Lynne Yelich

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak today to the trafficking bill.

Injustice takes many forms and one of the most heinous is what can only be described as the modern day slavery of human trafficking.

Human trafficking is a cruel and insidious stain on collective humanity that refers to the recruitment, transportation and harbouring of a person for the purposes of exploitation involving the threat or use of force, coercion and deception.

The majority of victims are women and children who are typically forced into prostitution and other elements of the sex industry, but they can also be exploited through farm, domestic or other labour.

The victims of human trafficking are usually, although many are abducted outright, individuals desperate to flee dire economic and living conditions in their native land. Traffickers, or more accurately flesh peddlers, prey on dreams of a better life and employment to support families back home to lure unsuspecting individuals into a life of slavery.

Victims and their families are conned into believing a trafficker's false promises of a good job and wealth that awaits them in a new far off land. Often traffickers will produce a fake employment contract, fake visa or whatever to sell the victim this false opportunity. Once they arrive, however, they soon discover that the jobs do not exist and that this better life is a miserable existence in the sex trade or labour servitude.

The activities of these networks of traffickers threaten not only the lives of those affected, but also the social, political and economic fabric of nations where they operate.

Although the clandestine nature of the activity makes accurate data difficult to obtain, the UN estimates 700,000 people are trafficked annually worldwide, and these numbers are growing, of which 80% are woman and children, a majority of which are girls and women under the age of 25.

Moreover, this serious human rights violation is, according to the United Nations, the fastest growing form of transnational organized crime, generating annual global revenues exceeding $11 billion US.

Matthew Taylor with Family Child and Youth Services in Ottawa has stated, “It is the third highest source of revenue for organized crime next to drugs and firearms”.

While the cruelty and inhumanity of human trafficking cannot be quantified, I ask everyone here today to try to imagine the reality of human trafficking. I ask them for a moment to imagine that this is happening to a sister, a daughter or even to themselves.

As Leslie R. Wolfe, the president for the Center for Women Policy Studies in Washington, has asked us:

Imagine that you have left home for a new country and new economic opportunity. Imagine that you are eagerly looking forward to a job as a nanny or elder care provider or waitress--to earn money to send home to your family.

You have been brought to this new country for this wonderful job by a man or men you fear or even trust--only to find yourself imprisoned in a brothel or sweatshop.

Imagine your terror: You cannot speak the language. You are not even sure exactly where you are in this huge country. You fear the local police, who may be complicit in the trafficking--as they likely were in your home country.

You have no contacts with local people, no resources, and no knowledge of existing services such as battered women’s shelters, rape crisis centers, refugee and immigrant women’s centers.

And, of course, you are afraid to ask because you have been threatened and brutalized and your passport has been taken from you--and so you legitimately fear arrest, imprisonment, and deportation.

The nightmare continues as these victims are often forced into involuntary sexual exploitation and servitude.

As the U.S. state department trafficking in persons report states:

Victims of human trafficking pay a horrible price. Psychological and physical harm, including disease and stunted growth, often have permanent effects. Another brutal reality of the modern-day slave trade is that its victims are frequently bought and sold many times over--often sold initially by family members.

That is the terror facing countless victims of human trafficking. Some people might dismiss this as something that cannot happen here, that it is restricted to third world and impoverished developing countries. These people are wrong. Canada is not immune to this slavery of our age. The fact is we are increasingly becoming a major destination country for traffickers.

Carole Morency, senior counsel with the Department of Justice, remarked that “this is a global phenomenon that touches every country, including Canada”.

The RCMP reports that about 800 people are smuggled into this country each year. Even more troubling, Canada's Solicitor General stated that 8,000 to 16,000 illegal immigrants are forced to work in the sex trade industry.

Moreover, we have become a major transit point for trafficking to other countries with an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 people being trafficked from Canada into the U.S. a year.

According to the trafficking in persons report, British Columbia, for instance, has become an attractive hub for East Asian traffickers who smuggle South Korean women to the United States through Canada. Detective Constable Jim Fisher with the Vancouver police intelligence section supports that assessment and he has remarked that “Canada has not really come to grips with what it takes to properly police this phenomenon”.

