OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 113 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, September 22, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES September 22, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 113 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 113 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 113 (Version officielle) 147 113 22 09 2014 2014/09/22 11:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1100) [ English ] Energy Efficiency Program Motion The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion. Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I believe I had five minutes left when we last left off. I was talking about what an opportunity it was to speak to Motion No. 497 and provide some details on how our government is already successfully meeting the objectives of saving Canadians money on their energy bills, stimulating the economy, creating jobs, and reducing emissions.

By 2016, the eco-energy efficiency program is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by four megatonnes. That's equivalent to the emissions of one million vehicles. Canada can also claim to be a strong and active supporter in the related area of renewable energy. Between 2005 and 2011, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production fell 26%. Over three-quarters of Canada's electricity now comes from emissions-free sources, including hydro, nuclear, and non-hydro renewable energy.

Furthermore, Canada is the first nation in the world to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired power plants. Wind energy is growing, and Canada is now ranked ninth in the world in installed wind power capacity. There are almost 4,700 wind turbines in operation on 195 wind farms in the provinces and two territories, representing over 8,500 megawatts of generating capacity. With regard to solar energy, Canada's solar industry has become one of our fastest-growing sources of electricity. Solar has now expanded from only 33 megawatts in 2008 to 1,210 megawatts in 2013.

In conclusion, that is where we stand now, and Canada's energy future is even brighter. Innovation and new technologies are all growing to Canada's energy advantage. Canadians know this lesson well, and we have been actively applying it. Canada's clean tech energy industry is growing faster than any other major sector in the Canadian economy. Canada has built its clean tech capacity into a $11.3 billion industry that directly employs more than 41,000 people and is expected to grow to over 88,000 jobs by 2022.

As a result, Canada has become a leader in clean energy technology, from carbon capture and storage to biomass, wind power, and tidal power. All of these considerations clearly show that our government's focus on energy efficiency and responsible energy use has huge and positive impacts on innovation, on job creation, on reducing emissions, and on helping Canadians become more energy-aware and energy-efficient at work, at home, and on the road.

It is for these reasons that we can say that the goals of Motion No. 497 are already being addressed, namely, the goals of reducing energy consumption and emissions, saving Canadians money, creating jobs, and supporting our economy. All of these goals are worth pursuing, and our government is committed to continuing to achieve them as we move forward.

(1105) Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start off this Monday morning with an opportunity to speak in the House, so thank you for the chance to speak to this important motion. I would also like to commend the efforts of my hon. colleague from Drummond, not only for putting forward a motion on what we deem to be a critical issue but also for seeking a bipartisan consensus that federal programs should be in place to encourage energy efficiency in Canada.

If only the government were as open to co-operation when it comes to defending and promoting the interests of Canadian people, I think we would all be much further ahead, and on this issue it would be great if everybody would just agree that more energy retrofit programs need to be happening. However, as previous debate on this motion have reminded this House and our previous speaker, no energy efficiency program has existed in Canada since the Conservatives caused the lapse of the eco-energy home retrofit program in 2012.

Evidently I can no longer hope to find common cause on this issue with the governing party, but I hope that the member for Drummond takes some solace from the fact that the Liberals are strong defenders of the environment, especially on initiatives that aim to reduce our carbon footprint, such as this one. It is critical that we do all we can as individuals and as parliamentarians to encourage the pursuit of energy efficiency. There are many reasons to pursue this goal. From a global perspective, improvements to the efficiency of our infrastructure are a key part of the struggle to avoid severe climate change.

Individually speaking, we know that retrofits to buildings and homes can lead to substantial savings for families. Upgrades to heating, cooling, and ventilation systems, to air sealing, and to the insulation of attics and windows, as well as the installation of low-flow toilets, can allow families to save valuable dollars. These are not glamorous changes, but they are cost-effective ways of achieving significant progress on our energy use profiles, which are simply far too high.

Anyone who is familiar with the data on this subject knows that Canada's rankings in international comparisons of energy intensity are consistently dismal. We are always at or very near the bottom of the list. In other words, we use more than almost anyone else. Yes, our climate is colder, and yes, our economy depends partly on our energy exports, but this is no argument for remaining complacent or for simply doing nothing.

The World Bank, the OECD, the International Energy Agency, foreign governments, and many domestic NGOs have reminded us time and time again that we could be doing so much more to reduce our energy consumption. In the last OECD environmental performance review, Canada placed dead last out of 17 industrial countries measured. What does that showcase to the world? We have the means to do better, but we need the political will to make that happen. The government may have its head in the sand, but we need to start listening to what science is telling us every single day.

This weekend there was a clear message around the world that people are very concerned about climate change, and we need to be doing our part. As a nation blessed with vast stores of natural resources, it only makes sense that we should be world leaders in the efficient use of our wealth, not number 17 out of 17. A failure in this regard is a failure to recognize the value of what we have, and it is a betrayal to future generations who may never derive the benefit from these important resources as we gobble them up for immediate gratification.

There is a grim irony to the fact that we are as wasteful as we are simply because we have too much. Incidentally, the characterization I have just made about Canada's energy use applies equally to its water consumption. As a country, we take our water far too much for granted. We have one of the largest supplies of fresh water in the world, but does this justify the fact that we, along with the Americans, have by far the highest daily domestic withdrawals per capita in the world? On a generous estimate, Canadians still use upward of 300 litres per day each.

This is nine times higher than Denmark, Europe's best performer, and double the average of other developed nations, which goes back to being the same issue. We have a lot of great resources, but we are not using them wisely and clearly we are wasting them immensely.

(1110) I mention these statistics not to scold but because it is clear that Canada has much to do when it comes to resource efficiency and conservation. The Prime Minister has declared his intention that Canada in the 21st century should be a global energy superpower. To this end, he has focused his government's efforts almost exclusively on promoting supply or, in other words, on pipelines and market access. However, as any good economist knows, supply is only half of the equation.

The Prime Minister cannot hope to achieve this superpower ambition without considering the demand aspect and how better to manage it. Domestically, that is precisely what an energy efficiency initiative is. An incentive program such as the one proposed would be a small step in the right direction. It would signal renewed commitment to international leadership in the fight against climate change and it would help improve Canada's credibility as an energy power.

Promoting energy efficiency would also signal a commitment by government to helping the many start-ups and investors who form part of the growing green industry sector. These include developers, builders, energy auditors, construction and engineering firms, renewable energy companies, and many others who are devoted to the vision of a cleaner, more sustainable economy. At the same time, a program such as that proposed by Motion No. 497 would signal again to Canadians that the government stands behind individual efforts to build a next-generation economy.

Canadians are already doing what they can to make improvements to their homes that will bring down costs to both households and the environment. The federal government has the ability to show leadership and help offset some of those upfront expenses of these upgrades and retrofits, which can still be prohibitively priced for many Canadians. This week saw the release of the inaugural report from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. The commission is headed up by a group of people from around the globe. Felipe Calderón, the former President of Mexico, is the chair.

Other members include the chairman of the Bank of America, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, the CEO of China International Capital Corporation, and the president of the Asian Development Bank, and the list goes on. The basic conclusion of their report, which is called “Better Growth, Better Climate: The New Climate Economy”, is that the supposed choice between a healthy climate and a healthy economy is a false one. With intelligent policy, I believe that we can have both.

Of course, I understand why the need for intelligent policy will vex the Prime Minister and his front bench, so let me frame it another way. How can anyone suggest that we continue to consume the finite resources of our planet with an infinite appetite? As we face the global threat of climate change, perhaps the defining challenge of our time, energy efficiency must be recognized as part of our national policy tool kit. To quote the commission: Policies to promote energy efficiency can free up resources for more productive uses and, if designed well, can be particularly beneficial to people on low incomes.

The report also says: Greater investment in energy efficiency--in businesses, buildings and transport--has huge potential to cut and manage demand. Elsewhere the report notes: The evidence shows that investment in low-carbon energy sources and energy efficiency is a major source of job creation. For example, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that almost 6 million people were directly employed in the renewable energy sector in 2012.... This is approaching the number of people employed in the coal industry.

As developed countries have adopted low-carbon measures, there has been a little-noticed but remarkable growth in employment in a wide range of businesses in the “low-carbon sector”. As the transition to a lower-carbon economy accelerates, this pattern of job creation and business expansion is likely to be replicated more widely. Canada must embrace new opportunities that promote the shift to a sustainable future. In promoting this particular motion, we are moving that along. (1115) [ Translation ] Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, according to the World Meteorological Organization's annual report, greenhouse gas concentrations reached record levels in 2013. The question we must ask ourselves today is this: What can we do to tackle this alarming trend? The best solution is to implement a large-scale energy efficiency program.

Motion No. 497 on energy efficiency, which was moved by my colleague, the member for Drummond , puts forward an innovative and important perspective on the climate change debate. [ English ] The plan we are suggesting would encourage owners of buildings, both residential and commercial, to decrease their energy consumption. There are many advantages attached to this program. It would help to preserve the environment, boost our economy by creating a large number of job opportunities, and significantly reduce the energy cost of every Canadian citizen. Here is a little reminder.

Canada already had this type of program, between 2007 and 2012, which was called the ecoENERGY home retrofit program. Its aim was to make housing more energy efficient in order to fight climate change. Back then, one out of every twenty Canadian households was able to benefit from a subvention of, on average, $1,400. Let us do the math.

Based on a five-year period, this investment of $934 million allowed Canadian households to save more than $400 million each year. [ Translation ] However, those days are gone because, once again, the Conservatives put an end to the program since they felt it had fulfilled its purpose, as though the energy issue could be resolved in a few years with the wave of a magic wand. Now, more than ever, Canada must face two closely related challenges: the environmental challenge and the energy challenge.

Our new challenge, which the NDP has vowed to take on, will be to manage this country's vast resources to ensure their long-term viability, not destroy them, which is what has been happening in recent years, unfortunately. The NDP understands the challenge and intends to meet it. That is why we are strongly in favour of a sweeping greenhouse gas reduction agenda. Not only will this plan help us reduce our environmental footprint, but it will also result in positive social spinoffs. [ English ] This would put Canada in a state of mind that is based on long-term action.

