. We need to engage expert witnesses to support victim testimony and make testimonial aids available for trafficking victims.

Number three—this is important for women to rebuild their lives—is to vacate and purge records for non-violent crimes committed as a direct result of trafficking.

Number four is to increase police capacity to provide victim-centred services.

Number five, strengthen protections for migrant women and girls.

Number six, end the municipal regulatory patchwork of Canada's sex industry.

Number seven, decriminalize women and girls who sell or who have sold sex, and undercut the demand for trafficked women and girls by criminalizing those who buy sex. This is also known as the Swedish model.

The second area I'd like to focus on is promising practices. I would ask that this committee look to the Manitoba strategy, launched in 2002. It was the first strategy in Canada to address sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. The strategy is entitled Tracia's Trust, in memory of Tracia Owen. Manitoba was the only province in Canada up until 2006 to have a strategy. Now, 14 years later, Ontario has a provincial strategy to address sexual exploitation and trafficking. I ask that you look particularly to Manitoba and the comprehensive strategy that exists, which includes a combination of services, laws, and public education and prevention, as a whole strategy .

This is comprehensive. I can't get into the whole strategy, but for the purposes of today, I want to highlight that Manitoba invests $11 million in that provincial strategy to address sexual exploitation and trafficking. This is based on a population of 1.2 million. No other province even comes close to the amount of investment that Manitoba makes, and this is still not enough.

However, as a result of the provincial strategy, several unique resources have been developed. At Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre, we opened up one of the first safe houses for girls 13 to 17, and we operate the only rural healing lodge in Canada for child victims of sex trafficking. That was opened in 2010. We also have specialized training programs for survivors.

Our great success in Manitoba has been because of local action led by grassroots community, by indigenous women leaders, and by an experiential advisory committee of survivors who are guiding and directing the development of service. Who best to answer the questions and give us the answers but experiential women, women with lived experience?

Manitoba also has a dedicated provincial human trafficking hotline. We also have a dedicated prosecution office that specializes in sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. Winnipeg has one of the rare policing agencies in Canada with a specialized counter–sexual exploitation unit with the best and brightest of our law enforcement officers, because we need that in order to address the demand and help women.

Most importantly, these services are developed, led, and operated by many indigenous organizations, along with survivors of sex trafficking, because of the overrepresentation of indigenous girls. I emphasize the word “girls”. These are girls who are under the age of 18 who are targeted for sex trafficking. There's a huge market for indigenous women and girls to victimize.

We have the only provincial human trafficking act, which I encourage you to look at as well. There is also collaboration with our United States partners in North Dakota. Manitoba and North Dakota have a network of agencies and law enforcement that are working together, because sex trafficking doesn't care about borders.

What we hear from our girls at Hands of Mother Earth—our rural healing lodge that we've operated since 2010 and our safe house—and what we know about the victimization of indigenous girls 13 to 17 is that their sexual exploitation started young, as young as 9. They are groomed and lured both online and in person. Girls from northern first nation communities are at particular risk.

The control by the trafficker can take on many forms. He poses as a boyfriend, a drug dealer, an uncle, a father figure, a daddy, or an older man supplying them with drugs and a place to stay. They are coerced to perform sex acts as many as six to 10 times a day, seven days a week, and hand over their money or bring the equivalent of drugs back. Survivors describe this experience as multiple incidents of paid rape.

Meth is becoming a huge factor in controlling girls. A girl is more profitable to a trafficker than an adult woman. Trauma bonding with their trafficker makes it very difficult to intervene within that relationship, and we really need to understand that power dynamic. Most are trafficked because they are children in the care of Child and Family Services, and many of them have had multiple placements in their lives.

Who makes up the demand? There are many men. It's not just a few doing lots of bad things. There are lots of men doing bad things. The traffickers are just as diverse as the demand and the men who are sexually abusing and violating our girls. Unlike drugs, which you can only sell once, human trafficking is all about recruiting and luring women and girls because one woman or girl can be sold over and over again. We don't just have a few victims in Manitoba. We have hundreds of girls in Manitoba each day.

