OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 232 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, June 16, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 16, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 232 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 232 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 232 (Version officielle) 147 232 16 06 2015 2015/06/16 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 ] Information Commissioner of Canada The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual report on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act of the Information Commissioner of Canada for the year 2014-15. [ Translation ] These reports are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[ 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 responses to 26 petitions.

Dangerous and Impaired Driving Act Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) Bill C-73. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-73,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences in relation to conveyances) and the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the pleasure to present, in both official languages, two reports to the House this morning.

The first is the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its parliamentary mission to the next two countries that will hold the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union held in the Hague, Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and its participation in the second part of the 2015 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in Strasbourg, France, from April 13 to 24, 2015.

The second is the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the fourth Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum and the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region held in Reykjavik, Iceland, from May 10 to 12, 2015.

Committees of the House Citizenship and Immigration Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Promoting Economic Prosperity Through Settlement Services”. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP would like to present a supplementary report to the report just tabled by my colleague, and for three reasons.

We do not necessarily disagree with what is in that report; however, we believe that there were some important points from the study that were not included in the report. Witnesses spoke to the committee specifically about the need for accessible and affordable child care for families all across Canada, and that needs to mentioned. The importance of recognizing foreign credentials for newcomers was also highlighted. Lastly, of course, the eligibility criteria for integration services need to be reviewed, given that we were told that many women and newcomers cannot access those services.

These things are very important to the NDP, which is why we wanted to emphasize them in a supplementary report.

[ English ] Corrections and Conditional Release Act Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) Bill C-693. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-693,

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (authorized absences and work releases) . He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to introduce my first private member's bill in this 41st Parliament. The bill is an important piece of the puzzle to ensure we have fairness with respect to temporary escorted absences for those in the care of Correctional Service Canada. It is past time that we had a discussion on what precisely is good reason to grant those serving prison sentences temporary escorted absences.

My bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in a way that would modify the list of reasons why temporary escorted absences from prison are justified and granted. Several years ago, our community was victimized by a convicted criminal who escaped from custody. The heartbreak that resulted should never happen again. The bill applies specifically to high-risk offenders, as they are obviously most at risk of causing problems while away from prison. It would focus specifically on offenders classified in

section 17 of the act. I trust this will gain the support of members of the House. I would like to thank my colleague, my brother, the member for Calgary Northeast . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1010) Navigation Protection Act Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) Bill C-694. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-694,

An Act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Nanaimo River and Koksilah River) . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this private member's bill today to add the Koksilah and Nanaimo rivers to the Navigation Protection Act, because rivers on Vancouver Island are in trouble. Like most rivers on the west coast of North America, our rivers are suffering from drought conditions. A smaller than normal snowpack this winter meant very little spring freshets that feed these rivers. The Koksilah River was once known for its run of steelhead, but overfishing in the 1980s nearly extirpated them from the river.

Now impacts from logging, agriculture, and low summer flows continue to endanger its recovery. Along with the Cowichan River, the Koksilah drains into the Cowichan estuary, an important intertidal area that hosts migratory waterfowl, abundant eel grass beds, and the occasional otter. If summer flows are too low, the spawning salmon must be captured in Cowichan Bay and transported upriver to their spawning beds. The Nanaimo River flows 78 km from its headwater on Mount Hooper to the Strait of Georgia. While it is celebrated as a great recreational river, it also provides drinking water to 86,000 residents.

However, the surface water is only part of the story. The Cassidy aquifers are near the terminal end of the river. While the river recharges the aquifers during the high spring flows, the opposite happens in the late fall when the cool groundwater from the aquifers helps recharge the river, providing ideal conditions for salmon runs. Sadly, there is no federal protection for either of these rivers, even though they both provide fish habitat for the west coast's iconic salmon.

That is why I propose that these two rivers should be added to the list of those protected by federal legislation under the Navigation Protection Act. I want to thank my seconder, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam . I also want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his very strong support of the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am usually honoured to present petitions. However, the petitions I present today sadly inform the House that the number one cause of criminal death in Canada is vehicular homicide. About 1,200 to 1,500 Canadians are killed every year by drunk drivers, people who decide to drive a vehicle while they are drunk. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have had loved ones killed by an impaired driver. The petitioners believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient.

They want the crime to be called what it is, vehicular homicide. They are also calling upon Parliament to introduce mandatory sentences for vehicular homicide, which this Parliament has just done.

(1015) [ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions. The first petition calls on the government to respect the rights of small family farms to store, trade and use seed.

Lac-Mégantic Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by people who suffered as a result of the Lac-Mégantic train derailment and its horrible after-effects. They are calling on the government to launch a public inquiry into the derailment of that train, which took 47 lives.

Violence Against Women Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition is signed by over 150 people from my riding who support the initiative the NDP presented to Parliament to end violence against women, specifically by calling an inquiry into the murdered and missing aboriginal women.

Metric System Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition was put together by a very active citizen in Pointe-de-l'Île. The petition calls for a regulatory change with regard to the application of the metric system. We know that 94% of the world's population uses the international metric system and it is the only system that has been taught in our schools for over 35 years now. Canada should therefore drop any reference to any system other than the metric system in ads, on signs, and on packaging.

The petitioners are also calling for containers to be standardized to the metric system in units of 100 grams or 100 millilitres. This petition was signed by more than 100 people in my riding.

[ English ] Agriculture Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that contains hundreds of names from my riding of Cardigan, Prince Edward Island. It was put together by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, which asks the government to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, and also ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds.

Citizenship and Immigration Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. The first petition involves Mr. Seyamak Naderi, a political prisoner who was jailed, tortured, and isolated from his family for more than 34 years in Iran and who is currently living in Albania as a refugee claimant in urgent need of care. I am told that Mr. Seyamak Naderi is in danger of being executed if he returns to Iran.

The petitioners call upon the House, the Government of Canada, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to do everything within their power to expedite the recognition of Seyamak Naderi as a convention refugee and to reunite Saeideh Naderi with her brother as soon as possible.

Drugs Prescribed to Children Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition notes that in 2012 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child raised concerns about the excessive amount of stimulants being prescribed to Canadian children. There has been a skyrocketing of psychotropic drug prescriptions for children and adolescents. Nearly 50% of children and youth in foster and group home care, age 5 to 10, have been prescribed drugs such as Ritalin and tranquillizers.

The petitioners request that Parliament respond to this grave concern, conduct a national investigation into the use of psychotropic drugs among children, and enact legislation that increases the rights of school children, children under the Crown, and children in foster care to refuse psychotropic drugs.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who are calling on the government to stop reducing Canada Post postal services because up to 8,000 well-paid jobs could be lost. Eliminating home delivery and reducing hours of service in rural areas will have an adverse effect on our people and the local economy.

(1020) Optimist Movement Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting four petitions on behalf of my constituents. The first petition calls on Parliament to make the first Thursday of February a national optimist movement awareness day to support young people and help develop their potential.

The Environment Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for the removal of the infamous Kathryn Spirit , the ship that has been lying on the shores of Beauharnois since 2011 and could well pollute Lake Saint-Louis, the drinking water reservoir of Beauharnois and the greater Montreal area. The petitioners want the Government of Canada to ensure that the boat is safely towed out of those waters as soon as possible.

Canada Post Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan to reduce postal service and continue to provide an essential, basic public service. The petitioners want to protect this public service and the jobs and ensure that people can get their mail.

CBC/Radio-Canada Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the fourth and last petition seeks to defend a public asset. It concerns the CBC and its future. The federal government is being asked to guarantee stable, adequate, multi-year funding for our broadcaster in order to maintain high-quality regional news.

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1266, 1296, and 1315. [ Text ] Question No. 1266-- Ms. Charmaine Borg : With regard to property No. 06872 in the Directory of Federal Real Property (DFRP), also known as the Old St-Maurice Firing Range, what is the decontamination plan for this site, which is located in Terrebonne, Quebec? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Department of National Defence will remediate the Champ de tir-Saint-Maurice site in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada policy on management of real property. The decontamination plan will be in line with the intended future use of the site when it is determined. Question No. 1296-- Mr. Mathieu Ravignat : With regard to future construction projects for national Correctional Service facilities: are there any plans to build new penitentiaries for the province of Quebec, more specifically in the constituency of Pontiac, and, if so, what phase are these projects at now? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Tthere are no plans to build new federal penitentiaries in the province of Quebec. Question No. 1315-- Ms. Nycole Turmel : With regard to the government’s processing of immigration applications, in particular the parents and grandparents super visa category: (

a) what is the total average cost to government and time required to complete a single application; (

b) how long did it take for the quota for parents and grandparents super visas to be reached; (

c) how many applications for fiscal year 2015 were received; and (

d) how many applications were rejected? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, is concerned. As part of phase I of the action plan for faster family reunification, the Government of Canada created the parent and grandparent super visa in December 2011. Since its launch, over 50,000 parent and grandparent super visas have been issued. With close to 1,200 super visas being approved monthly, this remains one of CIC’s most popular programs.

For the first part of (a), regarding what is the total average cost to government, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, does not specifically track the cost of processing a parents and grandparents super visa. That said, the $100 fee charged to applicants is intended to cover the cost of verifying that various criteria are met and in line with costs of processing a standard temporary resident visa, approximately $108 per applicant. For the second part of question (

a) regarding the time required to complete a single application,CIC uses processing times to measure the time it took for a completed application to be processed. This measure is based on how long it took to process 80% of all cases for a given time period. For parents and grandparents super visa applications finalized from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014, 80% of cases were finalized within 77 days or less Regarding (b), how long did it take for the quota for parents and grandparents super visas to be reached, there is no such quota.

