Justice Committee on July 15th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Now we're on clause 46.

There are no amendments to clause 46. Is there any discussion?

(Clause 46 agreed to)

(Clause 47 agreed to)

(On clause 48—Bill C-36)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We're on clause 48, and there is an amendment, G-6. I think it might be their final one. It is that Bill C-36, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 6 to 9 on page 35 with the following:

this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to

I believe it's some sort of technical amendment, and I'll leave it to you to explain.

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

You took the words right out of my mouth, and you're obviously very skilled at this.

It is indeed a technical amendment. The government is proposing the amendment to clause 48 of the bill, as you pointed out. It is a coordinating amendment between Bill C-36 and Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. Coordinating amendments determine which amendment, as between two pieces of legislation, governs in the event that both are passed into law.

In this case, the coordinating amendment at subclause 48(6) relates to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code, which governs the issuance of publication bans in cases involving sexual offences.

Our proposed amendment is to the English version only and would correct a discrepancy between the English and French versions of subclause 48(6). This is a technical amendment, as I pointed out, to ensure that the English version accords with the French version, as the French version properly coordinates the amendments.

For those reasons, we are proposing and will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions or comments?

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I have a brief comment. If I understand correctly your motivation, this is a technical amendment to make the French

be consistent with the English. Is that right? It's that simple.

There was an error from the start.

That's excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment agreed to[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 48 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 49—Thirty days after royal assent)

Now to clause 49

(Clause 49 agreed to)

We're off to the short title first.

Shall the short title pass?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Now we get into an area that's a little more tricky for me, and that's the preamble. I have never had to deal with amendments to this area before.

I have my colleagues here, the clerks from the Legislative Branch, who can help me with the understanding of what is and what isn't admissible.

Let me start with amendment NDP-10. The same arguments apply to NDP amendments 10 and 11, so hopefully I only have to say this once.

If I read the amendment first, I think it will help identify why it's inadmissible, that Bill C-36, in the preamble, be amended by (a) adding before line 1 on page 1 the following:

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford that certain provisions of the Criminal Code have a grossly disproportionate effect on persons who engage in prostitution by putting their health and safety at risk and making them more vulnerable to violence;

—(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 1 on page 2 with the following—

Whereas the Parliament of Canada is

—(c) by adding after line 3 on page 2 the following—

Whereas the Parliament of Canada acknowledges the fundamental importance of addressing poverty, housing conditions, health-care needs and other socio-economic issues impacting women who enter prostitution without a meaningful choice; Whereas all Canadians deserved to be governed by laws that protect their health and safety and prevent exploitation; And whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence against women in Canada remains a serious issue that needs to be addressed through concerted government action;”

This is part of the preamble. In a sense, it would be front of the preamble that's there now. So that part would be legal, but my ruling is that this amendment seeks to make substantial modification by adding new elements to the preamble that are not reflected in the actual body of the bill in the clauses that we have just dealt with. There were some amendments put forward that you could argue would relate to this addition to the preamble, but they did not pass.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 770:

In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when it's purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions….

That was in the technical amendment we just had.

In the opinion of the chair, and in discussions with my colleagues here, the proposed amendment is substantive and is therefore inadmissible. I will point my colleagues to the text just after (c), in particular, where it says “Whereas the Parliament of Canada acknowledges the fundamental importance of addressing poverty, housing conditions, health-care needs and other socio-economic issues impacting women...”. That issue is important, no doubt, but it is not reflected in the actual clauses of the bill. So that amendment is substantially different and, therefore, is inadmissible.

This is something new. It applies to both this amendment and the next one, so I'll give you a few minutes to talk about it. But at the end of the day, we're not voting on it unless you challenge the chair and I lose.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I know. I might get to that and don't take it personally.

Mr. Chair, I understood that a lot of it would depend on the amendments that are adopted. I appreciate that you pointed that out when we talked about addressing poverty, housing conditions, health care needs, and other socio-economic issues impacting women who enter prostitution without a meaningful choice. This is much of what we heard and that's what we're trying to bring into the preamble, which was pretty silent on those issues.

I have a question for the Chair, actually. Could I move a subamendment to my preamble and remove that reference?

I still say, especially if that is the only aspect—and I think we can move on the fly here—I would move to remove that section that you deem inadmissible. But I do think that by adding, “Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford...”.

I do think that those—if I understand the logic—are legal. It would say what it says. Especially at the end, also, “deserve to be governed by laws that protect their health and safety and prevent exploitation”—this is in direct correlation with the bill as amended or not amended—“and whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence against women in Canada remains a serious issue that needs to be addressed through concerted government action.”

Although I'll be heartbroken if we don't insert this fundamental...I think everybody agreed that it's a big part of why some people enter prostitution. It is the poverty, it is the housing conditions, and so on.

I will stand corrected on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Here's my answer to that question.

Being that I've ruled it inadmissible, to amend an inadmissible piece on the fly, I think, would be tricky.

However, just to remind you, we will eventually get back to the preamble, and we do accept amendments from the floor at the time we discuss the preamble, which will be in a few minutes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Count on me to do just that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

So if you have it worded in such a way that you'd like to move it at that particular time, when we deal with the main motion on the preamble—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

But first I will contest your decision and just see how my colleagues vote. If they are willing to.... I don't know, you just said yes to the previous, so who knows, maybe I'm on a streak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You never know.

The Chair has been challenged on the ruling on the inadmissibility, at this point, of NDP-10, which will apply to NDP-11.

