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.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Well, I think the parliamentary secretary missed my point, that point being that it's all about consent. If you're dealing with and buying somebody who is coerced and exploited, that is the main infraction.
That being said, I'm a bit surprised, because I find it's a complete reversal of the speech we heard from the parliamentary secretary on Bill C-213. The argument on Bill C-213 was that we want to get them off the street, because Bedford was all about the danger surrounding the street practice of prostitution, plus the fact that we don't want kids to see that.
Fine. They can go and do that in a much safer place, which is their own place. But he just said no, you're missing our point on Bill C-36. We want to criminalize any individual in every circumstance who buys.
So what the hell can they sell and to whom? That has been my question from day one. Maybe they would have been better to agree with Ms. Mourani who was plainly asking for them to abolish it, to call a spade a spade and say that the act of buying and the act of selling is wrong. But they're not doing that.
Maybe the officials can answer my question then. What can they sell and to whom, based on Bill C-36? Is there anybody who cannot buy sexual services except criminally, by virtue of Bill C-36?
Also, has your department thought of maybe using the notwithstanding clause based on section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to say the whole thing is illegal, that we don't want prostitution?
That's what I heard from the parliamentary secretary, that we want this done and over with, so no selling and no buying at some point in time, because what good is it to sell something that cannot be bought by anybody?
11:55 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As the parliamentary secretary says, the main objective of Bill C-36 is to reduce the prevalence of prostitution with a view to ultimately abolishing it to the greatest extent possible. In no way does Bill C-36 seek to facilitate, allow, or condone prostitution.
It doesn't criminalize the sale, that's true. There's no specific provision that criminalizes the sale. You have been reviewing the provision that criminalizes the purchase. The blanket criminalization of purchasing sexual services is consistent with the main objective of the bill, which is to reduce the prevalence of prostitution.
Back to my first point where Bill C-36 doesn't intend to facilitate prostitution. It's not allowing the sale by failing to criminalize it, it's immunizing the person who sells from prosecution for any part that they may play in any of the prostitution offences.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
So when they hear arguments around the fact that they'll be safer, actually what is not said in that sentence is that they'll be safer because nobody will buy it.
11:55 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, Bill C-36 posits that the best way to reduce the harms of prostitution is to not engage in it. That's true. That said, Bill C-36 recognizes that its ultimate objective will take time to realize, and during that time it has been informed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bedford.
It doesn't prevent implementation of certain safety measures that the Supreme Court of Canada found were extremely important to the safety of those who sell. So those measures have been considered today, I believe, including moving indoors and working indoors independently and cooperatively—
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
With whom?
But that's my point. Moving indoors, working indoors, but with whom? Because if the person they work with is going to be criminalized.... I'm trying to understand that point.
11:55 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That goes back to the initial position, the objective of the bill. It's not trying to facilitate prostitution.
11:55 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That said, it doesn't criminalize the implementation of certain safety measures. It doesn't prevent people who sell from implementing those safety measures that Bedford has outlined. We always have to go back to the main objective of the bill. It posits that prostitution is a form of sexual exploitation. Because so many people who sell are women, it's also considered to be a form of violence against women. In no way does Bill C-36 seek to facilitate the practice of prostitution, be that through the purchase or the sale of sexual services.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
Is there any further discussion?
Yes, Mr. Dechert, go ahead.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I promise I'll be very brief.
I apologize to Madam Boivin and to anyone else who thinks that I was not clear previously. I'll just state it as clearly as I possibly can.
Yes, it is our intention to make illegal the purchase of sexual services or the communication for the purposes of purchasing the sexual services of any person in Canada, anywhere, anytime—wherever you can think of in Canada: in the light of day; in the darkness of the shadows; inside or outside; up a tree; down a rabbit-hole; in a beaver den—yes, one hundred percent.
We're going to go after those purchasers, and we're going to tell them that this is not right. Our purpose in responding to the Supreme Court was to say that we understand that this will go on for a time. We hope not forever. Maybe we'll never be able to totally eradicate it. We know people still use heroin. However, we're going to give the sex worker the right to choose to operate in a way that is safe, which is exactly what those three women asked the court for, and this responds directly to them. We want to give them that opportunity, but it is not our purpose and intention to encourage or make it easier for them to sell their sexual services. We're not trying to make it easier. We're not trying to make the business bigger. Unfortunately, this is not what we think of as a growth industry. We don't recommend it as a solution to youth unemployment. It's not our intention to make this part of the tourist industry of Canada. Yes, we're hoping that it will be reduced, over time. Our interests are contrary to the economic and commercial interests of those who operate this business.
