- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Oshawa
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,288.05
- Government Page
- May/30/24 10:21:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned two important points that are missing here. One is that it was a top-down approach and there was a lack of consultation. The other is how many provincial ministers actually asked about it.
One of the things the member touched on that I thought was really important is that many people in his province have very good coverage already. My question for the member is this: If it becomes a top-down approach, why does he fear the federal government would make it worse for the people who are doing good on their medication?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 9:32:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could comment on the fact that Ontario, where I come from, does have a program. Quebec has a great program. Will the program presented by the federal government cover more or fewer medications for Quebeckers?
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 9:02:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe how easy it is to fool the NDP. We heard the NDP member stand up to talk about universal pharmacare. We have this bill in front of us, and it is covering two important things, which are contraception and medication for diabetes, but it is being promoted as universal pharmacare.
What does my colleague from Edmonton think Canadians are going to think about this? Again, this is another promise that is not being fulfilled, but the way it is being presented is really deceptive. What does he think Canadians are going to think about that?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:46:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Liberal friend a question. I come from Ontario, and the Conservative government has something called the Ontario drug benefit plan. It already covers diabetes and reproductive medications. To compare it to what my colleague was asking, there are a lot of people with private insurance, and they have this coverage. However, this plan may only cover certain medications that are not really specific to an individual who can tolerate different types of medications.
Can the member please confirm for Canadians that nobody would lose the medication that they are used to utilizing and that they stay healthy on because of this new program?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill S-224 be amended by restoring the long title as follows:
“An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)”
Motion No. 2
That Bill S-224 be amended by restoring Clause 1 as follows:
“Criminal Code
1 (1) Subsection 279.04(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Exploitation
279.04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that
(a) causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service; and
(b) involves, in relation to any person, the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act.
(2) Subsection 279.04(2) of the Act is repealed.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Oshawa to speak to Bill S-224, a non-partisan bill which aims to further solidify the concept of exploitation, for the purpose of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons and to remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals to prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse.
Before arriving at the stage of consideration at committee, Bill S-224 was introduced in the Senate and eventually passed unanimously in the Senate on October 6, 2022. I then had the immense distinction as a member of Parliament to sponsor and introduce this important bill for the first time here in the House of Commons two weeks later.
I would like to take a moment to thank Senator Ataullahjan for her collaborative effort and wonderful success in getting the bill through the Senate, a success I hope to share here in the House of Commons. I would also like to thank the member for Peace River—Westlock for his unwavering support throughout this process and, as well, for his unending commitment to end human trafficking.
Furthermore, I want to thank the amazing community of supporters, victims, moms and dads, survivors and workers. These individuals and many more like them have shown a dedication and servitude in making a difference in the lives of the vulnerable victims in everyone's communities. These people are real heroes and they are saving lives with the work that they are undertaking and that they are accomplishing.
When a member of Parliament has the opportunity to bring both Houses together for a common cause, it is truly an honour, especially with respect to a bill that represents a small change that would make a big difference in the lives of so many vulnerable people, people denied justice and people denied their human dignity.
Unfortunately, when Bill S-224 was considered in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the bill experienced a fatal outcome. The vital contents within it were completely gutted, the committee leaving the bill to just one page. By leaving the bill empty, and instead of passing any improved amendments, there has been a failure to solidify the concept of exploitation for the purposes of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons, as well as a failure to remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals to prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse.
I would like to take a couple of minutes now to discuss an in-depth review of the importance behind the original contents of Bill S-224. This modern-day slavery initiative was first brought to my attention by Darla, a survivor friend and one of my constituents, and I would like to thank her for sharing her story with me. As a father, I was motivated by her story to look for real solutions to the problem.
At its heart, Bill S-224 aims to align the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of trafficking in persons with that of the 2000 Palermo protocol. Importantly, this would remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals who, under the current Canadian law, must prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse in order to obtain a conviction in court. When a crime is committed, there is no debate as to whether the acts have occurred, yet under Canadian law, the victim of trafficking is required to prove fear in order for a conviction to occur. The absurdity of the situation is unmatched. An offender could be released even if there was proof of the crime but the victim was unable to prove fear.
Why do we treat this particular crime so differently when it comes to exploitation in human trafficking? That is backwards. Instead, we need to make the focus on the perpetrator's actions, on the person who actually committed the crime, and not force a victim to prove an emotion, in this case fear. Something needs to change as this is not justice, and, in turn, this is not how a Canadian justice system should function.
Human trafficking is a plague, mostly on vulnerable young people and their families across Canada, in my area and in others'. I was hopeful, since I first sponsored and introduced Bill S-224 in the House, that my colleagues, regardless of their political stripe, would help me secure this long-overdue change to Canada's Criminal Code. Human trafficking does not discriminate, and my goal is to ensure that our country and local communities are safer for our most vulnerable young people.
Vulnerable young people often think of their abuser as their friend, thinking that their abuser cares for them and loves them. Those of us not involved in human trafficking can see that this is not the case. We see the coercion, manipulation and lies. We owe the victims justice.