Regarding (

c) how many applications for fiscal year 2015 were received, and (

d) how many applications were rejected, the total parents and grandparents super visa applications received in fiscal year 2014-15 is 22,200. Of these, 4,415 applications were rejected for one or more reasons.

The data source is CICEDW, EDW as of May 12, 2015

[ 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 Questions Nos. 1261, 1276, 1283, 1284, 1286, 1290 to 1292, 1294, 1298, 1300 to 1303, 1304, 1306, 1308, 1311, 1312 and 1317 to 1319 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 1261-- Mr. Andrew Cash : With regard to individuals detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (

a) broken down by province and by gender, how many individuals were detained in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (

b) what was the cost of detaining the individuals in (

a) for the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (

c) broken down by province, how many of the individuals in (

a) were under the age of six in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (

d) broken down by province, how many of the individuals in (

a) were between the ages of six and nine in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (

e) broken down by province, how many of the individuals in (

a) were between the ages of ten and 12 in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (

f) broken down by province, how many of the individuals in (

a) were between the ages of 13 and 17 in the years (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014; (

g) broken down by province, what is the average duration of stay in detention; (

h) of those who were in detention between January 2011 and January 2015 how many individuals have remained in detention longer than (

i) one year, (ii) two years, (iii) three years, (iv) four years, (

v) five years; and (

i) as of the most recent information, how many individuals are detained in cells with (

i) one other person, (ii) two other persons, (iii) three other persons, (iv) four or more other persons? (Return tabled) Question No. 1276-- Ms. Christine Moore : With regard to contracts under $10,000 awarded by Health Canada since April 1, 2014: what is (

i) the name of the supplier, (ii) the contract reference number, (iii) the contract date, (iv) the description of services provided, (

v) the delivery date, (vi) the original contract amount, (vii) the final contract amount, if different from the original amount? (Return tabled) Question No. 1283-- Hon. Carolyn Bennett : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Public Works and Government Services Canada since February 5, 2015: 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. 1284-- Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Justice Canada since January 29, 2015: 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. 1286-- Hon. Irwin Cotler : With regard to designated countries of origin (DCO): (

a) what is the process for removing a country from the DCO list; (

b) does the government conduct regular reviews of countries on the DCO list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation; ( c )if the government does not conduct regular reviews of countries on the DCO list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation, (

i) how is a review triggered, (ii) who decides whether to conduct a review, (iii) based on what factors is the decision to conduct a review made; (

d) since the inception of the DCO list, has the government conducted any reviews of countries on the list to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for designation; (

e) for each review in ( d ), (

i) what was the country, (ii) when did the review begin, (iii) when did the review end, (iv) how was the review triggered, (

v) who decided to conduct the review, (vi) who conducted the review, (vii) what documents were consulted, (viii) what groups or individuals were consulted, (ix) what ministers or ministers’ offices were involved in the review, (

x) what was the nature of any ministerial involvement, (xi) what was the outcome, (xii) based on what factors was the outcome determined; (

f) based on what factors does the government decide whether to remove a country from the DCO list; (

g) in what ways does the government monitor the human rights situation in countries on the DCO list to ensure that the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (

h) who does the monitoring in ( g ); (

i) what weight is given to the situation of minority groups in countries on the DCO list when evaluating whether the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (

j) what weight is given to the situation of political dissidents in countries on the DCO list when evaluating whether the countries continue to meet the criteria for designation; (

k) what type or extent of change in the human rights situation in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (

l) what type or extent of change in the situation of one or more minority groups in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (

m) what type or extent of change in the situation of political dissidents in a country on the DCO list would trigger a review of whether the country continues to meet the criteria for designation; (

n) what type or extent of change in the human rights situation in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (

o) what type or extent of change in the situation of one or more minority groups in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (

p) what type or extent of change in the situation of political dissidents in a country on the DCO list would lead to the removal of the country from the list; (

q) in what ways does the government discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list; (

r) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent outside Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year and country where the money was spent; (

s) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent within Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year, province or territory where the money was spent, and DCO country in question; (

t) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent on advertising outside Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year and country where the money was spent; (

u) since the inception of the list, how much money has the government spent on advertising within Canada to discourage refugee claims from countries on the DCO list, broken down by year, province or territory where the money was spent, and DCO country in question; (

v) what evaluations has the government conducted of the advertising in (

t) and ( u ); (

w) for each evaluation in ( v ), (

i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) who conducted it, (iv) what were its objectives, (

v) what were its outcomes, (vi) how much did it cost; (

x) for each year since the inception of the list, how many refugee claims have been made by claimants from countries on the DCO list, broken down by country of origin; (

y) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claims in (

x) were (

i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) abandoned, (iv) withdrawn; (

z) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the failed claimants in (

y) sought a review of their claim in Federal Court;( aa )for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (

z) were removed from Canada while their claim remained pending in Federal Court; ( bb ) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in (

z) left Canada while their claim remained pending in Federal Court; ( cc ) for each year since the inception of the list, broken down by country of origin, how many refugee claimants from countries on the DCO list have been deported; ( dd ) has the government monitored the situation of any failed refugee claimants from countries on the DCO list after they returned to their countries of origin; ( ee ) broken down by DCO country, how many failed claimants have been the objects of the monitoring in ( dd ); ( ff ) broken down by DCO country, regarding the monitoring of each failed claimant in ( ee ), (

i) when did it begin, (ii) when did it end, (iii) who did it, (iv) what was its objective, (

v) what was its outcome; ( gg ) broken down by year and country of origin, how many refugee claims by claimants from countries on the DCO list were accepted by the Federal Court after having been denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board; ( hh ) broken down by year and country of origin, how many of the claims in ( gg ) were accepted by the Federal Court after the claimant had left Canada; ( ii ) broken down by country of origin, how many of the claimants in ( hh ) now reside in Canada; ( jj ) what evaluations has the government conducted of the DCO system; ( kk ) for each evaluation in ( jj ), (

i) when did it begin, (ii) when was it completed, (iii) who conducted it, (iv) what were its objectives, (

v) what were its outcomes, (vi) how much did it cost; ( ll ) since the inception of the DCO list, what groups and individuals has the government consulted about the impact of the DCO list; ( mm ) for each consultation in ( ll ), (

i) when did it occur, (ii) how did it occur, (iii) what recommendations were made to the government, (iv) what recommendations were implemented by the government? (Return tabled) Question No. 1290-- Mr. Don Davies : With regard to hydrocarbon spills in Canada’s waters by commercial entities: (

a) how many spills of oil, gas, petrochemical products or fossil fuels have been reported in Canada’s oceans, rivers, lakes or other waterways, broken down by year since 2006; and (

b) for each reported spill in ( a ), identify (

i) the product spilled, (ii) the volume of the spill, (iii) the location of the spill, (iv) the name of the commercial entity associated with the spill? (Return tabled) Question No. 1291-- Mr. Don Davies : With regard to government-supported, rental housing in Canada: (

a) how many new units were built using federal funding from the Investment in Affordable Housing bilateral agreements, since 2006, broken down by (

i) unit size, (ii) province, (iii) year; (

b) how many new units were built using federal funding from the National Homelessness Initiative, since 2006, broken down by (

i) province, (ii) year; (

c) how many new units were built using federal funding under the auspices of any other program, since 2006, broken down by (

i) unit size, (ii) year; (

d) how many Proposal Development Funding loans were granted by the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, since 2006, broken down by (

i) province, (iii) year; and (

e) how many Seed Funding grants were granted by the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, broken down by (

i) value under $10,000, (ii) value over $10,000? (Return tabled) Question No. 1292-- Mr. Don Davies : With regard to the Live-in Caregiver and Caregiver programs, broken down by year, from 2010 to 2014: (

a) how many applications were received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada; (

b) how many applications for Live-in Caregiver and Caregiver visas were approved; (

c) how many Canadian residents with Live-in Caregiver or Caregiver visas applied for permanent residency; (

d) how many permanent residency applications by Live-in Caregiver or Caregiver visa-holders were approved; (

e) what are the top three source countries for live-in caregivers in Canada; and (

f) how many residents with Live-in Caregiver visas applied to sponsor their spouses or children, broken down by (

i) raw numbers, (ii) percentage of the total? (Return tabled) Question No. 1294-- Mr. Nathan Cullen : With respect to the Canada Border Services Agency’s decision to close the border crossing between Stewart, British Columbia and Hyder, Alaska for eight hours per day, effective April 1, 2015: (

a) what is the cost of keeping the border crossing open 24 hours per day; (

b) what is the expected savings from this decision; (

c) how many entries and exits have occurred at this border entry since April 1, 2005; and (

d) what consultations were undertaken by the Canada Border Services Agency with the District of Stewart in advance of this decision being taken? (Return tabled) Question No. 1298-- Mr. Mathieu Ravignat : With regard to the investments made in forestry companies in the riding of Pontiac since 2011, (

a) how many projects received funding through federal programs such as Canada Economic Development; and (

b) of the projects identified in ( a ), what is the total amount of these investments, broken down by company? (Return tabled) Question No. 1300-- Hon. Ralph Goodale : With regard to the following telephone services (

i) Service Canada’s (SC) “1-800 O Canada”, (ii) SC’s “Canada Pension Plan (CPP)”, (iii) SC’s “Employer Contact Centre”, SC’s “Employment Insurance (EI)”, (iv) SC’s “Old Age Security (OAS)”, (

