Debates of Sept. 15th, 2009

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in this House once again to speak to this issue.

We could have a philosophical debate. Our friends in the Liberal Party and Conservative Party use the mantra of free trade, fundamentally they say that as long as capital flows the world will be a better place, and as long as capital flows and there is no obligation of capital to have any regional, local, national obligations, that is okay. It is an ideological view. It is part of the whole theory of the magic wand, that if all the capital and wealth goes to very few people they will sprinkle pixie dust and all will suddenly become better.

As my colleague from Willowdale said, it is not about regulating anything, it is about encouraging them. This is the world view they have. It is a philosophical view. To me this invisible hand that the Conservatives believe in is the invisible hand that is in taxpayers' pockets taking money from the working people and giving it to people who have so much.

It is very much like G. K. Chesterton, if we look at this blind belief in capital without obligation. G. K. Chesterton said it is all about the horrible mysticism of money. If we look through this veil of mysticism to get to the facts, this issue on Colombia free trade becomes very disturbing.

I come from one of the largest mining regions in the world. Mining is international in scope. Many of my constituents have travelled the world on mining exploration crews and drilling crews. I know so many investors who work internationally because mining is international in nature.

One of the things we have come to realize is that it is not the issue of capital itself that should be the prime focus of the economy but how capital helps build a resource and helps build a regional economy. To do that certain rules must be in place.

Nobody ever encouraged the mine owners in my region to lower the silicosis deaths. Those immigrant men died by the thousands. Their wives were told that they should not even ask for compensation because they were an embarrassment to Canada for having had the nerve to come here and work in the mines, while their husbands died in their 30s and 40s. The only thing that changed the mining rules in Canada was people saying there had to be some rules and regulations. So that is what we are discussing.

What I have heard today from colleagues in the Liberal Party and Conservative Party is that we need to encourage the Colombians, that Canada cannot change Colombia, only Colombians can change Colombia, and that if we all somehow just allow capital to do its thing then the Colombians will all get better because they will have access to our McCain's french fries and we will have access to their massive copper deposits.

We have to put this in the context of reality. This is the crux of the problem today. We are dealing with a murderous regime. We have raised issues of people who have been murdered in the last week in Colombia, while the government has been flaunting this agreement. We have been told by the Conservative member and by the member for Willowdale, as well, backed up in the Liberal Party, “Hey, nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes.” Well, I yelled at my kids last week, but that is not the same as someone being dragged out of their workplace and shot for organizing a union just one week ago.

I think it is incumbent upon us in this House to ask what steps will we take to ensure that when capital is allowed to flow between Colombia and Canada and vice versa that certain obligations will have to be met.

My colleagues in the Liberal Party called the human rights record in Colombia “a challenge”. We are talking about thousands and thousands of people who have been murdered. These are not drunken murders on a Saturday night or drive-by killings. Some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party have said, “Hey, we have murders in Canada”. Certainly, we had murders after the Garden of Eden, Cain killed Abel. That is a different fact than the systemic and systematic targeting of people who are trying to organize their workplaces and who are being taken out and shot, murdered in front of their families. This year alone 27 people were murdered, all of them tied into the fact that they were working in unsafe working conditions and were trying to speak up.

My colleague from Leeds—Grenville, who I have a great amount of respect for, said one murder is too much. I certainly agree. It would be a lot easier for me and my colleagues to support an agreement with Colombia if we heard, after the first murder this year which happened on January 1, our government stand and say that one murder is too much. Our government should ask what steps will Colombia take to stop those murders. But we have not heard that from the Conservative government. We have heard there are great opportunities for our producers, and as long as we keep selling to them, somehow they will stop murdering.

My colleague from Willowdale said Canada cannot change Colombia, only Colombia can change Colombia. That is an absolutely disgraceful, pitiful response. The only thing that changed apartheid in South Africa was an international response that fought back. The Afrikaners did not change apartheid, it was the international community who said, contrary to the position of the Liberal Party today, that we should not regulate these things, that we should encourage them. Nobody is perfect was the line I heard from the Liberal Party.

Last year murders went up 18% in Colombia. Things were not getting better under the Conservative Party's negotiations. They continue to deteriorate because there is a murderous regime targeting people who are trying to improve their conditions. That is what this is about.

Many people in my riding will be more than happy to move, work in Colombia, Peru and many other countries because of their mining expertise, but I also know the extreme unwillingness of people to go into regions where they do not have the basic rule of law. That is what we are talking about. I would like to put this in context.

My colleague in the Conservative Party said we had to have a hemisphere free of terrorism. If we look at the history of terrorism in North America and the Americas, it is almost entirely based on the state terror that existed in countries like El Salvador and Guatemala where there were murderous regimes and death squads. I hear my colleagues in the House say that there are certainly challenges and many places where people are not nice to each other. They said the same thing when they took the Maryknoll nuns from the United States and had them raped and murdered. They said the same thing when they killed all the Jesuit priests in El Salvador. They said there are problems on all sides but we knew then that it was false. The problems were the result of the regime and the problems today are from a regime that is targeting, the same as in El Salvador, human rights activists.

