14997 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 230 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, June 12, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 12, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 230 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 230 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 230 (Version officielle) 147 230 12 06 2015 2015/06/12 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act Bill S-7. Report Stage The House resumed from May 28 consideration of Bill S-7,

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am standing today at report stage on Bill S-7 , which has the very unfortunate

short title “the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act”. I stand in opposition to the main motion and in support of the NDP's proposed amendments to the bill. I want to stress that I support the intent of the bill. No woman or child should be subject to any form of violence and certainly not to the forms of gender-based violence, such as forced marriage, polygamy, and underage marriage, the bill purports to address.

Further, the fact of these forms of gender-based violence in Canadian society is not in dispute here, and neither is the fact that there are things we can do and ought to do to prevent and respond to the practices at issue. However, the bill is not the appropriate response and needs at a minimum to be amended, because it threatens to aggravate, not help, existing circumstances and to further victimize or re-victimize those subject to the practices the bill purports to address. The precautionary principle ought to apply here.

The Conservative government has heard enough from enough knowledgeable people on the matter of the bill from those with experience and expertise in these matters to stop this here, to take a step back, and rethink its approach to this issue before it does more harm than good to people who need help. Here are the main provisions of the bill.

It amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make polygamy grounds for inadmissibility to or removal from Canada of immigrants and permanent residents if there are reasonable grounds to believe that these individuals have practised, are practising, or may in future practise polygamy. It amends the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent to marriage a legal requirement and to require that any previous marriage be dissolved or declared null before a new marriage is contracted and to make 16 years of age the minimum legal age for marriage.

It amends the Criminal Code to clarify that it is an offence for an officiant to knowingly solemnize a marriage in contravention of federal law; to make it an offence to celebrate, aid or participate in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is doing so against their will or is under the age of 16 years; to make it an offence to remove a child from Canada to marry a child against that child's will or if the child is under 16; to allow a judge to issue a peace bond for a period of up to two years if a person is suspected on reasonable grounds of preparing to force someone else to marry, to marry a child, or to remove a child from Canada for one of these purposes; and to address the issue of so-called honour killings to limit the defence of provocation to circumstances in which the victim engaged in conduct that would constitute an indictable offence under the Criminal Code that is punishable by five years or more in prison.

However, stakeholders and expert witnesses have testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that the bill is also likely to have many and serious unintended consequences. For example, the bill makes no provision to allow women who are conditional permanent residents to remain in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported.

There is no clear definition of polygamy, leading, likely, to confusion and potentially arbitrary decisions regarding deportation and inadmissibility and discrimination against nationals from certain countries. UNICEF has expressed concern that the bill would criminalize minors who celebrate, aid, or participate in forced marriages, and UNICEF has recommended exemptions for children and young people from certain provisions in the bill. Criminalization, in the context of family and social relations, may end up simply driving these practices underground.

In all of this, the bill falls in a long line of socially insensitive, ham-fisted and unsophisticated responses to complex social issues by the Conservative government. In March 2012, for example, the Conservatives introduced new measures to crack down on marriage fraud, including a requirement for a sponsored spouse to live with the sponsor for two years or face deportation and possible criminal charges. Clearly, this measure leaves women reluctant to report abuse, because they fear losing permanent residency. Consequently, they are vulnerable to abuse.

In April 2014, the Conservative member for Mississauga South introduced a motion that purported to deal with forced marriages by banning marriages by proxy or by telephone, for example, from qualifying for spousal sponsorship. Distance marriages of this sort are largely conducted by refugees, so we have the consequence that this motion would serve to limit family reunification rather than limit forced marriages. These are the kinds of sensitivities, nuances, understandings, et cetera, missing from the Conservative government's world view, and it is problematic.

Beyond that, and just as egregiously, the current Conservative government forgoes opportunities to even consider, much less heed, the advice of those who actually understand the complexity of these issues. For example, during the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's study on strengthening the protection of women in our immigration system, most witnesses insisted that newcomers must be informed, in their language of origin, and before coming to Canada, of their rights in Canada and about the resources available to them in Canada.

The committee recommended in its report to the House: ... that the Government of Canada expand pre-arrival orientation to ensure sponsored spouses receive information in a language they understand and to ensure that the topics covered include gender equality, women's rights, their legal rights, what constitutes abuse in Canada and how to seek help. However, no funds were earmarked in the 2015 budget to implement this recommendation.

Here is another example of the government ignoring expertise and forgoing data and information and in so doing putting people at risk, sacrificing vulnerable people on the altar of political expediency. I call it political expediency quite deliberately, because the truth here is that so much of what is in the bill actually duplicates existing laws. For example, the bill would amend the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent legal requirements for marriage, but these requirements already exist as part of the civil code of Quebec and of common law in other provinces.

The bill would limit the defence of provocation, ostensibly to exclude honour killings, but the courts have already ruled that the concept of honour and a culturally driven sense of what is an appropriate response does not count as provocation under the Criminal Code. The Canadian Criminal Code also already provides recourse that is relevant in most cases involving forced marriages, prior to and after marriage, as well as in cases of travelling with minors with the intent of forcing them to marry.

There is a broad range of existing Criminal Code provisions on everything from intimidation to forceful confinement to sexual assault that deal with these issues already. So much of what we are talking about here today in this House stands as so fully representative of the four years of the 41st Parliament and the style and substance of the current Conservative government.

It takes complex social issues, with real victims, and responds the only way it seems to know how, with its reflex to criminalization without regard to evidence, experience, expertise, or the potential of the unintended consequences of its reflex. Witness its response to the over 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women: no inquiry, no search for intelligence or understanding, just criminalize, as though that helps victims, as though that will somehow prevent having more victims.

With so few days left in the 41st Parliament, this elected chamber is here considering a bill put forward by a chamber of unelected people. We have a Conservative government giving priority or ceding priority to an ill-considered, reactionary, and potentially harmful bill from the unelected Senate while at the same time it is shutting down debate in this elected chamber, as it has done 100 times already, as has been the fate of nearly 60 bills to date, on matters that elected representatives of this chamber want to debate.

In all, what a fitting way for the current government to close out the final days of this Parliament, and what an unfortunate way for Canada and Canadians.

(1010) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to my colleague's speech. I am struggling to find in this bill something that is not already illegal. It is almost like we are making it illegal twice because we hate it so much. In doing so, we are ignoring what I think is the real cruelty in the government's current legislation with respect to marriage, in particular marriage that spans the globe, which is that families have had their separation extended from 11 months to 29 months almost arbitrarily.

I was in a restaurant on Queen Street, in my riding, when a young chef came out from the back of the fast-food restaurant and said, “What happened? My spouse was told that she would have to wait 11 months to come to this country. I just checked the website, and it is 29 months.” I am not very familiar with the cultural customs on the Barbary Coast from 1,500 years ago, but it seems to me like a cruel practice to make young people suffer like that, yet that is legal in this country. Yet all the steps in this bill simply make what is illegal already illegal twice.

It is like the Conservatives like it so much they thought that doing it twice would make it even more of a vice.

(1015) Mr. Matthew Kellway : Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a habit the current government has of not paying attention to the criminal provisions that already exist in the Canadian Criminal Code across a broad range of issues. The Conservatives put forth legislation in this House that duplicates existing provisions, as though these things are not already taken care of.

What is most problematic is not just the reflex to criminalization but the insensitivity to the fact that when they deal with matters of family and social relations through criminalization or immigration only, they are inevitably catching in their web family issues and are doing harm to families. At committee, there were experts talking about this issue. For example, Dr.

Hannana Siddiqui, head of policy and research at Southall Black Sisters in London, the United Kingdom, said: Anything that you introduce around immigration is not going to affect just the perpetrator but the whole family—the women and children in that polygamous relationship; and that can have a detrimental effect on them as well. According to Avvy Go, director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, the bill seeks to deport people who are engaged in polygamy, and that would include the very women the government claims to be trying to protect.

These are the unintended consequences and the insensitivities I talked about in my speech. Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beaches—East York for his wonderful speech on this matter. I would appreciate it if the member for Beaches—East York could tell us a bit about the amendments that were suggested by the NDP at committee, which were rejected. Mr. Matthew Kellway : Mr. Speaker, the member will recall that at second reading, the NDP actually put forward a motion in response to this bill. It was rejected.

It was a comprehensive motion that was intended to capture a whole bunch of issues that this bill, in its reflex to criminalization, did not capture. The issues dealt with the need for support for families and for social services. Repeatedly we see that these things are not dealt with by the government. It is a bill that is missing, for example, the social support required by people caught up in a web of domestic violence. It omits, for example, as UNICEF has called for, educational support and mental health services for people who are caught in these circumstances.

Most critically, and we hear this time and again, this is a bill that is missing anything on affordable housing. We had a budget tabled not long ago by the current government that was missing the same thing. Affordable housing is cited by many as the single most important factor in permitting women and children to escape circumstances of domestic violence and abuse. There is nothing in the Conservative budget to deal with affordable housing. There is nothing to deal with that practical response here in this bill.

The amendments proposed by the NDP are intended to build into this bill some of those critical supports for people caught in these cultural practices. Mr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill S-7 , the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code. The amendments proposed in Bill S-7 would provide more protection and support for vulnerable individuals, most especially women and children.

The passage of Bill S-7 would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practice polygamy in Canada. It would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 years and by codifying the existing legal requirements for free and enlightened consent for marriage and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another. It would criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriages.

It would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new specific court-ordered peace bond where there are grounds to fear someone would commit an offence in this area and ensure that the defence of provocation could not be used in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides. Undertaking these measures would support the government's throne speech commitment to ensure that barbaric cultural practices do not occur on Canadian soil.

