12015 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 185 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, March 12, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 12, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 185 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 185 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 185 (Version officielle) 147 185 12 03 2015 2015/03/12 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Transatlantic Parliamentary Forum, held in Washington D.C., the United States of America, December 2 to 3, 2013.

Committees of the House Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in relation to its study of the review of the Canadian transportation safety regime, transportation of dangerous goods and safety management systems. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the House of Commons committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, while we on the opposition side do generally support the recommendations of the report, we have provided for the House a supplementary opinion, because we believe that there are a number of recommendations that are not made or that are omitted, and that there are number of recommendations that do not go far enough. As an example, the railway companies should conduct risk assessments and route planning, and operate their trains at lower speeds where it is of risk to the public. In addition, we believe that the government should provide greater oversight to the railway companies and greater inspections.

Mr. Larry Miller : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in relation to the supplementary estimates, 2014-15. While I am up, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in relation to the main estimates, 2015-16.

National Defence Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence in relation to the supplementary estimates C, 2014-15.

[ Translation ] National Strategy for Concussion Reduction in Amateur Sports Act Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) Bill C-658. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-658,

An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to reduce the incidence of concussions in amateur sport . He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce a bill to reduce concussions. This bill is a major improvement over the previous version.

This bill calls on the Minister of Health to sit down with her provincial colleagues to adopt measures that will mitigate the scourge of concussions among young people. [ English ] It is important that the federal government show leadership on this file, and that the Minister of Health sit down with her provincial counterparts, which is what the bill asks, and puts into place measures that would help reduce concussions in amateur sports.

As a former coach myself and as a fan of sports, it is important for parents and for young people to continue to enjoy all of the positive benefits of sports in a safe environment. This bill goes a long way to taking the steps in the right direction. [ Translation ] I hope that my government colleagues will support this initiative. We all love sports, and we all want our young people to be safe. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ English ] Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to inform the House that 25-year-old Danille Kerpan was tragically killed by a drunk driver, a driver who chose to drive while impaired. Danille's family was devastated by this. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have also lost loved ones killed by an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it is, vehicular homicide. Vehicular homicide is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada.

Over 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by drunk drivers. Families for Justice is also calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for Parliament to support Bill C-652 .

Canada Post Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to give voice to the frustration, and dare I say, anger felt by many of my constituents about the Conservative government's decision to cancel door-to-door mail delivery and install community mailboxes. Petitions continue to flood in, and I am pleased to be able to table 20 more today that were circulated at a recent public meeting organized by municipal councillors to lend their support to our campaign to save Canada Post.

My federal NDP colleagues and I have been at the forefront of that fight since January of last year. We all know that we cannot save a business by cutting services and raising prices. The petitioners are appalled that the Conservatives would allow Canada Post to eliminate home delivery for millions of customers, set up community mailboxes without taking residents' legitimate concerns into account, put thousands of employees out of work and then have the gall to raise the price of stamps.

Our postal service helps connect us, and these cuts will unfairly impact the most vulnerable in our society, including seniors and people with disabilities. For all of those reasons, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop these devastating cuts to our postal service— Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is presenting petitions. This is not debate. All we heard was debate coming from the member. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I thank the chief government whip for his intervention. Just a reminder to all hon. members when presenting petitions.

I recognize the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain did put her remarks under the rubric of petitions and what the petitioners were requesting. At the same time, brevity is important given that we only have 15 minutes to get all the petitions registered in that short time. To the degree that members can, keep remarks concise and remember that editorializing or providing one's own particular comments on the petition is usually considered out of order. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

(1010) Ms. Chris Charlton : Mr. Speaker, for all of those reasons, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop these devastating cuts to our postal service and look instead for ways to modernize operations. The Conservatives continue to find millions of dollars for their well-connected friends, it is time they found a way to keep the mail coming to our doors.

Iranian Canadians Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition signed by many constituents who expressed strong concern regarding the remarks by the member for Willowdale on the subject of Iranian Canadians. This petition is itself backed by an online petition, which is signed by more than 2,400 Canadians.

Mental Health Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first petition is from constituents in Surrey and Newton. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to create a ministry for people with disability and mental health issues. Of those with mental health issues, only one-third who need services in Canada actually receive them. The petitioners feel that creating a ministry for these people would build a healthier, harm-reduction solution that is much needed. Like the petitioners, I too want to see real leadership on mental health.

Impaired Driving Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from my constituents in Newton—North Delta. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to change the current drinking and driving laws. They want to implement mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Child Care Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is also from my Newton—North Delta riding. The petitioners call upon the government to increase the number of good quality and affordable child care spaces. Like the petitioners, I too feel that quality child care and early learning can be the foundation for lifelong success. Canada ranks last among comparable countries when it comes to public spending on child care, which creates a shortage of space and increases child care costs by up to $2,000 per child.

The question is not why we would invest in child care, but rather why we would disadvantage our children when it comes to their future opportunities. Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today from constituents throughout the city of Kingston and in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to launch a national inquiry on the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls so that we can deal with the issue of protecting the safety of this vulnerable group.

Agriculture Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first one has been signed by people who live in the Vancouver Kingsway area and all over Vancouver. It is a petition led by Ted and Cora Alcuitas. They have a lot of signatures from St. Mary's Parish in Vancouver, in my riding.

They are concerned and want the House of Commons to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in their struggle against hunger and poverty and ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers, that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds.

Human Rights Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is one signed by people from all across the country in support of the peaceful and democratic development of Hong Kong. Petitioners call upon our Parliament to recognize the rights of people to exercise freedom of association and speech and to participate in free, fair and regular elections. They call upon the Government of Canada to encourage the Government of the People's Republic of China to honour its commitments to achieve full and genuine government for the people of Hong Kong.

(1015) Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 958, 961, 978, 996, 1001, 1002 and 1014. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 958-- Mr. Don Davies : With regard to Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions under all international trade and investment agreements to which Canada is a party: (

a) how many ISDS proceedings is Canada involved in (

i) as a claimant, (ii) as a respondent; (

b) for each year between 1994 and 2014, how much money has Canada spent (

i) advancing its legal claims as a claimant, (ii) defending its legal claims as a respondent; and (

c) how many ISDS claims has Canada lost as a respondent and how much money has it been ordered to pay to each successful claimant for each year between 1994 and 2014, with each claimant and award amount separately identified? Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to international trade, the government’s top priority is creating jobs and economic opportunities for hard-working Canadians and their families.

Investor state dispute settlement, ISDS, has been a core element of Canada’s trade policy for more than a generation. Trade and investment agreements protect Canadian investors abroad, including against discrimination and expropriation without compensation. They provide Canadian businesses with access to impartial recourse to an independent, international body to resolve disputes. ISDS allows Canadian investors to seek remedies directly for violations of investment protection obligations.

None of Canada’s trade and investment agreements prevent any level of government in Canada from regulating in the public interest, nor do they exempt foreign companies that operate in Canada from Canadian laws and regulations. ISDS allows Canadian investors to bring claims directly against foreign governments. Therefore it is not possible for Canada to be a claimant in an investor state dispute. Canadian investors can and have been claimants abroad. Canada has been a respondent in 22 investor state disputes: twelve are concluded, two were submitted to arbitration but were withdrawn, and eight are ongoing.

The Government of Canada is committed to transparency in ISDS and therefore posts online information about all ongoing cases. For details, see: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng.

ISDS allows Canadian investors to bring claims directly against foreign governments. Therefore it is not possible for Canada to be a claimant in an investor state dispute. Canadian investors can and have been claimants abroad. Approximately $27,350,446.22 has been spent relating to the defence of its legal claims as a respondent. In three cases, the tribunal ordered $1,650,200.55 of these expenditure amounts to be reimbursed to Canada. This amount is not reflected here. Since 1994, Canada has lost three investor state disputes as a respondent: S.D. Myers v. Canada, Pope & Talbot v. Canada and Mobil & Murphy v.

Canada. In respect of these cases, Canada has paid the following: in the S.D. Myers v. Canada dispute, $6.9 million Canadian plus interest for legal costs and damages; and in the Pope & Talbot v. Canada dispute, $581,766 U.S., or approximately $6 million Canadian plus interest for a portion of the arbitral fees and damages. No payment has been made to date to Mobil & Murphy.

To the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by litigation privilege, the federal crown asserts that privilege and, in this case, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total aggregate legal cost. Question No. 961-- Mr. Don Davies : With regard to lands owned by the government or crown corporations: (

a) what is the total number of distinct properties that exist within the municipality of Vancouver, broken down by (

i) name, (ii) address, (iii) current use; and (

b) what is the total number of distinct properties that exist within the boundaries of the federal electoral district of Vancouver Kingsway, broken down by (

i) name, (ii) address, (iii) current use? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Directory of Federal Real Property is the central record and only complete listing of real property holdings of the Government of Canada. The directory can be accessed at the following website: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dfrp-rbif/introduction-eng.aspx. Question No. 978-- Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg : With regard to Canada Post and the process described on its “Canada Post Pay Equity Decision” webpage, further to the Supreme Court ruling of November 17, 2011, in favour of the Public Service Alliance of Canada: how many employees or former employees (

a) have applied online; (

b) have confirmed their postal code; (

c) have been sent the information package; (

d) have provided the information requested in the package; (

e) have been sent their payment; (

f) have not yet been sent their payment; and (

g) have an active file that has not yet been closed due to a payment or a refusal of payment? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has been working diligently on the pay equity file to ensure accurate data and process payments as quickly as possible.