v) SC’s Passports”, (vi) Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) “Individual income tax and trust enquiries”, (vii) CRA’s “Business enquiries”, (viii) CRA’s “Canada Child Tax Benefit enquiries”, (ix) CRA’s “Goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) credit enquiries” for the previous fiscal year and the current fiscal year to date: (

a) what are the service standards and performance indicators; (

b) how many calls met the service standards and performance indicators; (

c) how many did not meet the service standards and performance indicators; (

d) how many calls went through; (

e) how many calls did not go through; (

f) how does the government monitor for cases such as in ( e ); (

g) what is the accuracy of the monitoring identified in ( f ); and (

h) how long was the average caller on hold? (Return tabled) Question No. 1303-- Ms. Élaine Michaud : With regard to government funding, provided by the Department of the Environment, in the riding of Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier since 2011-2012 inclusively, what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose? (Return tabled) Question No. 1304-- Ms. Élaine Michaud : With regard to government funding granted by the Department of Employment and Social Development, including the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in the constituency of Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier since 2011-2012 inclusively, what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body or group, broken down by (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality of the recipient, (iii) the date on which the funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (

v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, and (vii) the nature or purpose? (Return tabled) Question No. 1306-- Ms. Élaine Michaud : With regard to government funding granted by the Department of Infrastructure, including the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, in the constituency of Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier since 2011-2012 inclusively, what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body or group, broken down by (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality of the recipient, (iii) the date on which the funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (

v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, and (vii) the nature or purpose? (Return tabled) Question No. 1308-- Ms. Nycole Turmel : With regard to Infrastructure Canada, from fiscal year 2011-2012 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year, what was the total amount allocated, including direct investment from the Government of Canada, in (

a) the City of Gatineau, broken down by (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the amount allocated to the recipient, (iii) the program under which the amount was allocated; (

b) the federal constituency of Hull–Aylmer (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the amount allocated to the recipient, (iii) the program under which the amount was allocated; and (

c) the administrative region of Outaouais (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the amount allocated to the recipient, (iii) the program under which the amount was allocated? (Return tabled) Question No. 1311-- Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : With regard to the advisory council created by the government in 2012 mandated to promote women on the boards of public and private corporations: (

a) in total, how many individuals are on this advisory council, broken down by (

i) gender, (ii) name, (iii) position; (

b) when did the meetings take place; (

c) what were the subjects discussed by this council; (

d) what is the expected date for this council’s report; (

e) what was discussed during this council’s meetings with respect to (

i) pay equity, (ii) the representation of women on the boards of public and private corporations; and (

f) can the government table the minutes of this advisory council’s meetings? (Return tabled) Question No. 1312-- Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : With regard to the Canada Post service reductions announced in December 2013: (

a) what are the planned locations for community mailboxes in Laval; (

b) how many employees were assigned to Laval before the elimination of home delivery was announced; (

c) how many Canada Post employees will be required following the mailbox transition; (

d) what was the volume of mail sent in the last ten years (

i) from Laval to another destination, (ii) to Laval; (

e) how many complaints have been received concerning (

i) the transition from home delivery to community mailboxes, (ii) the location of community mailboxes in Laval; (

f) how many complaints resulted in (

i) an opened file, ii) a change of location of these community mailboxes; (

g) what steps are being taken to look after the needs of (

i) persons with mobility impairments, (ii) seniors; (

h) will current post offices still be active following the transition to community mailboxes; (

i) what recourse will be available to residents affected by the location of mailboxes they consider to be dangerous or harmful; (

j) what recourse was or continues to be available to residents affected by the installation of a community mailbox over the last 30 years, excluding the current transition; and (

k) how many customer service employees at Canada Post, broken down by language of service, are assigned to complaints concerning the installation of community mailboxes from (

i) across Canada, (ii) Quebec, (iii) Laval, (iv) the residents of Alfred-Pellan? (Return tabled) Question No. 1317-- Hon. Stéphane Dion : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Canadian Heritage since January 30, 2015: 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. 1318-- Hon. Stéphane Dion : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Natural Resources Canada since February 5, 2015: 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. 1319-- Mr. Jack Harris : With regard to the United Nations Chiefs of Defence Conference of March 26-27, 2015, at the United Nations headquarters in New York City, and the absence of Chief of Defence Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, General Thomas Lawson, from the Conference: (

a) what was the reason for General Lawson’s absence; (

b) which members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development were present at the Conference; and (

c) what measures were taken to communicate Canada’s priorities and concerns with regard to international peacekeeping to those present at the Conference? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) moved 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 third time and passed. Bill S-7. Third reading He said: Mr. Speaker, as I think every member of the House knows, it is a core obligation of Parliament and of governments in Canada to support, and when necessary, to reform our immigration system to ensure that it drives Canada's growth and economic success, as it has always done. That is exactly what this government has done over nine very productive years.

Second, it is a key obligation of governments in this country to continue Canada's long and distinguished humanitarian tradition to make sure that we are at the forefront of efforts to respond to suffering in the world, to meet the needs of the vulnerable, and for as many as can we support, to resettle refugees and asylum seekers on our shores. That is the story at the very heart of who we are as Canadians.

It has been there from the beginning, from the days when French speaking settlers came to Canada fleeing wars of religion in Europe and the days when English speaking loyalists came to Canada from the United States seeking a better life and seeking to continue to embrace the values they held sacred. They were values of responsible government, self-government, respect for human dignity, respect for the rule of law, and in the case of the loyalists, allegiance to the crown.

That story of humanitarian engagement has been central to our immigration system from the beginning, and we have a responsibility to renew that system. However, we cannot achieve either of these goals if we turn a blind eye to the mistreatment of those in any of our immigration programs. We cannot achieve either of those goals if we pretend that Canada is somehow immune to global trends that lead to abuse, movements of people against their will, and violence.

It is violence that is sometimes masked in very sophisticated ways by sweet-talking husbands, sophisticated consultants, and groups that have an economic interest, or sometimes a political and non-economic motive, to move people against their will, to violate their rights, to take them across borders, and to compel them to undertake important decisions against their will. That is why, over our nine years in office, we have never hesitated to take action to ensure the integrity of our immigration and citizenship programs.

That is why we, on this side of the House, are very proud to be debating Bill S-7 , the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, which would do just that. It would bolster our defences against forms of violence, abuse, and human smuggling that are all too current in today's world. Given Canada's intimate ties with every part of the world, the strength of our immigration programs, and the number of visitors to this country, these are phenomena from which we are far from invulnerable. They affect us in this country, and this bill would do an enormous amount to combat them.

What would Bill S-7 do that has not already been done? We are building on a legacy of success in this regard in Canada. It would lift the whole question of polygamy, which already results in criminal sanctions under the Criminal Code, to the level of a principle of inadmissibility to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It would, quite simply, make it much easier for us to keep polygamists out of Canada when they try to enter, either openly or by attempting to disguise polygamist relationships and multiple marriages.

(1025) Second, and this is perhaps the most dramatic provision, because it is potentially relevant to every Canadian, the bill would raise the national minimum age for marriage to 16. I think many of us on this side of the House, and many Canadians, were not aware of the fact that there was no minimum age in Canada under the Civil Marriage Act, under federal legislation. In nine provinces and territories, except for Quebec, the minimum age to marry has not been determined to be 16 by provincial or territorial legislation either.

Therefore, this is a very positive step that literally takes us out of the Middle Ages on this front. The bill would give us tools to combat early and forced marriage and very nefarious forms of the compulsion to marry for women and girls, which can lead to a lifetime of misery, violence, and sexual abuse. Third, the bill would create a formal requirement for those marrying to dissolve all previous unions. That would become part of the Civil Marriage Act.

In a country where polygamy has been illegal and where it has long been only legal to be married to one person, it would seem to be self-evident that this change must take place. I think common sense has prevailed, but given recent experience, we need it to be a formal requirement in the Civil Marriage Act that all previous unions be dissolved. Why is that? It is because sometimes these unions take place far from Canada's shores. Sometimes they have taken place in a way that was not formally registered with civil authorities, even in that country of origin.

Sometimes those wishing to disguise their polygamist relationships as other forms of kinship with family members will go to great lengths to maintain a second or third union that was consummated in another country. We need to formally require, for the sake of women of girls and for the sake of Canadian values, to dissolve any previous unions. Fourth, and this really is at the core of this bill, Bill S-7 would require those marrying to give their free and enlightened consent. We cannot emphasize enough how important this principle of the bill is.

It is not enough simply to stand in a ceremony with loved ones and family to consummate a marriage. It is not enough to have a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony, with all the formalities that involves. The public aspect is important, obviously. The traditional aspect is important. There is a wide variety of marriage traditions in Canada, religious and otherwise, all of which are welcome on our shores.

However, if the person standing in that wedding ceremony repeating those vows in public maintains a private conviction that she or he has not chosen that marriage or voluntarily entered into that union, that is when forced marriage happens. We know that forced marriage is happening on a large scale. We know from NGOs, settlement agencies, Canadians, and committee testimony that this is the case. It is not happening widely in a huge percentage of marriages, but hundreds of cases we know of, and thousands of cases we suspect, have involved payments for one family to oblige one of its members to marry into another.

There is compulsion, such as the threat of violence, physical abuse, exclusion, or financial abandonment. These are the kinds of things that lead women and girls, and sometimes men and boys, to enter into marriages without having given their free and enlightened consent. We must speak for these victims of the crime of forced marriage.

(1030) It is a crime in Canada, but we must speak up further to Bill S-7 to ensure that free and enlightened consent is given in each and every case and that anyone who is complicit in a marriage in which free and enlightened consent has not been given will face the criminal justice system. This bill criminalizes active and knowing participation in a forced marriage or the removal of a person from Canada for purposes of underage or forced marriage.