Until the introduction of this legislation, Canada's response to this growing epidemic has been wanting at best. However, Bill C-49 strives to correct that by specifically prohibiting trafficking in persons in Canada.

At the present time the Criminal Code includes no provisions to specifically prohibit trafficking in persons, although numerous offences include kidnapping, uttering threats, and extortion which all play a role in targeting these crimes.

While the government brought Canada's first anti-trafficking legislation into force in 2002, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, prohibiting bringing anyone into Canada by means of abduction, fraud, deception with the use or threat of force or coercion, it has proven somewhat lacking with the first charges under the three year old act laid only this past spring.

Bill C-49 seeks to augment that legislation by moving the focus beyond immigration and making trafficking in persons a criminal offence. This is a positive step and one I support. However, we must note that without attaching severe and lengthy penalties for these crimes, the possibility exists that the exploitation and abuse will continue.

In Bill C-49 there are no mandatory prison sentences and imposing such would send a clear message that Canadians will have no tolerance for these flesh peddlers.

Throughout my remarks today I have referred to the trafficking in persons report produced by the United States state department. The report which monitors global human trafficking is designed to, and in my opinion has in its five years of existence, raise awareness and stimulate government action, both domestically and internationally, to combat human trafficking. I note however that Canada produces no such document and that this bill does not refer to a Canadian annual report on trafficking. Consequently, I would implore that we strongly amend the bill to include such an amendment.

An annual report, modeled after the state department report but perhaps with a more domestic focus, would allow Canadians and their elected officials an opportunity to measure our success in combating this modern form of slavery. Furthermore, this legislation is only the first step in the battle against human trafficking.

The government must ensure, once this legislation is passed, that it will guarantee the necessary resources to ensure that this legislation may be effectively enforced. This includes increased resources for our underfunded immigration and border security, and increased support for agencies that will house and assist women who have been smuggled here, especially those involved in the sex trade.

In closing, I will be supporting the bill. The government, however, has to ensure that the legislation is passed and that it will guarantee there are necessary resources to ensure that the legislation is effectively enforced.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to express the false sense of security they give to gay couples.

Not long ago gays were not allowed entry into the United States. They were denied. They filled out customs forms, and their words were, “We felt it was an affront to our dignity and our rights as Canadian citizens”. But they say this pair has no recourse unless they take it upon themselves to challenge the U.S. law. I do not know how we are going to be able to protect these gay and lesbian marriages in this sort of forum. I am just wondering if perhaps they do not have some sort of false sense of security by saying they are protecting gay and lesbian marriages.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in order to assure anybody that they are protected, I would have to be convinced myself, and I am totally unconvinced that this government could protect the right of religious freedom. That came quite clearly through the comments of the priests in this country, who are starting to be outspoken and who feel somewhat threatened by their outspokenness.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had my rights taken away yet, but I am being denied the right to choose whether I perform a same sex marriage or not. I certainly have not discussed that yet. I have not been performing marriages on a regular basis so I do not know if the government will revoke my licence or not. I am not too sure.

Tabling these documents would show the House how we are losing our tradition.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this sad occasion, a day on which the debate on an important issue will come to an end and the legislation will be pushed through by a divided House of Parliament.

It is ironic that the demise of the traditional definition of marriage should happen in the House of Commons, a House that has been built on traditions and customs. While customs are only symbolic, traditions are pleasing rituals whose observance or absence has no substantial impact on the operation of constitutional rules and principles. This House is replete with traditions.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with one of the other members of Parliament.

While I was thinking about what I would say today, I went to my filing cabinet and brought out the files containing all the different letters and e-mails that had been written to me. I thought how sad is was that all these people had not been heard.

I came across the words of a parish priest, Father Francis Geremia, in a recent news article. Although I found his words strong, I understood the frustration and desperation when a parish priest would go so far as to say that not only was he a former Liberal, but that he was praying that the Prime Minister would lose his riding in the next election because he could not have two faces: either he serves God or he serves the devil.

The words reminded me of this past year and at every opportunity that my own parish priest spoke about protecting the traditional definition of marriage. At Christmastime this year he took the opportunity to talk about the family and how important the traditional family was.

