SoVote

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

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/23/24 5:44:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224 Bill C-49 Bill C-310 Bill C-268

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-224, which “amends the Criminal Code to specify what constitutes exploitation for the purpose of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons”. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill, because it is imperative that we discuss all the tools likely to help the authorities combat this scourge, which is getting worse as more people move around the globe and the number of refugees increases. This topic is near and dear to my heart, because I would actually like to point out that, although I was unable to attend the annual general meeting yesterday, I had expressed my interest in renewing my mandate as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking with my three other colleagues. There are four co-chairs, and we have been working on this issue for several years now. I will talk about this bill by explaining it in greater detail, then I will talk a bit about the Palermo protocol, and then I will close by denouncing human smugglers. First, this bill responds to the demands of several human trafficking survivors' groups and would make the definitions of exploitation and human trafficking more consistent with those set out in the Palermo protocol, which Canada signed in 2000. Bill S‑224 is very simple but very important. It removes a phrase from the Criminal Code stating that a charge under these provisions must be based on the fact that the victim believes “that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened” if they fail to comply. According to the International Justice and Human Rights Clinic at the University of British Columbia's Faculty of Law, asking victims to demonstrate that they have reasonable grounds to fear for their safety may be an obstacle to obtaining convictions for human trafficking. Elements of the offence of human trafficking are more difficult to prove than those of other similar offences. For example, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which prohibits human trafficking, does not require the person involved to prove that they fear for their safety. This standard is no longer appropriate. Second, it is important to note that this issue transcends borders because of the Palermo protocol, which dates back to 2000. On May 13, 2002, Canada ratified the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Article 3 of the convention clearly defines trafficking in persons. That is how trafficking in persons was added to the Criminal Code in 2005. However, the Canadian definition does not match the one in the Palermo protocol, since the issue of consent or the victim's sense of security is taken into account in it. In Canada, the victim must prove that he or she was in danger or that he or she refused to be exploited. In a case of trafficking in persons, regardless of whether the victim was initially willing or felt safe, the victim should not have to justify the circumstances under which they were lured in order to prove that trafficking in persons occurred. The U.S. State Department studied the legislation of its two neighbours, Canada and Mexico. Obviously, there is no real comparison. However, the report does make suggestions for Canada. It is important to remember that even if consent was given, such as consent to come to Canada, it does not mean that the person consented to the forced labour or sexual exploitation to which they were subsequently exposed, especially if the victim is dependent on someone because of isolation, lack of resources and language barriers. In 2005, Bill C-49 added three human trafficking offences to the Criminal Code, as well as a definition. Trafficking in persons is now defined as receiving a financial or other material benefit for the purpose of committing or facilitating trafficking in persons, as set out in section 279. 02; withholding or destroying a person's identity documents—which happens sometimes or often, even—such as a passport, whether authentic or forged, for the purpose of committing or facilitating trafficking of that person, as set out in section 279.03; and exploitation for the purpose of human trafficking offences, as set out in section 279.04. In 2008-09, the first case involving a human trafficking charge under this new legislation was completed in adult criminal court. In 2010, subsection 279.011(1) was added to the Criminal Code. It imposed mandatory minimum penalties for individuals accused of the “trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen years”. That was Bill C-268. In 2012, the Criminal Code was amended to allow for the prosecution of Canadians and permanent residents for human trafficking offences committed internationally and to provide judges with an interpretive tool to assist in determining whether exploitation occurred. That is in subsection 279.04(1), and it was Bill C-310. In 2015, mandatory minimum sentences were imposed for the main trafficking in persons offence under section 279.1 of the Criminal Code, for receiving a material benefit from child trafficking under subsection 279.02 of the Criminal Code, and for withholding or destroying documents to facilitate child trafficking under subsection 279.03(2), stemming from former Bill C-454 introduced by the Bloc Québécois. We have been thinking about this issue for a few years now. Let us talk about the link between human smugglers and human trafficking. In the context of trafficking in persons, it is important to recognize the related issue of migrant smuggling, which is often mistaken for human trafficking. Migrant smuggling, or what some might call migration assistance, consists of helping an individual cross a border illegally. The individual consents to being transported and makes a payment to the smuggler in exchange for the desired service. On their arrival, the individual can simply be dropped off and cease all contact with the smuggler. In contrast, human trafficking involves deception, coercion or debt bondage with the aim of exploiting people who might be transported from one place to another. Victims do not necessarily cross borders. Human trafficking and human smuggling often intersect because smuggled migrants often find themselves in situations of exploitation similar to those experienced by victims of trafficking. This may be the case for people who owe their smuggler money for transportation costs and have to work to pay it back. This is abusive, because the sums involved can be exorbitant when these people arrive. That can also be the case for migrant workers who are forced to work in exploitative conditions. In these cases, human trafficking charges could be laid, even if the smuggled migrants consented to the smuggling at the outset. Things can go sideways afterwards. All of that contributes to the low rate of reporting. That is the problem. As one can imagine, when victims of trafficking realize what is happening, they hesitate to come forward. According to the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, Julie Miville-Dechêne, a 2018 report from Public Safety Canada explains that victims are often reluctant to report their situation, since they tend to believe that the success rate of prosecutions is very low. Prosecutors, for their part, find it difficult to reach the high threshold of evidence required for trafficking cases. The statistics are startling. In 2019, 89% of human trafficking charges resulted in a stay, withdrawal, dismissal or discharge. Less than one in ten charges resulted in a guilty verdict. That is why we are examining this issue today. According to a study by the University of British Columbia's Allard School of Law, there are approximately 4.8 million victims of sex trafficking alone, and 99% of them are female. Statistics Canada has indicated that, according to police-reported data, 2,977 incidents of human trafficking occurred between 2010 and 2020. During that period, 86% of incidents were reported in census metropolitan areas, compared to 58% of incidents of violence or approximately six out of 10. Over half, or 57%, of incidents involved human trafficking alone, whereas 43% also involved other types of crime, mainly offences related to the sex trade. The vast majority, or 81%, of accused human traffickers were men or boys, who were most commonly between the ages of 18 and 24, at 41%, followed closely by men between the ages of 25 and 34, at 36%. Human trafficking cases took almost twice as long to resolve as cases involving violent offences in adult criminal courts. That is another problem. The median time it took to resolve a case involving at least one violent offence charge in an adult criminal court was 176 days. In contrast, the median time to resolve a case involving a human trafficking charge was 373 days. It is still hard to get accurate data about the true extent of trafficking. All the organizations agree that it is a widespread problem that generates proceeds rivalling those of drug and gun trafficking. In 2014, the International Labour Office estimated that illegal profits in the general category of forced labour amounted to $150.2 billion U.S. per year, a figure that is still often cited today because it is so huge. In closing, I too applaud the new provision proposed by Senator Ataullahjan, not least because it uses the terminology from the Palermo protocol, which means that it focuses on the actions of the trafficker, not the victims' fear. Victims' confidence and dignity must be restored, and they must be able to report what is happening to them. More of these cases need to be reported.