I would like to pose the question that I posed earlier to the Conservative Party. Tique Adolfo was murdered on January 1 this year for trying to organize a union. That is the one that was too many for this year. What steps did the Conservative government take at any time to raise that as an issue? It should have raised this issue and said that to have a legitimate free trade agreement Colombia would have to do better. But no, on January 7, 16, 28, February 12, 15, and three times on March 24, all union members were killed by paramilitaries. The killings have gone on and on.

The Canadian government is telling us today that we are setting an example for the world by accepting the fact that these murders go on, but we are going to get access to Colombia's copper, oil and we are going to sell it farm machinery. There are four million displaced people in Colombia. There have been 3,000 people murdered. We are not talking about a country that has been at war, we are talking about a regime that has been at war with its people.

What steps will Parliament take to say that if there is going to be a trade agreement with Colombia, there are going to be strong principles, not side agreements, not platitudes about one being too many? When are the Conservatives going to speak out and publicly say to the Colombian government that we want to see action because we have not heard that in the House? We look to the United States where Congress is pushing back on the Colombia free trade agreements there as well because the Americans recognize there is no benefit of giving legitimacy to a regime like this until there are concrete steps being made to protect people whose only crime is speaking up for safe workplaces with proper wages.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest and some disbelief to the pathological words coming from the NDP members today who, in their description of Colombia and of the Uribe government, completely ignore the reality of what is happening in Colombia. The fact is that the murders, the attacks he describes, have been a product of the narco-economy, the FARC guerrillas fueled by drug money, the drug gangsters fueled by drug money, and the civil war fueled by drug money.

How on earth does providing legitimate economic opportunities and jobs in the real economy through legitimate trade, and helping the Colombian people wean themselves away from the narco-economy, in any way, shape or form risk human rights, labour rights and the environment?

We already have a commercial relationship with Colombia, yet it does not have a robust, rules-based structure around labour and the environment. This particular trade agreement has the most robust labour and environmental agreements of any trade agreement Canada has ever signed.

How does introducing a rules-based structure around labour rights make things worse? Why does the hon. member not just stand up and admit that the NDP is against every free trade agreement and sit back down?

Instead of that, the New Democrats are trying to hoist it so that it cannot go to committee. Are they afraid that at committee the truth will come out and people will actually learn that there are some strong advantages to free and open trade in a rules-based structure with countries like Colombia, as we help--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the hon. member there to give the member for Timmins--James Bay a chance to respond.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague coming mightily to the defence of the Conservative Party, as he has done so many times in the past.

Six days ago in Colombia, Eduar Carbonell Pena was murdered. He was not murdered by drug gangs. He was not murdered in an SUV drive-by. He was a teacher organizing a union. That is why he was killed.

The member is trying to foist onto the Canadian people that narco-gangs are interested in teachers who are organizing unions. That is a pitiful piece of fiction because a few days before another union organizer was murdered on August 22. Are the narcos after that workplace too? On August 21, Gustavo Gomez and Fredy Diaz were murdered. I am looking at names of people not murdered in drug cartel deals. I am looking at teachers. I am looking at people working in mines.

If the member wants to come here and cover up the fact that he and the Conservatives are signing agreements with absolutely no respect at all for the fundamental rights of workers to organize, that is a position he can take. As I said earlier, it is certainly a world view that certain people have, but he should at least admit that people are being murdered, as they were last week, and why.

I also wonder why it is that nobody from the Liberals or Conservatives has spoken out once when one of these union members was being taken out and murdered. We are being told that nobody is perfect. Now we are being told it is the narcos doing it. They have never spoken out and union members are being murdered.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and Conservatives have criticized the NDP, saying that we are against any free trade deal. The questions we are raising are these. What about this deal? What about the commitments, supposedly by the Liberals and the Conservatives, to the rights of workers and the environment being part of economic development? I do not see that in this agreement.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, trade is so important for Canadians, but legitimizing countries that are murdering union activists and teachers is not the business this Parliament should be involved.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as many of my hon. colleagues have reiterated over the course of this debate, trade and investment can help a nation like Colombia move through troubled times and create new opportunities for people, opportunities for them to thrive and prosper.

Colombia has made remarkable strides and showed great resilience toward bringing about an end to this conflict. Colombia has an established democracy, a growing economy, a responsible government, an active civil society and stable institutions.

Over the last six years, the personal security situation of the vast majority of Colombians has improved. Illegal armed groups have been weakened. This progress is acknowledged by the global community and international organizations that are present in Colombia.

The government of Colombia has also taken positive steps that demonstrate its continued effort to curb violence against trade unionists, fight impunity for the perpetrators of such crimes and promote security and peace within a framework of human rights protection and the rule of law.

Nevertheless the Government of Canada recognizes that challenges remain in Colombia and is supporting efforts in Colombia to strengthen peace, security and full respect for human rights.

Colombia continues to experience the effects of over 40 years of conflict and violence and it is all too often Colombian civilians suffer the most. Clearly, for all of Colombia's progress and ongoing effort, it is vital for Canada and other countries to pursue policies of engagement and support for peace in Colombia.