I am also a practising Catholic. When I heard the concerns of the Catholic church I raised them as a legislator and as a member of Parliament, not as a Catholic.

I began to come across letters that I received from many people who the members across the way purport to represent. I thought the only thing I could do today would be to read into Hansard some of the letters and opinions that have not been presented in this House.

These letters were written to me by various religions, cultural and business groups, from individuals or on behalf of thousands of Canadians. The first letter dates back to 2003 and it is from the Hindu Society of Ontario. The letter reads:

We are forwarding an appeal on behalf of the Hindus of Canada. We understand that most of the Hindus as well as a majority of Canadians are greatly worried about this legislation, which is going to have an adverse effect in the society.

On behalf of the large numbers of Hindus in Canada, we have prepared this submission with the help of a member of the Hindu clergy family and forwarding it to the attention of the Hon. Prime Minister, Members of the Cabinet, and Members of the Parliament.

Therefore we appeal to all the parliamentarians not to pass this legislation and demoralize the Canadian society. We appeal to them to listen to the majority opinion and act wisely to preserve the integrity of the Canadian nation and ensure a safe and healthy social environment in this country. It would be highly appreciated if you could acknowledge to the above address....

Another letter reads:

All the five hundred thousand Hindu families came to Canada hoping to bring up their children in a safe and decent environment. But they are all greatly upset by this proposed legislation to recognize gays and lesbians as married couples, as it contradicts their religion and culture. Not only Hinduism, but also every other religion in the world, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism and Shamanism, disapprove of homosexual marriages. As members of the clergy family, I have had the opportunity to read about all the religions of the world. I am certain that there are no religious tradition accept this.

The members of the Hindu community as well as their clergy do not like to get involved in controversial political issues for fear of any backlash. When elections come round, they are not going to give their votes to any M.P. who say “Yes” to this legislation whatever party they may belong to. We are certain that most of the Canadians irrespective of party affiliations or religious denominations are opposed to this legislation.

It states:

The Islamic Society of North America-Canada wishes to express its opposition to Bill C-38, which would change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

ISNA-Canada is the oldest and largest grassroots Muslim organisation in North America, and on this issue, can speak confidently for the majority of Muslims in North America, who are opposed to changing the traditional definition of marriage.

The Act notes that marriage is a “fundamental institution in Canadian society,” but fails to take into account what that really means. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others, is an ancient practice that has been stable across history and across cultures. While some cultures have allowed men to marry more than one wife, or women to marry more than one man, marriage cross-culturally, has never been between couples of the same sex.

Marriage is thus an institution that predates the State of Canada, which therefore, has no right to change its meaning in its constitution.

The debate in the press over this issue shows that our Government, as well as many Canadians, are confused about what is at stake.

The argument in favour of same-sex marriage invoked in the Act, centres on the concept of rights, tolerance, and discrimination.

The Islamic Society actually says and does not deny that,

...homosexual couples do form lasting bonds of commitment to each other. Let this be an institution other than marriage. The State has recognized common-law relationships in legal aspects, but has denied common-law spouses the use of the term “marriage”. Let this be similar for same-sex couples.

It is not discrimination, nor is it a curtailment of a person's rights, to say that marriage is the proper institution for the raising of children by their biological parents.

...The ramifications of changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples will be profound.

Not enough time has been allowed for the Canadian public to explore and discuss the long term consequences.

An individual from the finance sector made this suggestion. He said:

Mr. Prime Minister, with the concurrence of Members of Parliament and the Senate, you exercise the prerogative to make laws designed to promote national harmony, to ensure that the interests of each individual or segment of society continues to be equal before the law, that one group does not usurp nor impugn the traditional dignity of another, that emerging entities be invested with an identifying title or name that is free from ambivalence, and is consonant with the provisions of any Act of Parliament related to such entity.

He advocates:

...that the homosexual citizens of our country be given their own unique appellation, and I submit for your consideration and acceptance that the Bill now before Parliament be called “Contractual Alliance of Two Same-Sex Parties” with entrenched rights, privileges, and concomitant responsibilities analogous to those enjoyed by a man and a woman who have their peculiar definition of--“Married”.