1641 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

May/23/24 5:56:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Shefford for all the work she does to protect exploited women and persons in Canada. I really appreciate all of the hard work she does. New Democrats are supportive of measures that help victims receive justice through the justice system. This is why we wanted this bill to go to committee for study. The study was very important, and I believe that all members are committed to better laws that can truly protect people from human trafficking. This is one of the fastest-growing crimes in Canada, and it disproportionately affects women and girls. We heard from other speakers today that, in 97% of detected crimes, the victims of human trafficking were women and girls. As the member for Shefford said, a quarter of them are under the age of 18. This is children being exploited. It is a serious problem, and it must end. What we heard in committee and in the study is that the bill, as it stood, would not provide more resources for targeting trafficking units and for law enforcement, and it would not make the struggle against trafficking more effective. In addition, changing the legal definition could have unintended consequences, particularly for sex workers. We heard that in committee. My colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke received a petition from more than 60 organizations asking us not to proceed with this bill without further consultation, and members of the House know that the bill reported back to the House reflected that. The Conservatives, though, are now ignoring important community input, which is usually a Liberal tactic, I will say, and are attempting to put back in the bill exactly what the justice committee took out of it. That approach is not helping victims. If the Conservatives want to protect trafficked victims, they need to start pushing for actions that would help address trafficking crime. This must be the goal, and it must be the goal for Canada. We must do this. Casting a broad net, as the original bill did, risks the mistake of defining all sex work as trafficking and missing actual cases of trafficking. When we think about young girls, children, we need to make sure that we can get at every case of trafficking. I will close by reiterating that additional enforcement resources are needed now, and additional services for survivors are needed now. These resource investments would have greater impact on reducing trafficking than any legislative change that would come from the bill.

