44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 2, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, the use of French in the workplace is declining in Quebec. One in five Quebeckers cannot work in French; also, 32% of Montrealers and 35% of Gatineau residents work primarily in English.
We will not stand for the federal government, despite being fully aware of these numbers, enacting Bill C‑13 to protect English in the workplace by allowing federally regulated companies to keep ignoring the Charter of the French Language.
French is in decline and English is on the rise. How can the minister deny that we are witnessing the anglicization of Quebec?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada also revealed that one of the three sectors where French in the workplace is declining the most is the finance and insurance sector. That means banks, which are under federal jurisdiction.
Let me repeat that. Banks, which are under federal jurisdiction, are among the main architects of the decline of the French language. Bill C‑13 allows them to continue to circumvent the Charter of the French Language. Bill C‑13 does not protect French in Quebec; it protects the banks, which want to operate in English.
What is the minister's mandate? Is it to protect the banks or to protect the French language?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Battle River—Crowfoot for his speech.
I want to come back to the issue of the additional powers over contraventions, limits on the right of passage, searches and seizures that the member talked about. I have a two-part question.
First, I want to confirm that he does not necessarily want to do away with the part of Bill C-23 that makes it possible to take such actions, but rather just set parameters on them. If so, can he give me an example of an amendment he would like to see in committee that would set parameters on the minister's sweeping powers?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is about respect in the House. I can hear someone talking on the phone right now in the government lobby, and it is rather distracting. It makes it hard to follow my colleague's speech. I simply want to raise this so we can continue in an orderly and disciplined manner.
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows the Bloc Québécois is proud that its purpose here is not to oppose, but to propose. I would like my colleague to comment on proposals she would like to see the committee debate when it studies this bill if passed at second reading.
Once this bill passes second reading, what would she like the committee to debate? Are there any amendments or improvements that come to mind?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Drummond for his very interesting speech.
I would like him to tell us about the financial aspect of protecting different sites. It is one thing to designate them, but they must then be looked after, maintained, improved and preserved, and the problem is that, often, there is not enough money for that.
Would my colleague like to take a closer look at this issue when the bill is studied in committee after second reading stage?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
We just heard him say that we need to remember the darker moments in our history. Sometimes, there is some degree of politicization involved when we want to protect something. We were talking about workers' rights in the case of the Rossland Miner's Union Hall. It took time for funding to be granted to protect and promote it.
In the future, should we not find a way, if not in this bill then in another, to ensure that there is no politicization of the historic sites we want to protect, so that all sites are protected, not just certain ones depending on which party is in government?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nunavut for her speech.
I hope she will forgive me if I misunderstood something. My question has to do with a point she mentioned that I thought was a somewhat intangible piece of first nations heritage. One of the things she mentioned was genocide, which she seemed to want to add to the current bill. However, as I understand it, the bill is more about physical sites that are owned by Parks Canada and other organizations.
I would like to know if I understood her correctly. Does the member want to broaden the scope of the current bill to cover a more intangible form of heritage? Should that be addressed in a different bill? I would like to hear her comments on this possible distinction, and I would like to know whether I have understood the essence of what she is saying.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Oshawa for his speech, which was both well thought out and heartfelt.
He said that one of the problems with human trafficking is that the victims do not always see themselves as victims. He said that, if we get rid of the requirement to prove fear, we may have reason to hope that this bill might lead to more convictions for this crime. As he said, if victims do not identify as victims, they may not choose to complain, so charges may never be laid.
As the parliamentary secretary said, in addition to the bill, does more need to be done to raise awareness so that victims realize they are victims?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill S‑224, a Senate bill that seeks to amend the Criminal Code and the section dealing with trafficking in persons.
Either this was pre-arranged, which I doubt, or it is an odd coincidence, but today is December 2, which is the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, and it is also the day we are dedicating to discussing human trafficking.
The International Day for the Abolition of Slavery stems from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”.
The day we are marking today is about eradicating all contemporary forms of slavery. As my colleague from Shefford pointed out in her member's statement on Wednesday, slavery is not just something that belongs in the history books. It still exists today, but now it comes in more insidious forms.
