Justice Committee on July 15th, 2014

[Nathalie Levman, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I think he spoke fairly to the amendment. These are preparatory offences, child sexual preparatory offences. The concern was to ensure that a person who committed a preparatory offence with the intention of committing a prostitution-related offence against a child would always be caught regardless of when the offence was committed. However, we have spoken to crowns who are experienced in historical-type prosecutions. They have assured us that this is not necessary, because the offence at the time the offence was committed would apply to the conduct. It's unnecessary and it may cause some confusion. That particular crown has recommended that we remove the reference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

On that note, if I understand correctly from what I read this weekend, this amendment and others from the government, except maybe for one, are technical in the sense that this is nothing that was heard at this committee. It's other research or work that was done by the department, I guess in parallel with the work of this committee. We didn't hear anything about this.

My point is that this is something that could have been done before the bill was presented. It has nothing to do with the study in committee. It's a review, and you feel it's a good time to present that amendment, but it could have been done.

I hope I'm clear. Sometimes, with my English, I'm lost in translation.

I will repeat in French.

[Nathalie Levman]

Well, it was an error.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

An error: that's what I suspected.

[Nathalie Levman]

The intention was to ensure that somebody who commits a preparatory sexual offence against a child, after Bill C-36 is enacted, would be caught. Therefore, we put the historical offences...listed them in, but subsequently, in terms of the intense review that we always do again and again, and consultations with crown, who actually of course apply these offences, we came to the conclusion that it wasn't necessary.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Imagine what we would catch if we would have more time.

Anyway, I understand. You're clear. It was an error and it's been corrected. It has nothing to do with the work of the committee, but it's a good time to correct the mistake.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Is there anything further on amendment G-1?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 9)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have another amendment from the government side. It amends clause 9 by replacing lines 26 to 31 on page 6. It lists basically the same sections as in the previous amendment. It's in order, as the previous one was.

Mr. Dechert, would you like to speak to it?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As with the last amendment, this is also a technical amendment. Clause 9, as you know, proposes amendments to section 172.1 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits luring a child in order to commit any of the enumerated child sexual offences, including existing child prostitution offences.

Our proposed amendment would remove the references to subsections 212(1), (2), (2.1), and (4) for the reasons that I've already provided. There would be no gap in the law. An accused person would always be charged with the law as it existed at the time they allegedly committed the offence.

For that reason, we'll be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further to the amendment?

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I want to be clear for the senior officials from the Department of Justice.

This is the same concept. This was an error picked up through your ongoing studies of a bill done in parallel with the committee's work. However, this didn't come out of the committee's work. It was something that you heard elsewhere and it's an error that you're fixing.

[Nathalie Levman]

Yes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 10)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Clause 10 also has an amendment. It is from the government side. It proposes to amend clause 10 by replacing lines 35 to 40 on page 6 with the following:

163.1, 170, 171 or 279.011 or subsection 279.02(2), 279.03(2), 286.1(2), 286.2(2) or 286.3(2) with respect to another

Mr. Dechert, would you like to speak to amendment G-3?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As with the previous two amendments, this is also a technical amendment.

Clause 10, as you know, proposes amendments to section 172.2 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits entering into an agreement or arrangement with another person in order to commit any of the enumerated child sexual offences, including the existing child prostitution offences.

Our proposed amendments would remove the references to subsections 212(1), 212(2), 212(2.1), and 212(4), and for the reasons I provided in the previous two amendments, we would support this.

There would also be no gap in the law. An accused person would always be charged under the law as it existed at the time they allegedly committed the offence.

For all those reasons, Mr. Chair, we'll be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything else?

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

If I'm not mistaken, as with the other two cases, this is a technical error that you're now fixing with this amendment.

[Nathalie Levman]

Yes, it was an unnecessary addition, so we're removing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further to the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

Clause 11 has no amendments.

Are there any comments on clause 11?

(Clause 11 agreed to on division)

(On clause 12)

We do have an amendment.

It's the first amendment from our independent member. This committee has operated such that I will read the amendment and then I'll rule on whether it's admissible or not, and why. If it is admissible, the mover, because you are an independent, will have approximately one minute to talk about your amendment, and then we will proceed to vote. Obviously, you are unable to vote on it.

The motion reads that Bill C-36, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 7 the following:

(3) Subsection 197(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: “prostitution” means an act by which a person provides or obtains sexual services for consideration;

I'm assuming you're moving that, Madame Mourani. I'll give you a minute or so to speak to your amendment.

It is in order as Bill C-36 does not have a definition of “prostitution” and this wording is not the same as the previous wording, which dealt only with the sale. This definition deals with selling and buying, so it is in order.

Madame Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the committee for allowing me to present amendments and to speak to them.

I didn't present a lot, since I chose to focus on the aspects that I felt could help this bill pass the constitutional test.

I think it's very important for us to define prostitution in the bill, because if we don't, the justice system will use the common definition of prostitution, which is to provide sexual services for payment. However, this bill also addresses the purchasing of prostitution or sexual services.

I think it's very important that we show the Supreme Court and the justice system that the legislator's intention is to criminalize the purchase of sexual services. With a clear definition, we'll send a message to the justice system to consider that definition and not to consider the common definition found in dictionaries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for that explanation.

We have a number of comments to the amendment.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mrs. Mourani.

I am still waiting for a definition of the term “sexual services,” even after four days of meetings. In light of your amendment, what do you think those terms mean, exactly? A definition might be necessary.

However, if the terms in the definition are broad, are we meant to use Bill Clinton's definition or someone else's definition? Would “sexual services” include lap dances? That's not my area of expertise. Will it include services provided in massage parlours? What, exactly, are we talking about?

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

I really wanted to provide a definition for “prostitution”. I didn't specify the notion of “sexual services” because I thought that should be left to jurisprudence. There is already quite a bit of jurisprudence on this matter. There have been a number of cases dealing with prostitution.

My definition is rather broad. I would include almost everything, whether or not it refers to full sex, whether it happens in strip clubs or somewhere else. My definition could be quite broad. In this specific case, I chose not to focus on this issue and to give the justice system as much latitude as possible and to leave room for jurisprudence. That's why I didn't want to do that.

However, I did want to give an overall definition of prostitution. I wanted to tell the justice system directly that, even if the dictionary defines prostitution as providing sexual services for payment, the legislator wants the justice system to take into account another participant—the john—who is purchasing the service. The john is part of the system and helps keep it going. That's why I wanted to include this.

If we don't, judges, prosecutors and lawyers will have all kinds of leeway to use the common definition of prostitution, which is what happens now. What's different about this bill is that it introduces a new player in this game in a more direct manner. Johns were covered a bit by the former law. However, this bill is clear and there are sentences associated with that crime.

I think it's important to have that definition, to ensure that the justice system is even more clear about the intent.