Women seeking better lives for themselves and their families in Canada should never be subject to constant fear and threat of violence or death simply for living their lives and pursuing better opportunities for themselves. Practices that include early and forced marriages, polygamy and any so-called honour-based violence run counter to Canadian values and democratic norms. They often contravene basic human rights, especially subjecting women and girls to brutal and inhumane treatment.

The negative impacts these practices have on families and society in general range from influencing immigration outcomes to reducing opportunities for integration and success while also limiting the free choice of vulnerable women and children. We know that there are additional barriers for immigrant and newcomer women and girls who wish to protect themselves and seek help. We want to ensure that help and protection is available if and when they need it. I would like to speak on one specific measure proposed by Bill S-7 .

I would like to focus the remainder of my time on the provision that aims to augment tools that currently exist to counter the practice of polygamy. As we know, polygamy has been illegal in Canada for 125 years. For many years we have recognized in this country that this practice is an affront to Canadian values. Polygamist marriages are not legally valid in Canada and are currently prohibited in the Criminal Code. As well, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already specifies that polygamist spouses cannot be sponsored. When he upheld Canada's criminal law ban on the practice of polygamy, the hon.

Chief Justice Bauman of British Columbia's Supreme Court recognized the physical, psychological and social harms associated with the practice of polygamist marriage. For these reasons, it remains against the criminal law in Canada to practice polygamy or to enter into a polygamist union. While the responsibility for the prosecution of most crimes, including polygamy, rests with the provincial attorneys general, the prohibition in the Criminal Code upheld in 2011 is the responsibility of this Parliament.

In turn, this Parliament and the Government of Canada also have jurisdiction over immigration laws and their enforcement. Since polygamy does occur in some countries from which Canada draws immigrants, we need to ensure that our immigration system has the necessary tools to counter it. Bill S-7 would give us these additional tools.

(1020) Bill S-7 would create a new ground of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for practising polygamy, increasing our ability to prevent polygamy from occurring on Canadian soil and ensuring that the immigration system is not enabling this practice in any way. The bill would give immigration officers enhanced tools with which to render both temporary and permanent residents inadmissible for practising polygamy.

The new inadmissibility would mean that those in polygamous marriages abroad wanting to enter Canada on a temporary basis would only be able to enter this country alone, without their spouses. Those who cease to practise polygamy would, of course, no longer be inadmissible. It also means that permanent residents found to be practising polygamy could lose their status and be removed from Canada on that basis alone. Further, we would no longer need a criminal conviction or a finding of misrepresentation in order to begin removal proceedings.

We know that more needs to be done to protect women and girls in our immigration system, despite all of our government's best efforts and intentions. That is why it is so important that the measures in Bill S-7 , including the additional measures I have discussed regarding polygamy, are enacted. If passed, they would strengthen our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers to Canada from barbaric cultural practices. This bill sends a clear message to anyone coming to Canada that such practices are not acceptable and run counter to our principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act stands up for immigrant women and girls who have come to Canada for a better life and better opportunities, ensuring that they have every chance to succeed and make their own choices about the way they want to live their lives. As legislators, it is our responsibility to prevent those practices that abuse vulnerable women and children, such as polygamy, from happening on our Canadian soil.

By ensuring the passage into law of the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, we will be taking a major step towards the goal by increasing the Government of Canada's ability to prevent polygamy from occurring in this country. I strongly encourage all members to join me in supporting Bill S-7 . (1025) [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, so we participated in the same study.

I am surprised that he did not talk about the many expert witnesses who expressed concerns about Bill S-7 . Maybe he remembers that everyone, including all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, agreed with the intent of the bill, which is to protect women. However, the debate actually centred on aspects of the bill that could put some victims at risk and make them even more vulnerable.

Experts on the ground who work with these victims every day told the committee to be careful because this could discourage victims from seeking help or result in women being deported or fearing deportation if they report their husband. It is unbelievable that this is not reflected in the amendments to this bill or in the speeches by my colleagues who heard what these experts had to say. Lawyers and people who are experts on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Criminal Code agreed. They said that some terms are poorly defined and will be open to

interpretation. They also said that many of the provisions could do more harm than good because the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already contain provisions that cover these practices. Does my colleague remember hearing from the experts who expressed their concerns to us? Why did he not say more about that in his speech? [ English ] Mr. Jim Eglinski : Mr. Speaker, I did hear those arguments coming from our witnesses, but we had many witnesses there. I take into consideration the statements made by people such as Aruna Papp who said it is about time.

She said: I commend the government for its leadership in taking a stand on a very difficult issue and for defending the human rights of vulnerable women who are unable to speak for themselves. She is a victim. I listened to her. I listened to many victims. I listened to many lawyers. I listened to many other people. People will always argue on the rights and wrongs, but I believe this bill is the right bill for Canada and for the women and children of this country.

(1030) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talk about the needs of victims to be addressed in a proactive manner: to craft legislation and government action to try and prevent victimization, as opposed to simply respond to victimization; and rather than simply respond to a problem, actually anticipate the problem and put in place the measures needed to protect people ahead of them being harmed, as opposed to simply tracking the perpetrators afterwards.

If that is the value system and the approach to solving legal challenges and moral dilemmas in this country, why on God's earth are the cases of 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women being responded to with a data bank for DNA instead of housing; investments in education; and investments in aboriginal, first nations, Métis and Inuit communities? Why, if proactive action is the order of the day, is the Conservative government so silent on the 1,200 Canadian women who are missing, and it is unacceptably tolerated by this House? Mr. Jim Eglinski : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member for that question, but I am not exactly sure where he wanted me to go with it. I will only deal with the first part: What have we done to protect these people prior? Let us look at the CIC-funded organizations, which provide targeted programming for these individuals. In addition, special language programs are available for immigrant and refugee women. There is a Canadian citizenship study guide, Discover Canada, and the Welcome to Canada orientation guide, which explains the rights of newcomers to Canada, the rights and wrongs, what we expect in Canada and what we tolerate in Canada.

CIC also disseminates a brochure and information for sponsored spouses or partners. We are actively participating in meeting with immigrants before they even come to Canada. We make sure that they see the information they need so that they will understand what the laws are in Canada and how they can protect themselves when they arrive here. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to share some thoughts in regards to Bill S-7 . The Liberal Party will be supporting Bill S-7.

I have had the opportunity in the past to stand and express a great deal of concern in terms of the title of the bill, but there are aspects of the legislation that do warrant support. Therefore, the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill. However, I will pick up on an issue that my colleague for Trinity—Spadina just made reference to, which is the 1,200-plus murdered and missing first nations aboriginal women and girls, and the lack of action.

I bring this up, and I suspect my colleague brought it up, because if we take a look at this piece of legislation before us, it attempts to deal with gender-based violence or biases. We need to emphasize that every society has some form of gender-based violence. This is one of the reasons we opposed the

short title of the legislation, which has a lot more to do with the spin that the Prime Minister's Office wants to see than it does in terms of what Canadians want to see. That is the reason for the bizarre title, “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act”, and many would suggest racially based rationale that the Conservatives threw in the word “cultural”. This has offended many people in every region of our country, many different stakeholder groups, because of the Conservative government's attitude toward culture.

When we talk about the violence and exploitation that takes place, as I said, every society has some form of gender-based violence. Here in Canada even, we will find it time and time again, and I am one of the members of Parliament, and only one, who has raised the issue of the first nations aboriginal women and girls who have been murdered and missing over the years. In fact, many of those young ladies and girls at one point were in Winnipeg North—

(1035) Mr. Philip Toone : Are you the only one who spoke out on the first nations women— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, I will allow the New Democrat member of Parliament to reflect on and perhaps read what I said, and I am sure he will answer his own question and assertion. I indicated that there have been many members of Parliament. If the member would listen a little closer, maybe he would be better informed. The issue is of critical importance. We have raised the issue and will continue to do so.

The government has been found wanting on that very important issue. Before us today is Bill S-7 , and there are aspects of the bill that could be supported. I will spend a minute or two on that issue first. With respect to polygamous marriages, I would suggest that there would be few individuals who call Canada home who would support that. It is a barbaric practice, something that defies what we believe are Canadian values. Forced marriages are completely unacceptable based on Canadian values.

The idea of setting a minimum age for marriage is something that could be supported, as many Canadians would respond quite negatively to the idea of a 12-year-old girl being married off. This, again, is one of the reasons there is some value in the clarity that the legislation brings to the Criminal Code. I will emphasize the fourth point, which is domestic violence, something that again goes against Canadian values.

Therefore, I would suggest that although there is concern with the title of the bill, as well as concerns that other members have raised with respect to the legislation, members would find that there is value in supporting the bill. The name is something that I have made reference to and is the greatest issue with respect to the legislation. I talked about the Prime Minister and his office. It is not the first time we have seen these names drawn up to appeal to the public at large as opposed to what makes sense for the legislation itself.

I have asked numerous questions on behalf of the Liberal Party, and other members have asked, with respect to why the government has chosen to incorporate the word culture in the

short title of the bill, which is called the “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act”. We know, through canvassing and talking with stakeholders and a good number of Canadians, that the incorporation of the word culture is not necessary. We believe that the Prime Minister , through his office, has instructed that this name be tagged to the legislation, and at a fairly significant cost. At times it appears that the government gives an impression that many would interpret as being of a racial nature, such as with this piece of legislation.