Canada has taken this call for international responsibility seriously. Our Americas strategy recognizes the need to pursue three priorities, which are prosperity, security, democracy and human rights, all vital issues that intersect in a very compelling way in Colombia.

Prosperity is of course an important aspect of this engagement. As many hon. members have rightly stated, trade creates opportunity and opportunity generates prosperity. Prosperity, when pursued with full respect for the rights of all members in society, offers incentives for individuals to move out of the networks of conflict and criminality and into the legitimate formal economy.

Prosperity, in short, can make its own contribution to the improvement of stability.

However, while a commitment to expanding economic opportunities is an essential ingredient on long term stability, prosperity alone will not bring an end to complex and long standing conflicts, such as Colombia's. For this reason, Canada aims not only to promote prosperity, but also to strengthen peace building efforts and respect for human rights. Canadians can be very proud of our steadfast role in assisting our Colombian partners along with path.

My esteemed colleague spoke yesterday about the important work being done by CIDA in this complex environment. The member from St. Boniface did that again this afternoon.

I would like today to make special mention of the contribution Canada is making through the Department of Foreign Affairs Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, which can be referred to as START, and the Global Peace and Security Fund, GPSF.

Since 2006, START has developed $14.5 million in conflict prevention and the pursuit of justice for conflict victims in Colombia. With a program of $5 million from the GPSF, this fiscal year alone START provides vital support for increased stability through conflict resolution activities, often in partnership with key democracy, rule of law and human rights related institutions.

Canadians can be rightfully proud of the range of work that has been carried out by START through the Global Peace and Security Fund.

For example, Canada is one of the largest donors for mine action in Colombia. From 2003 to 2008, working primarily through the Organization of American States and UNICEF, START has contributed more that $3.7 million for humanitarian demining, stockpile destruction, victim assistance, mine risk education and mine action coordination.

We are also one of the largest supporters of the Organization of American States' mission to support the peace process in Colombia. The OAS' mission is doing critical work on behalf of the international community to support peace and to monitor the demobilization process of over 30,000 former illegal paramilitary combatants in that country.

Canada's contribution goes far beyond disarming combatants and removing the destructive ordinance of war. We are also placing the rights of victims at the forefront of our peace-building efforts.

Canada was one of the first countries to step forward in support of Colombia's truth, justice and reconciliation process. We have developed new partnerships with Colombian, Canadian and other international civil society organizations to protect the rights of vulnerable groups, including women, indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians.

This year, for example, START is supporting Lawyers Without Borders Canada to provide international accompaniment and legal assistance to threatened Colombian human rights defenders. Lawyers Without Borders' work will help Colombian indigenous communities in conflict-affected areas to receive legal representation and pursue justice for past crimes through the Colombian legal system.

START is also providing over $1 million this fiscal year to provide legal representation for women victims of sexual violence as a result of the conflict. Canada's assistance is ensuring that hundreds of women are provided psychosocial support in dealing with crimes against them. Our work has enabled some of the first trials under Colombia's justice and peace law to seek justice for these sexual crimes.

Another new project, coordinated by the United Nations Development Program, is bringing together, for the first time, the Colombian government and the Colombian labour unions. Together, they will conduct a joint evaluation of violence against union leaders and organized union members and develop new ideas to improve the legislation for their protection.

Canada also continues to be an active member of the Group of 24, a group of countries which encourages and facilitates dialogue between the government of Colombia and international and national civil society organizations working in the country.

This year we are proud to take up the role of supporting the G24 secretariat to ensure this forum of frank discussion around conflict and human rights issues continues.

Clearly, protection and promotion of human rights and seeking a durable resolution to Colombia's conflict are at the very core of Canada's engagement in Colombia. Canada's pioneering support to the OAS' mission to support the peace process and to the justice and peace law has positioned us as a leader and trusted partner in Colombia, with government and civil society alike.

Canada can be rightly proud of the partnership we have developed with Colombia. It is a relationship that can be strengthened further for the benefit of both countries through this agreement under debate today.

For a country like Colombia, free trade can open up new avenues for success. By promoting economic development and opening up new doors to prosperity, free trade agreements like this can strengthen the social foundations of countries. This growth can help solidify efforts by the government of Colombia to create a more prosperous, equitable and secure democracy.

In other words, we believe that economic opportunity goes hand in hand with democracy, peace and security. We believe firmly that economic opportunities can reinforce these objectives. That is why we are committed to being a helpful and open partner for nations throughout the hemisphere, nations like Colombia.

Often over the years we have known that there has been a human trafficking issue in Colombia. With the free trade, where jobs are opened up and opportunities are produced, this helps all aspects of this kind of society.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo comments I heard earlier. I believe every member in the House is a proponent for human rights and that no right-thinking person advocates violence against any person because of one's political beliefs. I would like to make that point clear.

The question really is one of philosophy. The question is whether we as a country should be making trade deals with countries that have murderous records. The question should be this. Should we make countries demonstrate an improvement first before we sign economic trade pacts with them or should we sign trade pacts with them first when their murder rates of trade unionists has gone up 18% in the last year?