Canada Post has sent out payments to almost 10,000 individuals identified as eligible. Every current and former eligible employee that Canada Post has been able to locate a current address for has been paid. Canada Post is working with the Canada Revenue Agency to find others that it may not have current information for, in order to complete any outstanding cases.

Question No. 996-- Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe : With regard to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada's pilot project for LGBT refugees: (

a) to date, how many refugees have been sponsored through the project; (

b) how many of the sponsored refugees are present in Canada; (

c) how much of the funding budgeted for the pilot project by the government has been spent; (

d) how many sponsors participated in the pilot project; and (

e) have any evaluations been conducted on the pilot project? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada is concerned, (

a) to date, 32 refugees have been sponsored through the Rainbow Refugee Committee project and, (b) 26 persons sponsored under this initiative have arrived in Canada. (

c) All of the $100,000 budgeted for this pilot project has been spent. (

d) Five sponsorship agreement holders have participated in the pilot project. (e)There has been no evaluation of the pilot project to date. Question No. 1001-- Hon. John McCallum : With regard to permanent frozen allotments: (

a) which departments or agencies have been directed by the Treasury Board to permanently withhold spending on one or more specific initiatives in fiscal year (i) 2014-2015, (ii) 2015-2016, (iii) 2016-2017; (

b) what is the official name for each frozen allotment in fiscal year (i) 2014-2015, (ii) 2015-2016, (iii) 2016-2017; (

c) what are the details of each initiative subject to a permanent frozen allotment in fiscal year (i) 2014-2015, (ii) 2015-2016, (iii) 2016-2017; and (

d) how much money has been frozen for each identified initiative in fiscal year (i) 2014-2015, (ii) 2015-2016, (iii) 2016-2017? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board acts on all matters relating to the general administrative policy in the federal public administration and financial management. As well, the Treasury Board reviews annual and longer-term expenditure plans and programs of departments, and the determination of priorities with respect thereof.

With regard to (a), Treasury Board is a cabinet committee and as such its decisions are cabinet confidences. The powers of the Treasury Board are laid out in the Financial Administration Act and do not include the power to direct departments and agencies to permanently withhold spending.

With regard to (b), (

c) and (d), volume III of the Public Accounts will publish, for each departmental vote, the total amount that remained frozen at year-end, at which point all remaining frozen allotments will be considered to be “permanent”. The documents will be available at: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/index-eng.html. Question No. 1002-- Hon. John McCallum : With regard to frozen allotments: (

a) which departments or agencies were directed by the Treasury Board to withhold spending on one or more specific initiatives in fiscal year (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014; (

b) what is the official name for each frozen allotment in fiscal year (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014; (

c) what are the details of each initiative subject to a permanent frozen allotment in fiscal year (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014; and (

d) how much money was frozen for each identified initiative in fiscal year (i) 2011-2012, (ii) 2012-2013, (iii) 2013-2014? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, volume III of the Public Accounts published, for each departmental vote, the total amount that remained frozen at year-end, at which point all remaining frozen allotments are considered to be “permanent” for that year.

Here are the links to relevant online documents.

For 2011-12, please see: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/html/2012/recgen/cpc-pac/2012/vol3/s10/bdgtr-ffcttn-eng.html.

For 2012-13, please see: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/html/2013/recgen/cpc-pac/2013/vol3/s10/dba-bda-eng.html.

For 2013-14, please see: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2014/vol3/s10/dba-bda-eng.html. Question No. 1014-- Mr. Robert Chisholm : With regard to the home-equity assistance program administered by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS): (

a) what were the costs to TBS for the federal court case initiated by Major Marcus Brauer, broken down by (

i) legal costs, (ii) staff costs; (

b) what was the cost of the third party review of the Bon Accord real estate market order by Judge Richard Mosley; and (

c) what is the estimated cost to the TBS for the class action suit for home equity assistance? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to the home equity assistance program administered by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the legal costs to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat for the Federal Court case initiated by Major Marcus Brauer were $58,646.26. This includes $25,376.04 corresponding to Mr. Brauer’s legal fees and disbursements and $33,270.22 corresponding to the federal government legal costs.

It is not possible to ascertain the staff costs attributable to this specific case. The cost of the third party review of the Bon Accord real estate market order by Judge Richard Mosley was $5,998.36.

The proposed class action suit for home equity assistance in Dodsworth v. Her Majesty the Queen is still at a preliminary stage before the Federal Court.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 738, originally tabled on November 19, 2014, as well as Questions Nos. 938 to 942, 944 to 946, 962, 972, 974, 998, 999 and 1013 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 738-- Mr.

Dennis Bevington : With regard to the government's support for the development and use of renewable energy for each year between 2006 and 2014 inclusive, what were the government's expenditures, broken down by (

i) province and territory, (ii) department or agency, (iii) program? (Return tabled) Question No. 938-- Ms. Megan Leslie : With regard to the government’s efforts from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014, to promote Canadian energy exports: (

a) what is the estimated dollar value of the government’s efforts and initiatives to support or expand Canadian energy exports (

i) in Canada, (ii) in individual government diplomatic offices outside Canada, (iii) in other locations visited by government officials, designated contractors, consultants, or other individuals involved in supporting or expanding Canadian energy exports; (

b) for the amounts mentioned in (a), what is the estimated dollar value, broken down by the type of energy directly concerned, namely, (

i) direct exports of coal, (ii) oil (including, but not limited to, bitumen, condensate, and other petroleum products), (iii) natural gas, (iv) export or construction of infrastructure associated with fossil fuels or the export of energy generated from fossil fuels (e.g., pipelines or export terminals for liquefied natural gas), (

v) export of technologies or services associated with fossil fuels or the energy generated from fossil fuels, (vi) export of energy generated from renewable sources (including, but not limited to, hydropower, solar power, wind power, biomass, and geothermal power), (vii) export or construction of infrastructure associated with energy generated from renewable sources (e.g., transmission lines to carry hydroelectric power), (viii) export of technologies or services associated with energy generated from renewable sources (e.g., solar module manufacturing technologies), (ix) export of infrastructure, technologies and services associated with energy conservation and energy efficiency (e.g., smart grids or more efficient industrial process design engineering), (

x) other types of energy export support that do not correspond to the categories above (e.g., general energy export advice or activities to support the construction of a transmission line expected to carry electricity generated from multiple sources); (

c) for the amounts mentioned in (a), what is the estimated dollar value, broken down by (

i) location where costs were incurred, (ii) department or agency that incurred those costs; (

d) what is the estimated dollar value of all government employee time used to support or expand Canadian energy exports, broken down by the following activities, (

i) planning meetings and briefings, (ii) monitoring issues, (iii) preparing materials, (iv) offering logistical coordination, (

v) planning visits by delegations, (vi) providing training, (vii) undertaking research, (viii) engaging with representatives, (ix) engaging in communications activities and preparing communications materials, (

x) engaging with members of the public, (xi) meeting with stakeholders, (xii) any other uses of government employee or contractor time; (

e) how much money has the government spent on the purchase of advertisements to support or expand energy exports, and how much government staff time was required to develop such advertisements, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); (

f) what contractor services, including advertising firms, government relations firms, legal firms, or other professional service providers, has the government retained to support or expand energy exports, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); (

g) what is the cost of all hospitality (including, but not limited to, food, catering, beverages, and location rentals) to support or expand Canadian energy exports, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); (

h) how much has been spent reimbursing travel and accommodation expenditures for (

i) non-government employees, (ii) government employees, to support or expand Canada’s energy exports broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b); and (

i) what is the total estimated value of any other government efforts to promote Canadian energy exports, broken down by the types of energy export support enumerated in (b)? (Return tabled) Question No. 939-- Mr. Dany Morin : With regard to the Health Canada decision not to certify citronella-based insect repellents: (

a) what studies comparing the toxicity of insect repellents containing DEET with repellents containing citronella does Health Canada have at its disposal, and what are the findings of these studies; (

b) during its citronella safety assessment, what groups did Health Canada consult to obtain scientific opinions; (

c) did Health Canada receive solicited or unsolicited opinions, studies or documents from groups or scientists about the safety or toxicity of citronella used in insect repellent products and, if so, (

i) from what groups or scientists did it receive them, (ii) on what date were these documents received, (iii) what were the findings of these documents; and (

d) has Health Canada considered, or does it intend to consider, the possibility of creating a new category of products that would distinguish between chemical-based insect repellents and natural insect repellents, thereby allowing for the development of a separate safety certification process for natural products? (Return tabled) Question No. 940-- Mr. François Lapointe : With regard to Canada Post and its equipment renewal for community mailboxes, further to the answer to question Q-471, obtained on June 5, 2014: (

a) what were the reasons for selecting a new mailbox model and ordering 100 000 of them between 2014 and 2016; (

b) is the mailbox model produced by Florence Manufacturing patented or licensed and, if so, (

i) under what jurisdiction, (ii) is the patent or licence legally binding in Canada, (iii) could a Canadian company have acquired the patent or licence to produce the same model as the one produced by Florence Manufacturing; (

c) if the model is not patented or licensed, (

i) what regulations forbid or make it impossible for a Canadian company to acquire the patent or licence, (ii) does Canada Post know which companies have the licences required to produce the mailboxes and, if so, what are their names, (iii) what reasons led Canada Post to restrict the tendering process to companies that hold the patent or licence in question; (

d) does Canada Post intend to use the same selection criteria for its next tendering process, expected in January 2015, for long-term mailbox production; (

