House of Commons Hansard #102 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prostitution.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that it has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: BillS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada).
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, this bill might also have been added to the list of things we could deal with in the week and a half ahead, had it been read by you before my Thursday answer.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a little irritating for those who are watching us and were here for the first part, but not the second part, or vice versa.
I was explaining that this government has aborted this, so to speak, in the sense that the Conservatives have not mentioned the Bedford decision much. They quoted one line from the decision to justify their Bill C-36.
It is important for hon. members in the House to clearly understand what the Supreme Court of Canada said about the three sections in question, those challenged by the claimants and the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal. According to the Supreme Court:
The impugned laws negatively impact security of the person rights of prostitutes and thus engage s. 7…The prohibitions all heighten the risks the applicants face in prostitution—itself a legal activity.
Earlier, I heard one of my colleagues in the House say that she was very pleased to hear that prostitution is now illegal. However, Bill C-36 does not go that far. With all due respect to the Conservatives and some other members, the bill before us does not make prostitution illegal.
The Conservatives left a few little loopholes because they know that this bill may also be a problem. It would be interesting to debate the issue of whether prostitution can be made completely illegal in Canada. I am going to do as the courts and judges would do: I am going to reserve judgment because the question is not before the court. The Supreme Court ruling goes on to say:
They do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes operate. They go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky—but legal—activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risks. That causal connection is not negated by the actions of third-party johns and pimps, or prostitutes’ so-called choice to engage in prostitution. While some prostitutes may fit the description of persons who freely choose (or at one time chose) to engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution, many prostitutes have no meaningful choice but to do so. Moreover, it makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes. The violence of a john does not diminish the role of the state in making a prostitute more vulnerable to that violence.
...compare the rights infringement caused by the law with the objective of the law, not with the law’s effectiveness. That is, they do not look to how well the law achieves its object, or to how much of the population the law benefits [or harms]. 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 [that is the heart of the matter]; a grossly disproportionate, overbroad, or arbitrary effect on one person is sufficient to establish a breach of s. 7. [The test is stringent.]
...the negative impact of the bawdy-house prohibition (s. 210) on the applicants’ security of the person is grossly disproportionate to its objective of preventing public nuisance. The harms to prostitutes identified by the courts below, such as being prevented from working in safer fixed indoor locations and from resorting to safe houses, are grossly disproportionate to the deterrence of community disruption. Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes. Second, the purpose of the living on the avails of prostitution prohibition in s. 212(1)(j) is to target pimps and the parasitic, exploitative conduct in which they engage. The law, however, punishes everyone who lives on the avails of prostitution without distinguishing between those who exploit prostitutes and those who could increase the safety and security of prostitutes, for example, legitimate drivers, managers, or bodyguards.
I was a little worried by some remarks I heard on panels I participated in. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice in particular suggested that, at any rate, a brothel, even though it is kept by people who are consenting, is not a place we want to see, that it is a nuisance and a form of exploitation. That is not quite what the Supreme Court tells us.
It also includes anyone involved in business with a prostitute, such as accountants or receptionists. In these ways, the law includes some conduct that bears no relation to its purpose of preventing the exploitation of prostitutes. The living on the avails provision is consequently overbroad. Third, the purpose of the communicating prohibition...is not to eliminate street prostitution for its own sake, but to take prostitution off the streets and out of public view in order to prevent the nuisances that street prostitution can cause. The provision’s negative impact on the safety and lives of street prostitutes, who are prevented by the communicating prohibition from screening potential clients for intoxication and propensity to violence, is a grossly disproportionate response to the possibility of nuisance caused by street prostitution.
I have often heard that from sex workers. They told us how important it is for them to communicate. As strange as it may seem for those who are not part of that industry and have never even gone anywhere near it, it is important for those women to be able to have a kind of reference system. In some places, they talk to each other in order to make sure that they are not putting their lives in danger.
The law is therefore not minimally impairing. Nor, at the final stage of the s. 1 inquiry, is the law’s effect of preventing prostitutes from taking measures that would increase their safety, and possibly save their lives, outweighed by the law’s positive effect of protecting prostitutes from exploitative relationships. The impugned laws are not saved by s. 1.
Allow me to quote the Supreme Court's most important conclusion. The government always likes to read this sentence and this sentence only: “It will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach…”. Sometimes, it says the rest of the sentence very quickly: “…reflecting different elements of the existing regime”.
