Laurin Liu

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

We believe that the government must work with the provinces and territories and not act unilaterally to abolish the Senate. We say that in our motion.

However, we also know that the majority of provinces and territories are in favour of abolishing the Senate, as I mentioned in my speech. In fact, they abolished their upper chambers in the mid-1900s. We know that many provinces support the NDP motion. I invite my Conservative Party colleague to support it as well.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today as we debate an NDP motion to abolish the Senate.

I believe that this antiquated, archaic, illegitimate and undemocratic institution must disappear as quickly as possible. As it stands, the Senate represents the worst of both worlds. Unelected and almost impossible to get rid of despite their many indiscretions, senators claim to represent Canada's regions and have the power to block measures passed by the House of Commons, whose members are elected. That is unacceptable in a democracy.

Before I go on to explain why the Senate should be abolished, I would like to point out that our motion states that abolition should occur in consultation with the provinces and territories. We recognize that any reform affecting the balance among the federation's institutions must involve all stakeholders. We want to get rid of the Senate as quickly as possible, but we have to do it properly and we must respect the provinces. We think we can come to an agreement.

Since 1970, every province has deemed its upper chamber useless and abolished it. Ontario, Nova Scotia and Manitoba all support abolishing the Canadian Senate. British Columbia's premier has stated that the Senate no longer serves a purpose.

The number-one argument for abolishing the Senate is that it lacks democratic legitimacy. Senators are not elected. They have the power to introduce, amend and block bills, but they are not accountable to the people.

I think that the most appalling example of this was when, in 2010, the Conservative majority Senate blocked the NDP's climate change accountability bill, which a majority of the people's elected representatives passed. Manipulating democracy, a handful of unelected senators overturned a decision by members of the House of Commons.

In addition to not being elected by the people, senators are almost impossible to get rid of. Even if they vote against the interests of the people, even if they misbehave, as we have seen over the past few months, even if they misuse their expense accounts, they have a job for life in the upper chamber. Only a criminal conviction can boot them out.

Senators' dishonourable conduct and the institution's inability to self-regulate have discredited the Senate in the eyes of Canadians. In the past few weeks, revelations about abuses of public funds have left a bad taste in taxpayers' mouths.

Take Senator Duffy, for example, who claims to live in Prince Edward Island so that he can get reimbursed for his fancy house in Ottawa. And what about Senator Wallin, who is supposed to represent Saskatchewan but lives in Toronto? And then there is Senator Mac Harb, who since 2010 has claimed $31,000 in housing allowance for a secondary residence in Ottawa, when really, he has always lived in Ottawa.

I would like to make a quick comment. Last weekend, I was stunned to hear Senator Carignan defend senators' excessive expenses by comparing their travel expenses to those of MPs. How can he show such bad faith? How can he begin to compare a senator's travel expenses to those of an elected member who travels throughout his or her riding to get feedback from constituents and to explain the policies adopted in Ottawa? Senator Carignan's comments show just how out of touch senators are.

To come back to the motion we are discussing this afternoon, I would like to say that on top of these cases of abuse of public money, there are all the other situations that have deeply shocked Canadians. Take Patrick Brazeau, for example. He could sit in the Senate for another 36 years, even though he is quite often absent, he has abused his housing allowance and he is facing charges of domestic violence and sexual assault.

There was also the case of Senator Lavigne, a Liberal who eventually resigned from the Senate after being convicted of breach of trust. He had a Senate employee do landscaping work on his Wakefield property. Of course, the work was done during office hours, on the taxpayers' dime. Interestingly enough, if the employee had not been so incompetent as to cut down some of the neighbour's trees and spark a court battle, this story might never have come to light and Senator Lavigne would still be sitting in the Senate.

The fact that senators are not chosen on merit only makes the legitimacy crisis even worse. Appointments have always been partisan. Long before he was appointed as a senator, Mike Duffy mocked senators for getting “taskless thanks” as opposed to doing “thankless tasks”.

And although he said he would never appoint unelected senators, this Prime Minister has appointed 58 senators since 2006. Like his predecessors, he has appointed dozens of friends of the Conservative regime.

I am thinking of people like Doug Finley, national director of the Conservative Party campaign in 2006 and 2008; Irving Gerstein, former chair of the Conservative Fund Canada; Don Plett, former Conservative Party president; Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, the Prime Minister's former communications director; Michel Rivard and Leo Housakos, major Conservative organizers in Quebec; and Stephen Greene, Preston Manning's former chief of staff. I could go on and mention senators like Josée Verner, Claude Carignan, Suzanne Duplessis, Fabian Manning and Percy Mockler, former Conservative MPs or candidates.

Indeed, this government has politicized the Senate so much that even former senator Michael Fortier has had enough. This weekend, he spoke to Evan Solomon and said:

“I was very naive. ... I thought it would be a different place than the one I found. I found it to be extremely partisan...on both sides, including my own, and it was very annoying because these people were trying to be members of Parliament, and they weren't.”