e) what reasons led Canada Post to choose new selection criteria; (

f) was a study carried out to determine the reasons mentioned in (e), including forecasts for increased parcel delivery, and, if not, (

i) why not, (ii) what factors did contribute to determining the criteria for producing new mailboxes; (

g) if the answer to (

f) is affirmative, (

i) when was this study commissioned, (ii) when was this study completed, (iii) what are the details; (

h) does Canada Post have a division or resources dedicated to research and development; (

i) did Canada Post try to develop a prototype or prototypes together with its Canadian partners that would respond to the new selection criteria and, if so, what are the details concerning these prototypes; (

j) if the answer to (

i) is not in the affirmative, why not; and (

k) if the prototypes mentioned in (

i) do exist, (

i) did Canada Post help fund these development projects, (ii) what were the costs, (iii) what were the development timelines, (iv) were they evaluated by Canada Post, (

v) what was the content and what were the conclusions of these evaluations, (vi) were these prototypes pilot-tested in Canada? and Role (Return tabled) Question No. 941-- Mr. Paul Dewar : With regard to diplomatic postings by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: (

a) what is the total number of vacancies in diplomatic postings; (

b) which positions are vacant; (

c) how long have each of the positions identified in (

b) been vacant; (

d) at which stage of the recruitment and posting process are the positions identified in (b); (

e) what is the average length of time taken to fill a diplomatic posting in each of the last five calendar years; (

f) what percentage of diplomatic postings in each of the last five years has been filled from within the Foreign Service; (

g) what percentage of ambassadorial postings in each of the last five years has been filled from within the Foreign Service; and (

h) what percentage of diplomatic postings requires ministerial approval? (Return tabled) Question No. 942-- Ms. Ève Péclet : With regard to Pre-Removal Risk Assessments (PRRAs) filed by individuals subject to removal from Canada, for each year from 2011: (

a) how many PRRAs were submitted; (

b) how many were approved; (

c) how many were denied; (

d) of those denied, how many were on the grounds of (

i) posing a danger to the public of Canada, (ii) posing a danger to the security of Canada, (iii) administrative reasons, (iv) other reasons; (

e) what were the countries of return of the persons applying for PRRAs, both approved and denied; (

f) how many PRRA applicants (

i) were subject to an extradition order, (ii) were advancing a refugee claim, (iii) had a PRRA rejected and did not leave Canada; and (

g) what are the titles of employees at Citizenship and Immigration Canada responsible for deciding the outcomes of PRRAs? (Return tabled) Question No. 944-- Mr. Charlie Angus : With respect to government funding allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay: (

a) what is the total amount allocated in fiscal year 2013-2014, broken down by (

i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount; and (

b) what funding projects were approved under FedNor between 2011 and 2014 inclusively, and what was their value? (Return tabled) Question No. 945-- Ms. Elizabeth May : With respect to the drafting of the new liability provisions in Bill C-46, Pipeline Safety Act: (

a) what are the names, positions, organizations or affiliations of all the stakeholders consulted leading up to the creation of this legislation; (

b) what submissions, proposals or recommendations were made by stakeholders during the consultation process before the creation of this legislation; (

c) other than Natural Resources Canada, what other departments were involved or consulted in the creation of this legislation; (

d) what are the dates, times, and locations of the meetings with those individuals or organizations consulted before the creation of this legislation; (

e) who proposed the $1 billion limit for absolute liability; (

f) who proposed that this legislation apply only to pipelines with the capacity to transport at least 250 000 barrels of oil per day; and (

g) what evidence was used to determine that $1 billion would be sufficient to clean up a spill? (Return tabled) Question No. 946-- Mr. Craig Scott : With respect to the government’s knowledge of rendition, detention and interrogation activities: (

a) is the government aware of the existence of the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Detention and Interrogation Program (the Program) and, if so, (

i) when was the government made aware of it, (ii) who had such knowledge, (iii) what was the extent of that knowledge; (

b) if the answer in (

a) is affirmative, has the government sent observers within the Program, or to act as a liaison between the Program and any government department, agency or intelligence entity; (

c) at any point, has Canada been one of the “other nations” from which the Program “required secrecy and cooperation”, according to the United States Select Committee on Intelligence’s Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program, released in December 2014 (the Study); (

d) has the government been aware of the role of “contract psychologists” in the design and execution of CIA torture programs, as revealed by the Study and, if so, is there record of anyone in Canada being a contract psychologist; (

e) has the government been aware of the existence of a CIA detention and interrogation site known as Detention Site COBALT (the Site) and, if so, (

i) when was the government made aware of it, (ii) who had such knowledge, (iii) what was the extent of that knowledge; (

f) did the government send any employees or contractors to (

i) observe activity within the Site, (ii) transfer persons to the Site, (iii) assist in the transfer of persons to the Site, (iv) learn of the transfer to the Site of persons who had, at any point, been in the custody of or detained by Canadian armed force personnel; (

g) when the Program was terminated, was the government aware that, in Afghanistan, the National Directorate of Security (NDS) would serve as the continuation of the Program in close collaboration with the CIA; and (

h) after the invasion of Iraq by forces of the United States and other countries in 2003, did any Canadian official, discuss with a person or persons employed by the Pentagon or by the U.S. Secretary of State for Defense the subject of collaboration in Afghanistan, most notably in Kandahar province, by Canadian armed forces personnel, notably special forces personnel, with US armed force personnel or the CIA in the capture and transfer of persons into CIA or NDS custody by, or with the involvement of, Canadian armed forces personnel? (Return tabled) Question No. 962-- Mr.

Dennis Bevington : With respect to the Northern Greenhouse Initiative, and specifically the Call for Expressions of Interest to access funding that closed on September 30, 2014: (

a) what are the names and addresses of all those who submitted applications; (

b) what were the complete terms of reference for this call for expressions of interest; (

c) what are the complete evaluation criteria to be used; and (

d) what are the titles or positions of those who will evaluate the applications? (Return tabled) Question No. 972-- Hon. Judy Sgro : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canadian Space Agency since March 27, 2014: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values? (Return tabled) Question No. 974-- Hon. Judy Sgro : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Industry Canada since May 30, 2014: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values? (Return tabled) Question No. 998-- Ms. Lise St-Denis : With regard to Statistics Canada: what are the details of all custom tabulations or data sets prepared for or at the request of any government department, agency, office, crown corporation, or other government body, since January 1, 2010, broken down by (

i) the nature or description of the custom tabulation or data set, (ii) the date on which it was requested, (iii) the reason or purpose for which it was requested, (iv) the department, agency, office, crown corporation, or other government body making the request? (Return tabled) Question No. 999-- Ms. Lise St-Denis : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Library and Archives Canada since March 31, 2014: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? (Return tabled) Question No. 1013-- Mr. Nathan Cullen : With regard to the Venture Capital Action Plan for the fiscal years 2012-2013 to the current fiscal year: (

a) of the commitment to invest $400 million in the Venture Capital Action Plan over 7 to 10 years, how much has been invested; (

b) of the commitment to invest $250 million in new, large private sector-led national funds of funds, (

i) what outcomes have been achieved, (ii) what are the names of the funds, (iii) how much money has been received so far; (

c) of the $100 million commitment to recapitalize existing venture capital funds, how much has been invested, broken down by fund; (

d) of the commitment to make an aggregate investment of $50 million in 3 to 5 high-performing funds, how much has been invested, broken down by fund; (

e) what “additional resources” have been invested to continue developing a robust venture capital system and a strong entrepreneurial culture in Canada; (

f) how many companies have applied for funding; (

g) what is the total amount of funding that has been given out, broken down by (

i) fiscal year, (ii) electoral riding; (

h) how many companies have been rejected for funding, broken down by (

i) fiscal year, (ii) electoral riding; (

i) what is the success rate of funding applications, broken down by (

i) fiscal year, (ii) electoral riding; (

j) what is the total amount of funding, broken down by application category of (

i) clean tech and energy efficiency, (ii) information technology, (iii) healthcare; (

k) what is the success rate of applications by application category of (

i) clean tech and energy efficiency, (ii) information technology, (iii) healthcare; and (

l) what is the average amount of funding granted, broken down by (

i) fiscal year, (ii) electoral riding? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act Bill S-7—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: That in relation to 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, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. One minute will be allowed for each question and answer, and priority will be given to opposition members wishing to ask questions. [ English ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day again for Canadian Parliament. This is the 91st time the government has used closure, or time allocation, in this Parliament. It goes beyond any previous government in Canadian history.

It is twice as bad as what was the previous worst government in terms of open intolerance of democratic debate in this House. The only solace for the Canadian population is that Canadians know that in 200 days, they will be able to vote the current government out of office and bring in a government that actually respects parliamentary traditions. With the last three closure motions and time allocation, we have seen a real intolerance of debate.

We have seen with Bill C-51 that the government is systematically refusing witnesses who could bring a lot to bear on the bill, which is a controversial piece of legislation. Yesterday in the House, the minister might as well have told Yukoners that the government will not accept any amendments to Bill S-6 . The Conservatives want to make a show of going up to Whitehorse but have absolutely no intention of actually listening to witnesses and bringing amendments to Bill S-6 . My questions to the minister with respect to Bill S-7 are simple.

Will the government hear from witnesses who want to come forward on this bill? Will it actually entertain amendments, or will it show the same disdain it has shown with so many other pieces of legislation by refusing amendments put forth by parliamentarians?

