JUST Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 9:30 a.m. this day, in Room 237-C, Centre Block, the Chair, Mike Wallace, presiding.

Françoise Boivin moved, — That the Committee suspend the clause-by-clause study and recommend to the government 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 sent to the Supreme Court, pursuant to Section 53(1) of the Supreme Court Act.

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the motion and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

The witnesses answered questions.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the Preamble and Clause 1, Short Title, were postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

Clause 2 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 3 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 4 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 5 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 6 carried on division.

Clause 7 carried on division.

On Clause 8,

“171 or 279.011 or subsection 279.02(2), 279.03(2), 286.1(2), 286.2(2) or 286.3(2);”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Bob Dechert and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 8, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 9,

“171 or 279.011 or subsection 279.02(2), 279.03(2), 286.1(2), 286.2(2) or 286.3(2);”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Bob Dechert and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 9, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 10,

“163.1, 170, 171 or 279.011 or subsection 279.02(2), 279.03(2), 286.1(2), 286.2(2) or 286.3(2) with respect to another”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Bob Dechert and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 10, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 11 carried on division.

On Clause 12,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Maria Mourani for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-36, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 7 the following:

“(3) Subsection 197(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“prostitution“ means an act by which a person provides or obtains sexual services for consideration;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.

After debate, Clause 12 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 13 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 14 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 15,

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to delete Clause 15.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 768:

“An amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order, since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect.”

Parliamentary practice does not permit to be done indirectly what cannot be done directly. The amendment is therefore inadmissible.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

At 10:45 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 11:07 a.m., the sitting resumed.

“open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Bob Dechert and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 15, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

On new Clause 15.1,

“15.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 213:

213.1 (1) The Minister of Justice must, at the end of each year, prepare a report that includes

(a) a general summary of the impact of the Act on the health and safety of those who engage in prostitution;

(b) statistics on prostitution in Canada; and

(c) details on the funding provided by the federal government for prostitution exit programs and programs in support of the health and safety of those engaging in prostitution.

(2) The Minister must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on or before March 31 following the end of the year or, if a House is not sitting, on any of the next 15 days that it is sitting after that date.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 16 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 17 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 1.

After debate, Clause 18 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 19 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.

On Clause 20,

“286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, while committing an offence under section 266, 267, 271, 272, 279, 279.01 or 279.011”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

At 12:03 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 12:45 p.m., the sitting resumed.

“(i) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and

(ii) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Maria Mourani for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-36, in Clause 20, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 12 with the following:

“(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsection (1) does not apply to a person who receives”

(b) by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 13 with the following:

“who commits an offence under subsection (1) if that person”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.

“(e) in consideration for a service or good that relates to the protection of the health or safety of the person providing sexual services.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 20 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

Clause 21 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.

Clause 22 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 23,

“(c.03) an offence under any of paragraphs 212(1)(a) to (h) (procuring) of this Act, as they read from time to time before the day on which this paragraph comes into force,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Bob Dechert and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 23, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 24 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 25 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 26 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 27 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 28 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 29 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 30 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 31 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 32 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 33 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

On new Clause 33.1,

“TRANSITIONAL PROVISION

33.1 For the purposes of the Criminal Records Act, the record of a person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection 213(1) of the Criminal Code for stopping or attempting to stop any person or in any manner communicating or attempting to communicate with any person, for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, is, in respect of that offence, suspended.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 34 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 35 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 36 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 37 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 38 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 39 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 40 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 41 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 42 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 43 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 44 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 45 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

On new Clause 45.1,

“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.”

Bob Dechert moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “two” with the word “five”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Bob Dechert and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

The question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 46 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.

Clause 47 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 48,

“this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Bob Dechert and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 48, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 49 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

On Preamble,

(a) by adding before line 1 on page 1 the following:

“Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford that certain provisions of the Criminal Code have a grossly disproportionate effect on persons who engage in prostitution by putting their health and safety at risk and making them more vulnerable to violence;”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 1 on page 2 with the following:

“Whereas the Parliament of Canada is”

(c) by adding after line 3 on page 2 the following:

“Whereas the Parliament of Canada acknowledges the fundamental importance of addressing poverty, housing conditions, health-care needs and other socio-economic issues impacting women who enter prostitution without a meaningful choice;

Whereas all Canadians deserve to be governed by laws that protect their health and safety and prevent exploitation;

And whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence against women in Canada remains a serious issue that needs to be addressed through concerted government action;”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble, which are not reflected in the body of the Bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 770:

“In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the proposed amendment is substantive and is therefore inadmissible.

Whereupon, Françoise Boivin appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

(a) by adding before line 1 on page 1 the following:

“Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford that certain provisions of the Criminal Code have a grossly disproportionate effect on persons who engage in prostitution by putting their health and safety at risk and making them more vulnerable to violence;”

by replacing, in the English version, line 1 on page 2 with the following:

“Whereas the Parliament of Canada is”

(c) by adding after line 3 on page 2 the following:

“Whereas all Canadians deserve to be governed by laws that protect their health and safety and prevent exploitation;

And whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence against women in Canada remains a serious issue that needs to be addressed through concerted government action;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Françoise Boivin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Maria Mourani for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-36, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 1 with the following:

“discouraging prostitution, which is unlawful and has a dispro-”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble, which are not reflected in the body in the body of the Bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 770:

“In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the proposed amendment is substantive and is therefore inadmissible.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Maria Mourani for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-36, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 1 the following:

“Whereas it is important to denounce and prohibit prostitution;”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble, which are not reflected in the body in the body of the Bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 770:

“In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the proposed amendment is substantive and is therefore inadmissible.

The Preamble carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.

The Bill, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-36, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 2:05 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.