Bill C-36 (Historical)

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

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

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 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;
(d) modernize the offence that prohibits the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution;
(e) create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre;
(f) ensure consistency between prostitution offences and the existing human trafficking offences; and
(g) specify that, for the purposes of certain offences, a weapon includes any thing used, designed to be use or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very important input into Bill C-36. I quite enjoy the heart she shows for victims. However, I totally reject the premise of her comment that Bill S-7 would criminalize victims. It would protect women.

That young girl, after talking to her sister who she was close to, jumped off a bridge as a result of a forced marriage. Her sister told me that there had to be a bill put in place that would protect her against having to succumb to a forced marriage.

This bill would protect women. Therefore, I strongly disagree with the premise of the question that the hon. member across the way put forward a minute ago. The bill would protect the victims from terrible abuse, intimidation and a lifetime of horrendous brutal experiences.

Bill S-7 would open the door for these women, and it is high time we did this in our country.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague’s speech. I know that women’s rights are very important to her. We worked together on Bill C-36 concerning prostitution. There was a provision in that bill that unfortunately criminalized the victims, the women. The government proposed an amendment precisely because criminalizing victims as an objective will never put an end to any criminal activity. In fact, she supported that amendment.

However, what struck me is that Bill S-7 does exactly the same thing. It criminalizes these women, who are themselves victims of an unacceptable practice. I would like to know why the government was not prepared to reverse the trend, in this bill, and remove the provisions that criminalize the victims.

We know it, and my colleague knows it: criminalizing victims does not prevent offences from being committed.

Members not seeking re-election to the 42nd Parliament

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure tonight to give my farewell speech here in the beautiful Parliament of Canada. These past 11 years have been a very interesting time here in Canada.

I have to thank first of all my beautiful family. My son Edward actually inspired me to come to Parliament because of his work in the ICE unit, because of his heart for those who could not help themselves, the trafficking victims and the child abuse cases he worked on. As my son, he turned my heart as a mother and subsequently the nation's heart was turned, because in this place I was able to come and represent the survivors of human trafficking. I thank my son Michael, who is a brilliant young man; Janet who is a top supporter of everything that I have done; Natasha, who is absolutely creative and brilliant; Alexandra, of course, who does so much on my foundation and who is truly a wonderfully caring human being; and Jenna. Those are my six children, and there are my grandchildren.

I am eternally grateful to my family for supporting everything I have done since I came to Parliament Hill. Of course, I thank my husband. He has suffered cancer through a large part of my stay here over the 11 years. I thank him for believing in my work and inspiring me to carry on.

Also, I thank my EDA who supported me in everything I have done, especially John Feldsted and Kaz Malkiewicz. John Feldsted was the president of my EDA for three years and continues to do much to further the cause of the political side of what I do.

I thank all the people across the country for their prayers as I did my work to bring laws to this place to combat human trafficking. Those prayers mean a lot because first in my life is my God. He is my strength. Second is my family, and everything else comes underneath that.

There are three people who I have to recognize as well: Brian McConaghy of Ratanak, who is my brother in terms of fighting human trafficking here in Canada and worldwide; Jamie McIntosh, who started International Justice Mission; and Benjamin Perrin, who started The Future Group. It is like the group of three. These people have always been with me through the many years, even before I came to Parliament and certainly during the time that I spent here.

Most of all, I would like to thank the survivors of human trafficking. When I came here I had a vision to stop human trafficking. I had a vision to get laws through to protect the victims of human trafficking. I did put two laws through that made Canadian history, thanks to the grace of God. They are survivors like Timea Nagy, Natasha Falle, Bridget Perrier, Trisha Baptie, just to name a few. They are absolutely amazing young women.

Around this place, to my colleagues in the Conservative caucus and my colleagues across the way, there have been real friendships welded together because of the common good. I believe everyone in the House has the good of the country at heart.

There is a man who sat in our lobby for years, John Holtby. He was such an encouragement to me. He was a brilliant man who cared very deeply about the issues and about my work.

There is a young lady, Kelly Williams, who worked with me, and on me as a matter of fact, when I was chair of the health committee. She did a lot of work around the committees.

Of course, there are the security people, the restaurant people, the pages and all who make Parliament work.

When I stop to look back at why I came here, for me, I came to stop human trafficking in our country. If it was not for the survivors who use their bravery to speak out, if it was not for ministers, like the Minister of Justice, and others, I would never have been able to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish.

When I think about the leaders in this Parliament, I know there have been many who have been very strongly affected by the human trafficking issue here in our country and who stood up in this Parliament to protect the most vulnerable. I thank them for that.

I thank Susan Finlay, my prayer partner. She has been my prayer partner for years, and she has always been with me. In my down times and triumphant times, she was always there.

This Parliament is a place where we change the laws of the land. There are very talented decision makers in this place, and often we do not see the small things that are there. To me, especially, the small things but very important things and people are the people like my staff.

Joel Oosterman, my chief of staff, and his wife Kristy have been with me for a very long time. I love them like family. Marian Jaworski, who runs my constituency office, is just an amazing person. I have to say that those are the people who saw the vision with me and who helped me. Joel is one of the most talented writers I have ever come across. If anyone needs anything, even a kidney, ask Marian. He will find it. He is that kind of staff member. He is just an incredibly honest man who stands above many.

All these people come together for such a time as this, to stop human trafficking here in Canada. God rest her soul, my mother always said that we should leave the world a better place and I hope that, because I have been here, that has occurred.

I have to say that there are many laws we have here, such as Bill C-268, regarding mandatory minimum sentences for traffickers of children age 18 years and under. There is Bill C-310, where we reached the long arm of Canadian law into other countries when Canadian citizens or permanent residents go to traffic or exploit others. We can now bring them back to Canada.

