Bill S-224

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to specify what constitutes exploitation for the purpose of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons.

Criminal Code

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, back in 2019, and I will reference this in my comments, there was a commitment in terms of a Canadian national strategy to combat human trafficking.

One of the things that I think we really need to highlight during this debate is the importance of education and public awareness. For me, I really believe that the fight needs to occur not only in our legislatures, whether they are provincial or national, here in Ottawa, but also in our community streets. The member made reference to how close in proximity people who are being exploited are to where we live.

I really do believe that the issue of public awareness and education is critical in terms of being able to continue to fight this particular issue. I would be interested in his comments on that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot argue with what my colleague has just said, because she is correct.

When we think about the psychological manipulation that these human traffickers force on their victims, there really is a unique situation here. These guys seem to be experts. Unfortunately, the way our system is set up, there are only so many tools in the tool box.

Again, that example I used about getting stabbed in the back, I thought it would get a bit of a chuckle here. I saw some smiles. If someone does not even see somebody stabbing them in the back, how are they ever going to prove fear. In that situation, if the crime has been committed and there is proof, the person goes to jail. There is no requirement to prove fear. There is intimidation. Some of these victims are ready to go into court, but then they see their trafficker in front of them and they cannot go through with it.

We need to do better.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about how sex trafficking impacts everyone. I agree with him.

Here is the thing. We know, through research, that it predominantly impacts indigenous women and girls and two-spirit people, something that former prime minister Stephen Harper, when we tried to get a national inquiry, said was not on his radar. I want my hon. colleague to acknowledge that there is a genocide that is happening and that it is targeting indigenous women and girls and two-spirit people in this country.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this very important issue of human trafficking.

As I pointed out in the question I asked the member, it is an issue that I believe is about governments at different levels. Even when I speak of these different levels, I know this is also a worldwide problem. It is a serious issue, and there are international organizations out there trying to raise awareness of it.

That is why I thought it was very encouraging when the government, back in 2019, which was prepandemic, came out with Canada's national strategy to combat human trafficking. It recognized that both domestic and international human trafficking takes place virtually every day and takes place in many different ways.

We had the opportunity to try to get a good understanding of the victims of this abuse, and it is very much racialized worldwide, especially here in Canada. There is a need to take action where we can. That is why we often hear members, whether it is cabinet ministers or members in general, talk about gender violence. I really believe that if we are ever going to turn the corner in trying to resolve the issue of human trafficking and exploitation, it has to incorporate some form of education and public awareness.

The member stated that this is taking place in our communities. I do not necessarily know the stats or the numbers, but I take at face value what the member said. It is a very powerful statement that it is in our communities from coast to coast to coast, and the majority of people do not necessarily see it. They might be driving by it and not even be aware of it. It could be a neighbour who is being exploited and people are not aware of it.

This is why I believe there has to be a holistic approach with different levels of government coming together, much like when I advocated on the issue of racism. We also have to factor in the educational component, such as programming in public schools, work environments and so forth.

Sadly, there is a demand for the types of services that human trafficking attempts to meet, and it is at a great cost. It is not just criminals that we typically think of who are exploiting children.

I had an interesting discussion a couple of years back with some advocates. They were talking about third world countries where young children were being tapped into the Internet to perform all sorts of acts. The people who were causing them to do that in this situation were actually parents, the people a child should trust the most, a mom or dad. The reason they provided, which is no justification, was poverty, and money flowed in as a result of exploiting their own children.

Organized crime, a billion-dollar industry, is driven by bringing people into communities. Bringing people into communities from other areas is worldwide. Even here in Canada we will see exploitation taking place. I reflect on one incident a number of years ago when I was talking about ways in which someone could actually immigrate to Canada. One gentleman said to me that he trusted an immigration agent who said that the hospitality industry in Canada was welcoming and that his daughter would be able to go to Canada and get a good job. After the young lady arrived in Canada, she was brought to a place where there were expectations on her to strip and possibly provide additional services. That was not the type of hospitality this family was thinking. Fortunately the young lady was able to get out of that situation.

I make reference to organized crime. There are different types of individuals who will seek the exploitation of humans for services in what are called sweat shops or for sexual services. In both areas, one needs to give attention. I would argue that those areas of a sexual nature demand all of us to do whatever we can.

I appreciate the fact that the Senate has already reviewed this legislation and it was ultimately brought through the House. We look forward to the ongoing debate on the issue.

I do not know the details. The member made reference to a treaty that was signed some 20 years ago. I am not familiar with the treaty. We have had at least a couple of governments since, and I notice this is a private member's bill being brought forward. I do not know all the arguments for or against, but I would like to think that, on the principles of human trafficking, there is not one member of the House of Commons or anyone in an elected office at any level here in Canada who would support any form whatsoever of human trafficking.

Just the other day, I made reference to Hollywood and how Hollywood gives a good visual in terms of Internet cyber-attacks. It could be the same principle here. We often hear about and see televised in movies and TV programs the types of exploitation that are taking place. Suffice it to say that even in this era in society, in 2022, there is still slavery, there is still human trafficking and there are people who are being exploited. The sad thing is that we are often talking about children as young as six, and probably even younger, to 18 years old. These are the types of victims whom we need to advocate for to ensure we are taking the actions that are important.

Whether it is of a physical nature when walking on streets or being in clubs or it is on our computers through the Internet, all of this abuse is absolutely unacceptable and we need to focus our attention on getting the abusers in this exploitation. That is something I like to believe every member of the House believes in.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak to Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons, Winnipeg has once again received horrific news of the murder of indigenous women in our community: They are Morgan Harris, 39; Marcedes Myran, 26; Rebecca Contois, 24; and one woman yet to be identified. These are three additional charges for Jeremy Skibicki, who now seems to be the latest serial killer of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in our community.

I would like to offer my love, support and deepest sympathies to the latest families and communities that have been affected by the ongoing genocide against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. Something that has been acknowledged particularly is that my city of Winnipeg is ground zero for the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

Their lives were precious. They were loved. They were mothers. They were sisters. They were aunties. They were daughters. I do not know how many times I have risen in the House to speak about the dire urgency of the crisis we face as targets. In this country, our lives seem to be of no consequence, either our life or loss of life. In this country, which espouses to be a beacon for human rights, those human rights have been deprived from indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people since the first contact when exploitation started.

As we debate today in the House a bill to strengthen protections for women around sex trafficking, protections for all women, we must acknowledge, when we talk about human trafficking in Canada, that certain groups are disproportionately impacted.

The Canadian Women's Foundation notes that 51% of trafficked girls were or had been part of the child welfare system, something that has been called the new residential school because there are more kids in the child welfare system now than there were at the height of residential schools. These are indigenous girls, young people and two-spirit people. It also notes that 50% of trafficked girls and 51% of trafficked women are indigenous. Over half of individuals who are trafficked, 51%, are indigenous women because there is an ongoing genocide, something we are reeling with again in my beautiful community of Winnipeg.

There is an ongoing genocide of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and human trafficking is just one part of this ongoing genocide. Let us not forget what we have recently found out regarding the second serial killer in recent history to target our women, because there is a normalized violence and genocide occurring in this country with piecemeal approaches by government. That sends a very clear message to indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, including the zero budgetary allocation in the 2022 budget, that this is not of top urgency and priority.

I know we are here to debate the current bill, but I would be remiss at this very critical time if I did not take the opportunity to call on all members of the House to stand in solidarity together against human trafficking or the murder and genocide of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in this country. This is a human rights crisis. This is a life-and-death crisis. We must stand together in non-partisanship, to work together to ensure that indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in this country can finally be safe. If we fail to do so once again as we debate this bill, the latest murders in my community, and I want to let members know that it is a beautiful community of wonderful people, as a result of an individual who targeted indigenous women, this genocide, will continue if we do not stand in non-partisanship.

I am calling for urgent help. I am calling for resources. I am calling on the government to come to my community and meet with the families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and come up with an urgent response. I am calling on all members of the House to not politicize this genocide and to just provide the resources and support needed to end this crisis of violence. Every day that this is politicized, every day that we wait, we lose another life.

I had the privilege of speaking with one of the family members of one of the late women who was identified in the latest crisis. Families deserve justice. The women's spirits deserve justice. Our communities deserve justice. We have a right to be safe. We have a right to be respected. We have a right to be honoured. That needs to happen today.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill S-224, legislation that will strengthen the human trafficking laws under the Criminal Code.

Under the Criminal Code, in order to successfully convict someone of human trafficking, two elements must be satisfied. The first is that the perpetrator recruited, transported or harboured the victim. The second is that it was done for the purpose of exploitation. This bill relates to the second element, which is that of exploitation.

More specifically, it redefines exploitation by removing the requirement that the Crown establish that the victim reasonably believed their safety to be threatened by the perpetrator. This is a welcomed change in the law that removes a barrier to successfully prosecuting and convicting human traffickers.