In fact, however, the paragraph reads as follows:
Concluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as…
This is the most fundamental point. The Supreme Court of Canada has not told the government that the Minister of Justice can do whatever he likes and that as long as he comes up with something different from what is in the current Criminal Code, it will be fine, that is his perfect right. That is not what the Supreme Court said. It says that it is not precluding the government 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.
As a result, since setting limits on prostitution is a complex and delicate subject, it is up to Parliament to act, should it choose to do so. That is the door that the Supreme Court has left wide open for Parliament. The Criminal Code already includes provisions prohibiting the exploitation of minors. We are going to hear a lot of talk about that from the Conservative benches, since they will want to prohibit that. However, it is already in the Criminal Code. Given that human trafficking is prohibited by the Criminal Code and that it has been recently improved with the bill that my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul introduced, we can refine it all.
The Supreme Court did not necessarily require the government to introduce something in the coming year. However, if it did not do anything, the three sections deemed unconstitutional would die a natural death because they put the health and safety of sex workers in danger.
What did the government do? It took a hammer and started hammering at random, saying that it would make a few changes so that everyone would think it was solving the problem with prostitution. I would have liked to at least feel that the Conservatives took this seriously when the minister talked about $20 million during his press conference.
I remember the discussions I have had with people from the Women's Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution. They told me how important it was. I want to quote Kim Pate, who is a member of the coalition:
Decriminalizing the women and holding accountable the men who buy and sell women and girls means nothing if women's economic, racial and social inequality is not addressed.
The Conservatives are still criminalizing prostitutes and investing a measly $20 million. It is ridiculous.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, that is the most creative speech I have heard on the subject for a very long time. I realize that in 2004 the member opposite was a Liberal and then decided to be an NDP candidate in 2006. She does not keep up with the NDP policy. For instance, the NDP premier and the NDP justice minister in Manitoba have highly endorsed everything. The justice minister asked for criminalizing the purchasers of sex, continuing to criminalize the activities of those who prey upon the victims, and providing meaningful support to the victims. That is everything that we have in Bill C-36.
When I listened to the speech, it brought back to memory Mrs. Emerson from Gatineau. She trafficked three girls and got seven years for doing that. There are a lot of people in the member's area who strongly support Bill C-36. Today, there are a lot of people listening. What about the members of her caucus? I know some of the members of her caucus fully support this bill. Could you talk to me about the challenges that you have in your caucus--
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. I do have to remind the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul not to use the second person, but the third person, to go through the Chair.
The hon. member for Gatineau.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
I appreciate that she opened the door for me to talk about Manitoba's justice minister. She said that my speech was creative, but she should be addressing her compliments to the Supreme Court, since my speech focused on the ruling and I quoted some important passages. She is therefore calling a speech based on the Supreme Court ruling creative, but it was essentially just copying.
I found it rather strange to see a letter from my colleague that said:
“support from Manitoba government”.
It is funny, because I have had conversations about this. In fact, the minister of justice of Manitoba sent a letter on February 5, but it is now June 12. The member tables a letter that states, “We, in Manitoba, support the Nordic model.” When I asked questions this morning, they made a point of saying that it was not a Nordic model, but a made-in-Canada model.
Moreover, I look forward to hearing from Minister Swan of the New Democratic Party of Manitoba. I will let him scoop himself on Bill C-36 because he very clearly said that under no circumstances should prostitutes be criminalized and that ways to get them out of prostitution need to be provided for.
Two things he asked for are not there. I will not say how I would describe using his letter to make members of the House believe things, because I have too much respect for the member.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the justice committee for her speech and for reminding us that this all arose out of the Bedford decision and for reading back to us the portions of the Bedford decision to refocus the discussion.
She indicated in her speech that she has heard from advocates for decriminalization and has heard from advocates for the Nordic model. I am sure she would agree that what we have before us is neither. The made-in-Canada amendments bring what may have been a Nordic model starting point much closer to a made-in-Moscow bill.
Could the hon. member comment on the made-in-Canada sledgehammer that has been added to the Nordic model, and why that offends what the Supreme Court of Canada had to say?
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will respond along the same lines. I am pleased because it gives me an opportunity to say a little more. A 20-minute speech is not long, especially for me. Therefore, the 10-minute question period allows me to expand on what I said.
I agree with him that we are not talking about one approach versus another. After reading Bill C-36, all the groups I met with agree that we need to get women out of drug addiction and poverty, which they do not always get into by choice. Sometimes they cannot help it. That is what we should work on.
All the Canadian groups that I heard agree that the government has really taken the worst route. The official opposition is not alone here. From what I have read, it seems that things did not go well within the Conservative caucus because they also have different opinions.