My heart started to really look to leaving this place on December 6, 2014. On that day, we passed Bill C-36, on which I worked with the Minister of Justice. For the first time in Canadian history, the buying of sex is illegal in this country. Now, we are at a point where we can press the button and have a new start. At that point in my career, I knew I had to leave this place.

I knew I had to do something else, so I am working on my foundation, the Joy Smith Foundation. I will continue to do that, I believe, until the end of time. The foundation is going very well. I have had hundreds of lovely letters from around the country from victims who have said thanks and that the foundation has helped them to restart their lives. What could be better than that?

I have a book coming out before Christmas, called I Just Didn't Know. All of the proceeds will be going to my foundation. I really hope the book touches the hearts of Canadians and people across the country who read it, because it has real life stories in it. Brave survivors have agreed to tell their stories, put their pictures in it, and explain how traffickers are able to lure young people.

It is my very great honour to have served and to continue to serve my country in this great place, the Parliament of Canada. It is rare to have the privilege of doing that and it is rare to have met all of the people in my caucus who I call friends and who are astoundingly strong leaders and decision-makers in this country.

I thank God for the opportunity that I had here, and I look forward to rekindling and keeping those friendships along the way as I go on to my other career.

Motions in Amendment

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the parliamentary secretary that yesterday, when he had the opportunity to rise in the House to vote in favour of our motion to end violence against women, he sadly decided to vote against it.

I understand his speech, but I think it is a bit rich of him to point his finger at the NDP, which moved the motion his own government voted against. The biggest problem here is that while we are talking about victims, we are also making criminals of them.

The Conservatives did the same thing with Bill C-36 concerning prostitution. They said that women who worked as prostitutes were victims, but they forgot that their bill turned them into criminals. Then they proposed an amendment to their bill, but it still made criminals of the victims in certain circumstances.

They are doing the same thing today: they are making criminals of the people they say are victims. That does not work, and all the experts agree.

What facts or scientific studies do they have to show that making victims into criminals will improve the situation?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Minister, last summer you articulated the government's response to the Bedford decision, both to this committee and Parliament, and throughout Canada. The result of those efforts, and the passage of Bill C-36, was a built-in-Canada model, which was widely applauded by law enforcement agencies across the country, and I might add by the York Regional Police service in the region that I live in. With this bill, our government demonstrated our support and compassion for the women who are trying to get out of prostitution to stop this circle of violence in their lives.

Minister, the passage of Bill C-36 was coupled with a funding commitment to help those who are trying to leave the practice. In these estimates, there is an increase of $1.9 million in support of non-legislative measures to address prostitution. Could you talk a bit about this funding commitment, please?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues. It's a pleasure to be before you to discuss, as noted by the chair, the main estimates for the Department of Justice.

This is my 56th appearance before a standing committee as a government minister. Joining me today are the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general, William Pentney; the associate deputy minister, Pierre Legault; and senior assistant deputy minister of policy, Donald Piragoff; all of whom have extensive experience before committees as well and certainly within this department.

Mr. Chair and colleagues, in my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I'm responsible for ensuring that our justice system remains fair, relevant, and accessible to Canadians. It also involves, of course, overseeing a significant budget, with an eye to fiscal prudence and respect for taxpayers.

The Government of Canada introduced measures in connection with several criminal justice priorities. Our objective is to to make our streets and communities safer, and ensure that our justice system continues to bolster the safety of Canadians through our criminal justice laws, policies and programs.

Among them, Mr. Chair, we are pleased to announce that the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act has come into force. This law takes effect very soon and deals specifically with law enforcement online. This is a bill with which you and members of this committee are very familiar. I thank you for your work in this regard.

We've seen increased activity with regard to the subject of cyberbullying, which has had a devastating impact on many young people in Canada, affecting their reputations, their self-esteem, and their mental health. Also, it has directly contributed to the unfortunate decision that a number of young people have taken to end their own lives, young people like Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, Todd Loik, and countless others, which is why the government acted to protect young people from malicious online behaviour, such as posting intimate images on the Internet, and the insidious and relentless harassment that often follows.

This is coupled with outreach efforts that are ongoing, and with education and the involvement of many people and organizations—such as the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Winnipeg—which have directly contributed to the assistance of young people who are feeling cornered, hopeless, and in some cases desperate. Things such as GetHelpNow.ca and Cybertip.ca are areas in which young people are able to access information about how to remove offending material.

The Government of Canada also understands that Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe, and we are committed to protecting Canadians from individuals who may pose a high risk to public safety. It's an obligation and a responsibility that we take very seriously.

Obviously, the evolving threat of terrorism is one those most troubling threats. In response to this risk, we introduced a bill earlier this year, which again is a bill you're familiar with, Bill C-51, to strengthen our existing anti-terrorism laws to ensure that they continue to respond appropriately to all forms of terrorism.

As you know, the bill is currently before the Senate. Among other things, such as enabling police to be more proactive in identifying radicalization and acting accordingly, this bill will fill a current gap in the Criminal Code by creating a new Criminal Code offence criminalizing the advocacy and promotion of terrorism, including those that would encourage attacks on Canadians.

Protecting victims of crime is another area in which we have been very active, as has this committee. We are moving to provide a more effective voice in our justice system as a key priority for our government. Victims of crime deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect.

Mr. Chair, to that end, we introduced the Victims Bill of Rights. It received royal assent last month. This legislation enables the rights of victims of crime at a federal level and establishes statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and in some cases restitution. It also ensures that there is a complaint process to deal with breaches of those rights.