The country would be able to build an economy for the future, green and sustainable. This plan is the exact opposite of the economic backwardness conducted by the Conservative Party. It would also put a stop to the useless investments in the oil and gas sectors, which are very detrimental to the country. Canada needs to empower itself with a solid energy efficiency strategy or it will soon be behind other countries in this field. Canada, to the contrary, wants to be a world leader when it comes to energy efficiency.

Climate change is creating a crisis that is forcing leaders to open their eyes to its disastrous consequences. It is imperative that action is taken today to lessen our environmental footprint, if we want to preserve our rich and unique system. Therefore, reducing our dependence upon fossil fuel is fundamental. It is unacceptable that our resources are exploited in the way they are currently, recklessly and thoughtlessly, only to satisfy the economic interest of a minuscule part of the population while the majority of Canadians are seeing their future compromised.

The NDP is not alone in thinking this way and has received strong support from many associations, such as Equiterre and Blue Green Canada, which also want to address this issue. [ Translation ] This action plan will provide security in terms of public health. According to the WHO, climate change related to excessive greenhouse gas emissions affects the determinants of health of our constituents, particularly the most vulnerable. It is therefore our duty to ensure a safe and healthy environment. This is yet another factor that the Conservatives often seem to forget about.

This plan will benefit the entire economy and Canadians themselves by creating jobs, many of them in the construction sector. The spinoffs of this plan will be truly enormous. A new report by Blue Green Canada shows that investing in clean energy projects could create 18,000 new jobs in Canada, strengthen the economy, reduce pollution and make for a healthier environment. Instead, all the government can talk about is budget cuts, again and again. For example, it used the 2014-15 budget to cut $25 million in funding from clean air programs and the fight against climate change.

It overlooked the indisputable merits of such a program. My colleague's motion will help reduce energy bills and household debt for all Canadians. Canada currently has one of the highest household debt levels in the world, and Canadians will benefit from financial assistance enabling them to renovate their homes or buildings, which will help revitalize neighbourhoods in Canadian communities.

The government must provide Canadians with the support they need to get through this crisis. (1120) [ English ] The Conservative Party turned its back on the environmental issue by withdrawing Canada from the Kyoto Protocol, in 2001, during the United Nations conference. As well, the cuts from the 2014-15 budget affect Natural Resources Canada, which will see a decrease of $232 million, nearly half of which are directed toward the clean energy fund. There is more, or I should say that there is less. There is less money for programs, such as the forest industry transformation program.

The ecoENERGY for biofuels program will also be affected by budget cuts. Needless to say, the Conservative Party has put aside environmental and clean energy concerns. [ Translation ] Conversely, the NDP would end the multi-billion-dollar subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and invest in a sustainable, green economy. The NDP would allocate Canada's resources in the best possible way and put a stop to investments that prevent our country from building its future on a sound, solid foundation.

According to Roger Lanoue and Normand Mousseau, co-chairs of the Commission sur les enjeux énergétiques du Québec, every dollar invested in an energy efficiency program generates economic spinoffs that are equal to, if not greater than, the construction of new energy production facilities. Instead of offering billions of dollars in tax breaks to the oil industry, which is one of the biggest polluters, our government should recognize that its energy policy is destructive for our country. We need to focus on more than just the short term. We cannot put off resolving environmental issues, nor can we ignore them.

Federal investments must be methodical and well thought out. The NDP has already created an action plan and is ready to implement it. That will begin when we pass Motion No. 497. I would like to mention that yesterday I went to the people's climate march in Montreal. Two of my colleagues also came with me: the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard and the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie . Hundreds of people took part, including a large NDP contingent. I was disappointed to see no representatives from any other federal party at the march.

During the four-hour event, we had many rewarding discussions with people who came to talk to us about their concerns regarding the climate. Many activists came and asked us what is happening in western Canada, how people are reacting, and how we can leave future generations with such an environmental burden. I am 29 years old and I worry about my future and that of the next generation, because right now, no one knows where we are headed. We are developing our resources without necessarily thinking about all the possible consequences.

The bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Drummond is an intelligent way to make Canada's economy work by creating jobs in the construction industry. This is an intelligent way to reduce the greenhouse gases that surround us. Right now we are constantly emitting more and more. There was some smog in Montreal this summer. There is no doubt that pollution is a serious concern. I have asthma, so I can assure you this is true. When I am in Montreal, I need my puffers, but in the forest in Mauricie, I do not need them. Specific examples like that can be used to assess these things.

Adopting this motion would be a step towards a greener, more prosperous Canada. In closing, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Drummond on all of his efforts on the environment. (1125) [ English ] Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to demonstrate how our government is already taking action to address what the bill seeks to achieve.

I thank the member for allowing me the opportunity to talk about how our government is positioning Canada as a global leader in the energy technology sector and encouraging Canadians to use energy responsibly. Our government has made it a priority to create jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and lower costs for consumers. We have successfully implemented numerous energy efficiency initiatives that address these goals. The member was perhaps not aware of this when he tabled the motion. As we know, Canada's economy is based, in large part, on the abundance of our natural resources.

In fact, we rely on non-emitting sources for 79% of our electricity. We also have a duty to ourselves and to future generations to develop those resources in a way that is responsible and protects the environment. Major global economies are focusing on responsible energy use and enhancing opportunities for consumers and businesses to support energy efficient choices. For example, the U.S. intends to double its energy productivity over the next 20 years. The European Union has developed mandatory countrywide targets for energy efficiency and requires buildings to be labelled for energy performance.

India has set a mandatory energy efficiency target that covers 65% of that nation's industrial consumption. China is pursuing a 16% reduction in energy intensity over the next five years. Given the growing demand for improved energy efficiency worldwide, focusing on developing and exporting energy efficient technologies and products is a winning scenario for consumers, entrepreneurs, the environment, and Canada's economy. Since 2005, we have reduced emissions by 5.1%, while the economy grew by over 10%. This is an impressive achievement, and we did it without raising taxes.

We know that the NDP wants to bring in a tax that would raise the cost of everything. We prefer to leave this money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. Since 2006, the Government of Canada has made significant investments to support energy efficiency, clean energy technologies, and the production of clean energy and cleaner fuels. We are taking a practical approach that protects Canada's best interests, an approach that balances our environmental goals with job creation.

Few people realize that Canada is a global leader in energy technology, and we have made great strides to improve energy efficiency at home, at work, and on the road. Our country's gains in energy efficiency are making people sit up and take notice around the world. The International Energy Agency now ranks Canada second, along with the U.K., in improving energy use between 1990 and 2010. We know that the transportation sector currently generates about a quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, an initial focus is to raise awareness among Canadians of the energy we use on the road.

That is why our government recently took action by introducing world-class vehicle emission standards, resulting in significant energy efficiency improvements. By 2025, new cars will consume 50% less fuel and emit 50% less greenhouse gases than similar 2008 models. We have already made great progress in improving the energy efficiency of Canadian homes. We have also developed tools like the EnerGuide rating system to provide homeowners with accurate and easy-to-understand measures of their home's energy performance, as an important first step toward smart home renovations.

More than one million Canadian homeowners have obtained an evaluation, using this system, since 1998. Canadians understand that energy efficiency leaves more money in their pockets. With the familiar blue Energy Star label, Canadians can now easily find top energy performers for more than 65 product categories, including appliances, televisions, and windows.

(1130) Let me assure everyone that these savings can quickly add up. By replacing three major appliances with Energy Star models, consumers can save significant amounts on their utility bills, but we are not stopping there. We have also introduced measures to help Canadian businesses improve their energy efficiency and reduce their environmental footprints. Canada's National Energy Code for Buildings 2011 is now 25% more stringent than the previous code. By 2016, it is expected that new building owners will save $70 million in energy costs as a result of improvements to the 2011 code.

We are also encouraging Canadian industry to adopt the ISO 50001 standard, a voluntary international energy management standard used in over 60 countries to manage costs and improve productivity. For example, Chrysler's Brampton, Ontario, plant is saving nearly $2 million in energy costs a year by using this system and investing in improved heating, ventilation and exhaust systems. Under our energy efficiency programs, Canadian businesses have learned how to cut energy consumption in Canada's plants, factories, and buildings by as much as 20%.

In closing, let me restate how our government is already achieving the goals of the motion. Programs implemented by our government are reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2005, emissions have been reduced by 5.1% and we are continuing to find new ways to improve this reduction. It is important to note that Canada has the lowest per capita emissions since we began tracking in 1990. We are successfully lowering consumers' energy bills. Action taken over the past two decades has led to energy savings of $32 billion. We are currently on track to save consumers $1 billion more by 2016.

It is due to these efforts that Canada is a world leader in energy efficiency improvements, ranked second behind Germany and tied with the United Kingdom. It is through this action that new jobs are created. Jobs are directly created due to energy efficiency renovations and indirectly with savings directed elsewhere in the economy. We are proud that our government's plan is working and that we are achieving our goals without implementing a job-killing carbon tax. Canadians can rely on our government to continue to deliver for them, their families, and their pocketbooks. Ms.

Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in support of Motion No. 497 on energy efficiency. I congratulate my colleague from Drummond for the motion, which is of course timely given that all of the leaders of the world are gathering this week in New York, sadly except for the Prime Minister of this country, to work on deeper cuts to greenhouse gases around the globe.

My colleague's motion calls for government implementation of an energy efficiency program to encourage homeowners, commercial building owners and businesses to reduce their energy consumption in an effort to fight climate change, to reduce Canadians' energy bills, and to create jobs and stimulate the economy. I am pleased to have heard the speech by the parliamentary secretary who I have enjoyed working with on several committees, and the fact that she is showing there certainly is value in investing in energy efficiency, and that to date the government has taken some measures.