The motion will be to sustain the Chair's decision. If you vote in favour, you're in favour of my decision. If you vote opposed, the decision of the Chair will be overruled and the amendment will be up for debate.

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

The Chair's ruling is sustained. Sorry about that, Madame. That applies to NDP-10 and NDP-11.

For the flow of the actual bill, my intention was to do all of the preambular amendments and then we would deal with the preamble as a whole. Since the two inadmissible NDP motions have been defeated, the mover has indicated that she will re-submit something. This would be in conflict, then, if Madame Mourani's amendments pass.

To provide a clearer way as we go, because we go by which lines come first, I'm going to give you the floor, Madame Boivin.

If you want to move your motion now and if it passes, it will affect Madame Mourani's amendments. If it does not pass, we'll go back to Madame Mourani, and we'll continue on.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Excellent.

To help my colleagues with their reading, I will mention part of amendment NDP-10. It reads as follows:

That Bill C-36, in the preamble, be amended

(a) by adding before line 1 on page 1 the following:

“Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford that certain provisions of the Criminal Code have a grossly disproportionate effect on persons who engage in prostitution by putting their health and safety at risk and making them more vulnerable to violence;”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 1 on page 2 with the following:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada is....

There is then another “whereas”.

All Canadians deserve to be governed by laws that protect their health and safety and prevent exploitation; And whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence against women in Canada remains a serious issue that needs to be addressed through concerted government action.

So I removed the section that the chair had deemed as irreceivable:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada acknowledges the fundamental importance of addressing poverty, housing conditions, health-care needs and other socio-economic issues impacting women who enter prostitution without a meaningful choice;

—because it seems that it is not really important.

On that note, that would be the new preamble I would submit on the fly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You are adding that in advance of the line one that is now there, is that correct? It is part of the preamble but at the start of the preamble.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

So based on my discussion I have a choice to make and I'll allow it to stand as something that can be discussed and voted on, as the most egregious parts, or whatever parts didn't meet the bill, have been removed. It's more bigger statements. So it's debatable. So we'll leave that on the floor. It has been moved by Madame Boivin and the NDP.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I regret to inform my colleague that we will not be able to support this amendment. We think it's wholly unnecessary. I would simply point out that the title to the bill is actually 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. I think it is very apparent what the act is about, as it is specifically referenced in the title, which is in fact part of the bill and will be cited in any litigation in the future. So for those reasons we would not support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that input.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Just to discuss my own amendment, it's in the official title, which the government doesn't use very often because it talks more about Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which is the short title. So very soon the government will have forgotten that it's an act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. It's probably the only time that the government recognized that it is following a decision from the Supreme Court.

I don't think there's anything wrong with adding certain aspects of the decision that were key to the decision, because that's why we are here and we are passing such great days all together to review these clauses.

I don't know why the government would be scared to say what exactly the court has said in its decision, especially since they claim that all their clauses fit exactly what the Bedford decision has said. So they should be proud to quote the Bedford decision and to say that the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence against women in Canada remains a serious issue that needs to be addressed through concerted government action.

Their claim is that Bill C-36 is addressing that so they should, again, be proud. I'm sure my colleague, Ms. Smith, who fought for women being exploited and trafficked and violently, what's the word in English?

The word is “violenter”. That's even more comprehensive than what the preamble states very coldly, and that would somewhat humanize this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Madam

Anything further?

Madam Péclet, you do this every time. You don't have to do that every time.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Yes, I know that whatever I say, the government won't agree, but I want to point out that your ruling—thank you, Mr. Chair—actually proves our point that the bill does not reflect the decision. The decision was clear, as you know, that we need to address the issue of women entering prostitution and protect them.

We have to ensure their safety.

I think this just proves our point that this bill is not consistent with the Bedford decision.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that, Madame Péclet, but in fact my ruling is a procedural ruling and not on the merit of any amendment, as is the case with any amendment any side has.

But thank you.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

No, I'm sorry. But procedure gives us enlightenment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Yes, okay.

Is there anything further to the amendment moved by Madame Boivin on the preamble?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We are still in the preamble, but we are dealing now with independent amendments IND-3 and IND-4. I'm going to treat them basically the same.

I will read the first one and then I'll read what the decision is. Then I'll also give Madame Mourani a moment to comment, since we are in the preamble.

Amendment IND-3 is to move that Bill C-36 in the preamble be amended by replacing line 11 on page 1 with the following: discouraging prostitution, which is unlawful and has a dispro-

I'm not sure what the next line is.

Amendment IND-4 adds after line 12 on page 1 the following: Whereas it is important to denounce and prohibit prostitution;

My ruling is simple. It's the very same as the previous ruling. It is that the amendment seeks to make substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble that are not reflected in the body of the bill. House of Commons Procedure, Second Edition, states on page 770 what a substantive amendment is. In my opinion, both of these amendments are substantive and therefore inadmissible.

They are substantive—and I want to explain why I believe so—in that nowhere in the bill that I can read in the clauses are we actually saying that prostitution is unlawful and that the selling of sex.... There is matter dealing with the purchase but not the selling.

There are lots of opportunities, based on the clauses that are actually in the bill about “in private” and so on.... There are some prohibitions about “in public” that have passed and are in there concerning school properties and parks and day cares. But this is a substantive change to what the actual bill is: it is not saying that prostitution is unlawful and does not prohibit prostitution.

For that reason, those two amendments to the preamble are in my opinion inadmissible.

That is my ruling, but I will give Madame Mourani a couple of minutes to talk about why she thought they were important in the preamble.