Maria Mourani

[Justice, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the government's Bill C-39, the Bloc's bill applies to criminals who have already been sentenced. We need to take advantage of the consensus of the House and quickly do away with parole after one-sixth of a sentence because after Vincent Lacroix we have Earl Jones to worry about.

Will the government put aside partisan politics and start supporting the passage at all stages of the Bloc's bill to eliminate parole after one-sixth of a sentence?

[Justice, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' complacency and partisan attitude have made fraudster Vincent Lacroix a free man. The Bloc Québécois proposed many times that we fast-track the bill to abolish parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served. The Conservatives refused every time.

Does the government realize that it is responsible for the early release of Vincent Lacroix, who bilked thousands of small investors?

[Criminal Code, December 15th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-612, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, a bill on human trafficking. The purpose of this bill, prepared in concert with police officers in the field, is to give consecutive sentences to human traffickers and pimps. We are seeking reverse onus in cases of exploitation of persons and also seeking confiscation of the proceeds of crime.

We want to give a much clearer definition to the words “human trafficking” and “exploitation” in order to give police the tools they need to make appropriate arrests. We also want the burden of proof not to fall on the victims.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, December 9th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-602, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

Mr. Speaker, today it is my great pleasure and honour to introduce this bill on trafficking in persons. This bill has the support of many women's and victims' groups. My Bloc Québécois colleagues will be pleased to support this bill.

I hope to have the support of all members of this House because this bill is so important. It was developed together with the police officers on the street, both those in the morality squads and those who deal with the sexual exploitation of children.

What does this bill seek to do? First, it introduces the notion of consecutive sentences for both trafficking in persons and procuring. It will allow for exemplary sentences. Second, it clarifies the definition of trafficking by adding the notion of the domestic or international context, thereby recognizing that trafficking does not just happen internationally, but also within Canada, domestically, from one city to another, one neighbourhood to another.

The bill also provides a clearer understanding of the word “exploitation” by distinguishing between labour exploitation and sexual exploitation. We have kept the notion of exploitation for the purpose of organ removal, of course.

This is a very important bill because it gives tools to the police and permits the confiscation of the proceeds of crime, from both trafficking and procuring, a power that does not currently exist.

Lastly, it adds another important point. Unfortunately, since 1995, there have not been a lot of charges because of the way the law is written, but during hearings, the victim is largely responsible for both the accusation and the burden of proof. What we are doing here is adding presumption, which means that the person exploiting the victim will have to prove that he is not living off the proceeds of that exploitation. This provision already exists for procuring, but not for human trafficking. That does not make sense because 80% to 90% of human trafficking is for the purpose of exploitation.

I invite all hon. members to support this bill, which will give tools to the police and which was drafted with the help of police.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[G8 and G20 Summits, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that the RCMP is part of his department.

The RCMP played a key role in coordinating this summit. It is partly responsible for the arbitrary and abusive arrests. More than 1,000 people were arrested, including hundreds who were arrested without the necessary warrants.

Since the Ontario ombudsman himself recognizes that his mandate is very limited, will the government finally launch a public inquiry to shed light on this mistake?

[G8 and G20 Summits, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while the federal government continues to justify the police's use of excessive force during the G20 summit held in Toronto, the Ontario ombudsman has concluded that it constituted an abuse of power similar to the war measures. We know that the RCMP played a key role in planning and coordinating security for the summit.

In light of such a serious statement by the ombudsman, does the Minister of Public Safety plan on launching a public inquiry to expose the abusive arrests made at the G20?

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. We had that very debate in committee. Witnesses told us clearly that the more names on the registry, the greater the risk it will not be as reliable. The problem is that hybrid offences or those more distantly related, such as exhibitionism, are subject to automatic registration. We will have to see whether this works.

Witnesses told us that we risk facing this problem, which is why it is important that we are able, after a year or two, to verify the effectiveness of such a registry with regard to this new automatic registration.

I cannot really answer the question because we will not know until we verify it. However, I agree with my colleague that witnesses told us that we run the risk of ending up in this situation. Some amendments have been proposed, but they have not been adopted. We are looking ahead. We will pass this bill and enforce it and then we will see what happens. We could assess and change things as needed.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I completely agree with him. There was a problem with the law and I believe that this bill solves it. Prevention is vital when it comes to child abduction, as he illustrated so well. Finding the child alive or even just finding the child is critical. That may happen within 24 hours. After that, according to police statistics and statements, the ability to find the child alive diminishes and may be almost nil.

Therefore, it is vital that the police be able to consult this registry for preventive purposes. The only thing we will have to eventually look at—which could very well be done in committee—is the effectiveness of the registry. How many names are in the registry? Are there abuses? Has the necessary money been provided for the registry to be effective?

One thing is clear: it is all very well to have the best possible law but, without resources, the registry cannot be effective and will not give results. It could be an exceptional tool when it comes to prevention and saving lives, provided that it is given the required resources. It is very important to assess its effectiveness. If we determine that it is more or less effective, we must determine why and provide the necessary resources for it to function properly. Assessing whether or not something is working does not mean that it is bad; it simply means that we want to improve it.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as I already said in my speech, if my colleague had been listening, there is no doubt that with this new legislation—and my NDP colleague also mentioned this—registration will be automatic in certain cases. Let us be very clear: there will be a wide range of sex offences that can be included in this registry.

I find it ironic that my Liberal colleague is asking me a question. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP proposed—or at least we supported the NDP's proposal—an amendment that would allow for clear guidelines to be established regarding this issue. However, the member's party and his colleagues voted with the Conservatives. It would have been nice to be able to clarify this automatic registration. According to the witnesses, there is a risk that a great many names will be added to the registry until, unfortunately, it eventually becomes ineffective. Personally, I think we need to examine it a little closer later on. The bill is before us, with all of the amendments that were made. Personally, I think we need to examine the real impact it has later on, after it takes effect. Now if any amendments needed to be made, the time to do so was in committee. It was up to his party to do so, rather than voting against it when the time came.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, December 7th, 2010]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will. I understand that the member had no problem with his own colleague straying. It did not bother him when his colleague started talking about prisons and whatever, but I get it. He is partisan.

I also understand his position because his party does not want a public inquiry. That is why talking about the G20 makes the members so uncomfortable, especially the members from the Toronto region. They hope to sit on the other side. It would sure be nice for them to get Toronto.

About Bill S-2, I only have a minute, so I will wrap it up quickly. I want to say that when I look at all of this information in terms of values—