Interventions in the House of Commons
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Matthew Dubé Profile
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-19 22:13 [p.29448]
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. This bill is being offered as a product of all of Parliament, while we reject any of the substantive amendments that the Senate is bringing forward.
Certainly, I do not want to be an apologist for the Senate, with some of the legislation it is holding up. In particular, Senator Pate, who worked on this, is someone who comes from the community of civil society, of folks who have worked on these issues for a long time. The reason I say that is because the bill was panned by every witness who came to committee. In fact, the Ontario Superior Court, when it offered the extension to the government, which has allowed this unconstitutional practice to fester for four years now, said that there was nothing in its mind that seemed to indicate there would be any remedial effort brought forward.
What I find really frustrating and baffling about the bill is that ultimately it is just a rebrand, and I am not the only one saying that. Many others have said it as well, including Senator Pate.
I want to ask the member a question. Judicial review has been offered. It was offered years ago, even decades ago, by Justice Arbour when she was looking at some of these issues. The reason why was because we were essentially changing someone's sentence, we were extending someone's sentence by adding additional punishment through the system.
Does the member not recognize that? If the government truly believes there will be an undue burden on provincial courts, is that not because the practice has been used in such an abusive way that it would require that additional judicial oversight?
View Matthew Dubé Profile
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-19 22:23 [p.29449]
Mr. Speaker, to go back to the last answer, I would like to quote for the parliamentary secretary Dr. Adelina Iftene who is a law professor at Dalhousie University. Following these amendments and the response to the work that Senate Pate was doing, she said:
The government claims that these units don’t fall under the definition of solitary confinement because the amount of time prisoners would be alone in their cells is 20 hours versus 22 hours. While that falls within UN standards...The UN standards state that meaningful contact of two hours or less per day is also considered solitary confinement.
Do the Liberals not believe that living up to the UN standard is the very least they could do, but they have not?
View Matthew Dubé Profile
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-19 22:54 [p.29453]
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington, I do want to thank the member for his service and say what a pleasure it was to work together on the public safety committee. He is certainly a straight shooter, and it led to probably some of the best witness testimony we could get. At the risk of mixing metaphors, it was also a bit disarming. I think we tend to like to be verbose at committee, but getting to the point is something we could do more of. My thanks to him for that.
I do want to ask the member this question. We have talked a lot about consultations. He mentioned it in the context of correctional officers. We both know from being at the committee that most of the major stakeholders on this file, if not all of them, told us at committee that they were not consulted.
There was a first go that the government had at this, Bill C-56, which never got to be debated at second reading when it was tabled in 2017. This bill was tabled late last year, and we are now finalizing debate. I just wonder what my colleague thinks about this. While there is a tight timeline and he is talking about rushing it, the reality is that with the Ashley Smith inquest and some other things, this has been on the agenda even before the government took power.
I am wondering what the member thinks of the fact that there was the opportunity to consult and there was the opportunity to get it right, but now there have been some court decisions, a rushed timeline and a bit of legislative dropping the ball, if I am allowed that turn of phrase. What does the member think about that situation?
View Matthew Dubé Profile
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-19 22:56 [p.29453]
Mr. Speaker, I will be proposing an amendment at the end of my speech. Please let me know when I have one minute remaining.
I would like to share with the House a few important quotes.
First, I will go over the topic I just raised in my question to the hon. member for Yellowhead. In Canada, administrative segregation is a scourge. It has been overused for many years and was an issue well before the current government came to power.
During the previous Parliament, two of our colleagues, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who was the critic, and the former member for Alfred-Pellan, Rosane Doré Lefebvre, who was the deputy critic, asked many questions about the inquest into the tragic circumstances surrounding Ashley Smith's death. I invite all parliamentarians who wish to speak about that case to read that file.
It is horrifying to see that this teenager, this child, was killed. The findings of the inquest attest to the negligence and abuse in the prison system. The Correctional Service of Canada has to take responsibility for its role in this tragedy.