In other words, if a parent, God forbid, or an agent who is receiving financial benefit for a forced marriage or someone who is in a relationship of influence or intimidation or has even threatened one of the parties to the marriage actively and knowingly facilitates a forced marriage, a union in which free and enlightened consent has not been given, under Bill S-7 that person would face consequences under the Criminal Code of Canada. We are also seeking to limit the defence of provocation, because honour, in whatever form, is not an excuse for violence.

We do not want Canada to be a country where a crime takes place and the explanation given either by the defendant or the defendant's lawyer in court or in public is that the violence happened because someone had been dishonoured. There are no words that can be uttered, no insults that can be given, no failure of conjugal duty or duty in a marriage that can justify violence. This defence of provocation has not been successful in many cases in Canada.

There has been perhaps one case in which a conviction was downgraded from murder to manslaughter, but it is still used in innumerable cases to explain violent behaviour and it still accepted in courts as a legitimate defence that deserves to be heard. That is absurd in this day and age, and after the passage of Bill S-7 , it would no longer be permitted. The defence of provocation will be limited to cases in which the victims themselves have, on the evidence, committed an indictable crime that would be punishable by up to five years imprisonment.

In other words, if the victims themselves commit a serious act of violence that led to other violence, then that needs to be part of the case. That needs to be part of the chain of events that led to the result, whatever it is. That needs to be taken into consideration, but not words, not gestures, not failure to perform in a marriage, and certainly not honour-based arguments of any kind. Finally, this bill would establish access to peace bonds to prevent forced or underage marriage and prevent the removal of persons from Canada for those purposes. Why is that important?

It is important because these crimes are often committed in very intimate settings, in family settings, among people who really do love one another and depend on one another, and who, for whatever reason, have strayed from the path of mutual respect and have forced a family member into marriage. It is then very difficult for one member of a family to press charges against another and take the other to court, even when a forced marriage happens and a criminal act has been committed, because criminal charges would be brought and a conviction might very well follow. Peace bonds allow a different option.

They allow for the behaviour of those who would commit forced removals or engage in forced or underage marriages to be regulated with the supervision of the justice system without recourse to a criminal case and the conviction and punishment that would go with that.

(1035) As we know in Canada, from a wide variety of phenomena that need to be addressed through the criminal justice system, peace bonds are an important tool. We hope to see them actively used as a result of Bill S-7 to literally stamp out and eliminate the phenomenon of underage and forced marriage from Canada as quickly as possible. I should also say that there are changes to regulations that have been brought as a result of Bill S-7 or in conjunction with Bill S-7. Requirements in our spousal sponsorship program and our family reunification program are now stronger than ever in Canada.

Thanks to those generous programs, 70,000 family members are being brought to Canada as permanent residents in this year alone. However, as a result of our actions under this bill, it would no longer be possible to sponsor a spouse from abroad who is under the age of 18 to be a permanent resident. That is because 18 is the age of majority in this country. It is the age for free and enlightened consent from persons being married or who are already married. The consent does not come from their parents. The spousal sponsorship program has been subject to abuse.

We do face marriages of convenience and forced marriage on a wide scale beyond our borders, and we do face cases of marriage fraud all too often. We need to limit spousal sponsorship to those 18 and over in order to address these issues as effectively as we possibly can. I am very proud to be part of a team that has brought this bill together relatively quickly. It took work across government. The Minister of Justice , the Minister of Health , and the Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women were involved in the elaboration of this bill.

John Baird, the former minister of foreign affairs, brought his great familiarity and activism on forced marriage globally to bear on this bill, which will have a decisive effect, we hope, on the phenomenon of forced marriage domestically.

This product has moved through Parliament only thanks to the work of my colleagues and thanks to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the member of Parliament for Dufferin—Caledon , who has been running that committee effectively for nine years in the most prolific era of reform for Canada's immigration, citizenship, passport, and refugee programs in Canadian history. We started with the reform of the asylum system. If we had stayed with the Liberal tradition that we inherited in 2006, we would have seen our asylum claims dominated by claimants from safe countries.

(1040) Mr. Marc Garneau : It would be in great shape. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Guelph saying it was in great shape. He thinks it is great for three or four countries of origin among the top 10 source countries for asylum seekers to be countries from the European Union. He thinks our asylum system should be— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Guelph is rising on a point of order. Mr. Frank Valeriote : Mr. Speaker, the member for Guelph was diligently working at his desk and made no comment whatsoever.

If the member is going to make comments, can he please make them correctly and direct them to the right person? The Deputy Speaker : Order. That was not a point of order. The hon. minister has about a minute and a half to finish. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, it may have been the member for Winnipeg North , but they all share the same view. They all want our asylum system to be focused on economic migrants, on people from safe countries.

We have restored the focus of Canada's generosity to asylum seekers by offering it to those who are from countries that are truly in conflict, where people truly face persecution on a massive scale, as we are now seeing a rise in numbers of people from Syria, Iraq, Somalia, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, et cetera. Second, we reformed our economic immigration programs. We reduced backlogs. We sped up the process. We now have express entry.

Third, we brought in the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, the first thoroughgoing attempt in a generation to reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship, to ensure that attachment is strong, and to ensure that integrity is at the centre of our citizenship programs. Finally, we brought in Bill S-7 , which caps a whole range of efforts to protect those in our immigration systems, and above all, in this case, to protect women and girls. We are proud to have done this. It is historic. It will ensure that Canada continues to be a leader in this field for years to come. [ Translation ] Ms.

Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. Many parts of the bill criminalize people who could be considered victims in this tragedy of forced marriage. Unfortunately, as we have seen with a number of bills—for example, the prostitution bill introduced by this government—criminalizing the victims would not only marginalize them even further in these situations, but would have the opposite effect and frighten the victims. In fact, they could decide not to report these crimes.

In the end, the victims would remain in this vicious circle that the minister described and defined so well because when you tell a victim that her family will be incarcerated and that she, too, could be charged, then you have failed to protect the victims. I would like the minister to explain why the government chose the approach of criminalization rather than an approach that protects victims.

(1045) Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member that she is wrong. She probably has much more formal training and legal knowledge than I, but she is wrong in this case when she says that we are criminalizing anyone who could be considered a victim. What is new in this bill is that it will criminalize those who facilitate forced marriage and early marriage. Yes, those who marry will have to dissolve previous unions and give their free and informed consent. However, the only other criminal penalties are for those who facilitate forced or early marriage.

We certainly want to encourage greater respect and better protection for victims through various measures in this bill and the other reforms we have brought about in recent years. [ English ] Let us remember what people like Kamal Dhillon, who testified at committee, wrote in her own account of the violence she faced as a result of forced marriage: I was violently raped by him on our honeymoon night. From the wedding night onward, I was subjected to emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse that occurred several times per week, and he even attempted to murder me several times.

As a result of his beatings and his rage, I now live in constant pain with an artificial jaw.... [ Translation ] All of the people who facilitated the forced marriage of this woman should be brought to justice and face criminal penalties. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, from his seat the Prime Minister heckles across the floor that “it might not be the truth but it sure sounds good” in referring to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 's comments.

I must admit I am somewhat surprised that no member would stand up to defend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because in fact it was not necessarily true. I admit that what I just finished saying was not necessarily true. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will stand in his place and put all sorts of falsehoods on the record that are not true. I guess what we are looking for is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to be a little more straightforward with the facts. We can give many different examples, but let me speak strictly to his comments in the speech that he just delivered.

He makes reference to issues and blames the problems of the department of immigration on the Liberal administration of 10 years ago. Would he not agree that after 10 years of Conservative government, the problems in immigration today are not because of the Liberal government of 10 years ago, but because of his performance and the performance of the previous Conservative minister of immigration? He needs to recognize that truth and start fixing the problems that he and his government have created. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, that is obviously nonsense.

It has been only nine and a half years, but this government has presided over the most dynamic period of reform in Canadian immigration history. The Liberals over a generation cheapened our citizenship. They opened our economic immigration programs to abuse and to backlogs, and they left open the door to the forms of abuse to which they are not even prepared to face up to today. The first question from the Liberal Party on the bill at third reading makes no mention of forced marriage, underage marriage, honour killings or polygamy.

These are all criminal acts, phenomena that exist in our immigration system, unfortunately, which the Liberal Party over its many years in government did absolutely nothing to oppose or eradicate. The Liberals opposed this bill until they realized which way the wind was blowing, until they spoke to some women and girls, perhaps even to those who were victims of these acts. They understood that opposition to the bill was absolutely reprehensible, unacceptable in this day and age in a world where hundreds of millions of women and girls face forced marriage.

Canada is very active on behalf of them to seek to address their plight. We even accept many of the these women and girls in Canada as refugees fleeing that kind of misery abroad. The Liberals would have us do absolutely nothing to address these phenomena when they show up in our own immigration programs. It says a lot about their time in government and the legacy they left us.

(1050) Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the outstanding minister for his dedication on this file. To his point that when one lays poor foundations, oftentimes what happens is those foundations have to be rebuilt. Those poor foundations left by the Liberals are being rebuilt by the minister right now, so I thank him for that work. The bill sends a clear message to individuals coming to our country that harmful, violent, barbaric practices are unacceptable. These practices are incompatible with our Canadian values and will not be tolerated.