Often the Crown's case depends on the victim's testimony, the only evidence against the trafficker. Without the victim's testimony, there is no case. In Canada, sometimes it takes years to come to court. There the victims can be victimized again and again. We have heard from experts that victims often deceive themselves and portray themselves within their own perception as not being victims.
We need to take serious and effective action to ensure that victims come forward and need to guarantee that they will not be repeatedly victimized. I once again raise within this House the dispute as to whether the crime of human trafficking has occurred should only be defined by the perpetrator's actions, rather than the victim's experience. Victims should not be revictimized by a system. We owe it to victims to make this small change that would make such a huge difference.
By amending the Criminal Code to reflect the international definition of trafficking in persons, as outlined in the Palermo protocol, we would enable the Crown to efficiently convict human traffickers. The Palermo protocol was adopted in November 2000 at the 55th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It has 117 signatories, including Canada. Human trafficking is defined as the act of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and receiving a person by means of coercion, abuse of power or deception for the purpose of exploitation.
More than 24 years have passed, yet this small but important change is still not reflected in our Criminal Code. Let us not continue to make this another example of Canada's promises that never see concrete action. This is about protecting vulnerable Canadians from predators who exploit their victims for personal gain, and sadly, that gain is becoming greater and much more lucrative. Human trafficking generates more than $32 billion annually and abuses over 40 million victims each year.
Unfortunately, it is seen as a low-risk criminal activity here in Canada with a very high reward. According to Statistics Canada, fewer than 8% of perpetrators charged with human trafficking have been prosecuted. Let us think about that and consider this: Very few perpetrators are even charged. One witness felt we no longer needed the bill, due to the Ontario provincial rulings. However, we see that even with these provincial rulings, conviction rates remain shamefully low, which is why we need to restore this bill, Bill S-224, and to pass it here in the House. We can do better, and we must do better.
I stand here today for Darla from Oshawa and for countless other human trafficking survivors. I invite all members here to stand with me, and I am hoping that every member in the House still continues to support this initiative. I stand here for those who are being exploited tonight, right now, in plain sight, some right outside my office doors in downtown Oshawa. This does not end at my doorstep. Each member in the House of Commons can be sure this is happening right outside each of their doorsteps as well. My colleague from Peace River—Westlock has a statistic and saying that puts things into perspective: This crime of human trafficking is happening today, within 10 blocks or 10 minutes from one's home.
Human trafficking is on the rise, and it relies on abuse, coercion and manipulation. As I have said, victims are often convinced that their traffickers are their friends or their boyfriends. Traffickers have made promises of clothes, money, work, drugs, education and even protection. Many victims truly and naively believe that their traffickers have their best interests at heart. Traffickers prey upon the most vulnerable for a reason, as they also resort to violence and threats to make them do what they are told. Traffickers seek out young people dealing with substance abuse, traumas, addictions, abuse or homelessness. Women and girls, indigenous children, new immigrants, persons living with disability, LGBTQ2+ and migrant workers are among groups most at risk.
How can we continue to put so much responsibility upon these victims who have endured such unimaginable atrocities? If we do not amend the Criminal Code, these cases depend upon the victims' ability to perform on the witness stand. Remember, these are the same victims we just described as being vulnerable to gaslighting and manipulation. Some of these victims do not have the strength to fight our current system. They do not have the strength to stand up against slick lawyers and a system stacked against them. This is not justice, and it usually results in charges being dropped.
We need to give victims every possible tool that is available to allow the return of both their dignity and their humanity. The goal of Bill S-224 has been to implement a simple amendment to the Criminal Code, a very small modification that would make a huge difference in the ability of the Crown to prosecute human traffickers. There is no more settling for an 8% prosecution rate. To Darla, to the moms, to the dads, to the victims and to the wonderful Canadians who have dedicated their lives to ending human trafficking, this small change can happen, and the opportunity for us to come together to end this horrendous crime must not be lost.
1881 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 6:25:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 6:20:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to say that I feel quite humbled and quite happy to be standing here this evening.
We have heard the speeches in the House and the comments from members in regard to this bill. We have actually had an opportunity, instead of talking about some of these crimes, to talk about victims and their families. I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the victims and their families for their strength and for their advocacy. In particular, we have heard the name of Lisa Freeman a few times. She is a constituent of mine, who, with incredible tenacity and stubbornness, has helped make getting this bill through the House a reality.
As my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk said, “Knowledge is power.” This legislation would make a very simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to the disclosure of information to victims. It would provide and give greater respect and transparency to families and victims.
This is a change, and I will agree that it is a small change, but we are in a situation in which we have heard examples of where criminals are now getting more support from the system than the victims. This needs to be reversed.
Criminals' rights should never trump victims' rights, but it seems to happen every single time. It is our job to protect victims' rights. It should never be a family's job. These families, when their loved ones are murdered, get a life sentence. There is the mental trauma and cost, and it never goes away. The least we can do is be more transparent about how the criminals who changed their lives forever are being managed.
