Justice Committee on July 15th, 2014

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of this amendment is quite simple. When we look at the bill in its current form, we see that some exceptions are being made when prostitutes are working for themselves. They are then allowed to have a driver or a body guard, for example. These people would not be prosecuted because they are indirectly living off the avails of prostitution.

I agree up to that point.

However, the problem is that the same thing is being done with regard to child prostitution. Yet, the prostitution of children and adolescents can be nothing other than sexual exploitation. No exceptions can be made for individuals who act as body guards, drivers or in any other capacity related to child prostitution.

Without exception, every case of child prostitution constitutes exploitation and the government's goal is to protect children and adolescents who are being sexually exploited. We cannot imagine that children would prostitute themselves nor can we accept it because the government is responsible for protecting children and youth. The government can therefore not make exceptions for anyone connected with this type of prostitution because those individuals have a duty to speak out against such prostitution, not make a living from it.

There is therefore a lack of consistency between the need to protect children from prostitution and exploitation and making exceptions for those who would live off the avails of prostitution.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank Madam Mourani for the amendment. The government does not support it. In our view, it's inconsistent with the policy of Bill C-36, which is to ensure that individuals who sell their own sexual services can develop legitimate family and business relationships on the same basis as anyone else.

For example, it could mean that a roommate who shares rent and other living expenses, which is a legitimate living arrangement, with a person under the age of 18 who sells their own sexual services would be guilty of an offence. That's what this could mean and that's not what we intend. Such an approach would have a negative impact on the most vulnerable persons who are exploited through prostitution, and in our view may be contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada's findings in Bedford. So on that basis, we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything else to this amendment, Independent amendment 2?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Still dealing with clause 20, now we're off to NDP-6, that Bill C-36, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 13 the following:

(e) in consideration for a service or good that relates to the protection of the health or safety of the person providing sexual services.

This is an addition. It is in order.

The floor is yours, Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I think that the wording is fairly clear. It involves adding “in consideration for a service or good that relates to the protection of the health or safety of the person providing sexual services.”

It is directly related to the Bedford case, which deals with the health and safety of the people in this dangerous line of work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Dechert, would you like to respond?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, we will not be supporting this amendment. In our view, it's unnecessary because both the third and fourth exceptions of the material benefit offence would apply to persons who provide the types of services or goods mentioned in the amendment. Specifically if the service or good were offered to the general public, the third exception would apply such as in the case of a pharmacist. If the service or good were not offered to the general public, the fourth exception could apply, as in the case of a friend who offers protective services. That my colleague will find in proposed paragraph 286.2(4)(d) of the bill, which says:

in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.

In other words, we're removing the exploitation part of any such arrangements and if the person providing the services to the individual sex worker is doing so on reasonable commercial terms at fair market value, they would not be criminalized in that situation.

So on that basis, Mr. Chair, we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Boivin, go ahead.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Very briefly, it's all fine and dandy, but at the same time, we heard from numerous witnesses that it was not that clear. I know that's what the parliamentary secretary spinned over and over during panels and here at committee, but it's not clear that it would be interpreted...in the sense that our amendment was really precise, to the point.

When you say, “in consideration for a service or good that relates to the protection of the health or safety of the person providing sexual services”, that's pretty much the only inference to Bedford we would see in the bill, which wouldn't be that wrong in a bill having 40-some clauses.

To leave it to interpretation, when words can mean what they mean.... And I want to rely, in the least way possible, on a preamble that will not exist in the Criminal Code. I want the text to be as clear as possible. I think that would have been way clearer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Is there anything further on NDP-6?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we move on to NDP-7, clause 20:That Bill C-36, in Clause 20, be amended by deleting lines 20 to 28 on page 14.

This is in order. It's not deleting a whole clause, just lines within a clause.

Madame Boivin, go ahead.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am glad that I now know about this technicality, which involves removing lines to try to accomplish our designs, namely, to simply request that the clause:

be amended by deleting lines 20 to 28.

People need to understand that we are talking about everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration. Such individuals are guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.

We heard a number of witnesses talk about the importance of the Bedford case, which I recommend that the government party members read. Clearly, this could be one way of ensuring safety. In fact, as one witness said, sometimes, sex workers are unfamiliar with the environment and it is somewhat disconcerting; however, they are saying that they have codes and that they want telephone numbers that are not blocked. That sort of advertising is important. It may be the only way to make this whole thing safe and keep it out of the sight of children and members of the public who would be offended by it. It would be a way to ensure safety. That is why we proposed amendment 7.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dechert, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my friend for the amendment.

In our view, this amendment defeats part of the main purpose of the bill. In our view, the advertising offence is consistent with the bill's main objective of reducing the demand for prostitution, and to delete it would be inconsistent. The advertising offence complements the purchasing offence, whose main objective is to reduce the demand for prostitution by targeting the promotion of prostitution through advertisements for the sale of sexual services.

What it seeks to do, quite clearly, I believe, Mr. Chair, is to criminalize those who exploit the sex workers, the third parties who are often the people who hold over their heads the power to run these advertisements—and we've heard about them. They have benevolent names for them, but I just call them “pimps”. They're the ones who profit, who charge far too much for the advertising services they provide.