We have to stop all the posturing and focus on the real problem: the safety of sex workers. That is the message of the Bedford decision. At the same time, we have to work to get women out of poverty. If anyone can tell me with a straight face that he thinks the Conservative government's mission is to get women out of poverty, you will be able to knock me over with a feather.
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 clearly leads to confusion. The Supreme Court was asking that the Criminal Code not make the practice of prostitution more dangerous. It never asked for moral approval of prostitution. I have read the Supreme Court judgment, and it does not ask for moral approval. That is where the confusion lies. This legislation seeks to prohibit the world of prostitution because that is the only way the Conservatives have found to prevent women from being in danger in that world.
The question I want to ask my colleague is relatively simple. Do we really think that the Criminal Code alone is a solution that will put an end to the problem of prostitution?
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.
Anyone with an interest in the matter knows that the answer is no. First, I do not know a lot of abusers who sit down to read the Criminal Code in order to find the penalty to which they are liable. If that were the case, there would be a lot less crime in the world.
We have to focus on what drives people in that direction. Having met groups like Maggie's, Stella and the Pivot Legal Society, I know that some people make this a career choice. Perhaps there will be no agreement on the exact number, but they exist. It is not up to me to tell people what they should do with their lives. However, I want to avoid exploitation and I want to make sure that people who are in the industry run as few risks as possible for their health, their lives and their safety, as the Bedford decision intends.
That is why I find it inconceivable that the government is only investing $20 million. Even though the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul says it is just a first step, the government still needs to demonstrate that it is taking this seriously. That kind of investment clearly shows the government's true intentions. If you look at the bill's preamble and then look at this $20 million, you know exactly what the government is trying to do with prostitution. That is unfortunate.
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons ActGovernment Orders
Mississauga—Erindale Ontario
Conservative
Bob Dechert ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the Bedford decision. She will know that all of the appellants in the Bedford decision said that when they were out on the street, they were beaten up. When they were allowed to carry on the trade inside where they could screen clients and have security, they were much safer.
I wonder if the member heard from Katarina MacLeod, who spoke earlier today at a press conference and described being in sex work for 15 years on the streets. She talked about how she was beaten constantly. She said there is no safe location for prostitution. She also mentioned section 15, which talks about circumstances in which there might be children present. It is a good idea not to communicate for the purposes of prostitution in front of children and not actually do sexual services in front of children.
I wonder if the member could tell us why she thinks balancing the protection of children in our communities is a bad thing.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond quickly.
I hope to study clause 15 more closely than the government has. The minister and the parliamentary secretary are not saying the same thing. It does not bode well for a bill when the justice minister and his parliamentary secretary interpret it differently.
There is also serious danger associated with the inability to advertise services via a third party. People are wondering if they will be prosecuted if information they post on their website goes through an Internet service provider.
If that is the case, what will they do? Will they have to beat their drums or send out smoke signals to advertise their services? That is what will drive them underground and put their lives in danger. That is the main problem.
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons ActGovernment Orders
Mississauga—Erindale Ontario
Conservative
Bob Dechert ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, I will get to that member's point about advertising in just a moment. She has it exactly wrong, as a number of commentators have. I will be happy to explain it to her. I hope she sticks around for my speech.
I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act. This legislation represents the government's response to the Supreme Court of Canada December 2013 Bedford decision.
Before discussing the measures proposed by Bill C-36, it is important to examine the Bedford decision, which has informed Bill C-36 proposals for law reform.
The NDP justice critic mentioned a few moments ago that we had not talked that much about the Bedford decision in relation to our bill, so I am going to do that right now. I hope she has a chance to stay and listen to my speech.
Under the current law, neither the purchase nor sale of sexual services is illegal. Instead, existing criminal offences prohibit activities related to prostitution. In Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada found three of these offences unconstitutional: first, the bawdy house offence with respect to the practice of prostitution under section 210; second, the living off the avails of prostitution offence, which is paragraph 212(1)(j) and third, the offence of communicating in a public place for the purpose of purchasing or selling sexual services, which is paragraph 213(1)(c).
The court suspended the effects of its decision for one year, until December 19, 2014. If there is no legislative response this ruling will result in decriminalization of most adult prostitution-related activities.
The Supreme Court of Canada found that the impugned offences violate section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the security of the persons who sell their own sexual services, by preventing them from taking measures to protect themselves while engaging in a risky but legal activity. Such protective measures include independently selling sexual services from a fixed indoor location, hiring bodyguards and drivers, and negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places.
