SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

May/23/24 4:55:43 p.m.
Watch

I want to make a quick reminder. During debate, there is one person who asks a question and one person who answers the question. The hon. member for Mirabel.

29 words

Mirabel

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/23/24 4:55:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight one thing. There may be heated debates, and that is perfectly fine, but a modicum of decorum must be maintained in the House. I want to point out that, throughout my speech, I was utterly incapable of hearing myself. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable showed a lack of respect, consideration and decorum. I think that should be noted.

70 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 4:56:17 p.m.
Watch

I was hearing things from both sides during the intervention. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

26 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

May/23/24 4:56:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member for Mirabel was offended by my comments. I was simply trying to get him back on track.

25 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/23/24 4:56:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was not about the substance of what was said, but it was really about the heckling. I am sitting next to the member for Mirabel, and I could not hear him respond. My question is this. In the last budget, the government told Quebec that it has until January 1 to sign an agreement or it will negotiate with the cities on housing. That is illegal in Quebec. The Conservative housing plan does the same thing. It is forcing cities to increase construction by 15% or else it will cut its support in other areas. That is illegal in Quebec. We saw this during the Harper years. The federal government has continued to grow its tentacles and its size. Basically, in Ottawa, between the Liberals and the Conservatives, is it not six of one and half a dozen of the other?

147 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/23/24 4:57:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the problem goes deeper than that. When a party comes to power in Ottawa, it has few responsibilities while running a modern state but very deep pockets. Generally speaking, Conservative governments start abusing Ottawa's spending power when they take office. In this case, the Conservatives jumped the gun a bit by saying that they would simply be infringing on the jurisdictions of cities, such as Quebec City. A condition is a condition, whether it comes with a penalty or a reward.