Again, I could mention others that this committee has been seized with, including Quanto's law, tougher penalties for child predators, and several other bills, for which I again express my appreciation for the diligence of this committee.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Justice is estimating net budgetary expenditures of $673.9 million in the year 2015-16, which is a net spending increase of $43.3 million from the 2014-15 main estimates. The net increase in spending illustrates the Government of Canada's commitment to maintaining, as mentioned, the integrity and the importance of our justice system in terms of accessibility to it through programs and personnel.

Mr. Chair, one especially important area of increased spending, totalling $1.9 million, represents the funding in support of non-legislative measures to address prostitution. In 2014, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act came into force. This uniquely Canadian model was informed by the results of government consultations, public consultations, on the subject of prostitution in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Bedford.

That consultation received more than 31,000 responses from Canadians, in addition to the in-person round tables. This was the largest consultation, I note, ever undertaken by the Department of Justice to date, and it recognized in the legislation the significant harms associated with prostitution. In a combination of Department of Justice money and Public Safety money, $20 million is being made available through a fund over five years for programs aimed specifically at helping those who sell sexual services to exit prostitution.

Mr. Chair, this is a compassionate and common-sense program that we are delivering, and we believe it will make a positive difference. The funding will provide services such as trauma therapy, addiction recovery, employment training, and financial literacy. It could also be used to support transitional housing, emergency safe houses, child care, and drop-in centres. I can tell you that there has been tremendous uptake on this program funding. In addition, there will be funding made available to help law enforcement agencies connect with those who want to leave prostitution and help them find emergency or long-term services, such as those I just mentioned.

The new resources demonstrate the government's commitment to meaningfully support those exploited through prostitution. We are ensuring that the laws address as well the serious harms associated with prostitution and deliver the protection that vulnerable Canadians and communities have come to expect and deserve from this government.

Mr. Chair, in February of 2015, the government announced that it had extended its support for the aboriginal justice strategy to include an additional $11.1 million for fiscal year 2016-17. The aboriginal justice strategy supports community-based justice programs across the country that have delivered results in reducing crime and victimization in aboriginal communities. There are approximately 275 aboriginal justice programs. There is outreach to over 800 aboriginal communities now, touching every province and territory, both on and off reserve, and in rural, urban, and northern communities.

Lowering recidivism and reducing the overrepresentation of aboriginal Canadians in our justice system is at the root. The programs are cost-effective and produce short- and long-term savings for Canadians by freeing up police, court, and correctional resources to address more serious crime. This is in addition to other programs such as the $25 million that is directly focused on the subject of murdered and missing aboriginal women.

Although there was an effort with respect to the main estimates—an increase of $43.3 million—there have also been decisions taken around the providing of legal services as part of our commitment to better and more effectively manage resources. Within the department, there was a review of the legal services provided to all government departments. As you know, we do a great deal of work on behalf of other departments and other agencies in government. As a result, we've identified immediate measures to reduce legal services demand and costs. There is another wave that is aimed specifically at simplifying and increasing access to legal services. It will be implemented within the coming fiscal year.

Over the next year, the department will also continue to work to meet the needs of the Government of Canada's policy objectives. They include enhancing legislation to hold offenders accountable; supporting initiatives to address such issues as security and terrorism, as I referenced earlier; working with other departments to address crime prevention; rehabilitation, treatment, and enforcement activities that relate to illicit drugs; and continuing our aboriginal justice issues. I would also add to that list the work that's done with young offenders. In particular, there are various branches of this youth justice initiative that deal with guns and gangs.

These initiatives will help the Department of Justice continue to build a system that improves access and meets the diverse needs of Canadians.

Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada is determined to protect the integrity of our justice system. We have reaffirmed that commitment through the level of funding allocated to the Justice portfolio.

The items presented by the Department of Justice for inclusion in the 2015-2016 main estimates will help to guarantee that we continue to have a fair society that respects our legislation and has an accessible, effective and equitable justice system.

Finally, the funding that the justice portfolio has received delivers results. I'm proud to say that, aided by very able officials, we'll continue to see that these funds are spent wisely while ensuring that Canadians have the fair, relevant, and accessible justice system that they expect.

I want to again thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, for your diligence and determination in examining in many cases very complex bills and for the contribution you are making in that regard.

I look forward to taking your questions over this period. Similarly, I know that officials here, along with representatives from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, from the Administrative Tribunals Support Service, and other officials will be attending, I believe, at the next meeting, on May 13, to answer any questions in those particular areas.

Thank you, Chair.

National Action Plan to Address Violence Against Women

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard over and over again talk about the root causes of inequality. During committee review of Bill C-36, we heard many compelling testimonies from a broad cross-section of people impacted by prostitution and human trafficking, and none more so than aboriginal women and children. There is a clear link between murdered and missing aboriginal women and prostitution and human trafficking.

During its testimony, the Native Women's Association of Canada was clear that it wanted Canada to target the buyers of sexual services, the men who buy sex from vulnerable aboriginal women and youth. In fact, NWAC stated that it wanted the bill to pass to tackle the demand and said that criminalizing pimps and buyers would be a huge step.

When we talk about the root causes of inequality, tackling the demand for prostitution and human trafficking is part of the steps we need to take to end the travesty of murdered and missing women. Why did the members, at every step of the bill, vote against it?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also recall the evidence, and I am not bringing in to disrepute the pieces of what the RCMP Commissioner and other police officers said, but when they were asked in general terms if this piece of legislation would be of assistance to them in carrying out their job and keeping us safe, there were emphatic in their positive response. The answer was yes.