(1020) Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. opposition House leader is forgetting one vital fact about Canadian democracy, and all effective functioning democracies in the world, which is that populations have the right to judge governments and decide whether they are getting good government not by the length of debate, not by the prolixity of debate or the level of obfuscation by the opposition, which in this House and Parliament has been enormous, but by the results achieved.

This bill would bring real results for Canadian women, those who are born here or who come here as newcomers and immigrants, and it has been debated. In fact, it was by listening to the report by one of the House standing committees on strengthening the protection of women in the immigration system, to which the NDP and all the opposition had ample opportunity to contribute, that we have come to the drafting of this bill. The bill has been debated in the House and for three days in the Senate at second reading and three days at third reading. There were three full days at the Senate committee.

Seventeen speakers have already spoken to it in the House. We look forward to hearing from many more and from many good witnesses at committee. This bill, which is urgently needed, is getting the democratic consideration it needs. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there has been a change in the way this House has operated since the Conservative/Reform Party acquired its majority. Since then, we have seen the government implement time allocation, which is closure. When the member said that there were three days of debate, that might work out to a few hours of actual debate.

It is not 72 hours of debate, which is what the member might be trying to imply when he makes that simple statement. The reality is that members of Parliament traditionally are afforded the opportunity to voice the concerns expressed, in good part, by the constituents they represent here on the floor of the House of Commons. Never in the history of the parliamentary system in Canada have we witnessed such a disrespect for allowing debate to occur on government bills, budget bills, and so forth. My question is for the government House leader, and it is very simple.

Why do the government and the Prime Minister not allow for genuine debate and dialogue on all forms of legislation brought to the House? Why are there limits? It is highly undemocratic. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We are at a historical watershed in this place. We are seeing things we have never seen before, and we are seeing them from the Liberal Party of Canada. It claims to have the best economic interests of Canadians at heart. However, when we get a glimpse of what the Liberals' policies might be, they only want to raise taxes.

The Liberal Party of Canada, which claims to be pro-immigration, has supported absolutely none of our reforms to the immigration system to clean up the mess it left us in 2006. The Liberals have complained about every single step forward we have made. The Liberals have already said in this House that they support the bill. The member just stood to say that he wants an endless debate. He wants everyone to be able to express the same view over and over again. He wants that inefficiency. He wants the time of this House to be wasted, even though that party has made up its mind.

We have never seen such hypocrisy in this place before. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, the minister said he was looking forward to hearing from witnesses at committee on Bill S-7 . Well, I have some doubts about his comments that I would like to share, if I may. First of all, just this week, some newspapers referred to a Conservative Party internal document that revealed that the Conservatives had already decided on the content of the report before the latest committee review even began.

This proves how little the Conservatives care about the evidence given by witnesses. Furthermore, during debate on Bill S-7 , we had not even finished the second hour of debate when the minister said that the title was just fine as it is and it would not be changed. When the minister says he is looking forward to hearing from witnesses, frankly, I do not a believe a word of it, because we know very well that the Conservatives' minds are already made up and they have no respect for the parliamentary process or for the opinions of the experts who appear in committee.

This time allocation motion is just further proof of that.

(1025) Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, not only are we prepared to hear from witnesses in committee and continue to debate here in the House, but we also based this bill on a committee report written in 2013 and 2014. That report was on protecting women in our immigration programs and on the issue of forced marriage. We had already heard from the opposition and various witnesses when we drafted this bill. It is hard to understand why the NDP cannot come together and support a bill that is so positive for women and so warmly welcomed by women across the country.

We are confident in our position on our side of the House because we want to move forward with the necessary reforms to ensure that forced marriage, barbaric practices, underage marriages, and honour killings have no place in our country. [ English ] Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up the theme the hon. member for Winnipeg North was developing, and that is the issue of process and democracy in this place. I believe that the government has invoked closure on debate through time allocation more than 90 times in this Parliament.

Over four years, that works out to 22 times per year. That, for Canadians who may be watching this, says that the government, 22 times a year, approximately, tells this House that we, as parliamentarians, cannot stand up in this place and represent our constituents and contribute to the debate and discussion in this place. The consequence of that is that amendments, necessary improvements to legislation, which are contributions from all parties in this House, particularly the opposition, are not made.

That is why there have been a record number of government bills that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in this country, including Bill C-31 , which I, in committee, warned the government would be unconstitutional. Sure enough, that was found to be the case. In terms of making good legislation, I understand that the government has a majority, and ultimately it needs to get business done, and we, as a responsible opposition, co-operate with that.

However, does the member not agree that good suggestions on this side of the House that can improve the legislation are things a responsible democratic government would want to welcome in this place, not for the good of the opposition but for the good of Canada and the good of Canadians? Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians understand that being elected to this place, having the right to stand in one's place and speak in this place, should not give any of us, any party, an unlimited right to obstruct and slow the business of this House.

The fact that closure has been invoked a number of times in this place has brought Canadians enormous benefits through changes to the tax system. There are lower taxes. It has brought protections, over 40 of them, through the justice system, with improvements to the Criminal Code that are bringing the crime rate in this country down. It has brought us free trade agreements, a record number, dozens of them, which is way beyond the record of any previous government. On this particular issue, let us listen to the words of Aruna Papp. “Canada was designated the best country to be a woman”.

We are morally bound to take a stand on behalf of all women who are victims of abuse, especially on behalf of young girls, the most vulnerable in our immigrant communities. That is why we are moving forward with this legislation. That is why we want it to become law sooner rather than later. That is why we agree that the Criminal Code needs to be changed to protect women. We have a fundamental difference of opinion with New Democrats on this issue. They do not want to change the justice system. They do not want to strengthen it. That is their policy. Month after month, year after year, Canadians have rejected it.

We will continue to listen to Canadians. [ Translation ] Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this may not be the last time that I say this, but I have sat in this chamber for 18 years and I have never seen a government that has shown such disrespect for democracy and the institution of Parliament. The government has imposed time allocation 91 times. I would like to remind the Minister of Immigration that he was formerly the ambassador to Afghanistan. We sent our young soldiers there to fight for democracy, a parliament and freedom of speech for Afghans.

This same freedom of speech is not being afforded to us as parliamentarians. It is as though the Conservatives believe that they have all the answers and that they will settle this with an election. Basically they are saying that they do not believe in the democracy of Parliament or in debate and they do not want Canadians to hear arguments against their bill. However, it is a fundamental right in a democracy and the very purpose of Parliament. I am sure that when the Minister of Immigration was the ambassador to Afghanistan, he fought to give Afghans a parliament and freedom of speech.

The Conservatives are stripping us of this constitutional right. What the government is doing is so very wrong. It is regrettable and Canadians are watching. It goes against our country's democratic tradition.

(1030) Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, in no country has democracy ever given an elected official the right to do nothing about anything. If we were to do what the NDP proposes, this Parliament would have been much less productive. Canada's crime rate and tax burden would be much higher, we would have lost growth and we would not be in a position to create 1.2 million new jobs across the country. If were to open the door to inaction or paralysis, we would look much more like the Afghan government. Canada's standards are much higher than that. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to talk about the minister's time allocation motion, which would limit the time for debate on this bill. Since I am not running in the upcoming election, I would like to put something on the permanent record here in the House. [ English ] I believe that the quality of debate in the chamber could be improved. The government says that speeches are repetitive. That is its argument for limiting debate. I think what is going on is that the opposition is doing its job in criticizing the government's legislation.

However, the speeches we hear, and I would say we hear this a lot from the government side, and to be fair, sometimes from the opposition side, are not real debate in terms of a clash of ideas, in terms of responding to each other in a give and take, back and forth exchange of ideas and a testing of ideas. The reason the debate needs to continue is to have better-quality debate. If we had good-quality debate, we could finish it in a couple of days and would not need to limit the number of speeches. We in the opposition are challenging the government. We are pointing out problems.

We are bringing up facts and evidence, and we need a response from the government. If we got a proper response and had a back and forth debate, a real debate, instead of just reading speeches where we pass by each other, from an intellectual point of view, we would not need to limit debate. Therefore, I call on the government— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, here I am and here we are, in debate with the opposition members, responding to their individual questions. I am not passing the hon. member in the night.

I am not sticking to some prepared line. I am listening to him, and I am prepared to collide with his view. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party of Canada has agreed to support this bill. The Liberals have not made any suggestions for improving it. They made some outrageous comparisons and engaged in some outrageous rhetoric in the Senate committee, which lowers their party's credibility. Now, they have turned around to support the bill, with one exception: they want to drop the word “cultural” from the title. We are not going to do that, and we have made our view clear.

There is nothing more to say from our side to the Liberal Party, because the Liberals have made no proposals on this bill. Why would they not be prepared to move forward? Why would they not be prepared to move on to another question where they do have views? Could it be that they simply do not have views on most questions, and therefore would rather tie themselves into procedural knots to disguise the fact from Canadians that on these issues, as on others—on protecting women, on enhancing the economy, on lowering taxes, on opening new markets—the Liberal Party of Canada—

(1035) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. We have 13 minutes left and I see that a number of hon. members wish to participate, so I am going to enforce the one-minute rule more strictly as we go through these next 13 minutes. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 is the product of a report that came out after extensive study done by the citizenship and immigration committee in the House.