422 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

May/23/24 5:58:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-224. This is an incredible bill that would do important work when it comes to fighting human trafficking. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the sponsors of the bill: Senator Ataullahjan, who steered this bill through the Senate, and the MP for Oshawa, who has been championing this bill and this issue here in the House for many years. This bill is critical to Canada's effort to target and apprehend pimps and traffickers, and I want to begin by reviewing the bizarre situation we found ourselves in today. The bill before us was an empty bill. It did not even have a title. However, Bill S-224 was introduced in November of 2021 in the Senate. It passed second reading there in April 2022, and by October it had been passed by the Senate unanimously. Here in the House, Bill S-224 passed second reading unanimously and was sent to committee, where a number of survivors and frontline organizations all called in their testimony for this bill to be passed. Then last June, when I was at the final justice committee meeting on this bill, it became clear that the NDP and the Liberals suddenly did not want this bill to pass. I was shocked to see the Liberals and the NDP gut this bill during clause-by-clause consideration. I had never seen anything like this before. They had an option of recommending that the House not proceed, but instead they gutted the bill and removed even the title and sent it back here as a blank piece of paper. This bill on fighting human trafficking had unanimous support every step of the way through the Senate and the House of Commons until seven Liberals and an NDP MP decided to destroy it, so here we are today debating important amendments to restore the clauses of the bill. Survivors and frontline anti-trafficking organizations are calling for this bill to be passed because our human trafficking laws are not accomplishing what we want them to do. Our current human trafficking laws put a burden of proof on the mindset of the victim rather than on the actions of the traffickers. This is contrary to the international legal standard called for in the Palermo protocol, which Canada signed on to over 20 years ago. The Palermo protocol defines human trafficking based on the actions of the traffickers, such as the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, or abduction, fraud, deception, or abuse of power or position of vulnerability. In contrast, our laws are much more narrow. At the committee, Dr. Janine Benedet, a law professor from UBC's Allard School of Law, told justice committee members that: the definition of trafficking in the [Canadian] Criminal Code at present is unnecessarily convoluted and too restrictive. It is very hard for victims to come forward, and having an offence that is so difficult to prove makes matters worse. ... Removing the requirement to prove reasonable fear for safety, as this bill does, would be very helpful, because it is inappropriate to impose a reasonableness requirement on victims. We should be focusing on the actions of the trafficker. Dr. Benedet also pointed out that the fear of safety is not the only way that traffickers influence and control their victims, and we do not require this type of subjective focus from victims for other laws, such as the law on sexual assault. We have seen the impact of this restrictive definition on human trafficking in the Criminal Code. For the 10-year period between 2011 and 2021, only 12% of adult human trafficking cases resulted in a guilty decision, which is only one in eight cases. Human trafficking cases are half as likely to result in a guilty finding as cases involving sexual offences or violent crime. This is tragic, and it is largely because convictions so often require the testimony of victims. This gap in our law has even been noted by our strongest ally. Every year for the past few years, the Government of the United States' “Trafficking in Persons Report” has urged Canada to amend the Criminal Code to include a definition of trafficking that has exploitation as an essential element of the crime, consistent with international law. An important question we always need to ask about any legislation is this: Who stands to benefit if the bill is defeated? For example, we have seen over the past number of years how Liberals have worked to protect big pharmaceutical companies. In fact, over the past few years, Liberal cabinet ministers have aided big pharmaceutical companies by keeping drug prices high for Canadians. The Liberals have helped to bring more profits into the pockets of big pharma executives. Who stands to benefit if Bill S-224 is gutted or defeated? Pimps and traffickers do. That is tragic. However, it is consistent with the government. It has blocked consecutive sentencing for traffickers after being adopted by Parliament; reduced human trafficking offences to a hybrid offence, meaning traffickers would sometimes get away with as little as a fine; and extending house arrest for human trafficking offences. Who benefits from all these changes? Pimps and traffickers do. Further, the government has been negligent in appointing judges. This year, a sex trafficker had two separate human trafficking cases thrown out because of delays. Each time these cases collapse, it denies justice to victims and their families, and it allows dangerous individuals to return to the street. Let me be clear: By killing this bill, the Liberals and the NDP are helping traffickers stay out of jail. They are making it easier for traffickers to continue their business as usual. The Liberals and the NDP are helping to put more money in the pockets of violent pimps. I want to conclude by highlighting the important testimony from the survivors and advocates who showed up at the justice committee. Wendy Gee, the executive director of A New Day Youth and Adult Services, and a mother of a daughter who was trafficked, told the committee this: Out of all the young women the organization has supported, only two have come forward and provided a statement to law enforcement about the trafficking situation. Wendy urged the committee to adopt Bill S-224, stating the following: Eliminating the burden of proving they were fearful while they were exploited tells a victim that we believe them, that what they have endured was not a measure of their worth or value, was not indicative of the type of treatment they deserved and was not the result of poor decision-making, and that their victimization will not be [allowed to continue] by our justice system. Casandra Diamond, a survivor of trafficking, and the founder and executive director of an organization called BridgeNorth, also spoke to the committee. She said: Bill S-224 would support victims by reducing the burden they experience when testifying and trying to prove they feared their trafficker. The proposed amendment would eliminate the difficult requirement that the Criminal Code currently places on prosecutors to show that there was reasonable basis for the survivor to fear for her safety. This would account for situations, like mine, where my trafficker had manipulated me to see him as someone who offered safety and protection, rather than the one who facilitated brutal sexual violence against [me as he trafficked me]. This bill would support victims in coming forward in the court process and reduce barriers, which would allow more victims to feel safe to share their allegations over time. Casandra ended her testimony by saying, “Canada's trafficking survivors deserve better than what we currently have, and Bill S-224 is that better.” I would ask my NDP and Liberal colleagues if they believe survivors such as Casandra, who have made it clear that the bill would make an extreme difference. I know my Liberal and NDP colleagues believe that a survivor deserves better. Do they believe it when survivors say that Bill S-224 is that better? Canada needs to do much more in its fight against human trafficking, and the proposed bill is an important start. That is why I am pleased to support restoring the text of the bill today, and I urge all my colleagues to support this. I want to thank my colleague from Oshawa for his great work on the bill and all the survivors who have been relentless in calling for this change.

