• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 Ï NUMBER 117 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 41st PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, September 26, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 7881 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, September 26, 2014 The House met at 10 a.m. the objectives of the three impugned prostitution offences narrowly as addressing primarily the nuisance aspect of prostitution rather than its harms. In doing so, it came to the conclusion that the effect of these offences was either grossly disproportionate or overbroad Prayers with respect to its objectives because they prevented sellers of sexual services from taking steps to protect themselves when engaging in a risky but legal activity. Specifically, existing provisions do not GOVERNMENT ORDERS permit selling sexual services from fixed indoor locations, which was found to be the safest way to sell sex; hiring legitimate Ï (1010) bodyguards; or negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual [English] services in public places. PROTECTION OF COMMUNITIES AND EXPLOITED PERSONS ACT Bill C-36 comprehensively responds to these concerns. First, it articulates its new elevated objectives in its preamble. No longer The House resumed from September 22 consideration of Bill would the law focus on addressing the nuisance aspects of C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the prostitution. Bill C-36 is clearly targeted at addressing the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. exploitation involved in the practice and the harms it causes to Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as those involved, to communities and to society at large by normal- reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions izing a practice that targets those who are disadvantaged, including in Group No. 1. because of gender, race, youth, poverty or a history of abuse. Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act. Second, the scope of Bill C-36's proposed new and modernized offences is consistent with its objectives. Bill C-36 primarily targets Bill C-36 would fill the gap created by the Supreme Court of the purchasers, those who fuel the demand for prostitution, and third Canada's decision in the Bedford decision, which would result in the parties, those who capitalize on that demand. Moreover, the decriminalization of most adult prostitution-related activities if Bill proposed purchasing offence would make the prostitution transaction C-36 is not in force before the expiry of the court's one-year illegal. No longer would prostitution be a legal activity. suspension. I know with deep appreciation that the House of Commons justice committee and the Senate Standing Committee on Bill C-36 would also immunize from prosecution those who are Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied the bill during the summer viewed as the vulnerable party to that illegal transaction, the sellers. recess in recognition of the Supreme Court's one-year time limit. Only in certain narrow circumstances would that group be held We have heard numerous criticisms of Bill C-36 from those criminally liable, where their actions harm other vulnerable members people who oppose its approach, an approach that reflects a of society, our children. fundamental paradigm shift toward the treatment of prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation by criminalizing those who fuel the The justice committee narrowed the proposed “communicating demand for prostitution and continuing to criminalize those who offence” to apply only where communications for the purpose of capitalize on that demand. selling sexual services occur in public places that are next to These criticisms include that the bill does not respect the Bedford locations designated for use by children, namely, school grounds, decision, assertion one; that it should be referred to the Supreme playgrounds and daycare centres. The Senate committee heard that Court of Canada for determination of its constitutionality, assertion this narrowed offence clearly delineates the parameters of criminal two; and ultimately that the Bedford decision requires decriminaliza- liability and strikes the right balance between the protection of tion of adult prostitution, assertion three. I propose to address each of sellers and the protection of children who could be drawn into these three assertions in turn. prostitution through exposure to the practice or harmed by dangerous refuse left behind, such as condoms and syringes. Furthermore, Bill With respect to the first assertion, that the bill does not respect the C-36 would not prevent the implementation of certain safety Bedford decision, the Supreme Court of Canada defined in Bedford measures noted in Bedford. 7882 COMMONS DEBATES September 26, 2014 Government Orders Specifically, Bill C-36 would not prevent selling sexual services precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may from a fixed indoor location, hiring legitimate bodyguards or be conducted. negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places, other than in those three child-specific locations I have Those who read Bedford as requiring decriminalization appear to already mentioned. This does not mean that Bill C-36 would have forgotten the premise of the Supreme Court of Canada's facilitate or authorize the sale of sexual services. On the contrary, analysis, that prostitution is currently a legal activity. In that context, just as the bill seeks to reduce the purchase of sexual services, so it the court found that sellers cannot be prevented from implementing also seeks to reduce the sale of those services. While we work safety measures. However, Bedford does not stand for the toward achieving the bill's objectives, those who remain subjected to proposition that prostitution must be recognized as work like any prostitution should not be prevented from taking the measures that other and those involved in the trade, be they sellers, so-called the Supreme Court of Canada found to be the most safety-enhancing. managers, or other third parties. Some witnesses before the two committees found this approach contradictory and therefore constitutionally suspect. I cannot agree. Bill C-36 fundamentally alters the premise on which the Supreme In my view, this approach recognizes the power imbalance that often Court of Canada's constitutional analysis was based. It makes accompanies the prostitution transaction. In too many cases this prostitution illegal because it is too dangerous and poses too great a transaction does not involve two consenting autonomous individuals harm to those involved, the communities in which it is practised, and society at large to entrench it as a form of work recognized by law. Ï (1015) Bill C-36 posits that doing so would increase the sex trade, and concomitantly, increase the risk of vulnerable persons being drawn Asymmetry in the application of the criminal law to the into it. The Bedford case does not preclude such an approach, rather prostitution transaction recognizes that so often prostitution involves it opens the door to it. the purchase of sexual acts by those with money and power from those with little money and less power. In particular, prostitution allows men, who are primarily the purchasers of sexual services, Bill C-36 is a welcome change to the criminal law's approach to paid access to female bodies, thereby demeaning and degrading the prostitution. It recognizes that entrenching prostitution as a human dignity of all women and girls by entrenching a clearly legitimate profession by facilitating it through decriminalization gendered practice in Canadian society. would result in more vulnerable persons being drawn into it. I do not think this is the type of society to which we should aspire. This brings me to the second assertion, that Bill C-36 should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for constitutional analysis. I I implore my fellow parliamentarians to stand with those who stress that the Bedford case constitutes a constitutional analysis on have been subjected to prostitution by force or through lack of these very issues and I have just referred to the many ways in which meaningful options, some of whom courageously testified before the the decision influenced the development of the bill. Moreover, we two committees and were silenced by prostitution's oppression. I ask have heard academics tell the two committees that constitutional all members to stand with me in support of the bill, which was cases need a solid evidentiary foundation as to the effects of the specifically developed to protect vulnerable persons from oppres- legislation. The evidence adduced in Bedford does not provide that sion. record in respect to Bill C-36, which has different objectives and proposes new prostitution offences. In short, it would be premature Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for its constitutional analysis at Speaker, this is certainly a subject that has captured the interest of this stage. many people across Canada. I remember near the end of the summer having a number of ladies visit me in my office and urge me to I note, however, that the Minister of Justice tabled a technical support the bill. They are very concerned about the protection, paper with both parliamentary committees that summarizes the especially of women and girls. evidence relied upon in the development of Bill C-36. The technical paper is also available on the department's website. One of the things that many constituents have also suggested is The third assertion is that Bedford requires decriminalization. that we should just legalize it and that would end the problem. I was There are those who claim that Bedford stands for the proposition wondering if my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, could give that the law must allow the purchase and sale of sexual services in some feedback from other jurisdictions that have used various fixed indoor locations; the employment of bodyguards, receptionists models.

Load more

  94

Copy Link