Arif Virani

[Criminal Code, November 28th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will take issue with pretty much all of what the member just articulated in this chamber. In terms of the position of Aboriginal Legal Services, what it did at committee was laud our initiative in respect of the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Specifically, Jonathan Rudin gave testimony at that committee about the elimination of peremptory challenges and what that will mean to avoid the situation such as the trial of Gerald Stanley, which had a homogenous all-white jury rendering a verdict with respect to an indigenous accused. That is specifically the kind of change needed to address concerns that the member opposite and I share with respect to the overrepresentation of individuals.

With respect to intimate partner violence, there was clearly a discussion about it at committee. There was discussion about the important steps we are taking to address intimate partner violence, and about expanding the definition so dating partners and former dating partners are included in the analysis so adjudicators and actors within the criminal justice system could take more seriously domestic violence and address this serious scourge on our system.

With respect to what we are doing with the broader system delays, we are acting on multiple fronts. We have a role to play, as do the provinces and territories. I note for the member's edification the contribution we made just yesterday to Pro Bono Ontario, a system that was gutted by the current provincial government in Ontario. We are shoring it up with $250,000 of new funding to reduce the number of self-represented litigants in our courts, which contributes to the delays that we would seek to address and I am sure the member opposite would seek to address as well.

[Criminal Code, November 28th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the record of action is actually quite clear, and it is what I outlined in my opening statements. The actual record of the government is tremendous in respect to appointing judges. Was there a delay at the start of our mandate? Absolutely there was. Why was there a delay? It was because we took under our wing and under our mandate reforming the system of judicial appointments to make it inclusive of people's lived experience, to make it inclusive of merit that was hitherto ignored by the previous government. What has resulted is a diverse judiciary that actually reflects the community that it adjudicates.

The previous government's record was 30% appointment of women. We have appointed 56% women. We have appointed 3.1% indigenous individuals, 12% persons who are visible minorities, 6% who are LBGTQ and 30% who are bilingual. That point needs to be underscored in terms of the threats that Conservative governments at a different level are putting on bilingualism in this country.

That is a record that we will stand by and we will defend, and it applies across this country including in Alberta, the area that the member represents.

[Criminal Code, November 28th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my opening comments here in this chamber, the issue of mandatory minimums is a pressing one. It is an issue that the minister is seized of. It is one that she is committed to working on.

We believe fundamentally in empowering judges to exercise their discretion to apply the most appropriate penalty given the context of a particular case. We also believe fundamentally in reform that will stand the test of time, not a piecemeal reform that would be challenged continuously in the courts. There are mandatory minimums that have been upheld by the Supreme Court and there are mandatory minimums that have been defeated and not upheld by the Supreme Court.

What we are doing is a comprehensive study and analysis of the issue so we can put forward to this House and for all Canadians a suite of proposals that would address the problem writ large in a comprehensive, sensible and evidence-based way. That would address the problem that the member opposite has rightly identified as was raised in committee and in this House, and is a problem that the minister is seized of.

[Criminal Code, November 28th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition critic for his contribution in today's debate, but also extensively at the justice committee. I also want to highlight the tragedy that occurred with respect to Constable Wynn. I know it affected the member's community in particular. The member has been vocal about it, as he should be in advocating for his constituents here in this chamber.

With respect to the administration of justice offences, the concept of a judicial referral hearing was well-thought-out and well planned. It was meant to address a specific problem in the system, which is the overrepresentation of marginalized communities within the criminal justice system. I am speaking about indigenous persons, racialized persons, marginalized persons, people suffering under addictions, etc. What we have found is those persons have been suffering and overly criminalized within the system because of breaches of what we call administration of justice offences. Therefore, a breach of a bail condition or a breach of a curfew results in a further criminal charge and a further criminal record, perpetuating the cycle of criminalization of these individuals.

It was in an effort to reduce that cycle, and to move such people from the system and address the court delays that the member opposite has discussed extensively in this House, that we made the amendments. The amendments are there for a purpose. We are confident that we are on the right path to addressing that overrepresentation problem by amending this legislation in that manner.

[Criminal Code, November 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments thereto.