I also have to acknowledge the power of survivors. These girls have been let down by systems and adults their entire little life. Yet, under the right kind of supportive environment—trauma-informed; indigenous-led; survivors employed as helpers, which we refer to as heart medicine work—they thrive on their healing journey, and many have become survivor leaders. In fact, our rural healing lodge and safe house currently employs several young women who were once in the program and now work for the program to help other girls.

The third part—and I've almost finished—is that I have four recommendations to this committee on how this committee can help.

One, renew the national action plan, and when you renew it, emphasize this time the funding to front-line services.

Two, data collection is critically important, but don't let that hold you back. Do that in conjunction with other policy and funding programs. We just need a coordinated way and one definition. While some are looking to answer how many trafficking victims there are, there are front-line organizations like ours, and many others on the ground, who can’t keep up with the volume of victims who are coming forward.

Three, we need a whole improvement of victim service strategy that is directly connected to lifelong healing and not contingent on being involved in the court system. We lose too many girls to suicide while they go through the court system. Women and girls need that support in order to rebuild their lives. Finally, but very importantly, to build on what Joy Smith was saying, do not repeal Bill C-36. Please, please make sure with regard to Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act. Advocates like me and many others across Canada have worked really hard to bring the voices of victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking into this conversation. Our experience has come from many years of working on the front lines with girls and women whose voices are often not heard.

Buying sex from women and girls is violence against women, period. The most harmful impacts are to indigenous women and girls. We need the laws to benefit us and not perpetuate racism and create further harm. We have to make the laws work for indigenous women and girls rather than make it easier for perpetrators to victimize. If Bill C-36 is repealed, it will completely immobilize our ability to protect women and girls from perpetrators. You will make traffickers entrepreneurs, and tie the hands of police to address the high demand. For example, Winnipeg police made 84 arrests in 2016, doubled that in 2017, and will continue to do so. We need those tools for police in order to address the demand.

It makes sense to criminalize the demand. I am hopeful that since we looked to our Swedish friends for guidance on launching Canada’s women’s equality budget, we can also continue to keep the current Canadian version of the Swedish model in Bill C-36 that criminalizes the purchase of sex while ensuring that victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking are not criminalized.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief)—Chapter 23.

Bill S-211, An Act respecting National Sickle Cell Awareness Day—Chapter 24.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)—Chapter 25.

Bill C-60, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain Acts and provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect—Chapter 26.

Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States—Chapter 27.

Bill C-277, An Act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada—Chapter 28.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018—Chapter 29.

Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation—Chapter 30.

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act—Chapter 31.

Statistics Act

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the hon. member's interventions in the House, especially when he is particularly tired, as he is tonight. It is even more entertaining than usual.

Perhaps if he wants to look back at former prime ministers, he needs look no further than where his riding gets its name: Louis St. Laurent, one of the greatest prime ministers ever. I commend anyone to take a look at the statue in front of the Supreme Court when they have time to kill between now and when we go home for the summer.

Why does my hon. friend keep saying it was a success after 2011? Statistics Canada deemed it an absolute failure. It had to give warnings on the results: use the results at one's own peril because it could not guarantee their validity. How does he think that is a successful database for Statistics Canada to use? It did not work, it was a failure, and that is why we are here today. That is why one of the first things we did was reinstate the long-form census. We are improving it even more with Bill C-36.

I know when the member is not so tired, he will come around to his senses and support Bill C-36.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to apologize, because I am a bit tired. I just slept three hours last night, and I have been on duty since 10 o'clock this morning. I am very tired, and I am sorry if I am not very enthusiastic tonight.

Let me talk about Bill C-36. When we change a Canadian government institution, it is quite important, and it is based on facts and based on problems. That is why 10 years ago, our government decided to fix the situation with a new way of getting information from people, and we had strong and robust results. More than 90% of Canadians participated in that survey. Everything was good at that time.

Why does the Liberal government want to change that? The Liberals want Canadians to provide their personal information to the bibliothèque du Canada. We have to be very careful when we ask people to give personal information. That is why we are concerned about those two issues in Bill C-36. That is why we hope the government will fix it with new policies, good policies, that are good for Canada and good for Canadians.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have trouble getting a question out of that speech, but I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for giving us a tour around some very disturbing thoughts.