However, as I would like to speak to, there is lot more the government has promised and could do. The International Energy Agency has continued to call on governments around the world, including Canada, to take action on what it has identified as the two critical global crises. Those two crises, as identified by the International Energy Agency, are the demand for energy, which is growing in the world, and climate change. The International Energy Agency has issued a call to all nations to make more substantial investments in renewable power and energy efficiency to address both of those crises.

In parallel to this, Canadian families are facing record household debt at the same time as energy prices are rising, for transportation, homes, farms and businesses. The sad thing is measures are readily available. The technology exists, and the initiatives and the interest in working on energy efficiency exists to address both of these. Among these are the concerted efforts to reduce energy use and demand-side management.

Indeed, as the world progresses, as developing nations also seek the kinds of lives we benefit from here in the western world, there is an increasing demand for energy, to heat their homes, to provide food for their families and to make use of the kinds of appliances that we have and have benefited from. At the same time, we have the opportunity to be providing means to them, as well as to us, for greater energy efficiency and to reduce that great demand on increased energy use.

Energy efficiency not only reduces pollution and greenhouse gases, it offers substantial savings on energy bills and creates well-paying, skilled jobs in our local communities. What has been done, and what could be done to make this happen? Sadly, under the current government, very little. First of all, the energy retrofit program has been an incredibly popular and oversubscribed program. To its credit, some years back the government, under a lot of pressure, agreed to return the program but only for one year. The problem was that only some Canadian families and businesses could benefit.

Second, it is very hard for energy efficiency companies to gear up quickly enough in order to be able to build a program and reach out to assist. Sadly, a lot of the operations that were developed in my community fell apart because there was no long-term support. It is a significant loss as partnering between federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments can actually move energy efficiency programs forward. Some municipalities and some provinces have continued to forge ahead. Sadly in my home province, they have backed off.

There was a promise this past spring for Alberta to put $30 million in, which if partnered with the federal government would be good. We are waiting to see what will happen with the new premier of Alberta. Reconfiguring programs to direct assistance to the most in need, though, is very important. In the past, only those who had the deeper pockets could benefit from these programs, because the government assistance was only supplementing the investment by the families or the businesses themselves.

Therefore, it was only those who had the spare cash who could take advantage of applying for and benefiting from these programs.

(1135) If we move forward with an energy retrofit program, I would strongly recommend that the federal government work with the provinces and municipalities in coming up with a means to target those most in need: low-income, fixed-income, seniors and aboriginal communities. We should also consider combining those initiatives with access to programs such as solar power because that also reduces the drawdown on the grid. In a province such as mine, Alberta, the vast majority of our electricity is provided by coal-fired power, which is a huge source of greenhouse gases and pollution.

By getting off the grid or feeding into the grid cleanly, we can actually partner with energy efficiency. I would like to share the fantastic initiative in Alberta between non-government organizations, major industry and government, the Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance. It has been promoting a major program, which it thinks can significantly reduce greenhouse gases and also create employment. It says there are a lot of non-economic barriers to using these. Some of those include inappropriate price signals, limited product availability, lack of energy literacy and access to capital financing.

That is why it will be really important for the federal government to move forward and partner. What is the second area where the federal government could assist? As our colleague across the way, the parliamentary secretary , mentioned, there was a review that was undertaken by the parliamentary committee on operations. I am pleased to share that this was a review that I initiated.

It was a fantastic review where we brought in experts from across the country to talk about the success the federal government has made in reducing energy use in federal infrastructure and facilities, and the additional savings that could be achieved. The great success that we had in that review was the unanimous conclusion by all of the parties represented at that committee that what we should be doing is targeting investments in energy efficiency toward the considerable tax savings to Canadian taxpayers, not simply the reduction of greenhouse gases. A number of recommendations were made to the government.

We made a very substantial report, but the New Democratic Party also made some additional recommendations based on what the experts told us and also based on the opportunity that I took to go the U.S. and meet its Department of Energy. One of the recommendations we suggested is legally prescribed energy efficiency targets. I notice that the parliamentary secretary mentioned that a number of European nations have legally prescribed targets, so does the United States of America.

We have a clean energy dialogue, a partnership with the United States and I think it is time for Canada to move forward and adopt these kinds of prescriptive measures. We also recommended that there be interagency coordination capacity-building within the government sector and dedicated budget allocations, as well as a lot more attention to jobs and skills development. It may be noted that in a number of the government reports, Conservatives have undertaken that they are going to work toward identifying green jobs and what kinds of skills development is needed and what kinds of programs could support that.

Unfortunately, we have not seen any action on that. I would like to quote the former minister of natural resources, Joe Oliver, speaking on the—

(1140) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. I would remind the member she cannot reference her colleagues by their given names. Ms. Linda Duncan : Mr. Speaker, pardon me. Even though he is the former minister of natural resources, he still is a minister of this place, so I apologize. The former minister of natural resources had stated on this issue that in a five-year period more than 640,000 homeowners benefited from the eco-energy retrofit program.

It is estimated that it triggered more than $8 billion in economic activity, and created and protected thousands of jobs during a time of economic uncertainty. As we know across our country, some regions are still facing a lot of unemployment. Therefore, the value of the energy efficiency sector, whether working on retrofitting government facilities or retrofitting small businesses or homes, is that it allows for our young skilled workers to stay in their own communities, benefit from employment and support their families. On federal infrastructure, there we are.

The number one conclusion that our committee made was that this is the way to save taxpayer dollars. Rather than cutting more and more civil servants, we could invest in energy infrastructure. To close, I would like to add that in the government's own sustainable development strategy, it has five or six recommendations in this vein that it has committed to take action on. What is missing are budgeted dollars to move in that direction. I would encourage the government to come forth and genuinely commit to energy efficiency. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today in support of Motion No. 497 on energy efficiency. I learned to conserve energy when I was very young. At home, my father would always ask me to close the door and tell me that we do not heat the outdoors. He would also ask me to turn off the tap so as not to waste water. Thanks to his guidance, I became aware at an early age that energy is a resource and a commodity to be respected, and the same goes for water. Water conservation and energy efficiency are values I fully support. In my opinion, Canada must support those values as well.

I will read this very important motion. It contains concepts that are very important and must be underscored. The motion states: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement an energy efficiency program to encourage owners of houses, residential buildings, shops and businesses to reduce their energy consumption, with a view to: (

a) combatting climate change; (

b) lowering the energy bills of Canadians; and (

c) creating jobs and stimulating the economy. I think this is a very good motion. It contains three points, one of which is combatting climate change. This is quite timely, considering that there is a major climate change conference being held in New York City right now. The motion also touches on lowering energy bills. I have the pleasure of representing LaSalle—Émard , which is southwest of Montreal. When I go door to door, I talk to people who own commercial and residential buildings and homes. They too are struggling to make ends meet because their energy bills continue to go up while incomes are stagnating.

An energy efficiency program would be most welcome. As some of my colleagues have mentioned, the eco-energy retrofit program was a big success. I do not understand the government's decision. Although some programs are quite successful, the government decided this one was no longer needed and put an end to it. The program was doing well and would have continued to do so. I would like to remind hon. members that, when it comes to energy consumption, Canada has made some tentative steps forward, but the battle has yet not been won.

In 2010, the residential sector was responsible for 16% of Canada's energy consumption and 14% of its greenhouse gas emissions. That is rather high for a sector that is not industrial and not related to transportation. The consumption rate is very high. It appears as though Canada is in denial about its northern nature. We cannot seem to accept or take into account that we are a northern country. However, living in the northern hemisphere is a challenge, and with that comes a number of opportunities for Canada to become a leader in energy efficiency.

As we know, energy consumption in northern countries is mainly related to heating. Obviously, in the summer, it is associated with the use of air conditioning. We want to create an environment where people are comfortable. I do not understand why Canada does not want to show that it can be a leader in energy efficiency. Right now, Canada is one of the heaviest users of energy. Just because we produce energy, does not mean we should waste it. Instead, we should recognize that energy is a very important resource for our country and respect it. We should be creating value-added jobs in this area.

(1145) If we do research and development and develop energy efficiency technologies, we can export those innovations. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to recognize that way of doing things. However, some very worthwhile jobs could be created in this area. Canada already has companies that work in the area of energy efficiency, but unfortunately, they are barely getting by because the incentives are not big enough for these companies to thrive and grow from small to medium-sized businesses.

Reports from the different areas of the industry show that the least amount of research and development in Canada is done by the construction sector. If there were some sort of incentive, such as the program proposed by my colleague from Drummond —and I applaud and commend him for moving this motion—the federal government would be showing leadership in order to stimulate all economic sectors associated with what we call “green technologies” or “energy efficiency technologies”.

This would create jobs and encourage the construction industry to do more research and development and use innovative materials worthy of the 21st century. The residential sector would then be able to do its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. Canada claims to be an energy superpower and so it should really show leadership when it comes to energy efficiency. That makes sense to me. We call ourselves an energy producer, yet we waste the energy produced instead of using energy savings to stimulate job creation and the economy. I am not the only one saying this.

In one of his reports, the former environment commissioner said that protecting the environment was good for business. The motion by my colleague from Drummond says the same thing. If we invest in energy efficiency and give the means to owners in a sector as large as the residential sector, which is growing, or even the commercial construction sector, we will get a very significant return on our investment. I agree with him. I often say that protecting the environment does not run counter to responsible economic development. The construction industry is growing in tandem with demographic growth.

Why not ensure that the residential sector can be more energy efficient? Building projects are popping up all over, whether we are talking about the condo frenzy or construction projects that foster urban sprawl. I was fortunate to travel out west to Edmonton and Calgary, but I did not need to go very far because right in Montreal we have urban sprawl. We have to reconsider and ask ourselves if that is the best way to save energy. We should also examine whether these buildings, which go up in a hurry, meet energy efficiency criteria.

(1150) This motion is worthy of the 21st century. This motion shows leadership and aims at reducing greenhouse gases, fighting climate change and lowering energy bills so that we can invest in the jobs of today and the future. Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank all of my colleagues—Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats—who have spoken on this important debate on energy efficiency, the fight against climate change and the creation of good jobs for the future. I am truly pleased.

