Justice Committee on July 15th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my friend for the amendment. We do not support it, for a number of reasons.

The motion proposes a substantive amendment that would effectively eliminate the need to seek a record suspension through the Criminal Records Act. It would grant an amnesty to individuals who sell their own sexual services, if convicted under subsection 213(1)—that is, I point out, as amended today—of offences both before and after the coming into force of Bill C-36.

There is no time limit on this proposed amnesty; therefore, the provision is not transitional in nature.

Persons convicted under subsection 213(1) may apply for a record suspension under the existing rules under the Criminal Records Act, pursuant to the criteria outlined in that statute; namely, that five years have elapsed since the expiration of the sentence and that the Parole Board—and this is very important—is satisfied that the applicant is of good conduct and that the conviction should no longer reflect adversely on the applicant's character.

In our view, Mr. Chair, this provision would significantly reduce the deterrent effect of the provision itself. It is, in our view, unprecedented in the sense that it retroactively suspends criminal records in all cases, without any due consideration. We point out that there is a process that is built on appropriate principles with respect to the behaviour of convicted persons.

I am informed by my colleague, who is very well versed in these things, that this would also require an amendment to the Summary Convictions Act, which we don't see here. Therefore, it is fundamentally flawed in that regard.

For all those reasons, we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Boivin and then Mr. Casey.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is different from what we heard throughout last week. We were being told that there would be no criminal record. I am happy to hear that the parliamentary secretary now recognizes that those people will indeed have a criminal record once they have been found guilty. They are told to apply for a record suspension, as they can no longer apply for a pardon.

Instead of saying flat out no, to try to respect what we have heard from witnesses—including those from the government—the parliamentary secretary may be able to find a way to clarify this in the form in order to at least provide that amnesty requested by individuals the government has referred to as victims throughout the week.

Today, I'm not hearing the Conservative benches use the word “victim” a lot. It seems that these people really are criminals. I think that is a bit unfortunate. I would have liked to suggest that they take another 10 minutes to think about this.

I'm not sure I would accept the comments on summary conviction, when we know that this probably comes from the member who had the least belief in criminal records and the obligation to answer relevant questions from employers.

If the idea is to lift people out of poverty and their surroundings, it is important for them to have a job. Witnesses have come to talk to us about this. When people have to indicate that they have a criminal record and when that criminal record takes more and more time to be expunged—thanks to Conservative measures adopted a few years ago, including Bill C-10—they are kept in a straight jacket they will not easily get out of.

In sum, it will take you a bit longer to help people leave prostitution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Just a comment, Mr. Chair. It strikes me as manifestly unfair that someone would have a criminal record for an offence that has been found by the court to be unconstitutional.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further on amendment NDP-8?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now on clause 34. Is there any chance that the committee would be interested in lumping clauses 34 to 45 together, or do you have comments on some of them?

[An hon. member]

One by one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

One by one. Okay. Happy to do it.

We're on clause 34.

(Clause 34 agreed to)

Are there any comments on clause 35?

(Clause 35 agreed to)

(On clause 36)

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

On the section that follows, and there are a couple of them, it's another part that we haven't necessarily reviewed because we are in the National Defence Act. I know it's an adjustment of certain clauses, but at the same time, we have never really seriously reviewed it. So again, I have some problems with the way this committee has carried out its legislative mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Are there any further comments?

(Clause 36 agreed to)

Are there any comments on clause 37?

(Clause 37 agreed to)

Are there any comments on clause 38?

(Clause 38 agreed to)

Are there any comments on clause 39?

(Clause 39 agreed to)

Are there any comments on clause 40?

(Clause 40 agreed to)

Are there any comments on clause 41?

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

This is a clause on corrections and conditional release that brings the definition of a sexual offence involving a child in line with new offences, namely, persons under 18 in clause 21. Every time we touch a question that surrounds kids or trafficking, obviously you will have the unanimous consent of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Is there any further discussion on clause 41?

(Clause 41 agreed to)

Is there any discussion on clause 42?

(Clause 42 agreed to)

Is there any discussion on clause 43?

(Clause 43 agreed to)

Is there any discussion on clause 44?