The minister has consulted from coast to coast to coast and yet the minister in his speech has also said that we know of people still trying to perpetuate these intolerant practices. Polygamy is one example of that. It was outlawed in 1890, and still it is perpetuated today. We have to work very hard to get a grip on that. Would the minister expand on that? Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for his great work in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and for his dedication to these files along with many other members on our side, without whom bills like this, Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act and Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act , would simply not have seen the light of day. Let us draw the contrast. Let us take the case of Shafias, multiple murders, tragic case from Kingston, Ontario.

The member for Pierrefonds—Dollard asked what would have been the effect on them of this bill if it had been in place say under a Liberal government, say 10 years ago when we came into office. The amendment to IRPA would have deemed Mohammad Shafia and his wife inadmissible in the first place. They might not ever have gotten here. The amendment to the Criminal Code would not even have allowed the defence of provocation to be used at that time. The amendments to the Civil Marriage Act would have protected the children from early and forced marriage. As we recall, there were multiple cases in that tragic chapter.

Finally, the requirement for dissolution of previous marriage would have protected people like Rona Amir who were not protected when a second marriage took place and the previous one had not been annulled or dissolved. These actions, which, if we had taken them earlier in Parliament, would have saved lives and would certainly have reduced the misery of women and girls. They are not the majority.

They are not even a large share of those who come to our country as immigrants or who live in our country, but they are hundreds and indeed thousands who have suffered from these terrible practices that lead to lifetimes of violence. The Liberal Party did nothing about it in its time in office. The NDP still opposes these measures today. It is very clear who in this Parliament is standing up for the protection of women and girls at home and in our immigration system. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House once again to speak 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 . As the minister just said, the NDP does oppose this bill. In my speech, I will explain why it is important for all members of the House to oppose this bill if they really care about protecting women and victims of forced marriage, polygamy and early marriage. I want to start by saying that the NDP supports the intent of this bill.

I am making a point of mentioning this because a number of members have accused us of not supporting women or of not explicitly condemning violence against women. On the contrary, the NDP acknowledges that the crimes we have addressed in the debate on Bill S-7 are unacceptable, cruel and barbaric, if members insist on using that word. Forced marriage, polygamy, early marriage and honour crimes are all crimes that we must combat. I do not think the issue here is whether we recognize the seriousness of these crimes, but rather what is the best way to address them.

I would even say that the issue is to determine which of the methods proposed in Bill S-7 could hurt victims. We really need to consider that. The consequences go beyond not having tools that are powerful enough; victims could end up being hurt. Today's debate is therefore very important. We need to listen to the many experts who work in the field and to the Criminal Code experts who raised some red flags and who told us that we needed to reconsider some aspects of this bill. Some aspects of Bill S-7 are fine just the way they are, and the NDP is prepared to support them.

However, at report stage, the NDP asked that four clauses be removed from the bill, which is not a lot. If the House had adopted the NDP's amendments, we would have voted in favour of Bill S-7. We agree with a number of measures that are included in the bill, for example, the fact that it sets a minimum age for marriage and makes officiating a forced marriage a criminal offence. The NDP is not opposed to such measures.

As I said earlier, there are four measures that need to be removed from this bill and examined more closely to ensure that they are not contrary to the intent of Bill S-7 and that they do not further penalize women in forced marriages, for example. Bill S-7 was examined by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Many experts came to testify. Experts, victims, women and men from all walks of life and with different areas of expertise appeared before us.

It is unfortunate to see that, after being examined in the Senate, in committee and at report stage, Bill S-7 is still exactly the same as it was when it was first introduced. No amendments have been made. That is unbelievable. That brings into question the real purpose of examining bills in committee or even debating them here in the House of Commons. We have such a stubborn and ideological Conservative government. It presents bills that originated in the Senate and then makes us study them under time allocation.

These are important bills that could give victims certain tools or even take away some of their power. These are fundamental issues that we need to seriously consider. It is unbelievable that when the bill was being studied in committee, a vast majority of the witnesses told us that it had some significant flaws, but the bill is once again before us and the Conservatives did not agree to a single amendment. Some will say that there were consultations before the bill was introduced. That may be the case, but these consultations were done in private and the minister sent direct invitations.

Many people would have liked to have participated in these consultations, but since they were not invited by the minister they were not able to speak. How did they choose the witnesses who participated in these consultations, and what was actually said? We will never know.

(1055) What is the real purpose of these consultations? I think they serve partisan purposes so that the Conservatives can promote themselves as a political party. One has to wonder. I would now like to talk about some of the flaws in this bill. First there is the

short title. This bill's offensive title is probably the first thing we heard the public talking about. I remind members that the

short title of this bill is the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act . The

long title is very specific, since it explicitly states what the bill would amend. The

long title is

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 . This is a clear title that accurately describes the nature of the bill. Why did the government choose this

short title? I repeat, the

short title is the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act . What is the purpose of a

short title? There are some doubts about the need for such a title. Quite frankly, we have to wonder why the Conservatives insist on moving ahead with this

short title when it is controversial and risks alienating the key players we need to combat violence against women. I would like to quote a few of the experts who appeared in committee and who called on the government to reconsider the title. Ms. Miville-Dechêne, president of Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme, had this to say: ...we need communities to be with us and not against us. That is why the title of this legislation must absolutely be changed. What she is trying to say, if I were to summarize her comments on the

short title, is that having the words “barbaric” and “cultural” in the same title is offensive to some people, because they feel as though their entire culture is being described as barbaric. I am sure that was not the Conservatives' intention, but if that is how it is interpreted by people on the ground and by communities and cultural groups, then we need to reconsider the matter, because we will not get anywhere with a title like that if it creates enemies. Another expert shared the same opinion.

Avvy Yao-Yao Go, the clinic director of Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, said the following: ...Bill S-7 invokes racist stereotypes and fuels xenophobia towards certain racialized communities. These people have eyes and ears on the ground because they work there every day. It is important to listen to them. Unfortunately, the government did not do so. I will not spend any more time talking about the

short title because there are other aspects of this bill that are also quite problematic. Let us look at those pertaining to forced marriage. As I said earlier, the NDP is not opposed to making the celebration of a forced marriage a criminal offence. In short, if officiants, priests, imams and others knowingly celebrate a forced marriage, they could be charged under the Criminal Code. That makes sense to us. Things get dangerous because Bill S-7 also contains a measure under which the people who attend a forced marriage or know that it may be a forced marriage can be charged under the Criminal Code. That is a problem. Let us be clear. The NDP is not opposed to criminalizing

an act as unacceptable as forced marriage. However, the question is what to do about it and how to proceed. One of the basic problems with forced marriage is that it happens in secret and is accepted by people who will not seek help or speak out against such a practice. If the 100, 200 or 500 wedding guests could face criminal charges, then how are we going to do anything about this culture of secrecy? How are we going to encourage people to come forward so that criminal charges can be laid? Many experts told us that this was a dangerous way of doing things. I would like to quote Dr.

Lamboley, who did her doctoral thesis on the very specific subject of the express criminalization of forced marriage in Canada. This expert conducted an in-depth examination of the practices that exist elsewhere and the resources currently available in Canada, and she came to a conclusion on the issue. Everyone here will agree that her opinion should at least be taken into consideration. One of the things she said was that: ...the express criminalization of this type of conjugal union does not appear to be a solution.

(1100) Why? She said that, first, we do not fully understand the problem and we need to understand the problem before we can address it. For example, we do not know the extent of the problem here in Canada. That would be important to know. We do not have a specific enough common definition of what constitutes forced marriage and what exactly it is that we want to punish. We need to understand all these issues before we go ahead with solutions.

She also said: Canada is not without means to face this issue already, to the extent that it is possible to intervene legally under the criminal system to sanction reprehensible actions that arise in a large number of situations in forced marriages (threats, aggression, sexual assault, kidnapping, confinement, false marriages, extortion, intimidation, battery, murder, attempted murder, and so on). All these measures are already in the Criminal Code. She said that if we currently do not understand the phenomenon and if we do not put anything new in place to help victims, then criminalization is not the way to go.

She also reminded us that in the United Kingdom, victims are currently allowed to choose a civil process if they wish. Indeed, a victim can choose between a criminal process and a civil process. We need to understand that the person is the victim of her social circle and her family. A young 18-year-old woman could find it very intimidating to file a complaint and send her parents, her brothers and sisters and members of her community to prison.

If she were given the choice of a civil process, we could then give her the power to choose, to report the situation and put an end to it, without being afraid of losing all contact with the people around her. Even if this woman is a victim of her social circle, she may not be ready to cut all ties with her family and alienate her broader community. If the goal is to end abuse and violence, criminalizing all those involved in the marriage may not be the only way to do it. Giving the victim the option and the power to choose a civil process may be another way of stopping this abuse.

Another case we need to keep in mind as we study Bill S-7 is what happened in Denmark. That country passed a law similar to Bill S-7 about five or six years ago. Since then, no criminal charges have been laid in relation to actions such as forced marriage. What does that tell us? It suggest that perhaps the concerns of researchers and experts on the ground are justified and that if we go ahead with measures like the criminalization in Bill S-7, the problem of forced marriage will go even further underground.

In Denmark, they wanted to help victims by passing measures to criminalize anyone who attends forced marriages. What was the outcome? Radio silence. Victims did not want to report the crime and go through the legal process. I think that if we want to introduce something here, we should look at what other countries have done and the results they have seen. Doing so amplifies our concerns and reservations about Bill S-7 as written. I would now like to quote a few experts on the ground.