I am talking about the Conservatives, but the Liberals were no better. Senators Dennis Dawson and Francis Fox, for example, two former Liberal MPs, were appointed to the Senate by Paul Martin in August 2005. Since then, they have been actively involved in election organization for the Liberal Party. It is shameful.

Since 2006, the Prime Minister has taken a piecemeal approach to reforming the Senate. He has proposed limiting the length of senators' terms and consulting the public in the selection process, but these proposals do not make the Senate more democratic. The results of the public consultation are not binding on the Prime Minister, and there is nothing to make a senator resign after eight years, as the Prime Minister has proposed.

The Conservatives' Senate reform has been hitting a constitutional wall for seven years now. The Supreme Court will have to render a decision on a reference that the Conservative government has just made. Can the government move forward without the provinces' agreement? Nothing could be less certain.

The Prime Minister needs to realize that it would be impossible to reform that institution. Since 1874, barely seven years after Confederation, the Senate has been the subject of criticism and calls for reform. In fact, on April 12, 1874, the House of Commons considered a motion recommending that “our Constitution ought to be so amended as to confer upon each Province the power of selecting its own Senators, and of defining the mode of their election”. Here we are, 139 years later, still debating this issue.

I was rereading a speech the Prime Minister gave to the Vancouver Board of Trade in 2007. I would like to quote part of it:

We are dedicated to the basic proposition that Canada needs the Senate to change. And, if it cannot be reformed, I think most British Columbians, like most Canadians, will eventually conclude that it will have to be abolished.

I ask all my colleagues in this House to support the NDP motion to abolish the Senate.

[Criminal Code, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-452, which seeks to address the issue of human trafficking. I have already spoken several times about different aspects of this issue.

For example, in April, I spoke in favour of Bill C-310 to combat human trafficking in Canada and abroad. Then, in October, I spoke about Bill C-4, which seeks to combat the irregular arrival of refugee groups. At that time, I spoke out against the government's approach, which risks unduly punishing legitimate refugees rather than going after traffickers.

The issue of human trafficking is very broad and takes many forms. It is very important for Parliament to address the various forms of slavery because I firmly believe that the state has a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

I am pleased to support Bill C-452, which amends the Criminal Code in order to provide consecutive sentences for offences related to procuring and trafficking in persons. It also creates a presumption regarding the exploitation of one person by another and adds circumstances that are deemed to constitute exploitation. Finally, it adds the offences of procuring and trafficking in persons to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime apply.

I am pleased to support this bill because, first, instead of punishing victims of human trafficking, it seeks to punish procurers and traffickers. I would like to commend my colleague for introducing this bill because she really took the time to consult the community and get the primary stakeholders in the field involved.

I would like to mention some groups that support the principle of the bill. They are: the Council on the Status of Women, the Comité d'action contre la traite humaine interne et internationale, the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale, the Regroupement des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, Concertation-Femme, Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, the Collectif de l'Outaouais contre l'exploitation sexuelle, the diocèse de l'Outaouais de la condition des femmes and Maison de Marthe. It is important to consult experts and the community stakeholders affected by this issue.

In order to help hon. members grasp the scope of this problem, I would like to quote some excerpts from a recent RCMP report on this issue:

Recent convictions of human trafficking have mostly involved victims who are citizens and/or permanent residents of Canada trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

Human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation has been mostly associated with organized prostitution occurring discreetly behind fronts, like escort agencies and residential brothels.

...foreign national sex workers who engage illegally in the sex trade are vulnerable to being exploited and trafficked.

Organized crime networks with Eastern European links have been involved in the organized entry of women from former Soviet States into Canada for employment in escort services in the Greater Toronto Area and possibly in massage and escort services in the Montreal area. These groups have demonstrated transnational capabilities and significant associations with convicted human traffickers in the Czech Republic, Germany, Belarus, and Israel.

Some convicted offenders of domestic human trafficking were found to be affiliated to street gangs known to law enforcement for their pimping culture.

[Finally, we note that] [s]ignificant human trafficking indicators were identified in some cases involving foreign national domestic workers who were smuggled into Canada by their employers. These live-in domestic workers were controlled, threatened, underpaid, and forced to work by their employers.

There is no question that the violence associated with this type of trafficking mainly affects women and girls, and therefore children. In 98% of the cases, the victims of sexual exploitation are women.

I want to point out that aboriginal women are overrepresented among victims. As I explained earlier, this is a worldwide phenomenon that represents a lot of money. According to the UN, this crime reportedly brings in $32 billion a year for organized crime groups.

Since we are talking about sexual exploitation, I want to mention the controversial comments made by Tom Flanagan that were reported in the news this week. Tom Flanagan is a former advisor and mentor to the Prime Minister. This week he said that looking at child pornography does not hurt anyone. This libertarian said:

What’s wrong with child pornography—in the sense that it’s just pictures?...I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures.