This legislation represents a key milestone on our government's commitment to modernizing the criminal justice system, reducing delays and ensuring the safety of all Canadians. Delays in the criminal justice system affect public safety, undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, adversely impact the rights of accused persons and fails to provide Canadians good value for money.

When proceedings are stayed due to delays, the criminal justice system itself fails. Perpetrators are not held responsible for their actions, the innocent are not given the opportunity to truly clear their name and victims suffer.

Uses of delay in the criminal justice is not a new one. In the early 1990s, tens of thousands of cases were stayed due to delay following the Supreme Court of Canada's historic decision in the Crown and Askov.

As we know, the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Jordan and Cody set out a new legal framework for assessing delays. That framework included a transition period in assessing the cases for which charges had been laid prior to the release of the decision.

Given that this period will come to an end next summer, we have no time to lose. We must do everything we can to improve the efficiency of our criminal justice system.

Fortunately, we have many helpful studies and reports including the in-depth study of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Its July 2017 report is entitled “Delaying Justice is Denying Justice”. After hearing from a sum total of 138 witnesses, the standing committee concluded that the causes of delays were wide and varied. It issued a call to the legal community, including judges and federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice and attorneys general to “take decisive and immediate steps to address the causes of delays and to modernize our justice system.” It also called in the Minister of Justice to show leadership “in taking the necessary reformative action”.

I know the minister feels extremely privileged to have been entrusted with the responsibility to address this urgent issue, which also forms part of the mandate letter given to her by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice has taken several significant steps to improve the criminal justice system. In total, she has made now 240 judicial appointments and elevations to superior courts right across the country. In 2017 alone, the minister made 100 appointments, more than any other minister of justice in the last two decades. This year she is on pace to meet or exceed that number.

At the same time, the last two budgets presented by our government have allocated funding for an unprecedented number of new judicial positions, which are necessary to allow courts to respond to growing caseloads, including criminal matters. In all, our government has seen the creation of 75 new judicial positions over the past two years.

In fact, earlier this year, chief justices in Alberta and Quebec noted that for the first time in a long time, they were starting to notice positive trends in terms of delays. That is a very encouraging sign. The significant efforts made by judges, courts, governments and other actors in the justice system are paying off.

I will use the rest of the time that I have today to address our government's legislative response to criminal justice system delays.

I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their thorough study of the bill.

The committee heard from 95 witnesses and examined a significant number of documents on a highly complex subject. There were 58 briefs submitted by various stakeholders, including representatives of police forces, Crown attorneys, defence attorneys, legal aid programs, victims' rights advocates, representatives of indigenous groups, and academics.

The discussion on the admission of routine police evidence by affidavit was particularly important, and our government was listening.

Although our intentions were commendable, we admit that our approach, as proposed, could have had unintended consequences, especially for unrepresented accused persons.

The committee gave that concern due consideration, and we accepted its amendment in that regard.

The reforms in this bill were also generally well received by all sides. There were some concerns heard regarding the provision, the proposed reverse onus, in the context of intimate partner violence due to operational issues that some had experienced with what is known as dual charging; that is where both perpetrators and victims are charged after a victim has had to use physical force to defend herself.

Supporting survivors of domestic violence and ensuring that more perpetrators are brought to justice was part of our platform in 2015, and the reverse onus provisions, which do just that, were maintained in the bill after the committee study.

We know, including most recently, from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Antic that the problem is not the law itself but in how it has been applied. It is important to note that provinces and territories have developed policies and training in this area. We have a solid legal framework, yet a disproportionate number of indigenous and vulnerable and marginalized accused are being denied bail. Those who are being released are being required to follow too many onerous conditions, with a strong reliance on sureties in a number of jurisdictions.

The proposed new process contained in Bill C-75 talks about judicial referral hearings, which will provide an off ramp for administration of justice offences that do not actually cause harm to a victim. This proposal has been supported enthusiastically, both by residents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park and by Canadians right across the country, who are concerned about the disproportionate overrepresentation of indigenous and racialized persons in our criminal justice system.

What we have advanced is a shining example of exactly what the Supreme Court of Canada and the Senate committee report were imploring when calling for “a cultural shift among justice system participants that moves them away from complacency and towards efficiency, cooperation and fairness.”