When I am asked why I am involved in politics, my first answer is, of course, that I got into politics for my children, for my future grandchildren and for future generations. This means that we need a vision. When we make decisions, we need to look ahead and not worry about making important decisions for the future. I am, however, disappointed about a few things. I am very worried about the Conservatives' response to this motion on energy efficiency. From the first hour of debate, the Conservatives were saying that, for once, the NDP had a good idea.

That is what I heard in the first part of the speech by the member for Yukon . Unfortunately, in the second part of his speech, he said that the Conservatives had done their part and that there was nothing left to be done. There were no improvements left to be made to energy efficiency. According to him, everything is just fine. Everything has been done. We can pack it in because there is nothing left to improve. This is especially disappointing, as leaders from around the world gather in New York on the eve of Climate Summit 2014. Ban Ki-moon will welcome all the world leaders who care about climate change.

Barack Obama will also be there to welcome all the leaders who care about the future of our planet, except the Prime Minister of Canada. That is very disappointing. I would also like to commend the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for the excellent work she has done in committee on the topic of energy efficiency and the environment. She has worked very hard to put forward her ideas, and I truly appreciate her work. At the NDP's most recent caucus meeting in Edmonton, I met groups involved in the area of energy efficiency.

They told me that it is clear that since the disappearance of the federal government's energy efficiency program, Alberta's energy efficiency market is on the decline. This proves that the program had its positives. Furthermore, I did not just show up one morning with the idea of presenting an energy efficiency program in the House of Commons. On the contrary, I met with groups of people who care about the environment, from all over Canada. In Drummondville, I met with representatives from energy efficiency companies, and I would like to mention two of them.

First we have Venmar, which is known across North America. The company is based in Drummondville, which is a great source of pride for us. Then there is Aéroénergie, a company that is new and growing. There are other companies in this field that are based in Drummondville. People are telling us that we need to meet with company representatives to convince them to introduce energy efficiency programs and tell them that they will see a return on their investment in 5 or 10 years.

Not only is it an investment to encourage people and families to put their money into this area, it is also a way to create savings over a relatively short time. We know that household debt is at an alarming level right now. Recent studies have again made that observation. We need to work to help families make ends meet. This will also allow us to create jobs for the future. Many of my colleagues have mentioned that we should focus on jobs in innovation and the green sector. We need to move in that direction. That is why the motion I moved is so broad. It does not tell the government what action to take.

The government can proceed as it sees fit. I hope that it will work with the provinces, some of which have solid programs with municipalities or other groups. I would like to add the following point about combatting climate change, and this is very important. This is a debate about tomorrow. Once again, officials at Environment Canada have said that the Conservatives will not meet their watered-down climate change targets. We need an NDP government. We are a government in waiting.

(1155) We have a leader who is ready to make decisions. When we form government, we will have an energy efficiency program for the good of future generations. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : It being noon, the time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion, the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: Division on motion deferred The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 24, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

(1200) [ English ] Points of Order Bill C-13—Protecting Canadians From Online Crime Act Points of Order Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to ask you to select the amendment I submitted for debate and vote at report stage on Bill C-13,

an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act . I understand that you will be giving a ruling on this after question period today, and I wanted to make sure that I made this submission before then, as this is a motion that was proposed and defeated in committee.

As stated in the note to Standing Order 76(5), the Speaker can select a motion that was defeated in committee to be debated at the report stage, “...if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at the report stage”. I would like to explain why this motion warrants consideration and why it is of such exceptional significance to members that it should be considered again. The motion is to amend clause 12 of Bill C-13 to add “gender identity” to the definition of “identifiable group” in subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code concerning hate crimes. Mr.

Speaker, as you know, the House previously decided on this issue during its consideration of Bill C-279,

an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity) . Clause 3 of Bill C-279 replaces subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code and in doing so adds to the definition of “identifiable group” those members of the public distinguished by gender identity. Clause 12 of Bill C-13 would replace that same subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code and would add to the current definition of “identifiable group”: ...any

section of the public distinguished by national...origin, age, sex...or mental or physical disability. However, clause 12 of Bill C-13 does not use the current definition in the Criminal Code, as amended by the House by Bill C-279 , and therefore deletes a provision by omission. If the House adopts Bill C-13 , we will not protect transgender Canadians from hate crimes, despite having already affirmed this principle in this same Parliament.

This one amendment to the Criminal Code makes up half the substantive content of Bill C-279 , my private member's bill, which passed third reading in this House on March 20, 2013. The members of this House will recall that it was passed by a majority of members in a vote of 149 to 137 with support from all parties. Again, a change to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-279 is a short and specific proposal to offer protection from hate crimes to transgender Canadians.

In all likelihood, the 149 MPs who supported Bill C-279 at third reading would also support the motion I proposed in committee had they had the opportunity, since this motion is identical in content to that proposed in Bill C-279. With Bill C-13 , as it will be reported back to the House later today, the government would be, in effect, attempting to override this part of Bill C-279 , which was passed by a majority of MPs in the House of Commons. I believe that the note to Standing Order 76(5) was written specifically for situations like this one.

This is an exceptional case in which a motion defeated in committee because of five government MPs would most certainly be supported by at least 149 MPs if it were moved in the House, and it would therefore pass. If the vote were held in the House of Commons rather than in committee, the outcome would be completely different. You can therefore be assured, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is not of a repetitive, frivolous, or vexatious nature or of a nature that would merely prolong unnecessary proceedings at the report stage.

This would not be a repeat of the committee stage, since the outcome of the vote would likely be very different from what it was in committee. Some MPs would certainly oppose the motion, but it seems obvious to me that a majority of MPs would once again vote to provide protection from hate crimes to transgender Canadians. There are several precedents where the Speaker referred to the note to Standing Order 76(5) to identify a motion as being of exceptional significance to the House as justification for selecting it for debate at the report stage, even though it had been proposed and defeated in committee. Mr.

Speaker, let me remind you of those precedents. One involves Motions Nos. 3 and 4 at the report stage of Bill C-23,

an act to modernize the statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations . On April 3, 2000, the chair occupant said to the House: Motion No. 3 in the name of the member for Burnaby—Douglas is identical to the text of a subamendment moved in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during a meeting on March 23, 2000 and defeated in a recorded division. Motion No. 4 in the name of the member for Elk Island is similar to another motion moved in that committee. Under normal circumstances such motions would not be selected for consideration at report stage.

I have looked carefully at the two motions and after appropriate consideration, I am convinced that they do fulfill the requirements to be selected in that they have such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at report stage.

(1205) Another example took place on February 18, 2002, at the report stage for Bill C-5 ,

an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Speaker Milliken stated as follows: ...there are motions similar to those that were rejected by the committee. Usually, such motions are not selected, because they would generate discussions that have already taken place in committee. However, the note in the Standing Orders allows the Speaker to select these motions if he deems that they are of such importance that they deserve to be examined again at report stage. I believe that these motions respect that criterion and therefore they will be selected for the debate.

Lastly, I would like to refer to the precedent established on June 10, 2005, at the report stage for Bill C-43,

an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005 . Again, Speaker Milliken had originally rejected Motions Nos. 5 and 6 at the bill's report stage. After hearing a point of order raised by the chief opposition whip, he reversed his ruling and selected the motions for debate at the report stage. In response to a question from a government MP who disagreed with him, the Speaker said: Motion No. 1 to amend clause 9 to put back in words that were deleted in the committee was allowed. I understand they are the same words.

I allowed those to be debated because, as I say, the minister made submissions that indicated he thought this was a matter of public importance. I am prepared to make the same arrangement with respect to Motions Nos. 5 and 6 and I have so ruled. Mr. Speaker, my request is even more significant, if we consider the precedent that would be set if this motion is not selected for debate. The House previously decided on the issue of gender identity when a majority of MPs chose to include provisions in the Criminal Code that would protect transgender Canadians.

Without the amendment I have proposed, Bill C-13 would do exactly the opposite. It would reverse a decision reached democratically in the House following several hours of debate and a recorded division. It is also worth noting that the 149 MPs who supported Bill C-279 included many government MPs. The five Conservative MPs who opposed this amendment to Bill C-13 in committee were not representative of all their colleagues.

By allowing the government to rewrite subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code to eliminate the changes made by Bill C-279 , we are going against the wishes of the majority of MPs in the House who supported that bill. What this means is that if a majority government does not support a piece of private member's business, which is the case for Bill C-279 , it can introduce a government bill reversing the provisions of the private member's bill.

All the government has to do is ensure that the members who sit on the committee during the clause-by-clause study of the government bill are among those who opposed the private member's bill in question. I believe this creates a dangerous precedent for private members' business. This amendment is of significant importance for MPs and for public safety, as demonstrated when Bill C-279 was debated in the Commons and was considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment should be selected for debate at the report stage so that all MPs may decide on this issue.

This is not a matter that can be resolved by a mere handful of government MPs on a committee of the House. It deserves to be considered again in the full House of Commons. Given that this motion is of exceptional significance to the debate at report stage, and in view of the precedents available to the House, I respectfully request that you select it for consideration at the report stage of Bill C-13 and that you allow the members of this House to vote on it separately as a stand-alone motion and one not tied to any of the other votes at report stage proceedings.

(1210) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is rising on the same point of order. Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government certainly wants to contribute to this particular issue and will be coming forth in a timely manner to represent its arguments in this case. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : The Chair thanks the hon. members for raising the point of order and assures them that it will be dealt with in due course and reminds them, particularly on the government side, that this may be coming forward quite soon and to proceed on that basis.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act Bill C-36. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of 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 , as reported (with amendments) from the committee. [ English ] Speaker's Ruling The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : There are 52 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-36 . Motions Nos. 1 to 52 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [ Translation ] I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 52 to the House.