Specifically, the offences were found to be grossly disproportionate or over-broad with respect to the legislative objectives, which are to combat neighbourhood disruption or disorder and to safeguard public health and safety; to target pimps and the parasitic exploitative conduct in which they engage, which is living off the avails of the offence; and to take prostitution off the streets and out of public view in order to prevent street prostitution nuisances, which is the public communication offence in paragraph 213(1)(c).
The objectives of existing criminal law prostitution provisions as described by the court focus on the nuisance aspects of prostitution, with the exception of the living off the avails provision, which was found to target exploitative conduct. As I mentioned, construing these objectives and these offences narrowly led to findings that they were unconstitutionally over-broad and grossly disproportionate in relation to their objectives.
The Supreme Court of Canada was nonetheless clear that Parliament is not 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 on the constitutional rights of those who sell their own sexual services. That is precisely what Bill C-36 would do. It would criminalize the harmful conduct associated with prostitution while respecting the constitutional rights of all Canadians.
To start, Bill C-36 would make prostitution an illegal activity by criminalizing half of the prostitution transaction. This is done to show that the people who are trapped in this awful trade, largely women, are victims. It is showing compassion toward them.
Whenever prostitution, which involves the purchase and sale of sexual services, takes place, a criminal offence would be committed by the purchaser. This would be the first time in Canadian criminal law that purchasing sexual services from an adult has ever been criminalized.
The preamble in Bill C-36 explains why it is making prostitution illegal. It is a clear statement of the objectives of the Bill C-36 proposals for law reform, clarifying that Parliament sees prostitution as an inherently exploitative activity that always poses a risk of violence. Members of both the Liberal Party and the NDP have said that they agree, that it is exploitative, and that most of the people trapped in this awful trade are being exploited. Prostitution would no longer be viewed as creating merely neighbourhood disruption or disorder or street nuisances.
The preamble explains that prostitution is not only viewed as a form of exploitation of those subjected to it. It also recognizes the social harm caused by the normalization of sex as a commodity to be bought and sold, and it clarifies the importance of protecting human dignity and the equality of all Canadians by discouraging prostitution, which has a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups, including women and children, and especially aboriginal women and girls.
Accordingly, Bill C-36 seeks to denounce and prohibit the demand for prostitution and to continue to denounce and prohibit procuring others for the purposes of prostitution and the development of economic interests in exploiting others through prostitution. We hope these measures, over time, will reduce the incidence of prostitution in Canada and the exploitation of those who are trapped in this business.
It also seeks to denounce and prohibit the commercialization and institutionalization of prostitution, particularly when it occurs in businesses such as strip clubs, massage parlours, and through escort agencies, which is largely the case in my city of Mississauga. Finally, the bill seeks to protect communities from the harms associated with prostitution, including related criminality and the exposure of children to the sale of sex as a commodity. These are robust objectives that go far beyond what the Supreme Court of Canada found were the objectives of the existing criminal offences governing prostitution, thereby fundamentally altering the premise of any future charter analysis.
The new offences would have to be constitutionally analyzed through an entirely new lens, one that sees prostitution as a gendered practice, implicating the equality of women and minorities, one that sees prostitution as a practice that exploits those who sell their own sexual services, and one that sees prostitution as causing both community and social harm.
The Supreme Court of Canada expressed concern that the existing offences prevent the selling of sexual services from fixed indoor locations, which the court found to be the safest way to sell sex. If members read the decision, that is exactly what the three appellants, Bedford, Lebovitch, and Scott, asked for. They had all been in the business. They had all been owners of escort agencies, and they had all said, “When you're out on the street, you get beaten. There's no way to properly protect yourself”, and they asked the court to give them the ability to do it safely indoors.
Notably, Bill C-36 criminalizes purchasing sexual services but not selling sexual services. Furthermore, it immunizes from prosecution those who sell their own sexual services with respect to any part they may play in the new purchasing, material benefit, procuring, and, I will point out for my friend, advertising offences. I would recommend that she take a look at proposed paragraph 286.5(1)(b) contained in Bill C-36, and she will find there a specific exemption for that.
It has been misunderstood by a number of commentators in the media. John Ivison and Andrew Coyne of the National Post and Tim Harper of the Toronto Star, got it wrong. They failed to read that provision of the bill, and therefore, based their articles on the absence of the ability of a sex worker to advertise her own services. I would say that Mr. Harper was corrected subsequently by his own colleague, Tonda MacCharles, in a later article and also on CTV's Question Period. Don Martin of CTV also got it wrong. They just failed to read the bill.