84 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/23/24 4:58:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about interference. Actually, I am not pleased. I find it rather irritating to talk about interference because we always have to talk about it, given that many people in this Parliament do not understand what it means. I was happy to hear my Bloc Québécois colleagues explain, each in their own way, what our motion means. My explanation of the motion will be very brief. First, we condemn the federal government's intrusions and we do not want them to happen any more. Second, it is false to claim that no one cares and, third, we give a very simple solution. We want the right to opt out with full compensation. That does not take anything away from anyone. All we have to do is take our money and give it to those with expertise in the area where we want it invested. It is up to Quebec and the provinces to make the decisions. If the other provinces are okay with know-it-all Canada telling them what to do, then good for them, but Quebec is not okay with that. It is simple. The government just has to give us the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. I repeat that the right to opt out must be without conditions. I hope that someone will finally realize it because Quebec does it better. It is a shame for the rest of Canada, but Quebec is better. All the major social and economic advances that Quebec has made, it did so by opting out of federal programs. We opted out of the Canada pension plan. That allowed us to create the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, one of the finest institutions in Quebec. It runs the Quebec pension plan, which is very effective and is working very well. By opting out of the special employment insurance benefits, we managed to create our parental leave, a progressive system that does not exist anywhere else. It is exceptionally effective and has allowed an increased number of parents to participate in the workforce, especially women. By opting out of the federal student loans, we created our own system and we have a university system that is one of the most accessible in the world. It is not perfect, but it performs very well. We are able to take care of ourselves. By opting out of the federal labour programs, we created our own employment policy, and it works well when the federal government does not get involved. It is simple as that. A few members of Parliament seem to see the motion as an attack. Quite the contrary, it is a defensive manoeuvre. Let us manage our own affairs with our own money. That is what we are saying. I hope the member for Winnipeg North does not repeat his bad metaphor about the ATM. It is our money that we put in that ATM. We put our own money into that machine, so I should not be embarrassed to make a withdrawal. The taxes were paid by Quebeckers, and I want the money to be used efficiently. If the federal government adds another program on top of the one Quebec already has in place, it will not be efficient. I do not think that is so hard to understand. Why duplicate bureaucracy? It is to score points with voters. That is the answer. The saddest part of all this is that it will allow the Prime Minister to make a grand announcement, with his hair blowing in the wind, and look good on television, but in four, five, six or seven years' time, or perhaps even in a year or two, the government will realize that millions of dollars were gobbled up by the middlemen. Not only do the Liberals want to interfere in our jurisdictions, but they are not even capable of doing the work themselves. They contract it out. I would like to correct the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who tabled an amendment and wondered why we rejected it. In his amendment, he said that this is a public dental plan. I am sorry, but it is not a public plan. Sun Life is not public. A private company is going to line its pockets through a highly imperfect system which a number of dentists in Quebec have already announced they have no intention of participating in. This is a far cry from Quebec's public dental plan which, we agree, is basic and very rudimentary, but was set up by Quebec. Why is Quebec's dental plan not perfect? It is because we only have half the money. Then, people wonder why we want to be an independent country. Well, it is so that we can manage our affairs in peace, so that we can be good neighbours instead of difficult bedfellows. That is all it is. It is as simple as that. The federal government interferes more and more every year. It is simple. Give us the right to opt out with full compensation. I have already talked about pharmacare. Last fall, the federal government proposed setting up a sectoral round table on workforce training. However, it has no business doing so, since Quebec is already looking after that. Many of my colleagues have already mentioned funding for Quebec and municipal infrastructure and housing throughout today's debate. Quebec will look after that. When the federal government comes in with conditions, particularly on housing, we recall that it took three years to start building social housing because the federal government wanted to impose its views. We always have to fight for everything. Now we are asking questions and they are saying that we are trying to pick a fight. Can we not simply examine the issue objectively and try to take effective action? I would like to ask the government members the following. Who is being deprived of something when the Quebec government, which already has programs, is given the envelopes intended for Quebec? This has already been done for child care, which the Liberal government likes to brag about from time to time. Is child care working well? Yes, it is. Is child care in the rest of Canada not doing as well because Quebec is managing its own affairs? No, it is not. Leave us alone. It is simple. Why did the federal government give us child care money? The answer: We were on the eve of an election and it made for a great announcement. The government showed up in Quebec to make a great announcement on the eve of an election. When a possible payoff is on the table, it is all fine. It shows that this government does not act in the public interest or for the common good, but with election aims in mind. In fact, when did it start announcing these seemingly generous programs? It was back when the government's poll numbers hit rock bottom and it faced the prospect of being wiped off the electoral map. It boggles the mind. The government enters panic mode and starts making announcements. If it had transferred the funds to the provinces, it would not have been able to take credit for doing this or that, or say as an election promise that it would do something else. Unfortunately, and sadly, governments often make commitments and promises on the eve of an election. Much later, however, it becomes apparent that it was all talk. I want to draw everyone's attention to the school food program, which I want to warn the government about. Organizations are already in place in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois applauds the release of those funds, a billion dollars over five years, but do members know what year the Liberals made that promise? It was in 2015. It is now 2024. The federal government announced this program with great fanfare and wants us to be happy and wants us to believe it, but could the government give us a little credit and respect people's intelligence? What is happening is that the federal government has too much money and, because it has too much money, it does not need to be cost-effective. That means that it is not being careful about its spending and that it is becoming embroiled in scandal after scandal. It costs the federal government two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it costs the Quebec government to process a social assistance claim. Two and a half times more is the federal government's idea of being cost-effective. There is nothing to be happy about when these people start sticking their feelers into our health care system. Passports fall under federal jurisdiction. Why do the Liberals not start by being good at what they are responsible for? It costs the federal government four times more to issue a passport than it costs the Quebec government to issue a driver's licence. That is the federal government's idea of cost-effectiveness. Why do they not start doing their job. Nothing has been done since 1997 to deal with the shoreline erosion caused by navigation on the St. Lawrence River. They do not care about that, but yet they want to manage our dental insurance program. Enough is enough. That is it. It is that simple. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer is calling out the fiscal imbalance and this ridiculous spending, saying that in the very short term or the medium term, the provinces' finances are not sustainable. When he talks about the provinces, he is talking about Manitoba, Ontario, all the others, not just Quebec. Quebec is so distinct, we always say “Quebec and the provinces”. If the federal government could show a bit of respect and take care of its own jurisdictions, everything would go more smoothly.

