44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 23, 2024 10:00AM
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 7:00:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to participate this evening in this important debate. I want to state at the outset that I will be splitting my time for the last five minutes with the member for Thornhill.
I am going to start off with an easy question for the minister, just to get things started.
What year did the Liberal Party form its majority government?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 7:00:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party formed majority government in 2015.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 7:00:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 2015 is important, because you are going to hear the number 2015 quite a bit.
I will note, minister, that when you were first appointed, one of the things you said in your new role was that for Canadians it was empirically unlikely that Canada was becoming less safe. I would say Canadians would say that is not true. I would say Statistics Canada would say that is not true.
There has been a shift in the crime rate since 2015 that we are going to talk about this evening. On the serious Criminal Code offence of homicide, have those rates gone up or down since the Liberals formed government in 2015?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 7:01:24 p.m.
- Watch
Members should address their questions through the Chair.
The hon. Minister of Justice.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