The International Labour Organization says that approximately 40 million people are still trapped in modern forms of slavery, such as debt bondage, serfdom, forced labour, child labour and servitude, trafficking in persons and in human organs, which unfortunately continues to take place around the world, sexual slavery, the use of child soldiers in armed conflicts, the sale of children, forced marriage, the sale of women and the exploitation of prostitution.
As I mentioned, there are still many types of slavery. When we talk about trafficking in persons, we are actually talking about modern forms of slavery that are still taking place. Slavery has changed over the years, so the provisions of the law that address it must also change and evolve.
My colleague from Oshawa mentioned that, in 2002, Canada ratified the Palermo protocol, which supplements the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and seeks to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Article 3 of this convention gives an explicit definition of trafficking in persons. It states:
“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
The Palermo protocol covers a lot of ground. In subparagraph 3(b), it says, and this is important:
The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;
It states specifically that the way the victim felt during the commission of an act related to trafficking in persons shall not be taken into account.
The Criminal Code, which includes the offence of trafficking in persons, was amended in 2005. It was in 2005 that a section was added to the Criminal Code to deal with trafficking in persons, following the ratification of the Palermo protocol, and that is precisely what we are debating today. Subsection 279.04(1) of the Criminal Code states, and I quote:
For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.
That is precisely the crux of the problem. Whereas the Criminal Code offences that we are used to dealing with require the actus reus, which is the commission of the criminal act, and the mens rea, which is the guilty intention behind the act, this section adds a third element for the court to analyze, specifically the state of mind of the victim of the offence.
That is what this new clause would correct. It provides that, for sections 279.01 to 279.03, “a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that...causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service” and adds the following: “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”. It completely abandons the concept of fear for a person's safety.
The section we are currently looking at goes back to 2005. Although changes were made to this section of the Criminal Code in 2012 and 2015, it was never changed to line up with other Criminal Code offences, which have only two constituent elements, the actus reus and mens rea.
This is a departure from what is generally accepted in criminal law and other forms of law that flow from common law, namely, the thin skull rule. This requires that the victim's situation be taken into account in cases where it is to the victim's advantage and to the accused's disadvantage. That is the principle behind the thin skull rule. It is a rule of tort that a person should be compensated even if the harm they suffer is unusually severe. For example, if you hit someone with a thin skull and they die as a result, you cannot use the fact that they had an abnormally thin skull, more so than average, as a reason to avoid liability.
When a person's constitution is taken into consideration, it should be to the benefit of that person and not that of the person who committed the offence. The proposed amendment to section 279 may be more in line with what is generally offered in the rules of common law. What is more, it is something that is already enshrined in other areas of our domestic law, namely, when it comes to refugee protection. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was also created as a result of the ratification of the Palermo Protocol.
It has already been mentioned that there is a human trafficking offence set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or IRPA, but that act does not require evidence of a victim's fear for their safety. I would like to read subsection 118(1) of the act. It says, and I quote, “No person shall knowingly organize the coming into Canada of one or more persons by means of abduction, fraud, deception or use or threat of force or coercion.”
Once again, all we need to look at here is the commission of the act, not the way it is perceived. The member for Oshawa spoke very eloquently about that. He mentioned that, often, the victims do not even see themselves as victims.
That is the problem because, in order to prove that the crime was committed, the victims need to see themselves as victims and realize that they felt scared, which may not necessarily be the case. Victims may not feel afraid when they are in the situation because they have become so accustomed to it or they may experience post-traumatic stress only after the fact. They may be in protection mode and not feel afraid. In some cases, the victims do feel afraid, but they are unable to prove it in court. This bill eliminates the additional constraint that was imposed on victims to prove that the offence of human trafficking was committed.
It removes the burden that was needlessly placed on the wrong person by focusing on what was done rather than considering how it is perceived by the victim. We hope that this amendment will be quickly adopted at second reading when the House votes and that the bill is referred to a committee, where I hope that it will be quickly analyzed and voted on. I also hope that this will finally become part of our domestic legislation and that it will continue to be aligned with the principle of victim protection regardless of whether they consider themselves to be victims.
1442 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