We had started the evening talking about Bill C-36. One of the things about the bill is it shows a legitimate role for politics, but not for partisanship. We have to look at what is best for the country.

When we look at partisanship we get things like we had in the member's speech, which really do not apply to statistics. When we are looking at the governance of Statistics Canada, we need to separate this House from that House, otherwise that is what we get.

Could the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent tell us what the role of Statistics Canada would be, in his mind, in terms of an independent organization.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a nice crowd tonight, to say the least.

It is with great pleasure that I rise tonight, at 10 p.m., to speak to Bill C-36 before such a large and prestigious audience. I know that I am not allowed to say it, but I am pleased to acknowledge the presence of the member for Papineau on this Tuesday evening at 10:05 p.m. It is hard for me to believe, but he is actually here. I am pleased to welcome him just like all other members of the House of Commons who are present and listening carefully to what we are saying.

Bill C-36 concerns the Statistics Act, in other words our approach to statistics, and the changes that the Liberal government wishes to make to it. I will quickly point out the circumstances surrounding the Statistics Act, which has been amended in recent years, the changes made to it, what the various political parties have said, and lastly, the fact that the Liberal government has introduced this bill that, in our opinion, includes provisions that are not favourable to Canada’s future.

I would like to point out that in 2010-11, the Conservative government made major changes to statistics, specifically the Canadian census. Our government decided to change the approach. We decided to change, in a fairly major way, the mandatory long form census and replace it with the national household survey. Everyone who witnessed this debate will remember the public outcry. Everyone said that it was the end of the world, that it made no sense, that from then on we would never be able to come up with proper statistics, that it was a direct attack on Canadian science, and that we would be paying for the Conservative government’s mistake for a long time, for decades, if not centuries.

However, what was the outcome? Let the experts speak for themselves. Wayne Smith, then chief statistician, said that the “National Household Survey produced a rich and robust database of information.”

All those who said that what the Conservative government had done made no sense were confused. It was Mr. Smith himself who said in the Globe and Mail on June 24, 2013 that “It’s irresponsible to try and dissuade Canadians from using what is an extraordinary rich and powerful database. To make them nervous about that is I think irresponsible.”

I will have a lot to say about so-called fake news shortly. Some people seem to think fake news is a pretty new thing, but that is not true. As a former journalist, I know what I am talking about when it comes to the spread of false information. I have seen it happen as a journalist and as a politician, especially during the 2015 election campaign, when Canada was a victim of one of the worst smear campaigns against its international reputation. One particular bit of fake news tarnished its reputation for 24 hours. I will have more to say about that later.

Anyway, there were allegations that the Conservative government's infamous survey was a disaster and that people would stop filling out their census forms. The numbers speak for themselves, however: in 2011, 2,657,000 households with a total of exactly 6.7 million people participated voluntarily. That was 9% higher than for the 2006 census, which captured 2.4 million households representing 6.1 million people.

Everyone who said that the Conservative government's changes spelled disaster for science and education and that the impact would be felt for decades was wrong. As it turned out, more people participated, we had more data, and we ended up with a robust corpus of relevant information. What the previous government did was the right thing to do.

Now this government has introduced Bill C-36 to make major changes to the Statistics Act. I want to highlight two elements of Bill C-36, which would establish a Canadian statistics advisory council and no longer require the consent of respondents to transfer their census information to Library and Archives Canada. The second element is the one that concerns us most.

Let us start by talking about the Canadian statistics advisory council. As Bill C-36 proposes, this council will be made up of just a few people who will have sweeping powers and who will not reflect the Canadian reality. That is our concern.

We would like to see at least 20 or so people be included on this advisory council. Such a council should be all about consulting. Yes, that is a lot people, but when it is about listening to people, in order to understand Canadian diversity and ensure that every region of Canada can have its say, of course it takes a lot of people. That is why our party proposed an amendment at committee that this government unfortunately rejected.

Did this government plan to appoint a small number of people to this advisory council for the same reason that it seems to be doing everything else for nearly two years now? Is this another new cushy job for friends of the party, depending on how much they donated to the party?