(1215) [ English ] Motions in amendment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) moved: Motions Nos. 1 to 52 Motion No. 1 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting the

long title. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting the

preamble. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 1. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 2. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 3. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 4. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 5. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 6. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 7. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 8. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 12 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 10. Motion No. 13 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 11. Motion No. 14 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 12. Motion No. 15 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 13. Motion No. 16 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 14. Motion No. 17 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 15. Motion No. 18 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 16. Motion No. 19 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 17. Motion No. 20 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 21 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 19. Motion No. 22 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 20. Motion No. 23 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 21. Motion No. 24 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 22. Motion No. 25 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 23. Motion No. 26 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 24. Motion No. 27 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 25. Motion No. 28 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 26. Motion No. 29 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 30 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 28. Motion No. 31 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 29. Motion No. 32 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 30. Motion No. 33 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 31. Motion No. 34 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 32. Motion No. 35 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 33. Motion No. 36 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 34. Motion No. 37 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 35. Motion No. 38 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 39 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 37. Motion No. 40 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 38. Motion No. 41 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 39. Motion No. 42 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 40. Motion No. 43 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 41. Motion No. 44 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 42. Motion No. 45 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 43. Motion No. 46 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 44. Motion No. 47 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 48 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 45.1. Motion No. 49 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 46. Motion No. 50 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 47. Motion No. 51 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 48. Motion No. 52 That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 49. She said: Mr.

Speaker, it is rare, and members of the House will know it, standing as the leader of the Green Party of Canada and member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, that I have not availed myself of the opportunity to present amendments at committee stage under new rules that were adopted last fall. I have objected to the opportunity because it has not amounted to a real chance to amend legislation. Nevertheless, on bills that I find disturbing, I have gone to every committee with amendments of a substantive nature.

In the case of Bill C-36 , I found I could not find a way to amend the bill in a way that would actually fix it. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you have now read out attempts to delete the entire bill based on it being unfixable. How do we find ourselves here? As we all know, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Bedford decision that our existing laws relating to prostitution were unconstitutional as they violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [ Translation ]

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important sentence that constitutes a fundamental principle for all Canadians: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” In the Bedford case, the Supreme Court determined that Canadian laws and the Criminal Code are inconsistent with this

section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to sex workers who are threatened by current Canadian laws. (1220) [ English ] With the Supreme Court saying that our laws relating to prostitution did not adequately protect the rights of security of the person for people who found themselves in this very marginalized and difficult place in their lives and that they were even more marginalized, even more stigmatized and driven into the shadows by the status of laws over prostitution in Canada, it was up to us, as Parliament, to come up with an approach that would respect, would protect and would ensure that people in the sex trade industry were not driven into the shadows.

After Bedford, I thought we would see a response from Parliament, a response from the Minister of Justice , that took into account the message from the Supreme Court of Canada. Ironically, earlier this morning, I attended an international symposium on the subject of gender violence and health. The symposium is taking place a few blocks from here, at the Novotel, on Nicholas Street. Researchers from across Canada are presenting research on this topic, with people from around the world. It is a collaborative social science project in Canada on gender violence and health.

It was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I was able to stay long enough, before coming here to debate Bill C-36 , to hear the preliminary findings of that work being done across Canada. I was pleased to see that members from my own part of the world, from University of Victoria and from the city of Victoria Police Department had all participated in this work. Their area of research was restricted to people in the sex trade industry who were over 19 and who were not part of the quite horrific trafficking in people who did not have rights.

I want to make it really clear that in the Green Party's stance against Bill C-36 , we believe the full measure of the law should be used to crack down on anyone who is exploiting minors and people in sex trafficking. We believe laws in that area must be strengthened and that the laws are adequate, even as they now stand, to differentiate the situations between prostitution, in general, and this group of exploited workers under 19 who are trafficked internationally and lack the rights they should have under the law. Research has been done that is being reported on just today, as I mentioned.

It was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It was collaborative work done in six different cities across Canada by some of our best social science researchers, who examined the lives of sex trade workers who were not under the age of 19 or involved in human trafficking. What the institute found as a foundational piece of information in early research is intuitive and is what the Supreme Court of Canada understood.

It is that any laws that are punitive in nature, anything that in our social context that would further stigmatize sex trade work, means that the people conducting themselves in that work are more vulnerable and are less able to access the supports and protections found in our society. The Supreme Court of Canada decision made it clear what Parliament needed to do: Parliament needed to find a way to ensure that people in the sex trade industry were not driven into the shadows and were not further stigmatized. This is a tragedy, because we are talking about people's lives.

We are not just talking about slogans for election campaigns or going for some sort of core vote from Conservative Party supporters. This issue transcends partisanship. This is about Parliament being asked by the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is respected when we bring forth laws that deal with prostitution. On that fundamental requirement for our laws, Bill C-36 stands as a singular failure. It would absolutely not make the life of sex trade workers more secure. It goes in the wrong direction. As numerous legal commentators have noted, this law would make the sex trade more dangerous. Just to give a sense of why that is, I would like to quote comments made by the Minister of Justice at a press conference on the day that Bill C-36 was tabled back in June.

I am going to quote from an exchange that he had with a reporter. The Minister of Justice said: Some prostitutes we know are younger than 18 years of age. If they are in the presence of one another at 3:00 in the morning and are selling sexual services, they would be subject to arrest. A reporter then asked: That would still be considered a criminal offence? The response from the Minister of Justice was: That’s correct. They’re selling it in the presence of a minor.

The reporter said: Okay, so if two 17-year-old prostitutes are standing side by side in the middle of the night in what is considered a public place, they will be committing an offence. The response by the Minister of Justice : And selling sex, yes. A reporter said: That’s effectively making them stay on their own and endangering furthering their own security. The Minister of Justice : Not at all. We’re not making them do anything. We’re not forcing them to sell sex. That is a response in the absence of reality.

If we are to take the Supreme Court's decision in the Bedford case seriously, then we should do everything possible to allow people in the sex trade industry to be with each other, to be near each other, to be protecting each other. There is a distinction between being on the street and indoor sex work. Anything that drives people in the sex trade industry onto the street and into the shadows is going to make their lives more dangerous.

This goes to the next piece of Bill C-36 , which is likely unconstitutional: banning advertisement for sexual services and banning communicating for the purchasing of sex in particular. Bill C-36 states that all of it would be illegal unless the sex trade workers are communicating directly. In other words, publishing their ads would be illegal. This again would force a prostitute to lose the intermediary. It would force the sex trade worker to lose the possibility of some form of screening, some way of ensuring they are not face-to-face in the shadows negotiating their situation.

It would make their lives much more dangerous. The decision in Bedford gave us guidance on this issue. The court said in Bedford: By prohibiting communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution, the law prevents prostitutes from screening clients and setting terms for the use of condoms or safe houses. In these ways, it significantly increases the risks they face. Bill C-36 is written as though the Supreme Court of Canada has given us no guidance, as though we are blundering around not imagining the narrowness of the ways in which communicating or advertising would remain legal in Canada.

(1225) It is as though the Bedford decision gave us no guidance, because what they have come up with is aimed at a new offence of advertising sexual services and is undoubtedly going to make life more dangerous for sex trade workers. I could go on and on, but I know my time is at an end. [ Translation ] I just want to say that this law will only make the lives of hundreds of sex workers more difficult and more dangerous. [ English ] Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member went on at some length to talk about specific provisions in the bill what would restrict prostitutes from communicating in a public place for the purpose of prostitution. Apparently she does not know that there was an amendment proposed and passed at the House justice committee on that very point that would restrict the communication in a public place provision to the schoolyard, the playground, and the daycare centre.

I wonder if she could tell the House if she thinks it is a good idea that prostitutes be allowed, and perhaps encouraged, to communicate for the purposes of prostitution in those three places? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware of amendments that were passed. In the judgment of many within the legal profession, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association among others, while this change would narrow the scope, it remains a

section of the law that would clearly not survive a charter challenge. The use of daycares and preschools and so on is designed to create electioneering and slogans and does not pay attention to ensuring that the laws we pass in this place are constitutional. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my Green Party colleague. I am very happy to be part of the committee that studied Bill C-36 very closely. Several amendments were proposed, and many of them were ruled in order. There was a debate about the amendments.

Clearly, the government had no interest in accepting them, but the resulting debates were interesting. With a little good will, committee members could have mitigated the potentially negative impact of the bill as written by the government. (1230) [ English ] At the beginning of her speech, my colleague from the Green Party said that she thought the minister would have presented something that would have been in answer to the Bedford ruling, so I would like to ask the hon. member what, in her opinion, would have been the proper answer to that ruling. Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. justice critic for the official opposition, who has done such strong work in so many areas of law in the country. I and the Green Party think the kind of law we need is probably found most closely in the New Zealand law. I expected, by the way, to see something closer to what is described as the Nordic model. I did not expect to see so many areas in Bill C-36 that would criminalize behaviour in ways that would increase the risk for people in the sex trade industry.

However, having studied the Nordic model and the New Zealand model, we prefer the law that goes furthest in ensuring that the activities in the sex trade industry lose their stigma. We should be able to say that someone in the sex trade industry or someone who works for them—in, for example, security or scheduling or health care—is not stigmatized. Then we can concentrate on people who are in the sex trade because of addiction problems, or on those under 19, or on foreign workers. God help us; what a horrific case there is of sex trafficking and human trafficking. We should focus on those and eliminate them. Mr.

Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was a participant in the justice committee hearings on the bill over the summer, when we heard from over 60 witnesses. There was a consensus on three points. One was that the $20 million that has been set aside for an exit program was inadequate. The second was that all of those who were trained in the law, except for the Minister of Justice and those in his employ, felt that all or some of the bill was unconstitutional. The third point was that those involved in the sex trade should not be criminalized.

Probably the best suggestion we heard during the course of the testimony was that those who are carrying a criminal record as a result of the unconstitutional law should be given an immunity. My question for the member is this: what does she think of that immunity suggestion, which was rejected by the Conservatives? Also, does she have any comments with respect to the stigmatization associated with a criminal record as a result of being in the sex trade? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the hon. member for Charlottetown .