It is all the more troubling when we consider that members of her family, namely her mother and her sister, if I remember correctly, came to testify before the Senate committee. Senator Pate, who was doing amazing work on this file long before being appointed to the Senate, had invited them to testify. In their testimony, the family members said they were disappointed and furious with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, who were supposed to make improvements to ensure that the circumstances surrounding Ashley's death never happened again. They invoked her name and her memory to justify their approach, but in the end this approach will not help resolve the situation at all.
Since the Liberals took office, two courts and the Supreme Court have granted extensions and the government has requested a stay because the legislation before us has not yet passed. The courts found what we have known for a long time, namely that excessive use of administrative segregation is unconstitutional.
That pronouncement is deeply disturbing. We know of numerous cases of abuse. Incidentally, those cases of abuse are not exclusive to federal institutions. However, given our jurisdiction and the limited time we have left, we cannot delve into the many troubling cases that worry us, including the one that happened recently in Ontario.
It is important to bear in mind that the remedy the government is proposing is no remedy at all. In fact, it is quite the contrary. The reason so many stakeholders, and in certain cases, the loved ones of victims of the abusive use of solitary confinement, have deplored this is that all we have is a rebrand. It is solitary confinement under a different name.
As is unfortunately too often the case with the government, we have to propose amendments and make changes to bills, pointing out there are a few things that might be better. Experts agree that the courts will continue to find this practice, even if under a different name like structured intervention units, to be unconstitutional. I will come back to this with some quotes I pulled up earlier, which I want to share with the House.
Bill C-83 was one of the first bills that came before our committee and was opposed by all the witnesses. Rarely had I seen this until quite recently, although there have been a few since then. I am sure Liberal members could pull out a couple of quotes to say that corrections officers think this would be an okay approach. However, the witnesses were opposed to this approach, because a variety of things were not in place that needed to be.
One of the Senate's proposed amendments is to require judicial approval for an inmate to be held in solitary confinement. This is nothing new. Justice Louise Arbour conducted an inquiry into riots at an institution in Saskatchewan. She noted that the overuse of segregation has an impact on inmates.
Judges sometimes impose sentences of imprisonment as part of their duties and authority. However, when segregation is overused, this means that institutions, their managers and, ultimately, the Correctional Service of Canada are altering the judge's decision. They are modifying the sentence handed down by the judge. This was Justice Arbour's argument, which is why she advocated for the use of judicial supervision.
What is particularly troubling to me is that I proposed an amendment, now Senator Pate has proposed an amendment and these amendments are being rejected by the government. My understanding, after hearing the parliamentary secretary's speech earlier tonight, is that it would cause an increased workload on provincial courts. Ultimately, the sad and tragic thing about that argument is that the only reason it would cause an increased workload is because of the abusive use of solitary confinement as so many individuals are being subjected to the practice when they should not necessarily be.
Focusing on women offenders in particular, I presented an amendment at committee to end the practice completely in women's institutions. Why? The figures demonstrate two things. One is that the number of women in solitary confinement is infinitesimal. The practice is not necessary for maintaining security in our institutions, which is obviously the primary reason it is used most of the time. The second is quite simply that pregnant women, women with mental health problems and indigenous women are the women most often negatively affected by the abusive use of solitary confinement. There is certainly an argument to be made about that, but at the very least, it should be with judicial oversight.
In fact, the argument might also be made that Senator Pate's amendment goes too far. I do not think so, which, as I said, leads us to support the amendment, but there are other routes as well. I proposed an amendment that sought a longer period of 15 days before judicial oversight would be required. It is certainly a much longer and wider threshold than what Senator Pate is proposing. That was also rejected.
The fact of the matter is that the issue we are facing here is quite contradictory. I want to go back to another issue that was raised by the parliamentary secretary about the burden we would be putting on provinces. The parliamentary secretary mentioned the burden on provincial mental health hospitals and institutions. That is one of reasons I wanted the Senate amendments. Members will forgive me for not recalling the exact amendment, but this was being proposed.
We look at the same Public Safety department, through the work of my provincial colleague in Queen's Park, Jennifer French. It has fought the Ontario government for years over the fact that it has contracts with Public Safety Canada to detain, in some cases with dubious human rights parameters, immigrants who have sometimes not even committed crimes and have uncertain legal status in our country. When that is the purview of the federal government, these individuals are treated very poorly.