For the edification of a lot of folks, we hear the Bar Association, etc.... I don't recall, in the nine years I've been here—and of course I am sure Mr. Easter will sling some really cool remark across, given his expert time as a politician here—I don't recall them ever coming before any committee I was on—I was on the justice committee and I've been on this committee for nine years—where they've never agreed with any piece of legislation we brought in. As a matter of fact, I think the best thing they ever said about one of the pieces of legislation was “Well, it really isn't needed; it's basically redundant and it isn't needed.”

I am going to remind folks of a few statements, and then I will tell you from where I extracted them and what bill they refer to:

[The] bill...is far-reaching legislation. In several respects, it calls into question many of the rights and freedoms we enjoy, some of them hard won, rights and freedoms that should not be abridged without good reason.

Then in their brief, they go on to talk about many things, and say how the piece of legislation was somewhat imperiling. They said:

Defining terrorism is not a simple task. Our courts have consistently refused to define the term.

We now know that they have now or that we have a definition now.

The proposed definition is too inclusive and unwieldy. It could catch activity that is not terrorist conduct, such as wildcat strikes or public demonstrations. We are also concerned about the potential for discriminatory impact.

I could go on and on. You know who said that, Mr. Chair? It was a submission on Bill C-36, the very same concerns that are expressed here. Bill C-36 has been upheld. The Supreme Court did require the government of the day to fix a few areas of it, but the basic bill was not changed significantly. That is what we hear again and again. It's the same people saying the same things about the same situation.

As my colleague, Ms. James, said that the world didn't come to an end. We have heard from witness upon witness—even witnesses from the other side have testified—that terrorism is evolving. They are changing. They know what the laws are, and they are adapting their methodologies to get around them. This bill just hopes to keep up with it—not get ahead of it, just keep up with it.

Thank you very much.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague from Halifax.

She mentioned the specific case of Denmark, and I thank her for that. Criminal provisions that are too broad generally have the opposite effect to what was intended and, as a result, it is no longer possible to enforce a decision or a law.

Under the Conservatives, we have become accustomed to this sort of thing, whether it was with Bill C-10, which criminalizes the possession of more than six marijuana plants, or with Bill C-36, which criminalizes the purchase of sexual services. The consequence is that the tougher the criminal sentences we impose through these laws, the less viable it becomes to implement them, and therefore the police are much less likely to enforce them.

Can my colleague elaborate on the fact that further criminalizing something we condemn, in this case forced marriage, will only serve to ensure that women will not try to escape that situation because the consequences would be too severe?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Other large bills have already been studied. I think it is possible to do so by getting out of our environment. We usually meet here Tuesdays and Thursdays, from 8:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Actually, it's standard for most committees to hold two two-hour meetings a week.

I've noticed that many other committees have managed to find common ground to study bills relatively quickly, while ensuring that as many witnesses as possible were heard and that as many meetings as possible were held.

I've spoken about this a bit, but I think it should be noted. I've looked at details in this bill, details that I didn't have in the beginning. Last summer, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied Bill C-36, which followed on a Supreme Court decision on the legislative framework on prostitution in Canada. The Supreme Court had asked the House of Commons to study the legality of prostitution and to examine the issue as quickly as possible.

Thirteen meetings were held on the issue, and they were all held during the summer when the House wasn't sitting. There were a number of witnesses and several hours of meetings on the matter. The parties conducted this study in good faith because it was important to resolve the issue of the legislative framework on prostitution in Canada. Although it is a sensitive topic and the discussion may have been lewd at times, it was important for all the parties to study the bill in depth.

I remember because two of my very good colleagues sat on that committee, the hon. members for Gatineau and La Pointe-de-l'Île. This study was fairly significant. When we spend the summer in our ridings, we try to do our work as parliamentarians. That is when we can do it. We determined that this study was important and that we had to return to Ottawa. I don't have the exact information, but I think the committee sat for four or five days during the week. There were a number of meetings each day. If we think of that example, we can say that it's doable to hold several meetings in a short period of time.

I'll come back to the House calendar later. It could help us organize meetings in the evenings or on weekends, or even when the House isn't sitting. The calendar for the coming months indicates that it's possible. There are several weeks where we are going to return to our ridings. As the Conservatives mentioned as well, it is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that we protect Canadians. I think we can make this sacrifice, be it in our personal schedules or in our schedules as MPs, when we meet with constituents in our ridings. It's a sacrifice worth making to ensure the bill is studied properly.

I think other colleagues of mine on this committee would be willing to make a compromise in this case. As has already been mentioned, the purpose of the sub-amendment proposed by the parliamentary secretary is to ensure that we hold eight meetings and that the clause-by-clause study be completed no later than March 31. That being said, we will have no choice but to sit in the evenings or on recess weeks to meet that deadline. If we are going in that direction, which is an opening by my Conservative colleagues, why not do our jobs as parliamentarians and conduct a full study?

Another study, which was on Bill C-23, was done in committee. If I'm not mistaken, it was done last year. We held some 20 meetings on the bill, which was put forward by the Conservatives and dealt with democratic reform. Some meetings took place at night, others were longer than normal. Some meetings lasted over four hours and others lasted three. The meetings usually run for two hours, but in this case, we had to deal with the large number of key witnesses. I think all the members of the committee would agree that the bill on democratic reform was large.

Furthermore, I'm wondering why the government chose to do more comprehensive studies of other bills. I don't want to minimize the importance of those ones, even though it was clear that all of us—and there's no point in denying it—had relatively diverse and differing opinions on Bill C-23. Among other things, it had to do with democratic reform and the legislative framework of prostitution in Canada, a rather sensitive debate. I'm wondering why so much interest and so many meetings were dedicated to these bills, while we are clearly not striking the same balance with the study of Bill C-51.