(Clause 44 agreed to)

Is there any discussion on clause 45?

(Clause 45 agreed to)

(On clause 46—Bill C-13)

Now we're at a new clause. It's an amendment by the NDP. It's in order because it is a brand new clause.

It is that Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 30 on page 30 the following new clause, including a title:

REVIEW AND REPORT 45.1 (1) Within two years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose. (2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as the House may authorize, submit a report on the review to the Speaker of the House, including a statement of any changes the committee recommends.

The floor is yours, Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can't believe the Conservatives would say no to this. This is a prudent measure that has already been used in other bills. Not so long ago, a relevant study was carried out concerning official languages in courts, such as the language used by the accused, and so on. This was a prudent measure. It was applied in Bill C-13 regarding cyberbullying. If the government ordered its members not to try to improve the bill, there should at least be a way to make them accountable. The other elephant in the room—besides the Supreme Court of Canada's Bedford decision, which we don't often hear Conservatives talk about—is provincial involvement.

With the exception of the Government of Manitoba, whose representatives came to testify here, it's certain that, with such a quick process, not all the provinces were necessarily available or prepared to come speak within such a short timeframe on issues as profoundly complex as human trafficking, sexual exploitation and prostitution.

Yet it is clear that, on the ground, it will be up to the provincial authorities to enforce three quarters of, if not all, the provisions that will be passed under Bill C-36.

I do believe strongly that we need to be able to do that review within two years of the adoption. How it's going to be carried out by the provinces, by the territories.... We all know that it is going to be.... What we decide here is always fine and dandy, but what I hear on the ground from crown attorneys, from prosecutors, and from defence attorneys is that they are left with the mess. It's not always easy to apply what comes out of this Parliament.

That being said, I think it would be prudent that we do a review on how all of this went. It will permit the committee in two years' time to maybe contact all the provinces and territories to see how it has been lived in the different courts, how many cases there were, and whether these were more on sex traffic or prostitution, and so on and so forth. I think this is at least the amendment that everybody should support if we are serious about the work we are doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Madam Boivin for putting forward this amendment. I'm happy to say to her that I do believe this is a good idea. I believe that a review is always reasonable. I think, as she points out, we have done it in many other situations, in many other bills. And it would be useful in this case especially, where we have what we all agree is a brand new approach to the way we deal with prostitution. That's what the Supreme Court suggested we attempt to do, and that's what we're doing.

We've heard many people say this is a paradigm shift in the way we deal with the complex issue of prostitution in our country, so I believe that it is fair and reasonable in this situation. I note that it has been done in other countries where similar changes have been made.

I would suggest one small change, which is to change the review period from two to five years. That would be consistent with many other bills and I think would give a reasonable time for evidence to be accumulated so that the committee, in five years' time, would have reasonable information to review in its deliberations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Are you moving to change from two years to five, as a subamendment?

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

I'm moving to change it from two years to five.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Speaking to the subamendment is Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Speaking to the subamendment, I think this was done on Bill C-13, if my memory serves me correctly. It was passed from two years to five, or from five to seven.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

We asked for three years, and they demanded seven, and we compromised at five years.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Anyway, I just find that to be in error and to for five years is really long.

Very shortly, if we do our job right and if every partner of the federation does its job, and the police as well, in this era of informatique, when data can circulate really quickly....

I know it's going to be five years, that this is going to be adopted. I might be NDP, but I know how to count. But I still say that five years is far too long. I think two years....

We saw it, Bob, with the langue officielle of the accused. Even though we had a specific deadline, we didn't exactly do it in that deadline.

I think we should send a strong message that we need to make sure, if some readjustment needs to be done, that five years.... By the time it's over in five years—and then a year to do the report makes six years.... It's not that I insist on being one of the people who will be doing it in two years, but six years might be too long to foresee.

Anyway, that's my point. I think, again, that this is just dragging it out. I appreciate that you will at least get into a review, so praise whatever, but at the same time, why can't you just say yes completely, once?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay. You guys can discuss that after the meeting.

The subamendment is to move from two to five years. Is there any further discussion on that change?

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

The amendment now reads, Madame Boivin, “within five years”.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])