As we have heard in some of the speeches, we are not going to fix all these serious matters with this one bill, but I think we can all agree that the system needs to be recalibrated. The rights of victims have to be made equal to, or rather they should always be made better than the rights of their offenders.
Here we have it, colleagues. A killer could be released into a community where his victims live, at the whim of his case management team, with no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made or when the release will take place, until after the fact. I know all members will agree that this is unconscionable. It should not be a fight that victims have to take on year after year, just to keep the most callous of murderers where they belong.
Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime often must stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which, as most victims of crime find, are nothing more than a mockery of the justice system and basic common sense.
Throughout this debate, we have been able to give victims' families a voice. I just want to add a more recent example, because it is very important that we pass this bill right away, as soon as we can. We heard, just last week, that Robert Pickton is now eligible to seek day parole, a murderer charged with killing 26 women and convicted of the deaths of six. I want to read some of the coverage from the families.
A cousin of one of Robert Pickton's victims stated, “The fact that he can actually apply is horrific.” This is what Ms. Williams said Wednesday, ahead of the candlelight vigil taking place by Pickton's old farm. She went on, “That threw me right off. I didn't know and the other families that I'm close to didn't know.”
It is extremely unlikely that Pickton would ever be released, but Ms. Williams, a fierce advocate for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, said that the mere fact that he can apply is disgusting. She also stated, “Our justice system is horrific. It's racist and puts Indigenous women's lives in danger...It makes me sick to my stomach.”
She said that no one involved in the justice system informed victims' families that Pickton's day parole eligibility date was approaching, and she found out only after talking with a lawyer she knows.
This has to stop. I want to thank colleagues in the House for their unanimous support, because it is an opportunity for us to do something that is right, and we can do it now.
765 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:11:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I must say how offended I am by this member's speech when he says that this is a stunt today. We can try to win a debate by using partisan rhetoric, but the purpose of the debate today is to recognize that a horrible thing happened and we want to prevent it in the future.
We look back to arrive scam and how it started in 2021 during the election, and we see it was used to say to Canadians that unvaccinated Canadians were a danger to vaccinated Canadians. It was the demonization of millions of Canadians. In the summer of 2021, we knew of the Delta variant and the Omicron, and that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people could get and spread the disease. Our own public officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada did not have the science to support the policy, so the government initiated a study with a guy named David Fisman at the University of Toronto. This study was so bad that there is a book called Fisman's Fraud: The Rise of Canadian Hate Science.
I just want to know how much money the Liberals spent on these studies to support this arrive scam when they knew that they did not have the science to even support it from day one.
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be concurred in.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 3:37:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Oshawa's constituents and the Conservative caucus, I rise this afternoon to join members in paying tribute to one of my esteemed predecessors, the late Hon. Ed Broadbent, who served as the member for the riding of Oshawa—Whitby and then Oshawa from 1968 to 1989.
Across my community, from the shop floors at General Motors and the Local 222 hall, in hockey rinks or in any of Oshawa's countless cultural centres, there was only one Ed. After World War II, Oshawa underwent a surge of immigration from Europe. Though many may have struggled with their adopted tongue early on, most would learn to instantly recognize the name “Ed”. In many cases, Ed was the first name they had ever voted for in a democratic election.
Ed was a gifted, brilliant and clear thinker. He bore a sharp mind and a sharp wit. He was a scholar, a philosopher and a doting teacher.
Ed was an icon within his beloved New Democratic family, and he was a strong ally of Canada's unions. He was lively and engaged, a man who exhibited heart, spirit and determination. That is the one thing about Ed: He was always so darned determined and effective.
Ed surprised many in Oshawa during the general election in 1968. He edged out our beloved late friend, Canada's first Ukrainian Canadian cabinet minister, the Hon. Michael Starr, by a mere 15 votes. After one of our city's closest election contests, one beloved Oshawa legend bequeathed his legacy of service and compassion to a rising star.
I first met Ed at my front door. He was doing the usual politician thing during an election. To set the Oshawa scene of the day, there was a sea of NDP signs; the exception was a big PC sign in front of my house. I struck around to witness the encounter between my dad, a staunch Conservative, and Ed. I thought it was going to be good fun to watch. Ed insisted on speaking with my dad, listened to what he had to say, respectfully bid adieu and agreed to disagree. My father remarked, “Right guy, wrong party.”
Ed's hometown success was not just due to his political stripe but also to his deep resolve, his profound sense of purpose and his common touch. This is something that never changed with Ed over the years, even after politics. Whether driving his Chevette through Oshawa in the 1980s or, in more recent years, out for a jaunt on his bike here in his Centretown neighbourhood, he had a smile and kind word for everyone.
In 2004, we were both elected; my win in Oshawa was very close, although not quite the 15-vote win that Ed first experienced. We met on the floor of the House later in the fall. It was a day I will not forget. He greeted me with a big handshake and a warm grin, his hallmark. He shared several words of advice and encouragement, but he was also concerned that, as an Oshawa boy, I had somehow ended up on the wrong team. To that, I replied, “We're both on the same team, Ed. We're on team Oshawa, and we both drive the right cars.” He gave me a big pat on the back and said, “That's the spirit. Let's get to it.”