As I've mentioned already, I want to ensure that my colleagues and the people listening at home understand that we are willing to conduct the study in a fairly short period of time. We are truly willing to make concessions to ensure that the key witnesses and experts are indeed heard. Moreover, as we mentioned, we want to hear from representatives from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as witnesses from academia and individuals interested in the matter because they are affected by the bill.

Our ideas come together very well. In fact, each side of the table will probably be happy to hear testimony from numerous witnesses on a panel and to have them answer our questions.

I think we can find some common ground here, in committee, and I am glad we can sincerely discuss this. I hope to be able to convince my Conservative colleagues of the importance of conducting a comprehensive study on this matter. Many pieces of legislation will be affected by Bill C-51. If it is passed, it will have a number of consequences. I think it is extremely important that experts explain to us what the impact of this bill may be on our way of life.

And we owe it to Canadians. In fact, it has been shown a number of times that most Canadians expect their government to tackle the terrorist threat and radicalization, which I think just makes a lot of sense. It's our job and the job of any good government.

But most Canadians do not know what's in Bill C-51. We've seen a number of reactions in recent weeks, especially in the media. There are many examples, but one of them is a letter signed by former Supreme Court justices and former prime ministers, both Liberal and Conservative. One of the things they expressed concerns about was one portion of Bill C-51.

That's just one example of many. In the last few days, the Assembly of First Nations raised many concerns about the impact of this bill. I think we owe it to those groups to conduct an in-depth study, and to Canadians who don't know exactly what Bill C-51 contains.

I think that this study and the proposal of my colleague Mr. Garrison to hold 25 meetings with the possibility of doing so relatively flexibly, outside normal meeting hours, just makes a lot of sense.

I'm aware of the urgency of acting, and I know it's common practice for the government party to rush to pass bills. I think we can find some common ground so that we can study the bill relatively quickly by putting a little water in our wine. The government wants the study done quickly. So let's set up some full-day meetings if necessary. It's important, and we were elected to do this.

When I was elected in 2011, the first thing I said to myself was that I needed to represent the people who elected me as best as possible, that I was going to try to make them proud of having elected me, and that I was going to do my best as a parliamentarian. There is no denying it, this work isn't always easy, but it's our duty. I would also say that it's a privilege to be able to put forward the best legislation possible. I think we can all agree on the fact that we are very privileged to be here to study a bill. Why not do it properly?

When I was researching various studies, be they bills or studies in committee, certain things intrigued me. For example, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recently did a study called The Economics of Policing. We did that study last year. We devoted 12 meetings to it. I don't want to minimize the excellent study we were able to do together despite our differences of opinion, but we still spent a lot of time in comparison to what the Conservatives want to give the committee to study Bill C-51.

I have another obvious example that isn't from this committee. I don't always follow the debates of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I should more often, because I was surprised to learn that they began a study on safety last year, and it's relatively interesting. So far, they have held 31 meetings in this study, and they aren't done yet. They're still studying it. So there's a lot of latitude we could have as parliamentarians and as a committee. I think it's important not to go full steam ahead and not to prevent certain key witnesses from appearing before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in the context of this study.

Just before I move on to another topic, many witnesses have themselves asked—without being invited because we haven't yet submitted our witness lists to the clerk—to appear and to testify on Bill C-51. These witnesses are from all walks of life and are addressing different aspects of the impacts of the Conservatives' anti-terrorism bill.

I don't think anyone here can say that these witnesses and experts aren't good witnesses. It will be extremely difficult to choose. If I could ask my colleagues opposite a question, I would ask them why they don't want these people to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Who do they not want to appear for the study of Bill C-51? As I mentioned, former Supreme Court justices, former prime ministers, First Nations leaders and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada have raised concerns. These people come from all backgrounds. They want to talk about the impact of the use of the Internet and social media.

These people, including former members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, are concerned about the impact of this bill.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that it would be worthwhile to hear from people from academia, which I greatly appreciated. Many individuals from several Canadian universities have asked to appear to discuss the impacts that this bill could have. These people are from various backgrounds, including constitutional law—

[Megan Walker, Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I'm representing the London Abused Women's Centre, which is an agency in London, Ontario, that provides women who are being abused by their intimate partners and women in prostitution with counselling, support, and advocacy. During our last fiscal year, the agency provided 3,300 women with services and responded to more than 5,000 phone calls.

I think it's important to go back almost 19 years ago to March 9, 1996, when Arlene May was murdered by her partner, Randy Isles. He then killed himself. After that the coroner for Ontario held an inquest into her murder and his suicide. The jury met with 76 witnesses over 51 days. On July 2 the jury returned with 213 recommendations.

In its opening statement the jury wrote:

Until we, as a country stand up and declare a 'Zero Tolerance', this problem will not only continue, but in this jury's opinion, will escalate.

They further went on to say:

A combined effort must be made by our Government and Communities in order to put an end to family violence.

Finally, they stated:

Domestic violence cases are different than other criminal cases. In most situations the accused and the victim would normally never meet again. With domestic violence, the accused often must have contact with the victim due to property, support and child issues.

The criminal justice system will have to be changed to deal effectively with these differences.

We live in a society where gender inequality, while present in almost every single aspect of our lives, is largely made invisible by our silence. I'm often asked whether we can ever end men's violence against women. I do know one thing for certain. With certain actions that we take we can definitely shift the culture for future generations and reduce men's violence against women. I often compare it to the work being done by MADD Canada. Drinking and driving was once considered the norm. Now thanks to legislation, advocacy, education, and awareness it is socially unacceptable to get in a car when you've had a drink. I believe we can do the same for domestic violence.