I thought his speech at second reading on this bill was the best that anyone delivered in comparing the Canadian laws on prostitution with a made-in-Moscow version for Canada. I agree that when the law is unconstitutional, we need to look at immunity. As much as all of us have our own personal views that come from our own religious or moral context or backgrounds, the bottom line is that people's lives are at risk. Who are we as Canadians to turn our backs on them? Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what was just said aside, there is something that has not been adequately debated in this House, and that is using the statement “what two consenting adults do between them is not the state's concern” as an underpinning to argue that the asymmetrical criminalization that has been put forward through this bill is not an adequate response to the Bedford ruling. That is because the concept of sexual consent is at the heart of the statement. Our Criminal Code provides a standard definition for “sex without consent” under

section 273.1. Some of the provisions include: (

a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant; (

b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity; There are other provisions. Through case law, we have seen that a sexual assault offence is established by the proof of three elements: touching, the sexual nature of the content, and the absence of consent. Furthermore, case law has shown that the absence of consent is subjective by reference to the complainant's internal state of mind towards the touching at the time it occurred.

Beyond this criminal definition of sexual consent is the work that groups involved with prevention of sexual assault have been doing to educate the public on the relationship between knowing and celebrating one's sexuality in order to define the boundaries of consent. I had a transformational moment last week. I had a chance to speak with Elsbeth Mehrer of the YWCA of Calgary. I asked her, “What do you define as sexual consent?” She talked about an enthusiastic response that is exhibited by both parties. I am also very proud of the work of the University of Calgary's consent, awareness, and sexual education club.

They ran a “Consent is Sweet” campaign to bring this more accurate, in my opinion, concept of sexual consent to their student body. Since time immemorial, empowered, educated, enthusiastic sexuality, particularly female sexuality, has been written into literature, social mores, and religious practice as an evil, something to be avoided for fear of ripping the very fabric of society.

It has only been in very recent decades that western culture, particularly through the feminist movement, has enshrined a new view of consent into our consciousness, yet we still struggle to protect this, from “rapey” chants at frosh week to requests for female airport security officers to be segregated. We as a culture are still challenged with the full acceptance of empowered, equitable sexuality. Furthermore, at the heart of this new notion of sexual consent is the concept of equality, the concept that all parties are in equilibrium from a power dynamic perspective.

I feel that as such, the “what two consenting adults do” argument is flawed, as there is an overwhelming burden of proof that a large majority of sex workers are not in an equitable position. Be it a young worker who entered into the trade before having an opportunity to define what an enthusiastic response means in terms of their own sexuality, workers who are selling out of desperation to make the rent, to support substance abuse, to support their children or any other determinant of poverty, or workers who are suffering from mental health issues, there is not equality in the power balance between the parties.

In most such situations, I would argue that true sexual consent, this enthusiasm that Elsbeth speaks about and that we are striving as a culture to enshrine, is difficult to achieve. In demonstrating this, several studies based on surveys or anecdotal evidence from sex worker advocates and service providers suggest that the prevalence of sexual assault in the sex industry is high, particularly in the case of street-level workers. A 2005 Vancouver study said that 78% of these workers had been raped in prostitution.

Studies carried in the mid-1990s by the Department of Justice showed that physical and sexual assaults on prostitutes were commonly carried out by clients, pimps, or boyfriends. In 2003, the Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault published a briefing entitled “What lies behind the hidden figure of sexual assault? Issues of prevalence and disclosure”. It discusses the notion that women working in the sex industry are at a greater risk of sexual violence. The paper also briefly provides information about the treatment of sex workers by the courts and the judiciary in sexual assault cases.

We know that sexual assault is under-reported in general, I believe even more so in the case of sex workers. One of the issues raised in response to sex workers not reporting sexual assault is that they are afraid of being charged with prostitution-related offences as a result of making a statement. They also indicate that being exposed as a sex worker to friends and family is another reason to not report the incident to the police.

(1235) When we look at case law, defence strategies generally consist of attacking the credibility of the victim. I looked at some case law involving prostitutes, from 2004 to 2014, and these were some of the defence strategies: The complainant consented on previous and future occasions. The complainant is a drug addict and was under the influence when the sexual activities took place, suffers from depression, or cannot recollect the events due to memory lapses. The complainant continued to work as a prostitute for many years after the event; therefore, she consented to the activity and was not traumatized.

How do these defences demonstrate our culture's acceptance of the value of full, enthusiastic, empowered sexual consent? In the research completed for me by the Library of Parliament, several court cases showed the difficulty of defining consent in the context of case work. In R. v. House, R. v. Dyck, R. v. Lumsden, and R. v. Jakeer, the courts noticed that sex workers are particularly vulnerable and are entitled to the full measure of protection of the law, as is any other person. The review of cases tended to show that there was no general trend of the judicial

interpretation of consent by sex workers. In this context, it seems that the consent of prostitutes is determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis. I would like to read part of a ruling from the Ontario Court of Justice in relation to sexual assault with a sex worker. In the circumstances of this case, although I am prepared to accept that she may have had grave misgivings and was in fact not consenting; her words and actions were such that a reasonable person might have an honest but mistaken belief as to her consent.

She got into the car, asked for the money agreed upon and then apparently willingly complied with the sexual requests of these young men. I do not agree with the Crown's submission that the young men had any obligation to ask her if she was consenting to sexual contact when they entered the car. It was reasonable for them to assume that she was consenting when she met them with a request for the $30 fee before engaging in sexual activity and never by word or action indicated that she was not consenting to continue.

Surely it is not the law that a client of a prostitute has to continually ask whether the acts engaged in are consensual.... I wish I had time to read this whole ruling because given rulings like this, websites which rate sex workers include comments like, “She didn't look at me when we were doing it” and “She cried a bit halfway through.” I am not of the view that any person has a God-given right to have access to the purchase of sex or that the purchase of sex should in and of itself define sexual consent.

To protect sex workers in this country, we need to stop and acknowledge that this is a fundamental flaw in any argument for the legalization of prostitution. By legalizing prostitution, we would degrade a hard-fought cultural understanding of the worth of humans and our sexuality, and make it harder for the victims of sexual assault, even those who are sex workers, to seek recompense and heal. However, this is not to say that sex workers are in every instance incapable of giving consent.

In contrast, by adopting Bill C-36 and the related funding we have announced, our country acknowledges we have the right to consent over what we choose to do with our bodies but that the burden of proof is overwhelming and shows that the majority of sex workers are degraded, assaulted, and abused. As such, we as a society and a nation recognize that the purchase of sexual services is an action we believe is criminal.

In the committee hearings, one of the witnesses spoke to the asymmetrical provisions and asked where it is that you can purchase something legally but not buy it legally, and why don't we do that with booze? Well, a bottle of booze is not a human being. I believe that in order for us to show that we as a country have moved beyond a very limited range of sexual consent and that we as a culture believe in an empowered, willing, enthusiastic sexual consent definition, this proposed law needs to be adopted. (1240) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way. I would like to get some answers to some very specific questions. On the one hand, I would like to know whether the member thinks that this is a way to make prostitution illegal. Is prostitution illegal in Canada? If the answer is yes, she no longer has to answer the rest of my questions. If the answer is no, without hearing any comparisons to alcohol, I am still trying to understand how purchasing something can be a crime but selling it is not.

While keeping in mind the current Criminal Code provisions on human trafficking and exploitation, which still exist without the three small clauses in question that were addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada, if the police have not been capable of doing the job when it comes to the exploitation of women who are in this business against their will, why does the member think that sex workers will be any safer with Bill C-36 ? Does she agree with the $20 million sum, when everyone else is saying that that is completely ridiculous? [ English ] Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague for this question because I think it is at the heart of this debate. How can that asymmetry protect sex workers, and why have we approached it? It is as simple as this: the Criminal Code in Canada is a statement of what behaviour we in this country believe is acceptable and what we think is criminal. Given the burden of proof that shows sex workers are for the most part subjected to abuse, sexual assault, and so on, we are acknowledging that the purchase of sexual services is a determinant to the outcome we do not want to see happen. Therefore, we are putting that into law.

We are saying, as a country, that the action of purchasing sexual services is not acceptable and is a determinant to causing abuse. On the other hand, we acknowledge that humans have a right to choose what they will do with their body. Through social programming, we support people exiting the trade.

(1245) Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one of the things the minister said was an impediment to those involved in the sex trade reporting sexual assaults is the fear of being charged with a prostitution-related offence. This bill would not fix that. Those involved in the sex trade would still be subject to criminal prosecution and to a criminal record for communicating in certain circumstances. Given that is one of the concerns that the minister has, would she agree with all of the evidence we heard at committee with respect to the criminalization of those in the trade?

I would also repeat the question offered by the member for Gatineau with respect to the adequacy of the $20 million that has been set aside for exit programs. What are the minister's views on that? Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, again, the point I was trying to make in my speech was that we have difficulty both in getting sex workers to report incidents of sexual assault and then convictions. We need to say there is an issue in obtaining consent in a sex trade transaction.

Boundaries can be broken quite easily, and then the person who is being assaulted is in the position of trying to show the burden of proof that this did occur. By saying that we as a country do not support the purchase of sexual services and it is illegal, we are going to help raise awareness that sexual assault does occur in these situations. That was the point I was trying to make in my speech.

With regard to social programming, I fully believe that in order to assist sex workers who find themselves in the trade out of desperation or poverty that we have an onus as parliamentarians to ensure there is adequate programming available. It is not just about the $20 million; it is also about the myriad of other support services that we fund through government. We have increased transfer payments to the provinces for education and health care to record levels. We have all sorts of different employment services. I could speak at length just on that. Do we need to ensure that they are adequate and working?

Yes, we do. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, some moments in our careers take on a certain importance because of the wide-reaching consequences of the decision we have to make. Since Bill C-36 was introduced, and in fact since the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the Bedford case, we knew that something was coming. I believe that everyone with an interest in this issue, on both sides, was contacted for consultation purposes.

Whether it was stakeholders at all levels, sex trade workers, feminist groups that are opposed to the sex trade, or legal and constitutional experts, we met with almost everyone in Canada. The approach I recommended on behalf of the NDP was to be as open-minded as possible. Everyone has their own perceptions and experiences, everyone was raised in a certain way, and so on. We are therefore trying not to let those views take on a life of their own and influence us.