I already quoted a researcher who did her Ph.D. on this subject, but there are other exceptional people who work with victims every day and who have raised the red flag once again. Also regarding the provisions on forced marriage in Bill S-7 , Deepa Mattoo, staff lawyer and acting executive director at the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, had this to say: We stand for victims and survivors of gender-based violence, whose voices have told us, time and time again, that they would not come forward if it meant criminal sanctions or deportation of their families.

Victims right here in Canada have told us that if it meant that family members would be sent to prison and deported, they would not report anything to the police. It seems to me that if we will not listen to the experts, we should at least listen to the victims we are trying to help. Coming up with a solution and saying that that is the only solution, without listening to women and victims, shows a macho and sexist attitude.

It is like saying that we here in Parliament know what violence against women is all about and we are going to tell them how to solve the problem, but we refuse to listen to the women who have experienced the violence. That is a ridiculous attitude to take.

(1105) Another expert, Naila Butt, executive director of the Social Services Network, said: Criminalization of forced marriage, without the much needed institutional support for victims, would only further alienate and harm those facing forced marriage and gender-based violence.... In short, not only is criminalization dangerous, but when there is a lack of services and support, it can be disastrous. The victims must know their rights, know where to go for help and be supported all the way through when they decide to file charges or simply embark on a journey of personal healing. At present, that is not the case.

If we really want to do something for these women, we can provide more resources to ensure that they get the help they need. Another element of this bill concerns polygamy. This bill would allow for the deportation and the inadmissibility to Canada of persons who have practised or are practising polygamy or who are suspected of possibly practising polygamy in the future. That is very broad, and it does give rise to several problems. Ms. Desloges, a lawyer, appeared before the committee and said that the definition of polygamy is not clear or specific enough to move forward with such a measure.

In short, what is polygamy? What definition of polygamy is used to deport someone or prohibit them from entering Canada? Not even that is clear. Before moving forward with such a measure, we should at least know who is guilty of what. Even if the definition were clearer, that does not mean this measure would be adapted. The concern is that people applying to immigrate will be discriminated against. Immigration applicants could be denied entry to Canada if immigration officers suspect that they will practise polygamy in the future.

There is a risk of adding a layer of discrimination to how our immigrants and tourists are selected. What is more, are only men polygamists or do women practise polygamy as well? If our goal is to protect women who are victims of polygamy, but we include a measure in the bill that might get women who are victims of polygamy deported, then what is the point? If we really want to protect women, then we need to take another look at this measure and ensure that women who say they are victims of polygamy are not deported with their polygamous husband.

On that, I would like to quote Professor Rupaleem Bhuyan from the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto: I am most concerned with how this bill increases discretionary powers among immigration officers. A little further on she also says: The low burden of proof may lead to racist discrimination against immigrants from particular regions of the world.... This provision would also put women who are spouses of polygamous men at risk of being deported or being separated from their children. These are just some of the concerns about the polygamy measure.

Since I do not have much time, anyone who is interested can go see the evidence from the committee's studies. If Bill S-7 is not the way to go, what is? As I said in my introduction, the NDP supports the intention of the bill. We need to do something for these female victims. A single crime is one too many. We need to implement good measures that will really help women, not hurt them. The NDP has given the government several proposals, but the government has not responded yet. Maybe that will change.

For example, the NDP wants to get rid of conditional permanent resident status, which causes too many women to fear deportation if they report their spouse's violence. They get help and disappear. They change their names and live in Canada with no official status because they are afraid to report the violence and risk deportation. Conditional permanent residence is part of the problem.

(1110) Another thing we need to do is to ensure that women are aware of their rights and the resources at their disposal. We can do more to ensure that before women even come to Canada they are aware of their rights and know what services are available. Furthermore, newcomer women are not the only ones who need this information. Often, women who have been in Canada for several generations are not aware of all of their rights. If we truly want to do something for these women, we can take action and we can do better. (1115) [ English ] Mr.

Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the member opposite's speech. Certainly, I appreciate that the NDP supports the intent of the bill. The bill is targeted to assist and protect women from activities that would cause them harm, a lot of which come from a barbaric cultural practice within their own family. The member said that we do not want to turn family members against other family members, and we agree. The intent of the bill is not to create problems within families.

What it is intended to do is to protect young women from these barbaric cultural practices where they are forced into a marriage and subjected to abuse which obviously is not consensual. I wonder if the member can comment on the peace bond aspect of the legislation. It is a warning to the family and can assist when a member of that family says, “I am in danger of being forced into a marriage that I do not want to participate in, and I am worried about my well-being and future.” The peace bond can assist that family member.

I wonder if the member could give us her position and the position of her party on the peace bond aspect of this piece of legislation. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The NDP has no problem with the peace bond aspect or the order to keep the peace, if I am not mistaken. As I said earlier, the NDP would be prepared to support a number of aspects of this bill. That is why the NDP asked to remove four clauses at report stage. If that had been done we would have supported the bill.

The peace bond aspect was not one of the four clauses we wanted to remove from the bill. However, the member who just asked me a question was at every meeting. He heard one expert after another share their concerns about the bill. It is sad that he did not listen to them. He had the power in committee to make amendments to address the concerns raised by the experts, but he did nothing. Not only did he reject the NDP's amendments, but he also did not propose any amendments himself. It is as though he refused to listen to the experts who appeared before the committee. I think that is shameful. Ms.

Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent work on this bill. Clearly, it is a very divisive bill and one that is hard to understand. It contains several harmful measures, and while it also contains some useful and interesting things, some problems must be corrected. In Canada, violence against women, especially racialized women, is a serious problem. The hon. member did not have enough time to speak because there are many inadequate elements in this bill. She did a great job of explaining the bill's shortcomings and our reasons for opposing it.

I would like to give her an opportunity to describe where the NDP wants to make changes that would give more power and more services to women in these situations. Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe : Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the question from the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel , I want to say what an exceptional member of Parliament she is. She has been working for years to improve the status of women. She is the chair of the NDP women's caucus and a dedicated advocate for change. We must take our hats off to her.

She also worked hard to create a national plan for a strategy to address violence against women. She has worked with me on Bill S-7 to propose constructive amendments to the government. We must consider the intent of Bill S-7 . If the intent of this bill is to protect women, we must ensure that these women have access to better services and that they are aware of their rights. Also, they must be empowered to act. This kind of bill does not give them a choice. We are taking away their power. We must ensure that they take power into their own hands. In order to have this power, they must know their rights.

In addition, there must be people who support women in choosing their own paths. These are extremely important elements. I would like to remind the House that, according to Dr. Lamboley, the criminalization set in motion by Bill S-7 is dangerous if not accompanied by better support and information services regarding victims' rights. We must remember that. Bill S-7 has good intentions, but they are superficial if they are not accompanied by real measures to really help women. (1120) [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is very rich to hear the member opposite comment about the activities of the committee. She was at most, if not all, of the meetings. When it comes to hearing the NDP speak about protecting women and protecting Canadian citizens in general, I will refer to the record of the member opposite and her party. They voted against the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. They voted against the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. They voted against the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. Now they are going to vote against the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

We always hear this partisan rhetoric and attacks. We heard from a number of witnesses at committee who clearly support this legislation, particularly victims. We on this side of the House listen to the actual victims. Mr. Charlie Angus : Take off the clown nose. Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, members opposite cannot keep quiet when somebody else is speaking because that is the NDP way. When we throw the truth at them, they cannot answer and instead start yelling and hollering left, right and centre. The fact of the matter is that victims spoke loudly and clearly. One lady had to have her jaw reconstructed.

After many years of abuse in a marriage, she had the courage to stand up and speak out. Those are the people the Conservative government listens to. Unfortunately, the NDP have deaf ears when it comes to listening to the actual victims. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member got a little carried away, but he did say two things I would like to comment on. First, he said that we voted against such and such a bill. It was that colleague himself who refused to vote in favour of a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.

He voted against a strategy to put an end to violence against women. I will not be lectured by him. In terms of listening to victims, he is correct. I was in those committee meetings and I heard the victims. He will recall that these courageous victims told the committee that they supported the intent of the bill. I asked one of those victims if she supported Bill S-7 , and she said yes.

When I asked her what specific parts of Bill S-7 would help women, she said that she could not answer my question because she did not know the details of the bill but that she supported the bill's intent to help victims and that more should be done. In short, I heard victims tell us that more must be done but they were not familiar with the details of the bill. I also listened to the experts, which my hon. colleague did not.

[ English ] Business of the House Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

Motion I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, during the debate tonight on the Motion to concur in the 21st Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on Friday, October 3, 2014, the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent; at the end of the time remaining for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested.

(1125) The Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act The House resumed 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 third time and passed. Bill S-7. Third reading Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill. The Liberal Party will be voting in favour of it. We have some problems with it, which I will describe, but on balance, we believe that the positive features of the bill are more important than the negative ones and that is why we will support it. Our biggest problem is with the

short title, “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act”. We moved an amendment to remove the word “cultural” and the government refused. The contents of the bill are not affected by the title, so this is not sufficient for us to vote against the contents, but we are strongly of the view that the word “cultural” is inappropriate. Part of the reason is that if we look at the commission of such acts of polygamy, forced marriage, things that we all oppose, these are not limited to a single culture.

There is the Christian group out in British Columbia in the news, the Jewish group in Quebec, and Muslim groups as well. It is all over the map. It is also of different cultures. When one inserts the word “cultural” into the bill, it creates unnecessary offence felt by certain communities. The essence of our argument is that the use of the word “cultural” does not do anything at all to affect the content of the bill.