1672 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/23/24 5:08:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the disability program, the dental program, the pharmacare program or the housing needs of Canada, I believe many of the measures we see before us today are there because Canadians have an expectation of the government and the government is providing these services. I like to think they are services that should be available across the country. I will use the specific example of diabetes and the medicines that are required. Many of the members' constituents across the country will benefit from that, as will many of the constituents I represent. Is that not a good thing? Does the member not support that?

108 words

Mr. Yves Perron

May/23/24 5:09:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are fine with applying this everywhere. That is not the problem. The problem is that Quebec is unique and has its own organizations. It is a distinct nation. Let us manage our own affairs. That is all we are asking. The feds are not good at doing the things they are supposed to be doing. I will give a quick example, the AgriRecovery program. The Union des producteurs agricoles spoke to the media just today because 11% of businesses believe they will be forced to close in the coming year. More than 50% are unable to pay their debts right now or are scared. The situation is bad. AgriRecovery is the last-resort program that is used when all the other programs fail. It is meant to be an emergency program. Quebec asked for it in November. Today is May 23, and I have yet to get a date from the government. Then these people come along and say that they will manage our affairs because they are better at it than us.

176 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

May/23/24 5:10:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time, but I will use all the time I have to speak to this motion. As I mentioned earlier, we will be supporting this motion. However, I would like to talk about the folks behind this motion, the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois claims to be a pro-independence party, but as we see today, and as we are seeing more and more, it is more of a pro-dependence party. The Bloc Québécois depends on the Liberal government for its very survival. Bloc members like the Liberals because they are just like them. They are like brothers. I concede that they are not twins and there are some differences between the two parties. The first, the Liberal Party of Canada, claims to be a federalist party, but it believes that the federation is an albatross and does not respect the autonomy of the provinces. The second, the Bloc Québécois, claims to be a pro-independence party, but it owes its survival to the Prime Minister, whom it supports in all his spending and taxes. The Bloc Québécois likes having a big, interventionist government in Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois votes against budgets and economic updates in principle, but it is quick to vote for this government's budgetary appropriations and the federal government's excessive spending. If we think about it, when a party always votes with the government on centralizing federal and Liberal government spending, it means that it also wants big government, a morbidly obese government. That is what the Bloc Québécois supports here, in Ottawa. As proof, I would mention the fact that, since he arrived in Parliament in 2019, the Bloc Québécois leader has voted in favour of 100% of the Liberal Prime Minister's budget allocations. That is not insignificant. He voted 205 times to authorize $500 billion in additional federal spending. In fact, $500 billion is almost equal to Quebec's entire GDP, as the leader of the Conservative Party mentioned this morning. That is half a trillion dollars. That is a whole lot of money. Here are some examples. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of $20 million of the $60 million spent on the ArriveCAN app. It voted to increase the number of federal public servants by 110,000. It voted to help private companies, consultants, get increasingly large federal government contracts. Contracts went up from $10 billion to $20 billion. If we take the time to look closely, it is clear that the Liberal and Bloc Québécois ideologies are similar. What did this $500 billion of inflationary spending, which was supported by the Bloc Québécois, do? It increased inflation. It doubled the cost of housing. As a result, the dream of home ownership has drifted out of reach for young families, because the down payment for a house has become so high that it is no longer affordable, not to mention the interest rates for repaying the mortgage. It is becoming unaffordable for young families, all across the country. This is what happens when a party decides to always support the government. When it comes to real change, there is only one option for Quebeckers: the Conservatives' common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. As the leader of the Conservative Party and, I hope and believe, the future prime minister of Canada said today, “with a small federal government, we will let Quebeckers make their own decisions. They could decide to keep more money in their pockets or to give more money to their government in Quebec City.”