A constituent wrote to one of my local papers. He said:

Marriage, as currently defined, predates governments, states, courts and charters of rights. The Christian church's definition--“a union of a man and a woman and a communion of the whole life”--comes from the legal Digest of Roman Emperor Justinian.... Marriage existed in pre-Christian civilizations and has always been a union between a man and a woman. The Catholic Church declared marriage a sacrament in the Council of Trent (1545-63).

The Roman Catholic view of marriage is based on the Aristotelian principle of natural law. Although Aristotle originated the concept, Thomas Aquinas, the giant of Christian philosophical thought, gave it theological shape. He defined natural law as participation in the eternal law of the universe by rational creatures with an in-built commitment to doing good.

...Marriage is too visceral a principle and too sacred to many to be left to the courts to toy with. Anything less than maintaining the current definition will betray the trust Canadians have in politicians.

Another individual in southern Saskatchewan puts the woman-man issue in the proper light, “Are we trying to neuter, water down our language too much?” He states:

In the late 1920's the Supreme Court of the day clarified that a woman was not a person. Can you imagine such nonsense? Well the fight was on and things were set straight. Now, Mr. Prime Minister, you want our courts to redefine marriage as a union between two persons. This is just as ridiculous as a woman is not a person.

This essay was sent to me by John McKellar, the president of HOPE, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, in 2003. He said:

We neither need nor want the state in our bedrooms. We neither need nor want to be shackled by rules, regulations or paperwork. We've already won the same-sex benefits battle, so there's no longer concern over matters of pensions or estates. Let the straights keep marriage. We need to be liberated from the mainstream, homogeneous, egalitarian mindset that is destroying what is left of gay culture.

So he formed Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism in 1997,

...to expose the...myths, distortions and propaganda of modern gay activism...deconstruct the oppression and victimology politics...give a credible voice to happy, successful and independent gays and lesbians who don't wake up every day finding “hate, bigotry, and discrimination” under the bed and who don't go running to the courts, the governments or the human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences.

He went on to say:

Marriage is not an arbitrary convention and is not meant to change with the times. We're not talking about music, fashion or art. We're talking about an institution whose 4 prohibitions - you can only marry one person at a time, only someone of the opposite sex, never someone beneath a certain age, and not a close blood relative....

I would like to read on.

Unfortunately, most people's sense of history begins the day they were born, which means all that precedes is outmoded and irrelevant and all that follows is enlightened and progressive.

Pastor Daryl Olson of Outlook, Saskatchewan, said:

I am also fearful of what this legislation means for me as a member of the clergy. In Saskatchewan all marriages are performed by ministers of religion and justices of the peace. As a member of the clergy, will I be required to perform same-sex marriages against my conscience?

The Trans-Canada Alliance of German-Canadians also said:

You were democratically elected to the Canadian parliament with a majority of the votes, which includes also German-Canadian. The lesser number did not vote for you.

As the elected Member of Parliament you act for all on whatever is in their and Canada's best interest.

In a certain time you will face again your constituency. If you would like to be re-elected to the Canadian parliament -- you will work hard to receive the majority of votes again.

I have received many letters, and unfortunately I cannot read them all into the record. However, I would like to table the concerns of the marriage commissioners, the documents they have received this year in Saskatchewan, so that in history people can see how the language has been neutered in our institution of marriage, how they have had to take out of the marriage licences and the marriage documents the words “bride” and “bridegroom”. It is worth the documents being tabled to show how we have lost the language of the words “bride” and “bridegroom”.

Thank you.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

I am talking about an NDP government that has priorities. Its priorities are three brand new beautiful liquor board stores. It is closing schools in rural Saskatchewan. It is closing hospitals in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has the longest waiting lists of any province in the country. The member need only check our criminal justice statistics if he really wants to live in Saskatchewan or he really only needs to see what it is like to live under a communist rule.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have to invite the member to Saskatchewan and he would see what I am talking about.

Our population has declined incredibly. There is a very depressed population out there because the budget does not address agriculture. Those who are following the equalization plan are feeling as if Saskatchewan has been left out. They are feeling very alienated. We are taxed to death.