Need I remind the House that this government is a disgrace to the appointments process? We saw the sorry episode regarding the official languages commissioner, a noble, important, and rigorous position that must be respected and above all, that must have the moral authority to be brutally honest about the government's reality, without ever jeopardizing the credibility of that very strong institution, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Sadly, the current Liberal government has sullied this approach by giving a consolation prize to a lifelong Liberal who donated to the Liberal Party's coffers and the current Prime Minister's leadership coffers. She wanted a job in the Senate. The Prime Minister's chief advisor said, “Sorry, we no longer give partisan appointments to the Senate, but we have something else.” He could appoint her to a totally neutral and objective role and make her official languages commissioner.

That was just wrong and as a result of the immense pressure from the official opposition and others as well, after three weeks of the government's sorry figure skating display, Madame Meilleur finally realized that she might not be the best Liberal around to fill the role of commissioner of official languages.

Let us come back to Bill C-36. As I was saying earlier, this bill seeks to remove the requirement to gain the consent of respondents to transfer their census information to Library and Archives Canada.

We believe that is a direct attack on what is most precious to our fellow citizens: their freedom of expression, especially in relation to who they are, what they represent, and their personal data.

In its new obsession to want to know everything and disclose everything, the government is suggesting, through Bill C-36, that now people will no longer have the privilege of saying yes or no. They will be required to hand over information. To us that is not at all the way to go about conducting a statistical survey. This needs to be voluntary, especially when it comes to disclosing personal information. We cannot just pretend that this is nothing and that we can just hand over this information like it were no big deal.

This calls for extreme care and vigilance. The bill also repeals imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent. That makes no sense to us. We urge the government to be more careful.

We believe in the importance of statistical data, but people must be able to participate voluntarily, proactively, and openly. It should not be mandatory, and people certainly should not be forced to do it or face sanctions. We can learn from the past here. In 2011, people said the statistical sky would come falling down, but the fact is that more Canadians, 9% more, participated than in the previous census. The evidence tells us that was a good way to go.

That is why we fundamentally disagree with Bill C-36 as written and urge people, especially the government, to be extremely careful

Earlier, I mentioned fake news. I mention this in the context of statistics because, during the debate in 2010-11, lots of people said this would be the end of the world and everything would break down.

Finally, the Chief Statistician of Canada acknowledged that no problems had been reported. On the contrary, response rates increased.

Must I remind the House that Canada's international reputation was terribly tarnished in August and September 2015, in the middle of the election campaign? Members will sadly recall that, when a three-year-old child was found dead on a beach in Syria in the midst of the refugee crisis, some malicious and particularly dishonest people spread the information that the child ought to have been in Canada because his name was on the list of refugees but the government had dragged its feet. In the end, none of it was true. Unfortunately, the child's name was never added to any list. His father did not do it.

Unfortunately, for 24 hours, dishonest and malicious people viciously spread the information that the Government of Canada forgot this boy in Syria. That was completely false. For 24 hours, our country's international name was dragged through the mud. This was one of the worst cases of fake news that I have ever seen. It was unbecoming of journalists and politicians to stoop so low as to use this terrible tragedy in their political games.

Regardless of who was the head of state at that moment, the child unfortunately lost his life and his name was never on any list because his father decided otherwise. That is why we have to be careful. It is important to keep statistics because it is a matter of numbers, and if anyone has trouble with numbers, it is our friends opposite. Must I remind the House that they completely lost control of the public purse over the past 18 months? They got elected by saying that they would stimulate the economy by running small deficits for three years and then magically balancing the budget in 2019. That is another number that is set out in black and white in the Liberals' election platform on which they won a majority.

I hear applause. Do I need to remind those applauding that they have forgotten their promises? What are the facts? Do we have a modest $10-billion deficit? No. Canadians have been saddled with an astounding three times more debt than that. The Liberals were elected on a solemn pledge to run modest deficits, but the fact is, their deficit is three times bigger than they promised. They also said Canada would balance the books in 2019, which is an election year. They said they would right the ship and that Canada's budget would be balanced in 2019.

Just two days ago, who did we hear on Global saying that he had no idea when Canada would balance the books? Who said that on Global on Sunday? The member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister of Canada. How sad.