I hope they will be listening today and have a chance to take a look at that provision and perhaps comment on how this bill does not prevent sex workers from properly advertising their services in a safe way. This means that persons who sell their own sexual services cannot be prosecuted when they sell sexual services from a fixed indoor location, whether independently or co-operatively. As long as the only benefit received from selling sexual services co-operatively in one location is the safety of proximity to others and each person receives only the profits from their own prostitution, no offence is committed. This approach comprehensively responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's safety concerns about the ability to sell sexual services indoors.
The Supreme Court of Canada's second major concern was that existing offences prevent those who sell sexual services from hiring bodyguards and others who may enhance their safety, but we all know the risks associated with allowing the development of economic interests in exploiting others through prostitution. Third parties may start out as bodyguards or drivers and then over time become abusive pimps who will stop at nothing to maximize profits by exploiting the prostitution of those who work for them, especially women and children.
Bill C-36 carefully balances the Supreme Court of Canada's safety concerns with the need to ensure that exploitative third parties are criminalized. It achieves this goal by criminalizing receiving a financial or other material benefit that is obtained or derived from the purchasing offence, limiting the scope of the offence through legislated exceptions and ensuring that the exceptions do not apply in exploitative circumstances.
The legislated exceptions ensure that persons who sell their own sexual services have the same ability to interact with others as anyone else. The bill would not criminalize those who legitimately receive material benefits from the prostitution of others.
Specifically, the exceptions clarify that the offence would not apply if the person who receives the benefit is in a legitimate living arrangement with a person who provides sexual services, such as a spouse, child, or roommate; if a person receives the benefit as a result of an obligation owed to them, such as where financial support is provided to a disabled parent or where a gift is purchased with the earnings of prostitution; and also if a person receives the benefit in return for goods or services offered on the same terms and conditions to the general public, such as an accountant, a taxi driver, or a security company that offers goods or services to anyone.
In addition to all of that, there is a specific exemption if a person receives the benefit in return for a service or good that is offered informally, such as babysitting or even protective services, as long as the benefit is proportionate to the value of the good or service the person performed and that they did not counsel or encourage prostitution. In short, an arm's-length relationship is required.
This is in the proposed new paragraph 286.2(4)(d) of the bill. It would provide for the sex workers, who my friend is concerned about, to hire a bodyguard on commercial terms to provide security in that safe place. That is why this bill stands on all four corners with the Bedford decision, in my view.
These exceptions reflect existing case law that carves out exceptions to the current living on the avails of prostitution offence. The legitimate living arrangement and the legal and moral obligation exceptions find their origin in the Ontario Court of Appeal's 1991 Grilo decision, which was cited as an authority on these issues by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Bedford case. The exception related to goods and services offered to the general public originates in a line of cases, starting with the 1962 House of Lords decision in Shaw.
The exceptions respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's concern that existing laws do not permit those who sell their own sexual services to take safety measures, such as hiring bodyguards and drivers. However, as I have said, Bill C-36 would strike a careful balance. The exceptions I have just described would not apply if the person who receives the benefit uses violence, intimidation, or coercion; abuses a position of trust, power, or authority; or provides any intoxicating substances to assist or encourage the other person's prostitution.
As we know, that is very often the case. They find young girls who maybe have run away. There has been a problem at home. They find them, they give them alcohol, they give them drugs, they get them addicted. Then they are their slaves, and they put them out on the street to feed that filthy habit over and over again.
The bill would also criminalize where a person procures another person's prostitution or if the benefit is received in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for sale, such as a strip club, a massage parlour, or an escort agency in which prostitution takes place. We know those types of businesses are often run by criminal organizations, such as gangs and the Mafia. That is the kind of behaviour we want to criminalize. It is not what the women who are exploited are doing, but the people who are actually exploiting them.
This approach would make it very clear that the exceptions to the material benefit offence would not be available if exploitative conduct commonly practised by pimps is involved. Such an approach responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's safety concerns while at the same time providing protection from the exploitation that involvement in prostitution generally always causes.
The Supreme Court of Canada's final concern was that persons who sell their own sexual services be able to take steps to negotiate safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places. Existing laws criminalize all public communications for the purpose of either purchasing or selling sexual services. The Supreme Court of Canada found that this offence prevented those who sell their own sexual services from being able to negotiate safer conditions for their transactions in public places.
On the other hand, Bill C-36 proposes, first, a new offence that would criminalize communicating in any place for the purpose of purchasing sexual services, and second, a separate offence that would criminalize communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services, but—and I have to emphasize this—only in public places where children could reasonably be expected to be present.