We have heard extensive debate in this House, as has been heard in the Senate. To continue to hear regurgitated speeches that are not only repetitive but ad nauseam repeating of the same points over and over, does not add to the quality of the debate as the Liberal member was so eloquently trying to explain. However, I want to ask the minister this question. Mr. Ted Hsu : Do not disagree with your minister, please. Ms. Ève Péclet : Be careful. You are talking too long. The minister is going to tell you to stop talking. On Afghanistan, do not forget. Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr.

Speaker, I did not heckle anybody when they were speaking. They like to heckle. This is the Liberal and the NDP way. When we bring up a valid point to which they do not have a response, they heckle. That is their style. I have a very simple question for the minister. I understand the minister did country-wide consultations on this subject. I wonder if he could share with us some of the things he heard that have brought urgency to the fact that we need to pass this legislation in an expeditious way so we can respond to those folks who are victims of these— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please.

The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary, who has done extraordinary work on this bill and across the board on immigration, citizenship, and passport issues, for that question and for engaging in this debate.

Let us listen again to Aruna Papp, who said that it is about time and she commends the government for its leadership, for taking a stand on a very difficult issue, and for defending the human rights of vulnerable women unable to speak for themselves. [ Translation ] In addition, according to Julie Miville-Dechêne, the president of Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme, “This will allow us to address the phenomenon of young girls forced to marry when they are sent abroad during their vacation.” [ English ] Just on the question of civil marriage, we are making important changes here that we all agree on in this place: that there be a requirement for free and enlightened consent before two people marry; that there be a requirement for an existing marriage to end prior to someone entering into another marriage; and that there be a national minimum age of 16.

That minimum age does not exist in this country outside of Quebec. We need to move on this. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is actually with a great deal of sadness that I rise in this House today to once again have to speak against another time allocation where the government is using its majority to shut down debate. It gets rather tiring when we hear, “Let us get it through this House; we will get it to committee because that is when we will have the in-depth study”. I saw how that worked for Bill C-51 .

Once we got to committee, the government's proposal was no more than three meetings. On top of that, the Conservatives kept the Privacy Commissioner from testifying there. What I am finding confusing is that the minister said it is absolutely imperative that they take action on this right now. We already have legislation prohibiting marriage before the age of 16. We already have laws saying that one can only be married to one person at a time.

All of this rhetoric is so divisive and meant to create a milieu that the Conservative government is doing something, when all it is doing is feeding fear and suspicion and trying to pretend it is fixing something that is not broken in Canada.

(1040) Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, there we have it again. The NDP position on this bill is to do nothing; it is not important; life is perfect in Canada for women and girls, and so nothing needs to be done. That is what the member just said. The member said that there is no need to do anything because it is not broken. One settlement agency in Toronto, in its workload, identified more than 200 cases of forced marriage. Dozens of settlement agencies across this country have identified dozens, and potentially hundreds, of cases of polygamy so far without even really looking into this in detail.

Marriages are not being dissolved before other marriages take place. Free and enlightened consent is not being given. Marriages of people under the age of 16 are not prohibited from occurring in this country. Girls are still being removed from this country to be forcibly married elsewhere against their will and then brought back to Canada. We need action on this if Canada is to live up to its standards. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : My goodness, the minister is not actively listening this morning, Mr. Speaker. It is rather discouraging.

I rise to speak to this time allocation motion because I take exception to the idea that we in the NDP are not concerned about matters of justice. On the contrary, as the justice critic, I can tell you that every bill introduced in the House by the government is studied carefully. The only difference between the Conservatives and us is that we try to be consistent with the Criminal Code. What my colleague from Newton—North Delta said quite eloquently is that these provisions already exist.

It is not that the NDP does not want to stand up against forced marriage, polygamy and honour crimes, it is that all these provisions already exist. The Conservatives are playing with people's heads, and it is insulting. We have carefully reviewed all the justice bills and we even supported a number of these bills, including the one introduced by the Conservative member for Yukon on fetal alcohol syndrome. Perhaps because we supported it, the Conservatives decided to withdraw it. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about Bill S-7 .

We are talking about women and girls facing forced or underage marriages. The members opposite from Gatineau and Newton—North Delta keep saying that the justice system already offers enough protections. What should we tell the hundreds of women and girls who are victims of this type of crime and had no protection? They were literally taken from their homes, forced to leave Canada, forced to marry abroad without their consent and return here, against their will, to spend their life with that person. The existing protections are not enough.

That is what people and stakeholders across the country told us quite clearly. Why is the NDP not listening to those people? [ English ] Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in terms of Bill S-7 , the Liberals will be proposing an amendment that, instead of the bill's

short title referring to “barbaric cultural practices”, the word “cultural” be eliminated and it simply be “barbaric practices”. The reason for this is that such practices are not limited to any one community. There is Bountiful in British Columbia, which is Christian. There was a Jewish group in Quebec. The word “cultural” is taken to be demeaning to the Muslim community, among others perhaps. I know the minister is highly aware of insults to the Muslim community in which he has indulged, not appearing to know the difference between a hijab and a niqab.

However, the general point is that I do not think the word “cultural” is necessary. It can be taken away. I wonder if the minister would agree to that amendment. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, we will not, as we have said in this place many times, remove the word “cultural” from the title of this bill, because the defence of these barbaric practices is often mistakenly made in the name of culture. We want to point out that the only culture that is unacceptable here, and which we hope would be eliminated from Canada with this bill, is the culture of violence against women.

There should be no defence of violence against women that makes a cultural reference. There is no room for any particular group to be insulted by this bill because, if they are engaging in violence against women, they are engaging in a crime, a barbaric practice, and all Canadians understand that it is wrong. We, on this side of the House, are very clear about what we are trying to correct here. There are legal systems around the world that allow polygamy. There are 62 countries that allow polygamy in one way or another. Some of them are Christian-majority countries, many of them.

Some of them are Muslim-majority countries. Some of them are mixed. We consider that a practice barbaric. (1045) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed in what the minister has been saying this morning. At this point, everyone can see that there are good reasons the NDP has for years been calling for more funding for police forces and those working on the ground. What we are hearing clearly this morning is that they want to stifle the debate and send out messages from an electioneering perspective.

They want to pique the interest of the people their party is constantly sending messages to about current events and urging to donate money to their campaign. There is a debate going on this morning, but we are being prevented from speaking. If the minister believes that Bill S-7 is a priority, then how does he explain the previous 90 times? Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, I am always proud to talk about our government's productivity and the number of free trade agreements that have made their way through all of the government's decision-making bodies and been debated in the House.

I am always proud to talk about the more than 150 tax cuts that the government has given to Canadians through debates in the House, the budget and other measures. That is taking action. That is what ensures Canada's competitiveness and growth, job creation, the protection of Canadian families and communities and, with this bill, the protection of women and girls in Canada. Mr. Pierre Nantel : I listened to the minister's remarks. From what he said about this Parliament, one would think we were working in a sausage factory. This is not a war room; this is a parliament.

We need to discuss and take our time dealing with these bills. The interventions from the members on this side of the House this morning have brought a different, new and constructive perspective. I cannot imagine how the minister can in good conscience continue to ignore our message and forge blindly ahead, running roughshod over anything we say. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, the only ones forging blindly ahead are of course on the other side of the House.

Stubbornly and without due consideration, they insist on delaying every debate and the passage of every measure we propose to protect women. [ English ] We have just spent half an hour in this place talking about the need to move forward with the bill, and I have not heard a single comment from members on the other side indicating how they might improve the protection of women, how they might improve our work to ensure barbaric practices are not happening in this country. Yes, I have always known the difference between a head scarf and a veil.

Our policy will remain to ensure that citizenship ceremonies take place among people who have removed their face coverings. That is one of the practices in this country that protects women, protects girls, and protects Canadian values and traditions, and that is why we are taking action on this issue today. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. [ English ] The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Call in the members.

(1130) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 352) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bernier Bezan Blaney Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Hawn Hayes Hiebert Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Raitt Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trottier Uppal Valcourt Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 134 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Crowder Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Fry Garneau Garrison Genest-Jourdain Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Péclet Perreault Pilon Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Sullivan Trudeau Valeriote Vaughan -- 109 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Second Reading Bill S-7. Second reading The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion that 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 , be read the second time and referred to a committee. The Speaker : I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to a subject that is particularly crucial in the current debate.

I would like to point out that Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act , was introduced in the Senate, therefore by parliamentarians who were not elected by Canadians. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order. There is a lot of noise in the House. We are back on orders of the day. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has been recognized and is partway through her remarks, so I would ask all hon. members who wish to carry on conversations to make their way out of the chamber to the respective lobbies.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue . [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 , which I will be speaking to, was introduced in the Senate. It was introduced by people who were not democratically elected by Canadians. I also want to thank my colleague from Joliette , with whom I will be sharing my time, and who will speak at the end of my speech.

First, like the NDP member for Pierrefonds—Dollard , I think that no child should ever be the victim of violence, and that forced marriages, honour crimes, or any form of violence against women and children should not have a place in this country. In that sense, we all agree on the principle and the goal. People who commit such violence against children and women must be punished. The battle to combat violence against women is one that must be fought on the ground.

I tip my hat to the front-line workers, security personnel, border officers and, in short, everyone who works on the ground and witnesses this type of violence and crime. These are situations that are not easy to see or experience. We should commend these people for the work they try to do on the ground. They have to intervene to prevent these crimes and help victims. It is an ongoing battle. That is why I tip my hat to them. I hope they are prepared to keep up the fight to stop violence against women.