My colleagues will also recall that Bill C-75 includes two proposals in relation to preliminary inquiries. First, the bill proposes to restrict preliminary inquiries for adults accused to offences punishable by life imprisonment, for example, murder or kidnapping. Second, it will permit the judge presiding over the preliminary inquiry to limit the issues to be explored and the number of witnesses to be heard at the preliminary inquiry.

The approach in Bill C-75 with respect to preliminary inquiries reflects the extensive consideration and consultation on various options throughout the years and the best evidence available, and ultimately proposes a balanced approach between various interests at stake. It also proposes an approach that was endorsed and supported by the provincial and territorial ministers of justice during the extensive consultations undertaken by the minister with her provincial and territorial counterparts.

One topic that was a particular focus for the committee was the reclassification of offences. Reclassification will result in amendments to many provisions in the code, both for the purposes of hybridizing existing indictable offences that carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 10 years or less, and to create uniform maximum penalty of imprisonment on summary conviction of two years less a day.

The reclassification amendments were supported by the minister's provincial and territorial counterparts, who felt strongly that these amendments would give prosecutors much-needed flexibility based on the gravity of cases before them.

Notably, the reclassification amendments are procedural. They change how conduct that is not deserving of an indictable sentence range can be treated. It is already a well-known feature of our criminal justice system that prosecutors assess the facts of the case and the circumstances of the offender to determine which type of sentence to seek from the court.

Importantly, nothing in the bill proposes to lower the sentences that would be awarded under the law. These reforms would not change the fundamental principles of sentencing. We value the variety of perspectives and knowledge that the many witnesses contributed to the Standing Committee on Justice's study.

Bill C-75's proposed reclassification of indictable offences, punishable by maximum of 10 years imprisonment or less, does not treat these offences any less seriously for sentencing purposes.

Nonetheless, this is an important point. The justice committee heard compelling testimony from witnesses on the terrorism and advocating genocide offences. Our government recognizes that these are crimes against the state, against society at large for the purpose of advancing a political objective, in the case of terrorism. In the case of advocating genocide, these are crimes not just against society at large but crimes against humanity.

I say that with some experience in the area, as a former prosecutor at the UN war crimes tribunal for Rwanda. I know first-hand that there is no more reprehensible crime known to law then genocide, which is advocating for the destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

The standing committee unanimously recommended that these offences be carved out of the reclassification approach in Bill C-75. We thank the committee for its diligent work in this area, and agree wholeheartedly with this amendment.

On that note, we moved consequential government amendments to remedy an unintended error from one of these committee amendments in order to reflect the committee's objective of removing these offences from the list of those that were being reclassified.

We also welcomed the committee's amendments to section 802.1 of the Criminal Code to allow the provinces and territories to set criteria permitting agents, that is non-lawyers, such as law students, articling students and paralegals, to appear on summary conviction offences punishable by more than six months imprisonment and to allow agents to appear on any summary conviction offence for the purpose of an adjournment.

One of the unintended consequences of the proposal to reclassify offences in the Criminal Code is that agents would not have been able to appear for individuals on most summary conviction offences unless authorized by the provinces and territories. The justice committee helpfully amended section 802.1 of the Criminal Code to enable provinces and territories to establish criteria for agent representation on summary conviction offences with a maximum penalty of greater than six months imprisonment in addition to the current authority to create programs for this purpose as well as to allow agents to appear on any summary conviction offences for adjournments.

This amendment would address concerns over access to justice issues. It would maintain jurisdictional flexibility while also recognizing regional diversity in how legal representation is regulated across Canada.

On this point, I would underscore that access to justice informs not only the core aspect of the bill, but in all of the efforts we are undertaking at the justice ministry and the efforts made by the minister. The minister has brought this issue to the attention of her provincial and territorial counterparts so they will take the requisite prompt legislative action to set the necessary criteria for this important matter relating to access to justice.

I would also like to talk about the jury reforms proposed in Bill C-75. These changes will make major improvements to our jury selection process by abolishing peremptory challenges for Crown and defence attorneys, allowing judges to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, modernizing challenges for cause, empowering judges to decide challenges for cause, and allowing trials to continue with the consent of the parties in the event that the number of jurors is reduced below 10, in order to avoid mistrials.