Whenever we ran into each other during the few years we served together, Ed always had suggestions and some quite pointed remarks, just as a stern teacher would. In 2005, Speaker Milliken hosted a parliamentarian dinner for the newer MPs, and I was pleasantly honoured to be able to sit next to Ed. We had a wonderful chat, filled with Oshawa stories. I told him that I had learned from him, and he pleasantly replied, “Maybe a bit too much.”
Ed came from the era when politicians could be strong opponents but remain cordial and supportive. I am pleased to have been here long enough to say that I miss those days. As we parted that evening, I remember his words to me. He said, “I wish you the best of luck and future, personally”. I think it was Ed's humorous way of saying “Right man, wrong party.”
Gracious with his time, Ed made everyone feel that they were important and that what they had to say was important. He always put relationships first. Ed cared deeply about those who studied, worked or campaigned with him.
Although he will be remembered as one of Canada's most influential leaders, we should recall a man who believed deeply in humanity. Many folks never agreed with his policies or platforms, but there was always an unquestionable earnestness and sincerity about Ed. His efforts were always directed at driving us closer to his understanding of our shared aspirations. I believe this is why so many people in Oshawa and across Canada feel Ed's passing in such a personal way.
We extend our most sincere condolences to Ed's surviving family, including his stepson, Paul; daughter, Christine; grandchildren, Nicole, Gareth, Caitlin and Brett; great-grandchildren, Alice and Freya; life partner, Frances; and former spouse, Yvonne.
Oshawa is forever grateful that the Broadbent family shared Ed with us. We, in turn, are proud to have known him and to have shared Oshawa's son, our Ed, with all Canadians.
Meegwetch. Merci. Thank you.
923 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 6:24:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are hearing from Canadians that they do not feel safe walking down the street or taking transit. Canadians are telling us that our communities feel less safe; it is our responsibility to turn this trend around and avoid making the situation worse. We cannot allow violent offenders, and repeat violent offenders, to access easy bail. As Canadians know, Conservatives believe in jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders.
The numbers are staggering. In the past eight years, violent crime has increased 32%, and gang-related murders have doubled. In Vancouver, 6,000 crimes were committed in one year by just 40 individuals. Does that sound like a system that is working?
Sadly, this week, we are reminded of Canada's most heinous murderer. They were moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison. As Lisa Freeman said, “In this killer's case—just like my late father's axe murderer—the level of prison security in no way matches the severity of the crimes committed by these wicked individuals.”
With this transfer, we see the system retraumatize the victims' families by not allowing them timely access to information related to their loved one's killer. As reported in the media, “The lawyer for the families of two of Paul Bernardo's victims says they were given no warning or explanation about [the] recent prison transfer..., a move they oppose.”
Timothy Danson is the lawyer for the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, the teens who were kidnapped, sexually assaulted, murdered and dismembered by Bernardo and his then wife, Karla Homolka. Mr. Danson said that the Correctional Service of Canada informed him by phone this past week that Bernardo had already been moved from a maximum-security institution in Ontario to a medium-security prison in Quebec. Mr. Danson had to tell the families the news of the transfer and communicate the results of a failed system that forces families to feel victimized over and over again. It is totally unacceptable.
Who is looking after the rights of victims? If we do not, who will? As Mr. Danson explained, “This just brings back all the horrible memories that they've been trying to suppress and control over these last number of decades. So it just brings sadness and despair and disbelief to them.”
By failing to change the system, we are creating more victims. More families have to live without a mom or a dad, a brother or a sister, or a daughter or a son. We cannot continue on this trajectory. Bill C-320 is an attempt to change that trajectory and restore some semblance of respect to the system and to victims' families.
Often, victims of crime, such as Lisa Freeman and her family from my riding of Oshawa, are caught off guard when they are notified that an offender is eligible for forms of parole before the 25 years indicated on their certificate of conviction. Lisa's father was tragically bludgeoned to death by an axe murderer in 1991. I think it is also worth noting that this murderer was out on parole when this horrific crime took place. Lisa was caught off guard when her father's killer was eligible for early parole, only 20 years into his sentence of 25 years to life. She believes, and I agree, that the lack of transparency regarding how parole dates and eligibility are determined cause the victims of crime to experience confusion, frustration, trauma and resentment for the justice system.
It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. This legislation, Bill C-320, makes a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, in terms of disclosure of information to victims, that would provide such respect and dignity. It would require that information regarding the review and eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated, in writing, to offenders' victims. This would include an explanation of how the dates for parole were determined and explain the process in an effort to be as transparent as possible. We cannot argue with the logic of this bill, and I am sure that I shall have full support from my colleagues, the members of this House.
Currently, the system is designed to support the criminal and not the victim. Victims do not have any support compared with the support our government gives to the criminal. I would like to remind my colleagues that it is a matter of public safety, and it is the job of the Minister of Public Safety and the government to keep the public safe. The job description is “public safety”, not “axe-murderer safety”. To victims of crime, this is clear: A murderer's rights trump a victim's rights every single time.
