Evidence of meeting #113 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:46 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'll go first.
I feel strongly that this ought to be removed. I spoke about the general issue of vagrancy and about the nature of the disproportionate impact of these offences in other contexts. I had a little research done, Chair, and I found out, using good old Quicklaw, that there have been only two cases in the past 30 years on this section.
It struck me that it's not exactly serving an important social purpose anyway. In addition to all the points that I suspect Mr. Boissonnault will raise, it doesn't make any sense to keep it, so I am very anxious to have this removed from the code.
6:46 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Mr. Rankin's assessment.
As we heard, vagrancy is a broad, ill-defined offence. It has historically been used, not just against sex workers but to police people's gender identity or sexual preferences. This provision would have been used against people wearing the wrong clothes or for the length of their hair.
It's also important to note that in 1994, in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Heywood, this was declared unconstitutional and contrary to the charter. For those reasons and for historical injustice reasons connected with the LGBTQ community, I will be moving this LIB-3.
6:46 p.m.
Liberal
6:46 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Fantastic.
Mr. Boissonnault, do you want to have a recorded vote?
6:46 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Perfect.
I think we all consider this, again, an important step forward in terms of equality for the LGBTQ+ community, and I think a recorded vote is a good idea.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I want to congratulate the committee on a great step forward. That means that we can then vote on clause 62 as amended, which is now the section being repealed.
(Clause 62 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 63)
Now we move to clause 63 with CPC-32.
Mr. Cooper.
6:46 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Chair.
This is another amendment related to the reclassification. This would maintain the offence of common nuisance as an indictable offence.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much. Is there any other discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 63 agreed to)
(Clause 64 agreed to)
(On clause 65)
On clause 65, we move to CPC-33.
Mr. Clement.
6:50 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
This clause deals with those who have a duty imposed on them by law to bury a human dead body or human remains and who neglect without lawful excuse to do so.
I would put it to you that it is a serious offence that should remain indictable only.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much. Does anyone else want to intervene on that one?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 65 agreed to)
Next we get to amendment LIB-4, which repeals the definition of an offence in section 183 of the code. With LIB-4, for the first time we're repealing a clause that references sections 210 and 211 of the code, the bawdy house laws.
As a result, in order to deal with amendment LIB-4, we would need to go to the primary amendment, which is LIB-6 on page 103. The same vote on LIB-6 would apply to LIB-4, LIB-5, LIB-8, LIB-10, LIB-16 and LIB-40, which are all referencing sections of the code and which then remove sections 210 and 211.
As a result, we will go to amendment LIB-6, because that is the actual repeal of the bawdy house laws, which is identical to amendment X-49. The committee's X-49 and LIB-6 are identical. We also need to mention that there's a Green Party amendment, PV-7, which is partially identical but not completely, because it repeals only section 210 and not section 211.
Given the more complete nature of sections 210 and 211 and the identical nature of amendments X-49 and LIB-6, I would go to those first. They were received first anyway.
Mr. Boissonnault, and then Mr. Rankin, I'm sure you guys want to speak on that. Mr. Boissonnault, I'll put you first this time.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to talk about amendments LIB-4 and LIB-6 at the same time. These are the bawdy house provisions. We've heard from representatives of the LGBTQ2 community and we've heard testimony here at this committee. It's a substantive change to this bill and to the legislation before us, removing the offences contained in sections 210 and 211, so it's important for us to put a fine point on this that we had mostly men, but not exclusively men, who were criminalized for same-sex consensual behaviour because of where it took place.
It's our belief that this is an important offence that needs to be removed from the Criminal Code. The Prime Minister also made reference to this in his historic apology to the LGBTQ community. This does affect many sections of the bill. We think it's the right thing to do, and for that reason I will be putting forward all of these Liberal amendments.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Amendment LIB-6 would, consequentially, lead to all of those others then being adopted, because it would move that section out of the code.
Mr. Rankin.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I would just like to support strongly what Mr. Boissonnault said. I was very moved by the testimony of Gary Kinsman and the others, the gay and lesbian historians who testified here, and Mr. Ron Rosenes, who talked about his personal experience with this and how it has affected his life. I found it very moving.
I held a press conference with them on this topic and promised them that I would be supporting this and speaking in favour of it. I think this is truly a historic moment, and I'm delighted the committee is moving, apparently, in this direction.
6:55 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
I have a question for the mover, Mr. Boissonnault. Is the issue how this section was historically used or is it the nature of the section itself?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
It's both. It's the historical application of bawdy house provisions and the fact that.... There are other provisions in the code that could account for any time there would be any sort of non-consensual sex that would take place in what used to be known as a bawdy house. It is our belief that the Criminal Code has sufficient coverage in other sections of the code, that repealing this does not leave any gaps in the code, and that it also addresses the historic issue that we heard about from witnesses at this committee.
6:55 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
My specific concern is gaps in the code. I will ask those at the table whether or not they affirm what Mr. Boissonnault is saying.
6:55 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I think our analysis of this motion would suggest that other offences would continue to apply, addressing conduct still deserving of criminal sanction. What the provisions focus on now is being found in a place where indecent acts occur.
Again, following the Labaye decision, what that means is fairly circumscribed. More recently, the offences were primarily used to target prostitution activities. Following the Bedford decision and legislation introduced and enacted subsequent to that, the provisions no longer relate to those activities.
6:55 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
We're mostly concerned about exploitation of other people in a place.
6:55 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
We certainly still have a number of offences that would address that conduct, whether it's sexual exploitation of a minor, human-trafficking offences or offences related to the selling of sexual services.
6:55 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
Okay, thank you. I think we can support this motion.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
Colleagues, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to say one small thing, because I was also very moved by the testimony of Mr. Rosenes, Mr. Kinsman and Mr. Hooper from the gay and lesbian historians' association.
I think this is a moment the committee can really take pride in, because once this is removed from the code, we are essentially allowing people to apply for expungement, after further action is taken, to allow them, while they're still alive and can still enjoy it, to know that they were vindicated, that they were unjustly convicted, both for the people whose convictions will be expunged but also other people who were picked up, who were entrapped.
It was a very sad and sorry part of Canadian history. I'm really glad this committee is doing its part, all three parties, to seek to remove that horrible gap in our history.
Mr. Boissonnault.