657 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 5:14:46 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

78 words

Mr. Yves Perron

May/23/24 5:15:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 5:16:03 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 27, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

May/23/24 5:16:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to contribute to the point of order raised by the NDP House leader on April 30 and May 1, to which the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made a significant addition on May 8. At its heart, the point of order is, I believe, an effort to censor and silence the fallout from the controversial events that happened during question period on April 30, an event none of us will forget any time soon. The hon. member for Lethbridge was called to order about comments concerning the Chair. She withdrew those comments, yet was named by the Chair and kicked out for the day. The member's withdrawal of her comments, which was recorded in the blues, never made it into the day's Debates. That is an important distinction, because the blues are the temporary recording and transcript of what happened in the House, but what actually gets published and permanently put up on the parliamentary website, and indeed printed, are the Debates. The withdrawal was in the blues but somehow never made it into the into the permanent record. The Chair is currently seized with a question of privilege concerning that alarming editing of our records to align with the Speaker's conduct. Then, the Prime Minister referred to the Leader of the Opposition as having “spineless leadership”. Though the Speaker may have chided the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister was neither sanctioned nor disciplined. Immediately after, however, the Leader of the Opposition's next question also offered strong language, yet the Speaker applied a different standard to the Conservative Party's leader than he did to the Liberal Party's leader. As a result, the Leader of the Opposition was also named and banished from the House for the day. Conservatives left the House for the balance of question period, as you might understand, after our leader had been, incredibly, ordered to stop questioning the Prime Minister about British Columbia's disastrous drug decriminalization experience and to leave the chamber. Nonetheless, I am not here to litigate that matter. The main substance of the point of order now before the Chair lies in tweets many members of the Conservative caucus published in the minutes immediately following the shocking decision to name the Leader of the Opposition and expel him from the House in the middle of question period. The NDP-Liberal coalition spokespersons on this matter have each suggested that various Conservative MPs must “withdraw their tweets”, which I assume means deleting the tweets, and apologize before returning to the House. In other words, they would prefer Conservatives just stay silent and not draw any public attention to how the House is operating during these days of an NDP-Liberal coalition government in Canada. As I mentioned, those members raised this as a point of order. As you would know, points of order concern House proceedings and irregularity in procedures. It is also well established that statements made outside the House do not fall within the Speaker's purview to maintain order here, under points of order, within the chamber in ensuring that House proceedings run smoothly. I would refer the Chair to page 620 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which says quite clearly, “The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another.” In fact, this point was made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on April 30, when the NDP House leader first raised the point of order, saying, at page 22816 of the Debates, “The other [aspect] that was brought to the attention of the Speaker was the fact that statements are being made outside of the House by a member. The Speaker has no authority to rule on that, as the hon. member has indicated.” Several of your predecessors have been invited to weigh in on statements made by members outside the walls of the chamber. In one of the earliest rulings concerning tweets, Speaker Milliken held, at page 1284 of the Debates for April 1, 2010: It is clearly impossible for the Chair to police the use of personal digital devices by members, for example, by trying to distinguish whether certain texting has originated from the Chamber or not. Nor would the Chair want to change its longstanding practice of refraining from comment on statements made outside the House. In any event, as you will recall, Conservative MPs exited the chamber after the Leader of the