Honestly, this is the first time in the history of this great land that a Prime Minister has admitted to having no idea whatsoever when the federal budget would be balanced. If I should happen to be misleading the House, please, somebody stand up and give me a date. Canadians want a date. They want to know when the government will balance the budget. Nobody knows. The member for Papineau, an honourable man if ever there was one, got himself elected on a promise to balance the books in 2019. Look at that. I see him nodding. Does he need a reminder about the document that got him elected? The Prime Minister seems to have some doubts about ever having mentioned modest deficits and a balanced budget. I would like to remind him that, on page 73 of the Liberal Party platform, it says, “the federal government will have a modest short-term deficit of less than $10 billion”.

However, he is doing precisely the opposite. We do have a number and date for returning to a balanced budget. It will be in 2055. These numbers did not come from the Conservatives, foreign observers, the Prime Minister, or Liberal MPs. They came the very people who do this kind of thing day in, day out, the senior officials at the Department of Finance.

If there is anyone that knows how the government's finances are doing, it would be officials at the Department of Finance. What does it say in the Department of Finance document released last December? It says that if nothing changes, and it looks as though nothing will change with the current Prime Minister, we will return to a balanced budget in 2055.

There is a nice story that goes with that. The Minister of Finance received this very report from his officials as early as October 5. The Minister of Finance, an honourable man whom I respect, left the report on his desk and did not release it until December 23. While Canadians were preparing their turkey dinner for Christmas, the Minister of Finance released an incriminating document confirming that the government had lost complete control of public spending. They thought it was no big deal and that no one would notice. Thanks to a vigilant opposition and an alert press, the truth came out and we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people have completely lost control over public finances, which is totally unacceptable.

Need I remind the House that when we run up deficits, we are leaving our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to foot the bill, to pay the price for the current government's mismanagement? I keep hearing the Prime Minister and all the cabinet ministers say over and over during question period that the government is investing to create wealth for our children. The problem is that our children will pay the price. The government says it is family friendly. Well, it must feel close enough to the family to send the bill to our children and grandchildren, because it does not know how to manage the country's finances. It is absurd.

I heard the Prime Minister on Global television say with a straight face that he had no idea when we would return to a balanced budget. That is completely irresponsible. I asked the Minister of Finance a completely frank and straightforward question based on his extensive and impressive experience as a seasoned executive. I want to reiterate that I have the utmost respect for the Minister of Finance. He served in his family business admirably and grew the business that his father started himself. Well done. I am very proud to have a man of that calibre as our Minister of Finance. Still, it would be nice if he made some good decisions.

Earlier, during question period, I bluntly asked him, when he was in the business world, in the private sector, whether he would have tolerated an associate laughingly telling him that he did not have any idea when the budget would be balanced and that it was no big deal. When the Minister of Finance was a Bay Street baron, would he have allowed one of his associates to behave in such a way? He would have shown him the door. It is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, it was the Prime Minister who made those disrespectful comments. I say disrespectful because it is disrespectful to our children and grandchildren who, sooner or later, will have to pay for this government's mismanagement. Over the past year, our party held its leadership race. We had serious, rigorous, positive, and constructive debates, and we came out of that leadership race even stronger than before.

Our current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, said that he got into politics to become the leader of this party because he did not want his children to have to pay, like his generation is paying for the Prime Minister's father's mismanagement. What happened in the 1970s when the government completely lost control of public spending is unfortunately happening again. We have seen this before. Canadians deserve better than that.

All that to say that Bill C-36 is a bad bill. This bill to amend the Statistics Act reminds us of the sad fact that this government has no idea how to carefully control public spending.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a late hour, and I thought some Stephen Leacock would be appropriate. Stephen Leacock once wrote, “In ancient times they didn't have statistics, so they had to fall back on lies.” However, that applies to nobody in this place, obviously.

I want to ask the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle if he does not believe, as I do believe, that it is a mistake. I realize that Shared Services can be improved, but the most knowledgeable people we have talked to in the process of looking at Bill C-36 believe that Statistics Canada should have its own information system and should not have to overlap with Shared Services Canada. There is only mischief that will come from that.