Moreover, it brings the Criminal Code definition of exploitation under our human trafficking laws in line with the international definition, which is the anti-human trafficking UN protocol, namely the Palermo protocol, which Canada ratified in 2002.

Before I elaborate on the merits of this bill, I want to take this opportunity to commend the member for Oshawa for his leadership in championing this important and needed legislation. The member has been a tireless advocate for the rights of victims.

I would also like to recognize my Conservative colleague, Senator Salma Ataullahjan, for introducing and successfully shepherding this bill through the Senate with unanimous support. That unanimity, I believe, speaks to the merit of this legislation.

Human trafficking is a heinous crime. It is a gross human rights violation. It is a form of modern slavery. Human trafficking is also a complex and multi-dimensional crime involving a range of criminal activities, from sexual exploitation to forced labour and debt bondage.

Human traffickers exploit some of the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society, 95% of whom are women and more than 70% of whom are under the age of 25. Indeed, it is estimated that a quarter of human trafficking victims are children.

Human traffickers profit through the brutalization of their victims by taking away their freedom and personal autonomy and stripping them of their human dignity. Human trafficking is truly a horrific crime, and it is one that is unfortunately growing in Canada.

Although it is not known how widespread human trafficking is, having regard for the fact that this is a crime that is committed in the shadows of Canadian society, police data indicates that human trafficking cases have increased elevenfold between 2010 and 2016.

Despite the fact that it is widely understood to be a widespread problem, very few human trafficking cases are successfully prosecuted under the human trafficking provisions of the Criminal Code.

I sat on the justice committee in 2018 when we undertook a study across Canada on human trafficking. We travelled from Halifax to Vancouver. One of the things we consistently heard was the difficulty, in practice, of using the human trafficking provisions to convict and put away those who commit this horrendous crime. Indeed, often prosecutors end up prosecuting the case under offences such as procuring and material benefit, which are lesser offences under the Criminal Code. The reason being is that these cases are very difficult to prove, and this is made all the more difficult by the need for the Crown to establish that the victim reasonably expected their safety to be threatened.

This is made more difficult for several reasons. First, there is more likely a need to bring in the victim and call them as a witness at the trial. Many times, human trafficking survivors, for understandable reasons, are reluctant to testify, given the trauma that they have endured, and given the fact that they do not want to relive the horrors they have been subjected to by their perpetrator under the pressures of cross-examination.

Moreover, it puts attention where it should not be, and that is on the state of mind of the victim rather than the actions of the perpetrator. From a practical standpoint in a trial context, that is made all the more problematic given the circumstances in which human trafficking survivors find themselves in, which is brutalized, having endured enormous trauma, sometimes with impediments to their memory. They may have mental health issues they are suffering from as a result of these crimes committed upon them.

This is why, under the Palermo protocol, the focus is not on the state of mind of the victim but on the actions of the perpetrator. That is what this bill would do. It would bring our Criminal Code in line with the Palermo protocol in this important regard.

I would also note that, in requiring that that fear be established, that the victim reasonably feared for their safety, it results in an overly narrow definition of exploitation. When someone is particularly vulnerable, threats of force or violence may not be necessary to control that person. There could be circumstances where, by every other measure, the victim is being trafficked, but it is impossible to obtain a conviction because it is not possible to meet the objective standard that they feared for their safety.

For all of these reasons, this bill is needed. It is, as the member for Oshawa, noted in his thoughtful speech, a relatively minor change to the Criminal Code, but one that would have a real impact in seeing that survivors of human trafficking receive the justice they have been denied, and it would give law enforcement and prosecutors the ability to use the Criminal Code human trafficking provisions to successfully prosecute and convict human traffickers as human traffickers.

I urge the speedy and unanimous passage of this important bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). I wish members a great weekend.

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑325, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (conditions of release and conditional sentences).

Madam Speaker, MPs have the great privilege to introduce legislation, and I am using mine today. In my political career, I have had many opportunities to question the government about measures needed to deal with violent criminals. I am trying to achieve three things by tabling this bill.

First, the bill would create a new offence for the breach of conditions of conditional release imposed in relation to certain serious offences.

Second, the bill would require the reporting of those breaches to the appropriate authorities.

Third, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to preclude persons convicted of certain offences from serving their sentence in the community.

We are talking here about protecting the public. Bill C‑5, which was passed this fall, has had a dramatic impact. For example, men convicted of serious sexual assault are using it to get house arrest. My role as an MP is to work for Canadians and Quebeckers and take actions that will allow us to live in a safe country.

That is why I am so proud to respond to the motion adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on February 15 calling for aggravated sexual assault and other sexual assault offences to be ineligible for community sentences.

I hope that my bill will transcend party lines, that the Bloc Québécois will support it without hesitation, and that we shed our political stripes and convictions to focus on one goal: the safety of our constituents.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member for Nunavut is rising on a point of order.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut as follows:]

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᑎᒃᓯᔩ ᐋ ᐊᐱᕆᖅᑳᕆᐊᖃᕋᒪᒎᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔪᒪᓂᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᓱᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᐳᖓ.

[Inuktitut text interpreted as follows:]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to inquire if it is possible to make an amendment to my bill.

[English]

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is just introducing the bill, so no amendments can be moved at this time.

The House resumed from December 2, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill S-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding trafficking in persons. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

The bill came to us on October 18 after having passed the other place; it proposes reforms to the definition of “exploitation” for the purposes of the Criminal Code's human trafficking offences. The bill seeks to protect victims and to hold human traffickers accountable. These are laudable and pressing objectives.

Human trafficking is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and it is often described as a modern-day form of slavery. It involves recruitment, transportation, harbouring and/or control over the movement of persons for the purposes of exploitation, typically sexual exploitation or forced labour. Human trafficking devastates victims and survivors, as well as their families, their communities and society as a whole.

In Canada, reported human trafficking data primarily relates to trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. Traffickers seek to profit off the sexual exploitation of others, treating victims as commodities to be used for the traffickers' financial gain. Between 2010 and 2021, the large majority of individuals accused of trafficking were men, most commonly between the ages of 18 and 24. While we know that anyone can be targeted by a trafficker and become a victim of human trafficking, 96% of police-reported victims between 2010 and 2021 were women and girls.

Almost one in four, or 24%, of the reported victims, were younger than the age of 18; half, 45%, were between 18 and 24 years old; and one in five were between the ages of 25 and 34 years old. Moreover, women and girls were more at risk of being targeted by a trafficker when impacted by factors like poverty, isolation, precarious housing, substance use, a history of violence, childhood maltreatment and mental health issues. In short, traffickers look for young women and girls in precarious situations and target these individuals for financial gain.

We also know that indigenous women and girls are disproportionately represented among victims or those at risk of becoming victims of trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls notes several intersecting factors that increase the likelihood of being targeted by a trafficker. Those include systemic racism, violence against indigenous women and girls, intergenerational trauma linked to colonization, the lack of access to social and economic resources and colonial assimilation policies.

Traffickers likely target victims who experience these types of risk factors. The majority of victims are trafficked by someone they know. For example, nearly one-third of victims have been trafficked by a current or former intimate partner. In fact, some traffickers target and romantically pursue potential victims with the specific intent of exploiting them.

Traffickers will go to a great extents to keep victims isolated and unable to seek help. They often separate victims from those who could help them, hide them from the public, ensure they do not have access to support and may force victims to commit crimes while being trafficked, convincing them that they will be arrested if they try to seek help.

We also know that victims may be unwilling or unable to seek help for a number of reasons, such as distrust of authorities, which is often created or fostered by the traffickers themselves, or because victims are fearful, ashamed, not aware of their rights in Canada, experiencing language barriers, or have a desire to protect their traffickers.

After being trafficked, victims may experience post-traumatic stress and memory loss as a result of the physical, sexual, financial, emotional and psychological abuse they were subjected to while being trafficked. Many victims have both physical and psychological scars from being trafficked.

It is crucial to support victims and bring their traffickers to justice. I am reassured by the fact that the Criminal Code contains a strong legislative framework governing human trafficking that includes a specific offence of trafficking in persons, including trafficking in adults, trafficking in children, receiving a material benefit from trafficking in persons, and withholding or destroying identity documents to facilitate the commission of this crime, with maximum penalties of up to life imprisonment. Because human trafficking cases are complex, other offences may be used depending on the facts of the case, such as forcible confinement, assault, sexual assault and uttering threats.

Bill S-224 would strengthen this framework. I agree with the bill's sponsor that we must continue to reflect on how we can ensure the most robust legislative framework possible, and I am grateful that we now have the opportunity to do just that.

That brings me to my main concern with Bill S-224. The bill would repeal the Criminal Code's existing definition of exploitation, resulting in prosecutors no longer being able to rely on that definition in appropriate cases. The current definition of exploitation focuses on the impact of the trafficker's conduct on a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances.