Opposition was named, so they had tweeted from outside the House. Moreover, since the leader and the hon. member for Lethbridge had been named, their subsequent tweets, which were among those of concern in the point of order, simply could not have been published from inside the chamber. Turning back to the precedents on point, one of your more recent predecessors, Speaker Regan, said on November 20, 2017, at page 15303 of the Debates, “the Chair's role is very limited to the review of the statements made in a proceeding of Parliament. In other words, the Chair cannot comment on what transpires outside of the deliberations of the House or its committees.” Speaker Regan expanded upon this point in his October 30, 2018, ruling, at page 23033 of the Debates, stating, “As a result...the Speaker cannot be officially apprised of anything said to have transpired outside the walls of this place”. Another of your predecessors explained the underlying principle for this approach on February 9, 2012, at page 5096 of the Debates: We know that outside the chamber, when a member or anyone may say something that would offend or call into question someone's character, there are remedies that are not available inside the chamber. That is usually why the authority of the Speaker does not extend outside the chamber for things that are said. In sum, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to heed the well-trodden ground of your predecessors and find that the member's comments made outside the House, including tweets, simply do not come within your jurisdiction to maintain order within the chamber. A point of order raised on this very question simply is not under the Speaker's purview. Before concluding, there is one final point I would like to add, because I know the Chair is seized with a couple of different aspects of the events of April 30. In a May 1 Canadian Press article on the opposition leader's naming, one might read this passage: A spokesman for [the Speaker] said Wednesday that the Speaker didn't just single out [the leader of the opposition], noting he also asked [the Prime Minister] to reframe one of his questions after he called [the member for Carleton] a “spineless leader”. “The prime minister reframed his answer,” Mathieu Gravel said. Mathieu Gravel is the spokesman for the Speaker. That is a direct quote: “The Prime Minister reframed his answer”. The quote goes on: “The Speaker offered [the Leader of the Opposition] four opportunities to withdraw his comment and reframe his question. [The Conservative Leader] did not avail himself of those opportunities.” That is the Speaker's spokesman speaking on behalf of the Speaker publicly to the media on events that happened in the chamber. Let me read Hansard from that day. There is the first interaction with the Speaker, saying, “I am going to ask two things. The first is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition withdraw that term, which is not considered parliamentary.” The opposition leader then said, “Mr. Speaker, I replace ‘wacko’ with ‘extremist’.” The Speaker got up again and said, “I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition once again to simply withdraw that comment, please.” The Leader of the Opposition said, “Mr. Speaker, I will replace it with ‘radical’.” The Speaker then goes on to say, “I am going to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition one last time to simply withdraw that comment, please.” Here is the key phrase that comes next; the Leader of the Opposition said, “Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it and replace it with the aforementioned adjective.” Here we have the spokesman for the Speaker saying that the Prime Minister reframed his answer, as an excuse for why the Prime Minister did not face any sanction. The spokesman for the Speaker said that the Speaker offered four opportunities to withdraw his comments and reframe his question, and that the Leader of the Opposition did not avail himself of those opportunities. As I just said, the Leader of the Opposition absolutely did withdraw it and reframe it, exactly as the Speaker's spokesman said publicly in the media but in a way to suggest that it did not happen. It actually happened, if we look at the video of that day's events and Hansard, which is printed. If it is fair game for the Speaker, through his spokesman, to comment outside the chamber on House proceedings with what, I would submit, is an incorrect and inaccurate spin, then it can only be equally fair for other members to make their own comments outside the chamber about what happened during this unprecedented sequence of events. I trust that any ruling on this current point of order from the NDP-Liberal coalition would not result in double standards being created or extended.