It is not really doing anything good, but it is certainly doing something bad as it is causing unnecessary offence to communities that, rightly or wrongly, feel that the government is singling them out. For that reason, there is something to be gained and nothing to be lost by removing that word. I have heard the minister on more than one occasion give some convoluted defence of the idea of why “cultural” should be in there. I have never understood his argument and I still do not. My argument is a very simple one.

If the word does not do any good, but it does harm in offending communities, then it should be removed. It is particularly the Muslim community that has taken offence to this. People in the Muslim community feel that they are being targeted. I think it is fair to say as a serious understatement that the government has not exactly reached out to the Muslim community in a positive way, so it is perhaps not surprising that they feel offended. I remember that within days of 9/11, then prime minister Jean Chrétien went to a mosque to underline his support and the government's support for the Muslim community.

Again, to put it very mildly, the leaders of the Conservative government have done nothing remotely resembling that, and instead, they include this word which is offensive to a major Canadian community. The fact that they are unwilling to remove that word simply adds to a long list of things that they have already done which have proved offensive to that particular community. For all of those reasons, we are strongly opposed to the inclusion of the word “cultural”, but we do think the contents of the bill are such as to deserve support notwithstanding its bad

short title. I will mention briefly what the positive features are. First, the law now prescribes a minimum age for marriage. We think it is positive and good to have a minimum age for marriage across the country. That is a significant contribution of this bill, which goes beyond the distastefulness of the title. That is the first reason we support the bill. The second thing that we like about this bill is that it would criminalize participation in forced marriages.

I think everyone in the chamber is opposed to forced marriages, so it is good that we would make it a criminal offence to participate in such a marriage. That is another thing that the bill would do which we in the Liberal Party support. It has been argued by the NDP and others that there should be an exemption for young people in this provision of criminalizing participation in forced marriages. My answer to that is that our justice system is flexible. Prosecutors have a lot of flexibility in whether they prosecute somebody or they do not.

(1130) There are some cases where, for example, if a 17-year-old brother has participated actively in the forced marriage of his younger sister, it might be appropriate for that person to be charged.

Whereas in many cases, the individual young people will be innocent bystanders, not knowing what is going on or for whatever reason do not deserve to be prosecuted. Our system is flexible enough. The prosecutors have been around for a while. They would not want to go after people in a way that was inappropriate. Preserving some flexibility in the administration of justice may be a positive thing to do. [ Translation ] We will therefore vote in favour of this bill because we agree with some of its measures, such as establishing a minimum age of marriage and criminalizing participation in a forced marriage.

For those reasons, despite the bill's title, which we do not like, we will support this bill. [ English ] There are a couple of other areas where we are less than totally satisfied with the bill. One of those is the provisions regarding inadmissibility for those practising polygamy. It might be helpful if we had a definition of what polygamy is, because I know there are different

definitions. When one gives immigration officers substantial power to bar someone from entering Canada, or even conceivably to expel somebody from Canada, it is a good idea to have a precise definition of the action for which that person will be barred or expelled. I understand this is an issue of some debate in the legal community. I do not think there is a general consensus on what the definition ought to be. Therefore, it is a problem.

I would think that if we are to give immigration officers significant powers to remove people or bar people from entering our country, it would be a good idea to define more clearly what the offence is for which they can take these actions. Finally, there was some confusion on the definition of the defence of provocation. I seem to recall the minister did not really know what it was in committee and had to be corrected by his officials. There is room for improvement in that area.

I do have objections to the bill and positive points about the bill, but primarily for the two reasons I gave, the definition of age of marriage and the criminalization of participation in forced marriages, the Liberal Party will vote in favour of the bill. Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his and his party's support for the legislation. Once again, the member made reference to the exception that he and his party were taking to the use of the word “cultural”.

The fact is that in some families, and I need to point that it is not specific to one culture because it is many cultures that this can happen in, it is a tradition to force marriage on their children. I know of one family in one particular community, and this was 25 years ago, that took its teenage daughters out of high school because it had found husbands for the daughters. They were two years apart. This took place over a two-year period. The girls were left with no high school education and were not happy with the fact that their parents were doing this. It was one of those stigma situations.

They did not want to go against their parents or their family. These kinds of practices that are rooted in culture in some families are not conducive with Canadian values. Could the member perhaps rethink the way he is interpreting the word “cultural” in the title of the bill?

(1135) Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his reasonably positive comments at the start, but he has not really addressed my point at all. He has just acknowledged that there are all sorts of different, what he calls cultures, or we could call them communities, groups or whatever word we want to use, in Canada that do these practices. To give one example is fine, but we all agree that this is a bad practice, so that is not at all the point. However, he has not given any reason for using the word “cultural”. He just said, “All people, all cultures, all communities do it”.

Therefore, why put the word “cultural” in the bill when it offends a particular community and does nothing to achieve the objectives of the bill. He has not addressed my question at all, so we remain opposed to the title. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. I believe my colleague who spoke before him expressed the scope of the issue and all the finesse required to address these issues. Concern about the protection of these women's rights is shared by both sides of this House.

My colleague pointed out that the member opposite tried to evade a question. I would like to say that it appears as though the government has decided to make this bill law without listening to anyone. No amendments were considered and no comments by witnesses were heard or, I should say, listened to because there were no changes or amendments. If the

section on polygamy is such a concern for people, how does he explain the fact that his party did not present any amendments on this matter, which is nearly as startling as the title? Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. We did propose amendments and it is true that the government did not accept any amendments. The situation is even worse than he suggested. The government not only failed to accept any amendments and listen to witnesses, but it also excluded from its report any evidence presented by the witnesses that it did not like.

As the leader of the Liberal Party said earlier today, Ottawa is broken, and the problem the member has raised about the committee system that does not work is a good example. I agree with him on that. However, all the bills the Conservatives have introduced pose the same problem, and all we can do is vote for or against them, each time. If we vote against a bill simply because the committee system does not work, that would mean automatically voting against every bill. Thus we must consider the details of the bill. In this case, as I explained, we will be voting in favour. [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr.

Speaker, notwithstanding the nonsense in the question from the member of the NDP, this is what we did at committee. The member would do well to listen and perhaps take note so he does not make similar mistakes again in the future. We listened to victims. Victim after victim who came before the committee told us of the damaging and lasting effects on their lives of having been forced into a marriage, into a life of abuse, victims who had the courage to stand up and make a difference in their lives, some after decades of having been subjected to nothing but abuse.

They had the courage to get out of that and to come and speak in favour of the legislation and of the key components of it, including the title of the legislation. Those are the people to whom we listened. As we know, in committees the opposition likes to parade in its set of witnesses, and we heard nothing new. Certainly we did not hear anything from the members of the NDP on the committee and we heard nothing of the impact on victims themselves. The member of the Liberal Party spoke about something his leader announced today was broken. Certainly the Liberal Party knows a lot about being broken.

Without being too sarcastic about their situation, the Liberals have to try to change the channel somehow because Canadians have seen right through that party and their rhetoric. However, I would like to hear from the hon. member what impact the victims who spoke at the committee had on him personally.

(1140) Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite, I am not necessarily a huge fan of the NDP, but I still object to his patronizing tone in referring to the question from the NDP. I thought it was a perfectly reasonable question. What is broken is not the NDP's question but the committee system under the government, of which the Conservatives should be ashamed. I was in Parliament when we had committees under Liberal governments, and a lot of the members on committees who objected most to government policies were members of the government party.

Now we have a system of trained seals where the parliamentary secretary tells everybody what to do, and his little assistant tells him what to do. There is no independent voice on the committee to the point where the Conservatives wipe out testimony they do not like, and none of the members have any independent voice whatsoever. This is one of the things my leader is addressing. We will, for example, make parliamentary secretaries ineligible to sit on committees.

Therefore, that gentleman not only would not be there to boss everybody around, and himself be bossed around by a guy or girl from the PMO, but he would not even be there. The way committees are supposed to work is that they are to be committees of Parliament, and not run by the executive branch of government. Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, thank you once again for permitting me to take

part in this important debate on Bill S-7 , the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. The most recent Speech from the Throne referenced the millions of women and girls worldwide who continue to suffer from abuse and violence, including forced and early marriage, polygamy, and so-called honour-based violence. Since the throne speech, we have repeatedly affirmed the government's commitment to ensuring that barbaric cultural practices do not take place on Canadian soil.

Bill S-7 would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code to provide more protection and support for vulnerable individuals, primarily women and children. Its measures would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practise polygamy in Canada. It would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 and by codifying the existing legal requirements for free and enlightened consent for marriage and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another one.

It would criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriages. It would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new specific court-ordered peace bond where there are grounds to fear that someone would commit an offence in this area. It would ensure that the defence of provocation would not apply to so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

Together, these measures would help immigrant women and girls exercise their own free will and seek the opportunities and success in Canada they deserve. It is essential to our democracy and our society that all women and girls be allowed to participate to the fullest extent. To help them do so, our government wants to ensure that immigrant women and girls are protected and are no longer subjected to abuse and violence. The bill sets out a multi-pronged approach to do just that.

Women who seek a better life for themselves and their families in Canada should never be subject to constant fear and the threat of violence or death. They need to feel safe, welcome, and protected. The fact is that barbaric cultural practices are occurring on Canadian soil, with the potential for severe and sometimes fatal consequences for the victims of these very violent acts.

In the words of Salma Siddiqui, the president of the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations, during a recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration: Who in their right mind can support coercion and honour killings? Bill S-7 does contain a number of sensible elements that all Canadians should embrace. The explicit outlawing of forced marriages and bringing precision to the general provincial practice that 16 is a minimum age for marriage is very reasonable.