1430 words

Mr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

May/23/24 6:07:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to speak about Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons). This is a bill that presents the opportunity to consider Canada's criminal justice response to human trafficking. Human trafficking is a devastating crime that involves recruiting, moving or holding victims in order to exploit these individuals for profit, usually for sexual exploitation or forced labour. Traffickers can control and pressure victims through force or through threats, including mental and emotional abuse and manipulation. Human traffickers prey on individuals who may be in challenging situations. This could be someone who is not in contact with their family, struggling with their identity, a survivor of abuse or someone in desperate need to work for money. Whatever the reason, victims are often unaware that they are being groomed, as traffickers are often expert manipulators. Human trafficking can involve crossing borders and, according to the UN, is becoming more difficult to detect. In 2022, for the first time, the UN reported a decrease in the number of victims detected globally. The “Global Report on Trafficking in Persons” posits that this decrease may be due to a lower institutional capacity to detect victims, fewer opportunities to traffic resulting from COVID-19 preventive restrictions and a proliferation of clandestine trafficking locations. The UN also highlighted that climate change is multiplying trafficking risks. Climate migrants are vulnerable to trafficking, and in 2021, 23.7 million people were displaced by weather-induced natural disasters, while many others crossed borders to escape climate-induced poverty. Importantly, human trafficking is not just a problem that occurs internationally; it is happening right now in communities across Canada. Most trafficking convictions in Canada involve Canadian citizens. In some cases, however, they involve permanent residents or foreign nationals who are trafficked into Canada. These individuals may enter the country willingly, only to later find themselves in exploitative situations. For both internationally and domestically trafficked persons, vulnerability to being trafficked is heightened by economic deprivation, lack of opportunity or social isolation. In Canada, this includes population groups such as indigenous women and girls, migrants and new immigrants, members of the LGBTQ2 community, persons with disabilities, children in care and other at-risk youth. I would also like to underscore the particular impact of human trafficking on indigenous women and girls. The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls emphasizes the disproportionate impact of human trafficking and sexual exploitation on indigenous women and girls due to intersecting factors that increase the likelihood of being targeted by a trafficker. These include systemic racism, violence against indigenous women and girls, intergenerational trauma from colonization, lack of access to social and economic resources, and colonial assimilation policies. That is why Canada has continued to demonstrate leadership in combatting human trafficking. Back in 2005, Canada enacted human trafficking offences in the Criminal Code. Those offences have been amended several times—including by our government in 2019 through former Bill C-75, which Conservatives are fond of maligning—to ensure a robust response. For example, Bill C-75 brought into force a provision that allows prosecutors to prove one of the elements of the human trafficking offence, that the accused exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a victim, by establishing that the accused lived with or was habitually in the company of the victim. We have heard the Conservatives say they would repeal Bill C-75, so I am curious as to whether they also plan to repeal this provision. Moreover, in 2019, the Government of Canada launched the national strategy to combat human trafficking. This strategy is led by Public Safety Canada and is a five-year, whole-of-government approach to address human trafficking. It frames federal activities under the internationally recognized pillars of prevention, protection, prosecution, and partnerships. It also includes a fifth pillar of empowerment, which aims to enhance supports and services for victims and survivors of human trafficking. Additionally, the Department of Justice's victims fund helps to ensure that victims and survivors of crime have improved access to justice and to give them a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. Since 2012, the Department of Justice has undertaken policy and program development through the federal victims strategy to support non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to provide services and supports for victims and survivors of human trafficking. Since 2018, the victims fund has had an allocation of $1 million annually to support victims and survivors of human trafficking. In terms of our legislative approach, the Criminal Code's main trafficking offence prohibits recruiting, transporting or harbouring victims to exploit them or to facilitate their exploitation by someone else under section 279.01. Separate offences criminalize materially benefiting from human trafficking under subsection 279.02(1) and withholding or destroying identity documents, whether authentic or forged, to facilitate human trafficking under subsection 279.03(1). In addition to these adult-trafficking offences, the Criminal Code also contains child-specific human trafficking offences. I stress that all of these offences have extraterritorial application, meaning that a Canadian or a permanent resident who engages in this conduct abroad can be prosecuted in Canada under subsection 7(4.2). Importantly, convictions have been secured under these offences, including where traffickers have exploited their victims' vulnerabilities without using physical violence. Both the Ontario and the Quebec courts of appeal have found that under the existing human trafficking offences, prosecutors do not need to prove that the victim was actually afraid, that the accused used or threatened the use of physical violence or even that exploitation actually occurred. Prosecutors need only prove that a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would believe their physical or psychological safety would be threatened if they failed to provide the labour or services required of them. We look forward to proceeding with this discussion this evening, and I will end my comments here.