Prohibiting all communication associated with the purchasing of sexual services is justified by the new legislative objective of reducing demand for sexual exploitation. In short, purchasing sexual services constitutes exploitative conduct. Attempting to purchase by communicating for that purpose is equally problematic. Prohibiting communication for the purposes of selling sexual services in public places where children can reasonably be expected to be present, on the other hand, in my view strikes a careful, justified, and reasonable balance between the interests of two vulnerable groups: those who are exploited through prostitution, and children who may be exposed to the sale of sex as a commodity and to the dangers associated with prostitution, such as the presence of drugs, pimps, and persons associated with organized crime.
My colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, mentioned earlier that when she was a school teacher, there were pedophiles and pimps who hung around the schoolyard. They would approach young girls and try to entice them either to get in a car with the pedophile or to get into business with the pimp, and that is the kind of thing we are concerned about.
Bill C-36 does not prohibit persons who sell their own sexual services from communicating for that purpose in any public place other than when children could be harmed by exposure to prostitution.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada's Bedford ruling is clear that prostitution offences are intertwined, meaning that the offences impact on one another. Greater latitude in one measure, such as permitting prostitutes to obtain the assistance of security personnel, for example, might impact on the constitutionality of another measure, such as forbidding the nuisances associated with keeping a bawdy house.
The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. I agree with the Supreme Court of Canada's conclusion that regulating prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. Bill C-36 recognizes this complex need by striking careful balances between sometimes competing interests.
In conclusion, the new legislation proposes an entirely new, made-in-Canada response to prostitution. It tackles the demand for prostitution to reduce its prevalence, thereby protecting those who are exploited through prostitution from the risk of violence caused by their involvement in it.
The new purchasing offence, together with modernized prostitution offences criminalizing third-party involvement in the prostitution of others, sends a clear message: prostitution is dangerous and exploitative and harms society itself. No parent would wish to see their children enter the world of abuse and exploitation that constitutes prostitution.
Legislative approaches that view prostitution as an exploitative practice that victimizes those who are subjected to it have recently received growing international support. I note that France's National Assembly passed a bill in December 2013 that would implement such an approach, and I understand that the bill is currently before France's Senate.
Ireland's parliamentary justice committee recommended implementation of this type of approach in June 2013. The European Parliament recently endorsed such an approach in February 2014, and a United Kingdom parliamentary report recommended this type of law reform in March 2014.
Canada is not alone in its concern about prostitution's harms. These harms are real and require concerted effort to address. The government is committed to working with its provincial and territorial colleagues who enforce criminal law toward ensuring that prostitution's harms are not left unchecked.
Enacting Bill C-36 is the first step toward addressing prostitution's harms. Accordingly, I encourage all members of this House to join me in support of it.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of questions, but I will save some for our work in committee.
I am not clear on how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice interprets public places, so I would like him to clarify. For example, does he think that where Bill C-36 refers to an offence committed next to a school, that means only during school hours? Does this clause apply elsewhere in the bill to criminalize sex workers?
I asked the minister that question, but he never gave me an answer. Maybe that is because he does not know the answer. Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice knows. Can he define the expression “sexual services”? What does the bill mean by that?
Also, what about the new Bill C-13, which has just passed another stage without amendment, or rather with just a tiny, inconsequential one, even though we proposed 34 amendments? Could the provisions in Bill C-13, which give more powers to police officers, also apply in this context, with or without a warrant, if a person were advertising sexual services on the Internet? Would the Internet service provider also be guilty of a crime?
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear, and I invite my hon. friend to read the legislation again, that there is a special exception for anyone who performs a service on a commercial basis for people who advertises their sexual services. That would include the Internet service provider and a website designer, so long as they were doing it on a commercial basis and were not exploiting by charging an unreasonably high amount. We know that pimps will charge $250 for the services of a prostitute. The pimp keeps $200 and the prostitute gets $50 or less. That is the kind of exploitative behaviour we are talking about.
On the other question, it is reasonably clear that it is where a person under the age of 18 is reasonably expected to be present. People have to turn their minds to this. When they go out on the street to offer themselves for sexual services to any person who comes along in a car or on foot, they will have to look around to see if there are any children there or consider whether there could be any children there. We have to balance the rights of the sex worker with the rights of children not to become entwined in this terrible practice. We are trying to reduce it, not encourage it. We are not trying to make it easier; we are just trying to make it safer.