I do not have the title with me, but I would be happy to share with them a great report in the Toronto Star two years ago, if I am not mistaken, on some of these individuals. One individual, for example, in the U.S. was apparently accused of stealing a DVD, but was never found guilty in court. He came to Canada, was working through the process for permanent residency and due to a variety of issues, he is now being detained in a provincial prison under poor circumstances, without the proper accountability that a normal detention process would have. Even though that is the responsibility of the federal government, there are issues like overcrowding and such, and that is through subcontracting that the federal government does with the provinces.
Why am I talking about a completely different case? I am simply trying to demonstrate the government's hypocrisy.
The government has no qualms about working with the provinces. In some cases, it even forces them to implement legislation and various mechanisms related to our legal and correctional systems. Now, the government wants to use the provinces as an argument to continue violating inmates' rights.
As promised, I will share some quotes. I want to share two of them with the House.
First of all, I want to go to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling granting the second extension, in April. Certainly my colleagues who are lawyers will not appreciate me selectively quoting. It is always a dubious and dangerous game, but I will do so for the sake of expediency. The court said this:
Extensive evidence is put forward outlining the legislative process, the steps necessary to implement the Bill [Bill C-83]including cost, staff training, infrastructure, public consultations.... But this court remains where we were when the first extension was argued: we have virtually nothing to indicate that the constitutional breach identified by the application judge is being or will be addressed in the future.
It is pretty clear from that quote and that extension, and not even the initial judgment ruling that the practice was unconstitutional, that this is an issue the bill will not resolve.
I sort of opened the door to this at the beginning, and I did not quite finish that thought, but I did want to come back to it, because I just mentioned the second extension.
Bill C-56 was tabled in 2017, the first attempt by the government to deal with this, because it was, after all, part of not one minister's but two ministers' mandate letters, the minister of justice and the Minister of Public Safety. As I said, it was a debate that began in the previous Parliament and even before through a variety of public inquiries and the like.
Finally, we get to Bill C-83, which was tabled late last year. Here we are now, at the eleventh hour, having it rammed through, because the government, quite frankly, did not do its proper homework. It is problematic, because here we have the Liberals asking for extensions and having to go now, in the last few weeks, to the Supreme Court, of all places, to get an additional extension. The thing is that the witnesses at committee were not consulted. No one was consulted except the officials in the minister's office, and they all came to committee to tell us that.
I would like someone to explain to me how this could be an issue when the Prime Minister included it in his 2015 mandate letters for the ministers responsible. A bill was introduced in 2017, and two decisions by two different courts, the B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, were handed down in late 2017 and early 2018. Then Bill C-83 was introduced in late 2018. Then not one, not two, but three applications were filed for an extension to implement what the courts had requested.
That is interesting. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington. Earlier, when she asked the member for Yellowhead a question, she stated that it might be more beneficial for correctional officers if we were to pass the bill so as not to have to impose the will of the courts upon them.
Personally, to defend human rights and prevent people from dying in our prisons due to excessive use of administrative segregation, I would like the courts' restrictions and terms to be imposed. Of course, that is what we wanted to see in the legislation.
On a similar note, I would like to come back to the UN rules concerning segregation, which are known as the Nelson Mandela rules.
They cover a number of factors: the number of consecutive days in administrative segregation, the number of consecutive hours in administrative segregation and the number of hours spent outside the cell. Viewers might see that last point as problematic, but when inmates are outside their cells, they are not frolicking in wildflower meadows. I hope my colleagues will forgive my humorous tone when talking about such a serious issue. All that means is outside the cell used for administrative segregation. The rules also mention the importance of meaningful human contact.
Now I would like to read the quote I read a small part of when I asked the parliamentary secretary a question.
