The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Ian Bowmer. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Ravalia.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

Senator Batters: I’m just preparing my third-reading speech, so I think I know the answer. I think it is seven full meetings hearing from witnesses and then three clause-by-clause sessions, so quite a few. I don’t think I totalled up the number of witnesses yet, but we will have that. In comparison, the House of Commons Justice Committee studied it only for three meetings and held one clause-by-clause session, so we certainly did a good bit of work on that.

One other thing I wanted to ask you about, Senator Cotter, is just because there has been considerable media attention since this bill was first dealt with in this chamber, so many in this chamber may not know this answer. There is currently quite a high-profile case involving a Supreme Court justice and a disciplinary conduct proceeding that is ongoing right now. It is my understanding — and Justice Minister Lametti indicated this — that this act would not apply to that proceeding because it is not law yet. Is that correct? Only cases moving forward after Bill C-9 becomes law would be subject to this new disciplinary process, and any current cases would be under the existing system; is that correct?

Senator Cotter: I think you are right on that, Senator Batters. It is one good argument for moving this along fairly expeditiously so that a modern regime can be put in place for any new complaints that might be presented in relation to Superior Court judges. With respect to the matter to which you referred, the old, existing process would apply.

Senator Plett: I hope I can ask another question. It’s not the first time I have been accused of being predictable, so I won’t take any exception to that now either.

Senator Cotter, I also noted that Minister Lametti was invited to appear a second time at committee to answer questions — indeed by members of the committee — as you began to consider the amendments at clause-by-clause consideration. The minister declined. It would seem, to me, that the minister would be happy to appear if he was invited by the committee in order to help with what ended up being quite a difficult process with quite a — I don’t want to use the word “convoluted” — difficult bill. Why would the minister not appear?

Senator Cotter: I don’t do mind reading very well, so I’m not able to say what motivated Minister Lametti — he did decline. It was the request of the committee, and we anticipated that it would be an opportunity to have a dialogue with respect to possible amendments that the committee might consider. We would have liked him to come before clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill — I don’t have an answer. I think it would have been slightly more helpful, and he may have given us a reason not to embrace these amendments, or to embrace them; I don’t know.

As you probably know, this is work that has been done over a number of years in trying to fashion a modern system that involves the Canadian Judicial Council, the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice. It is a delicate way of constructing a good, modern regime for judicial misconduct reviews.

I’m not offering a defence of Minister Lametti, but he has been terrific in terms of his attendance at the committee, and perhaps he felt that once per bill was enough.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Ingrid Sahu. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Omidvar.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Ingrid Sahu. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Omidvar.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Vanessa Casiong. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut).

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Magali Portier. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Moncion.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Christine St-Pierre, Maria Mourani, Marie-Michelle Desmeules and members of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I want to pay tribute to my guests, all of whom have helped fight sexual exploitation in Quebec. The All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, which I co-chair, organized a riveting panel on this issue today at noon in Parliament.

First of all, I want to pay tribute to Marie-Michelle Desmeules, a survivor who lived through this hell. For 10 years, she endured unspeakable violence at the hands of a pimp. She estimates that she was raped 25,000 times and she now suffers from post‑traumatic stress disorder. We thank you for testifying, Ms. Desmeules.

The Government of Quebec has amended its policy since 2016. Prostitution is now considered sexual exploitation in most cases.

Geneviève Albert, director of the award-winning film Noémie Says Yes, does a brilliant job of explaining that. Contrary to what some people might think, just saying yes is not giving consent. We cannot condone prostitution by hiding behind the misleading argument of consent. Only a very small minority of those who sell sexual services come out unscathed.

Unfortunately, there is no public information campaign to drive home the point that the purchase of sexual services is exploitation, and so the mentality around this issue is not really changing.

Former Quebec minister Christine St-Pierre sat on the Select Committee on the Sexual Exploitation of Minors. Yes, the exercise gave a bit more money to the police and support groups, but that is still not nearly enough to deal with the urgent needs and the normalization of this phenomenon, which has been exacerbated by social media.

Obviously there is consensus to denounce child pornography. However, what happens when these girls, who are entrapped, turn 18? This is when all the contradictions in how we view prostitution crystalize, because the exploitation continues, in many cases, in a context of manipulation and financial, psychological or physical coercion.

Victims such as Marie-Michelle Desmeules inspired criminologist and former federal independent MP Maria Mourani to legislate and to add human trafficking to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime applies. This was a very long battle, in which she was championed in the Senate by none other than Senator Boisvenu.