I think police officers will use their discretion. Words like “reasonable expectation” are interpreted every day by the police under our Criminal Code, and they are interpreted by the courts. It will become clear very quickly over time as this legislation is enforced.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary accept that there is probably no one more vulnerable than someone under the age of 18 selling sex on the streets? If he accepts that this is the case, then would he also accept that someone who is under the age of 18 would always be in a place where someone under the age of 18 is reasonably expected to be? If he accepts that, then anyone who is under the age of 18 will always be subject to criminal prosecution for communication.
Was it the intention of the Conservatives to pick the most vulnerable people in our society, saying that they were following through on what the Supreme Court wanted them to do by giving them a criminal record?
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Speaker, as with anyone else, we hope it will not be the case that a person under 18 is unfortunately in this trade. We are criminalizing any kind of behaviour that forces people to get into it under the age of 18. Anybody who coerces a person under the age of 18 is guilty of a very serious offence. Any purchasers of the services of a person under 18 would not just get a fine; they would go to jail. They should think twice about trying to pick up that 18-year-old prostitute in the first place.
This would allow officers to take those vulnerable people into protective custody, introduce them to social workers, and get them off the street. We want them safely off the street.
Jim Hillyer Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on the opposition to this on both sides of the spectrum. One side thinks it is not strong enough because it would decriminalize the prostitutes, while the other side thinks it is too strong because it would go so far as to criminalize the purchasers.
In regard to the people who are against decriminalizing the prostitute, if it is the case that the person being prostituted is not a victim and is one of the perhaps 10% of the cases of people who want to be prostitutes and feel fulfilled, would the parliamentary secretary say that since no one is being victimized, there is no need to criminalize them?
On the other hand, if they are being victimized, should it be that they would not be criminalized either, but that the purchasers should be criminalized because they are clearly exploiting someone?
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much debate on the other side about the percentage of people—mainly women, but also some young men and boys—who are in this trade. We know from many studies how exploitive and harmful it is to them. They are often beaten regularly by the pimps. They are made to become addicted to drugs. They are coerced in many other ways. We have to understand that any purchase of that sexual service is driving the demand for exploitive behaviour.
It might be the case one time out of ten. When a customer, a john—and I do not like that term, because I have a lot of good friends named John—goes out to find someone to fill this need, this requirement, he does not know whether the individual is a volunteer or someone being exploited. The important thing to note is that we are changing the law for the first time in Canadian history to criminalize all behaviours that exploit people who are trapped in this awful trade. This includes the purchasers, the pimps, the madams, the mafia that runs the brothel, the aboriginal gangs who traffic women into the business, and the people who traffic women from eastern Europe and other countries around the world. We do not want to see that happen in Canada.
Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify a few things. First, nowhere in this bill did I see anything about the criminalization of prostitutes who are minors. Johns and pimps who exploit minors or adult men or women are criminalized, but prostitutes who are minors are not criminalized. I want to talk about this, but I have not seen it anywhere in here.
The bill talks about criminalization by summary conviction—not indictment—of prostitutes soliciting in public places in general, not just public places where minors might be present.
I think this is the most tenuous part of the bill because if immunity is being offered, it should apply to solicitation in public places as well. However, given that this would be addressed by summary conviction, not indictment, these people will not end up with a criminal record.
Is this a way to bring them into the health care system? That is my question.
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been a great advocate on behalf of the safety of exploited persons for many years. In fact, I think she is the author of a book on that issue.
The member is absolutely right. There is no criminalization of a person under the age of 18 who is in this business. What it seeks to do is criminalize the behaviour of those who would choose to procure people under the age of 18 into this trade and those who would purchase the services of people under the age of 18. We are trying to cut off the demand and supply at the same time, while protecting the community.
The member is right about her description of a summary conviction. Where there is a solicitation in a public place where children are present or could reasonably be expected to be present, that would be nothing more than a fine for the sex worker.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Etobicoke North, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Rail Transportation.
Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I must inform the House I will be sharing my time with my colleague, friend and neighbour, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
In fact, this is legislation to regulate prostitution in our country. I am pleased to rise and speak to this issue because it is something that is of great concern to my riding. Prostitution exists in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. It think it is an important issue and one that is of great concern to many people in my riding. Some of those people have come to talk to me about it over the past few weeks.
To give some background on this, in December, the Supreme Court ruled on the provisions of the Criminal Code that prohibit keeping a common bawdy-house, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.
The Supreme Court found that these provisions were unconstitutional, as follows:
[The current statutes impose] dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky—but legal—activity from taking steps to protect themselves.
Currently, under our Criminal Code, prostitution is legal but there is no help for the prostitutes who engage in this line of work.
I want to address a number of things because the bill is very complex. We want to know what the government is doing to help sex workers. We all wish prostitution did not exist. However, it does exist because there are clients, people who provide their sexual services and people who exploit others for sexual purposes.