I note that the existing definition was first enacted in 2005 and thus we have 17 years of jurisprudence interpreting it. I am pleased to be able to report that the definition has been interpreted broadly, as I have already noted, applied to human trafficking cases that have involved purely psychological forms of coercion. This is critically important because human traffickers often target victims due to their vulnerabilities, which make them easy to manipulate without the need to resort to more violent tactics. In particular, both the Ontario and Quebec courts of appeal have found that under such an existing approach prosecutors do not need to prove that the victim was actually afraid, that the accused used or threatened the use of physical violence or even that exploitation actually occurred. Prosecutors need only to prove that a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would fear for their safety, that the accused engaged in psychological forms of coercion and that the accused either intended to exploit the victim or knew that someone else intended to do so.

If Bill S-224 were amended to add the proposed definition of exploitation as an additional definition that could be used in appropriate cases, prosecutors would have an additional tool to assist, ensuring that traffickers are held to account. Such an approach would strengthen the existing criminal laws in response to human trafficking without removing any of the existing tools that have been successful in achieving the critical objective of ending this heinous crime.

Since 2005 when human trafficking offences were enacted in the Criminal Code, Canada has continued to demonstrate leadership in combatting human trafficking. For example, in 2019, the Government of Canada launched the national strategy to combat human trafficking. The strategy is led by Public Safety Canada and is a five-year whole-of-government approach to addressing human trafficking. It frames federal activities under the internationally recognized pillars of prevention, protection, prosecution and partnership.

The objectives of Bill S-224 are laudable and I share the sponsor's concern about the serious impacts that human trafficking has on victims. I welcome the opportunity to study the bill.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to commend the hon. parliamentary secretary for giving so much of his speech in French. That takes effort and the results speak for themselves. I want to congratulate him on that.

This bill “amends the Criminal Code to specify what constitutes exploitation for the purpose of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons.” As my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean said a few sitting days ago, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill.

It is imperative that we discuss all of the tools that could help authorities combat this scourge, which is getting worse with population movement and the growing number of refugees. This bill also responds to the demands of several human trafficking survivors' groups and would make the definitions of exploitation and human trafficking more consistent with those set out in the Palermo protocol, which Canada signed at the beginning of the millennium.

The bill is very simple but very important. It removes a phrase from the Criminal Code so that an accusation under these provisions must be based on the fact that the victim believes that a refusal on their part would threaten their safety or the safety of someone known to them.

According to the International Justice and Human Rights Clinic at the faculty of law at the University of British Columbia, asking victims to demonstrate that they have reasonable grounds to fear for their safety may be an obstacle to obtaining convictions for human trafficking.

Elements of the offence of human trafficking are more difficult to prove than those of other similar offences. For example, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which prohibits human trafficking, does not require the person involved to prove that they fear for their safety. This standard is no longer appropriate.

Let us look at the chronology of legislation against human trafficking. In 2002, Canada ratified the Palermo protocol, a “protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”.

Article 3 clearly defines trafficking in persons as follows:

“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 . . . .

That is the definition.

That is how human trafficking came to be added to the Criminal Code in 2005. The Canadian definition, however, is different from the Palermo Protocol definition in that the issue of consent or the victim's sense of safety is taken into consideration. Thus, the victim must prove that they were in danger if they refused to be exploited.

In human trafficking cases, regardless of whether the victims were initially willing or felt safe, victims should never have to justify the circumstances under which they were lured into the situation in order to prove they were trafficked. Human trafficking is not limited to sexual exploitation, as we have already heard. Traffickers exploit their victims in many ways, including for forced labour. It is important to remember, for example, that even if victims did consent to come to Canada, they did not consent to the forced labour or sexual exploitation to which they may have been subjected afterwards, especially if they end up being dependent on someone because of isolation, lack of resources or language barriers.

Section 118 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, passed in 2002, makes it a criminal offence to “organize the coming into Canada of one or more persons by means of abduction, fraud, deception or use or threat of force or coercion”. Although human trafficking and human smuggling are two different concepts, the act also prohibits human smuggling into Canada.

In 2005, Bill C-49 added three offences related to human trafficking to the Criminal Code, as well as a definition. The offences include trafficking in persons; receiving a financial or other material benefit from the commission or facilitation of trafficking in persons; withholding or destroying a person's identity documents, such as a passport, whether authentic or not, for the purpose of committing or facilitating trafficking in persons; and exploiting another person in the context of trafficking in persons offences.

In 2008-09, the first case involving a charge of human trafficking under the new law was ruled on in adult criminal court.

In fall 2008, a 20-year-old woman went to Peel Regional Police to report that a 22-year-old Ontario man named Vytautas Vilutis was using intimidation and threats to sexually exploit her. She said that she made $10,000 for him in just a few weeks through online Craigslist classified ads. She added that he took her phone calls, set up her “dates” and kept track of her appointments, so he knew how much money she owed him each morning. It was not until he threatened her for not leaving all the cash out for him one morning that she reported him to police. Vytautas Vilutis pleaded guilty in April 2009 to charges of human trafficking and receiving a material benefit from human trafficking.

He was convicted under both provisions and was the first person in Canada to be convicted for benefiting from human trafficking. In 2010, another section was added to the Criminal Code, setting out a mandatory minimum sentence for persons charged with trafficking of persons under 18. That was Bill C‑268.

In 2012, the Criminal Code was amended to allow the prosecution of Canadians and permanent residents for the offence of trafficking in persons committed outside Canada, and added factors that judges may consider when determining whether exploitation occurred. That was Bill C‑310.

In 2015, mandatory minimum sentences were imposed for the main trafficking in persons offence, receiving a material benefit from the proceeds of child trafficking, and withholding or destroying documents to facilitate child trafficking. Bill C‑452 was put forward by my political party.

In 2019, the Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, released the national strategy to combat human trafficking 2019‑24. With $75 million in funding over 6 years, this strategy followed the Palermo protocol. The national strategy to combat human trafficking 2019‑24 was adapted from the previous five-year plan.

It was adapted due to some deficiencies identified during policy assessment, namely that most of the resources were being allocated to the fight against sexual exploitation whereas forced labour is a growing issue. This is nothing new, but it is being increasingly recognized and discussed.

Bill S-224 is part of a long legislative quest to combat human trafficking, which is extremely important. In closing, I would like to paraphrase author Ralph Champavert and say that the stigma of human trafficking will disappear when the sun of human dignity rises in all hearts.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this private member's bill because I think there is no one in this chamber who would disagree with the concern that trafficking in persons is a serious problem in Canada. New Democrats will be supporting this bill and sending it to committee for further study, but we have some cautions here in this debate.

The first of those, of course, is that quite often one says trafficking in people, presumably they are talking about trafficking for sexual purposes. That is a serious problem that we need to address but trafficking also has many other forms in Canada. The one that tends to get neglected the most is forced labour. We have people who were brought here from outside of the country who are forced to work in terrible conditions at less than minimum wage and are deprived of their opportunities to pursue other ways to make a living or to get their rights recognized in Canada. When we are talking about this bill which intends to amend the definition of trafficking, we have to make sure at committee that whatever definition we ultimately adopt covers the full range of those nefarious practices of trafficking from sex trafficking to forced labour and everything in between.

My second caution is that if we are, as this bill proposes, changing the very definition of trafficking, we have to be very careful not to have unintended consequences from making a change in the definition. Here I am reflecting the views of the Canadian alliance for sex workers, who are very concerned that changing this definition will have unintended consequences on sex workers, which will make their working conditions more difficult and less safe.

At committee we are going to need to hear from those who are most impacted by this possible change to the Criminal Code. That will include sex workers. We will also need to hear from advocates for those who have been subjected to forced labour. The committee is going to need to take its time in making sure we can get those witnesses who have real life experience of trafficking to bring to the committee, to make sure we do not inadvertently, by changing the definition, exclude people from the definition who should be covered or cast the net too widely and include too many people in that definition of trafficking.

I have said this before on this bill, and I will say it again, that we know what actually works in combatting trafficking. That is additional enforcement resources. Many police forces simply do not have the resources available to devote to trafficking cases that they would like to have and that they need. Many municipal forces have established special units to deal with trafficking. Those provinces that have provincial police forces have done so, but quite often they lack adequate resources. We need to pay attention in talking about a narrow definitional change in the Criminal Code, to this question of the resources for enforcement, because we know that is very effective.

The second thing that is very effective in combatting trafficking is providing resources at the community level so that those who have been trafficked or are being trafficked can escape from the trafficking and providing safe passage for them out of those situations. Again, that is largely a question of resources for those community-based organizations that provide those services and those exit ramps for those who are actually being trafficked.

I do believe it is a complex situation that is being addressed by a very simple bill, so it is going to behoove the justice committee to take a lot of time to make sure, as I said, that we actually cover the full scope of trafficking in Canada and that we do not inadvertently include people who have not been trafficked in that definition, and that we hear from those who will be most affected by those changes at committee.