Dr. Adelina Iftene is a law professor at Dalhousie University. I will read the full quote and I ask for colleagues' indulgence. She said:
The government claims that these units don’t fall under the definition of solitary confinement because the amount of time prisoners would be alone in their cells is 20 hours versus 22 hours. While that falls within UN standards, the amount of time prisoners would have meaningful contact with other human beings–-two hours per day--does not. The UN standards state that meaningful contact of two hours or less per day is also considered solitary confinement. The government simply cannot argue that its proposed regime is not segregation. Passing a bill that does not include a cap on segregation time and judicial oversight will lead to another unconstitutional challenge.... Refusal to pass the bill with amendments would be a sign of bad faith, disregard for taxpayers’ money and for the rule of law. It is disheartening to see such resistance to upholding human rights at home by a country that champions human rights abroad.
That drives home the point that the window dressing may have changed, but the store still carries the same goods. Please forgive my use of such a light-hearted expression. The system is the same, and it still has harsh and sometimes fatal consequences for people.
Some people argue that there are public safety reasons for this and that some of these inmates have committed horrible crimes and deserve to be punished. However, by far most of the people subjected to excessive use of administrative segregation struggle with mental health problems. That is a problem because these people are not getting the care they need for either their own rehabilitation or to ensure public safety objectives are achieved and they stop posing a threat to communities and society. Excessive use is at odds with our mental health and rehabilitation goals, and that is bad for public safety. I would encourage anyone who says this measure will improve public safety to think again because there is a situation here we really need to address.
I have a lot more that I would like to say, but my time is running out. As members can see, this problem has been around for years. Many stakeholders gave inspiring testimony, despite the sombre issue and our discouragement with regard to the government's proposals and inaction. What is more, what the Senate has been doing when it comes to some of the bills that were democratically passed by the House is deplorable. I am thinking of the bill introduced by my colleague from James Bay and the one introduced by our former colleague from Edmonton, Rona Ambrose, on sexual assault. That being said, Senator Pate has done extraordinary work. She has experience in the field. She used to work at the Elizabeth Fry Society. She knows what she is talking about, much more than anyone in the House. I tip my hat to her for the amendments that she managed to get adopted in the Senate. I support them.
Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Jonquière:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act, be now read a second time and concurred in.”
View Karine Trudel Profile
View Karine Trudel Profile
2019-06-19 23:21 [p.29456]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for his excellent work.
I have had the opportunity to work with him over the past four years. I find he has a way with words and that his speeches help us better understand what is really going on.
In his speech, my colleague said that he had a lot more to say but that he was running out of time. I would therefore like him to take this opportunity to elaborate further.
View Matthew Dubé Profile
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-19 23:22 [p.29456]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words, which are very much appreciated.
Indeed, this is a complex file. As I said earlier today during the debate on another motion, when dealing with public safety and correctional institutions, people often talk about individuals who do not deserve any sympathy, and with good reason. However, we have a duty to make sure they are rehabilitated. That is one of the objectives of the Correctional Service of Canada. It it also an objective that we all should share, for reasons I mentioned, namely public safety. After all, any effort we can make to lower recidivism rates will contribute to public safety.
We also need to uphold human rights. To repeat some of the quotation I read, we champion human rights abroad and denounce how prisoners are treated in other countries. I will not name any, but we can all think of some examples. It is important that we be consistent here at home.
We must acknowledge that human rights abuses can adversely affect the mental health of Canadian citizens, whether criminal or not, and then those individuals continue their journey as inmates in a correctional institution. In some cases, it can even cause the deaths of certain individuals, in all kinds of tragic circumstances. We need to recognize that there is a still a great deal of work to be done.
In closing, I am very disappointed that the government has done nothing even though it clearly said it would fix the problem. Civil society is progressing, but the government is satisfied with what it has done. Unfortunately, regardless of what the parliamentary secretary said earlier, the Liberals agreed to amendments that are, at best, cosmetic and, at worst, watered down and much weaker than what was put forward initially.
I believe this measure comes to us from the minister's office and does not take into account the goals Canadians want us to achieve. It certainly does not reflect what we heard from people who are involved in this issue and have spent decades working to improve our communities, in part through the correctional system.
I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to recap.