We need three things. First of all we need to speak out, just as President Obama and former president Jimmy Carter have done. We need the government at all levels in Canada to take a stand and say, “Not on our watch. On our watch we have a zero tolerance to men's violence against women.”

We need to name the problem and understand its source. The source is patriarchy and women's inequality, and we need to set our minds to achieving women's full equality in society.

We also need action. We need an investment in violence prevention, and public education and awareness programs, starting in the very early years in school. At the London Abused Women's Centre, six years ago, we started a campaign known as Shine the Light on Woman Abuse. The goals of the campaign were to raise awareness about men's violence against women, increase the profiles of agencies that can provide service to these women, and shift the blame and shame abused women so often feel to the shoulders of the perpetrators. Finally, we wanted to show women that we stood in support and solidarity with them as they tried to live their lives free from violence and abuse. The campaign has been overwhelmingly successful, has now spread to 25 communities throughout Ontario, and service demands at the London Abused Women's Centre continue to increase by about 100% each and every year.

We also initiated a Value Women campaign, which was started as an alternative to what was called, and is called still, the SlutWalk, which we opposed. The goals of the Value Women campaign are to change the culture for women to one where women are equally valued. To do so we're asking that everybody recruit one person, who then will recruit five, who in turn will recruit five more.

Over the next five years we hope to reach five million individuals and call them champions for women.

The London Abused Women's Centre is part of a coordinated effort between the City of London and the London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse. We partnered with the corporation of the City of London to develop a national, award-winning, collaborative program called “I Step Forward to End Violence and Abuse in my Community, Workplace, and Home”. It is a training program for all City of London employees to increase their understanding of men's violence against women and to increase the capacity to recognize and respond to situations of violence at home, at work, and in the community.

The London Abused Women's Centre is the lead agency for the Ontario woman abuse screening project, which has promoted collaboration between the woman abuse, sexual assault, mental health, and addiction sectors to provide trauma-informed services including routine universal screening for abuse and trauma, and to promote these as best practices across all sectors. The project has been successful in ensuring improved services, with fewer women having to live their lives alone, homeless or in isolation. In fact, that project has now spread throughout 141 communities across Ontario.

Finally, we need legislative change. We strongly recommend amending the Criminal Code to reflect the realities of those women being abused by their partners. We have great models in place where they have done that, including Sweden, where they have put into place the “gross violation of a woman's integrity” legislation. We've done a lot of research and are certainly happy to make that available to you.

Finally, I want to say that never in my life, and I've been at the London Abused Women's Centre for 18 years, did I ever think we would see the result of legislative advocacy. We saw that with the passing of Bill C-36, which we did support.

We're already seeing an increase in women seeking service from our agency. Legislative changes, along with advocacy, public awareness, and information can make a difference in the lives of women and their children.

[Leah Gazan, Member of Wood Mountain Lakota Nation, and Faculty of Education, University of Winnipeg, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

It has been 44 years since the brutal murder of Helen Betty Osborne, in which the Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission concluded that racism, sexism, and indifference resulted in the incomprehensible amount of time it took to solve her murder. We are now in 2015, and things are not getting better. This has been noted by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the former UN special rapporteur on indigenous rights, James Anaya, who unanimously noted a need for a national inquiry and immediate action to address the crisis levels of violence perpetrated against indigenous women and girls.

Such high levels of violence were also noted in the 2014 RCMP national operational report on missing and murdered aboriginal women, which affirmed an overrepresentation of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, exceeding what they thought in previous estimates.

We represent 4.3% of the Canadian population, yet we represent 16% of all reported homicides. It is not safe to be an indigenous woman or girl in Canada right now. This is related to a number of factors, including high rates of poverty—more characteristic among indigenous women—and issues with the very systems that are supposed to uphold the safety of Canadian citizens.

The most recent examples are with our dear child Tina Fontaine, who passed through five systems who could have helped her before she was brutally raped, murdered, dismembered, and thrown into the Red River. These included the police, the hospital, and the child welfare system.

We also recently heard about the brutal attack and rape of Rinelle Harper. Although the police found her attackers, there were a number of cases involving murdered and missing indigenous women and girls that have not been solved, and authorities have been criticized for their lack of action.

We also heard about Kevin Theriault, who took an intoxicated indigenous woman who had been arrested out of her jail cell to his home. It was allowed by a senior police officer, who stated, “You arrested her, you can do whatever the f--k you want to do.” It took two other police officers going to his home to convince him to drop the woman off at her own house. He said he took her “to pursue a...relationship”.

We also heard about Lana Sinclair, who was brutally assaulted and beaten by a Winnipeg police officer on October 31, 2014, after they came to her house to respond to a call saying there was yelling. She was trying to hurry her son up to go trick-or-treating.

And let's not forget the Highway of Tears in British Columbia.

Indigenous women and children deserve the same fundamental human rights to affordable housing, safety, and food security. This is not happening in the city of Winnipeg, the province of Manitoba, or in Canada. Also, the very systems that are supposed to protect us now have their legitimacy and safety in question. In fact, in response to the latest RCMP report outlining the serious issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls in Canada, the Harper Conservative government made cutbacks on women's programs, including cutbacks on programs aimed at violence reduction in communities.

The constable who took the woman home to “pursue a...relationship” only received a seven-day suspension without pay and was allowed to return to work.

We constantly see pushback against a national inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls by the Conservative government in spite of recommendations coming from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the former special rapporteur on indigenous rights, James Anaya, who stated in his own words that there needed to be “greater and more effective action” to address the problem of murdered and missing indigenous girls, pointing towards the need for immediate action and a national inquiry.

This is not an indigenous issue. This is an issue for all Canadians who want to protect the fundamental human rights of all persons. We need a community-led and community-driven national inquiry the does not preclude immediate action now to ensure that the issue related to violence against indigenous women and girls is addressed aggressively.