I want to talk a bit about philosophy because I have heard my colleagues in the Liberal Party talk about supporting free trade. I guess it depends what year that party is in. In 1988 the Liberal Party did not support free trade. In 1993 it promised to abrogate the NAFTA. Little did we know then but it did not keep its promise. It was opposed to free trade at that time but today we hear that it supports free trade.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to cut off the hon. member and ask him to wrap up his question.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are ahead of trade agreements at this point, should we make Colombia demonstrate improvement before we sign a free trade agreement with it?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, some of his comments I have to disagree with and perhaps ask my hon. colleague to double check some facts.

When we talk about murder rates, the homicide rates have dropped by 44% in Colombia and moderate poverty has fallen from 55% to 45%. Many very positive things are happening in Colombia now.

When we talk about this business with unions and free trade, a very poignant point is the new project coordinated by the United Nations development program. By bringing together, for the first time, the Colombian government and Colombian labour unions, a lot of good things will result from that.

When they conduct a joint evaluation of violence against union leaders and organized union members together and develop new ideas to provide legislation for their protection, we take a step in the right direction. This trade agreement is a step in the right direction for both countries.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the NDP ideological disdain for free trade, would the member for Kildonan—St. Paul agree that free trade creates economic opportunity for people right across the socio-economic spectrum and does that not improve chances for freedom, democracy and human dignity?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this is one of the major aspects about the free trade agreement. Building prosperity in a country does much to enhance the justice and the focus on the vision that individual Colombians can have for their lives.

We know right now there are issues in Colombia around ex-combatant children. It is estimated that 11,000 or more Colombian boys and girls have been participants in the army. We know people have been displaced. We know the exploitation forms of child work and HIV is a growing threat and human trafficking has been a threat. A free trade agreement is one more tool, or one more piece of the puzzle, that builds the prosperity in a country that will enable people to have a new vision for their lives.

A few minutes ago I talked about the homicide rates dropping by 44%. That is worth noting. As well, kidnappings have decreased by 87% between 2002 and 2008. These are some very good reasons why the free trade agreement is a real positive thing for Colombia.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with interest but also with great concern that I am rising today for the third time to address Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to mention again that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement, because a free trade agreement with Colombia raises very serious issues, particularly since that country has the worst performance in its hemisphere when it comes to human rights.

As with the agreement signed with Peru, the Conservative government presented Parliament with an agreement that had already been negotiated and reached with Colombia, before Parliament even had the opportunity to review it in depth. At the time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We visited Colombia and we met with a number of stakeholders from that country, including unions, social groups, businesspeople and government members. The committee was to submit a report to the government, along with recommendations on the situation in Colombia. However, the Conservative government signed an agreement before the report was even tabled. That is really a waste of public money. A delegation of committee members is sent to Colombia to review the situation and then the government signs an agreement without even taking into consideration the committee's recommendations. Once again, the Conservatives, who claim to know how to run this country's affairs, squandered the taxpayers' money.

It is important to remind hon. members that the free trade agreement with Colombia was announced on June 7, 2008, when the committee was carrying out its study, prior to submitting its report to the House.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade and I did make that trip to Colombia. We travelled through that country and we met with socio-economic stakeholders, union leaders, social groups and members of the government. We were shocked and appalled by the scope of the tragedy created by population displacements. Mining companies and agribusinesses have displaced some 250,000 persons and these people are currently parked on an area of about 50 square kilometres. The government does not care. These people are given bread and a bit of water, and some measures are quietly being taken to support them, so that they do not die.

I did not hear anything on that from government members. What is going to happen to the 250,000 people who were displaced? That issue is not raised in the House. We know that there is a trade agreement, supposedly to promote free trade with Colombia. It is not a trade agreement that we are talking about in this House, but an agreement that helps protect the investments of some Canadian businesses in that country. Indeed, the agreement as such talks a bit about the trading of grain from western Canada, but in the end it has a lot more to do with Canadian mining companies in Colombia.

We know very well that these companies have supported the displacement of communities and have no respect for environmental standards. In the previous session, I was distressed as well to see a Liberal member moving a motion to encourage companies to be socially responsible in the course of their activities.

I note in this House that while we are voting and the Liberals are moving this sort of motion on social responsibility for companies, they are voting in favour of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It is shameful to see that over 300,000 persons were relocated in 2007-08 and that over 380,000 persons have had to flee their homes or workplaces because of violence.

To close this debate, we reported today the number of assassinations of trade unionists in the past two years. We have here a long list, which includes the assassination of Rafael Antonio Sepúlveda Lara on August 20—just recently.

Since the agreement was signed, union members in Colombia, people who want to protect their rights and interests, continue to be assassinated. The human rights of these people are not respected. I am convinced that the signing of a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia will in no way reduce the number of union members assassinated. This is not what is needed. An agreement in this House will not ensure a better fate for the 300,000 people who have been displaced by mining companies and agrifood businesses. It will not.

It will simply benefit certain mining companies by offering better protection of their investments. Some people in this country may become rich as a result. Thirty members of the current government in the Congress are facing court proceedings for associating with Colombian paramilitaries. Increased revenues for the state does not mean the government will help the most disadvantaged or ensure better conditions and quality of life for the victims of violence in the society.