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights presented a report on this bill in which it points out that other measures are needed to address the problems of polygamy, forced marriage, or underage marriage. More specifically, the committee confirmed that we need to educate people, raise awareness and provide support services. However, Bill S-7 was passed by the Senate without amendment.

Faced with this major problem and such a complex issue, it is regrettable that all the government is doing is bringing forward legislation when, according to the Senate committee, education and public awareness should be part of this approach. For people whose memories may not reach back that far, I would like to remind them that about 100 years ago in Canada there were many situations where women were victims of violence and forced to marry. How many young girls were forced to marry to cover up a pregnancy?

The only way that they could leave the family home and hope to have a decent life was either to marry or to become a nun. Many women were forced to marry for cultural or socio-economic reasons. Over the years, a change in attitudes and the education of parents has meant that men and women are equal today, even though there is still work to do on that. The principle of gender equality has been recognized even though in real life there is still work to be done. As a nurse, I had the opportunity to work with seniors.

When you talk to women who are 85 or 95 years old, you realize that their lives were completely different. There are women who were raped by their husbands every night because they were unlucky when they were told that it was time to marry, move on or enter religious life. There were some very difficult situations. The experience of these women can help us end these practices. Unfortunately, what happened here is being completely ignored as though everything has always been fine for women in Canada. We must take this into account if we really want to change the mindset.

(1135) Over time, women have done some historic work to change the culture. This work was not done through legislation but through involvement, by changing attitudes and by getting people who work on the ground and in the communities involved in changing these practices. It could be beneficial for us to look at what has been done in the past. One of the problems with this bill, especially with respect to polygamy, is that if we recognize that a man has engaged in polygamous relationships, his entire family can be deported. This part of the bill does not make sense.

Either women are victims of polygamy or they are accomplices. Based on what I have heard from all members, included the Conservatives—unless I am mistaken, but I do not think so—everyone seems to think that women are victims of polygamy and are not accomplices. If they are victims of polygamy, why are they not allowed to stay here instead of being forced to return to their country with their polygamous husband? They are not even given the chance to stay here, even though we believe that they were victims. That does not make sense. I think that is very important.

We would like to amend the bill so that victims are exempt from fulfilling the requirements of conditional permanent residence, to allow the wives and children of someone who is deported for having lied to the authorities about his marital status to remain in Canada, where they are living. That is essential. We must also be aware of the consequences. What will happen to a woman when the authorities realize that she is a victim of polygamy? What impact will her deportation to her country of origin have on her health and physical safety?

Her husband may believe that it is her fault that he was unable to remain in Canada. What do my colleagues think? Will he give her flowers and a new dress or will he give her the beating of her life? It is important to think this through. I believe that it is clear to all parliamentarians that women are victims of polygamy, and if they are victims, we must ensure they do not suffer any of the negative consequences that deportation may have on their health, their safety and even their lives. This government has a responsibility to ensure that these women are not doubly victimized.

We cannot tell ourselves that they may get the beating of their life but this will not happen in Canada so it is not our problem. That is not a responsible way of thinking. We must therefore make sure that we clearly understand the full scope of our actions when we impose consequences on women who are the victims of polygamy. We must also ensure that the children who are left behind in their home country are eligible for immigration to Canada and that they have access to the Canadian immigration system. Moreover, we must provide prevention and support services to victims.

I want to say that children should not have to suffer because they were born to the wrong one of their father's wives. Children should not have to suffer the consequences of the choices of their father, who is really their father and who, unfortunately, chose another one of his wives. Those children should have the right to settle here if they are not a risk to Canadian society. I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

(1140) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. The hon. member mentioned a few problems with this bill. I think the biggest problem is in the title: Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act . [ English ] I find it misleading. We can disapprove of polygamy, but this is the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It only directs itself to polygamy. What does the hon. member suppose the Conservative administration means to do by giving it this overblown and somewhat hyperbolic title? [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore : Mr.

Speaker, the Conservative government is once again playing with words in order to whip up fear of strangers, fear of others. These are practices that are still being used. I completely disagree with calling them “barbaric cultural practices”. As I illustrated, forced marriage was practised in Canada and in the British and French traditions. In that case, our own culture, our cultural heritage, is also barbaric. It is not the right word. The acts are barbaric, not the culture, regardless of who commits them. Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her speech. Ten minutes is not a lot of time to get one's point across. Does the hon. member want to add anything she did not have time to say, but is important for Canadians to know?

(1145) Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea to consult Canadian experts in women's history. They would be able to tell us exactly what happened in Canada that made people want to put an end to that kind of practice and focus more on gender equality. We need to know what that process was like and how people's practices, culture and ways of thinking were influenced so that we can achieve the same results for immigrants. Immigrants may not have gone through a period that focused on their rights in their country of origin.

I think we have so much to learn, and there are lots of people who could give us much better advice about consulting and approaching the communities instead of merely considering a purely legislative approach, as always. These people could advise us on providing the financial means to create strategies and programs to fight this problem on the ground. Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of examples of barbaric cultural practices in the west, in our fabulous civilization that wants to tell everyone on earth how to live.

For example, we have had two world wars, the Holocaust and the war in the Balkans. Maybe there is a reason that we have been accused of all kinds of things. We should start by fixing our own barbaric cultural problems. For example, we should investigate the murder and disappearance of aboriginal women. I would like my colleague to comment further on that. Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I said in response to the question from my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands that the title is problematic. These are not barbaric cultural practices; these are barbaric acts that occur in many cultures.

These acts are not an implicit part of the culture. Many people are very open-minded. For instance, when I worked in Senegal, people were becoming very open. More and more men said themselves that they did not want to have four wives, but rather just one. Attitudes can change. Of course, if you are a hypocrite and believe that you have always acted appropriately and you judge others without looking at yourself, your own history and what you have done in the past, then you do not have much credibility. Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, we will talk about Bill S-7 , but we will do so under the 91st gag order. Considering what I heard earlier, before the vote, I hope that some people are watching us debate once again under a gag order. I am pleased to rise today to share my opinion on Bill S-7 . However, as in many cases in the past, I think the Conservatives are proposing an inadequate solution to a problem they see. This results in the politicization of a serious problem, and that is deplorable, to say the least. Just look at the

short title: zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act . They must really like sensationalizing things to include those kinds of expressions in our legislation. I think such a title promotes xenophobia in Canada and does not allow for a fair assessment of the problem. Of course, I strongly oppose polygamy, forced and early marriages, and gender-based violence. I am a feminist and I have been fighting for women's rights for nearly 40 years, so of course I am not okay with forcing girls to marry.

In my family, some of my mother's sisters had to get married at 16 because families were large and these girls had to leave home. They had to leave because of the attitudes of the era. However, that does not mean that these women wanted to get married at 16 or 17 and be forced to have a dozen children. This started to change with my generation, because women worked to forge a better society for themselves and for men as well. That said, this is all about how we solve these problems.

The experts who appeared before the Senate committee said that criminalization alone would not solve this problem and, on the contrary, it could make it worse. Why criminalize people who ultimately are victims of a certain mindset? Instead of trying to score political points by fostering xenophobia, which does not involve much thought, the government could strengthen existing legislation. It should also undertake to implement a national action plan to combat violence against women and invest more in organizations that provide assistance to women who are victims of sexual violence.

At present, many aboriginal women are raped or murdered and disappear. However, nothing is being done about that. The government is, quite simply, not on the right track to help women, who are the real victims of sexual violence. No woman should be subjected to gender-based violence, forced marriage or underage marriage. Unfortunately, this bill may also have serious unintended consequences, including the criminalization of victims of polygamy, the criminalization and deportation of children, and the separation of families. Why criminalize the victims of polygamy? I do not understand.

Perhaps we will get some answers to that today. This is simply not the right approach, since we are missing an opportunity to do what we should be doing: protecting victims. The Conservatives do not care about the plight of victims of gender-based violence because they would rather exploit these victims to promote their agenda focused on intolerance and sensationalism. They are prepared to sacrifice the future of women who are the victims of gender-based violence, all to score a few points, and in doing so they are affecting all of Canada by fuelling xenophobia.

Xenophobia leads to knee-jerk reactions, and when people fall prey to that mindset, they no longer think. That is why the Conservatives love to fuel xenophobia, since it allows them to score a few easy points. I want to appeal to the intelligence of the Canadians watching us today. Instead of promoting a sensationalist bill that will not fix anything, should the minister not undertake some serious consultations? I am obviously talking about some real, serious consultations.

(1150) In my opinion, the government should hold extensive consultations in co-operation with community groups and experts in order to find an effective solution to the problem of gender-based violence. These groups could give us a lot of assistance in drafting a bill that protects women from violence. If the government were acting in a thoughtful manner, it would also invest more in the organizations that provide support services, such as safe and affordable housing and assistance for families.

Perhaps if we were to try to eradicate poverty and help families, there might be less violence and attitudes would change with time. Just for a minute, let us put ourselves in the shoes of victims of gender-based violence. Imagine a young immigrant woman who just barely speaks Canada's official languages. If she speaks just one of the two languages, it can be hard for her to understand all of our bills and laws. She must defend herself in a complicated justice system and cope with immigration rules that are hard to understand. She needs some help.

Instead, the government will tell her that what she is doing is barbaric and that she is the problem. For hundreds of years we have been hearing that women are to blame for violence against women. This young immigrant woman will have to fight even harder against a government that could tear apart her family, deport her or separate her from her children. That is not the right solution. Gender-based violence is a very serious issue, and we cannot exploit these victims' misery for the sake of meaningless sensationalism.

