Evidence of meeting #32 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prostitution.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Donald Piragoff  Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Nathalie Levman  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

10 a.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Okay.

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

From the Conservative side, Mr. Dechert.

10 a.m.

Conservative

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.

10 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I do agree that all of us in Parliament—particularly this committee, and my department as well—have an important role in responding to the Bedford decision, which has created a void in the law that creates, in my estimation, further vulnerability. Constructive positioning and taking a stance I think is important. That's what we are expected to do by our constituents, and certainly as a government. The Bedford decision has laid bare some of the important questions that we believe are answered in this legislation, but we went further. We consulted 31,000 individuals and groups through the online consultation. We heard directly from a full spectrum of advocates and stakeholders. I believe this legislation, as I said, is constitutionally sound. It is good law and good public policy that will help protect vulnerable individuals. If I didn't believe so, I wouldn't be sitting here before with a bill that I think is going to further protect people in Canada.

10 a.m.

Conservative

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?

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

One only needs to listen to the personal stories and history of many individuals who find themselves in prostitution to understand the exploitative nature, the vulnerability, the violence, addiction, and a complex array of other social problems and ills that affect those who are in prostitution, to understand that this is a very serious issue that we have to respond to. I have already mentioned the fact that it is tied in to other offensive practices of human trafficking, of child exploitation.

We have taken what I've been calling a uniquely Canadian approach. It's a bill that specifically targets the demand for sex, so going after those who exploit. They do include johns, pimps, and individuals who carry out the most horrific practice of violating vulnerable children, in many cases. The area of these prostitution offences, when we're talking about those who are purchasing sexual services, is an area that the government feels it has to legislate in.

We've gone further, though. We've looked at how we specifically respond to the Supreme Court's decision in Bedford on the issue of receiving a financial or material benefit, and we've put exceptions in place that deal with the very real subject of how prostitutes are able to protect themselves. Without condoning the practice, we recognize the realities of the fact that some, for an array of reasons, find themselves in these situations. We recognize that and acknowledge legitimate steps taken to protect themselves.

In the area of advertising, child prostitution offences, communicating for the purposes of selling sexual services, we have introduced an amendment, or I should say a response, that protects the public more broadly, that protects the fact that in schoolyards, in shopping malls, in playgrounds, in places where children can reasonably be expected to be present...there is again, I suggest, an obligation on the government to protect vulnerable individuals in addition to the vulnerable prostitutes.

So that is the balance we have struck. We have also taken steps that recognize the new reality of advertising as also an enabling part of prostitution. We will hold those who are advertising, not the prostitute themselves but those who are advertising these services either through papers or online, also to criminal account.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Minister, you mentioned that the phrase where persons under the age of 18 may “reasonably be expected to be present” has been used elsewhere in the Criminal Code. Is that, in your view, a well-understood phrase? Do you have any concerns about how the police would interpret that or how crown prosecutors would interpret that?

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I mentioned that it is in effect now in the Criminal Code, with 810 applications, as well as offences that deal with children. So there has been some judicial interpretation already. I wouldn't go so far as to call it judicial notice, but because it is found currently in the Criminal Code, there is a broad understanding of the definition. And it's a reasonable test; it has to do with not only the environment itself but also the time in addition to the place.

That, like many sections, coming back to Madame Boivin's question, will be subject to interpretation by the courts, but I'm confident that this definition is well understood and is there with a reasonable interpretation as to what the public would expect.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Some critics say that this could mean anywhere, anytime. Is that your understanding, or do you think it's narrower than that?

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Not at all: it doesn't mean anywhere, anytime; it means very specifically places where children could reasonably be expected to be present.

I think that it's not an overly technical legal term. I think we can all envision examples of where children could reasonably be expected to be present. It wouldn't be in an after-hours bar at 3 a.m., but it would be in a schoolyard. It would be leaving church, or a shopping mall, or a ball field, or a rink. It could be leaving a hotel at certain times of the day.

So it is a common-sense, practical application of a definition that we think the courts will uphold.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Thank you.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thanks for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the Liberal Party, is Mr. Casey.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

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?

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

All legislation has to be consistent.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

So there are no particular measures you can point to that ensure compliance with what the Supreme Court of Canada had to say in Gladue?

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

This bill, we believe, is charter-compliant and consistent with precedent.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

You would agree that first nations are uniquely vulnerable when we're talking about prostitution and exploitation.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I would agree with that statement.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Are there any specific measures taken in the legislation to account for that unique vulnerability?

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

All of these sections are intended to protect all vulnerable individuals.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

So there are no specific provisions you can point to that uniquely address this vulnerability.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

In terms of the programs we've put forward or that will be funded, and that are not specifically present in the legislation, we believe, through partnerships with the provinces and territories, those programs will help assist all groups that are vulnerable. Certainly first nation women and children, I would say, are definitely covered by that, and there are unique circumstances.

I agree with you, Mr. Casey. So if you will, the unique response will be found in programs to be funded by this government.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Thank you.

I want to come back to the line of questioning by—

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I'm sorry, but I should also add that in addition to the legislative and the monetary response, there are other programs like the aboriginal justice programs and programs found in the public safety department, in the health department, and in Status of Women Canada that are also uniquely designed to respond to the particular vulnerability found in first nations.

I'm sorry. I just wanted to add that.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

I want to come back to Madam Boivin's question with respect to the $175,000 survey or poll that was done by Ipsos Reid. You have indicated that we're going to be able to see it once these hearings are over.

Mr. Minister, you have the power to allow us to see that sooner, do you not?