The under-representation of indigenous peoples and visible minorities on juries is a major concern. This problem has been well-documented for years. We believe that eliminating peremptory challenges will significantly improve the diversity of juries.

Peremptory challenges give both the accused and the Crown the power to exclude potential jurors without having to provide a reason. They have no place in our courtrooms, given the potential for abuse. Once this bill has passed, Canada will join countries like England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which abolished peremptory challenges in 1988.

We must remember that provincial and territorial laws and processes play an important role in determining candidates for jury duty and the methods used to compile jury lists.

The federal government is just one piece of the puzzle. However, I am pleased to see that federal, provincial and territorial government representatives are working together on a wide range of jury-related issues in order to make further recommendations on how to improve Canada's jury system. I believe that the questions raised during the committee's study of Bill C-75 will help with these deliberations.

I was also pleased to see that the committee was generally in favour of the more technical proposals aimed at reducing delays and improving efficiency in our system, in particular with respect to removing the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of out-of-province warrants, clarifying the signing authority of clerks of the court, and facilitating remote appearances.

As well, I wish to highlight the committee's unanimous support of the repeal of section 159 of the Criminal code, a proposal that has been well received in the LGBTQ community, as well as the proposed amendment to repeal the vagrancy and bawdy house offences, which have been historically and improperly used to target consensual adult sexual activity. These amendments continue our government's important work to address discrimination against LGBTQ2 Canadians.

Importantly the committee also supported Bill C-75's proposal to repeal the abortion offences that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down as unconstitutional in the Morgentaler decision in 1988. Our government will always protect a woman's reproductive rights and her right to choose what to do with her own body.

As I have already stated, Bill C-75 proposes comprehensive reforms that will help to ensure that an accused person's right to be tried within a reasonable time is respected and that all justice system participants, including victims and witnesses, do not face delays.

At the same time, we are deeply conscious of the need and have heard the call for sentencing reform, including mandatory minimum penalties. The minister remains committed to advancing change.

The courts have made it clear that many mandatory minimum penalties present serious challenges from a constitutional perspective. The minister has been clear that her view is that judges should be provided the necessary discretion to impose sentences appropriate to the offender before them.

That said, we need to ensure we put in place sentencing reform that will stand the test of time. Mandatory minimum penalties are being litigated quite extensively. There are cases in which the Supreme Court has upheld the mandatory minimum penalty and there are cases in which the court has not.

We want to ensure we have taken all steps and done our due diligence as we continue to work on sentencing reform so the changes we make will stand the test of time.

The bold reforms proposed in the legislation have been the subject of extensive discussions, consultations and collaboration with the minister's provincial and territorial colleagues. Our commitment to prioritize key legislative reforms that we felt cumulatively would have the biggest impact in reducing delays in the criminal justice system remains strong.

This discussion and the consultations have included extensive debate within this very chamber itself. The House has debated Bill C-75 for a total of 14 hours and 45 minutes thus far. Ninety-five witnesses in the course of 27 hours were heard by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during extended sitting hours. A total of 28 members of the opposition benches from multiple parties have spoken out on the bill.

Further to that, we have listened to the standing committee's recommendations and to key stakeholders who have committed to address the issues of delays in the criminal justice system. Bill C-75, as amended, is a result of this commitment and reflects the beginning of a culture change that the Supreme Court was calling for in its Jordan and its Cody decisions. I therefore urge all members to support this important legislation.

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-417, an act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors), initiated by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

As is readily apparent this evening, the bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to provide that the prohibition against the disclosure of information relating to jury proceedings does not, in certain circumstances, apply in respect of disclosure by jurors to health care professionals.

Our government indeed recognizes the crucial role in dedicated service of jurors in the Canadian justice system, as stated by a former juror, Mark Farrant, who was indeed quoted by the moving member, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. Mr. Farrant said in his testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, “Jurors are an important pillar of the justice system.”

Members heard reference to Mr. Farrant, repeatedly, this evening.

Before November 22 of last year and February 8 of this year, that justice committee undertook a study that culminated in their report, “Improving support for jurors in Canada”, which was rendered in May of this year. The committee held eight meetings in Ottawa to hear evidence from witnesses, including former jurors, Canadian and foreign government representatives who work directly with jurors or in justice departments, Canadian and international lawyers, and other experts interested in the stresses that are associated with jury duty.