Victims and the public deserve this bill. It would provide accurate and timely information regarding the parole process to victims and avoid providing a sense of false comfort by misleading them and the general public regarding parole eligibility. Such a sentence as life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years is meant to imply severity. However, it is simply not true that the punishment is severe; this is misleading to the families and to the general public. The system uses these words that imply severity, that imply punishment. To any passing observer, it does look severe and harsh, but the words uttered by judges and echoed by the media give false information to the general public. These words are a false comfort to families and to the public.
Offenders serving a life sentence without parole for 25 years can actually be released on other forms of parole for personal development, temporary absences and community service work. This can happen well before their so-called sentence ends. In prisons across the country, offenders who have committed some of the most heinous crimes, such as murder, are housed in minimum-security prisons; families are constantly aware that the level of security does not match the severity of the crime.
Lisa Freeman said:
“When the axe murderer who killed my father received a ‘life sentence’ never did I think it would include living in a halfway house, with a job, a car, a very comfortable home and catered meals made by an in-house Chef. Most hard-working Canadians don't live as well as this! The offender was moved across the country to Alberta because the program he wanted to attend wasn't ‘available in Ontario’ but in transferring him, they placed him in an institution 10km from my sister's house, and only notified me 24 hours later because he ‘has the right to delay the information by 1 day’. Full parole for this axe murderer was denied in October of 2020—but I wasn't allowed to attend the parole hearing to object—Covid didn't deny me the right to attend in person—the Parole Board did. As per the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the offender has the RIGHT to an office decision once they have passed their parole eligibility date, a decision made by a sole panel member. My rights—victims' rights—didn't exist.”
The families of homicide victims should not have to be subjected to any of this. They are busy grieving, trying to repair broken lives and trying to keep the trauma at bay. However, compounding the trauma is dealing with Correctional Services Canada, the Parole Board of Canada and the justice system. It is our job to keep dangerous people incarcerated and Canadians safe, but we are failing miserably. From brokered, watered-down sentences for violent crimes to mismanagement of parole and the bail system, Canadians are just not safe anymore.
Families who have suffered as a result of an offender's action do not deserve to be revictimized by the parole system; victims of crime have enough to carry. Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime are often forced to stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which most victims of crime find are nothing more than a mockery of justice and basic common sense. Where are the victims' rights? Victims deserve better. They at least deserve accurate information.
1406 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:04:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I need to bring my point of order forward. The member for Vancouver East just gave probably one of the most important speeches we will hear today. She spoke from her heart. I have to say that, in this House, I have known the member for Wellington—Halton Hills since 2004. He is honourable.
Today, we are debating a government that has ignored this entire issue for two years. Chinese Canadians are being victimized and bullied by a government, and this member is blaming the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Victim-blaming is totally unacceptable. We need to support our members, who are speaking from the heart. This is affecting them each and every day.
They need to apologize for that outrageous behaviour.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 2:01:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, namaskaram. Last weekend, I, along with our leader, the member for Carleton, had a wonderful time celebrating Ugadi, Telugu new year's day, with both the Durham Telugu Association and the Ontario Telugu Foundation.
This festival is celebrated across the world on the first day of the Hindu lunar calendar and includes a reading of predictions for the upcoming year by a priest or the eldest member of the family. It is a time to celebrate with family and friends and to reflect upon the past year's achievements and challenges.
We felt so privileged to be included in the celebrations with this vibrant community that values tradition, family and culture. Their warm hospitality, rich traditions and colourful celebrations are so beautiful and fascinating. I would like to thank Srini, Murali and so many others from the Durham association and the Ontario foundation for the opportunity to experience it first-hand.
Ugadi subhakankshalu.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am actually in agreement with the member. The government should allow content from racialized Canadians to be promoted. However, maybe she missed the point in my debate and argument. This bill would allow the government to stop an individual's ability to be heard. It will decide what goes into the algorithms. It will decide what Canadians are going to be seeing. As videos and content get shared around, if the government does not like where it is going, the government will control where it goes. This is the problem. This bill may have the exact opposite effect of what the member feels it will have, and it needs to be stopped.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.
It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-11, a bill that the citizens of Oshawa have been very clear about. Oshawa wants us to kill this bill.
Canadians are not ignorant or dumb but the Prime Minister and the Liberal government clearly believe that Canadians are simply not smart enough to decide for ourselves what we want to see and hear.
There is a quote I have on my front door. It is from John F. Kennedy, a man that I admire. It states, “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”
This quote helps frame the debate about the bill. Does this bill expand the rights of every Canadian or does it diminish their rights and freedoms? Does this bill threaten Canadians' ability to communicate, make a living or be heard?
Some very prominent Canadians have weighed in on this unprecedented bill and how it threatens freedom of speech.
Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to free speech, which can only be effectively exercised if one has the ability to be heard.