This government will not see to it that the 250,000 or 300,000 persons who have been displaced and are dying of hunger in shantytowns will have a better life. It will not. I am convinced this agreement will not resolve this situation.

How will we help Colombians? The government talks of humanitarian aid here, of support for this country to help it build a fairer democracy and a fairer and more just society.

It talks too about fairer trade. It is intervening to bring this debate to a close. It is intervening in various countries. It talks about Afghanistan. It says it is intervening in these countries in order to support and defend women's rights. We know that this hides other things, but the peacekeepers intervene. I wonder if this is not what is needed in Colombia given all the assassinations and the number of people displaced.

I reiterate that, for all these reasons and many others, this is not a trade agreement but an agreement to protect the investments of businesses. We in the Bloc will oppose this agreement, which in no way meets the needs of the people of Colombia and even less the needs of the people of Quebec and Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-268. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Motion in Amendment

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

moved:

That Bill C-268 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, this bill clearly sets out at the beginning that it would establish minimum sentences, but it also says that it would establish minimum sentences for trafficking of children. The first thing to note when reading this bill is that there is no mention of trafficking of children in the proposed wording. There is no mention of sexual acts, except as an aggravating factor in one case.

Clause 2 states:

Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person..., or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence—

The important element in this definition is the intent: “for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation”. The word “or” is interspersed throughout the rest of the text. That means the offence can be committed in a number of ways. It can be committed by transporting, recruiting, transferring or receiving. However, the intent to exploit must always be present.

What is exploitation? I think we would all agree that exploitation is a very vague term that could cover a variety of criminal behaviours. That is probably true even if we are in favour of introducing more and more minimum sentences in our laws, as the United States has done. But even if we are in favour of minimum sentences, they must nevertheless apply to a specific offence and not to an offence that requires an assessment of the type of exploitation involved. What was the extent of the exploitation? What were the consequences for the victim? Over what period of time did the exploitation take place? Was it economic or for another purpose? What was the context? Was it in a family context? In some countries, families make the beautiful carpets that we will later purchase. But the details that we as tourists admire when we purchase the carpets are supplied by the eyes and the small fingers of the children.

A judge must determine the seriousness of the exploitation. We must not set a minimum of five years. Judicial discretion must not be completely eliminated.

While exploitation is not defined in the proposed clause, the clause is placed in a certain order in the Criminal Code. It does not appear just anywhere, but at 279.011, which is between 279.01 and 279.03 because of the way numbering works with decimals. It is not necessarily an obvious system, by the way. Most people would think that .011 comes after .04. But that is not how it works with decimals.

Section 279.04 of the Criminal Code says that:

For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03 [including 279.011], a person exploits another person if they

(a) 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;

I just want to mention something important here, which is that there has to be some form of intimidation for exploitation to exist. Once again, the definition is very broad, and it focuses on economic exploitation, not necessarily of a sexual nature. I agree that if young women are kidnapped and forced into prostitution, that is a form of exploitation. I recognize the expression “sexual services”, which the member for Ahuntsic dislikes. At first glance, the definition is very broad indeed, and that is what many members thought. It covers all kinds of exploitation.

I am not saying that I am against all minimums. I think that there should be minimums for first- or second-degree murder. At the other end of the spectrum, I agree with minimums for impaired driving, particularly for reoffenders, where the individual should be informed of the possibility of a minimum sentence for a second offence. But I think that everyone will agree there is no place for minimums in cases where the judge has to assess completely unique situations.

I read the arguments of the member who is proposing this measure. It is clear that she is appalled by some sentences that are handed down. I do not believe that any of these sentences have been appealed. There are still shocking sentences among the tens of thousands of sentences handed down in Canada every day. Some are perhaps unjustified, but there is recourse through the appeal process. Before we change a law to make it stricter, we must first go through this process and see what happens in the courts of appeal.

The terrible thing about applying a minimum is that it is very often based on emotions. It is very honourable that the member cares about this cause, and I do not fault her for that. However, it is clear that her proposal is based on emotions. When this happens, a person is scandalized by a sentence that seems too light in a serious case. So they say that these serious cases should carry certain sentences. I think that in most cases, the member believes that the minimums would be justified.

Rationally, a minimum should not be set for the worst cases. A minimum should apply to the least serious cases. We need to give the judges some latitude. The least serious cases should carry a minimum sentence, and the most serious cases should carry a maximum.

We were harshly criticized for the position we took. Look at the section we had to examine. After giving such a broad definition of the offence, section 279.01 states:

(a) to imprisonment for life if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence; or

(b) to imprisonment for not more than fourteen years and not less than five years in any other case.

That is what we voted on.

Clause a) has been changed in the meantime, but what was remarkable about it was that there was a minimum sentence for the least serious offences but that there was no minimum for offences accompanied by aggravated assault, sexual assault or injury causing death.