Yesterday, during question period, the Liberal critic for immigration questioned comments by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to answering why the government chooses words in order to sensationalize. That is what is happening. The government is sensationalizing certain issues, which ultimately have a fairly negative impact on racial tolerance. This is not new.

(1040) When I was the immigration critic, I saw a picture of a boat that came to the shores of B.C. The minister of immigration talked about boat people landing in Canada and how we were going to get tough and bring in legislation to prevent that from happening.The whole “let us get tough” talk does not match the reality or the complexity of many of the different issues that come before the House. It is interesting that the government has been so keen to bring forward Bill S-7 . It has been pushing on this legislation.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has made it a personal priority to make sure that this legislation passes, and he has spent a great deal of resources on it. An earlier speaker made reference to immigration and another form of cruelty there. I would suggest that there are other priorities that the government, particularly the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration , need to get their heads around and start acting on. One of those is processing times for marriages. It is getting worse.

The government has created a problem with huge unacceptable delays, and it wants to blame that problem on an administration from years ago. The minister needs to take responsibility for his actions and start cleaning up the mess they have created. I only wish he would put as much energy in wanting to clean up his mess in processing times as he has in pushing Bill S-7 . [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He talked about a very wide range of things and addressed some aspects of the bill.

His position on the bill at the final stage still is not entirely clear, so perhaps he could clarify whether he supports it or not. Perhaps he could also talk about the fact that in committee, many experts who work on the ground shared their concerns regarding the fact that the bill could victimize people and make the victims even more vulnerable. Yes, criminalization is needed; yes, we must intervene to provide assistance to victims, because it is definitely a problem. I agree with my colleague that we need to do something for the victims.

However, is Bill S-7 really the right approach, when the experts told us in committee that it could make the victims even more vulnerable? Would a responsible government not remove this bill and do more studies to ensure that the measures in it do not defeat the very purpose of the bill? [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I made reference to the fact that the Liberal Party will be voting in favour of Bill S-7 , even though there are some concerns, particularly with the title of the bill.

We understand and appreciate a number of concerns that were expressed at the committee stage. Having said that, if the member had been listening to her colleague who started off the debate on the bill this morning, she would have heard him acknowledge that there are many aspects of the legislation that even the NDP supports. I am not sure how the NDP is going to be voting on the legislation; I have been told that the New Democrats will be voting against it. However, I will let them make that determination when the vote occurs. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe : Mr.

Speaker, I am not quite sure who is not listening to whom here. The NDP has been clear that we will be opposing this bill, as we did at second reading. Our reasons for doing so are very simple and have been clearly explained. If my colleague would like to know what they are, everything is in the committee minutes.

When so many experts agree that some measures in the bill, never mind the title, will discourage victims from reporting forced marriages and polygamy for fear of being deported, and so many experts who are familiar with the Criminal Code and the immigration act tell us that this bill is dangerous, it is impossible for the NDP to support it. If we take the committee study seriously, it is obvious that this bill must be stopped and we must adopt better measures.

However, the Liberals are displaying their typical reaction, which is to say they disagree with a bill and then turn around and vote for it anyway. (1045) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree to disagree with the member. If anything is classical, it is the attitude of the NDP in saying that there are many things good in the bill but because they are opposition that means they have to vote against the bill. We should recognize that at times there is legislation that could improve upon a law, and on balance if it is good legislation it is something that can be supported.

We have even seen that the New Democrats will often support government legislation. We had concerns with the legislation, but in dealing with the issues of polygamous, forced, and early marriages, and the issue of domestic violence, there would be clarification in acts that would assist in dealing with these issues in a more progressive way. Therefore, it is legislation that is ultimately worth voting for. It is unfortunate that the government has labelled the bill as barbaric culture, but that is not something that is incorporated into the legislation itself, even though it would have been a good amendment. Mr.

Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-7, zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act . I want to comment on two confusions that have arisen in the context of the debate of the bill and were also reflected in some of the testimony before committee. I want to briefly touch on two topics today: the first concerning the proposed minimum age for marriage; and the second, about the definition of “practising polygamy”.

During the debate and in the testimony before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, there was considerable discussion about whether the bill should have set the minimum age for marriage even higher than 16 years of age, as is proposed, with some suggesting that age 18 would be more appropriate. In Canada, the age at which individuals can marry without additional consent is either 18 or 19, depending on the province or territory. Under our Constitution, it is within provincial and territorial jurisdiction to make the determination of “independent marriage age”.

Under our Constitution, it is the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to determine the age below which no minor may legally marry, sometimes called the “absolute minimum age for marriage”. Right now in Canadian law, federal legislation specifies that age 16 is the absolute minimum age for marriage only for the purposes of the law in the province of Quebec. Elsewhere in Canada, because there is no federal legislation, the common law still applies and it is usually interpreted as an absolute minimum age for girls of 12 and for boys of 14.

The other issue I wanted to touch on is concern that the bill has no definition of “practising polygamy”. One witness before the Committee referred to the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in the Polygamy Reference case and suggested that it did not determine the meaning. This is incorrect. There was disagreement before the court on the correct

interpretation of the Criminal Code polygamy offence, but Justice Bauman clearly indicated that polygamy was a form of marriage involving more than two people, and included legal marriages, as well as “purported forms of marriage”, meaning religious marriages that were not recognized in law, but where the parties believe they were bound together. He further accepted the Attorney General of Canada's argument that “marriage” was a form of union that is dependent on an event, a ceremony of some kind that sanctions a union of individuals.

It is absolutely clear that polygamy does not include common law relationships or other informal relationships, such as polyamory or affairs. All of the evidence presented demonstrated the harms, both to individuals and to society, of multi-party marriage. These harms of polygamy caused Justice Bauman to find the prohibition against polygamy constitutional . Clear guidance with respect to the meaning of "practising polygamy" will be provided to front-line immigration officials.

Another witness suggested that only the man was practising polygamy because of his union with more than one spouse, but that the women in a polygamous union should not be included because their union was to only one spouse. This suggestion, while I am sure well-meaning, completely defies logic. The final point I want to make concerns another confusion. Some have suggested that a person who is married to someone and either does not know that the person is already married to someone else, or who is forced into that marriage, would be considered to be practising polygamy. This is completely untrue.

Under the Criminal Code, a person who has no actual knowledge that he or she are in a polygamous union, or a person who was forced into such a union, has not behaved in a morally blameworthy manner, which is the cornerstone of the criminal law. If a person is unaware of relevant facts, or has been compelled to act, he or she is not guilty of a criminal offence.

Bill S-7 would protect young people from early marriages by enacting a new, national, absolute minimum age for marriage that would apply to all marriages performed in Canada, and to all marriages performed outside of Canada that involved young people ordinarily resident here. This is an important protection for all our young people. I have been told of instances where young people are excused from classes to be married by telephone at age 12 and 13. That will no longer be possible once the bill receives royal assent.

The bill would also give young people the ability to tell their parents that they could not be forced to marry someone they did not want to marry because it was against the law. It would give young people the ability to ask for a court order to take their passports from their parents if they were afraid they may be taken out of the country to marry. These are important changes in the law to protect vulnerable youth until they are old enough to better know their own minds.

Marriage is hard enough, and young married couples will face many challenges without adding to them the burden of marrying too young or marrying someone they do not wish to marry.

(1050) Our government is taking a strong stance against these practices and is leading international efforts to address them as a violation of basic human rights. I hope all members of the House will join with me in supporting this important bill. Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have taken this bill to heart. It is one that resonates with almost every woman across the country. In fact, I wrote to every woman in my constituency and I received back unanimous support.

Every person who wrote back to me was in favour of the bill for the very reasons that it would protect women and girls. This could also happen to a young man or boy, however, the reality is that it is young affects women and girls. How important is it to stand up and protect vulnerable women and young children in our country? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her hard work on this bill that is aimed at protecting the most vulnerable, women and young women and also, males, because it is a universal application.

I have three daughters and I can hardly envision a situation where the parents would force them into a relationship that they would not be willing to undertake of their own free volition. As I commented earlier, it is hard enough leading a married life with someone one truly loves, but to be forced into a situation where one has no control because of the wishes of parents is beyond any element of human dignity. This is an important bill, and I would ask all members to get on board and support it. It is for protecting the most vulnerable. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the

definitions he provided to us today in his speech. However, I want to go to the basic idea that we are passing this law that is going to do something. In Denmark, the parliament there unanimously passed a law making it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry. Six years after the law was enacted, not one single charge has been brought up under that law. The people who deal with these types of issues in Denmark say that they do not think the law has had any impact.

In fact, it might have a negative impact of driving the process of forced marriages underground and increasing the sophistication of those who make these decisions for their children. That is what has happened with that law. We have gone into this time allocation procedure on a law that affects many people in our country. Marriage laws are extremely important to people and now we have made a decision about this. Is this going to help? We do not know whether it will. Therefore, why does the member think that by criminalizing this act somehow it will change the cultures of the people who are involved in it?

(1055) Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to the willingness of the Denmark law enforcement officials to enforce their laws in a country over which we have absolutely no jurisdiction. However, we are now in an age today with the Internet. Young people are on the Internet and on Facebook. There was a time when a child would come to us and say “Dad, can you fix my car?” Now I go to my daughters and ask “Can you fix my computer?” The abundance of information is out there, despite the cultural bounds of from whatever family one comes. This information will be readily available to children.

We are a Canadian society and they will be encouraged to come forth. I am confident they will come forth and the authorities will act accordingly. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have put forward a number of amendments to this bill, a bill with a title that seems almost silly that it would be put forward for a bill of this nature. We have proposed amendments that try to enhance or fix the bill, but we do not anticipate these amendments will pass and we will likely oppose the bill at report stage.