1000 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

May/23/24 6:17:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to trafficking in persons. The adoption of this legislation would remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals to prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse. That is very significant, “fear in their abuse”. Right now, they have to prove that they were afraid. It is incomprehensible how the Liberals have essentially gutted this entire bill and left it with a title. We just heard very solemn comments from the previous Liberal member. However, at the same time, the Liberals are actually doing quite the contrary. They are not protecting people, primarily women and girls, from being trafficked. On the weekend, I heard a presentation from Ally Global Foundation about the work that it is doing worldwide. I saw a video of children from Nepal and other countries, and how they were basically being sold by their families for a very minimal amount of money, or kidnapped, used as sex slaves or used for labour. They are abused and traumatized for the rest of their lives, if not killed. There are millions of people who are being trafficked around the world. It is modern-day slavery. The thing is that it is not just happening offshore. It is happening here in Canada. It is happening here in Ottawa and where I live, in Maple Ridge, in the Vancouver area. It is happening everywhere. A lot of what is happening is that these Canadians are lured through the Internet. Children, 12 years old or older, are lured into sex slavery. They are not even aware of what is happening. Then they get caught up in this life and get addicted to drugs. We are seeing a massive increase in the opioid crisis: 42,000 have died in the past number of years. In British Columbia, last year alone, a record 2,500 died. Many of those on drugs have been addicted through human trafficking. That is a big concern. Conservatives want to bring in significant penalties. We had a mandatory minimum penalty before, which was removed by the Liberal government. Right now, a trafficker can get away with a small fine, $5,000, with no time in jail, for ruining lives. We need to take this very seriously. It is spreading its tentacles, and those tentacles need to be cut off. I have a great concern. I am Métis. The indigenous population comprises approximately 4% of Canada's population. An astounding 50% of those who are trafficked in Canada are indigenous. That is devastating. Indigenous women and girls are being trafficked, and it is destroying our people, my people, our people as Canadians. How can we bring reconciliation? How can we see redemption? How can we see growth and healing? This is something important. The government has an obligation to protect the most vulnerable, who are maybe going through some problems. I think of teenagers. I was a teacher for many years, and we were all teenagers at one time, but youth go through difficult times of feeling vulnerable. They are looking for security and looking for relationships. Traffickers and criminal gangs look for those who are a bit ostracized and they wean them through gifts, attention and so-called love. It is really a way to trap them and to use them for financial purposes. They treat girls and women like objects. This is something for which, as legislators, we need to bring in the most stringent of consequences in order to set the people free. In our country, this is unacceptable. Also, I am aware of people who come from other countries, new immigrants, who get caught up in jobs and do not know how to get out of it. It could be through some type of employment like massages, or it could be a variety of things, and the person becomes trapped in this lifestyle and does not know where to turn. I know this is going to go to committee afterwards. I really am hopeful. I should not say I am hopeful, because I have not seen a lot of evidence on the Liberal side of taking crime very seriously. We have seen a massive increase in assaults, gangs, car thefts and everything. Liberals have reduced the consequences for all sorts of criminal activity, so we see the same people repeating crime time after time. In Vancouver alone, I believe last year or the year before, the same 40 offenders committed 6,000 crimes that we are aware of. It was just like a turnstile. We cannot have this destructive practice happening. We cannot just let the cancer in there; it needs to come out. We need strong legislation, so I really do hope the Liberals and the NDP supporting them will come to their senses and pass this. It has already gone through the Senate. I want to thank my colleagues, the MP for Oshawa and the MP for Peace River—Westlock, for their efforts when they brought it in 2019, as well as many others. There are a lot of people who say they are concerned. We hear about it from all sides. We hear about the concern, but let us put that concern into action by changing the legislation.

896 words

The Speaker

May/23/24 6:26:42 p.m.
Watch

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

30 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/23/24 6:27:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question that I asked on February 5 of this year. It relates to a very key issue in our democracy, and that is our voting system, the winner-take-all system known as first past the post. We are one of the very few democracies on this planet that uses a system that separates the popular vote from the Parliament that is created from the seat count. It is a perverse system, and, as I put in my question back on February 5, one that many Canadians find unacceptable. One of the reasons for the Liberals' election victory in 2015, and there is no question about it, was the promise that “2015 will be the last election held under...first-past-the-post”. It was in the election platform. It was then put in the Speech from the Throne. I joined a special standing committee of this place that toured Canada, listened to thousands of Canadians, heard from tens of thousands of Canadians. It was created as a standing committee on electoral reform to recommend a system that would replace first past the post, because we all believed and, I swear on a stack of Bibles, I believed the Liberal promise that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. The job of our committee was to come up with an alternative voting system that would be fair and would ensure that the popular vote was reflected in the Parliament that was created. On February 2, 2017, that promise was broken in spectacular fashion as a new minister, recently shuffled, got up in front of the mics out there and said that it is not in their mandate letter anymore, that they were not changing the voting system. There was then the excuse, the fake excuse, that there was no consensus. The Liberals invented a new condition never previously mentioned. They ran an election. They won based on telling people that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. The answer I received from the parliamentary secretary was more than inadequate, but so was the result. My question was this. Would this government at least agree to pass Motion No. 86, which was to create a citizens' assembly so Canadians could have a jury of our peers? They did not listen to the parliamentary committee. They did not listen to the people of Canada in the vote, who said, yes, we will vote for Liberal candidates because 2015 will be the last election under first past the post. That motion to create a citizens' jury went down to defeat, but I do not think we should give up on it. What happens when one makes a promise to Canadians and then one walks away from it and one breaks it? It is not that one has walked away from the problem. One has turned one's back on Canadians. One has fed into a well of increasing cynicism, disgust and distrust in the people of this country, in the voters of this country. It is not too late to return. This is what I want to pursue tonight. How do we return to the promise that was broken and actually keep it? How do we let Canadians know that voting in Canada can become fair, that the way we vote will be reflected in the Parliament we elect? It is not too late. I put it to this government: “Keep your word, bring the promise back and get rid of first past the post.”