Last year, I participated in the study conducted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the bill introduced by my colleague from Ahuntsic. A police inspector from Montreal said something fairly shocking. He said that, in Montreal, you can order a woman like you can order pizza. That is the situation we are currently facing.
As legislators, we must consider why sexual services are so readily available in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and small towns. I think it is mainly because there are customers, but also because the women are very vulnerable. Our government does not help them very much.
Rather than taking an approach that marginalizes extremely vulnerable sex workers, we should be taking practical measures to improve their safety and help them get out of the sex trade, if they so desire.
We do not have statistics on the number of women who truly want to engage in this line of work. Earlier, a Conservative member said it was 10%, but we do not really have any idea what the actual number might be. In order to find out, we would have to allocate significant resources; provide financial support to these women; and offer them education, training and addiction treatment. There are many things we could do to help these women so that they do not get involved in the sex trade. Many women turn to prostitution because of poverty, whereas others do so to support an addiction. That is a fact.
According to the measures announced by the Conservatives in this bill, they are going to allocate $20 million to help women across Canada get out of the sex trade. I think it is a bit of a stretch for the government to say that it will be able to solve this problem and help women with $20 million. The government should be embarrassed about this announcement, which was made just a few weeks ago, on June 4.
That is one of the first things I want to talk about. There is prostitution in Lachine, close to my riding office. I once went up to one of these women to talk to her. As an MP, I believe I should speak to everyone.
This woman told me that she was doing this type of work because she has two children, that it pays more than other work and that, if she could, she would prefer to have another job, so she could have a better life. It is not necessarily a job that she likes, but as a poor, single mother with two children to raise, it is a simple way for her to make money quickly. That is unfortunate.
Our society could have decided to give her a good education, to help her, to provide support for her family and to establish community groups that would help her with workshops to raise her self-esteem. For example, in my riding, the organization La P'tite Maison de Saint-Pierre gives self-esteem workshops to women. That is the kind of community group we can support in order to keep women out of prostitution. When I hear that $20 million will be given out across Canada, I wonder what that will mean for my riding. That is not very much in the way of concrete help for these women. That is really unfortunate.
I would like to delve deeper into the bill and see what it does. The bill will create new offences related to prostitution, namely purchasing sexual services. That means that we are criminalizing the people who buy sexual services. Once again, that is an attack on female prostitutes or young men, because I am told that young men prostitute themselves as well.
Groups that study various models around the world say that criminalizing the purchase of sexual services scares women in some ways. Even though the Conservatives say that selling those services on the street corner will be prohibited, let us not kid ourselves; given the means made available to address the situation, there will still be women on street corners.
Let us assume that a woman is on the street corner and that a client pulls up in his car; obviously, she will not take the time to talk to the man or to look inside his car to make sure that there are no weapons or other items that could be dangerous for her.
Right now, when that happens, women certainly take the time to look inside to see whether there is a rope or something that could harm her or be dangerous for her. Under this bill, she will not do that. Clearly, she will quickly get in the car, which will be more dangerous for her.
In my view, this provision does not help sex workers. Given that this trade does exist, we need to ask ourselves what we can do for the health and safety of these workers. According to the Supreme Court decision, we must work to ensure the safety of these workers. Whether we like it or not, this is a legal activity in our system, and it must be regulated.
The bill makes changes that have to do with receiving a material benefit, advertising sexual services and communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services in a public place where children can “reasonably” be expected to be present. I have a problem with the word “reasonably”. It seems inappropriate.
I want to name some people who support us because this bill does not respond to the Supreme Court's decision.
The NDP calls on the government to refer Bill C-36 to the Supreme Court. It must do more to help prostitutes get out of prostitution, for example, through education, prevention and social housing. All Canadians have the right to work without the threat of violence. This bill does not solve that problem.
Steve Sullivan, the former ombudsman for victims of crime, is one of the people who agrees with us. This very credible man said:
Back in December, everyone seemed to agree on one point: The law shouldn’t criminalize sex workers. This bill will do just that—if they communicate...in public places where a child could reasonably be expected to be present.
Emmett Macfarlane said:
These provisions are not only bad policy, but they undoubtedly raise the same set of concerns the Supreme Court addressed when striking down the old provisions last December.
It is important to understand that we need to send this bill to the Supreme Court so that it can rule on whether we will end up with the same problem. We would then have to wait another year for provisions that truly help women get out of this situation.
No one here can prove to me that the Conservatives are truly helping women in our country. I do not think that this bill is proof of that either.