The victims of gender-based violence—primarily women and children—need support, assistance and attention. They do not need to be turned into criminals overnight. These victims did not choose their situation, so we must help them through it instead of pushing them even further into despair. There are a number of aspects of the current bill that could have devastating consequences. For example, the bill does not contain any provisions to allow women who are conditional permanent residents to remain in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported.

That is a very clear sign that the government is going after victims. Furthermore, the bill does not allow for the reunification of families in instances where a polygamist man immigrates with one of his wives and all of his children, effectively separating mothers and children. UNICEF has also expressed concerns that the bill would impose criminal sanctions against minors who celebrate a forced marriage. Starting a life with a forced marriage is hard enough, but adding a criminal record on top of that is even worse.

Another pernicious effect of the bill is that it could impede the work of groups fighting forced marriages and gender-based violence. Criminalization does have that “tough on crime” angle that the Conservatives like, but there is a major downside to it too. Criminalization will prevent many victims—women and children—from coming forward for fear of being deported or having a criminal record. As a result, it will be hard to do anything for these families, and the problem could end up getting worse.

Another problem with this bill is that it does not take into account the fact that immigrant women often have significantly less information about the rules than their sponsoring partners, which exposes them to threats and manipulation. We want victims of forced and underage marriage to be exempt from the requirements of conditional permanent residence. We also want to enable the wives and children of an individual who is deported for having misled authorities about his marital status to remain in Canada where they have settled.

We need to eliminate the amendments to the Criminal Code and allow children who are left behind in their home country by a father who dissolves a polygamous marriage to be eligible for immigration. Finally, we need to provide prevention and support services for victims of gender-based violence. For all of these reasons, and in light of the shortcomings of Bill S-7 , I have no choice but to oppose the bill. (1155) [ English ] Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member misses the entire point of this legislation.

The legislation is about preventing the victimization of women in the first place. Let us understand what is barbaric about this practice. It forces 14-year-old girls to get married to older men so that they can be raped over and over again. It is about preventing that from happening. How does the member respond to the fact that she complains about victims being revictimized? We are trying to prevent that. Victims themselves of this barbaric act have come out to support the bill.

How can she continue with the rhetoric the New Democrats have come out with and state in this House that they will not vote to support at least one more measure to protect women and girls from being victimized in the first place? [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault : Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing is that those of us on this side never understand bills, as though we were not smart enough to figure out that yes, there is a serious problem with passing this bill. Women will continue to be victimized, and they will be deported to their countries of origin where they will continue to be abused, raped and killed.

We are against this bill, period. (1200) [ English ] Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the oddest part of this bill is that it seeks to make illegal that which is already illegal. It is like making murder illegal twice to somehow cut crime in this country. It is a peculiar approach to preventative strategies. The United Nations has just isolated a country and criticized it for committing a grave violation of the rights of women by failing to properly and thoroughly investigate the high levels of violence they suffer. I left out two words in that, which are “Canada” and “aboriginal” women.

Does the member find it passing odd that when it comes to violence against women who may not even live in this country, the government is investing in preventative measures, but when we ask it to take preventative measures to prevent violence against aboriginal women in this country, all it wants to talk about is prosecution after the fact, databases after the fact, and helping police after the fact?

Why does the government want to take preventative action for women and pass laws that are already on the books but does absolutely nothing to prevent violence against aboriginal women when it has the opportunity? [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault : Mr. Speaker, why introduce a bill when we already have everything we need to protect women and all Canadians? Why introduce a bill that will create even more difficulties for women and children who are victims of violence? Why introduce this bill? We already have everything we need. We just have to strengthen the laws that already exist.

Why criminalize women in polygamous marriages, who will then be forced to return to their home countries? I do not understand that. Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have one brief question for my colleague. Everyone was horrified when the women in the Shafia family were murdered. What would have happened if Bill S-7 had been in force? The first wife and the young women would have been sent back to Afghanistan, where the husband could have arranged their murder in a country with no security, no justice and no legal system. He could have murdered them with complete impunity.

Here at least, he got what he deserved. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Ms. Francine Raynault : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reminding us of the terrible tragedy that that family endured. He is quite right; the women would have been deported back to their home country. That man would have been sent back as well, without any penalty. He could have continued doing what he always did, which was punish the women for not listening to him. Here in Canada, those days are over. [ English ] Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification . I am thankful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill S-7 . Implementing the measures in this bill would provide more protection and support for vulnerable individuals, primarily women and girls. It would do so by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code.

I am sure we can all agree that Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to underage, forced, or polygamist marriages or to other harmful cultural practices that deny gender equality. In this country, we do not and should not accept spousal abuse, so-called honour killings, or other gender-based violence. As legislators, it is our duty to uphold the equality of men and women under the law. I would go so far as to say that this is a fundamental Canadian value.

Nevertheless, we must recognize that thousands of Canadian women and girls continue to be subjected to violence and that barbaric cultural practices still exist as a reality for many Canadian women. The Criminal Code prohibits some of these harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation and most of the criminal behaviour involved in a forced marriage, including assault, forcible confinement, and uttering threats. However, to improve protection and support for vulnerable individuals, especially women and girls, it is important that the measures in this bill pass into law.

These measures would include rendering permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practice polygamy in Canada; strengthening Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 and by codifying the existing legal requirement for free and entitled consent for marriage and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another; criminalizing certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriages; helping protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new specific court-ordered peace bond where there are grounds to fear that someone would commit an offence in this area; and ensuring that the defence of provocation would not apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

In my remaining time, I would like to offer some details about the important measures Bill S-7 proposes. First, I will address polygamy, a practice that has been illegal in Canada for many years and that represents a clear affront to Canadian values. Although it is against Canadian law to practice polygamy or to enter into a polygamist union, which is a form of marriage involving more than two persons, that is not the case in a number of source countries for immigrants to Canada.

With that in mind, Bill S-7 would create a new inadmissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for practising polygamy. This would enhance the ability to refuse visa applications and to also allow removal orders to be made where there is evidence that the person is or will be practising polygamy in Canada on those grounds alone. Additional measures in Bill S-7 would amend the Civil Marriage Act to address the problem of early and forced marriages.

These measures would include setting a national minimum age of 16 for marriage, codifying the requirement that those getting married must give their free and entitled consent to marry each other, and codifying the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriages. There are measures in Bill S-7 that would help prevent forced or underage marriage by amending the Criminal Code.

If these measures pass into law, it would be a criminal offence to knowingly officiate at an underage or forced marriage, to knowingly and actively participate in a wedding ceremony at which one party is marrying against his or her will or is under the age of 16, and to remove a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage. Bill S-7 would create a new peace bond giving courts the power to impose conditions on an individual when there were reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 will occur.

(1205) Finally, measures in this bill would also amend the Criminal Code to address so-called “honour killings”. So-called “honour-based” violence is perpetrated against family members, usually women and girls, who are perceived to have brought shame or dishonour to the family. Under the Criminal Code, someone charged with murder can raise the defence of provocation in order to obtain a reduction to the lesser charge of manslaughter. Measures in Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code so that legal conduct by the victim cannot be legally considered as provocation.

This would preclude accused murderers, including those involved in honour killings, from trying to reduce the charges they face by using the argument that a victim's legal conduct provoked them into a heat of passion and that they killed while in that state. In

summary, the measures in Bill S-7 would strengthen our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers to Canada from barbaric cultural practices. That is why this bill is so important. By supporting these measures and ensuring that they pass into law, Parliament would send a strong message that we will not tolerate on Canadian soil any practices that deprive anyone of her or his human rights.

I have no doubt that everyone in this House would agree that in our capacity as representatives of the people of Canada, we have an obligation to always support victims of violence and abuse and to do everything that we can to prevent such practices from happening in this country. That is why I urge all members in this House to support these necessary measures and ensure that Bill S-7 passes into law. (1210) [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I just want to say that the NDP is against polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage.

That being said, I will say that the bill before us will not effectively combat these practices. In fact, it may do more harm than good. To support my comments, experts who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights told us that criminalization is not enough to solve the problem and that it will in fact exacerbate it. I want to know what my Conservative colleague across the way intends to do beyond criminalization to protect children from forced and underage marriage and women from polygamy. [ English ] Hon. Tim Uppal : Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately, the position of the opposition in this case seems to be that if it is happening, we should just close our eyes and allow it to happen. Bill S-7 would, first of all, change the provisions in immigration policy so that we could stop those who are in a polygamous relationship from coming to Canada in the first place. That is step one. Those people who are in Canada in a polygamous relationship would have the opportunity to report this relationship and have something done about it.

Many times it is about education as well, through such programs as those under our immigration and our justice departments. We have funded programs to reach out to different communities to people who may be in polygamous relationships and give them more information about their rights as Canadians and how they can deal with their situation. It is important that we deal with these issues and not ignore them as the opposition members would do. It is important that we address them as barbaric cultural practices and ensure that they do not happen on Canadian soil. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I will be afforded the opportunity shortly to speak to the legislation. For now, my question for the member is in regard to the

short title of the legislation. One can question why the government has chosen to incorporate the word “cultural”. The title is “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices”. In fact, there is no real need to have the word “cultural” put into the

short title. Can the member attempt to explain to this House and to Canadians why the Prime Minister and his government feel it is appropriate to incorporate the word “cultural”? Other meanings that could be taken from it are not very positive. I am curious as to what the argument is for having “cultural” in the

short title of the bill. Hon. Tim Uppal : Mr. Speaker, in the title “culture” does not refer to any one individual culture. In fact, many of the issues we are concerned about are clearly present in a number of different cultures. A number of people who have been accused of these horrible and barbaric practices tell the court that how they treat women or how they treat their daughters is part of their culture, so it is important to point out exactly what this is. This question is coming from a party whose leader, the Liberal leader, did not want to call these practices barbaric. We will say exactly what this is.