Although he later apologized, these uninformed comments are quite shocking coming from someone so educated and with so much influence. It is shameful. For someone to look at child pornography, the child pornography must first be produced, which means that children suffer and become victims of abuse.

As Elizabeth Cannon, the president of the University of Calgary, said, “...child pornography is not a victimless crime. All aspects of this horrific crime involve the exploitation of children.”

I know that the Prime Minister has condemned Tom Flanagan's shameful comments about victims of child pornography, but the Prime Minister has been surrounding himself with some rather unsavoury people, which would lead us to believe that he is the one who is lacking judgment. In addition to Tom Flanagan, who trivialized child sexual exploitation, there is Arthur Porter, the fraudster involved in the McGill University Health Centre scandal who was appointed by the Prime Minister to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. There is also Bruce Carson, a former member of the Prime Minister's inner circle who is now facing charges of influence peddling, and, of course, there is Senator Brazeau, who was appointed to the Senate even though there were many complaints of misconduct against him, and he has now been charged for assaulting a woman, so it does not mean much to me when government members criticize opposition members for being too soft on criminals. They should start by taking a look at their own ranks. But I digress. I will now get back to talking about the content of the bill.

As I said at the beginning, this bill is a step in the right direction. However, we need to address the issue of human trafficking with a far more ambitious plan that mobilizes human, police, electronic and material resources and goes far beyond a simple bill. I would like to see a comprehensive program that addresses the root of the problem, helps victims and supports the work of law enforcement agencies. I would like to see this bill studied in detail in committee, so that we can specifically look at whether it is constitutional to reverse the burden of proof in relation to the presumption regarding the exploitation of a person.

The other problem with this bill is that it provides for consecutive sentences for offences of procuring and human trafficking. That is the key measure in this bill. It may be struck down by the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada often cites the principle of proportionality in sentencing. For example, the bill provides that a pimp who assaults and exploits a woman would receive consecutive sentences. However, even if we pass this measure, the courts may adjust the sentences for each offence in order to comply with the principle of proportionality. The punishment must fit the crime.

Once again, I would like to say that I support the content and principle of the bill, but I would like to hear from experts in committee so that they can provide us with constructive proposals.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, clearly public safety has to be protected, in a way that is consistent with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would also ask that the government take those things into consideration and that all the legislation it proposes comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution.

My hon. colleague also mentioned that in addition to introducing bills and enacting measures in the House to assist victims, we have to have the necessary resources to fight crime effectively and help victims regain control of their lives.

Does my colleague have any additional comments on that issue?

[Employment Insurance, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the butchering of the employment insurance program continues to claim victims. A businesswoman in my riding, Stéphanie Leduc, has a company that makes fur and leather clothing. She relies on skilled labour. With the Conservatives' reform, she is concerned that her employees will leave to find work elsewhere.

This reform is getting in the way of economic development in the Laurentians. When will the minister suspend her punitive reform?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, Bill C-30 was a complete disaster. Canadians strongly opposed that bill. However, Bill C-55 appears to be a step in the right direction.

Can my colleague explain why we have only 19 days to debate this bill? Why is the government improvising on this?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the court has established new parameters for protecting the right to privacy, and we expect this bill to comply with those standards. That is what the NDP will be asking for.

Can my honourable colleague explain, once again, why we have only 19 days to study this bill? Why has the government waited so long, why has it waited until the deadline set by the Supreme Court? How does this undermine our right to provide oversight here in Parliament?

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative efforts to muzzle scientists are so unacceptable that international scientists are now refusing to work with Canada.

American researchers, who have been working with us in the Arctic since 2003, are now required to agree to bizarre new policies prohibiting them from publishing their research without the minister's approval. They have rightly rejected this form of censorship.

When are the Conservatives going to stop hiding disturbing facts? When will they let the scientific discoveries speak for themselves?

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal Party colleagues for this small step forward. I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of the motion. Nevertheless, we in the NDP believe that it does not go far enough.

We wish to ask our Liberal colleagues why they waited so long to act, why they waited until a Conservative government was in power. The motion even mentions the fact that this problem has gone on for 30 years.

Does my colleague think that this special committee will be any different than the committee set up by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in 2012? I would remind my hon. colleague that that Conservative-dominated committee was responsible for holding hearings. The committee presented a report on violence against aboriginal women and girls, a report that was criticized by the Conservative majority for being too weak and watered down.

So how will this committee be any different?

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of protests on the Hill last year. Aboriginal women are demanding a national public inquiry, and the NDP has been calling for one for years.

The request to strike a special committee is not enough for aboriginal groups such as the Native Women's Association of Canada, which has been demanding a national inquiry to put an end to the violence against aboriginal women.

Would the hon. member support that demand? Why are the Liberals not calling for a national public inquiry?