I was hoping that the government would do the same, because obviously, that is what I would expect from any justice minister and Attorney General of Canada. That office holder has an obligation to introduce constitutional laws. We all know that law is not an exact science, so I am not asking for a 100% guarantee. However, some things hit us right between the eyes and make us realize that a particularly obvious problem is being created. In any case, it has become quite obvious. The minister, who spoke just before me, mentioned $20 million in social transfers.

For me, such transfers are an indication of good faith and a firm conviction in the measure that is being put forward. We heard from many people in committee. I counted some 75 witnesses. All of them, whether they were for or against Bill C-36 , were unanimous in saying that $20 million over five years was a joke. Take for example the Manitoba justice minister. He talked about this problem in his province. We know that there is a serious problem in Manitoba with regard to forced prostitution and that it affects many aboriginal women. Poverty is a major issue here. This is an even bigger problem across the nation.

Given the magnitude of the problem, $20 million over five years is a joke. I will not get into all the arguments I will surely hear from my colleagues across the way to the effect that this is a start. If the Conservatives are serious and want as many people as possible on their side, they must show how serious they are with action. When the minister presented his bill at a press conference, it seemed like an afterthought. That really bothers me, because the Conservatives lack credibility in what they do. Some of their other tactics also undermine their credibility and scare me even more.

I am talking about online consultations. I was not born yesterday. I know that claiming to have consulted everyone around and saying that everyone agrees is the oldest trick in the book for a government that wants to get its way. The government has every right to do that, and I would even say it is a good idea. I am all for consultations. I too consulted the people of Gatineau a number of times to find what they thought of all this in order to be sure that the position of the member for Gatineau and the position of the official opposition justice critic sat well with the people she represents.

Above all else, the most important thing to me is being the member for Gatineau and representing my constituents. The people told me that I was on the right track. At committee stage, when we were studying this bill, we asked the minister if we could see the results of this grand online consultation. We knew the results were available, and we wanted to see all the details and the poll paid for by Canadian taxpayers. There was some indication that the results did not say exactly what the government was suggesting.

(1250) I will not describe the answers received, as I would be kicked out of the House of Commons. Some were simply unacceptable, such as when I was told that I would receive a response in due course. For the government, that meant when the committee finished studying the matter. The important information is conspicuous for its absence. For me, that is an indication of the government's lack of transparency on such volatile issues as safety. In fact, that is an aspect that has been virtually eliminated. I referred to 75 witnesses, but we should not get excited and imagine that the study was uncommonly thorough.

The study was done fairly quickly. In fact, it took place over a very short period of time and each intervenor had very little time. In total, five minutes were allocated for putting questions to constitutional experts, probably lawyers, who are one hundred times smarter than I am on this issue, to get a true sense of what is happening. Fortunately, we had done a large part of the work beforehand and during the study. We will continue working on this and trying to make the government understand that it is on the wrong track.

We presented amendments because that is what the job of all opposition parties, but especially that of the official opposition. As I said earlier, most of the amendments were deemed to be in order. Thus, they could have been debated and would have improved a bill that is indeed very harsh. I was proud to propose an amendment, on behalf of the NDP, that would have prevented victims from having a criminal record. The Conservative government is always talking about sex workers as victims. If they are victims, their criminal record should be erased. Someone cannot be both a victim and a criminal.

However, since there is nothing the Conservatives cannot do, they achieved the amazing feat of declaring these people to be victims and, at the same time, criminalizing them so that they are stuck with a criminal record. Simple amendments like that would have given them the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. They refused. Amendments to reflect what all kinds of witnesses came to tell us were refused. These witnesses told us that extreme poverty and addiction are two of the major problems that lead people into prostitution. We tried to propose an amendment.

Aside from the phrase “...in response to...Bedford...”, there is nothing to show that this bill is truly a response to what the Supreme Court told us, which is that this is a serious problem. This is nowhere to be seen in the bill's

preamble. There is no mention of it. Three sections were rejected by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that they were infringing on the right to security and to life. That is not insignificant. The bill needs to be evaluated from that perspective. I proposed an amendment on behalf of the NDP. The Conservatives claim that they are going to eradicate prostitution. There could be a study every two years. Every year, the minister would have the opportunity to share with the House the details of what was done, of what was spent by whom and so on.

No, once again, transparency is noticeably absent from the Conservative ranks. To conclude, I would simply like to point out that the government was under no obligation to come back with Bill C-36 . The Supreme Court of Canada was very clear: The question under

section 7 is whether anyone's life, liberty or security of the person has been denied by a law that is inherently bad; a grossly disproportionate, overboard, or arbitrary effect on one person is sufficient to establish a breach of

section 7. The Supreme Court concluded that this does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes. We have been told that it will infringe on their rights. It is a delicate topic, and it is up to Parliament to take the necessary steps, should it choose to do so. There is therefore no obligation.

(1255) Stop saying that the Bedford ruling is behind Bill C-36 , that there was no other choice and that there had to be a full-scale study because there would have been problems otherwise. I would not want to take the blame for the consequences this bill will have on many people. Do not forget that anything labelled “human trafficking” and “exploitation” is still part of the Criminal Code, which protects women and other victims of these crimes. [ English ] Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the NDP justice critic, for her contribution and participation in the House of Commons justice committee review over the summer. I note that in her speech today, and at other opportunities, she mentioned that she did not understand how something could be illegal to purchase but not to sell. I would remind her that when the bill was introduced, the Minister of Justice said quite clearly that for the first time in Canada, prostitution would be made illegal by this bill.

The bill would provide an exemption to the persons who would sell their services, because, in the view of the government, we see them as primarily victims. The Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification made a good speech earlier about consent and how many people in this business were really not in a position to give consent because they were forced by their circumstances to do this. What I want to ask her very succinctly is this. If her party were to propose a bill, would it make the purchase of sexual services of another person illegal? (1300) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr.

Speaker, I find this debate somewhat uninspiring. In saying that it has created an exemption, the government is avoiding saying what it cannot legally say. It cannot legally say that prostitution is illegal in Canada. That is what I believe based on information that I myself received from some of this country's leading constitutional experts. Before I began my speech, the minister talked about how all people have the right to do what they want with their body. We subscribe to that principle with respect to abortion, the right to choose and so on. We have to apply that logic to everything, like it or not.

It does not matter if it is not the way I am raising my girls. Our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms dictate the kind of society we want. It is not up to me to tell people what to do. When we asked them to clearly state the basis of their intent to make prostitution illegal, they objected to that kind of amendment. If they want to know what we intend to do, I can say that we will show them when we take power in 2015. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Gatineau a question about the amendments that were presented in committee.

She put forward several amendments, and all but one were rejected. [ English ] My question is with respect to the only amendment that the government saw fit to accept from the official opposition over the course of the summer, and that amendment called for an automatic review of this bill after five years. Given the numerous constitutional concerns that have been expressed, given the inevitable charter challenge that awaits, is it not really a pyrrhic victory, the passing of this amendment five years down the road?

Will we not be well into the litigation process or have already passed the amendment process by the time this has any effect? [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, I doubt that the hon. member heard that from me. I did not leave the committee jumping for joy because one of my amendments had been adopted. I think this is the same as a rejection. What we were asking for is that this be done in the first two years. That seemed perfectly reasonable to us, especially considering that the Conservatives rejected our even more important amendment.

It sought to provide members of the House with key statistics such as where the money was spent, how many people managed to get out of the trade and how many people ended up trapped in the trade, in order to see how far the government managed to get with its so-called eradication of prostitution. I think that five years from now, we will not even see this review of the act itself, given the fact that the issue will likely end up in court. However, when we look at the Bedford case and the time it took for a final ruling by the Supreme Court, I am not sure that we will have a final ruling.

However, I am sure that we will no longer have a Conservative government, and it will be part of our job at that point to review many laws to ensure that we are adhering to the principles set out in the Bedford ruling. [ English ] Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-36 at report stage. I stated in the last session that the bill would likely be unconstitutional. This was confirmed by virtually all of the legal witnesses who testified at committee with the exception of the minister and those employed by his department.

Let there be no doubt that this unconstitutional bill will pass the House because the Conservatives hold a majority of the seats in the House. Once it has completed its perfunctory process here at report stage and then third reading, the legislation will proceed to the Senate. That chamber is also controlled by the Conservative majority, and it was decided that it would undertake a pre-study of the bill, meaning that even before the legislation is passed in the House, the Senate Conservatives were holding hearings.

Senator Linda Frum was quoted in the media today confirming that any changes to the bill were highly unlikely. Please allow me to provide an overview of what has transpired with the issue of prostitution, including an overview of the legislative process to date. As it currently stands, prostitution is legal in Canada and has been since 1892 when the Criminal Code was first enacted. It was the activities surrounding prostitution that were illegal until the Supreme Court ruling in Bedford.

Specifically, the Criminal Code outlined communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution, living on the avails of prostitution and operating a common bawdy house, otherwise known as a brothel. By way of background, it is critical to reference the famous Bedford case, the reason we are here today. In its landmark court 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 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 the ruling from coming into force for a period of one year to give Parliament the opportunity to enact new legislation if it chose to do so. This past June, the Attorney General introduced Bill C-36 , a legislative response to the Supreme Court's ruling. As I have stated, prior to the committee hearings in July, I share the consensus view of legal commentators who strongly believe Bill C-36 is unconstitutional in whole or in part. I do not believe the legislation complies with the Supreme Court ruling.

Nor do I believe it complies with the charter. Furthermore, I indicated that the legislation might very well put sex workers at a greater risk of harm or worse. The Conservatives claimed that they consulted widely about the bill without providing evidence of these consultations. They further claimed that they checked that Bill C-36 was charter compliant, again, without producing evidence in the form of legal opinion despite repeated requests. The Conservatives rejected a request to refer the question of the bill's constitutionality to the Supreme Court of Canada.