Again, those committee deliberations and that committee report have been referred to extensively in the speeches we have heard thus far tonight.

First of all, I want to indicate our thanks to the committee for their thorough study and their important report on this important issue. What I would like to do now is take a moment to explain the jury process in Canada, because understanding the roles that jurors are asked to play is necessary to finding solutions to assist them with the difficulties that can result from their very important public service.

For criminal cases, section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a trigger. What that does is it grants any person charged with an offence the right:

....to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.

As provided in section 471 of the Criminal Code:

Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, every accused who is charged with an indictable offence shall be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury.

When a person is charged with a crime listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code, the trial will automatically take place before a judge and jury, unless the person charged with the offence and the Attorney General agree to a trial without a jury.

In all of these types of criminal cases, the jury is called upon to reach a unanimous verdict, determining whether the accused is guilty beyond a standard of what is called “a reasonable doubt” based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

In the context of civil cases, juries also have a role to play. While most civil cases are heard by a judge alone, a defendant may also have the right to a trial by judge and jury, depending on the nature of the case and the court. Civil juries must decide, on a balance of probabilities, whether the plaintiff proved that the defendant violated civil law. There are six jurors in a civil case and at least five of them are asked to agree upon a civil verdict.

Finally, there is also an aspect of coroners' inquests that is triggered when we discuss jurors. Coroners' inquests, which aim to inform the public of the circumstances of a death, require jurors as well. Jurors must respond to questions about the circumstances of a death and may make non-binding recommendations. Unlike civil or criminal cases, jurors in coroners' inquests are not required to render a verdict on anyone's legal responsibility.

Serving as a juror in any of these capacities that I have just outlined can involve significant stress. We have heard a lot of testimony and a lot of submissions today in this chamber about the stresses the jurors face. Those stresses have the potential to seriously affect a juror's life. What causes stress varies from one person to another, evidently. Several examples were raised by witnesses at committee. I would like to discuss some of these.

For many Canadians, being summoned for jury duty is the first and maybe the only experience they will have with the justice system. As a result, few prospective jurors are knowledgeable about what jury duty entails, and that unfamiliarity with the process itself often generates anxiety. Many individuals may therefore feel overwhelmed and stressed when they are summoned for jury duty.

As expressed by Professor Jane Goodman-Delahunty, “...jurors are moving into an environment that is very unfamiliar to them. This can be very intimidating, and that alone can be somewhat stressful.”

Being exposed to disturbing information is also a fundamental aspect of what jurors are faced with. Again, we heard extensively about this this evening.

It goes without saying that some legal proceedings deal with truly horrific and horrible crimes and involve traumatic and explicit evidence and testimony, which can include disturbing audio and video. This can be extremely stressful for jurors who are exposed to it.

We heard this quote earlier, but it bears repeating. Mark Farrant explained:

Images would haunt me day after day, an unrelenting bombardment of horror. My daughter's red finger painting would hurtle me back to the scene of the crime and I would stare transfixed, seemingly out of space and time.

With respect to deliberations, some jurors explained that they were uncomfortable with challenging group dynamics and the confrontations that sometimes occurred between jurors. Therefore, the deliberation process itself can be stress-inducing.

Other individuals spoke about their significant fear of making the wrong decision or rendering a verdict that would have a life-altering impact, fuelling the gravity of the task that was before them.

Former juror Michaela Swan told the Standing Committee on Justice:

...the most difficult process in serving as a juror was that of deliberations and the resulting post-trial discharge...It's confusing and highly complicated, but there is an immense drive to do the right thing.

There is also an abruptness of the end of the trial. Generally, after a verdict is rendered, the duty of jurors comes to an end. The committee heard repeatedly that for a number of jurors, particularly the ones serving on extensive and gruesome trials or inquests, the transition back to normal life was indeed challenging.

Former juror Patrick Fleming explained:

We need assistance getting back to our “normal” life. We are civilians who did not choose this path for ourselves nor are we trained to deal with this type of situation. Being a juror is a monumental job that has had a major impact on my life.

Many of the former jurors who participated in the committee's study described the difficulties they experienced once the jury task concluded.