With that I will conclude my remarks for today. We will be supporting sending this bill to committee.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am excited to add my voice to this debate on Bill S-224 as well, and I want to acknowledge the hard work of the sponsor of this bill, Senator Ataullahjan, who worked hard to steer it through the Senate, and the MP for Oshawa, who has been working hard with stakeholders and survivors to advance this bill, since 2019 actually. Both of these members are members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, an organization of which I am one of the co-chairs. I want to thank all of the folks who are members of that organization for their help as well.

Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery that turns people into objects to be used and exploited. It is vicious, it is profitable and it is growing here and around the world. I often say that human trafficking is happening within 10 blocks or 10 minutes of where one lives. Even in my large rural riding in northern Alberta, we have had human trafficking cases as well. We know that the vast majority of human trafficking victims in Canada are female, young and indigenous. The reality is that anybody can become a human trafficking victim, so this is a critical issue.

There are many survivors, frontline organizations and law enforcement people working to bring justice for victims and stop human traffickers, but our human trafficking offences are not accomplishing what we want them to do. Here in Canada, we are not fully aligned with the Palermo protocol that Canada signed over 20 years ago. Specifically, within the human trafficking offences in section 279 of the Criminal Code, there is a definition of exploitation that states:

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... the labour or service.

The problem with this definition is that it places the burden of the offence in the mindset of the victim rather than in the actions of the trafficker, as the Palermo protocol calls for. The actions that traffickers use are threat of the use of force or coercion or threats to other people. They use fraud or deception or the abuse of power or the abuse of vulnerability to enslave another person.

UBC law professor Janine Benedet testified at the committee and said that the challenge with the existing definition of the Criminal Code is that:

we've adopted a definition that is much narrower and much harder to prove than the definition of trafficking that you will find in the Palermo protocol.

The definition of exploitation in Canada requires a proven threat to safety, and does not extend to keeping someone in prostitution through the exploitation of a condition of vulnerability, which is part of the Palermo definition.

...police and prosecutors are shifting trafficking cases over to these other offences, because it's so difficult to actually prove the very narrow and strict definition of trafficking [that is in our law].

As I have stated before, the burden of proof should never be on the mindset of victims, many of whom are not even initially aware that they are being trafficked. Police officers have told me over and over how they have met victims whom they know are being trafficked, but because the victims do not live in fear of their traffickers, the officers' options are very limited. I have met with survivors, NGOs and law enforcement across Canada, and the one issue that comes up at every meeting is that we need to be in full alignment with the Palermo protocol. This bill is critical to Canada's efforts to target and apprehend pimps and traffickers.

To emphasize the difficulty in securing convictions over existing trafficking offences, I want to share the conviction statistics from Stats Canada, which notes, “Less than half of detected incidents of human trafficking result in the laying or recommendation of charges.” For a 10-year period, between 2011 and 2021, the majority, 81%, of completed adult criminal court cases involving at least one human trafficking charge were stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged. During the same time, only 12% of these cases resulted in a guilty decision. Putting it another way, only one in eight completed human trafficking cases resulted in a guilty decision.

Finally, every human trafficking case is half as likely to result in a finding of guilt as a case involving sexual offence or a violent crime. This is tragic. Canada is failing the victims of human trafficking and our law enforcement officers, who work so hard to investigate and apprehend these traffickers. This is not a new problem. Survivors and NGOs have been speaking out about this for years.

Back in 2014, a report entitled “Ending Sex-Trafficking In Canada” from the National Task Force on Sex Trafficking of Women and Girls in Canada recommended our alignment with the Palermo protocol, and every year, the U.S. trafficking in persons report, on its file in Canada, urges Canada to amend its Criminal Code to include a definition of trafficking as exploitation as an essential element of the crime consistent with international law.

The Conservative Party of Canada has had this in our platform since 2019, and a few years ago, the Alberta government launched a nine-point action plan to combat human trafficking. The implementation of that was spearheaded by my friend Paul Brandt, who chaired the Alberta Human Trafficking Task Force. He has done an incredible job. The first priority of the action was to adopt the Palermo protocol definition of trafficking.

Canada needs to do much better in its fight against human trafficking, and the bill is an important start. The tragic reality of human trafficking is that it has not been a priority for this government. For example, bills such as Bill S-224 and Bill S-211 are the result of individual MPs and senators who worked hard to address the gaps experienced by survivors and stakeholders.

A lot of work has been done to support this and has been driven by the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery since we launched in 2018. Our goal is to ensure that Canada is free from all human trafficking and to increase awareness around that. We have four co-chairs, one from each official party, and we recognize the immense value of working across political lines to combat human trafficking. That is why, three years ago, we were able to get the House of Commons to finally recognize February 22 as Human Trafficking Awareness Day.

However, when we look at the legislation that the government has introduced over the past eight years regarding human trafficking, it is taking Canada in the wrong direction. Government legislation has blocked consecutive sentencing for traffickers after it has been adopted by Parliament. It reduced some of the human trafficking offences to hybrid offences, meaning that traffickers get away with as little as a fine. More recently, the Liberals have extended house arrest to some human trafficking offences. Who benefits from all of these changes? It is pimps and traffickers. I would also note that the government allowed the national action plan to combat human trafficking to expire in 2016 and refused to bring forward anything for almost four years until weeks before the 2019 election.

The Liberals' 2019 national strategy to combat human trafficking says a lot of good things, but it is just that: It says a lot of good things. Unlike the Conservative Party national action plan, the strategy has no targets and no measurables. That is why, four years after it being announced, the survivor-led advisory committee on human trafficking has still not been set up. The voices and lived experiences of victims and survivors are essential for this success. I am hoping that we can get that set up soon. Canada must have a zero-tolerance approach to human trafficking that centres on the voices of survivors.

While we often talk about sex trafficking in Canada, we know that forced labour is also very tragic and happens here in Canada. Victims of forced labour can be found in restaurants, the agricultural industry, the mining sector, live-in caregiving situations and manufacturing. Just two weeks ago, the York Regional Police announced that 64 men and women from Mexico were trafficked to work in Ontario. I want to thank the police for their hard work on these things and the officers who apprehended these traffickers and rescued these victims.

Around the world, now more than ever, there are more than 50 million people in some form of slavery, which is up from 40 million pre-COVID. It is more than the population of our country, and more than ever in human history. Worldwide, slavery is a multi-billion dollar industry that generates more than $150 billion annually. This is why I am so pleased to support the bill before us today so we can end human trafficking here and around the world.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Oshawa has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague said, many people have been working on this for a long time. He mentioned 2019, but it has been going on a lot longer than that.

I want to take this opportunity to thank certain key people: Senator Ataullahjan, who brought this forward in the Senate; Senator Boisvenu for his advocacy; and colleagues here in the House, who took time this afternoon to speak to this bill, especially my colleague from Peace River—Westlock and the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

I want to thank key staff members, Rhonda Kirkland from my office and Joel Oosterman, as well as many stakeholders, including Holly Wood from BRAVE, the Durham Regional Police and all the victims, victims' groups, moms and dads, survivors and workers. Of course, I also want to thank my constituent, Darla; through her courage, her story of human trafficking across the Canada-U.S. border became one of the great motivations for this bill. Instead of allowing the experience to define her, Darla brought it to the attention of her community leaders.

This bill, although a small step, is a step in the right direction. We need to move towards modernization and change. Instead of seeing a decrease in human trafficking, this modern-day slavery, we are indeed seeing this practice expand. Things are getting worse. We are hearing more and more about human trafficking. Police data indicated that human trafficking increased elevenfold between 2010 and 2016. This is why the bill needs to pass as soon as possible.

The bill's purpose is to align Canada's Criminal Code with that of the 2000 Palermo Protocol. It removes the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals, who must prove under current Canadian law that there is an element of fear in their abuse in order to obtain a conviction in court.

Again, let us pause on this very point. There is no debate about it: A horrible crime of human trafficking has occurred. However, under current Canadian law, the victim is required to prove fear in order for a conviction to occur. This is absurd and backwards. The victim should not be forced to prove their state of mind. For example, if there were absolute proof of a human trafficking crime, would the offender be convicted if fear could not be proven? That is absurd.

Everyone agrees that we should not treat human trafficking victims so differently. Things need to change, and time is passing. The Palermo Protocol was adopted over 20 years ago, and Canada signed it then. This bill makes a very small change, and I want to read it into the record:

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.

This is a very short amendment.

It has been over 20 years. Let us make the commitment today to pass the bill, which I think every member could get behind. The statistics are ominous. Human trafficking generates $32 billion annually, with over 40 million victims every year. Fewer than 8% of perpetrators charged with human trafficking have ever been prosecuted. Few perpetrators are even charged with the crime.

Human trafficking is happening today within 10 blocks or 10 minutes of our home, as my colleague just said. Traffickers search out young people who are homeless, addicted or traumatized: our most vulnerable.

This is the story of so many victims and survivors. I am standing here today for Darla and all the vulnerable individuals who are facing or have faced the crime of human trafficking. I am so proud and optimistic, listening to the speeches of my colleagues here in the House; it appears that the bill will get its day in committee. We are open to hearing from experts to see if we can make the best bill possible.