They claim to have relied upon evidence in the form of an online survey of Canadians. This survey is really a pretty obvious effort to provide cover from the inevitable critique that they once again defaulted to ideology in crafting the bill. This survey is passed off as evidence by Conservatives. The Conservatives fail to mention how unscientific online surveys are, especially when the possibility of organized interest groups target the survey in order to skew the results.

Is this really what Canadians want from their government, conducting surveys with inherent flaws as the basis for making serious changes in law, or even more worrisome, as the basis of responding to a Supreme Court's decision? Yet we have the spectacle of the Minister of Justice waving around this survey as some sort of conclusive evidence of the current thinking of Canadians.

(1305) Then there is the $175,000 Ipsos Reid poll the government commissioned seeking the actual views of Canadians about prostitution. Time and again, the Liberal Party and my colleagues in the official opposition called on government to release that poll, a real poll, to Canadians and to do so before the parliamentary hearings, held this past July. The minister steadfastly opposed releasing the contents of that poll, despite the fact that the information contained might have been helpful to the justice committee's deliberations.

In fact, at committee, when questioned about releasing the data from the poll, the only substantive comment came from a Department of Justice official, who said the poll contained useful information in crafting the bill. Let us recap again. The Conservatives create a ruse. They create a scientifically unreliable website-based survey and use that as evidence. At the same time, they have in their possession actual evidence from their Ipsos Reid poll, evidence that they refuse to release to Parliament or to MPs serving on the justice committee.

At the parliamentary hearings last July, I asked the minister about this poll and why he would not release that evidence. Allow me to highlight the exchange because most members would not be familiar with some of the exchanges at committee. Here is an excerpt from the official parliamentary record of that exchange. I asked the minister: I want to come back to [the member for Gatineau's] question with respect to the $175,000 survey or poll that was done by Ipsos Reid. You have indicated that we're going to be able to see it once these hearings are over. Mr.

Minister, you have the power to allow us to see that sooner, do you not? The Minister responded: The survey itself was not particular to this question of prostitution only, and so there is a normal six-month time period that is invoked for when that polling information will be released. I should note for the record...that you're aware there have been other surveys done and other polling information available that has been released or is in the public domain. I asked: Mr. Minister, do you have the power to abridge the time in which we see this $175,000 Ipsos Reid survey?

Do you have the power to give that to us before we examine all these witnesses? The Minister responded: There is a six-month timeframe that we will respect. I persisted: So you have the power, but you're deciding not to exercise it? He responded: I didn't say that. I said we'll respect the six-month timeframe. I asked him: Do you have the power to abridge it? He said: We'll release it when the six-month timeframe is up. I said: Is that a yes or a no? He said: We'll release it when the six-month timeframe is up....

I asked him again: You won't tell me whether or not you have the power to abridge it, but if you do, you're not going to exercise it. He responded: What I'm telling you is that you'll have the information when the six-month period is up. There it is: Conservative obstruction in full view. The Minister of Justice repeatedly refused to release that evidence before the justice committee, evidence he knew completely contradicted the government's line about Canadians' views on prostitution.

We can only conclude that information, that evidence, was purposely withheld from Parliament and concealed from MPs serving on the justice committee. It was withheld because that evidence tore a gaping hole in their false narrative. We now know that shortly after the parliamentary hearings on Bill C-36 were completed, some brave whistle-blower leaked the contents of the Ipsos Reid poll to the Toronto Star . It is very clear why the Conservatives did not want the Ipsos Reid poll made public.

Contrary to the misinformation of the Conservatives, the evidence in the poll suggested Canadians were very much split on the subject. As I have said before, the Conservatives are entitled to their own ideology and their own opinions. They are not, however, entitled to their own facts. Withholding key evidence from the committee was deliberate, and that should trouble any Canadian who values honesty and integrity regardless of what side of the prostitution debate she or he may fall on. I will leave it at that for now.

I look forward to the third-reading debate, where I will go over and highlight what the justice committee heard at our hearings in July.

(1310) Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Liberal justice critic for his speech and for his participation in the House of Commons justice committee proceedings this summer. First, I would like to respond to something he mentioned in his speech. He said no lawyers, other than government lawyers, confirmed the constitutionality of Bill C-36 . That is not true. Professor Benedet of UBC, one of Canada's foremost constitutional law experts, certainly did confirm that it was constitutional, as did several other lawyers.

If he has forgotten, I would be happy to share the transcript of the parliamentary committee's work with him. My question, though, for him is the same question I proposed to the NDP, which responded, when asked what it would do, that it will wait and find out. We do not know what either of these parties would do with respect to prostitution. What is the Liberal Party's position? Would it propose a bill to make the purchase of the sexual services of another person illegal in Canada?

(1315) Mr. Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, I will take the parliamentary secretary up on his offer of showing me where Professor Benedet indicated that the bill was constitutional. I was at the hearings. I listened very carefully to Professor Benedet, so if he has a transcript, then I will stand corrected. In fact, the only lawyer, the only person with legal training, who testified at committee that they felt the bill was constitutional was one who represented the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and that lawyer was contradicted by her own client.

The other lawyers who indicated that the bill was constitutional were the Minister of Justice or those in his employ. Therefore, I will take him up on his offer, if that is not the case, absolutely. As to the Liberal Party's position with respect to prostitution in Canada, we believe that the government should have passed a bill that complied with Bedford, that complied with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that protected the vulnerable. It did none of the above.

Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the majority of my constituents have indicated to me, by email and in person, that they believe that biological and pragmatic, and even political, reality as well as human nature indicate that we should legalize it, tax it, and regulate it. The bill, obviously, would make things worse, in terms of protecting women from violence. My question for this hon. member, after his fine speech, is a political question.

Why does he think the Conservatives are bringing forward a bill that is clearly unconstitutional, totally irrational, and makes no pragmatic sense, at all? Mr. Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, it is really difficult for me to try to get into the heads of the Conservatives and understand the rationale, because I am wired differently. However, allow me to speculate here, in this sanctum of parliamentary privilege. A tough-on-crime party wants to look around to criminalize whatever and whomever it can. Therefore, the bill would succeed in attaching criminal sanctions to many of the aspects of this complex social problem.

The only other thing that I can think of is that it must have some appeal for its base. Finally, this is something that, quite frankly, just kicks this problem down the road. That is why the Conservatives refused our call to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. They know it is unconstitutional, but this will get them past the next election. Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-36 . As members know, I am supportive of the bill as a response to the Supreme Court of Canada's December 20, 2013, Bedford decision.

In December last year, Canadians received a Christmas present. For the most part, they did not know what was happening as they were busy getting ready for Christmas. The Supreme Court of Canada deemed all of the laws around prostitution unconstitutional. It allowed the government a year to respond to that and there has been a tremendous amount of work that has gone into the bill, including a lot of study of this important legislation. It is possibly one of the most important pieces of legislation and I am totally convinced that it will keep our youth and our people safe.

We heard from a lot of people, including front-line support workers, police services, chiefs, and experts from the legal profession. I must say that Professor Janine Benedet, one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in this country, who had worked on the Bedford case as well, fully expects the bill to be and has said that she firmly believes it is constitutional. As members know, many bills are defeated on a charter challenge. However, without a doubt the bill is constitutional.

I am especially impressed by all of the victims who came to committee and the survivors who came to testify at both committees, because that is what this is all about—survivors finally talking about what happened to them. Human trafficking and prostitution were under the public radar for years. Everyone felt that if young girls or boys sold sexual services that was what they wanted to do. However, at committee we found out it was totally opposite to what the public thought. Why is that?

Because more and more families across this country are being impacted by predators who come on as their friends and lure them into the sex trade and then they get into drugs and all sorts of things. However, they have no voice. Bill C-36 allows those victims of human trafficking and those who have been forced into the sex trade to have a voice and the freedom to come and testify before us. They are the ones who need our attention and protection and we must not forget them.

After sitting around the table listening to these survivors, I would say that every Canadian should read the testimony of that committee because they would learn a lot about what is happening to a lot of children in communities all across this country. We have learned that predators earn about $260,000 to $280,000 a year per victim. That is why they do it. It is all about the money. A lot of the people connected to those predators earn a lot of money too. Hence, what is happening in this country is that a lot of people are protecting their cash flow at the expense of modern-day slavery.

During the hearings, law enforcement agencies also came forward to express their overall support for Bill C-36 and applauded the strong message it sends to all Canadians, which is basically that we will go after the pimps and johns and we will put support systems in place for the victims of human trafficking and those people who have found themselves in the sex trade without ever intending to be there. The police officers agreed that prostitution is an inherently dangerous activity and emphasized a need to prosecute those who profit from the sexual exploitation of others.

I spoke earlier about predators making between $260,000 to $280,000 per year, which is a lot of profit. The police also emphasized the need to have in place the necessary tools to protect our communities from the harms of prostitution so that parents do not have to sweep away syringes and condoms from the school grounds of their children. It is not about arresting victims at all. The only provision within Bill C-36 has to do with schools, playgrounds and pools, right on the grounds themselves. The fact of the matter is that Canadians agree that children should be protected.

More and more Canadians in communities across Canada are starting to understand that they are also protecting their own beautiful children and vulnerable children from predators, due to Bill C-36.

(1320) We heard a lot of things in committee. We also heard another perspective that said people have rights to choose any profession they want, and, of course, that is true in Canada. However, we listened to the survivors of forced prostitution, human trafficking, and all of those stories that came forward.

I cannot help but emphasize the contrast between the stories of the people who said that prostitution is an industry and government is circumventing their rights if it starts addressing it, and the stories of those who have experienced pain, suffering, and victimization while at the mercy of pimps, drug dealers, brothel owners, criminal organizations, and human traffickers. It is just unbelievable. When they bravely came to committee for the first time to tell people what happened to them, it was all we could do to keep our composure.

For someone who has worked with victims of human trafficking and those who were forced into prostitution, it was very profound to see these courageous people get up at committee to talk about it. Statistics and research show that those who are most vulnerable to becoming involved in prostitution are marginalized, disenfranchised, and vulnerable, and the vu