Evidence of meeting #44 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 recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

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

1:45 p.m.

Independent

Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must admit that I am very surprised. I thought the Minister of Justice was very clear. The government's long-term goal was to abolish prostitution. The government also wanted to prohibit the purchase of sexual services, pimping, and so on. The whole point of my amendments is to clarify the government's true intention for its bill.

Since the members are rejecting my amendments, I am now sure that this bill will be struck down by the Supreme Court. I am very sure of that and I will tell you why.

In its Bedford decision, the Supreme Court worked from the premise that prostitution is legal in Canada. This means that, as legislators, we don't have the right to prohibit and criminalize the practice of a legal activity because that practice endangers those involved in it.

However, the Supreme Court never forbade us, as legislators, to change the framework of that activity. What does “change the framework” mean? It means to clearly establish that prostitution is illegal in Canada—that the government prohibits and denounces the practice of prostitution. Starting from that premise, we can criminalize the purchase of sexual services, pimping and all practices surrounding prostitution.

I am now convinced that this bill will be challenged—that much is obvious—and that it will not pass the test of the Supreme Court because you took up the same principle. You did not prohibit prostitution, but you did criminalize related practices. So we are going back to the beginning, and that's too bad because criminalizing the purchase of sexual services was a very good step. I'm sure that we will be having this same discussion here, in this House of Commons, in a few years.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you. Thank you for that explanation of those.

That concludes our dealing with the amendments to the preamble.

We're dealing with the preamble unamended. Any further comments on the preamble unamended?

Madame Boivin.

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will use this opportunity even though we cannot speak to the amendment.

This is what we have been saying since the beginning. I'm not too pleased with this. That's not the impression I want to give my colleague, Mrs. Mourani.

We did feel that prohibition should be prohibited. That wasn't anywhere in the legislation. Despite the attempts, it was not there. Of course, the preamble says what it says, but then the legislation says something else. That's really unfortunate.

I know many groups that will be extremely disappointed. They had literally pinned their hopes on this bill, whether or not we agree with the solutions proposed. They basically invested their hopes in this legislation. I know that because I met many of them before. Since the Bedford decision, I have been meeting all sorts of groups—advocating decriminalization, legalization, criminalization, abolition and so on.

It was clear to me when the government introduced its bill that people would be disappointed. The minister was saying that he was open to amendments. As we have seen today, only one of the six Conservative amendments concerns the substance of the bill. The only substantive amendment is the attempt to criminalize. It was clear from the beginning that people would be extremely disappointed, given the preamble and the actual legislation.

This is not the first bill our committee is studying. The past is an indication of the future. People who asked me questions thought we were defeatists, but that has nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with the committee's methods and procedures, which yield mere peanuts in terms of results. I don't feel that the amendment calling for a review is peanuts, although a five-year review almost is.

This is unfortunate. It was so predictable and very sad.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you very much.

Anything further on the preamble? Seeing none, shall the preamble pass?

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Shall the title carry?

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Shall the bill carry as amended?

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Can you do it in five years?

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

No, I'll do it in the first week back in September.

Shall the bill be reprinted?

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Ladies and gentlemen, that is our discussion of Bill C-36 at committee.

I want to thank everyone involved, including the clerks, the researchers, and the officials who are here today. I also want to say a thank you to the members of the committee—and I know Mr. Casey did it the other day. I thought it was a very respectful and honest and forthright discussion—not a lot about politics, but about making what we think is good law for Canada. I appreciate everyone's patience and professionalism on this committee.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.