View Matthew Dubé Profile
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-19 23:25 [p.29457]
Mr. Speaker, since this may be the last time to speak on this issue, which we have had the chance to work on, I want to thank the member for her advocacy and the opportunity we had to work together.
As I mentioned in a previous response, the public safety file is a challenging one because we are sometimes swimming upstream when it comes to dealing with complicated issues that are not always the issues that garner the most sympathy from the public, but they do have important outcomes for our communities and for many individuals in Canada.
We were able to accomplish many important things, and I thank the member for that and for her continued advocacy. As she mentioned, while we might disagree, I certainly know that, at the very least, she is a persistent voice in the minister's ear on some of these issues.
I am never going to speak against any further investment on issues that I believe are important, and certainly the investments she talked about are important. It does leave me to raise a final concern with the remaining few seconds that I probably have left. There were some specifics I raised at committee, concerns that I had with some of the wording of the bill.
Often, as I mentioned earlier, corrections officers do not have the resources, or even if there are mental health resources in an institution, they might not always be readily available at the time of an incident. Therefore, it sometimes makes it challenging for them to make the decision that leads to the best mental health outcomes.
My concern is that some aspects of the bill are phrased in such a way that there could be a potential loophole. Some of those concerns were alleviated, but others still remain. I am pleased to see them continue to go in that direction, but unfortunately we will have to agree to disagree on the substance of the bill.
I do not believe that this is the right approach. I want to see strong parameters around the use of solitary confinement in the country, in line with the court decisions we have seen, with UN standards and certainly with judicial oversight. That is the direction I believe we need to go in.
Again, I want to say that it has been a pleasure to work with the member and hopefully we can push these issues forward in the years to come, even if it is not in these roles or any other roles that we might play in this place.
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
2019-06-19 23:44 [p.29460]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and for her work on this file.
The obvious question in this debate was raised by my colleague, our critic on this file, who delivered a very eloquent speech. There is no need for me to repeat it. It is very likely that the constitutionality of this legislation will be challenged in court once it is passed and receives royal assent.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the constitutionality of this legislation. Does she think it will stand up in court in the event of a challenge?
Later on, when we review previous debates of the House, we will know whether my colleague was on the right side of history or whether she was mistaken on this.
View Peter Julian Profile
View Peter Julian Profile
2019-06-17 12:08 [p.29164]
Mr. Speaker, I am so saddened, as I think most Canadians are, that every day the Liberals continue to repudiate all the commitments they made back in 2015 to work with members of the House of Commons, to stop omnibus legislation and to stop the abuse of the use of closure.
As the House knows, the government has gone far beyond the previous government's abuse of closure by bringing in a new “gag” closure that allows only 20 minutes of discussion after it is moved and only one member of the government gets to speak. Members of the opposition do not get to ask questions, make comments or anything of that nature. It shows how toxic the government has become with respect to trying to move legislation through the House and get it improved so the legislation does what it purports to do.
In the case of Bill C-83, the NDP offered dozens of amendments, because the bill has been largely criticized by the Elizabeth Fry Societies and many other intervenors. We brought forward the witness testimony and said it would improve the bill. The government refused all of that.
Is that not the reason why the government is ramming it through today, because it is a controversial bill that has been much criticized and the government refused to listen to all the witnesses and members of the opposition who tried to make improvements?
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the minister, I do understand the difference between a closure motion and time allocation. I realize that the government is allocating time for this.
The major issue, though, is the fact that on Friday Bill C-83 had proceeded with only four minutes of debate when the government House leader rose in the House to give notice that time allocation was going to be moved. I understand that this bill is at a relatively advanced stage, however, it is tradition that this House, the people's House, the representatives of each of these ridings get to have the time to carefully consider what the other place has done.
When I put what the government's actions are with respect to Bill C-83 within the context of what it did on Thursday with all of the other government bills, I think the pretense of any respect for Parliament has completely evaporated. Right now, the government is quite obvious. It has a week left, it has a checklist, and is it going to use its majority to simply ram through every piece of legislation, no matter what members of the opposition might have to say on it, despite the fact that on this side of the House, our parties, collectively, represent roughly 60% of the Canadian populace.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2019-06-17 12:24 [p.29166]
Mr. Speaker, I too am disturbed about the fact that the government is using this tactic bringing either time allocation or closure to this House on government bills. This would be the 76th time that the government has embarked on this since I have been here.