The provisions that will make it illegal to transport a child under 16 abroad for the purpose of marriage will certainly go a long way in preventing the trafficking of helpless young women. In a November op-ed, in the National Post , this is what Aruna Papp stated: Over the last 30 years, I have founded agencies in Toronto that assist immigrant women; I have met hundreds of women who are victims of forced marriages and domestic violence. The government's “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act” recognizes the plight of these women.

In presenting this bill, the government of Canada has said, in effect, “As a Canadian citizen, you, too, deserve to live a life free of violence and coercion”. For this I am grateful. That is exactly what the bill would do. It would acknowledge and address the plight of women facing abuse and violence in the very communities in which we live. It would create an environment in which they can feel safe to seek help and protection and where they can thrive, making their own choices for their futures. As Ms. Papp expressed so well, all Canadians deserve to live a life free of violence and coercion.

(1145) As well, we know that immigrant and newcomer women and girls face additional barriers in protecting themselves and in seeking assistance compared to women born in Canada. The Government of Canada is committed to helping break down these additional barriers. For example, these newcomers may not be familiar with our laws, or they may not know that certain harmful practices are illegal, inappropriate, or indeed a form of violence. These practices also have a negative and lasting impact on the families and on society in general. We all suffer as long as we allow these practices to continue unchecked.

Our government is working on a number of ways, with concrete steps, to support these women in every way we can. Both the Canada citizenship study guide “Discover Canada” and the “Welcome to Canada” orientation guide were recently updated to reflect the fact that Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to harmful practices such as forced marriage or other forms of gender-based family violence.

Since its introduction, the guide has proven to be popular not only with newcomers to Canada but indeed with many Canadians interested in learning about the rights and responsibilities that come with being a citizen of our great country. One of the points made explicit to all readers of “Discover Canada” is that men and women are equal under Canadian law. The guide states: Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence Who can argue with that?

Certainly no reasonably minded Canadian living in this wonderful multicultural mosaic of tolerance, acceptance, love, and respect for one another would argue with that comment. While the equality of men and women under the law is a fundamental Canadian value, barbaric cultural practices still exist as a reality for many Canadian women and girls. Another measure we have taken is Status of Women Canada's investment of $2.8 million for community-based projects that address harmful cultural practices, such as so-called honour-based violence and forced marriage.

Further, since 2009, Justice Canada has held six sector-specific workshops on forced marriage and so-called honour-based violence with police, crowns, victims services, child protection officials, and shelter workers to assist in their front-line capacity building. As well, Justice Canada and Status of Women Canada co-chair an interdepartmental working group on early and forced marriage, so-called honour-based violence, and female genital mutilation.

Our government also created regulations that make it much harder for people convicted of crimes that result in bodily harm against members of their family, or other particularly violent offences, to sponsor any family class member to come to Canada. Family violence is not tolerated in Canada under any circumstances, and individuals who do not respect Canadian law and commit serious crimes, regardless of the victim, should not benefit from the privilege of sponsorship. The regulatory changes now in force fixed a pre-existing gap and helped in the protection of sponsored individuals from family violence.

Our government has also brought in new measures in recent years to deter foreign nationals from entering into marriages of convenience to gain permanent resident status in Canada. This includes two-year conditional permanent resident status for certain sponsored spouses.

However, because of concerns that conditional status could increase the vulnerability of sponsored spouses who are in abusive relationships, who may be reluctant to seek help out of fear that it will negatively impact their status in Canada, the government put in an exception to this measure in instances where there is evidence of any abuse of a physical, sexual, psychological, or financial nature. This exception would include those who are victims of forced marriage. The exception also applies to situations where there is neglect, such as a failure to provide the necessities of life.

This protects Canadians from marriages of convenience while ensuring that women are never put in unsafe situations because of regulations laid out in their own immigration system.

(1150) We have also put in place training and better resources to help front-line officers in processing requests for exceptions based on abuse or neglect and in handling sensitive information related to abusive situations. Citizenship and Immigration Canada's settlement program provides funding to a variety of organizations offering programs and services that respond to the specific needs of permanent residents, including immigrant women and their families, who may find themselves in vulnerable situations.

These settlement services are flexible and are designed to meet the diverse needs of newcomers, including women, by providing them with a range of practical supports, such as language training and child care, to help them integrate successfully in Canada. While overseas, newcomers can access programs that help them understand their rights and responsibilities in Canada and that provide detailed labour market information so they can make informed decisions prior to their arrival.

Once in Canada, women also have access to a range of employment-related supports to help them build their skills to enter the workforce and/or to advance their careers. These are resources and supports that are critical in helping them reach their full potential in Canada. While the government has done much so far, we know that even more needs to be done to protect these women in our immigration system. That is why it is critical that the measures in Bill S-7 are enacted expeditiously.

Over the past year, government officials, including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and I, met with victims and advocates across the country to get insight into how to stop violence and abuse from occurring in our communities. Before Bill S-7 was introduced, the minister spent a considerable amount of time meeting with representatives of organizations that provide services to immigrant women and with victims of abuse at a number of round table discussions across our great nation.

These important discussions focused on domestic violence, polygamy, forced marriage, the immigration process, and how we can strengthen the protection of vulnerable women and girls. Through these discussions, the government learned many ways it can help address the problems stemming from barbaric cultural practices. These discussions led to the introduction of Bill S-7 , which we are debating today. If passed, its measures would strengthen our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers to Canada from barbaric cultural practices.

The bill sends a clear message to anyone coming to Canada that such practices are unacceptable. Canada will promote the equality of men and women and will afford them equal protection and opportunity. In the words of Tahir Gora, director general of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum: Critics criticized the name of the bill, calling it a pretty loaded one. However, our group believes in calling a spade a spade. Violence against women is an absolutely barbaric act. It must be addressed strongly. Forced marriages, polygamy, and honour killings happen every day around the globe under the guise of cultural practices.

Should those cultural practices not be condemned? Calling a spade a spade should not be a political issue in a country like Canada where human rights guarantee equal rights to men and women. Bill S-7 says, in no uncertain terms, to those in this country and those who wish to come here that we will not tolerate cultural traditions in Canada that deprive individuals of their human rights. Through the bill, we are standing up for immigrant women and girls who have come to Canada for a better life and are reinforcing Canada's values of human rights, democracy, justice, and the rule of law.

In Canada, all individuals, all women and girls, should be able to live a life free from intimidation, abuse, and violence. There is absolutely no circumstance that justifies abuse and violence against women and children. The bill makes clear to anyone who may doubt how seriously Canada takes this issue that Canadians do not, under any circumstance, accept or allow the propagation, support, or enactment of barbaric cultural practices on Canadian soil. As legislators, we must stand up for all victims of violence and abuse and take necessary action to prevent these practices from happening on Canadian soil.

By ensuring the passage into law of the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, we will be fulfilling this obligation. I strongly encourage all my hon. colleagues on all sides of the House to join me in enthusiastically supporting Bill S-7 .

(1155) [ Translation ] Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member gets up on a white horse and tells us we are opposed to women’s rights and opposed to this or opposed to that. The government’s argument is a bit simplistic. The fact that we have often heard the minister talk about honour crimes and murders and all the rest is a fine example of this. What does the member think about the fact that this is already illegal?

In addition, the courts have very recently held that the fact that an offence is an honour crime is not a valid defence under the Criminal Code, and that it is a cultural practice. The government wants to scare us with these headline cases, for example. Does it not realize that in some of these cases, the people involved have been convicted and are in prison? Is it not being simplistic, given that most of these things are already illegal?

Also, in the case of acts that are not already illegal, such as polygamy, does he not agree with my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard that we sometimes have to consider the issues more thoroughly to avoid penalizing these women even more? (1200) [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member have a very good second read of the legislation, because what it seeks to do is hold to account those who would knowingly participate in activities that are abusive of women and girls in Canada under the guise of acceptance because of a family tradition or cultural practice.

These are barbaric cultural practices. I will give a clear example. We could very conceivably have a case of a Canadian-born young girl who is taken back to the home country of her parents for a summer vacation, only to find out when she arrives there that a wedding has been pre-arranged for her and that in some cases she is actually not to return to Canada but must live there. These practices happen. This particular legislation would hold to account those people who knowingly participate in such activities.

Of course there is legislation in place today for any kind of killing, including honour killings, but it is very important that with this legislation we give a very strong message to the victims that they are empowered to speak out and speak up and seek help and support when they find themselves in these very difficult situations, which so many times are imposed on them by family members or through family traditions. Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very informed speech.

This spring I had the privilege of travelling to Malawi and Zambia and observing some of the projects our government is funding there in relation to maternal and newborn child health initiatives as well as the issue of early and forced marriage. We were able to visit with a young lady who had received help to escape from an early forced marriage. We were able to hear her story and hear some of the devastatingly negative impacts that the marriage had on her.

We saw funds being used by the YWCA in Zambia to address an issue that the Zambian government wants to address, and it is actually welcoming the help that we can give in that regard. Early and forced marriage is an issue that we might not be that familiar with here in Canada, because it is often hidden. I wonder if my colleague could highlight some examples and explain the importance of addressing that issue with this legislation. Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for that question. I also want to thank him for all of the hard work that he has done over the years.

He is certainly recognized as a leader in his community and in our party on this side of the House, if not throughout the entire House, for his dedication and support on issues that bring families comfort not only here in Canada but around the world. Hearing the story that he heard when he was overseas is yet another example of the importance of legislation such as this. One of the things that I have been saying this morning is how important this legislation is for victims. When we sit on committee, our studies generally do not evoke the kind