Everybody is in agreement that we have to abolish modern-day slavery. We need to urgently address the accelerating increase of human trafficking in our communities. I look forward to moving the bill to committee and fulfilling a promise of 23 years, a promise to victims and survivors, and a promise to Darla.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:09 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 20 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

I wish everyone a good week in their ridings.

(The House adjourned at 2:09 p.m.)

The House resumed from October 25, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (addiction treatment in penitentiaries), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to express some thoughts on Bill C-283 the last time it was up for debate, and I thought that maybe for the last couple of minutes I would talk about the impact of addictions on our communities.

I recall sitting in opposition when we talked about safe injection sites, particularly given what was taking place in Vancouver, and the positive impact they were having. This government has been working with other governments to deal with drug-related issues in communities across the country. I want to emphasize that there is so much more that can be done through co-operation with the different stakeholders out there. What we have seen over the last number of years from this government is a high sense of co-operation when working with stakeholders and different levels of government to deal with the very difficult issue of drug addiction and the impact it is having on our communities.

I would suggest that one of the best ways we can deal with crime is prevention. This is where things become very relevant. The more we turn to groups such as the Bear Clan Patrol in the north end of Winnipeg, the many professional agencies and services out there and community-minded individuals, the more likely we will have a positive outcome. I believe that by having a positive outcome, we prevent crimes from taking place in the first place.

With those few words, I will conclude my remarks.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before we continue, since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C‑283. I have been my party's public safety critic for the past few years, and I have learned a great deal about the situation in federal penitentiaries. I have learned more about Correctional Service Canada and the work of the correctional investigator, who publishes highly relevant reports each year on the various issues in Canada's penitentiaries. I send him my regards, by the way.

In fact, last summer, I joined the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety for a tour of the Port-Cartier penitentiary, a maximum-security facility located in the North Shore region, in a constituency adjacent to mine. We were able to see how things are done on the ground. We observed that addiction is a massive scourge in penitentiaries, both in Quebec and Canada.

I am very pleased that the member for Kelowna—Lake Country contacted me a few months ago to tell me about the bill she is introducing to propose a solution. The bill would allow inmates to be sent to drug treatment facilities. It would also allow penitentiaries to be designated as drug treatment facilities. I will discuss this in more detail later.

When the member for Kelowna—Lake Country introduced her bill, she said its purpose was to end the revolving door of the criminal justice system. Those are the words she used. People entering prison get released almost immediately without getting adequate treatment for mental health issues, substance abuse or other problems. Federal penitentiaries, unlike provincial prisons, are reserved for people serving sentences of two years or more, although inmates may serve a much shorter sentence. That said, the meaning of my colleague's words are clear.

In a system that values rehabilitation, it is unacceptable for someone to be released from a penitentiary with the same problems they had when they entered. For there to be rehabilitation, a minimum effort must be made to try to improve or resolve offenders' problems.

As I said, substance abuse is a very real problem. Let us use the current situation in Quebec penitentiaries as an example. In 2014, 58% of inmates in federal penitentiaries had a substance abuse problem. This data comes from the Correctional Service of Canada, the CSC. According to the CSC, drug addiction is a major problem in the prison system.

According to experts, drug addiction is what drives most of the people who end up in prison to commit a crime in the first place, and that is what brings them back to prison, where drugs are very easy to get, despite what people might think. In 2021, Frédérick Lebeau, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers for the Quebec region, said, “There's a major issue, a problem of delivery [of drugs and other prohibited items] inside the penitentiaries. It's too easy. It's got to get harder”.

With the advent of drones, it is easier than ever to deliver drugs into prisons. By 2020, officers at Donnacona's 451-inmate maximum security penitentiary had detected 60 drones, but they estimated that was just the tip of the iceberg. To address this emerging issue, penitentiaries are working to implement new drone detection technology, but we must not kid ourselves. We know that drugs are still getting into prisons and will continue to do so, despite the efforts that are being made. This really is one of the biggest problems in the prison system in Quebec and Canada right now.

That is why people are right in saying that incarceration does not solve drug abuse problems, quite the opposite. If we want my colleague's solution to work, then we need to ensure that it is more difficult, if not impossible, for the program participants and all inmates to access drugs in prison.

Recidivism rates among drug addicts is very high. When they get out of prison, many immediately try to obtain drugs and often turn to crime to pay for their purchases.

There are many programs for addicts, such as the federal drug treatment court funding program. Drug treatment courts, known as DTCs, offer eligible offenders with a substance use disorder the opportunity to complete a court monitored drug treatment program as an alternative to incarceration. Provinces and territories are eligible for federal funding for the development and delivery of these drug treatment courts.

It is important to note that offenders serving sentences in provincial prisons have usually committed less serious crimes—they are therefore sentenced to a maximum of two years less a day—and that alternative sentences may be more appropriate for these offenders than for inmates in federal penitentiaries.

The DTC program has a few conditions, including that the inmate remain in the program for as long as it takes, usually 12 to 18 months, and that the inmate have no further criminal convictions.

DTCs have existed in Quebec since 2012 and have been so successful that they served as a model for a pilot project to address recidivism among drug addicts in France. According to a study by CIRANO published in 2019, Quebec is an example to the world when it comes to rehabilitating its inmates. I have cited this report in the House before because Quebec truly is a role model.

According to the study, Quebec's reintegration programs for inmates in Quebec-run prisons reduce the risk of recidivism and perform significantly better than elsewhere in the world. These reintegration programs, which are not only aimed at drug addicts, reduce the recidivism rate from 50% to 10% among participating inmates. Participation in the program is, of course, voluntary.

In comparison with Quebec programs, it bears mentioning that federal penitentiaries are doing a poor job in facilitating the rehabilitation of inmates. In the Correctional Investigator of Canada's 2020 annual report, and this is something that comes up nearly every year in the correctional investigator's reports, federal inmates do not get training or learn skills that are job relevant and they do not have access to adequate care. In short, they are very ill-equipped to reintegrate civil society.

It should also be noted that indigenous peoples are overrepresented in federal penitentiaries. They account for less than 5% of the Canadian population, but they account for over 32% of the prison population. Substance abuse and the lack of effective treatment programs partially explain this indigenous overrepresentation. That is where Bill C‑283 may make a difference and have a fairly positive impact.

Let us take a closer look at the bill. It has three separate parts and would provide additional tools to help offenders overcome addiction. It adds the possibility for a convicted offender to ask the court to serve their sentence, or a part of it, in custody in a penitentiary designated as an addiction treatment facility if the following conditions are met: The offender was in trouble with the law because of their problematic substance use; the offender consents to participating in the program; the court is satisfied that the request has merit; the offender has not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 years or more; and the offender has not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more for an offence that resulted in bodily harm, involved drug trafficking or involved the use of a weapon.

The court would then make a recommendation to the Correctional Service of Canada that the inmate be placed in an addiction treatment facility if the inmate meets the criteria mentioned earlier.

The bill would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It would provide for the designation of addiction treatment facilities in the act. I was going to talk about that a little more, but I see that I have little time left.

Therefore, I will say right now that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at second reading because it is a bill that would actually help rehabilitate inmates. I would remind members that federal penitentiaries have done a very poor job in the area of rehabilitation. I therefore commend my colleague and thank her for proposing this bill, which I hope will be a step in the right direction for offenders in Quebec and Canada.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for putting forward this bill.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across Canada, we are losing loved ones at an alarming rate as a result of the toxic substance crisis. Since 2016, more than 30,000 people have died: 30,000 preventable losses. We know the toxic substance crisis does not discriminate or follow political lines. The toxic substance crisis impacts us all in a multitude of ways.

Canadians need all members of this House to unite and move forward with evidence-based solutions to begin addressing this crisis so no more lives are lost.

According to recent reports by Island Health, illicit drug toxicity deaths are in the top two leading causes of death in all age categories, from under 19 up to the age range of 40 to 59. These are people who should have had long lives ahead of them but had them cut short because of toxic substances.

In the last year alone, 80 people died of toxic substances in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, specifically in Nanaimo. These people were somebody's father, brother, daughter, friend or neighbour: 80 people gone and their loved ones left to mourn their tragic loss, all because of toxic substances. This is horrific and inexplicable.

Fortunately, there are good people doing good work. Last month, community members and organizations in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, including the Nanaimo community action team, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, Nanaimo Area Network of Drug Users, Nanaimo Brain Injury Society and Naut'sa mawt Community Wellness Network, all came together to continue the work that needs to be done to start saving lives. They brought together community members, including frontline workers, health care professionals, substance users and their families, and even central Vancouver Island's own medical health officer. At one point in this meeting, a speaker stood at the front of the room and asked all those in attendance to say the names of those they lost from the toxic substance crisis. It brought tears to my eyes as the names of loved ones echoed through the room, loved ones taken too soon because help was out of reach.