Dealing with this issue is fine, but, as I pointed out in a previous question, we would simply be criminalizing an action that takes place within families and between individuals. This action is normally considered to be very much a decision made by those people, not by the state, not by the community, engaged in matrimonial practices. The bill very clearly states that marriages cannot be forced and someone cannot be forced into marriage. This is my 40th year of a happy marriage, and I am very proud of having accomplished that. Luckily enough, I did not force anyone into a marriage.

Due to her beauty, charm and good nature, it made it unbelievably compelling for me to enter into marriage and, luckily, she said yes. We are concerned that this be dealt with in a very careful fashion. We are concerned that the criminalization of these acts is probably not the appropriate method to deal with this situation. It will not make the difference that needs to be made. When we talk about marriage laws, the age of marriage in the Northwest Territories, under the NWT marriage act, is 15. That is what has been determined by the NWT government and put into place under

section 46 of its act. Under this proposed bill, we will have to change the law now to 16 years of age. Any marriages that are contemplated in the next while by people under the age of 16 will have to wait. That is fair enough. I wonder what consultation the government conducted with the provinces and territories about what they considered to be a fair age and how the provinces and territories felt about having their authority to set the age of marriage as they deem fit taken away from them and established by Parliament. I would like to some answers to those questions. I think we all would.

When it comes to violence against women and children in society, all of us in the House want to do things to prevent that, to change society so it is less violent, so people can live their lives in a good fashion, free from duress and living under the control of others, whether it is in marriage or the relationship after marriage. We are all in favour of those things.

(1100) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I regret having to interrupt the member for the Northwest Territories . He will have five minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Lighthouses in Thunder Bay—Superior North Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Paul Morralee, Paul Capon, and Canadian Lighthouses of Lake Superior for their successful bid to protect heritage lighthouses in Thunder Bay—Superior North. Their work will create much-needed economic development opportunities for rural communities and augment our new Lake Superior marine conservation area. On May 29, the minister announced that 74 lighthouses will be designated under the act, but she did not specify which ones.

Many groups are still in the dark about whether their lighthouses have been given heritage protection. Without this status, it is difficult for them to move forward with any needed repairs or apply for any new funding opportunities for lighthouse maintenance. Once again this government's secrecy is affecting Canadians and Thunder Bay—Superior North's regional economic development opportunities.

Child Labour Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, every year on June 12, World Day Against Child Labour is observed to raise awareness of the plight of millions of children who are involved in child labour and vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. This year the focus is on the importance of quality education as a key step in tackling child labour. Our government is committed to ensuring that the best interests of children are given priority, including access to education. Children should be learning and developing their skills in school, not working in factories.

That is why we recently tabled in this House the International Labour Organization's Convention 138 on minimum age. One of the convention's key objectives is to ensure that children and young workers do not leave school to join the workforce full time. This important step towards ratifying a core convention demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that all children can pursue an education and enjoy their childhood.

Volunteerism in Nickel Belt Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to all the volunteers who do so much to keep our communities vibrant. I particularly want to acknowledge the hard work of individuals in the west end of Nickel Belt. Those are the people responsible for events like the fantastic Canada Day celebrations held at the Northern Ontario Railroad Museum in Capreol, the blueberry pancake breakfast in Skead, Capreol Days in August, the Spudsbury Potato Festival in Blezard Valley, the Cavalcade of Colours in Onaping Falls, and the 40th annual Valley East Days.

These events give visitors to Nickel Belt an opportunity to see how northern hospitality is second to none. [ Translation ] I would like to pay tribute to Gary Michalak and Maurice Berthiaume, the extraordinary volunteers who are organizing the Café-Heritage Festival that will be held on September 18 and 19, in Azilda, as well as the 400th Festival Champlain, which celebrates Franco-Ontarian history, this Saturday in Bell Park. [ English ] I am sure all members will join me in saluting all the volunteers who keep our communities thriving.

Albinism Ms. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians and this government are always prepared to stand up and speak out about systematic discrimination. Today I stand to speak about one of the most despicable and disturbing forms of discrimination that has ever been presented in this House. Witch doctors in eastern Africa in and around Tanzania have been systematically murdering local Africans who suffer from albinism, which is a lack of skin pigment, to sell their body parts, believing that those human body parts bring good luck.

More than 80 people with albinism have been murdered in Tanzania since 2000, including a one-year-old boy just a few weeks ago. According to the International Red Cross, witch doctors are prepared to pay up $75,000 for an individual with albinism, alive or dead. Canadians are a tolerant people, but this practice must stop.

(1105) [ Translation ] Albinism Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will be talking about the same subject as my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora . Albinism is a rare, hereditary genetic disease found all around the world. In North America and in Europe, roughly one in 20,000 people has this disease. In West Africa, one in 2,000 people has it. The Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, which I co-chair, recently adopted a resolution urging parliamentarians to protect the rights of persons with albinism.

The resolution follows up on the association's recent mission in West Africa, where persons with albinism are subject to discrimination that can lead to attacks, kidnapping, dismemberment, infanticide, murder, and gang rapes. Our association invites all parliamentarians to use their influence in their community to fight against prejudice and misinformation, educate their constituents on the fundamental rights of persons with albinism, pay particular attention to this issue, and respect the rule of law.

[ English ] Cycling Fatalities Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the tragic deaths of three people, including two cyclists, in my riding last week. On June 7, Ross Chafe and Kelly Blunden were cycling north of Whistler when they were struck and killed by a driver who was reportedly impaired. They were both fathers and key figures in the community. Also killed was the passenger in the car, Paul Maurice Pierre Jr., a member of the Lil'wat Nation. The driver had three previous convictions for impaired driving.

He was prohibited from being behind the wheel. Our grief can compel us to action. We need good safety protocols for cycling and we need to incarcerate impaired drivers. My hope is that initiatives such as the Attorney General's new proposed law, the cycling town hall I convened in Ottawa on May 25, and the forum on cycling safety that I have organized for June 20 in Squamish will create positive change. For the sake of Ross and Kelly and those who loved them, and for all who bike, may we bring about enhanced rules and policies for both drivers and cyclists.

Fellow members of the House, please rise with me in a united spirit of condolence for those who grieve the loss of Ross, Kelly, and Paul.

Newfoundland Military Service in World War II Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the 75th anniversary of the deployment of some of Newfoundland and Labrador's finest and bravest in World War II. Twenty-five hundred men and 500 women served in the Canadian armed forces. Others served in the Royal Navy and we fielded two royal artillery regiments in the British army.

The 57th Newfoundland Heavy Regiment, later becoming the 166th Newfoundland Field Regiment, fought in North Africa and Italy, and the 59th Newfoundland Heavy Regiment fought alongside Allied forces in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany. The exceptional valour and incredible skill of the Newfoundland artillerymen was widely recognized and celebrated.

Sir Anthony Eden, then Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, said upon their arrival in England: Newfoundland, whose sons have fought side by side with Englishmen since the days of the Tudors, responded at once to the call that echoed round the world last September. ... You may be sure that the spirit of Newfoundland...is not forgotten.

[ Translation ] Samuel de Champlain Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this year we are celebrating 400 years of French presence in Ontario. In this House seven years ago, I talked about this anniversary. [ English ] To mark this anniversary, in the company of Ontario's minister responsible for francophone affairs, Madeleine Meilleur, I had the pleasure last night of unveiling a new silver coin engraved with the image of explorer Samuel de Champlain. Champlain visited the Great Lakes area in 1615.

This gave him the opportunity to build lasting relationships with our first nations. [ Translation ] He also created conditions that favoured economic growth for a vibrant francophone community in Ontario, one that is still thriving today. This newest silver coin issued by the Mint sheds a new light on the explorations of Samuel de Champlain in Huronia. It also serves as a reminder that, four centuries later, Champlain’s heritage lives on and is reflected in the richness of the French culture in Ontario.

(1110) [ English ] Human Smuggling Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have recently witnessed horrific tragedies of people fleeing from their homes because of persecution, devastating economic conditions, and deteriorating security in their homelands. We have witnessed these desperate people using any means to seek safe refuge. To make matters worse, human smugglers exploit these situations with no regard for human life. The recent deaths of boat migrants from Africa and the plight of Rohingyas from Myanmar are just a few examples of people being exploited.

It is important for the international community to raise its voice by telling governments like that in Myanmar in no uncertain terms that its treatment of Rohingyas is unacceptable as well as by targeting human smugglers, who must be punished as murderers of innocent people. Canada is doing its share by offering refugee status to these vulnerable people through the UN. We must act before more lives are lost.

[ Translation ] Local Drummond Stakeholders Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as you know, local stakeholders in Drummond make a major contribution to the social, economic and cultural vitality of our beautiful region. Commerce Drummond, the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Drummond and the Société de développement économique de Drummondville have made significant contributions to our economic strength. In terms of culture, there is the Regroupement interculturel de Drummondville and the Mondial des cultures, an event not to be missed.

I had the opportunity to meet with these organizations. They told me that, unfortunately, the Conservative government's changes to visa rules for foreign interns jeopardize the socio-economic development of our region. In fact, our organizations and employers in Drummond are suffering the consequences of this bad decision. There is no doubt that on October 19 an NDP government will be listening to the needs of Drummond's stakeholders.

[ English ] Harry Bowes Public School Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as another school year comes to a close, I want to take the opportunity to thank the wonderful men and women, the staff and teachers of Harry Bowes Public School in my hometown of Stouffville. I have had the very fortunate opportunity to work closely with great teachers, such as Karen Smiley, Fern Grenon, Gail Sedgewick, Amy Davis, Vivienne Searles, and Kaitlin Eby.

