Maria Mourani

[Criminal Code, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I was very surprised to see the government's amendments respecting procuring. I do want to point out that these amendments are supported by both the Liberal Party and the NDP. Their purpose was quite simply to delete forfeiture of the pimp's proceeds of crime and, of course, consecutive sentences from the bill. The argument advanced by the government was that, since the Supreme Court was reviewing the Bedford decision, it preferred to wait until the court had ruled.

The Supreme Court heard Ms. Bedford's case on June 13. I was in the court and heard the testimony. What impressed me most was the argument of one of Ms. Bedford's lawyers. In response to a judge who had asked him a question, he said that, if Parliament—and that means all of us here—had made the legislation coherent, they would not be there. In fact, he was saying in a very polite way that, if Parliament had done its job, the Supreme Court would not be considering the Bedford case.

Why? We currently have a nonsensical situation in Canada. Prostitution is not illegal, but prostitution-related practices are. When this law was passed, it created a nonsensical situation. You cannot say that prostitution is not illegal in Canada and, in the same breath, that we are going to criminalize all prostitution-related practices, such as living on the avails of prostitution, keeping a bawdy house, soliciting and so on. That lawyer was right: that is nonsensical.

I have been a member of Parliament for seven years and a few months, and I have been waiting for seven years for the government to find the courage to table a bill on prostitution, thus triggering and provoking this debate in the House. It is not up to the Supreme Court to decide this matter; it is Parliament the must decide the kind of society in which we want to live. The Supreme Court recognizes that. It is up to Parliament, it is up to each of us, who are elected by the people, to decide, to conduct this debate in the House.

I have been waiting for this act for seven years, and I hope that the Supreme Court's decision will compel the government to bring the debate into the House and that the debate will be held in the House.

I very much hope that Canada will follow in Sweden's footsteps—that is my personal opinion—by making sure that it eliminates and eradicates this form of violence against women by criminalizing pimps, by criminalizing johns and, of course, by decriminalizing the people who are prostituted and providing the resources that must accompany that legislation in order to help these people.

Prostitution is not a job; it is a form of violence committed against another human being who is considered as merchandise. Prostitution is not the oldest profession in the world; it is the oldest lie in the world. Prostitution is not a job; it is a means of survival.

My mind is made up, and has been for a long time. I work with these women on the street, and I know all about it. All caucuses could debate this issue. Many wonder if the legalization of prostitution will result in the protection of prostitutes.

I wanted to talk to the House about a good example, that of Germany. Germany legalized prostitution 10 years ago and there have been assessments. Recently, the magazine Der Spiegel published its May 26, 2013, issue entitled, “German Brothels--How the State Encourages Trafficking of Women and Prostitution”. It is a very good issue and I recommend that my colleagues read it. It discusses how the legalization of prostitution in Germany has failed because it does not protect prostitutes.

According to estimates by the industry association Erotik Gewerbe Deutschland, there are between 3,000 and 3,500 red-light establishments in Germany. There are an estimated 500 brothels in Berlin, 70 in Osnabrück and 270 in the small state of Saarland. Travel agencies offer tours to German brothels lasting up to eight days. Prospective customers are promised up to 100 “totally nude women” wearing nothing but high heels. Customers are also picked up at the airport and taken to the clubs in luxury cars.

Large brothels have become established in Germany. They now advertise their services at all-inclusive rates. For example, management of the Pussy Club, which opened near Stuttgart in 2009, advertises the following: “Sex with all women as long as you want, as often as you want and the way you want. Sex. Anal sex. Oral sex without a condom. Three-ways. Group sex. Gang bangs.” The price: €70 during the day and €100 in the evening.

That is how they advertise.

According to the police, about 1,700 customers took advantage of the offer on the opening weekend. Buses arrived from far away and local newspapers reported that up to 700 men stood in line outside the brothel. Customers wrote in Internet chat rooms about the unsatisfactory service, complaining that the women were no longer as fit for use after a few hours.

These are examples from a country that legalized prostitution.

Consider the following example: a guy named Marian handed over a 16-year-old girl named Sina to “No Limit”, a brothel with all-inclusive pricing. She served 30 clients a day.

In 2001, a law was passed that was supposed to improve Germany's prostitution legislation. Did it improve anything for women like Sina? Absolutely not.

According to the report on human trafficking recently released by the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, that country has over 23,600 victims of human trafficking. Two-thirds of them are being sexually exploited. Axel Dreher, a professor of international and development politics at Heidelberg University, tried to answer the following question: did Germany's prostitution laws somehow increase human trafficking and encourage traffickers and, therefore, prostitution? He did an analysis of 150 countries. The results: in countries where prostitution is legal, there is more human trafficking than elsewhere around the world.