I, too, shared the names of my loved ones lost, family and friends whose lives were tragically ripped away. This was a stark reminder of what we are talking about today: life-saving and long-overdue supports. It is essential that we take a moment to acknowledge that prevention is key to addressing the crisis.

People are struggling. We have seen significant increases in substance use over the last few years as people struggled with isolation as a result of the pandemic. I saw this first-hand as a former frontline worker in mental health and addictions when COVID-19 first hit our country, with increased barriers in accessing supports and our loved ones separated.

As our communities work to put back the pieces, the cost of living continues to increase. People are struggling to make ends meet. The basic necessities are no longer affordable, such as a place to call home, food on the table and heat to keep warm. Adding to this, health care has hit its breaking point. We see the impacts all around us. The severity and complexity of untreated mental illness being experienced by people in our communities are on the rise. The number of those using substances to get through their day is increasing. Crime in our neighbourhoods, as too many struggle to survive, is happening more and more often. This is all right in front of our eyes in the communities we care about.

People in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith are seeing this all unfold in front of us, and it is heartbreaking. People are reaching out to me, unsure of how they are going to afford their next meal. Others are reaching out fearing for their safety. When I was knocking on doors in downtown Nanaimo last week, resident after resident expressed that they were worried about the increasing number of people struggling around us, living on the streets or on the verge of being without a home.

I made a promise that I would share these concerns and fight for better. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the aftermath of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments' inaction that has left people behind. Housing is a basic human right. Why have the Liberals allowed loopholes that let housing be used as a stock market for the ultrarich?

Access to head-to-toe care, including mental health supports, is a basic human right. Why have the Liberals followed in the Conservative footsteps by underfunding health care transfers to provinces and territories? Why has not a single dollar of the promised mental health transfers been received to date? This funding would make a huge difference in the lives of many, yet the promised funds still sit unused.

We also know that access to an income that provides, at minimum, the basics that people need to get by is a human right. Why is this government not lifting those with disabilities, seniors left with limited fixed incomes, and families out of poverty with a guaranteed livable basic income?

It is important that we look at the root of the problem before we can effectively address the symptoms. The symptoms are that we have people struggling with substance misuse, increasing mental illness, and increasing crime and incarceration rates. When considering this bill, at a time when so many are struggling, we need to focus on people's access to their basic human rights, if we truly want to put an end to the cycle of crime around us. The barriers in accessing treatment for substance misuse need to be removed, including for those in our penitentiaries. I fully agree that the lack of supports is part of the recidivism that we see in our criminal justice system. This is why everyone should have access to the supports they need that are right for them.

When considering the bill in front of us today, we need to look at what is currently in place and working. Again, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Connective Nanaimo, formerly known as John Howard Society, is doing incredible work to provide restorative recovery supports to those in correctional facilities located in Nanaimo. Through the Guthrie program, those in corrections are offered in-house treatment, which is not only offered within the facility by those trained and qualified to do the work but also stretches into the community, ensuring that the supports continue on as they re-enter the community. Those interested are considered based on their willingness and motivation to do the work required, and the result is a lower incidence of recidivism of participants than their counterparts.

My friend Harry, who is now five years sober and currently working toward his Red Seal ticket in trades, spoke to me last night about his experience as someone who has been in and out of corrections since the age of 16. According to Harry, his entire life trajectory changed when he was offered, and made the decision to participate in, the Guthrie program while in jail, at the age of 38. Harry entered this program knowing only a life of substance use, unable to read and write. While participating in the program, he was provided with, among others, peer recovery programming, counselling to begin addressing the deep-rooted symptoms of trauma, and regular tutoring to learn how to read and write.

Harry said to me that if he had not participated in the Guthrie program, he would probably be in prison or dead. Instead, Harry is proudly sober, sharing his story and helping so many others as a result. Instead of continuing to cycle in and out of jail, Harry is contributing to and is a valued part of our community, showing others struggling with substance misuse that there are options available to them to live happy, healthy lives, if made available to them.

Harry's success is the result of his willingness and strength to fully participate in the programming made available and accessible when he needed it. This programming is evidence-based, delivered by qualified professionals in the field and those with lived experience, and is made available based on need and fit.

This bill, although with good intentions, includes components that are problematic. This bill excludes individuals who are convicted of certain offences, such as drug trafficking. With limited time, I will only say that I have yet to see evidence that would suggest that those who have been charged with trafficking substances would not be successful if willing and able to participate in a good-fit treatment program for substance misuse.

This bill unfortunately assumes a one-size-fits-all program. Again, while the program that Harry attended was successful for him and so many others, we cannot disregard the importance of culturally appropriate, accessible programming that meets people where they are at. Harm reduction and trauma-informed supports save lives.

Moving forward with evidence-based solutions to this toxic substance crisis is vital and life-saving. Unfortunately, this bill, although I am sure well-intentioned, misses the mark. My hope, however, is that this important debate helps to apply the pressure needed to finally light the fire under the Liberals to do what is needed with the investment required to save lives.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, from January 2016 to June 2022, over 32,000 Canadians died of opioid overdoses. We have thousands of people federally incarcerated in Canada, and about 70% of them deal with substance use issues. We have a very serious threat to public safety and to the health of Canadians on our hands.

I know that all parties in this House want to see recidivism rates and addiction rates reduced, want to save lives and want to keep our communities safe. However, we have very different approaches for how we get that accomplished. I think the debate today has been very illuminating, and I appreciate the perspectives of all parties, but I do think the Conservative approach is a solid one and I applaud the members who brought it forward.

As I mentioned, there are over 30,000 people who have died just of opioid overdoses in the last number of years. We have many people in federal penitentiaries who are addicted to drugs. In fact, since the pandemic, we have about 20 people a day who die of opioid overdoses. It is getting far worse. Looking back to 2016, there were about eight people a day. That was already terrible, but now, just a few years later, it is 20 people a day.

I hear from my constituents all the time. I have visited communities across the country and tent cities. There is open, dangerous drug use on the streets, violent crime and petty crime, and deaths of loved ones from drug addiction. It is impacting every single neighbourhood in this country. It is a growing problem. We can see it with our own eyes. We see it when we look at the news every morning. There is headline after headline about theft, petty crime and violent, repeat offenders hurting innocent Canadians. I do believe these are all linked.

If we look at crime rings and gangs, the purpose of these, more often than not, in the gang culture is to sell drugs and protect their drug territory from other gangs. We have this criminal network in Canada that is highly incentivized to push very dangerous drugs on people and get them highly addicted so the gangs can make money. Then they violently protect their drug turf using illegally smuggled firearms and 3D-printed firearms. We see this cycle of violence and addiction impacting the vulnerable people in this country.

The direction of this has only gotten worse under the current government. Unfortunately, over 32,000 people have died of opioid overdoses alone in the last number of years. Of course, violent, repeat offenders are intimately tied to gangs, drug trafficking and taking advantage of vulnerable people with addictions. We have seen an increase in violent crime from those repeat, violent offenders, who are getting out on bail more easily than ever because of the regime brought forward by the Liberal government.

Today, we have the opportunity to do something real about this and end the revolving door of inmates in and out of prison. This is a huge issue. Part of what is happening is that we have highly addicted individuals who commit crimes, go to prison and do not receive the treatment they need to recover.

This bill is called the “ending the revolving door act”, and I think that is something we can all get on board with, if not for the benefit of compassion for those who are in our penitentiaries and addicted to substances, then for the taxpayer, because it costs a lot of money when an inmate is in and out of prison over and over again. It would also make our penitentiaries and the corrections staff who work in them safer. If we have individuals who are dealing with substance abuse, which can often manifest in violent ways, and if we can get them rehabilitated, it is even better for everyone.

This bill has lofty and high goals that I very much support. It goes about it in a very smart way. In particular, the legislation would allow for a part of the federal penitentiary to be turned into a rehabilitation facility. Let us turn part of our existing penitentiary infrastructure into a rehab, given the high number of inmates addicted to substances. I think that is a great idea. Inmates are there anyway. Let us have an intensive option where, if they choose to, they can get some rehab and perhaps recover from their addictions. When they are released from the penitentiary, they have a much better opportunity and much better chance of living a fulsome, law-abiding life if they receive the care, support and compassion they need.

Ultimately, the bill is designed very well, in the sense that it is the judge's discretion, which I think is important in this regard, and it is only for non-violent crimes. We are not talking about folks with life sentences. We are talking about low-level crimes for which people are committed to federal penitentiaries. That is important, especially as a start for this. Let us see how it goes. If it works really well, great, we can talk about different expansions, if that is what is needed. I think this is a great place to start, and it is the safest place to start this very innovative idea.

It is up to the judge and then ultimately it is up to the individual. People are given a choice and then they can choose if they want to go to the rehab part of the facility. They still have to serve the same amount of time, but it is in a part of the facility that is built for that rehab. That is really great if we are of the opinion and the philosophy that we want people who have substance use issues to access recovery and fully recover and live fulsome lives, which is certainly the Conservative Party's perspective. Addiction is a mental health issue, and we can help a lot more people if there is a lot more access to mental health and rehabilitation supports.