They are wonderful teachers who have spent a lot of time with my kids and all the kids in our great school, and who have provided a happy, safe, healthy learning environment. They have been ably led by Principal Dixon, who unfortunately will be leaving us for another school. This is an incredible place, where they take the time to learn and to give our kids all of the support they need. I also want to highlight the work of Lori Davenport and Deb Battler, who know that when dad is in town, the kids might be a bit late getting to school. They have always been very patient.

On behalf of my family, and all the families in our community, I thank them so much for all the great work they do. They are very much appreciated.

New West Pride Week Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as pride celebrations take place across Canada, I rise today in support of New West Pride, which aims to promote equality and diversity. New West Pride Week will be August 8 to 15, in New Westminister. August 7, 2010 was our first Pride Day in the city, organized by Vance McFadyen. The Royal City Pride Society's primary mission is to promote inclusiveness, tolerance, and understanding, and support LGBTQ citizens of New Westminster.

New West Pride is recognized throughout B.C. and across Canada as a celebration of all sexual orientations and gender identities. It happens with the active and wonderful participation of local businesses and civil society. It is a highlight of the year. I wish to congratulate the Royal City Pride Society for bringing different cultures and creeds together to express our common values of peace, love, and respect for human rights and human dignity. I hope to see thousands of people again celebrating at the Columbia Street party, on Saturday, August 15. Let us celebrate Pride.

Taxation Mr. Robert Goguen (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hard-working middle-class workers of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe reject the Liberal leader's plan to impose a $1,000 tax hike. By promising to enforce the Ontario Liberals' dramatic hike in payroll tax across Canada, the Liberal leader would impose a tax hike on every single Canadian family. It would force employers to cut jobs, hours, and wages. Our Conservative government, this year alone, has cut taxes by $6,600 for every typical family. We have expanded the tax-free savings account so Canadians can save more tax-free money.

The Liberal leader, of course, would take these away and would raise taxes. Now is not the time for risky Liberal tax schemes and an untested leader.

Scientific Research Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I came to Ottawa in 2008 hoping to promote science in Canada. I believe that to innovate, we must prioritize science. However, in seven years, I have seen how little respect the government has for science. Our funding of scientific research has dropped below the OECD average, to just 1.6% of GDP. The current government eliminated the long-form census questionnaire, damaging what was previously the most important social database in the country.

The current government has muzzled our federal scientists, particularly environmental scientists who dare to speak the truth about global warming. The current government has ceased funding the Experimental Lakes Area, a priceless outdoor laboratory. It has diverted funding away from fundamental science, and it has nothing but contempt for the social sciences. Our health, safety, and prosperity critically depend upon how we choose to prioritize science and how readily we are willing to share it. On this, I am sad to say, the current government has totally failed Canadians.

(1115) Taxation Mrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Liberals do not believe that helping every single family is fair. We also heard that the NDP thinks that only families who use licensed daycares are real families. This is actually what they believe. They believe that only a few select families deserve support in Canada. On this side of the House, we believe that 100% of Canadians with families should get help. This is why we introduced the universal child care benefit and the family tax cut. We will not dictate to Canadians how to spend their own money.

While we are keeping more money in their pockets, the opposition parties' only plans are to raise taxes on families.

[ Translation ] New Democratic Party of Canada Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a clear choice to make. On one side, there are the Conservatives, members of a worn-out party that, rather than truly defending the middle class, would prefer to defend its corrupt senators and let them use taxpayers' money to pay for their golf games and vacations. On the other side, there is the NDP, which has a clear economic plan to create jobs in our regions, a plan that includes lowering the tax rate for small businesses.

The NDP also has practical solutions to help families make ends meet, such as an affordable day care system for all Canadians. In

summary, the choice between a party that wants to maintain the status quo to protect its senator friends and a party that wants to clean up the Senate is a clear one. In October, Canadian families can finally have a government that they can trust and that will stand up for their interests in good times and in bad, and that is an NDP government.

[ English ] International Trade Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal record on free trade speaks for itself. It is the party that campaigned to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement. When they were in government, the Liberals completely neglected trade. In fact, they only completed three free trade agreements. The Liberals took Canada virtually out of the game of trade, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in the era of global markets. Even to this day, they are opposing the biggest export contract win in Canadian history.

It is a contract that will create and sustain thousands of jobs right here in Ontario, especially in London, and the advanced manufacturing industry across our country. Thankfully, our government is fixing the mistakes of the Liberals. We have concluded agreements with 38 countries, and there are more to come. As Conservatives, we know that the best job creators are liberalized markets through free and open trade in the world.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Ethics Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in February 2013, the Prime Minister rose in this House and declared “...all senators conform to the residency requirements”. That is not what the Auditor General found in his devastating report on Senate corruption. He found that five of the nine senators whose cases are now referred to the RCMP were not actually residents of the provinces they were appointed to represent.

Did the Prime Minister at least ask any of these senators whether they were eligible to sit in the Senate, before he appointed them? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, the rules with respect to appointing senators have been clear for almost 150 years. At the same time, it is worth highlighting that in 2013 when we were starting to eliminate direct voter subsidies, taxpayer subsidies for political parties, the New Democrats were in the middle of a scam to still get voter subsidies.

Unfortunately, they did that by breaking the rules of this House. They cheated in order to help their political party. That is against the rules. That is not why taxpayers send us money. The New Democrats owe $2.7 million, and they might as well do the right thing and just pay it back.

(1120) Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is more nonsense from that member. Clearly, the Prime Minister never even tried to confirm that his appointees were actually eligible. No wonder the senators think they can get away with anything, and the secrecy continues. When asked about its new appeals process, the Senate replied “...we do not disclose information about legal contracts”. The entire process will be shrouded in secrecy. This is accountability, Conservative style.

Do the Conservatives agree that a secretive internal board is the right place to dispute the evidence-based findings of our Auditor General? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as members know, it was the Senate that invited the Auditor General in to review its expenses, and it is the Senate that should respond to that report. We expect that the senators will abide by the recommendations. At the same time, we know it is very public that the New Democrats owe the Canadian taxpayers $2.7 million for illegal offices.

That is three times as much as has been identified by the Auditor General with respect to the senators' expenses. However, unlike some of the senators, the New Democrats are refusing to pay back the $2.7 million they owe. The member for Hochelaga owes— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax. [ Translation ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to tell us what he thinks about the Senate scandal, because rather than apologizing, senators are continuing to defend the indefensible.

Senators are going to decide for themselves, in secret, whether their personal expenses for fishing trips or golf games are legitimate. Does the Prime Minister agree with this secretive process in the Senate? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not correct, and the member knows that is not correct. The Senate has invited in former justice Ian Binnie, and we support that process. Again, it was the Senate that invited in the Auditor General to review its expenses in the first place.

At the same time, Canadians do not differentiate. When parliamentarians owe them money, they want it back. That is why it is important that the 68 members of the NDP caucus who have been identified as owing $2.7 million to the Canadian people ought to pay it back. It is very clear that they need to pay back the money they owe.

[ Translation ] The Environment Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Loblaws has announced that it is going to stop production of products containing microbeads, which are bad for the environment. This excellent decision reminds us that it is urgent that the government take action to eliminate microbeads. The NDP moved a motion that was adopted unanimously by the House, but the Conservative government has not taken any action since then. When will the government finally take action? Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Environment Canada has initiated a scientific review to assess the effect of microbeads on the environment. This review builds on the work we have already done to reduce harmful chemicals. Since 2006, we have taken action on more than 2,700 substances under the chemicals management plan, and we are on track to assess 4,300 substances by 2020. We are also putting the issue of microbeads on the agenda of this summer's meetings of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. [ English ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is really not that complicated.

The House unanimously passed a motion calling for Canada to move to eliminate microbeads. There are 40,000 Canadians who have signed petitions to get rid of them, and now Loblaws is taking microbeads out of all of its personal care products. There is a lot of momentum to get this done. This Conservative has failed to take any action at all. When will the government do what Canadians want and what other countries have already done? When will it take the first steps toward banning microbeads? Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of that question. We have taken immediate action. Environment Canada has initiated a scientific review to assess the effect of microbeads on the environment. We have to rely on the science. This review builds on the work we have done to reduce the risk of harmful chemicals. Since 2006, as I said in French, we have taken action on more than 2,700 substances under the chemicals management plan, and we are on track to assess 4,300 substances by 2020.

We are also going to include the issue of microbeads on the agenda of December's meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. We are taking action; we are not just talking.

(1125) [ Translation ] Taxation Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals' plan for fairness, all families who earn less than $150,000 a year will receive a larger monthly cheque. A couple struggling to raise two kids on $45,000 a year will receive $9,850 a year under our plan, compared to $5,900 a year under the Conservatives. We are able to do this because we will not bring in policies that primarily benefit wealthy Canadians. Why do the Conservatives always refuse to support those who need it most? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader admits that he wants to eliminate the universal child care benefit, the child tax credit and income splitting for families. Even after all that, he admits that there would be a $2-billion hole in his plan, which he will have to make up for by increasing taxes. Furthermore, a few weeks ago he admitted that he wanted to impose a new $1,000 tax on every worker. [ English ] Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, average Canadians need a break, all of them, including single people and single parent families. Our fairness plan will substantially reduce income taxes for middle-class Canadians, including singles. Our child benefit plan is more generous and simplified and is tax free. Unlike the Conservatives' income splitting, it is not aimed only at a small percentage of families who are so rich they can get by on one paycheque. It reaches a much larger number of families, including single-parent families. That is what fairness looks like. Why is the government failing to do as much? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader admits he will get rid of the universal child care benefit. He admits he will get rid of the child tax benefit. He admits that he will cancel income splitting and replace the family tax cut with his family tax hike, but he also admits that even after all those tax hikes and clawbacks, he is still at least $2 billion short. Economists say the number is much bigger. We know when Liberals have a financial shortfall what they do.