The new promising initiatives in Quebec include courts specializing in sexual violence to better support victims and a kind of school for the clients of prostitutes, or “John School.”

Officer Ghyslain Vallières, from the Longueuil police service, got involved in a pilot project designed to change the behaviour of men arrested for paying for sexual services. These clients pay a fine and avoid court on the condition that they agree to take part in a day of awareness raising and survivor testimonials.

In closing, I want to paraphrase our filmmaker: It does not have to be this way; prostitution has a solution and it is a political one. Thank you.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Christine St‑Pierre, Maria Mourani, Marie-Michelle Desmeules and members of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Vanessa Casiong. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut).

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Magali Portier. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Moncion.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety: Senator Pate, I want to begin by thanking you for not only your advocacy but your collaboration on this important issue. I believe that the point of departure for this discussion centres around the disproportionate interactions between racialized Canadians, Indigenous peoples and our law enforcement institutions including correctional institutions which fall under the purview of the federal government, which is why once they have completed their sentence, there should be a pathway that allows them to reintegrate fully into the community. The pardon regime is one way in which we can achieve that objective.

What I have done, as you will know, is significantly reduce the fees from what used to be approximately $600 down to $50, which is a substantial reduction in the financial burden. I acknowledge we can and will do more.

Second, by helping those who are applying for a pardon to navigate the system so that it is as seamless and free from barriers as possible.

I will say that I am well aware of the private member’s bill that you are sponsoring. You and I have had some productive conversations. I believe there is broad alignment in what we are trying to achieve, but we have to take those next steps.

The last thing I would say, Senator Pate, is that, as you will know, with the work of the NDP through my colleague Minister Lametti’s Bill C-5, a bill that helped make reforms around the repeal of mandatory minimum penalties, we were able to achieve an automatic sequestration regime, albeit for a small subset of offences touching on drug offences.

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, and welcome, minister. My question concerns the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. I asked Senator Gold about this at Senate Question Period yesterday and I didn’t get a good answer. I hope you will give me a better one today.

The membership of this committee is supposed to have three senators, but two of those seats have been vacant for a month. The last two times this committee was set up, the Prime Minister refused to appoint a senator from the official opposition. Now it appears he is doing the same thing all over again.

Minister, if NSICOP is so important to the Prime Minister, why hasn’t he filled the vacant seats? Why do you think he continually refuses to appoint a senator from the official opposition? Do you believe the official opposition in this chamber should be represented on the committee, yes or no?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we welcome today the Honourable Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety. I wish to remind colleagues that questions to the minister must relate to his ministerial responsibilities.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, senators do not need to stand. Questions are limited to one minute and responses to one-and-a-half minutes. The reading clerk will stand 10 seconds before the expiry of these times. Question Period will last one hour.

[English]

Hon. Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety: Thank you for the question, senator.

I want to thank the members of this chamber for allowing me the opportunity to be here to take your questions.

Senator, in direct response, I believe firmly in the significance of the work of the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. This is a committee that was set up and established by our government for the purposes of working across partisan lines with all parliamentarians, including senators from this chamber.

The work of this committee has produced concrete recommendations which I had been acting on expeditiously including the creation of a national coordinator to fight foreign interference, as well as moving forward with the creation of a foreign agent registry, but in the right way given some of the concerns expressed to me directly vis-à-vis diaspora communities and the like.

With regard to your specific concerns around the makeup of that committee, I do commit to relaying your concerns to the government, but I do agree that it needs to have broad representation as was originally envisioned when we set up this committee.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we welcome today the Honourable Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety. I wish to remind colleagues that questions to the minister must relate to his ministerial responsibilities.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, senators do not need to stand. Questions are limited to one minute and responses to one-and-a-half minutes. The reading clerk will stand 10 seconds before the expiry of these times. Question Period will last one hour.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos: Minister, here we are again, the exact same spot as one year ago. I asked you then about my bill for a foreign agent registry. You said it was a good idea, but clearly you kicked the can down the road. I suspect, minister, we will be here again next year this time still kicking this can down the road given the fact that you committed to tabling legislation only in the fall.

You claimed months ago that the RCMP had shut down illegal People’s Republic of China police stations in Canada. Two stations in Montreal actually remain open, and we now know they received funding from your own government. Why were we led to believe those stations had been shut down? Did the RCMP lie to you, minister, or did you take creative licence with the truth? Is it incompetence on behalf of the RCMP or does the incompetence lie with you?