To get right to the source, I have visited federal penitentiaries and they are very tough places to be. I recommend that every legislator in this place go to visit a federal penitentiary. The older penitentiaries, especially, are not places that were built for, or are conducive to, rehabilitation. It is a great idea that we could redesign those structures to support those who need extra compassion, mental health care and rehab supports. They are there anyway, so, if the judge decided it was safe, giving them some freedom to access rehabilitation and to get a real shot at recovering would be good for them and good for their loved ones, who want to see them survive. Ultimately, it is good for them when they are released from a federal penitentiary.

I mentioned at the beginning that I think all parties have the ultimate goal of reducing recidivism, which is very high, costly to the taxpayer, and very harmful to the individual who is in and out of jail over and over again. I think everyone agrees that it is not great, so let us fix it.

Everybody in the House talks repeatedly about addictions and how many people have died. What we do not have in common is how we all approach that. However, I think that the way the bill is structured, it offers an innovative solution to this that could be supported by all parties, if they want to give it a shot and say “why not?” This could be a real option to save lives and to support a reduction in recidivism rates.

One thing that the Liberals have done, which would be their solution to the issues that I and others outlined today regarding this bill and the goal it is trying to solve, is something that I cannot get behind: the prison needle exchange program. I visited penitentiaries where corrections officers are being told that this is coming to them from the federal government. There have been test runs in some penitentiaries as well.

The federal government is facilitating needle kits for federal inmates to inject drugs while in jail. They are not allowed to have drugs. The drugs are illegally smuggled into jails through criminal networks and then inmates inject them. The Liberal idea is to provide clean needle kits to reduce the spread of diseases, which is a good goal. However, in many cases, we are talking about providing the most dangerous people in Canada with, for all intents and purposes, tiny knives that they could put their own blood into, or a whole host of liquid substances, and they could use them to hurt themselves, corrections officers and other inmates.

Corrections officers have spoken to me about their fears with respect to this, and inmates themselves are very concerned. In fact, a women's federal penitentiary in Alberta has written a very strong petition to the federal government pleading and demanding that it does not introduce those needles into their prisons. The women inmates themselves are saying they would not feel safe and they do not want them, yet it is coming. I am very concerned about that and about the safety of our corrections officers.

I feel that this bill is designed in a way that is not supposed to be divisive. It is an innovative idea. I think we should all be able to get behind it. It is an approach that is safe and is focused on safety. It would turn part of a federal penitentiary into something very positive: a rehabilitation facility. I very much support that and the ultimate objective of reducing recidivism and improving recovery rates for inmates and the vulnerable populations there.

I would like to thank the members for Kelowna—Lake Country and Kootenay—Columbia for their hard work on this bill. It is a Conservative bill. I am very proud of my colleagues.

With my last 20 seconds, I would like to thank all of the corrections officers and parole officers in this country, who put their lives on the line to keep us safe and to do the hard work to help rehabilitate our inmates.

To conclude, I would like to acknowledge the two Edmonton police officers who were recently killed on the job: Constable Travis Jordan, who was 35 years old; and Constable Brett Ryan, who was 30 years old. We have incredibly hard-working men and women in our justice system, and it is always tragic when we have deaths. I want to acknowledge that we are thinking about their families.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am pleased to join in the debate today as we progress to the second reading of Bill C-283, regarding addiction treatment in penitentiaries. I thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for her advocacy on this important issue and for her hard work. As the member has noted, this bill aims to expand sentencing options to help address the root causes of criminal offending through treatment.

Our government is committed to protecting the health and safety of all Canadians, including those who are incarcerated and struggling with substance abuse issues. As my colleagues would agree, these issues cannot be addressed in isolation. Substance use is a social and health issue that intersects clearly with systemic racism and inequities. That is what I would like to focus on today.

The Minister of Public Safety's December 2021 mandate letter reaffirmed the requirement to continue to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. This includes supporting work to address systemic racism and the overrepresentation of Black, indigenous and racialized Canadians within the criminal justice system.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, last December. It received royal assent, and we are hopeful that it will make a significant impact in our criminal justice system in addressing these issues. Bill C-5 aims to restore judicial discretion to impose fit sentences and to address overincarceration rates among indigenous and Black persons, and members of marginalized communities who are overrepresented among those convicted of certain drug- and firearm-related offences. Harms related to substance use would be treated as a health and social use rather a criminal one.

The Minister of Public Safety, in concert with the provincial and territorial colleagues, addressed many of these important matters head-on at recent meetings of ministers responsible for justice and public safety. Work is under way to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, across the country and within provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Excellent collaboration continues with the FPT working group on the development of the indigenous justice strategy and in addressing systemic discrimination and overrepresentation of indigenous persons within the criminal justice system.

The ministers also affirmed, in light of the James Smith Cree Nation tragedy last year, the need to work with indigenous leaders to ensure their communities are safe and supported. The ministers agreed to collaborate on the development and implement of the Canada's Black justice strategy to address anti-Black racism and discrimination within Canada's policing and criminal justice system.

Another key priority was the ongoing opioid crisis. Again, substance use is a public health issue that must be balanced with public safety. In practice, that means diverting individuals away from the criminal justice system at an early stage, through rehabilitative and treatment programs or increased use of conditional sentences.

Our government is very much seized with the work to both build safer communities and help break the cycle of substance-related harms by addressing the root causes of criminality. On its surface, Bill C-283 appears to have the same goals. It proposes to offer offenders the possibility of serving all or part of their sentences in a designated addiction treatment facility.

Let us examine some of the bill's unfortunate oversights and exceptions. Proposed section 743.11 would stipulate that those whose offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment or life in prison, and those who have committed offences resulting in bodily harm, involving a weapon, or drug trafficking or production, would not be eligible to serve their sentences in a designated addiction treatment facility. This is a problem.

With respect to overrepresentation, Bill C-283 runs counter to our goals. We know that indigenous and Black persons are overrepresented in federal penitentiaries. According to the data, over 68% of indigenous women in custody are serving a federal sentence of more than 10 years. Black offenders represent the largest proportion, 42%, of offenders convicted of importing or exporting drugs.

Overall, Black and indigenous persons tend to be subject to longer sentences, and I invite members opposite to look at the Auditor General's report on corrections, released late last year, which talked about systemic racism. It is, therefore, clear that Bill C-283 would exclude some of the most vulnerable and overrepresented members of the custody population, those who, in fact, may be most directly in need of treatment and rehabilitation.

In addition, proposed paragraph 743.11(1)(a) of the bill would require the offender to show evidence of repeated good behaviour in order to indicate that substance use has contributed to their actions. Here is yet another barrier to accessing treatment for incarcerated people. Not everyone who needs support and services may have a history or a pattern of behaviour: for example, those who have only recently begun using opioids.

This could also represent a prohibitively expensive burden for offenders who do not have the means to provide submissions established in their history or repeated behaviour. Bill C-283 would therefore not only make those individuals ineligible for treatment, through no fault of their own, but also create significant issues of inequity, with BIPOC and socio-economically disadvantaged offenders being denied services at a disproportionate rate.

This bill flies in the face of the Minister of Public Safety's December 2021 mandate letter, which reaffirmed the need to continue to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. It is also misaligned with Correctional Service Canada's commitment to addressing the overincarceration of indigenous peoples. Again, that is why our government introduced Bill C-5, to treat harms related to substance use as a health and social issue and not a criminal one. Ultimately, the measures in Bill C-5 will help address overincarceration rates among indigenous and racialized persons convicted of certain drug- and firearms-related offences. In contrast, Bill C-283 would undermine these goals.

Despite its veneer of concern for the health and safety of offenders who use substances, this bill is not designed to help those who need it the most. I encourage all members to join me in voicing their concerns about this bill.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-283. This legislation would allow a federal inmate to be sent to an addiction treatment facility.

Under this legislation, the courts must assess these cases and ensure that certain eligibility requirements are met, including the following: Problematic substance use has contributed to the offender's involvement in the criminal justice system; the offender consents to participating in the treatment program; the court is satisfied that the application has merit; the offender has not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 years or more; the offender has not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more for an offence that resulted in bodily harm, involved drug trafficking or involved the use of a weapon.

Bill C-283 also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide for the designation of a penitentiary or any area within a penitentiary as an addiction treatment facility.

The purpose of an addiction treatment facility is to provide inmates with access to treatment programs in relation to their problematic substance use as well as to other related services that respond to their specific needs.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will be voting in favour of Bill C-283 at second reading because we believe that it could help rehabilitate inmates struggling with addiction.

Rehabilitation is one of the key pillars of our justice system, and it is our duty to do everything we can to enable as many people as possible to reach that goal. Rehabilitation is also a way to give a second chance to citizens who have made mistakes in the past.