They raise taxes on the middle class, and we are doing exactly the opposite. We are cutting taxes and increasing benefits for 100% of Canadians. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the National Post writes that "The Liberals' revamped child benefit appears broader, simpler and better targeted than the Tory plan, without imposing punitive clawback rates”. We are reducing middle-class income tax by a full 7% on top of that. Unlike the NDP's promises, our plan is fiscally responsible. Unlike the Conservatives', it is fairer and benefits a much larger number of Canadians.

Why does the government not take a leaf from our book? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Liberals propose is a new tax. They confirmed that they support Kathleen Wynne's payroll tax, which would be $1,000 in extra taxes for every single worker earning $60,000 a year. This is a new tax on every single worker that will hit especially hard for middle- and lower-income people, and it will be matched by the small businesses that employ those people. We oppose the Liberal job-killing payroll tax.

We are lowering taxes for workers and families.

Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on the seventh anniversary of the apology to residential school survivors, the Prime Minister had the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the government's commitment to reconciliation by asking the Pope if he would be willing to issue an apology. Indigenous people are deeply disappointed that the Prime Minister refused to do so, with National Chief Perry Bellegarde saying it was “sad and unfortunate that it did not happen”.

Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore this critical opportunity to show good faith on the path to reconciliation? Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister did no such thing. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has written to the provinces, the territories, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Vatican to bring to their attention the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The Prime Minister referenced that letter in his meeting with Pope Francis yesterday. Our government remains committed to a fair and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian residential schools. As acknowledged by the Prime Minister 's historic apology here in 2008, there is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian residential schools to ever prevail again. We will continue to take concrete action on behalf of aboriginal people. (1130) [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, where there is a will, there is a way.

In this case, the federal government clearly lacks political will, and the provinces are the ones showing the way. For example, Quebec recognized that residential schools were a form of cultural genocide against aboriginal nations. As a result, it is calling on the federal government to take action. Will the federal government follow the example of these elected officials and show some leadership? [ English ] Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it was this Prime Minister who issued the historic apology in 2008 on behalf of all Canadians. He said that this was an assimilation policy that had no place in Canada and that we should never let the attitude that inspired that policy to take root in Canada again. It was our Prime Minister who set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which reported just last week. We will continue to take concrete action and concrete measures to promote reconciliation between non-aboriginal and aboriginal Canadians.

[ Translation ] Health Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Supreme Court, our country's highest court, handed down a unanimous ruling regarding the use of medical marijuana. The ruling had barely been announced when the minister declared, “Frankly, I'm outraged by the Supreme Court.” Once again, the Conservatives are trying to discredit decisions by our highest court. Unfortunately the Conservatives have a habit of thinking they are above the law. Will the minister stop denigrating our justice system? [ English ] Mrs.

Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this expansion of a pre-existing court-imposed program to now include cookies and candies makes marijuana more attractive and accessible to youth and really is reflective of the Liberal campaign to normalize marijuana use. It is really important that most medications in Canada go through a very stringent process in terms of being safe for use. Another important point is that recent figures showed that St.

Paul's Hospital saw 63 patients for marijuana intoxication in one day, and most of them had taken edibles. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is not just some suggestion the minister can just take or leave. We are talking about a unanimous judgment in Canada's highest court. The Supreme Court carefully weighed the evidence and found that the Conservative government's medical marijuana policies are not in the best interest of public health.

I understand that the Conservatives do not really believe in evidence-based policy and that they love to throw blue meat to their anti-judiciary base, but will the minister now stop attacking the court and do her job to implement the decision? Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, medical treatments need to meet strict Health Canada requirements so that patients can be sure that they are safe and effective.

It is important that serious researchers interested in investigating the potential benefits of derivatives such as oils should go through a clinical process. Continued normalization through cookies and candies is, in our opinion, something that is going to be very detrimental to the health and safety of Canadians.

Ethics Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Senate is a bastion of entitlement, yet the Conservatives have thrown up their hands and given up. The change is not only possible, it is absolutely necessary. Senators have invented a secret process for disputing the Auditor General's findings, and days after the Senate Speaker promised a new age of openness, he has gone to court to block the release of a potentially embarrassing internal report on residency. Did anyone in the Prime Minister 's office speak to anyone in the Senate about this latest attempt to cover up an embarrassing Senate report?

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that. As members know, it was the Senate that invited the Auditor General to review its expenses, and we expect senators to assist in the process. At the same time, this member could help us out by turning around and looking at his colleagues and asking the 68 of them who owe taxpayers $2.7 million to repay that money to the taxpayers.

It is absolutely unacceptable that the NDP owes Canadian taxpayers $2.7 million for illegal partisan offices and are refusing to pay it back. They ought to do the right thing and pay back the taxpayers. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, after promising to bring change to the Senate, the parliamentary secretary now clearly thinks it is not a priority. That is not acceptable to Canadians. When asked about the use of public funds to attend his brother-in-law's funeral, one senator replied that he brought “the dignity of the office”.

The Auditor General is calling for transformational change, yet the Senate refuses even to confirm how much it is paying arbitrator Ian Binnie. Why have the Conservatives abandoned their principles and refused to demand accountability from the Senate?

(1135) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. The Senate invited in the Auditor General to review their expenses. A report has been tabled, and we expect the Senate to work with the Auditor General to implement the recommendations of that report, but what is also on the table is the fact of finding that 68 members of that caucus owe $2.7 million to the people of Canada, and they refuse to pay it back. The member for Louis-Hébert owes $31,888 and refuses to pay it back.

The member for Gatineau owes $24,498 and refuses to pay it back. The member for Hochelaga owes $24,000— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan . [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we still do not know if the Prime Minister looked into where senators reside before appointing them. Senators' extravagant expenses are downright shameful.

They treated themselves to fishing trips, personal trips for themselves and their spouses, rounds of golf and tickets to hockey games, all on the taxpayer's dime and with impunity. It is high time we got rid of this archaic institution. Most Quebeckers no longer want it. Will the Conservatives finally stop defending the status quo? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite.

At the same time as the Auditor General was revealing the expenses of senators, there was a report issued with respect to members of Parliament. What that report found was that 68 members of Parliament owed $2.7 million to the taxpayer. All of those 68 members happen to be sitting in the NDP caucus. At a time when we were bringing in accountability to the House of Commons, they were finding a way to cheat and rip off the Canadian taxpayer and are now refusing to pay it back. They should pay back the $2.7 million they owe Canadians. It is the right thing to do, and they ought to do it. [ Translation ] Ms.

Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is still defending the indefensible. Worse still, rather than apologize for their unacceptable behaviour, Liberal senators and those who were appointed by the Prime Minister are rubbing salt in the wound. Now they want to to be their own judge and jury behind closed doors. Seriously, what a lot of nerve. Why is the Prime Minister allowing these internal, secret, backroom games?

Why is he not getting on board with the NDP's proposal to eliminate all of these secret House and Senate committees and give the people the transparency they deserve once and for all? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will not defend anybody who deliberately misuses taxpayer dollars. I certainly will not get up in the chamber and defend that. That is why I think like Canadians think. I do not differentiate.

Whether it is a senator or a member of Parliament, if they deliberately misuse taxpayer dollars, they ought to pay it back. New Democrats owe three times as much as the Auditor General has identified in the Senate. They owe $2.7 million. The Leader of the Opposition owes $400,000 to the taxpayers of Canada, and he refuses to pay it back. He ought to do the right thing and pay it back. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the scandals in the Senate have exploded, the Conservatives have taken to hiding the Prime Minister .

Instead of answering questions, they bring on the very sad theatrics of the member for Oak Ridges—Markham . We remember that he tearfully apologized to the House for his antics. He promised to change his ways, and then he broke his promise. Every time he speaks, he loses more support for Conservatives. This morning, Conservatives hit historical lows. Keep up the good work. New Democrats believe we can and must bring change to the Senate. Why do Conservatives lack the political will to scrap the Senate, and why will they not listen to Canadians? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians have turned their backs on that party for 16 straight elections. They have never, ever been given the confidence of Canadians to sit on this side of the House. I am very proud of the fact that Canadians have given us the confidence to sit on this side of the House, and I will continue to work every day to do that. This is a member who admits that he actually owes money, $189,000. He is refusing to pay it back. He might think that is funny; Canadians do not. They want the money back.

Pay them $189,000.

[ Translation ] Infrastructure Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has botched the preparations for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. We have been calling for plans for these celebrations for over a year now. Instead, the Conservatives have come up with a preposterous infrastructure program, leaving just a few weeks for submitting proposals, and excluding lots of players, including the municipalities of Quebec. This patchwork plan has been rushed and handled in a disorderly fashion.

Will they admit that they are just waiting to hand out goodies before the election? (1140) [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is very proud to have established the Canada 150 community infrastructure program. We are seeing significant interest from community groups, from not-for-profit organizations, from legion halls and from across the country.

We look forward to working with them, to partnering with those important organizations in our communities to not only renew recreational infrastructure but to celebrate this country's 150th anniversary. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister clearly is not known for bridge building. In fact, after pilfering 90% of the building Canada fund, Canada's 150 slush fund will now dole out ad hoc goodies without a plan for Canada's long-term infrastructure needs. Municipal leaders know that federal co-operation with our cities is at an all-time low.