1602 words

Debates

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 5:24:49 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for the intervention. Of course the Chair will take it under advisement and come back to the House as soon as possible. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

43 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/23/24 5:25:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. to start Private Members' Business.

30 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 5:25:07 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

35 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 5:25:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224

There are two motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill S-224. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

53 words

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

May/23/24 5:27:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224

moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill S-224 be amended by restoring the long title as follows: “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)” Motion No. 2 That Bill S-224 be amended by restoring Clause 1 as follows: “Criminal Code 1 (1) Subsection 279.‍04(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following: Exploitation 279.‍04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.‍01 to 279.‍03, a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that (a) causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service; and (b) involves, in relation to any person, the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act. (2) Subsection 279.‍04(2) of the Act is repealed.” He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Oshawa to speak to Bill S-224, a non-partisan bill which aims to further solidify the concept of exploitation, for the purpose of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons and to remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals to prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse. Before arriving at the stage of consideration at committee, Bill S-224 was introduced in the Senate and eventually passed unanimously in the Senate on October 6, 2022. I then had the immense distinction as a member of Parliament to sponsor and introduce this important bill for the first time here in the House of Commons two weeks later. I would like to take a moment to thank Senator Ataullahjan for her collaborative effort and wonderful success in getting the bill through the Senate, a success I hope to share here in the House of Commons. I would also like to thank the member for Peace River—Westlock for his unwavering support throughout this process and, as well, for his unending commitment to end human trafficking. Furthermore, I want to thank the amazing community of supporters, victims, moms and dads, survivors and workers. These individuals and many more like them have shown a dedication and servitude in making a difference in the lives of the vulnerable victims in everyone's communities. These people are real heroes and they are saving lives with the work that they are undertaking and that they are accomplishing. When a member of Parliament has the opportunity to bring both Houses together for a common cause, it is truly an honour, especially with respect to a bill that represents a small change that would make a big difference in the lives of so many vulnerable people, people denied justice and people denied their human dignity. Unfortunately, when Bill S-224 was considered in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the bill experienced a fatal outcome. The vital contents within it were completely gutted, the committee leaving the bill to just one page. By leaving the bill empty, and instead of passing any improved amendments, there has been a failure to solidify the concept of exploitation for the purposes of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons, as well as a failure to remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals to prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse. I would like to take a couple of minutes now to discuss an in-depth review of the importance behind the original contents of Bill S-224. This modern-day slavery initiative was first brought to my attention by Darla, a survivor friend and one of my constituents, and I would like to thank her for sharing her story with me. As a father, I was motivated by her story to look for real solutions to the problem. At its heart, Bill S-224 aims to align the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of trafficking in persons with that of the 2000 Palermo protocol. Importantly, this would remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals who, under the current Canadian law, must prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse in order to obtain a conviction in court. When a crime is committed, there is no debate as to whether the acts have occurred, yet under Canadian law, the victim of trafficking is required to prove fear in order for a conviction to occur. The absurdity of the situation is unmatched. An offender could be released even if there was proof of the crime but the victim was unable to prove fear. Why do we treat this particular crime so differently when it comes to exploitation in human trafficking? That is backwards. Instead, we need to make the focus on the perpetrator's actions, on the person who actually committed the crime, and not force a victim to prove an emotion, in this case fear. Something needs to change as this is not justice, and, in turn, this is not how a Canadian justice system should function. Human trafficking is a plague, mostly on vulnerable young people and their families across Canada, in my area and in others'. I was hopeful, since I first