What I am trying to say is that most people are moving out of the province because of the administration that is running the province right now which is very unfriendly toward any kind of business or industry. I have been told that most companies prefer to stay out of Saskatchewan. For example, oil companies prefer to have their headquarters in Alberta because it is so unfriendly to move into our province.

Yes, there are some good things happening, in spite of the NDP government. That is how good the people of Saskatchewan are and how hard-working they are. We are staying above water in spite of the NDP government and we can do it. However, I would invite the member to drive on our roads.

I am quite confused by those ads, too, because last year in Saskatchewan the parks were going to close down until July because there was not enough money to open them and staff them. Our parks are not being maintained and they are in absolute shambles. That is just one thing.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous incarnation the finance minister, the current Prime Minister prided himself on his prudent stewardship of the nation's finances.

In 1994 he stood up in this House and indicated that the days of extravagant promises and reckless spending were over, stating,“For years, governments have been promising more than they can deliver, and delivering more than they can afford. This has to end. We are doing it”. That was once upon a time and a long time ago.

The Prime Minister has abandoned the notion of prudent fiscal spending. In its place, as reflected in Bill C-48, he has adopted a reckless spending approach to the budgetary process. Even worse, the Prime Minister decided to cut a truly bizarre backroom deal with the leader of the smallest party in the House for their support, effectively allowing the NDP to dictate the terms of the budget.

To quote the respected national columnist Don Martin:

What we have now is a prime minister who mocked Layton as the leader of a tax-and- spend party that would ring up huge deficits on the national credit card, now calling the NDP's budget a fiscally prudent document which proves Parliament works.

Consider the ramifications of that. For all we do as parliamentarians, for all the debates and all the votes and for all the legislation, nothing affects Canadian families more directly than the way we spend their hard earned money. The way in which government expenditures are allocated speaks to the priorities and values of Canadians.

The Liberal government this past February presented a budget it took great pride in boasting as “Delivering on Commitments”. The introduction of the budget document praised what it described as “a balanced strategy to build a 21st strategy economy that would improve the well-being of all Canadians”. Moreover, it went on to state that a “productive, growing economy creates jobs, boosts incomes and supports investments in the quality of Canadian life”.

The Conservative Party was ready to work with the February budget. While not ideal, it did recognize the need to offset spending increases with some debt repayment and modest tax relief.

However, as the changing winds of political fortune threatened to cut short the Liberal government's rein, the Prime Minister completely ignored his own budget planning and altered it with an NDP budget that according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, “squanders the budget surplus and flouts responsible budgeting in favour of irresponsible spending”.

On the most important piece of legislation, one which will speak to the values and priorities of Canadians, the federal government decided to make a dramatic shift and embrace the priorities of the NDP, a party which received a mere 15% of the vote in the last election and the lowest of the three major federal political parties.

This was not a one time occurrence. Canadians have consistently rejected the NDP and its tax and spend philosophy throughout the years. Why have Canadians been so unfailing in their rejection of the NDP? I cannot speak for all Canadians, but many have seen the often disastrous behaviour of New Democrats in provincial governments.

Residents in my home province of Saskatchewan know all too well how an NDP government treats the public treasury. Indeed, an editorial just today in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix was extremely critical of the current NDP administration in Saskatchewan. It stated:

--as a government with no real strategy for the province, whose intent is to do little more than squander every last nickel that rolls into the coffers, and let the tomorrows fend for themselves.

Indeed, as the editorial concludes, “taxpayers are unlikely to see much direct benefit as the government continues on an irresponsible spending spree”.

The similarities between the federal government and Saskatchewan's provincial government are uncanny in this respect. Both have engaged in irresponsible spending sprees with no framework and with no tax relief for the taxpayer.

Every action has a consequence. Reckless spending by the state has a consequence. The Prime Minister used to know that. He spoke not long ago in the House of the trap of uncontrolled spending and how it contributed to, “the vicious circle in which our chronic deficits contributed to economic lethargy, which in turn contributed to even higher deficits, and then to greater malaise”.

That vicious circle of uncontrolled spending and increasing economic downturns has a real and disturbing cost for hard working families and individuals trying to survive.