Canada's mayors are begging for money for sewer lines, subway lines and all the Prime Minister does is offer them political lines. Cities know the difference between civil engineering and campaign engineering, but when is the Prime Minister going to know it? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that question is a bridge to nowhere. We will take no lessons from the Liberals with respect to infrastructure.

Since our Conservative government formed office, Canada has consistently led G7 countries with respect to investments in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP. Over the next decade, our Conservative government will invest $80 billion in infrastructure. This includes the $53-billion new building Canada plan. What will the Liberals do? They will hike taxes, and we learned this week they will raid pension plans in this country. Canadians want the Liberals to keep their hands off— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, if Canadians want to build the country, there is a party on this side prepared to do it. If all they want are talking points, those are talking points. Across Canada, cities and towns are scrambling, holding emergency meetings, and trying to fill out very complicated and convoluted application forms for the Canada 150 fund. There is different criteria for different cities. There are different provinces dealing with different applications forms.

The government has spent more time composing its talking notes and creating billboards than it has actually creating an infrastructure program that works for towns and cities. Why does the government not sit down with the FCM and municipalities, and come up with real money for transit, housing and infrastructure, instead of these gimmicky plans and silly programs? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are not only making record investments in infrastructure across this country, we are also making record investments in public transit.

These investments in public transit will go even further. Public transit is an eligible category under every component of the new building Canada plan. Of course, in our recent budget we announced the public transit fund. This will provide support to major projects in large cities across this country. This Conservative government is getting it done. Canadians understand these achievements.

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the former minister of citizenship proclaimed with great fanfare that the government was going to revoke the citizenship of thousands of fraudsters. Three years later, the government has acted on only 81 cases, and the department has quietly admitted that many of the people it was pursuing were innocent. This is a consistent pattern from the Conservatives and especially that minister, exaggerating threats to score political points.

Why do the Conservatives not, for once, put partisanship aside and focus on finally eliminating huge immigration backlogs? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is a strange question coming from that party, which opposed our measures to improve the integrity and strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. We have taken action to revoke citizenship for misrepresentation, for fraud, based on due process, based on investigations under the law, and we will continue to do so.

What is scandalous is that that party continues to oppose the idea that dual nationals should have their citizenship revoked. That provision is now enforced, thanks to this government, when they are convicted for terrorism. That is what Canadians want, and the NDP has always refused it. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister is all talk and no action: in 2012, he was extremely proud to announce that his government was going to revoke the citizenship of 3,000 people who allegedly obtained it under false pretenses.

Three years later, 81 people saw their citizenship revoked. Again, the Conservatives chose to play politics on the backs of new arrivals by accusing them of fraud and by inflating the figures. What is more, the processing of these cases has dragged on. Some files have not moved in three years. Will the minister apologize to the Canadians he unjustly accused of fraud and will he fast-track these files?

(1145) Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are still thousands of investigations under way, hundreds of serious cases where revocation is still on the table, and, yes, dozens of cases where we revoked citizenship on account of fraud. It is no thanks to the support of the NDP that this was possible, quite the contrary. The NDP insisted on opposing all our measures to enhance the integrity and value of Canadian citizenship, including by revoking citizenship from dual nationals who are convicted of terrorism. It is scandalous.

Foreign Affairs Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the completely inhumane treatment of blogger Raif Badawi seems to be mobilizing everyone but the government. Today, the Government of Quebec will announce that it will immediately issue a selection certificate to Mr. Badawi on humanitarian grounds. The minister in Ottawa has not said a word. It is the eleventh hour for Mr. Badawi, as his cruel punishment could even resume today. Will the minister follow his Quebec colleague's lead and take action to reunite Mr. Badawi with his family? [ English ] Hon.

Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken with Minister St-Pierre from Quebec. The minister discussed their mutual concerns regarding the sentence given to Mr. Badawi. The minister looks forward to meeting with Minister St-Pierre in the very near future. Again, Canada considers the sentencing to be a violation of human dignity. We will continue raising this matter with the Saudi officials as we have in the past. Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, this is an urgent situation. Mr. Badawi's health is at risk and his punishment is certainly inhumane. Advocating for human rights and democracy is certainly not a crime. Now the Government of Quebec has said that province would welcome Mr. Badawi and is prepared to deliver a certificate of humanitarian selection to Mr. Badawi. The obvious question: Why is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration not taking action to reunite Mr. Badawi with his family? Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have said, the minister discussed this week our concern regarding the sentence given to Mr. Badawi with Minister St-Pierre from Quebec. We are deeply concerned that Saudi human rights activist Raif Badawi has been sentenced. Canadians officials have raised this matter with the Saudi government. Canada considers the punishment of Mr. Badawi to be a violation of human dignity and we continue to call for clemency in this case. This will continue, going forward, until clemency is granted.

Taxation Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians, jobs and economic growth. Our plan for jobs is tax cuts, trade and training. Since the recession, 1.2 million net new jobs have been created, and almost 59,000 jobs in May alone. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance update this House on what the government is doing to make life more affordable for Canadians? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, today I am pleased to note that Canadian household net worth increased in the first quarter to an all-time high, reflecting continued gains in household assets. This is proof our low-tax plan is working. Our government has delivered on its promise to Canadians to make life more affordable and continue to lower taxes. This past year alone, we have doubled the tax-free savings account, introduced the family tax cut and enhanced the universal child care benefit. As a result, the average family of four has $6,600 more in their pocket this year.

With a fragile global economy, now is not the time for risky schemes and untested— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Laval.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Laval has had enough of Canada Post's intransigence. Together with Montreal, Longueuil and Westmount, Laval has decided to go to court to stop Canada Post from eliminating home delivery. This movement is growing across the country. More than 600 municipalities are opposed to the end of home mail delivery. Will the Conservative government finally stop and consider the thousands of petitions against this plan that have been signed by the people of Laval?

(1150) Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in 2014, Canada Post delivered 1.4 billion fewer pieces of mail than in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not have mail delivered to their door, and Canada Post must balance its books without being a burden on Canadian taxpayers. The NDP plan for Canada Post will cost taxpayers half a billion dollars a year, which means that the NDP will increase the tax burden on all Canadians to finance its plan. That is not what we on this side of the House are going to do. Instead, we are going to keep taxes low for Canadians.

[ English ] Infrastructure Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Cities, Mr. Speaker, are where most of us live. They are the engines of the Canadian economy. Yet, they have been saddled with an infrastructure deficit of nearly $170 billion by Liberal and Conservative governments. The Minister of Finance has called further investment in urban infrastructure a risky spending scheme, ignoring most obviously the billions lost to our economy due to gridlock. The New Democrats are ready to partner with our municipal leaders. It is in our national interest to do so.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to invest any more in our cities? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is this Conservative government that is making record investments in infrastructure with $80 billion over the next decade. This includes the $53-billion new building Canada plan. Not only are we making record investments, our government is keeping taxes low and we are balancing the budget. What would the NDP do? It would take an “Ottawa knows best” top-down approach. It would hike taxes and run permanent deficits. It would do all of the above.

[ Translation ] Social Development Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again, it is our most vulnerable citizens who are paying the price for the Conservative government's choices. We have just learned that the 300 Quebec branches of meals on wheels will no longer have access to the federal new horizon for seniors program. This means that 30,000 people in Quebec, whose average age is 72, could see their services reduced. Is the Conservative government really going to cancel funding for meals on wheels? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we created that program to help seniors all across the country. I am pleased to report to the House that that program is working and is meant to fund very specific programs for seniors. The Minister of State for Seniors travels all across the country in order to allocate funding and improve our seniors' quality of life. We are also lowering taxes for seniors, unlike what the New Democrats would do. Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, funding for meals on wheels is not the only funding that might disappear. Some $232,00 of the funding that was allocated to the Lower Laurentians under the homelessness initiative and that will not be used could end up back in the public purse, even though these organizations desperately need it. Just look at the work done by Accueil communautaire jeunesse des Basses-Laurentides in Saint-Eustache. Will the government use that money to help combat homelessness in the Lower Laurentians? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I just said, the program in question was created and funded by our budgets and managed by the Minister of State for Seniors . She does an excellent job allocating that funding, but she also supports tax cuts and income splitting for our seniors so that they can save money. The New Democrats want to raise taxes for our seniors, the people who built our country. We will do the opposite.

[ English ] Citizenship and Immigration Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Maclean's magazine, Paul Wells wrote that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was “delusional and culpably misleading capsule history of Canadian immigration policy” and concluded that “He’s one of the least impressive ministers in an increasingly weak government bench”. The minister's goose may be cooked, but will he at least do the right thing and offer a sincere apology to Canadian Muslims? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as some members know, I spent six years in Afghanistan. I saw first-hand the systematic oppression of women by extremists like the Taliban, who often forbade women to uncover their faces on pain of death. I take offence to what the member said in the House yesterday. I take offence to what the Liberal Party said two days ago. I await their apology.

(1155) Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, despite what the minister just said, he was asked about niqabs and immediately answered about terrorists. There is incontrovertible video evidence of this that cannot be denied. Why does the minister keep playing to his party's old immigration Reform Party base by attacking refugees and Muslims? Why does he do that? Why will he not do the right thing, reflecting that background that he just described, and apologize to Canadian Muslims? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we all know that the member opposite has trouble taking responsibility for his own words, for the history of his own party, which has been anti-immigration, which has been against all of the reforms that have been undertaken since 2006. The words he has ascribed to me were never spoken by me. On behalf of all the women of Afghanistan, on behalf of all the victims of Taliban oppression, on behalf of all those who have been forced by pain of death not to uncover their faces, I would ask the member to apologize.