sponsored and introduced Bill S-224 in the House, that my colleagues, regardless of their political stripe, would help me secure this long-overdue change to Canada's Criminal Code. Human trafficking does not discriminate, and my goal is to ensure that our country and local communities are safer for our most vulnerable young people. Vulnerable young people often think of their abuser as their friend, thinking that their abuser cares for them and loves them. Those of us not involved in human trafficking can see that this is not the case. We see the coercion, manipulation and lies. We owe the victims justice. Often the Crown's case depends on the victim's testimony, the only evidence against the trafficker. Without the victim's testimony, there is no case. In Canada, sometimes it takes years to come to court. There the victims can be victimized again and again. We have heard from experts that victims often deceive themselves and portray themselves within their own perception as not being victims. We need to take serious and effective action to ensure that victims come forward and need to guarantee that they will not be repeatedly victimized. I once again raise within this House the dispute as to whether the crime of human trafficking has occurred should only be defined by the perpetrator's actions, rather than the victim's experience. Victims should not be revictimized by a system. We owe it to victims to make this small change that would make such a huge difference. By amending the Criminal Code to reflect the international definition of trafficking in persons, as outlined in the Palermo protocol, we would enable the Crown to efficiently convict human traffickers. The Palermo protocol was adopted in November 2000 at the 55th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It has 117 signatories, including Canada. Human trafficking is defined as the act of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and receiving a person by means of coercion, abuse of power or deception for the purpose of exploitation. More than 24 years have passed, yet this small but important change is still not reflected in our Criminal Code. Let us not continue to make this another example of Canada's promises that never see concrete action. This is about protecting vulnerable Canadians from predators who exploit their victims for personal gain, and sadly, that gain is becoming greater and much more lucrative. Human trafficking generates more than $32 billion annually and abuses over 40 million victims each year. Unfortunately, it is seen as a low-risk criminal activity here in Canada with a very high reward. According to Statistics Canada, fewer than 8% of perpetrators charged with human trafficking have been prosecuted. Let us think about that and consider this: Very few perpetrators are even charged. One witness felt we no longer needed the bill, due to the Ontario provincial rulings. However, we see that even with these provincial rulings, conviction rates remain shamefully low, which is why we need to restore this bill, Bill S-224, and to pass it here in the House. We can do better, and we must do better. I stand here today for Darla from Oshawa and for countless other human trafficking survivors. I invite all members here to stand with me, and I am hoping that every member in the House still continues to support this initiative. I stand here for those who are being exploited tonight, right now, in plain sight, some right outside my office doors in downtown Oshawa. This does not end at my doorstep. Each member in the House of Commons can be sure this is happening right outside each of their doorsteps as well. My colleague from Peace River—Westlock has a statistic and saying that puts things into perspective: This crime of human trafficking is happening today, within 10 blocks or 10 minutes from one's home. Human trafficking is on the rise, and it relies on abuse, coercion and manipulation. As I have said, victims are often convinced that their traffickers are their friends or their boyfriends. Traffickers have made promises of clothes, money, work, drugs, education and even protection. Many victims truly and naively believe that their traffickers have their best interests at heart. Traffickers prey upon the most vulnerable for a reason, as they also resort to violence and threats to make them do what they are told. Traffickers seek out young people dealing with substance abuse, traumas, addictions, abuse or homelessness. Women and girls, indigenous children, new immigrants, persons living with disability, LGBTQ2+ and migrant workers are among groups most at risk. How can we continue to put so much responsibility upon these victims who have endured such unimaginable atrocities? If we do not amend the Criminal Code, these cases depend upon the victims' ability to perform on the witness stand. Remember, these are the same victims we just described as being vulnerable to gaslighting and manipulation. Some of these victims do not have the strength to fight our current system. They do not have the strength to stand up against slick lawyers and a system stacked against them. This is not justice, and it usually results in charges being dropped. We need to give victims every possible tool that is available to allow the return of both their dignity and their humanity. The goal of Bill S-224 has been to implement a simple amendment to the Criminal Code, a very small modification that would make a huge difference in the ability of the Crown to prosecute human traffickers. There is no more settling for an 8% prosecution rate. To Darla, to the moms, to the dads, to the victims and to the wonderful Canadians who have dedicated their lives to ending human trafficking, this small change can happen, and the opportunity for us to come together to end this horrendous crime must not be lost.