Michaela Swan, who I mentioned earlier, stated:

Within 20 minutes of delivering a verdict, and after four days of being sequestered, I walked through an open parking lot with 11 other strangers and returned to normal life. I had Sunday to reconnect with my family and was back to work Monday.

As Patrick Fleming explained:

At the end of the trial, it was so abrupt. One minute I was reading a guilty verdict to five individuals, putting them away for 25 years plus another 25, and then the very next minute the court doors opened, and I was going home. Think about that.

With respect to section 649 of the Criminal Code, some jurors described feelings of isolation. Currently, in Canada, jurors cannot discuss the case with anyone as per section 649 of the Criminal Code itself. They are cut off from their family, friends and usual support networks with whom they would normally share troubling information and receive advice or encouragement. This also can be an added stress.

As Patrick Fleming explained:

I felt isolated from my family and friends. I would distance myself, and I could not share what I was going through....I felt guilty for not being present for my family emotionally and physically.

The important work undertaken by the committee clearly shows that it is possible to prevent or reduce the stress on the juror's experience, particularly by improving the preparation process and the conditions under which jurors fulfill their duties throughout the legal proceedings, as well as by providing jurors with psychological support as needed.

As was also mentioned earlier, it is a worthwhile investment. According to the WHO, every dollar invested in mental health results in about $4 worth of savings.

It is important that we continue to work with the provinces and territories to find solutions that support jurors and their mental health, including an examination of section 649 of the Criminal Code.

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contributions of the member for St. Albert—Edmonton at the committee, but also today in this House in presenting his private member's bill. It is prior to my tenure as parliamentary secretary, but in terms of those committee deliberations, could he advise this House about some of the practices taking place in different provinces around the country? I know some of them have put in place counselling and psychological supports for jurors. Also, in the course of applying those supports and that treatment, has the issue of section 649 of the code ever resulted in prosecutions of jurors in different parts of the country, as a result of the treatment they received?

[Petitions, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 511 members of my riding that relates to the use of public transit by youth, students and the elderly and senior citizens. It is important to underscore the need for enhanced public transit. That is what they are calling for both to address environmental climate change and to ensure that people are better at getting to their places of work and school.

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the second reading debate this evening on Bill S-240. As has been discussed already, the bill would enact new offences to target organ trafficking and to make those who engage in such conduct inadmissible to Canada.

Illegal organ trafficking is a growing problem around the world. According to the World Health Organization, kidney transplants occur in 91 different countries around the planet, with liver and heart transplants also occurring with some regularity. Despite there being a legal and regulated environment in which these life-saving procedures occur, the demand for organ transplant surgery far outweighs the supply. For this reason, we are seeing a rise in this new form of crime, organ trafficking, although it is important to note that no known cases have occurred in Canada. According to some estimates, 10,000 kidneys are traded on the underground market each year.

I am very troubled to have learned about some of the numbers and circumstances surrounding organ trafficking and the fact that, as with other types of crime, it is often the most vulnerable members of society who find themselves at the greatest risk to be victimized. ln countries around the world, impoverished individuals may be provided little or no money in exchange for a kidney.

News articles have noted that the average payment for a kidney may be around $5,000 and, in many cases, there is no payment provided. ln contrast, the average purchaser will spend well in excess of $100,000 to be provided with a new organ. lt is clear, given those facts, that there is a great deal of money being made for those who operate in this illicit marketplace.

ln my riding of Parkdale-High Park, constituents have approached me to raise their concerns specifically about the practice of organ harvesting. Political prisoners, including Falun Gong practitioners, as mentioned by my friend opposite, have been subjected to organ harvesting in order to support the trade in human organs, and these abuses are ongoing.

I am happy that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raised the issue of former parliamentarian, David Kilgour, and his 2006 report. That report documented the many Falun Gong adherents who had been killed to supply the organ transplant industry. In that report, Kilgour stated that he and his fellow researchers “believe that there has been and continues today to be large-scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners.”

Most human organ trafficking is fuelled by the fact that patients in rich countries cannot get access to the organs they need to survive in their own countries, so they turn to countries where organs can be purchased.

Bill S-240 seeks to target organ trafficking by creating new offences in the Criminal Code. I look forward to debating this bill.