This is the end of our term but I am still a new member of Parliament. I still recall that in the 2015 election the Liberal members advocated for and promised Canadians that they would not embark on a process like the Harper government of shutting down debate in this House to put in time allocation or closure. Here we are, yet again, doing exactly that. Last week, the government moved a similar motion twice in one day on different bills.
I would say this to the minister. Will the Liberals not follow up on what they promised Canadians in the 2015 election and stand down on this motion?
View Peter Julian Profile
View Peter Julian Profile
2019-06-17 12:33 [p.29167]
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier and will say again, the government has repudiated all the promises it made back in 2015.
The minister was being a bit disingenuous a few minutes ago, when he said that this is not omnibus legislation. A point that opposition members have been making is that the government said it would end the practice of omnibus legislation, but instead it has accelerated it.
In terms of the gag closure, the government said that it would reduce the number of times it would impose closure, but instead it has accelerated it. The gag closure, which is a new measure, never before seen in Canadian history, eliminates the right of opposition members to even speak to a bill once closure is moved. The 20-minute government speech is all that is permitted on the floor of the House of Commons.
We have before us legislation that is deeply flawed, and, for the 76th time, the government is imposing closure. The nitpicking about it being a different category of closure, TA closure as opposed to standard closure or gag closure, does not make the harm that this does to Parliament any less. The Liberal government has used closure 76 times, proportionally more than the Harper government.
The bill itself is deeply flawed. There is no limit on the number of days that somebody can be put in solitary confinement. Is that not the reason why the government is trying to ram the bill through the House?
View Matthew Dubé Profile
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-05-31 11:45 [p.28350]
Mr. Speaker, for four years now, the Minister of Public Safety has been ignoring decisions handed down by various courts ruling that excessive use of solitary confinement is unconstitutional.
Yesterday, the family of Ashley Smith spoke out against the government's broken promises and the fact that it is invoking their daughter's name to justify its failure to act. Bill C-83 will do nothing to fix this appalling situation.
Will the government abandon the bill, comply with the court rulings and, above all, apologize to the family of Ashley Smith?
View Randall Garrison Profile
Mr. Speaker, as I often like to say, I love to see the Conservatives and Liberals argue about who provided less for the public services we need. In this case, we know that the key problem with the management of offenders is the lack of resources for treatment programs and rehabilitation programs.
The minister asked why the NDP is opposing this bill. I want to cite two people who are probably the country's best authorities on this issue. One is Senator Kim Pate, who said, “With respect to segregation, Bill C-83 is not only merely a rebranding of the same damaging practice as “Structured Intervention Units”.
Ivan Zinger, the correctional investor, said, “Bill C-83 is widening the net of those restrictive environments. There's no procedural safeguard.”
These two people, undoubtedly the people who know the most about this in the entire country, have said that this is just a rebranding. We are going to end up back in front of the courts with the same problem of violation of people's rights, and we are going to end up with more victims of this system of segregation, because the bill expands the net of those who will be drawn into it.
View Linda Duncan Profile
View Linda Duncan Profile
2019-03-01 10:45 [p.26008]
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if the member would correct the slight he made to my colleague.
The Hon. Kim Pate, senator and former long-standing head of the Elizabeth Fry Society and who received the Order of Canada for her work against segregation in prisons, said two days ago that Bill C-83 could have been made meaningful. Instead of just changing the name, the government could have made significant changes by including provisions that would allow for the transfer of those who had mental problems to mental health facilities. I wonder if the member could speak to that.
Would the legislation really resolve the problem we face where so many have been put in segregation and suffer severe mental problems? There are other solutions? I have worked with many people in the criminal law field. I have been to those facilities of incarceration. The Hon. Kim Pate is a person whose advice should be considered.
Results: 1 - 15 of 109 | Page: 1 of 8