I could go on and on with examples of the horrors of prostitutes being mistreated and neglected, all in a country that legalized prostitution. Post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse and repeated rape are all common problems. I could go on.

However, the big question I want to ask today is this: do we want to live in a society like the one I just described? Do we want to live in a society that passes the legacy of prostitution on to our children and our daughters?

I have always fought to stop this kind of thing from happening in our society. I do not want my sons to grow up in the kind of society that treats women like commodities.

[Criminal Code, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if hon. members would stop talking.

[Criminal Code, June 18th, 2013]

moved that Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is a great victory that Bill C-452, a private member's bill, has made it as far as third reading. It is not my victory, but that of many groups. I feel it is important to name them because they are the ones who worked hard to develop this bill and who supported it throughout the process.

They are: the Council on the Status of Women, police experts from the SPVM morality branch and child sexual exploitation unit, the Comité d'action contre la traite humaine interne et internationale, the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale, the Regroupement québécois 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, Maison de Marthe and the YMCAs of Quebec.

Many groups participated in the development of this bill. I thank them very much and I commend them for all the work that they did. These groups also appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain the importance of this bill and, in particular, the results it will achieve on the ground.

I would like to quickly mention the things that came up in committee that I found a bit surprising, since a significant number of amendments were made to the bill. First, no major changes were made to the provisions related to human trafficking, whether with regard to presumption or the reversal of the burden of proof, consecutive sentences for offences related to trafficking in persons, or the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime for people who are charged with human trafficking. These provisions did not really change, and that is a good thing.

The provision regarding the definition of sexual exploitation was changed. A government amendment removed this provision on the basis that it could make the definition hard to understand. These were not major changes. The principles underlying the provisions on human trafficking stayed the same. I am very pleased about that.

By the way, the NDP did not propose any amendments. The Liberals proposed amendments that were rejected and that I did not support either, and the majority of the amendments proposed by the Conservatives were kept since the Conservatives have the majority. Nonetheless, some of the amendments they proposed were supported by the NDP and the Liberals.

One of the government's amendments leaves me extremely perplexed. It is the amendment that replaced our wish to have the bill come into force 30 days after royal assent. The government's amendment would have the bill come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. It seems that the government wants to control the implementation of the bill.

If the bill receives royal assent, I hope that it will come into force very quickly because, as all the witnesses said, this is an urgent matter. It is essential that the police, prosecutors and victims advocacy groups have the necessary tools to combat human trafficking.

As far as the provisions on procuring are concerned, I was very shocked. I did not at all expect the government to propose amendments to the procuring provisions. On the contrary, I expected the consecutive sentences for pimps, and the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime of pimps, to be provisions that the government would support.

In committee, the government said it wanted to wait for the Supreme Court ruling in the Bedford case.

We know that 80% to 90% of people who are victims of human trafficking are trafficked into prostitution, especially in Canada.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. While the fiercest battles have raged in recent months, the Canadian government has even recognized the use of chemical warfare against the Syrian people. Without any help from the government, I identified 17 Canadian children who are caught up in this hell and cannot leave Syria without their immediate family—father, mother, sister or brother—who do not have Canadian citizenship. I have been forwarding this information to the minister for the past week, but he has done nothing about it.

I gave him this information again today. What does he plan to do? We are talking about the lives of 17 Canadian children.

[Nathalie Morin, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend we learned that two human rights advocates in Saudi Arabia have been sentenced to 10 months in prison and will be prohibited from leaving the country for two years after that simply because they brought food to Ms. Morin.

I would like to remind the House that for eight years, Ms. Morin and her three children have been detained in Saudi Arabia by her husband, the children's father, yet the Conservative government has stood idly by.

In June 2011, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously called on the federal government to bring Ms. Morin and her children back to Canada. At the time, the federal government said that it hoped “for a positive resolution”. We have heard nothing since then.

The government needs to stop calling this a private dispute and hiding behind that excuse to justify its lack of action. Let us hope that officials at the Canadian embassy in Riyadh will be able to propose a solution to Ms. Morin the next time they interview her. It is Canada's responsibility to protect Ms. Morin, as well as her children.

[Public Safety, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the Maison d'Haïti program “Jeunes patrouilleurs de rue” has received a federal grant to help young people leave street gangs and avoid their grasp. On May 21, 2013, a decision from the office of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development informed Maison d'Haïti that its application had been rejected, although it had been recommended by departmental staff.