In our view, that behaviour adds to the demand for the sale of sexual services, which is contrary to the objective of the bill. It's clear, in our view, that individuals may advertise their own services, alone or in a cooperative. There are specific exemptions allowing that. For these reasons, we oppose the amendment.

In case my friend is not clear on this point, I want to assure her that we have all read the Bedford decision, and we are clear and comfortable in our position that everything we are doing here today falls squarely within the test set out by the chief justice in her decision in the Bedford case, and that we believe it is in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in every regard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Dechert.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Well, I'm glad to hear they read it, but just in case, I will pursue a little part of the decision.

The chief justice says:

[That] does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes.

A closer look at the decision shows that the Supreme Court also said that:

The analysis is qualitative, not quantitative. The question under s. 7 is whether anyone’s life, liberty or security of the person has been denied by a law that is inherently bad; a grossly disproportionate, overbroad, or arbitrary effect on one person is sufficient to establish a breach of s. 7.

It is good to know that the government is pleased about this and clearly thinks that its text will make the cut. However, if I am not mistaken, 240 lawyers wrote the Prime Minister a letter saying that they had serious doubts in this regard.

I will end on that note.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further discussion on NDP-7 for clause 20?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 20 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

There are no amendments to clauses 21 and 22.

Is there any discussion?

(Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to)

(On clause 23)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have an amendment submitted from the government side to amend Bill C-36 in clause 23 by replacing lines 6 to 12 on page 17 with the following:

(c.03) an offence under any of paragraphs 212(1)(a) to (h) (procuring) of this Act, as they read from time to time before the day on which this paragraph comes into force,

Basically, this amendment is dropping paragraphs 212(1)(i) to (j). It's deleting a line, which is allowed and admissible as an amendment.

The floor is yours, Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As with several of the other amendments proposed earlier by the government, this is a technical amendment to clause 23 of Bill C-36.

Clause 23 proposes to amend the list of offences included in the definition of “primary designated offence” and “secondary designated offence” for the purpose of forensic and DNA analysis. The DNA provisions authorize the taking of a DNA sample in two situations: where persons are convicted of designated offences, and pursuant to a warrant where police have reasonable grounds to believe a designated offence has been committed.

The proposed changes at clause 23 are consequential to the proposed repeal of existing prostitution-related offences, notably section 212 of the Criminal Code and the proposed enactment of the new prostitution offences in clause 20.

Furthermore, clause 23 as currently drafted would include section 212 offences as historical offences for the purposes of the DNA scheme, including paragraph 212(1)(j), living on the avails of prostitution. The need to amend clauses 8, 9, and 10 to address their listing for historical offences purposes identified the need to delete the specific reference to paragraph 212(1)(j) in clause 23.

This would make it clear that a warrant for DNA could not be issued for a historical offence investigation in relation to paragraph 212(1)(j) initiated after Bill C-36 comes into force. The operational impact of this deletion would be minimal. If after Bill C-36 comes into force a warrant is sought to collect DNA to investigate an historical procuring offence alleged to have been committed before Bill C-36 comes into force, police would be able to rely upon other listed procuring offences as set out in paragraphs 212(1)(a) through (h).

For those reasons, we're proposing this amendment and will be supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Unless I am mistaken, this long text is a bit like the first three amendment proposed by the government. We are dealing with a technicality that has nothing to do with the hearings that took place last week. We are going to be consistent.

I see another problem with clauses 23 and 24. They have not really been examined by the committee, particularly with regard to the issue of DNA. I am concerned about how quickly we examined this bill. It is a complex bill and it cannot be summarized by a single word, the word “prostitution”.

It is unfortunate, particularly when I see that technical errors were made before this work was even done. I believe that we might find others if we looked more closely. Over the years, provisions may be amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those comments.

Is there anything further concerning amendment G-5?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 23 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We now have a series of clauses with no amendments proposed.

(Clauses 24 to 33 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have an amendment from the New Democratic Party, amendment NDP-8. It is to insert a new clause, which would be clause 33.1.

The amendment proposes that Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 24 the following new clause:TRANSITIONAL PROVISION

33.1 For the purposes of the Criminal Records Act, the record of a person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection 213(1) of the Criminal Code for stopping or attempting to stop any person or in any manner communicating or attempting to communicate with any person, for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, is, in respect of that offence, suspended.

This is an addition, and it's in order.

The floor is yours, Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased that this amendment is in order. It seems to me that we all heard witnesses talk about this aspect of the issue, which involves decriminalizing the work of prostitutes and sex trade workers—to please everyone. That is what people were looking and asking for.

If we are consistent, I think that there should be some openness since the preamble of the Conservatives' bill states that we want to protect these people. That seems obvious to me. In short, I do not think there should be a major problem with this because the government is decriminalizing this aspect and criminalizing another.

As you can see, we did not ask for the criminal records of people who buy such services to be erased or suspended. That proposal seems to be consistent with Bill C-36. I therefore do not see why our Conservative friends could not move in that direction.