To avoid a minimum sentence, an offender had to add something to the commission of the crime. Offenders are apparently concerned about and familiar with minimum sentences. That was the bill that was introduced. I think everyone knows it did not make any sense. In any case, it has been corrected. How was it corrected? They added another year, as if no one had ever thought of it.

This shows that the bill was hastily written and not even reread by the people introducing it or that this issue is so emotional for them that they could not even think straight. Their emotion led them to want to ensure that the worst cases would be subject to a minimum sentence but they forgot that less serious cases would be punished in the same way. That is what is wrong with minimum sentences.

There is another reason. I will give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that people in her entourage—we saw what some of her colleagues did in Quebec—wanted to have minimum sentences not because they thought it would reduce the crime rate but because it is popular and would bring them votes. I am perfectly aware of that.

It takes more courage to require rigour and precision in the drafting of legislation than it does to let ourselves be swept away by feelings that are largely shared by the public. How did they defend their bill? By absolutely frightful photographs of a poor little girl being abducted by an old man who wanted to exploit her. They said the Bloc was voting against protecting children.

Read this bill and show it to someone who is impartial and objective. Ask what it covers. Maybe he will say it includes the trafficking of children, but it also covers a lot of other things. Exploitation is defined in the act, two clauses further along. It is defined as causing someone to provide or offer to provide labour or a service by conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause fear.

Most people would need to have it explained to them that the hon. member wanted to say trafficking in children.

What the House needs to understand about the argument presented to us is that the bill the hon. member has tabled covers not only trafficking in children and sexual exploitation but at lot more as well. It is because of this “a lot more” that it should be voted down.

I would like to remind the House in conclusion of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Oaks case where it referred to the criteria that should apply before our liberties could be infringed upon. It said that our laws must be drafted with care.

Is it really possible to say that this bill was drafted in such a way that it targets solely what was intended? I think the answer is clear. Rather than taking a gun to fire—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kildonan--St. Paul.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions.

I heard today that my bill makes no sense and that it was just drafted arbitrarily. I am wondering how the top lawyers in the country feel after listening to the hon. member, such as Professor Benjamin Perrin who was last month cited as Canada's hero for his work in human trafficking. He teaches, has worked at the Supreme Court and has worked in this Parliament. He is now a professor at the UBC Faculty of Law. He was one of the lawyers who helped me draft this bill.

I believe the real motivation behind the speeches today from members across is the fact that they have no intention of protecting children, the innocent victims of child traffickers. They have no intention of standing up for children in Quebec and all across Canada to protect them from these perpetrators.

Do I not have a right as a parliamentarian to be emotional about traffickers who want to sexually exploit young children? Is that not what we should be passionate about in this Parliament of Canada?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There may have been some confusion. There are no questions and comments in this. The hon. member has a little less than eight minutes remaining in her ten minute speech.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That is good, Mr. Speaker. I have spent two minutes asking a question of members across and I think it was a good question. Now I will continue to speak at report stage to my private member's bill, Bill C-268.

First I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Abbotsford who kindly agreed to exchange spots in the order of precedence. The member has been a strong advocate of protecting our most vulnerable citizens.

I would like to make it clear that the bill was not introduced to address or solve the complex and clandestine nature of human trafficking. I want to assure members that I certainly believe that Canada can and must do more to combat the trafficking of humans within our borders and abroad.

Since being elected, I have championed a national strategy to combat trafficking in persons. I thoroughly agree that there are many root causes of human trafficking that must be addressed and resolved.

I believe that a legal system that routinely criminalizes victims of trafficking must be changed to restore dignity to the victims. The same legal system that ignores the men and women who provide the demand must also be addressed.

I can go on with many more initiatives, but that is a debate for another day.

This evening we are debating a motion by the Bloc Québécois to gut the heart of Bill C-268, to remove the mandatory minimums that form the intent and scope of the bill.

Bill C-268 was drafted with one clear intention: to create a separate offence for the traffickers of children in Canada and to ensure that the penalties reflect the gravity of the crime. This followed considerable consultation with victims, NGOs, and law enforcement representatives.

The bill would also bring parity between Canada's legislation and that of many other countries.

Dr. Mohamed Mattar, executive director of the protection project at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, points out that many states have specific provisions in their anti-trafficking legislation or criminal codes guaranteeing enhanced penalties in cases of trafficking in persons, including a crime committed against a child victim.

The United States, for example, has a minimum sentence of 15 years for trafficking cases where the victim is under 14 years of age, and a minimum sentence of 10 years where the victim is between 14 and 18 years of age.

The current legislation in the Canadian Criminal Code does not distinguish between age and offers a penalty between 0 and 14 years in most cases, and up to life in other cases. The suggestion that those who traffic minors could face no time in jail is not speculative.

The limited convictions in Canada for the trafficking of minors have more often than not resulted in sentences that are grossly disproportioned to the offence.

Last year, Montreal resident Michael Lennox Mark received a two-year sentence, but with double credit for the year served before his trial, the man who horrifically victimized a 17-year-old Montreal girl over two years walked out of jail a few days after being convicted.