I hope I've been clear, and I'll be happy to try again if I'm still being unclear.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Very briefly, that has the merit of being very clear. I wish your bill was as clear as what you just said. I hope everybody who's going to be in court will quote Mr. Dechert and not the law, because basically you didn't say all that, in the law. But that's all I'll say on the issue.
Noon
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I'd like to add that it is very sad that the parliamentary secretary's discourse has changed throughout the day, because at the beginning we were talking about victims without a choice, and now we're talking about people who have a choice. Even his position is not clear on whether people are victims or are consensual because his discourse has changed throughout the day.
He has not once mentioned the Bedford decision and the clear indication of the court that said we need to protect sex workers and whether or not he thinks that is key or bad. He hasn't even talked about the Supreme Court's conclusions, and about safety and section 7 of the charter.
So yes, maybe his personal opinion about prostitution and different subjects may taint his judgment, but he should know that as a government representative and as a legislator, he should at least address the Bedford decision.
Thank you.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
Is there any further discussion on NDP-4? Seeing none, we will vote on the amendment to clause 20.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ladies and gentlemen, it is exactly 12:02. I would like to suspend for lunch.
I'm suggesting that we come back at 12:45—or do you want it quicker than that?
Noon
An hon. member
No, that's fine.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay.
I will be hitting the gavel, and hopefully everybody will be sitting in their spot, at 12:45.
Thanks very much. We'll suspend.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay.
Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting of the justice and human rights committee back to order. We're doing the clause by clause on Bill C-36.
When we suspended for lunch, we were just about to begin with NDP amendment number 5, that Bill C-36, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 10 to line 2 of page 11 with the following:
(i) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and (ii) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or
Madame Boivin, the floor is yours on your amendment.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To come back to the context, what we were trying to do is to simplify paragraph 286(1)(i) and make it more consistent. In that regard, we heard witnesses raise all sorts of issues about how the meaning of this part of the bill is not clear. It reads:
...in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present...
It then goes on to describe the sentences that can be imposed in such cases.
The amendments that the NDP is proposing eliminate that aspect. We do not think that it is very smart to have a Criminal Code with provisions that are left open to be interpreted, clarified or defined any which way. We believe that we must try to be clear from the outset. That is why it seems much more precise to remove line 29 on page 10 to line 2 on page 11.
The article should read:
Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of...
We would continue as follows:
(i) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(ii) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000...
We just want to remove the aspect that witnesses described as very hard to explain and interpret. We do not want provisions like that in the Criminal Code.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank Madam Boivin for the amendment.
The government will not be supporting the amendment. In our view, it defeats the purpose. This would reduce the penalties on the purchasers where they are doing it in a place where children are or are likely to be—we clarified it earlier today—the schoolyard, the playground, and the day care centre. If the purchasers go to those places to purchase sex, we think they deserve a higher penalty. The children are the people we are trying to protect in that in instance.
For those reasons, we will not be supporting this amendment, Madam Boivin.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I gather that the government is okay with the fact that we're talking about “next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present”. We all heard that the bill was lacking in clarity in this regard. I understood that it was mostly because we made.... Well, it's pretty much on par with what is already covered in the Criminal Code: $1000.
What I'm understanding from the government side is that it's bad but that it could be worse. That's basically the argument.
Okay, thank you.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay.
Is there anything else on NDP-5 to clause 20?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I remind everyone that we are on clause 20, which was the clause we left on when we took our break.
Now we're on the second amendment by the independent member. Ms. Mourani has an amendment, which she has appropriately put forward within the timeframe required by the House of Commons, that Bill C-36, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 12 with the following:
(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsection (1) does not apply to a person who receives
—and by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 13 with the following—
who commits an offence under subsection (1) if that person
This is an order, and it's removing one of the elements of the exception rule that's been in place in the bill.
Madame Mourani, you have a minute or so to explain your amendment.