As Professor Michael Geist explains, “to be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard. In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions with the presentation of the content (including algorithmic outcomes). The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill. If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.“
Canadian author Margaret Atwood has a gift of boiling down rhetoric to a very specific phrase. She sees this bill as “creeping totalitarianism“ and I agree with her. Conservatives believe in freedom of speech, thought and belief. Traditionally and historically, these rights and freedoms were not considered a left- or right-wing thing. They were based on a fundamental understanding that in free societies, we have fundamental rights.
Let us review the fundamental question that this bill is forcing us to ask. This legislation is about one thing: trust. Do Canadians trust this government to respect our rights and freedoms if Liberals are given these new, unprecedented powers?
Trust is unfortunately a challenging concept for the government. Trust is a characteristic, a quality that needs to be earned. It is a belief in reliability, truth or ability of someone or something. Trust can be predicted from past behaviour and past actions. Given this government's past, we see a record of distrust and concern. Let us examine that statement. Let us take a look at the Prime Minister and his government's history and what has been said about their approach to governing and what premises and ideologies drive their behaviour, in regard to Canadians' rights and freedoms.
We could talk about Bill C-18. We could talk about the Emergencies Act, the freezing of bank accounts of Canadians who disagree with the government, or Canadians who should not be tolerated and instead punished due to their unacceptable views or we could talk about David Pugliese's exposé in the Ottawa Citizen about the Canadian military who “saw the pandemic as [a] unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on Canadians” or Swikar Oli, who wrote in the National Post. We could talk about privacy advocates raising concerns, about the Public Health Agency tracking Canadians without their permission or Susan Delacourt writing about “nudging” techniques to manipulate Canadians' behaviour. Were these government behaviours warranted? Maybe, maybe not, but it begs to the question: what else is going on that we do not know about? What direction is the government racing toward? More freedom and choice or more government control?
Our democracy is fragile and “creeping totalitarianism” can be insidious and appear to be harmless or based on noble lies or intentions.
There are so many examples but let us focus on the bill in front of us and what it means and could mean. Let us review.
Bill C-11 is an online censorship bill designed to control search engines and algorithms so that the government can control what Canadians see and hear.
What is censorship? Censorship is defined as “the suppression of speech, public communication or other information”.
As Canadians know, whoever controls the narrative controls the world.
Canadians are storytelling creatures. We tell each other what is going on by talking, singing, dancing, creating and showing others about ourselves, our ideas and our feelings. Historically, we have been able to do this freely.
With the advent of the Internet, Canadians embraced a new way of telling these stories. We could now send birthday videos around the world, sing a new song and post it for all to see. If people liked it, they shared it. New innovations allow Canadian creators and storytellers to earn a living online, communicate, educate, debate, explore. We could choose what we wanted to see and enjoy where it sent us, but this ability is being challenged.
Bill C-11 would prevent Canadians from seeing and watching the content that they choose for themselves. The Liberals and their big government, big corporate friends would decide who is heard and who is silent.
Have colleagues ever heard the term “inverted totalitarianism”? It is a term coined by Dr. Sheldon Wolin to describe a system where big corporations corrupt or subvert democracy. Elitist politicians with their ability to control and regulate are influenced by the big players, the big corporations that have the money to lobby government officials and regulators such as the CRTC to get the rules that benefit their monopolies and their bottom lines.
Is this where the Liberal government has taken Canada? Such arrogance. Perhaps Canadians should not really be surprised. The New York Times reported that our Prime Minister once said that Canadians have no core identity and that he wanted us to become the first post-national state.
Does that sound like someone who wants to protect our unique Canadian culture, our unique Canadian values? After all, we did elect the Prime Minister who said he admires the basic dictatorship of China so much because it gets things done. Perhaps this explains why the Liberal-NDP coalition has been so focused and intent on ramming this bill through the House.
Sadly, this legislation models practices directly from the Communist Government of China. The CCP has created the great fire wall, a heavily censored Internet that directs users to approved content under the guise of protecting the public and keeping people safe. It blocks unacceptable views and connections that the CCP considers harmful to the Chinese public. The goal of its Internet is to reshape online behaviour and use it to disseminate new party theories and promote socialist agendas. It is about shaping the Communist government's values.
Could that happen in Canada? One of my constituents, Rhonda, who lived and taught in China for two years in the early 2000s recounts, “When I lived in China for two years, we always had to verify the news and Internet content with friends and families back home or in free countries, as we knew we were not receiving unaltered information. It was highly regulated by the Communist government in China. I fear we are heading in this direction in Canada and I am having a hard time understanding how this is possible when it's supposed to be a free and democratic society.”
I agree with Rhonda. This idea of creeping totalitarianism seems to be alive and well in Canada. If Canadians give governments these new powers, I believe it is just a matter of time before these powers are abused. Bill C-11 would give the current Liberal government and future governments the authority to pick and choose what individual Canadians are allowed to watch, essentially placing the government as a content regulator.
Homegrown Canadian talent and creators would no longer succeed based on merit. Bureaucrats in Ottawa would determine content based on its level of “Canadian-ness”, but the culture of minorities would be cut out. By the way, how does one define “Canadian-ness”? This bill certainly does not do it. The CRTC would have control, big government would be lobbied by big corporations to wedge the little guys out. Corporate government would grow. Entrepreneurs, creators and artists would be squashed.