[ Translation ] Consumer Protection Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, small and medium-sized businesses are our economic lifeblood and they create the vast majority of jobs in Canada. Unfortunately, our SMEs are still being forced to pay some of the highest credit card fees in the world—an average of 2%. A number of countries have restricted these fees to rates from 0.5% to 0.3%, far lower than Canada's rates. My motion to lower these exorbitant fees will be debated today. Will the government support my motion and SMEs? [ English ] Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we heard the concerns of small business and introduced a code of conduct. The code has been welcomed by consumers and industry groups, especially small business. We continually monitor compliance, and we are working with small business and consumers to ensure that both are heard. However, the NDP voted against the code and against supporting small business and consumers.

[ Translation ] Labour Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we now better understand why no inspections have been done at the Cliff Street central heating plant. The number of health and safety inspectors has dropped from 120 to 80 as a result of the Conservatives' cuts. Nickel-and-diming is unacceptable when it puts the lives of public servants at risk. Will the minister intervene quickly to ensure that all public servants have access to a safe workplace? [ English ] Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, certainly our government is committed to workplaces that are safer and productive. To state that the inspectors have been cut is categorically false. As of March 31, there were 160 labour affairs officers who enforce the workplace health and safety standards that are set out in the Canada Labour Code. We are proud of the hard work our dedicated labour officers do each day to keep Canadians safe on the job.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again Israel has come under attack. In recent days, a number of rockets have been launched from the Gaza strip. These rockets are indiscriminate in terms of where they land and are primarily intended to instill fear within Israel's civilian population. To be perfectly clear, these are terrorist attacks. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please provide the House with Canada's reaction to these acts of terror? Hon.

Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his hard work in Parliament. Canada condemns, in the strongest possible terms, these rocket attacks from Gaza. According to the reports, one such rocket actually fell short of its target and landed within Gaza. This is just another proof of what we have said all along. The only group responsible for the sufferings of the Palestinian people is the terrorist group Hamas. Israel is Canada's greatest ally in the region.

While others like the NDP take every opportunity they can to single out Israel, our Conservative government stands with Israel. (1200) [ Translation ] Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the treatment of blogger Raif Badawi is a violation of Saudi Arabia's obligations to Canada under the convention against torture. Now that the Saudi supreme court has upheld Raif's cruel sentence, the only possible recourse is a royal pardon. It is up to the Prime Minister to take up Raif's case directly with the Saudi king.

Will the Prime Minister ask the king to mark the beginning of Ramadan with a show of compassion and justice by freeing Raif Badawi and reuniting him with his family in Quebec? [ English ] Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said, Canada is deeply concerned with the sentence given to Raif Badawi of 1,000 lashes. Canadian officials have raised this matter with the Saudi government. Canada considers the punishment of Mr.

Badawi to be a violation of human dignity, and we continue to call for clemency in this case. This will continue as long as he is being sentenced.

Canadian Heritage Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the principles of habeas corpus, no taxation without representation, the rule of law and other fundamental pillars of a free and democratic society trace their roots to the Magna Carta. In my own life, appreciation for these things drove me to become a constitutional lawyer and to found the Canadian Constitution Foundation. On behalf of all Canadians who love freedom, could the Minister for Democratic Reform please update the House about the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for accurately pointing to the historical importance of this eight-century old document, the anniversary of which we celebrate next week. In fact, Canada will play host to one of the issuances of the Magna Carta at the Canadian history museum. I was pleased to help unveil the new exhibit. I encourage all Canadians to go there. I am so enamoured with it because it was born out of a tax revolt.

It was one of the first examples of where the power of the Crown, also now known as the state, was restrained and the power of the individual was elevated. We need to build on those principles.

Democratic Reform Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, when in opposition, our Prime Minister made many promises. He promised to never appoint a single unelected senator, but he has appointed 59. We see how well that is working out. He also promised to implement proportional representation. Now, with only 39% of the popular vote but 100% of the power, he rather likes our archaic and undemocratic electoral system. Why does the Prime Minister not keep his word? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, he is keeping his word. The Prime Minister has been very clear that he does not support proportional representation, just as Canadians who have been surveyed on the matter in numerous referenda across the country have likewise been clear in their rejection of that approach to democracy. We believe in the parliamentary system in which members of Parliament are responsible to their constituents and must go back to their geographical constituency for reaffirmation in every single election cycle. That is responsible government and that is what we support.

[ Translation ] Infrastructure Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, on May 15, the Prime Minister announced an infrastructure program to mark Canada's 150th anniversary and invited all municipalities to participate. Municipalities in Quebec, including Ahuntsic-Cartierville, will be excluded from the program even though Quebec's Minister of Municipal Affairs submitted a memorandum of understanding. When will the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs sign the MOU? [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I explained earlier, our government is very proud to have established the Canada 150 community infrastructure program. It will help to preserve and improve treasured cultural and community locations, not only through the province of Quebec but across the country. We look forward to working with not-for-profit organizations in the province of Quebec and across the country to renew important recreational infrastructure in our communities and to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

(1205) Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I understand that there was a profanity over the microphone when the question came from the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North . Some of my colleagues definitely heard it. It came from the member for Trinity—Spadina . It would be appropriate if the member for Trinity—Spadina were to apologize for speaking in such a fashion, which the microphone happened to pick up because he was sitting adjacent to the member who was asking the question. Mr.

Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, if something slipped out of my mouth that offended the hon. member, I will not contest it. If members were offended, I of course apologize. The colleague next to me had the question. I was just astounded that the Tea Party is not good enough; the Magna Carta is now a Conservative document. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I believe this closes this matter.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Ways and Means Notice of Motion Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2) I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2013-14 Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society in the Nunavut Settlement Area. I am also tabling copies of the 2012-13 Annual Report of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Implementation Committee.

[ English ] Petitions 41st General Election Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from many Canadians who are concerned about the election fraud that occurred in the 2011 federal election. The petitioners feel that due to fraudulent practices, including in Thunder Bay—Superior North, election results were affected and the democratic right of Canadians to vote was suppressed.

They call upon the House, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to call an independent, fully empowered royal commission into election fraud, alongside the Elections Canada investigation, to determine whether the Elections Canada Act and any other Canadian laws were violated during the 2011 federal election campaign, and to protect the integrity of our electoral system.

Child Care Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in the House today with respect to affordable child care. The signatories to the petition want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that after nearly a decade of Conservative government, child care costs continue to soar; that there are nearly one million kids with working parents out there without regulated child care spaces; and that quality child care and early learning offer children a head start in life, while easing poverty.

They further note that the NDP has put forward a plan to ensure quality, affordable child care for up to $15 a day. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to work with provinces and territories to implement the NDP plan for affordable child care in Canada.

(1210) Autism Spectrum Disorders Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, autism spectrum disorders, or ASDs, are pervasive disorders that are characterized by social and communication challenges and a pattern of repetitive behaviours and interests. They are lifelong, profoundly affect development and life experience, and exert immense emotional and financial pressures on families. The petitioners call on the government to work with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a pan-Canadian strategy for autism spectrum disorder.

Animal Welfare Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition signed by hundreds and hundreds of residents from British Columbia. The petition was created by Gwendy and Alfie Williams, two very passionate advocates from my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. The petitioners call on the federal government to ban the sale and use of electric shock collars on domestic cats and dogs. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association states that “Training methods utilizing pain, fear, distress or anxiety, including violent use of choke collars and shock collars are to be condemned”, and I urge the government to consider this petition very carefully.

Canada Post Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from hundreds of people in my community of Capreol. They call on the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain, expand, and improve postal service and cease any proposal to reduce hours and diminish service to the residents and businesses of Capreol.

Health Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from dozens of people in the Nickel Belt. They call on the government to support northerners in our universal health care system and ensure that every citizen of northern Ontario has access to the same high-quality services wherever they live and regardless of financial circumstances.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from people in my riding to present today. In the first, the petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to stop the devastating cuts to postal services.

CBC/Radio-Canada Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the people who signed the second petition I am presenting today are calling on the government to guarantee stable, adequate, multi-year funding for our public broadcaster so that it can live up to its mandate from coast to coast to coast.

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Questions Nos. 1213, 1225, 1227, 1233, 1234, 1235, and 1258 will be answered today. [ Text ] Question No. 1213-- Mr.

François Lapointe : With regard to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, specifically for each of the following constituencies, Beauce, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lévis-Bellechasse, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madelaine, Beauport—Côte-deBeaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Manicouagan, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Jonquière—Alma: (

a) for all submitted projects, (

i) how many projects were submitted, (ii) what is the description of each project, (iii) what is the total financial contribution for these projects; (

b) for all approved projects, (

i) how many projects were approved, (ii) what is the description of each project, (iii) what is the total financial contribution for these projects; (

c) among the projects that were approved, (

i) what is the total number and description of projects benefitting from a non-repayable financial contribution, (ii) what is the total amount and the amounts broken down by non-repayable financial contribution; (

d) among the projects that were approved, (

i) what is the total number and description of projects benefitting from a repayable financial contribution or loan, (ii) what is the total amount and broken down by repayable financial contribution or loan; (

e) among the projects that were submitted, (

i) what is the total number and description of rejected projects, (ii) what is the total amount and the amount broken down by requested financial contribution for rejected projects; and (

f) for each rejected project, what are the reasons for the refusal? Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, tThe Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec does not gather data by electoral district for most of its programs.

However, information on the projec