I have spoken previously of Imani Nakpangi, who received a sentence of three years for the offence of trafficking a 15-year-old Ontario girl. After selling her body over and over each day for two years, raking in profits of at least $360,000, Imani Nakpangi was credited 13 months for time served.

There are few other injustices that can compare in severity to the utter devastation caused by the enslavement and auctioning of a human being, especially when this is a child. I am certain that no honourable members would dare contest this statement, yet there are members in the House from the Bloc Québécois who proudly oppose the bill, claiming it is a bad law.

Let us be clear about one thing: the opposition of the Bloc Québécois to mandatory minimums for the trafficking of minors is not only reprehensible, it is unacceptable in our country. To openly oppose serious penalties for those who sell and abuse the bodies of minors does not just suggest approval for this horrific abuse of human rights, it virtually endorses this grave form of exploitation.

Over the summer, the Bloc Québécois member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin first suggested that Bill C-268 is a bad law because it has no minimum sentence for aggravated factors. This concern was addressed at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and a minimum sentence was added for aggravated factors.

Then the Bloc Québécois member went on to argue that it was a bad law because it contained mandatory minimums.

In fact, during the second hour of debate on Bill C-268 on April 1, 2009, the Bloc member for Hochelaga stated that parliamentarians will acknowledge that the Bloc Québécois' positions are consistent, that they have never been comfortable with mandatory minimum sentences. Yet, in 2005, Bloc MPs supported and even moved amendments containing mandatory minimums for the sexual exploitation of children. So what has happened since 2005? I implore Bloc members to be consistent today and support mandatory minimums for the trafficking of minors.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois argued that the bill is a bad law because it would result in scenarios where employers would receive a minimum sentence of five years for not providing proper wages to teenagers. This is an absurd suggestion. No prosecutor would bring human trafficking charges against an individual who commits labour infractions by underpaying a teenager.

The bill has nothing to do with labour laws. The Bloc is attempting to take the focus off the abuse and sexual exploitation of women and children by attempting to make the bill something it is not. For an elected representative of Canadians, this is completely irresponsible.

Maybe the Bloc does not believe this type of exploitation occurs in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois seems to think the worst form of exploitation occurring in Quebec is paying young people wages that are below the legal minimum. I have news for them. Canadian girls and boys from across our country are being sold for sexual exploitation and forced labour. This harsh reality exists even in Quebec, regardless of whether the Bloc acknowledges it or not.

With one exception, that is the hon. member for Ahuntsic, who courageously stood alone in support of this bill, the Bloc Québécois is the sole entity in Canada that has voiced opposition to mandatory minimums for child traffickers. The Bloc Québécois has chosen to stand against legislation that upholds Canada's commitments to the UN optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography.

Our children are not for sale. The price of inaction will cause us to have a lost generation. With this amendment, the Bloc Québécois has forfeited an opportunity to stand up for the victims of this modern-day slavery. Instead of fighting for the rights of children, it fights for the rights of the traffickers.

Years ago, a member of the British Parliament, William Wilberforce, a great abolitionist and personal hero of mine, was known for his eloquent speeches in the British House of Commons. In one of his speeches on the abolition of slavery he captured the essence of what motivates me to combat this modern-day slavery. He said:

Never, never will we desist till we have...extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonour to this country.

History will remember those who fought against this evil trade and it will certainly not forget those who are complacent when faced with it.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. After the last speech I thought we were going into questions and answers, because I had just finished the last debate. I was so taken by the absurd comments made across the way that I did ask that question.

I can assure members opposite that the top lawyers in this country worked on that bill. As one can see from my website at www.joysmith.ca, there is support from hundreds of law enforcement agencies, a letter from the chief of police of the Toronto region of Peel, and a lot of support from people all across this country.

I believe the Bloc Québécois is ignoring what Canadians want. They want to obliterate traffickers from Canadian soil.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this debate on Bill C-268. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I attended the meetings concerning this bill.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul for the efforts she has dedicated to this bill. I know she cares deeply about this issue and I would like to congratulate her.

It is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-268 and to perhaps, at the risk of lowering the temperature just a bit as fall approaches, outline what the bill does. Under a Liberal government in 2005, my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River was part of a team that brought in the first law with respect to trafficking.

That is found in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code. It makes it an offence for a person to recruit, transport, transfer, receive, hold, conceal, harbour a person or exercise control, direction or influence over the movement of people for exploitation purposes, which is defined further in the code.

Exploitation, which the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin properly sets out in this debate, is at the heart of what this law is all about. I think we all think we know what exploitation means, but in the end, exploitation is forcing people to do something they do not want to do that is usually for money or of some benefit to the person exploiting the victims and is done, and this is the key part as defined in section 279.04, in circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause the victims to believe their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to do what was asked of them.

That is what exploitation is as defined in the Criminal Code and that is what carries over with this new offence. In other words, the new offence is like a branch placed on the tree of the good Liberal law with respect to trafficking, which specifically says that the same offence, when it is carried out against a person under 18 years of age, is meriting stronger sentencing. That is all this law does. The law says that trafficking is bad, that exploitation, which is the basis of how trafficking occurs, shall be punished. This is already in the code.