Experience has shown that shutting out an entire segment of the population from our society and our community indefinitely is not beneficial to anyone—not to them and not to us. On the contrary, it only replicates and reinforces the conditions that give rise to crime in the first place.

One thing is clear: A healthy, prosperous, and compassionate democracy requires rehabilitation and inclusion. Unfortunately, right now, federal penitentiaries have a dismal record of rehabilitating inmates struggling with addiction.

In Quebec, in 2014, 58% of prisoners in federal institutions were found to have a history of addiction. I will say it again: 58%. We are not talking about a marginal or minority phenomenon, but rather a widespread scourge that contributes to keeping inmates in a state of dependence, precariousness and vulnerability.

Many experts have in fact established that addiction is the catalyst that drives many Canadians to commit a first offence or to be repeatedly incarcerated.

One would think that imprisonment and the isolation that comes with it would help inmates struggling with addiction to go through proper withdrawal during their incarceration, but the reality is something else altogether.

According to correctional workers, it is shocking how easy it is to get drugs in prison. Those seeking psychoactive substances can use an underground network to find whatever they need to feed their drug habits.

Delivery of these substances and other prohibited items has become much more difficult to control since the advent of drones. Because they are small and make virtually no noise, they can deliver small items by air and are almost undetectable.

New drone detection technologies are now being implemented. However, Frédérick Lebeau, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers is under no illusions.

Drugs will continue to find their way into prisons one way or another. Knowing that, it would be unrealistic to think that jail time will solve an inmate's substance abuse problems. Quite the opposite. It is the federal government's responsibility to provide resources for supervision and control, but more importantly for coaching and assistance so that detention facilities can help inmates make lasting lifestyle changes.

The federal government is already funding some initiatives in this respect, including the drug treatment court funding program, commonly referred to as DTCs, which offers offenders with addictions issues the opportunity to undergo drug treatment as an alternative to a prison sentence. Quebec, other provinces and the territories may receive funding under this program to implement DTCs.

An important distinction must be made, however. Inmates serving sentences in provincial prisons have typically committed less serious offences, given that they were sentenced to a maximum of two years less a day. It is therefore easier to justify alternative sentences for them than for inmates in federal penitentiaries.

Still, it cannot be denied that DTCs have had a very positive impact since they were implemented in 2012. Quebec's successful rollout got people talking, even across the Atlantic. France based its pilot project for countering recidivism among drug users directly on our DTCs.

More broadly, DTCs are part of Quebec's wider rehabilitation strategy, which is delivering impressive results. By combining all of these rehabilitation programs, Quebec has reduced the recidivism rate from 50% to 10% among inmates who choose to participate. I am sure my colleagues will all agree that that is quite a feat.

Hundreds of Quebeckers decided to accept the Quebec government's help so they could get their lives back on track and live free.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑238, introduced by my Conservative colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country. We think this bill should be studied in committee to ensure that it is effective and to determine what improvements need to be made so that it has a lasting, positive impact on those it affects.

We believe in rehabilitation, we believe in inclusion, but above all, we believe in human justice.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to speak to the private member's bill of my colleague, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, the end the revolving door act.

This legislation proposes critical amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code of Canada that would expand access for substance use treatment in federal facilities across the country. I was really disappointed when hearing some of the speeches, particularly from members of the governing Liberal Party, stating that this is simply a veneer. I really think it highlights the fact that they do not truly understand the crippling impacts addiction has on our communities, in our neighbourhoods and across the country. Addiction is such a serious issue that affects individuals from all walks of life, and the harms and costs have only increased as years go by.

One of the flashpoints of our addiction crisis across this country is in Canada's correctional facilities. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction found that over 75% of individuals arriving at Canadian federal institutions have a serious substance use problem. Within that alarming statistic, there is an overrepresentation of indigenous offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada found that 94% of incarcerated indigenous women present a substance use disorder compared to 71% of non-indigenous female offenders, and the figures are 86% of indigenous males compared to 68% of non-indigenous male offenders.

Given the interplay between addiction and criminal behaviour, intergenerational trauma and recidivism, it is urgent that we look at actually allowing these people to heal, to find a space for healing. Having recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration in a correctional facility is a very good step toward dealing with the root cause of this.

Conservatives firmly believe that addiction is a health condition and that recovery is possible. It has been exceptionally clear that the Liberal-NDP approach to addiction has failed. It has flooded our streets with more drugs, leading to more addictions, which lead to more death, more despair and, unfortunately, more crime. The sad reality is that, without meaningful change to the government’s approach, people with severe mental health problems and addictions will continue re-entering our system without receiving the proper treatment.

The solution from the government has been, as one of my colleagues pointed out, the needle exchange program, which has created all kinds of fears from a variety of correctional institutions. It has not solved the problem. People in correctional facilities are not supposed to be using drugs, yet the government is facilitating the use of illegal substances while they are in our correctional facilities, rather than offering them treatment options. This is putting the cart before the horse and losing the plot on what the issue is.

It is so encouraging that we are finally seeing some evidence-based opioid agonist therapy being offered to some offenders in correctional facilities, but it is worth pointing out there are significant barriers within the system that create lengthy wait times, inconsistent procedures and difficulties obtaining entry that vary from facility to facility. We know, through evidence-based procedures, that opioid agonist therapies such as Suboxone, Sublocade and methadone can help someone find recovery, yet there are barriers in place in our correctional facilities to allowing people to access these forms of treatment. It is worth pointing out that they can do more when it comes to these kinds of things.

I wish I had more time to go through some of the statistics, facts and figures we have collected on how serious the addiction issue is in our criminal system, but if there is one thing I could leave every member of the House with, it is that we have an option right now. We have an ability to make a difference in people's lives. We have a captive audience and we can provide an option to people to be able to get the treatment and help they so desperately need and help them get their lives back, rather than keeping them in a revolving door.

I would urge everyone to vote in favour of this wonderful bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-283, the “end the revolving door” act, once again.

I want to thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for his initial work and research on this legislation during the previous Parliament, and my colleagues who have spoken to the bill. I also want to thank those who work in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. I hope we can move forward with this legislation to provide the Standing Committee on Public Safety the opportunity to study how this can improve our justice system and give people hope to recover from addiction.

Kelowna—Lake Country residents, the people of British Columbia, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast have seen first-hand the devastating impact the addiction crisis has had on families, communities and the individuals themselves. Residents in my community want people to be held accountable for their actions, while at the same time to have compassion and get addiction and recovery help to those who need it.

My “end the revolving door” act is an opportunity for parliamentarians of every political stripe to come together to move forward with a common sense approach to improving our justice system and helping those struggling with addiction. No one piece of legislation can serve as the panacea for those who are repeatedly re-entering the criminal justice system who have mental health and/or addiction challenges.

This legislation offers an additional tool to help reduce recidivism, address our mental health and addiction crisis, and improve the public safety of our communities. Expanding the sentencing options available in our justice system and assisting those whose lives have been ravaged by addiction is the right thing to do. No one is served when repeat reoffenders are in a revolving door system where it is reported that more than 70% of those sentenced to federal penitentiaries have addiction issues.

We must ensure that the effort of curative treatment is focused and provided for those who have found themselves incarcerated and who want help to turn their lives around. A dedicated addiction treatment facility operating inside an existing Correctional Service of Canada facility would help support this work. Many who work around the criminal justice system have told me that this would put a stop to the revolving door for many.

I want to thank those who have supported this legislation, from the national level to my backyard, who think we should not waste one moment to move forward. The City of Kelowna mayor and council passed a motion unanimously supporting this legislation.

Lissa Dawn Smith, president of Métis Nation British Columbia, said that Métis Nation BC strongly supports the implementation of more effective addiction and mental health services within the federal penitentiary system through Bill C-283. It knows that Métis people are over-represented in the correctional system and that Justice Canada needs more tools in its tool kit to address the root causes of incarceration.

Tom Smithwick, founder of Freedom's Door, which is a vital organization dedicated to hope and healing for those suffering from addiction, including those recently released from incarceration, expressed how it makes sense to start a recovery process while incarcerated. He said, “The whole system would save money. The human need would be met. There totally is hope”.

It is in that spirit that I hope Parliament moves to advance this common sense legislation to the Standing Committee of Public Safety for further study. I hope that we will not waste this crucial opportunity that we have as elected representatives to help reduce recidivism, give hope and healing to those struggling with addiction, and end the revolving door.

Therefore, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, if a recorded division is requested today in regard to the second reading of Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (addiction treatment in penitentiaries), it shall be deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions later today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until later today at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity verification), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-289 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #270

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-224 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #271

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (addiction treatment in penitentiaries), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑283, under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #274

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion defeated.

The member for Laval—Les Îles on a point of order.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the vote on Bill S‑224, I had a technical problem that lasted a few minutes and resulted in a voting error.

I am requesting unanimous consent to allow me to change my vote to vote for the bill.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Does the member have unanimous consent to change his vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 80 minutes.