They are barbaric cultural practices and they have no place in Canada. Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for bringing forward and speaking to the bill today. Bill S-7 is really a landmark piece of legislation for women's rights in Canada, and as a member of the status of women committee, I am really proud of our government for putting it forward. I could not believe it when I was sitting here listening to opposition members complaining against the bill and speaking out against it and calling themselves feminists.

This is the kind of bill that feminists need, that women need, so that they can be protected and not be treated as chattels in our country and married off to people they do not wish to be married to and put in polygamous relationships. I would like to ask the member if he could talk a little more about how the bill upholds our Canadian values and makes clear to women what their rights are in Canada as equal citizens.

(1215) Hon. Tim Uppal : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary for the work she has done in protecting women's rights in the country. I would point to the fact that many of the victims, especially those in forced marriages, are young women who are forced into marriages that they do not want to be in. This legislation would send a clear message to family members who may be forcing them into a marriage that it is illegal and not allowed here in Canada. It also gives information to the victims that they have rights in our country and can come forward.

It could be dealt with as a criminal matter, but it could also be dealt with through a peace bond. A peace bond could be put into place if an early or forced marriage might be taking place. There would be protection there. They could also be protected from being taken out of the country to be forced into a marriage outside Canada. Having these laws in place would allow Canadian women to know their rights and would allow our police forces and others to also understand how to deal with these situations. This measure would ensure that all these barbaric cultural practices would not happen on Canadian soil. Hon.

Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sincerity and gravity that I stand today to speak in support of this bill, which provides additional legislation to address the disgusting, abhorrent, and deeply misogynistic practice of early and forced marriage as well as so-called honour killings. Let us get to the heart of the matter, because the key piece of opposition resistance to this bill has been the use of the term “barbaric”. We have heard it over and over again from the opposition.

In fact, the NDP status of women critic said in her speech: The

short title of this bill, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, is truly xenophobic. It isolates a community, calling it barbaric for its violence against women. This is a problem that exists everywhere. This particular statement is hyperbolic. It clearly shows that the NDP has not looked at the form and substance of this bill, because there is no reference in it to any community.

What our government is trying to do with this piece of legislation is send a clear message that Canada, in a pluralistic culture that respects the rights of women and respects the rights of equality of personage, does not allow in any way, shape, or form this particular practice in our country. What actually isolates women, when we talk about isolation in a community, is this practice. That is why it must end. That is why our law enforcement officials must have every tool at their disposal in order to be able to combat this practice. Let us ask the question. Let us ask if this practice is barbaric.

Let us talk about it right here and right now. “Barbaric” is defined as “savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal and primitive”. I believe that taking away choice from a woman by forcing her into a marriage takes away the fundamental freedoms that we are afforded in this country as women enjoying equality of personage. This practice equates to women becoming property and being sold, and that is barbaric. That is not equal; it is primitive. It is well beyond where we are as a country. I want to read some stats about what early and forced childhood marriage means to women.

Every year millions of girls—some as young as five years old—are forced into marriage. One in every three girls in the developing world is married by the age of 18. One in nine marries before the age of 15. Complications in childbirth are the leading cause of death among girls between the ages of 15 and 19 in the developing world. Globally, between 2004 and 2014, an estimated 100 million girls will have been forced into marriage before their 18th birthday. Girls who are married before 18 are more likely to report being beaten by their husbands and forced to have sex than girls who marry later.

Ninety percent of adolescent pregnancies in the developing world are to girls who are already married. A study in Kenya and and Zambia found that among 15 to 19 year old girls who are sexually active, being married increased their chances of having HIV by more than 75%. Girls under 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women aged 20-24. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states that “Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.” This is because we know that early and forced marriage takes young girls out of education.

It removes their ability to achieve their full potential in their society. It isolates them. Is this practice barbaric? Darned right it is. Our government will absolutely call a spade a spade on that. We will continue to ensure that people across this country and across the world understand that this is a leading cause of women not having full economic participation and full rights. Is it barbaric? Yes. My colleague across the way danced around the issue and talked about the use of the words “cultural practice”.

The member for Pierrefonds—Dollard , in one of her speeches, said that she takes issue with the word “cultural” in the title of the bill and that so do many Canadians. The great irony in this debate is that it was the NDP status of women critic who cited the following study in her speech, a report entitled “Report on the Practice of Forced Marriage in Canada: Interviews with Frontline Workers”, which was prepared by Naïma Bendriss and presented to the Department of Justice in November 2008.

Again, this was in the speech by the NDP status of women critic: Although contrary to the law and an infringement of human rights under international law, forced marriage is most often the repetition of a cultural practice and a significant part of matrimonial traditions in families which practise it.

(1220) Again, New Democrats were probably reading a speech that was prepared for them and on which they did not do research. Right in the speech of the NDP's status of women critic, she acknowledges the reason this title is what it is. Let us look beyond the title, which I think calls a spade a spade and adequately says that this is a barbaric cultural practice, and talk about why it is necessary, because part of the other discussion that has come up is that the Criminal Code already covers these practices. Let us go through some of the legislative components of this bill.

Right now, temporary residents who practise polygamy in their countries of origin are generally allowed to enter with only one spouse at the time of seeking entry. Under this change, foreign nationals seeking temporary residence would be found inadmissible if they tried to enter with even one spouse. Again, there are other things that are just so pertinent. The one I want to highlight is with regard to peace bonds. Right now, if there are any grounds for law enforcement officials to suspect that a forced marriage is about to occur, there are certain situations in which they can order peace bonds.

We are looking at ways to make that easier and more effective so that people can end an abusive situation in a much more expeditious fashion. In this legislation, where there are reasonable grounds to believe a person will specifically aid or participate in a forced, early, or child marriage ceremony involving someone else—for example, his or her child—or will take a young person out of Canada for the purpose of a forced or early marriage ceremony abroad, that individual could be brought to court and ordered to enter into a peace bond to keep the peace and be on good behaviour.

A court would be empowered to make court orders that could be particularly useful in specifically preventing an early or forced marriage, whether in Canada or abroad, such as ordering the person to surrender travel documents and refrain from making arrangements or agreements in relation to marriage or to participate in a family violence counselling program.

There are several other measures in this bill, and I encourage the opposition to actually read the change from the existing legislation to the new legislation, which is as my colleague the Minister for Multiculturalism mentioned, taking away the provocation argument with regard to the defence of so-called honour killings. Going back to the term “barbaric”, if someone murders a daughter or female relative because of her life choice in a free and democratic country, one should not be able to argue that the woman did something to offend the family's honour or delicate sensibilities, which is justified by murder.

That is not Canadian. That is not part of our pluralistic culture whatsoever. That is barbaric. With these common-sense pieces of legislation and amendments to the Criminal Code, we are trying to prevent that practice and send a clear message that we do not support it. One of the other arguments is that maybe we should look beyond the Criminal Code. There was another argument that we are not doing other things in Canada to support women who are in these situations, and I strongly disagree with that. With the time I have left, I will discuss what we are doing both internationally and at home.

Internationally, we have invested heavily. Actually, our country is becoming a world leader in the fight against early, forced, and child marriage. For example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced last year that Canada is contributing $20 million over two years to UNICEF toward ending early childhood and forced marriages. There are several other international aid measures that we have done to support this.

Here at home, through special language programs for immigrant and refugee women, we were able to address issues such as family violence, spousal abuse, women's rights, and legal rights and responsibilities, as well as in several different initiatives through the Department of Justice, sector-specific workshops, and legal education pamphlets. Since our government came into office in 2007, we have provided, through Status of Women Canada, over $70 million for projects to prevent and eliminate violence against all women here in Canada. I will close with this.

When we look at our record of preventing violence against women, we see that it was this government that stood up and gave first nations and aboriginal women the right to own property, which allows abusers to be moved from homes and women to have the same right as every other Canadian woman. It is our government that stands up on criminal justice legislation. It is the party across the way that consistently votes against this. We are standing up for women and standing up against misogyny.

(1225) Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we know that the government has no credibility whatsoever in preventing violence against women. The member opposite cited Bill S-2, which related to matrimonial property rights on reserve. It was actually opposed by first nations and first nations women across the country because it does not protect victims. We see the same problems in this bill, Bill S-7 , which is supposed to prevent forced marriages. We see that this bill would have many adverse effects.

Among other things, it would expel from Canada the victims of forced marriages and the victims of potential spousal abuse. This Senate bill does not receive support from the very groups that represent the women that the Conservatives say they are helping. I hope the government would be open to amending this bill to make sure victims are not expelled from Canada and put into the even more precarious situation that this bill would put them in.

I would like to know why the government has not worked to put in place measures to prevent violence against women, and why it has not put in place services that would help the victims of forced marriages. Why does the government not have a plan to transmit these immigrant women information on services that are available to them, and services that are available to help their integration into Canadian society? Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, the member's last assertion was false. Our government has provided several different packages through Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

It has provided pamphlets, educational materials, and workshops, and it has worked with immigrant services groups and local police services to help people understand that they have rights in this country. It is our