606 words

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

May/23/24 6:31:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that the leader of the Green Party might not necessarily like this answer, but the truth of the matter is that, back then, there was no consensus achieved. I also know that the leader of the Green Party is very familiar with the history of this debate, not only here in Ottawa, but in other jurisdictions. Other provinces and other political parties, at the provincial level, for many years have been calling for a change to the first-past-the post system, yet all provinces, and here in Ottawa, have continued with first past the post. It has proven to be acceptable to governments, for the most part. Elections have been acceptable. I will acknowledge that there have been some anomalies that have caused a great deal of concern. Reflecting back on what took place during that 2016-17 period, and the discussions around the table at the time, it became clear that we were not going to be able to achieve consensus. Some people were advocating preferential ballot, as an example, while others were talking about a different form to change elections. At the end of the day, we have seen provinces have independent groups do research into how they believed the province could change the system. That has taken place on several occasions. We have seen referendums at the provincial level. What I have witnessed over my relatively short term of 30-plus years as a parliamentarian is that first past the post continues to be the preferred choice of Canadians, governments and opposition parties, consistently. At times, the issue of electoral reform does come up. A good percentage of people are very much concerned about it and looking at ways to change the system. Maybe we will see some sort of a change in the future, in particular at a provincial level, where we will be able to look at what that province is doing. Until we can achieve that consensus, I do not believe that we are in a position where we can see the type of change that the leader of the Green Party would like to see. I do not say that lightly. I have been in a political party in Manitoba where there were only two Liberal MLAs. In fact, my daughter is the only Liberal MLA currently in Manitoba. I understand the arguments on all sides from a number of people who would like to see electoral change. I know of the examples where one party gets a majority of the vote, yet it does not get a majority of the seats. All in all, when we weigh things out, we find that people are accepting and content with first past the post because it has been working for Canada to date. Until we can build that consensus, I think we need to stick with that.

478 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

May/23/24 6:35:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Liberals did not put out an election platform in 2015 that said, “If we can find consensus, we'll change the voting system”. No, it was unequivocal. The promise was that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post, not “If we can find consensus”. That was invented ex post facto after they won the election. Good MPs, like Craig Scott for Toronto Danforth, lost their seats. NDP supporters had gone up to him, saying, “Gee, Craig, I'm really sorry. I've always voted for you, but I'm not going to vote for you this time. I'll never have to vote strategically again because the Liberals are going to get rid of first past the post”. We believed their lies. It is a damn shame to lie to Canadians. Shame.

149 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/23/24 6:36:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, those were strong words that the leader used. I think we need to recognize that there was a genuine attempt to change the system. We surrendered the majority by allowing the majority to be opposition members, including the leader of the Green Party. There was a genuine attempt made, but let us also recognize that we could not get consensus. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for the government to move forward on the issue. At the end of the day, I believe it is important that we reflect on what took place. Maybe we can talk about some of those details later, because we do not have the time needed to do so now. I would be more than happy to share some more intimate discussions with the member on this important issue.

137 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

May/23/24 6:37:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, National Caregiver Month is almost over and yet Canada's caregivers are no better off due to the inaction of the government. Earlier today, my hon. colleague from Hamilton Centre pointed out that workers from SEIU and other personal support workers have been waiting for three years. The government promised that these workers would get help with building their retirement savings. It made these promises in the 2020 fall statement, the 2021 budget and the 2023 budget. Even though $50 million was allocated for their pension program, that money has not yet flowed. This is unacceptable. I want to talk about the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence report that was recently released, which said that caregivers in this country are caring for aged people and are not being compensated appropriately. According to the report, 57% of all caregivers are women, who are not being compensated in the work that they do. Of these caregivers, more than one in five pays more than $1,000 out of their very own pocket to take care of loved ones. Unpaid caregivers who are already working full-time provide an average of four and a half hours per day caring for their loved ones. This means that on any given week, they are putting in an extra 30 hours of work caregiving. These costs to our caregivers are continuing to rise as things become more unaffordable. They have to take more time to support their loved ones and they have more expenses. The Liberals said they would fix this, but they continue to let down women as they refuse to make the Canada caregiver tax credit refundable. New Democrats know that Canadian caregivers deserve respect, and we cannot help but show gratitude for the tireless work that paid and unpaid caregivers do every day. Care work is the backbone of our society and is essential to our future, but, like the government has shown, it is far too often undervalued and underappreciated. The data shows that caregivers need more support and with the cost of living going up, they need the financial support that has been promised by the government for years.

