Wayne Easter

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I work with this particular member on the public safety and national security committee, and I will admit that over time I have begun to realize that we do share many of the same concerns.

He is absolutely right in this case. I do not know if the Department of Justice or the ministers or the government backbenchers on the other side just did not allow themselves to meet with people who are in the sex trade because they are opposed to it—and it is acceptable to be opposed to it, for sure—but these individuals in the sex trade are fearful of what this bill would do. It would drive prostitution, the sex trade, underground, make it much more risky for those individuals involved, and certainly risk their public safety.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I outlined the government's attempt to push forward Bill C-36 on the basis of optics rather than the reality of the world.

I outlined as well the fact that the government has failed to listen to evidence provided at committee on the safety and security of those involved in the sex trade, and on the constitutionality of the bill. I feel the new law will end up where the old law did, and that is, it will likely be tossed out.

Let me quote what a couple of other people said.

John Ivison wrote in the National Post that the member for Central Nova's role:

—as Attorney General of Canada requires him to be the guardian of the rule of law. He is mandated to protect the personal liberties of Canadians and advise Cabinet to ensure its actions are legal and constitutional.

By introducing a new law on prostitution that is all but certain to be struck down by the courts, he has failed on all counts....

This bill is likely to make life even more unsafe for many prostitutes. If they can’t advertise their services to persuade the johns to come to them, many more are likely to take to the streets in search of business.

What he is speaking to is the safety and security of citizens. We cannot judge morally, but the fact of the matter is that it is responsibility of government to protect the safety and security of individuals. This bill does not do that. It makes it worse.

The other statement is by Michael Den Tandt for Postmedia News. He said:

Because C-36, in its effect, will be no different than the laws it is intended to replace, it is bound to wind up back at the Supreme Court – where it will quite likely be tossed, just as the old laws were tossed. So, why bring it forward?

He went on to say:

Calculated for political gain it may be; that doesn’t make it right. Until it is overturned, C-36 can only put prostitutes at greater risk. It is irrational, misguided and recidivist social policy, in a country that has gotten used to better.

There are several other quotes that came up at committee. I would refer members and Canadians to look at some of the statements made at committee with respect to the constitutionality of this legislation. There was an analysis provided at the committee on constitutional concerns. Individuals should look at that.

This law is not doing what it should do. It is very problematic. I ask the government to reconsider it. Let us just do it right.

[Canadian Wheat Board, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has never been as closed, secretive, and non-transparent as it is today. There is no data in the annual report, no financial statements, and no examination by the Auditor General. This agency, concocted and directed by the government, is playing with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and, worse still, hundreds of millions of dollars in assets originally taken from western Canadian farmers.

What about public disclosure and public accountability? Will the government guarantee that farmers' money and assets will not be sold off in secret?

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks, my gosh, would it not be great if we could just legislate love, friendliness, and so on? However, we cannot just pass a bill and then things happen out there. There is a real world.

Anyway, the subject at hand is Bill C-36, and I want to touch on the first three key points in the summary:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,(a) create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose;(b) create an offence...

—subject to several exceptions—

...that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a);(c) create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale and to authorize the courts to order the seizure of materials containing such advertisements and their removal from the Internet....

Then there are several other sections, but I wanted to mention that to be sure that we understand where we are.

By way of background, it is critical to reference the now-famous Bedford case. This case is the reason we are here today.

The Criminal Code outlawed communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution, living on the avails of prostitution, and operating a brothel.

In a landmark case, a group of sex workers brought forth a charter challenge arguing that those three aforementioned provisions of the Criminal Code put, in the view of sex workers, their safety and security at risk, thereby violating their charter rights.

In its landmark decision last December, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with those sex workers and consequently struck down those three Criminal Code provisions, determining that they violated section 7 of the charter, which protects “life, liberty and security of the person”.

The Supreme Court suspended that ruling from coming into force for a period of one year in order to give Parliament the opportunity to enact new legislation if it chose to do so, and this past June, the Attorney General introduced this bill, Bill C-36.

I want to spell something out in the beginning. It has never happened before, I am sure, but there is some confusion over the Liberal position, so let me be clear: we do not favour the legalization of prostitution.

My colleague, the member for Charlottetown, made it clear that the government will do basically what it will because it controls the majority in both the House and the Senate. All of us in this place know that is what happens. We have seen at the committee hearings that the government seems to be taking the position of going full speed ahead on the optics rather than on the detail of what this new law may or may not do.

I believe what we have before us today will actually put the new law in the same place as the old law: because the government would not refer it to the Supreme Court, it will eventually be challenged and go there, and again we will be back here, in another Parliament at another date, trying to pass a law on this subject again.

There has been a fair bit of discussion on this issue. I have had many people in my office talking about their concerns, including sex workers and those who represent sex workers. The constituents in my riding are certainly on both sides of the issue. Some think the government's proposal is not bad and others think it is absolutely terrible. However, I can certainly say that sex workers who are in the business, some of them by desire and some not, are extremely afraid where the bill leaves them, and that is afraid for their safety and security.

In my view, the government did not do the in-depth consultations necessary in the beginning. It consulted, as it usually does, with those who tend to agree with its approach to criminal justice.

I have gone through some of the committee minutes. Based on what we have before us today, the government also did not listen to the witnesses who appeared before the committee, because we have virtually the same bill that went to committee. There were a lot of good suggestions coming out of the committee, and none of them were really listened to.

