Marlene Jennings

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for a final time, let us see if we can get unanimous consent of all parties, including government members, for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported without amendment by a legislative committee, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third time and passed.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2007]

I will try a third time, Mr. Speaker, again with respect to House business and further to your ruling yesterday, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), be deemed to have been reported without amendment by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third time and passed.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let us try again. Would the Speaker please seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, be deemed to have been reported without amendment by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third a time and passed.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to House business and further to your ruling yesterday, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification, be deemed to have been amended at the report stage, as proposed in the report stage motion of the Minister of Justice in the notice paper of March 20, 2007, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third time and passed.

[Afghanistan, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I did not ask how many investigations there were; I asked why it took him so long to start the investigations.

The Chief of the Defence Staff submitted reports directly to the minister about the transfer of Afghan detainees and the health of those detainees. It took a complaint from an Ottawa professor to force the investigation.

Is the minister incompetent, or is he deliberately misleading the House, as he has done before?

[Afghanistan, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in January the Military Police Complaints Commission received a complaint about allegations of abuses suffered by Afghan detainees captured in April 2006 by members of the Canadian Forces. As part of a regular National Defence policy, the minister was informed about the fate of these detainees in a confidential report. Why did the minister wait for months before investigating these reports?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, March 2nd, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-410, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (victim — trafficking in persons).

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it is truly a great honour for me to introduce this bill to amend section 24 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by adding subsection (3).

It is important to underscore one aspect of this subsection: an immigration officer will no longer be able to take into account the possible participation of a victim of trafficking in persons in a criminal investigation or proceedings in respect of the criminal offence.

Allow me to take a few moments to explain what this means: currently, under the legislation, when a person claims to be a victim of human trafficking, the immigration officer takes into account whether the alleged victim will collaborate or not in a criminal investigation into the criminal offence. The problem is that these victims are so traumatized that often they do not have the physical, psychological or mental ability to participate in an investigation or possible criminal proceedings.

I have already submitted petitions with thousands of signatures by Canadians and Quebeckers, calling on the government to amend this legislation. The government has not taken any action, hence my bill.

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

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, your committee has considered Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification and agreed, on Thursday, March 1, 2007, to report it without amendment.

[National Defence, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Auditor General herself who said that this process does not allow for competition. The government should have known that there would be problems with appointing a former representative of an arms merchant as Minister of National Defence. It is like asking a pyromaniac to be a fire chief. Sooner or later, people are going to wonder.

How could the government appoint a lobbyist for the arms industry as Minister of National Defence?

[National Defence, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of a Liberal MP, the Auditor General is going to examine the recent awarding of billions of dollars in military contracts without any tendering process.

Why did this government not take the time to do things right, in a transparent fashion, for such significant procurements? And please spare Canadians the gratuitous personal insults in the response.