However, when it is with a child, our most sacred assets in this community, as every member of Parliament would agree, the sentences will be stronger. As the bill says, the sentences will be a minimum of six years in the presence of evidence of aggravated assault, kidnapping, sexual assault and attempts to cause death during the offence. That means the convicted person will get six years minimum. In any other case, there will be a five-year minimum.

I have the utmost respect for the member of the Bloc and his legal prescience to any debate carried on in the House. He is a former solicitor general of his province and he is the spokesperson in this debate. However, what I really think he is saying is that the Bloc is generally against mandatory minimum sentences and that it does not like this law.

I respect that if that is what Bloc members believe. However, they are coming out at report stage with a motion that says that nowhere in this law as presented is a mention of young people. We have just gone through the fact that people are very much identified by age in the laws proposed. It is there twice. I do not know what is not so obvious about it.

The second thing is to say that exploitation is so nebulous, that it is so difficult to determine what exploitation means and that therefore the harsh sentences of five and six years are out of proportion. I know what he is leading to, that the Supreme Court of Canada or a court in our country may someday read these debates and ask if we turned our minds to the issue of proportionality. The sentence is severe, so is the crime well defined? That is really what the debate on this law is about.

I and the other members on the Liberal side think the crime and section are well defined. We know what it means when a person traffics in children by exploitation. When that occurs, we know that five and six years respectively are adequate and proportionate sentences. As parliamentarians and members of the committee, we have turned our minds to that eventuality. For the member from the Bloc to say that exploitation cannot be properly defined in this instance belies the fact that there have been convictions already under the underlying section passed in 2005.

If he had evidence that the courts brought up the issue of the weakness of the definition of exploitation in section 279.04, he should have brought it forward, because I have seen nothing where judges have complained about the definition of exploitation.

The Liberal Party has always been against human trafficking, especially when it involves children. My colleague Raymond Simard from Saint Boniface gave me a letter from the Missionary Oblate Sisters of St. Boniface. I would like to read the letter, which expresses support for this bill:

We, the Missionary Oblate Sisters of St. Boniface, are committed to fighting the terrible scourge of trafficking in women and children. We wish to condemn anything having to do with human trafficking throughout the world, especially in Canada and right here in Manitoba.

That letter was signed by Sister Cécile Fortier.

Again, there is a letter in support from the Catholic Women's League. The Canadian Religious Conference president, Father Yvon Pomerleau, in February of this year said:

In the global context where systems of oppression threaten the sacredness of all forms of life on our planet, the CRC believes it is imperative that we call on the Canadian government to adopt Bill C-268 in order to actively fight against human trafficking in Canada.

We support that. We want to do what is right. But what is really our job here is to make sure that the law as passed stands up to debate, scrutiny and criticism and is a law that will be used by our courts.

With that in mind, I, too, read the words of Professor Benjamin Perrin of the University of British Columbia law school. He certainly made the case on mandatory minimums. We on the Liberal side have nothing to be ashamed of with respect to mandatory minimums. I was not here, but they were brought in by Liberal governments. Mandatory minimums have been appropriate in certain circumstances. There has been great debate as to the implication, the ongoing onslaught of mandatory minimums everywhere, in the ceiling, in the hall, in the closets of the Conservative legislative agenda, but in this case, it is appropriate. In other cases it has been appropriate.

The lack of convictions thus far with respect to the trafficking offences promulgated in 2005, five convictions under section 279.01 and trafficking convictions up to the spring of 2009, being eight in number, suggest to me that this might have been an area of law that merits a mandatory minimum and a road map to prosecutors and judges to be harsh in these instances of crime.

Certainly my friend from Kildonan—St. Paul has made it very clear the egregious case of Imani Nakpangi making over $360,000 in a two and a half year period by selling the girl notionally called Eve and selling her services is absolutely horrible.

It is appalling.

In closing, we here on this side of the House support Bill C-268.

I think in our remarks and the hard work done by members of the justice committee on this side and the critic, the member for Beauséjour, we have done the due diligence to make sure that the law stands up.

It is one thing to propose a law and it is one thing to get a lot of press for a law, but it is a much better thing as parliamentarians to work together to make sure it stands up, is legal and will stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by saying that a great deal of what we just heard from the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe is the same position I will be taking. I endorse a good deal of his comments.

I want to raise some cautions. I want to take this opportunity to attack the government. I know that comes as a real surprise, if not a shock, to my colleagues on the other side of the House. Before I attack the government, I want to praise the work that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has done on this subject, oftentimes with a great deal of frustration with her own government. She does not express that but I certainly have a sentiment that she feels it quite substantially from time to time.

It is important to know that the motion brought by the Bloc is really an attempt to gut this bill. I do not think there is any other way of addressing it. It does not go to the essence of what the debate is about, but it is the Bloc's attempt to gut the bill.

The attack on the government really takes two parts. One is it has clearly abandoned its responsibility of dealing with the problem of human trafficking. We heard evidence in committee that even though the law was passed in 2005 specifically dealing with human trafficking by the previous Liberal government, since that time we have had, and this is an approximation, only about a dozen charges under the law.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Less.