1881 words

Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

May/23/24 5:37:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House on behalf of the residents of Etobicoke Lakeshore. This evening, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to human trafficking. I want to say at the outset that while we are unable to support the bill, I understand the objective the sponsor was trying to achieve, and it is a laudable one. The intention of the sponsor is to protect victims and to hold human traffickers accountable. However, after the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' review of the proposed legislation, including hearing from a variety of witnesses, it was apparent that the bill raised significant legal concerns and would likely end up making it harder to prosecute human traffickers rather than easier, as was intended. Although the committee and the government cannot support the bill, I am very grateful for the opportunity this bill, Bill S-224, has provided to review the Criminal Code's human trafficking provisions. It is critical we do so to continue to ensure a robust response. Human trafficking is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. It is often described as a modern-day form of slavery. It involves the recruitment, transportation, harbouring and/or control over the movement of persons for the purpose of exploitation, typically for sexual exploitation or forced labour. Human trafficking devastates its victims and survivors, their families, communities and society as a whole. In Canada, available data primarily concerns human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Traffickers seek to profit from the sexual exploitation of others, treating victims as commodities for the traffickers financial gain. Between 2010 and 2021, the large majority of individuals accused of trafficking were men and were most commonly between the ages of 18 and 24. While we know that anyone can be targeted by a trafficker and can become a victim of human trafficking, between 2010 and 2021, 96% of police-reported victims were women and girls. Almost one in four, or 24%, of the reported victims were younger than 18 years old; half, 45%, were between 18 and 24 years old; and one in five, 20%, were between 25 and 34 years old. Moreover, women and girls are more at risk of being targeted by a trafficker when they are impacted by factors like poverty, isolation, precarious housing, substance use, history of violence, childhood maltreatment and mental health issues. In short, traffickers look for young women and girls in precarious situations and target these individuals for their own financial gain. We also know that indigenous women and girls are disproportionately represented among those trafficked, or are at risk of being trafficked for sexual exploitation. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls speaks to many of the intersecting factors that increase the likelihood of being targeted by a trafficker, including systemic racism, violence against indigenous women and girls, intergenerational trauma from colonization, lack of access to social and economic resources, and colonial assimilation policies. The majority of victims are trafficked by someone they know. For example, nearly one-third of victims have been trafficked by a current or former intimate partner. In fact, some traffickers target and romantically pursue a potential victim with the specific intent of exploiting them. Traffickers use manipulation and deception to exploit the vulnerabilities of those they target. This can include providing at-risk women and girls with affection, care and security. Why do they do this? They are positioning themselves as someone their victim can trust so that they can more easily control that victim. Once control is established, traffickers use a variety of tactics to maintain control. They may sexually and physically assault the victim, starve or confine the victim, engage in psychological abuse or threaten violence. They turn the victim's life into a living nightmare. Traffickers will go to great lengths to keep victims isolated and unable to seek help. They often separate victims from those who could help them, hiding them from the public and ensuring they do not have access to support. They may force victims to commit crimes while being trafficked and convince them that they will be arrested if they try to seek help. We also know that victims may be unwilling or unable to seek help for a number of reasons, such as distrust of authorities, which is often created or fostered by the traffickers themselves, or because victims are fearful or ashamed, are not aware of their rights in Canada, are experiencing language barriers or are wanting to protect their trafficker. After being trafficked, victims may experience post-traumatic stress and memory loss as a result of the physical, sexual, financial, emotional and psychological abuse they were subject to while being trafficked. Many victims live with both the physical and the psychological scars of the trauma they have endured. It is paramount that victims be supported and that the traffickers be brought to justice. I am assured by the fact that the Criminal Code contains a robust legislative framework governing human trafficking, which includes specific human trafficking offences, including trafficking in adults, child trafficking, materially benefiting from human trafficking and withholding or destroying identity documents to facilitate this crime, with maximum penalties up to life imprisonment. As human trafficking cases are complex, additional offences may be used, depending on the facts, such as uttering threats, forcible confinement, assault and sexual assault. Bill S-224 sought to strengthen the framework, and I agree with the bill's sponsor that we must continue to reflect on how we can ensure the most robust legislative framework possible, and as I have said, I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to do just that. We know that the Criminal Code's human trafficking provisions, which were first enacted in 2005, have been interpreted broadly and that they apply in a broad range of cases, including those that involve only psychological forms of coercion. I will quote from one committee witness, Dawne Way, who represented the victims of human trafficking and who opposes the bill. She said, for example, “I have two main reasons for taking this position. The first is that it is unnecessary, and the second is that the amendment would result in unintended delays and constitutional challenges that would be to the detriment of complainants.” I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to Senator Ataullahjan and to the member for Oshawa for providing us with the opportunity to review the Criminal Code's legislative framework that criminalizes human trafficking. While I firmly believe we should be reviewing these important provisions to ensure they are achieving their important objectives, I am reassured by the court's broad interpretation, which is consistent with its objectives of protecting victims from the full range of exploiting conduct and of holding offenders to account. Given the evidence that Bill S-224 is likely to make it harder to prosecute human trafficking rather than easier, we have to oppose the bill.

1178 words