In Saskatchewan, the years of the NDP provincial rule have taken an immense toll. The province has one of the lowest per capita family income rates for any province, the lowest number of middle aged, high income earners in Canada, a negative personal savings rate for individuals over the past four years and, most distressing, 14 consecutive quarters of out-migration from the province.

I cannot underline the severity of the out-migration problem on the future of Saskatchewan. It is not only how many are leaving but also who.

According to a recently released report from Statistics Canada, the province's two biggest cities, Regina and Saskatoon, topped the list of Canadian cities to suffer from brain drain. Regina lost 7% and Saskatoon 6% of their 2001 university graduates to other Canadian urban centres. Excessive state interference, especially in the form of reckless spending in the economy, stifles everything from innovation to entrepreneurship. More important, it drains jobs, the very jobs that those new graduates were seeking in Saskatchewan in their fruitless searches.

Unfortunately, because the Prime Minister feels it is necessary to alter the budget to suit the NDP, we will likely have an NDP economy. Maybe the Liberals should have asked what that includes or, more correctly, does not before they so eagerly signed on.

The C.D. Howe Institute recently determined that the NDP modifications to this budget would cost the Canadian economy a whopping 340,000 jobs. The corporate tax cuts that the NDP are so adamantly opposed to would have left money in the hands of companies to produce more and better paying jobs for Canadians.

Likewise, according to Dennis Gartman, a well-known investment analyst, Bill C-48 is “the worst possible signal the Prime Minister could send to the capital markets.... Capital that might have come to Canada shall now, at the very best, think twice about coming”.

Bill C-48 flies in the face of the universally recognized principle that to stimulate job growth we need competitive corporate tax rates. To quote Gartman again, he said it is “bad economic policy, plain and simple. It puts the lie to the Liberal claim that creating a competitive economy is a high priority in assuring our collective standards of living”.

Knowing all this about Bill C-48, how can anyone support it? Indeed, does anyone honestly think the Prime Minister, circa 1994 or 1998 as the finance minister, would support this legislation? Most rational people would not endorse spending a few thousand dollars on a home renovation without a detailed blueprint, let alone nearly $5 billion for major government initiatives without an adequate plan.

Will the Liberals, for instance, address the severe reservations the Auditor General expressed about the capacity of certain departments to deliver programs efficiently, the very same departments to which the Liberals want to give more money in Bill C-48? Is there an adequate plan to deal with these concerns? Was that discussed with Buzz Hargrove at the Royal York Hotel too?

It would be an insult to the millions of hard-working Canadians to endorse legislation that not only will cost billions but most likely will not meet its stated objectives. A rational approach would make certain, first, that existing money is spent efficiently and that programs can be sufficiently improved to merit further expenditures. Amazingly, the Liberal-NDP coalition is steadfastly opposed to this approach, voting against amendments in finance committee to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a more prudent fiscal approach.

I cannot in good conscience support passage of this legislation and neither can most rational people.

[Petitions, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from villages in my riding that request that the government ask Canada Post to keep their post offices open. They believe that while Canada Post spends millions of dollars advertising at such events as hockey games, it could consider keeping the presence of the post office. These post offices give a federal presence in every small community across Canada, the province of Quebec, the Maritimes, Atlantic Canada and the north. The petitioners would like their post offices to remain open.

[Justice, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, injustice takes many forms, one being the modern day slavery of human trafficking. The UN estimates that four million people are trafficked each year under the threat of violence, and these numbers are growing.

Canada is far from immune. The RCMP reports about 800 people are smuggled into the country each year and we are a major transit point for trafficking into the United States. Canada's Solicitor General estimates between 8,000 and 16,000 illegal immigrants are forced to work in the sex trade industry.

The cruelty and inhumanity of human trafficking cannot be quantified. Promises of a better life are being used to lure unsuspecting women and children from around the world.

Canada's response to this growing epidemic has been lacklustre. Only a few months ago were the first charges laid under the three-year-old Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Even though the government promised human trafficking legislation over a year ago, it has only just been tabled. It is now time for the government to provide the necessary resources to ensure this legislation can be effectively enforced.