360 words

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

May/23/24 6:39:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the answer of the specific question right away, but I wanted to take the opportunity to recognize the valuable role that caregivers provide to our communities in every region of the country. They do incredible work. Because of the fine work they do, people's lives are that much better, and in many ways they get to continue to live in communities, maybe where they have grown up from childhood, and communities in which, maybe because of some sort of a devastating accident, they find themselves in need of having a caregiver. I wanted to acknowledge at the very beginning how important caregivers are to our communities and to our society and thank them from a personal perspective. I know the feelings I have toward caregivers and the fine work that they do is shared among all members of Parliament. I can definitely speak on behalf of the Liberal caucus because I know that to be true. I think of what the government has done specifically. The Canada caregiver credit is a non-refundable tax credit for those who have expenses linked to taking care of a disabled or impaired family member. As one example, this tax credit is intended to compensate caregivers for non-discretionary, out-of-pocket expenses incurred while offering care. It applies both for physical and mental impairment and extends to spouses and their families, children or parents. This allows families that are burdened with taking care of an impaired loved one to expense up to $8,000 on their tax return. There are things that we do that are very direct, and I would suggest that this is direct. There are also things that take place that are indirect but also very supportive. For example, in the budget, for the first time ever, we have a nationwide disability program, which would see literally hundreds of millions of dollars invested in an area. Many of the recipients who would be receiving this are individuals who are receiving care also. We will see that by providing this sort of additional support. I think it might be the single largest expenditure in a budget line for new programming. It is a significant amount of money. We are looking at ways in which we can support caregivers, whether directly through deductions or indirectly through ways we can enhance opportunities for or the independence of individuals who have disabilities, and each complements the other. This is not a government that says we are just going to take a look at one aspect of how we can support caregivers. I think that there are different ways we can not only acknowledge, but support, caregivers and individuals who are recipients of caregivers' actions. I see that as a positive step forward. It is important that the national government continues to work with other authorities, in particular our provinces, which also provide independent living types of programs and enhanced care programs.

494 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

May/23/24 6:44:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that at least the member is starting to have a conversation about it and use words around “fine work”. I understand that by “fine work”, he means the 28 years it took for the government to actually have a child care program. I benefited from a child care program starting in 1995 in Quebec, and many of my colleagues outside of Quebec had to wait 28 years. It was “fine work”, for over 28 years, done by all the women out there who looked after the kids so that many of the MPs in the House could become parliamentary secretaries, ministers and so on. The fine words are not going to pay the bills, so I would say again that the Liberal government promised this refundable caregiver tax credit. That is a no-brainer. As far as I am concerned, that should be immediate, but I remind the Liberals that they have also promised a pension benefit to personal support workers, such as those at SEIU, who are still waiting to be able to retire.

186 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/23/24 6:45:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member has acknowledged the deduction issue, but she also, at the beginning of her speech, made reference to child care, and 28 years is a long time. However, we would have had something in place back in, I think, 2004-06, with Paul Martin's proposal for child care, which Ken Dryden did a phenomenal job on. I was very disappointed, as it was there and all in place. Unfortunately, we could not get the support of the New Democrats at that time, and as a result, we ended up losing government. That plan was, sadly, flushed. Having said that, under this minority government, and after a shuffling of the New Democratic members of Parliament, we were able to bring in a child care program that will ensure $10-a-day day care. The member is right in that it is very much modelled after what had taken place in Quebec. The Province of Quebec did it right, and because of that, we have a program that is very similar to the Province of Quebec's program. As a result, we have a national child care program.

195 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

May/23/24 6:46:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a straightforward question that the Minister of Employment refuses to answer. How much has the minister been paid by Navis Group since the minister was appointed to cabinet? The minister's dealings with Navis Group raise serious ethical questions, including whether the minister broke the law by contravening the Conflict of Interest Act. Navis Group is owned by the minister's business partner. The minister was receiving, and continues to receive, payments from Navis Group. As the minister was receiving these payments, Navis Group was lobbying the minister's own department and managed to secure $110 million in federal contracts for its client. This has all the markings of self-dealing, conflict of interest and corruption. When the Minister of Employment appeared at committee on the estimates, I asked him about his shady arrangement with Navis Group. The minister effectively said that there was nothing to see here, and that it was all above board. The minister claimed it had been approved by the Ethics Commissioner. However, the minister's statement at committee was patently false. It was patently false because, in fact, the minister actively concealed from the Ethics Commissioner his connection to Navis Group. More specifically, the minister's disclosure to the Ethics Commissioner conveniently hid behind a numbered company without disclosing that the numbered company was Navis Group. A statement from the Office of the Ethics Commissioner confirms that the Ethics Commissioner was unaware of the minister's connection with Navis Group. Therefore, the Ethics Commissioner was unaware that the company that was paying the minister was simultaneously lobbying the minister's department and successfully securing $110 million in grants for its client. What we have is a shady deal, a shady arrangement, that the minister actively concealed from the Ethics Commissioner. When the minister got caught, he attempted to misdirect by peddling the falsehood that it had been approved by the Ethics Commissioner, raising additional questions about the minister's fitness for office. Since this scandal broke, the minister has not had the guts to stand in the House once and answer questions. Instead, the minister has been shielded by other ministers in the government who have dodged and deflected on the minister's behalf. On behalf of Canadian taxpayers, who have footed the $110 million bill to Navis Group, how much did the minister pocket from Navis Group? I just need a number.