I have the following recommendations.

First, I recommend that immediate action is taken to address the root causes of poverty that compromise safety and keep a disproportionate number of indigenous women living below the poverty line. According to the Canadian Women's Foundation's report on poverty, 36% of first nations, Métis, and Inuit women live in poverty, which they partially attributed to inadequate levels of education, lack of employment opportunities in local communities, and discrimination and sexism in the workplace.

Such barriers often result in women failing to have the economic means to access basic human needs, including safe and affordable housing, and food security. As a result, many women have been forced to remain in violent and abusive relationships and take up residence at an unsafe location, which often places both themselves and their children at risk.

The federal government needs to provide immediate funding for educational programs and training initiatives for indigenous women that support acquiring skills to participate in employment opportunities that assist with poverty reduction where they receive, at the very least, a living wage to ensure that women have access to safe and affordable housing, food security, and family stability.

Second, I recommend that the federal government review its economic action plan, which focuses on aggressive resource development at the expense of the safety afforded to indigenous women and girls. Victoria Sweet, in 2012 in her study on human trafficking, asserts that there is a direct correlation between the establishment of man camps that house workers in extractive industries and increased reports of violence against indigenous women and girls.

According to Sweet, male workers, often disconnected to the community and having little regard for local culture and traditions, are often hired. This has resulted in increased rates of sex trafficking and violence against indigenous women residing in these communities. She uses the example of the Bakken oil formation in North Dakota where there's been an increase in the numbers of forceable rape, prostitution, sex trafficking, and violence against indigenous women and girls, and notes that a similar phenomenon is occurring in Fort McMurray, Alberta, where violence against indigenous women and girls is rapidly on the rise.

Third, I recommend that the government invest moneys into economic development ventures that nurture the safety and economic well-being of women and girls, including providing small business grants for women and girls living on and off reserve.

Fourth, I recommend that there be a major increase in funding provided for training and prevention programs to support local communities and to facilitate community-driven initiatives to address the issue of sex trafficking, sexual violence, and all other forms of violence against indigenous women and girls.

Fifth, I recommend that the federal government reinstate the multi-millions of dollars that were cut from violence prevention and healing programs, including programs aimed at addressing the intergenerational impacts of residential schools, that were formally used to support indigenous families and communities in violence reduction. This is much more effective than rerouting money towards regressive bills like Bill C-36, which will further marginalize already vulnerable indigenous women and girls. This includes vital programs that were formally facilitated through organizations such as Sisters in Spirit and the Native Women's Association of Canada. I question why that funding was cut in the first place, given the acknowledgement by the international community that violence against indigenous women and girls in Canada is a crisis.

Sixth, I recommend that the government provide funding for a 24-7 resource centre in each province to provide a one-stop shop for families impacted by violence, including advocacy support, referrals, counselling, and cultural programming for families experiencing trauma.

Seventh, I recommend that the federal government provide funding programs to support services and programs for families and communities impacted by violence against indigenous women and girls. This should include funding to support families in their searching efforts and liaison workers to guide families in working with agencies that become involved when a person goes missing, such as police, child welfare services, and schools. It is not okay that families are forced to use their own limited income to look for a family member, often leaving them financially vulnerable and economically unstable.

Eighth, I recommend that the federal government immediately support a community-led, community-driven inquiry, and implement immediate actions to address the crisis of violence against indigenous women and girls. This is not an either-or discussion. The international community is watching. Canadians are watching. When the world is criticizing Canada for its lack of action, it is not the time to cut corners. Ending violence against indigenous women and girls requires investment. It should not be guided by either-or discussions. We need action now and we need a community-led, community-driven inquiry to make systemic changes to protect indigenous women and girls from dangers persistent within the very Canadian institutions that are supposed to protect us. People care. Canadians care.

I have witnessed care with grassroots initiatives such as the Drag the Red campaign, led by Bernadette Smith, where people came out to support her efforts in searching for the human remains of their loved ones.

I have witnessed such care in the current We Care campaign that I started in solidarity with Rain Hamilton, a non-indigenous woman who was appalled by the lack of action and level of violence perpetrated against indigenous women and girls. This campaign has been endorsed by the leader of the official opposition, Hon. Thomas Mulcair, who has shown his support for immediate action and a community-led, community-driven inquiry; the Aboriginal Peoples' Commission; Council of Canadians; the International Women's Forum on human rights; and many other organizations and individuals who have shown that they care.

I saw Canadians care at a vigil for beautiful Tina Fontaine, where over 2,000 Canadians came out, with an estimated 50% who were non-indigenous. They cared.

It is time for the federal government to come on board and show they care. We are waiting to be on their radar.

Thank you.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Yes, very briefly, Mr. Chair.

In response to the question from Mr. Easter, there are programs and Minister Blaney mentioned a number of them. One that I'm aware of in Atlantic Canada is the New Leaf program. To be fair, this was a program that was also funded by the previous government, of which you were a member. It's aimed specifically at helping to rehabilitate the offender. Those program funding requests are reviewed annually across the country.

On the proactive side, the Get Cyber Safe program and some of the online sharing of information are things that I would always point to as well.

The sharing of information abroad is something that we as a country have to do more of. We need to be responsible for some of the perpetrators, sexual offenders, who go outside our country and go to jurisdictions where they don't have the same protections, the same programs, or they have laws that are lax, that allow for some of these sexual predators in our midst who have gone abroad and carried on this horrible practice.

There are aboriginal justice programs that are also in place to support both offenders and victims. I would point to our legislation, Bill C-36, that dealt with prostitution, which also has program funding in addition to the legislation.