It is a little off track, but I had the opportunity this summer to attend a number of Canada-U.S. meetings with the Council of State Governments Justice Center. What I find remarkable about some of the states is that they are taking a different approach to justice. I would like to read one section from one of its papers. The paper is called “Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs Through Justice Reinvestment”, and it applies to our approach to criminal justice in Canada. This is what it says:

A number of these states have responded with “justice reinvestment” strategies to reduce corrections costs, revise sentencing policies, and increase public safety. Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach that ensures that policymaking is based on a comprehensive analysis of criminal justice data and the latest research about what works to reduce crime....

The reason I read that is because this bill is going in the opposite direction. It is based on optics, not detail.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to stand up for question period, so I will finish later.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I shake my head at the member's comments. He talks about the fact that this does not criminalized those individuals who are involved in the sex trade, and that is true. However, the end result of this legislation would certainly put their safety and security at extreme risk. This is the reality.

The Minister of Justice, when he was announcing the bill, said something along the lines of “prostitution ends here”. Are the Conservatives dreaming in Technicolor? This legislation would drive the trade underground and put at risk the safety and security of those individuals. The government has failed to look at that point.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do think the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound outlined a number of the positive aspects for the agriculture community in the agreement, and that is good.

He said in his remarks that our beef and hog producers have been disadvantaged since the U.S. signed its agreement with South Korea, and that is true. To put that into perspective, I have to ask where the government has been and why it has taken so long to negotiate this agreement. The talks were initiated in 2004, and we have seen the Americans start to displace us in the market.

I worked with the member when he was chair of the agriculture committee and was at a meeting where Secretary Vilsack was speaking. It really bothered me that he stood in front of the hall and bragged to the Americans about how they were displacing Canadian beef in the South Korean market. Therefore, it is a good thing that the agreement is signed.

I think it is critical that the House and the place down the hall get this done before January 1, because on January 1, if this implementation agreement is not passed here and in South Korea, we will fall another 2.5% tariff behind, which would really disadvantage our beef producers.

Therefore, I ask the member opposite this. Does he have any ideas on how we can be absolutely sure that the implementation agreement gets signed in both countries by January 1? That is the critical point now.

[Privilege, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Acadie—Bathurst certainly brought up a very serious point of privilege for us all. I am in a unique situation. I saw all the buses and cars lined up and I just kept on walking. I walked across the street in front of the Confederation Building and got in. However, I have heard quite a number of complaints from my colleagues who happened to be on the buses and were stopped, and I take at his word what the member for Acadie—Bathurst said and what the police officer said to him.

Certainly it is extremely important. This is our place of work. It is our precinct, and our privileges should not be denied for really any reason.

I am going to make it very clear, and I believe the member of the governing party made it reasonably clear, that we are not blaming either the Ottawa police or the RCMP. They were in a situation of probably not knowing. However, there was the president of the Federal Republic of Germany. I saw that convoy go down, about 10 cars, as I was coming up the hill, and from a policing and security perspective, from their point of view and probably not knowing us as individuals, they had to be concerned as well.

There was a failure somewhere in the system here, and there is another possibility, as I believe the leader of the Green Party mentioned in a blog. Is it always necessary that the heads of countries come to Parliament, or sometimes should they be going to Rideau Hall? That is an interesting angle that may need to be considered as well.

However, I just want to say that the member has a serious and legitimate point of privilege. Things happened here that should not have happened. I am certainly saying that I understand the policing point of view from a security aspect, that the police officers have their orders and concerns as well, so we have to look at that angle, but this should not happen again.

[International Trade, September 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, finally but long overdue, the government signed an agreement with South Korea, such that we have implementation legislation before the House.

However, the government's tardiness in getting to this point has cost the beef and hog industry countless millions of dollars, allowing the United States to displace us in that important market. If it is not implemented by January 1, the government stands to give our competitors a further 2.5% tariff advantage.

Will the minister act with urgency and assure the industry that this will be implemented by the January 1 deadline?

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the new member to this chamber from Toronto speaking on an employment insurance program that I believe is so important to the country in terms of the economy and certainly important in my region of Atlantic Canada. He mentioned the word “partnership”. That is a key word because I imagine that prior to the member's coming here, he probably thought that if we had a sensible debate on issues in this chamber that is called the House of Commons and good ideas put forth, criticism and debate, that each member in his or her own right could and would stand and vote.

Does the member see this as an opportunity where the government has a program for which it is clearly well known now that it is not going to do what it is intended to do? The Liberal plan put forward by the finance critic for the Liberal Party will in fact. There will only be reductions made in premium costs if a job is created, so it is a sensible proposal that could help the economy and create jobs. Is that not an opportunity for the House of Commons and members in the House to show Canadians that this place can actually work by supporting the motion?

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should not be surprised by the NDP's position. It is now talking about early learning and child care. It is the party most responsible for killing the program that we had in place in the 1995 budget. It was actually implemented.

My colleague talked about employment insurance and the situation of workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are certainly facing the same thing in Prince Edward Island, with the loss of the five-week pilot program and the 50% clawback on the dollar.

I will give an example of what happened in my riding.

I had a potato producer who was paying $16 an hour to an employee that had been with him for 17 years. The 50¢ clawback on the dollar really means that the employee only gets about $6 an hour for that day and a half a week that he works every year from November to April. He is no longer there for the farmer in the seasonal industry in the summertime.

Is that the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the member's riding? Have the changes that the government has made to employment insurance become a disincentive to work and taken a lot of money out of people's pockets?