406 words

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

May/23/24 6:50:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear and precise on this at the start. The minister has always followed the strict ethics rules that apply to him as an elected official. Canada has one of the strictest ethics regimes in the world for elected officials, and that is exactly what Canadians expect. The minister has always conducted himself in an ethical manner that follows the spirit and letter of those rules. The minister has already addressed this matter. On that particular point, I am going to reflect on what I have witnessed from the official opposition, virtually from day one. When I say day one, I am talking about the election that was in late 2015. Since our Prime Minister became Prime Minister, the Conservative Party of Canada's focus has been purely on character assassination, whether of the Prime Minister or other ministers, and it has been consistent on that. It did not matter what the circumstances were. The Conservatives will look under every rock and then throw out the word “scandal”, and all sorts of negative words, to try to create something. Often they will create something out of absolutely nothing. The Conservatives like to get the headline that will say “scandal”. If they get a scandal headline, I think they possibly get a gold star in the Conservative back room. There are some members, and I would classify my friend as one of them, who are like a pit bull with a bone. They just do not want to let go until they get five gold stars. That is the type of attitude that I often see. The Conservatives are more focused on that character assassination than on what is actually affecting Canadians. What have we seen over the last eight or nine years as a government? We have seen a government that has been focused on things such as enhancing Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We have seen a government that has recognized the importance of the generational gap and the need to have that higher sense of fairness. We have seen budget legislation. We have seen other forms of legislation there to support Canadians and have their backs during the pandemic or during difficult times. When there are issues such as inflation and affordability, we have seen a series of measures. We see that because, no matter what the Conservatives try to throw at the government with character assassinations, we continue to be focused on what is important to Canadians. I can assure members that, going forward, over the next 18 months or, hopefully, beyond, we will see a government that will continue to focus on the interests of Canadians. We will be there to support Canadians in very real and tangible ways. I suspect that we will still continue to see the members of the Conservative Party look under every rock to see what they can find, so they can throw around the word “scandal” as much as they can in the hope that they will be able to get that headline. If there is anything that tries to make this chamber look dysfunctional, anything that calls characters into question, whether it is justified or not, we can count on the Conservatives to stand and raise issues. That is fine. They are the official opposition, and they can do that. However, I will advise them that, as the Conservatives continue to do that, we will continue to work and be there for Canadians in a very real way.

598 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/23/24 6:54:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary claimed that the minister addressed the matter. The minister has done no such thing. Indeed, the minister has refused to stand in the House to answer a single question, and when I asked him a question at committee, he misdirected by falsely claiming that it had been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner when the arrangement clearly had not been. Here are the facts: The minister was being paid by a firm owned by his business partner that was lobbying his own department, and it secured $110 million in federal grants for its client. That smacks of a conflict of interest. Is the parliamentary secretary comfortable to stand in the House to tell Canadians that this is the low ethical bar set by the government?

129 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/23/24 6:55:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to say whenever we hear a Conservative say, “Here are the facts,” we should beware. When we think of the pandemic and the billions of dollars that were spent on the pandemic, we will hear the Conservatives say there was a Liberal who owned a particular company and received some sort of grant. They will say it is a huge scandal. However, we will find that for some Liberal entrepreneurs, but also for some Conservative entrepreneurs. I suspect there might even have been some separatist entrepreneurs and New Democrat entrepreneurs. When we have contracts and procurements and other things that are in place, and when we have an ethics commissioner, I take their efforts a whole lot more sincerely than those of the Conservative opposition, because with everything they see, they try to say things are broken and things are scandalous. That has been non-stop since 2015.

155 words

The Speaker

May/23/24 6:57:27 p.m.
Watch

The House is now in committee of the whole to consider all votes under Department of Justice in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025. Today's debate is a general one on all votes under Department of Justice. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation. Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time. This time may be used for both debate and for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves at least five minutes for questions to the minister. When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, how much time will be used for speeches and how much time will be used for questions and answers. Also, pursuant to order made earlier today, members who wish to share their time with one or more members shall indicate this to the Chair, and the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent. When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's response should approximately reflect the time taken by the question, since this time will count toward the time allocated to the member. Pursuant to order made earlier today, the time provided for the debate tonight may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each. I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all of the established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour. We will now begin tonight's session. The hon. member for Fundy Royal.

328 words

The Speaker

May/23/24 6:57:27 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House will now resolve itself into a committee of the whole for the consideration of all votes under Department of Justice in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

54 words