Why did the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development reject the application from a leading player in crime prevention in Saint-Michel and Montreal?

[Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased rise this evening to speak to Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, which concerns the Yale First Nation in British Columbia.

Almost 40 years ago now, the governments of Quebec and Canada signed an important agreement with the Cree and Inuit nations: the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This was the first major modern-day agreement negotiated in Quebec and Canada. Signed in 1975, it laid the foundation for the social, economic and administrative organization of a significant part of Quebec's aboriginal population.

The agreement covered all aspects of the lives of the Cree and Inuit people, who received 10,400 km² in land holdings. Quebec also gave them exclusive hunting, fishing and trapping rights on category II lands and on all of the territory covered by the agreement.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement paved the way for collaborative agreements in Canada, such as the Yale First Nation Final Agreement. Quebec decided to take a different approach to its dealings with aboriginal people in the 1970s.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples entitled to the culture, language, customs and traditions that are key to the development of their identity. In so doing, it is respecting the direction taken by René Lévesque, a staunch defender of aboriginal peoples, who made Quebec the first nation in the Americas to recognize the aboriginal nations in its midst.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the future does not lie in pointless opposition, but rather in constructive partnerships that respect the legitimate interests of all parties. The Bloc Québécois's political position allows it to move the current debate forward, generate new ideas and provide a broad outline for what could be the renewal of the relationship between the first nations and Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois stands behind aboriginal peoples in their quest for justice and the recognition of their rights.

For example, we believe that the entire first nations education system is underfunded. A 2% cap on increases in federal funding for education in aboriginal communities has been in place since 1996, yet given the rise in the cost of living and the tremendous growth in the first nations population, an annual increase of 6.2% is needed. That is not currently happening.

That is why the Bloc Québécois had the courage to introduce Bill C-599 during the previous Parliament. This bill had to do with the implementation of a first nations education funding plan, and its goal was to force the government to increase education funding for aboriginals and to develop a long-term funding plan.

Young people represent hope and the future of the first nations. We must focus on education and academic success, essential assets that must be seen as investments that will pave the way to the future.

The future does not lie in pointless opposition, but rather in constructive partnerships that respect the legitimate interests of all parties. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that aboriginal peoples make a significant contribution to Quebec society. This contribution is made possible because of the wealth of culture and knowledge of the aboriginal peoples.

The Bloc Québécois supports protecting these fundamental aspects of the collective identity of aboriginal peoples, as well as maintaining their languages. With regard to future relations between the government and aboriginal peoples, we feel it is important to support a more comprehensive approach that recognizes the aspirations of aboriginal peoples and favours negotiating agreements nation to nation.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of sending the bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement to be studied in committee, since it was the result of respectful negotiations with the Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia and the Yale First Nation. In addition, this agreement will enable the Yale First Nation to exercise self-government over its land, resources and members.

Respect is what allows us to build sustainable connections between peoples.

[Points of Order, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is very important for all members of the House to respect people from other countries.

I understand that some members can get pretty excited when expressing themselves and asking questions, but I found it insulting when the member for Trois-Rivières said, “Drivers wonder whether they are on the streets of Beirut, not those of a major city in Quebec”.

I think that we should respect all peoples, not just the people of Beirut and Lebanon, but also Canadians and Quebeckers of Lebanese origin who would not appreciate comments like that. I therefore ask the member to apologize.

[Public Safety, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, experts and the police are confirming that Vito Rizzuto has regained influence over the Montreal Mafia. Whether we are talking about the Hells Angels or street gangs, the criminal element has hit cruising speed. Things are back to normal and business is booming. While the Mafia is renewing its allegiances and regaining power, the Conservative government is abolishing the police officer recruitment fund and jeopardizing the operations of prevention agencies, such as the Maison d'Haïti street crews.

Does the Minister of Public Safety understand that we need resources to fight crime, to fight criminal groups, and to protect our young people?

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I appreciate the humanity that was evident in his remarks.

In Quebec, especially, I have met a number of families of Syrian origin who told me about Canadians who are stuck in Syria right now because their child was born there. The father and mother are Canadians, but the child is Syrian.

I can recall quite clearly that we allowed Canadian families to get visas for their immediate family during the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. I would like to know if my colleague will work with the Minister of Immigration so that we can bring these Canadian families here, as well as persecuted minorities, including Christians, Kurds, Assyrians and certain refugees—in fact, refugees in general.

I understand that Canada cannot take in everyone under the sun, but it could welcome and protect a certain number of refugees, including the little girl the minister mentioned. It would be a truly great gift to humanity.