This holistic approach you referred to is something that we're continuing.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, thank you all so much for the work you do, all of you, and thank you so much for being here.

Ms. Wright and Ms. Ryan, the legal group Pivot has found that Bill C-36 is going to have the effect of dramatically increasing violence against sex workers and their vulnerability to violence. Do you agree? Could you describe your view on this?

[Jenny Wright, Executive Director, St. John's Status of Women's Council Women's Centre]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and members of this committee. We thank you, and we are grateful for the invitation to address the committee.

In the development of any best practice, policy, legislation, or charter, we must never forget that violence against women is preventable. That fact must be the very foundation that any real change is built upon. Violence against women is yet to be considered preventable; instead, it is simply considered one of the many social ills that we must endure and manage. We need not look very far back in our own history to find a time when it was indeed acceptable.

Through the hard work of feminism in our country we are moving towards a culture in which these forms of interpersonal violence are now widely considered unacceptable. Great women doing great work have spoken before this committee. Best practices, new and emerging programs, research, and critical analysis have been brought forward with intelligence and with experience.

We suggest that women's organizations are all well versed in best practice and that we have been creating it and utilizing it for many decades. Evidence of this body of work can be found in the submissions to this committee, in scholarly research, in the endless reports we write, in university gender and social work classes, and around women's kitchen tables, yet women continue to die.

We have made great advancements in education and awareness both nationally and internationally. Policies and programs are implemented at all levels of government and within our communities and within our schools, yet the statistics that we are all intimately aware of are staggering.

Violence against women has been called the global epidemic of our times. It can lead one to think that there is nothing left to add to this discourse, but if we hold steadfast to the truth that violence against women is preventable, then there is much for us to discuss.

Best practice, education, and all of our combined work in the field will not be enough if we do not directly eliminate the root causes: gender inequality, long-standing neglect in upholding women's human rights, and decades of closures and funding cuts to front-line and advocacy women-led organizations.

Imagine if the programs and policies we created together were aimed at these root causes, at breaking down the systems that create gender inequality. Imagine if they were built on our existing human rights framework, and imagine if they were resourced sustainably so that women-led organizations could do what they have done well for many decades regardless of fluctuations in the economy, politics, and our laws.

If we re-envision how we conceive and develop best practice so that it eradicates gender inequality, then a national child care strategy, a national housing strategy, pay equity, access to women-centred health care, education, and a fair justice system is best practice. Further, the lack of these strategies in Canada is not only a causal factor, they are simultaneously the very barriers that prevent women leaving violence and living to their full potential.

This work, we cannot do alone. Women are protected in principle by the charter of human rights as individuals of this nation. These rights must apply to all women equally, including trans women, seniors, indigenous women, sex workers, disabled women, young women, and women new to our country. Women's organizations struggle daily to keep women safe in communities where there are no lawyers, no social workers, no courthouses or doctors, where women are left dangerously vulnerable and without access to basic supports. This must be viewed as a denial of their basic human rights.

Still, Canada has signed on to numerous conventions protecting and advancing the rights of women, including CEDAW, where article 3 states that the convention gives positive affirmation to the principle of equality by requiring state parties to take “all appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.”

Yet women continue to die. Why? We have not applied these basic human rights to our work in ending violence against women. If anti-violence work were built on our existing human rights frameworks, then access to this that fosters safety and quality of life should not and could not be denied women, no matter their geographical or social location.

Years of funding cuts and closures, and silencing of women's organizations are in themselves a pervasive form of violence against women. Federal policy must act to strengthen women's organizations and to secure sustainable funding, so they do not continue to be casualties of the fluctuations in our economy, political agendas, and our laws.

Our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is a great example of this double bind. Dropping oil prices leads to dramatic job loss, job losses lead to a dramatic rise in domestic violence. Already overburdened we scramble to cope with the increased need for services, while simultaneously being told that because of falling oil prices there will be no increase in funding, and there are silent whispers of impending cuts that will affect our work.

The economic boom that arrived at our doorstep 10 years ago created a dramatic rise in women who are exploited by the sex trade, and the new prostitution bill, Bill C-36, has left us scrambling to provide supports and safety for a population left vulnerable and moving deeper and deeper underground.

This scenario plays out time and time again in our work, leaving us with band-aid solutions, patchwork support, and never the time nor the resources to tackle the fundamental issues of gender inequality and justice, human rights, and advocacy. It is time that we recognize and redress the fact that diminished or no access to basic services because of chronic underfunding places women's lives at risk and by extension their children and by extension our communities.

This is a very real cause of continued violence against women, and it is preventable. We need the indelible human rights of all women to be upheld in law and in policy in their entirety. We need long-promised and undelivered national strategies to target and eradicate structures and social norms that perpetuate gender inequality. We need sustainable resources to do what we do well—advocate and provide services, supports and resources to women, freely and without threat.

There must be a shift in how we view gender inequality and how we eradicate it together as a nation. Gender inequality is simultaneously inherent to and produced by our institutions. We must shift our focus to improving our nation's ability to respond to the needs of all Canadian women. Until our Canadian institutions and our social systems prioritize and nurture the unimaginable and untapped potential of women in this country, we fear we will be living in a state of never-ending, managed violence.

In closing, we need to recognize that the situation is dire, but that the future need not be bleak. The real solutions to the issues already exist. Symbolically, it is there in the human rights framework that we uphold in this country. Practically, it is in the work of those on the ground, our women's centres, our female-serving organizations. The missing ingredients are the social and political will and sustainable resources necessary to create a coordinated national strategy. If we as a country can commit to these things, then we have not only created best practice, we have built the very foundation to prevent violence against women.

Thank you.