Sadly, we saw Canadian content creators come to Ottawa to have their voices heard but, as expected, they were shut down. The government wholly rejected any amendments brought forward that would narrow the bill's scope and fully exempt content that Canadians post on social media. Canadians are asking the questions, asking what the government is afraid of. Is it freedom? We have had different journalists and commentators around saying that this could change the independent Youtubers' way in which they make their money. Their viewership and revenues would take a hit. That is something that I think is quite worrying.
To finish, why does the government want to cause more uncertainty, loss of income and pain to make Canadians depend on the government? Why the attack on Canadian innovators in a way that no other country does, except maybe under the Communist Government of China? Why does the government not trust Canadians to be their own directors of their own destinies? We trust Canadians. A Conservative government would repeal this horrible bill.
1665 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is probably hearing from constituents, as I am. The bill seems to be silent on the selling of personal data. It is silent on facial recognition. She mentioned the artificial intelligence part of it. It seems that the new artificial intelligence part of it was just jammed alongside, and there is not a lot of thought in there.
She did not comment on the concept of implied consent. I thank my Liberal colleague for bringing up the protection issues. The bill does mention the term “implied consent”. That would allow businesses to take a user's consent to use their data and information for new purposes without actually obtaining it. I wonder if she could comment on that and why it is so important to get that right.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is correct about the targeting of indigenous women and children. When we look at human rights and this issue, when I first came here, I did not realize how much of a big problem it was. I certainly did not think it was happening in my community. I have learned. Once we start seeing it, we cannot unsee it. I do hope that member will be supportive of this bill, because this is a change that would make a difference for everyone who is trafficked.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We have to put resources into education.
It has been 22 years. We signed the Palermo protocol 22 years ago. This is a non-controversial bill. It is one page. I gave an example of how absurd it was that they have to prove fear. How does one do that? How does one prove fear if someone is trafficking them? It is a sad situation. We could remedy that.
I am asking every single one of my colleagues to please take a look at it, listen to their hearts and make this small change, because it will make a big difference. There is an 8% prosecution rate. That is embarrassing. We need to do better.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague across the way. This bill is indeed a great way to end the week. Today I rise to speak to Bill S-224, a non-partisan bill that passed unanimously in the Senate on October 6.
I thank Senator Salma Ataullahjan for her collaborative effort and success in getting this bill through the Senate.
I thank the member for St. Albert for speaking today, for his support and for seconding this bill, as well as the member for Peace River—Westlock for his unending commitment to ending human trafficking. God bless him.
I want to thank an amazing community of supporters, victims, moms and dads, survivors and workers, including Lynda Harlos, Jocelyn Siciliano, Jasmine DeFina, Vanessa Falcon, Kim Miller-Sands, Lillian Fisher, Donald Igbokwe, the Durham Regional Police Service human trafficking unit, and Ms. Holly Wood who is here today.
These individuals and many more like them have been infected by a seemingly contagious affliction, which is a desire to do good and to make a difference in the lives of those most vulnerable victims in our communities. These people are heroes, and they are saving lives every single day with the work that they do.
This indeed is a rare opportunity and a rare occasion. When an MP has the opportunity to bring both Houses together for a common cause, it is truly an honour. The bill is a seemingly small bill. It is less than one page. It represents a small change, but a small change that will make a big difference in the lives of so many vulnerable people, people denied justice and people denied their human dignity.
This modern-day slavery initiative was brought to my attention by Darla, a survivor, friend and one of my constituents. As a father, her story motivated me to look for real solutions to this problem. At its heart, Bill S-224 aims to align the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of trafficking in persons with that of the 2000 Palermo protocol. Importantly, this would remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals who, under current Canadian law, must prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse in order to obtain a conviction in court.
I want members to pause and to think about this for a moment. A crime is committed. There is no debate whether the acts have occurred, yet under current Canadian law the victim is required to prove fear in order for a conviction to occur.
To emphasize the absurdity of this situation, let us apply this requirement to another crime. Imagine that someone I know comes up and stabs me in the back. In politics that term is used rather loosely, but indeed this crime does occur in reality. How would I prove fear in that situation? Would the offender be convicted if there was absolute proof of the crime, but fear could not be proven? I have to ask. Why do we treat this particular crime of human trafficking so differently?
Indeed, members, as I look around the House, we can agree that something needs to change. This is not justice. Human trafficking is a scourge, mostly on vulnerable young people and their families across our entire country, in my area and in yours. I am hopeful that my colleagues, regardless of their political stripe, will approach this effort on a non-partisan basis and help me secure this long-overdue change to Canada's Criminal Code.
Human trafficking does not discriminate against rich or poor and no matter one's background. My goal is simple. It is to ensure that our country and our local communities are safer for our most vulnerable young people. Who could be against that?
These victims often think their abusers are their friends and that their abusers care for them and love them. Those of us not involved in human trafficking can see that this is not the case. We see the coercion. We see the manipulation. We see the lies. We owe these victims a chance for truth, a chance for justice.