Right now, the sale, purchase and trafficking of human organs outside our existing regulatory framework are strictly prohibited under provincial health laws and the Safety of Human Cells, Tissues and Organs for Transplantation Regulations.

I would also like to note that the Criminal Code already prohibits human trafficking for the purposes of organ removal. This offence focuses on the exploitation of another person. The Criminal Code states that, and I quote, “a person exploits another person if they cause them, by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed”.

Bill S-240 seeks to focus on the demand side of organ trafficking. It does this through the proposed four new offences included therein that would apply to situations where Canadian citizens or permanent residents would travel abroad and engage in conduct that would be prohibited if it occurred in Canada.

Three of the bill's four offences are focused on the situation where an organ is removed from one person in order to be transplanted into another in a situation where there is proof that the donor did not provide informed consent. Bill S-240 was amended by the Senate to provide a concrete definition of informed consent, which is as follows:

...consent that is given by a person capable of making decisions with respect to health matters and with knowledge and understanding of all material facts, including the nature of the organ removal procedure, the risks involved and the potential side effects.

This presents a challenge, and I want to underscore this for the purposes of this debate, as proof would require evidence that the accused knew that he or she obtained an organ from someone who did not offer informed consent. This, in turn, would require evidence that the accused knew that the person providing the organ had the requisite knowledge level.

It is quite possible that the accused would have no information concerning who the person providing the organ was, let alone knowledge of the risks associated with the transplant procedure. I am looking forward to following the debate on this bill on this particular point.

In targeting the demand, Bill S-240 would also allow Canada to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction, as was outlined by the member opposite, and prosecute cases here at home, even when the conduct occurred abroad and was committed by Canadians or permanent residents. This is laudable and perhaps very appropriate, given the fact that much of the conduct targeted by this bill occurs abroad. Nevertheless, I would highlight, for the purposes of this opening debate, that extraterritorial investigations and prosecutions are indeed challenging. They require police-to-police co-operation as well as more formal methods of international co-operation to secure the necessary evidence. Frequently they involve Canadian police officers travelling abroad, and of course, they require the accused to either be present here in Canada or to be returned to Canada. Such investigations are costly and would be borne by the provinces and territories that are responsible for the administration of justice. These matters are worthy of close consideration by all of us as we examine Bill S-240 more closely.

Another aspect of Bill S-240 is the proposal to establish a reporting mechanism to track organ transplants in Canada. Under proposed section 240.2 of the Criminal Code, medical practitioners, under this bill, would be required to report to a federally established body, made via a Governor in Council appointment, information concerning the fact that a person they treated received an organ transplant. This requirement would apply in all cases, including in respect of organ transplants that occurred right here in Canada. This begs the question of whether such an approach is necessary, given that the purpose of Bill S-240 is focused on illicit organ trafficking abroad.

There can be no doubt to anyone in this House that illicit organ trafficking merits serious consideration and appropriate responses from all governments, including our own here in Canada. Even though it does not appear to be a significant problem domestically, we should not take an approach that treats this issue as a problem that does not concern us. Like all forms of transnational crime, criminals find ways to exploit loopholes in the international legal framework. ln this respect, it is right for us to be examining our laws, programs and policies to ensure that they are as comprehensive and effective as they can be.

I would highlight, at this point, some of the comments made by my friend opposite in introducing this bill in this House, which came from the Senate. He underscored the fact that there have been successive efforts made by parliamentarians on both sides of the House to address this important issue. It is an important issue. It is one we take very seriously as parliamentarians. It is one that all parliamentarians in elected legislatures, literally around the planet, need to take seriously, in light of the fact that an illicit underground market has occurred for organs and that this underground market is actually exploiting vulnerable individuals in various nations around the planet. Whether it is in respect of kidney harvesting or liver or heart transplants, etcetera, these are concerns we need to draw attention to. That is why we are looking forward to concrete debate today and in the days and weeks to come on this bill to ascertain its merits.

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for introducing this bill in the chamber, a bill that originated in the Senate.

With respect to the research he has done on the bill and the discussion on the bill thus far, could he elaborate for the House his understanding of the practice of organ harvesting and organ trafficking, what organs we are talking about and where this problem is most acute?