Often when these cases are brought to court, the Crown’s case depends on the victim's testimony. It may be the only evidence against the trafficker. Without the victim's testimony, there is no case. In Canada, sometimes it takes years for these cases to come to court. There the victims can be victimized again and again.
We all remember that sad case in Alberta, when a federal judge actually asked a victim in a sexual assault trial, “Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?” I ask members if this is the justice system that Canadians want. I suggest that whether or not the crime of human trafficking has occurred should only be defined by the perpetrator’s actions rather than the victim's experience.
Victims should not be revictimized by the system. We owe it to victims to make this small change that will make such a huge difference. By amending the Criminal Code to reflect the international definition of “trafficking in persons”, as outlined in the Palermo protocol, we will enable the Crown to efficiently convict traffickers.
I want to talk a bit about timelines. The Palermo protocol was adopted in November 2000, 22 years ago, at the 55th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It had 117 signatories, and guess what. That included Canada. Human trafficking is defined as “the act of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and receiving a person by means of coercion, abuse of power or deception for the purpose of exploitation.” There is nothing controversial about this.
More than 22 years have passed, yet this small but important change is still not reflected in Canada's Criminal Code. Let us not continue to make this another example of Canada's promises that never see concrete action. This bill is about protecting vulnerable Canadians from predators who exploit their victims for personal gain, and sadly, that gain is becoming greater and much more lucrative.
I will give some statistics. Human trafficking generates more than $32 billion annually and abuses over 40 million victims each year. The number of victims worldwide is greater than the entire population of Canada, and believe me, these numbers are under-reported.
Unfortunately, human trafficking is seen as a low-risk criminal activity here in Canada with a very high reward. According to Statistics Canada, less than 8% of perpetrators charged with human trafficking have ever been prosecuted. Let us think about that and also consider that very few perpetrators are even charged with this crime. Therefore, the number of those ultimately held to account for this modern-day slavery is dismally low and, I would say, embarrassing. We as a country can do better and we as a country need to do better.
I stand here today for Darla from Oshawa and countless other human trafficking survivors. I stand here today for their families and family members such as Lynda, who is an Oshawa mom of a human trafficking survivor. I stand here today for our youth and the most vulnerable Canadians. I invite all members to stand with me. I hope every member in the House supports this initiative.
I stand here for those who are being exploited tonight, right now, in plain sight, and some right outside my office doors in downtown Oshawa. This does not end at my doorstep. Each member of the House of Commons can be sure that this is happening outside each of their doorsteps as well.
My colleague from Peace River—Westlock has a statistic that puts things into perspective. I remember the first time I heard this, and I could not believe it. He said that the crime of human trafficking is happening today within 10 blocks or 10 minutes from one's home.
Human trafficking is on the rise, and it relies on abuse, coercion and manipulation. As I have said, victims of human trafficking are often convinced that their traffickers are their friends or boyfriends. Traffickers have made promises of clothes, money, work, drugs, education and even protection.
Many victims truly and naively believe that their trafficker has their best interests at heart. We know that is not true. Traffickers prey on the most vulnerable for a reason, as they can resort to violence and threats to make their victims do what they are told.
Traffickers seek out young people dealing with substance abuse, traumas, addictions, abuse or homelessness. Women and girls, indigenous children, new immigrants, persons living with disabilities, LGBTQ2+ individuals and migrant workers are among the most at-risk groups.
How can we continue to put so much responsibility on these victims who have endured such unimaginable atrocities? It is time for us to take action to lift the yolk of responsibility and pain, and give victims a chance of escaping their abuser.
Senator Ataullahjan said:
Most survivors do not identify as victims as a result of manipulation and gaslighting. They can believe their trafficker cares for them. We owe them the necessary help and care. Instead, they must prove that they fear for their life on the stand, often only a few metres from their trafficker. Victims are usually the only evidence against traffickers. Without their testimony, the Crown has no case. Testimony shows that the fear-based model is the biggest issue when dealing with convictions and that the experience is more traumatizing than being forced to work in the sex trade. They must relive their nightmare during that preliminary and then at the trial.
During cross-examination, it is common for the defence lawyer to twist their words and call them a liar.
If we do not take our responsibility seriously, our duty to amend the Criminal Code, then these cases depend upon the victim’s ability to perform on the witness stand. Remember, this is the same victim who we just described as being vulnerable to gaslighting and manipulation.
Some of these victims do not have the strength to fight our current system. They do not have the strength to stand up against slick lawyers and a system stacked against them. This is not justice, and it usually results in charges being dropped. We need to give victims every tool possible to allow the return of their dignity and their humanity.
The goal of Bill S-224 is to implement a simple amendment to the Criminal Code, a very small modification, that would make a huge difference in the ability of the Crown to prosecute human traffickers. There should be no more settling for a dismal 8% prosecution rate. The time to do better is now, today, while this historic opportunity presents itself.
To Darla, the moms and dads, and everyone involved in ending human trafficking, this small change can happen. The time to end 22 years of inaction is now. The opportunity will not be lost.
1861 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
