2015-06-12

Government Orders
Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from May 28 consideration of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am standing today at report stage on Bill S-7, which has the very unfortunate short title “the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act”. I stand in opposition to the main motion and in support of the NDP's proposed amendments to the bill.
I want to stress that I support the intent of the bill. No woman or child should be subject to any form of violence and certainly not to the forms of gender-based violence, such as forced marriage, polygamy, and underage marriage, the bill purports to address. Further, the fact of these forms of gender-based violence in Canadian society is not in dispute here, and neither is the fact that there are things we can do and ought to do to prevent and respond to the practices at issue.
However, the bill is not the appropriate response and needs at a minimum to be amended, because it threatens to aggravate, not help, existing circumstances and to further victimize or re-victimize those subject to the practices the bill purports to address.
The precautionary principle ought to apply here. The Conservative government has heard enough from enough knowledgeable people on the matter of the bill from those with experience and expertise in these matters to stop this here, to take a step back, and rethink its approach to this issue before it does more harm than good to people who need help.
Here are the main provisions of the bill. It amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make polygamy grounds for inadmissibility to or removal from Canada of immigrants and permanent residents if there are reasonable grounds to believe that these individuals have practised, are practising, or may in future practise polygamy.
It amends the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent to marriage a legal requirement and to require that any previous marriage be dissolved or declared null before a new marriage is contracted and to make 16 years of age the minimum legal age for marriage.
It amends the Criminal Code to clarify that it is an offence for an officiant to knowingly solemnize a marriage in contravention of federal law; to make it an offence to celebrate, aid or participate in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is doing so against their will or is under the age of 16 years; to make it an offence to remove a child from Canada to marry a child against that child's will or if the child is under 16; to allow a judge to issue a peace bond for a period of up to two years if a person is suspected on reasonable grounds of preparing to force someone else to marry, to marry a child, or to remove a child from Canada for one of these purposes; and to address the issue of so-called honour killings to limit the defence of provocation to circumstances in which the victim engaged in conduct that would constitute an indictable offence under the Criminal Code that is punishable by five years or more in prison.
However, stakeholders and expert witnesses have testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that the bill is also likely to have many and serious unintended consequences. For example, the bill makes no provision to allow women who are conditional permanent residents to remain in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported. 
There is no clear definition of polygamy, leading, likely, to confusion and potentially arbitrary decisions regarding deportation and inadmissibility and discrimination against nationals from certain countries. 
UNICEF has expressed concern that the bill would criminalize minors who celebrate, aid, or participate in forced marriages, and UNICEF has recommended exemptions for children and young people from certain provisions in the bill. 
 Criminalization, in the context of family and social relations, may end up simply driving these practices underground. 
In all of this, the bill falls in a long line of socially insensitive, ham-fisted and unsophisticated responses to complex social issues by the Conservative government.
In March 2012, for example, the Conservatives introduced new measures to crack down on marriage fraud, including a requirement for a sponsored spouse to live with the sponsor for two years or face deportation and possible criminal charges. Clearly, this measure leaves women reluctant to report abuse, because they fear losing permanent residency. Consequently, they are vulnerable to abuse.
In April 2014, the Conservative member for Mississauga South introduced a motion that purported to deal with forced marriages by banning marriages by proxy or by telephone, for example, from qualifying for spousal sponsorship. Distance marriages of this sort are largely conducted by refugees, so we have the consequence that this motion would serve to limit family reunification rather than limit forced marriages.
These are the kinds of sensitivities, nuances, understandings, et cetera, missing from the Conservative government's world view, and it is problematic. 
Beyond that, and just as egregiously, the current Conservative government forgoes opportunities to even consider, much less heed, the advice of those who actually understand the complexity of these issues. For example, during the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's study on strengthening the protection of women in our immigration system, most witnesses insisted that newcomers must be informed, in their language of origin, and before coming to Canada, of their rights in Canada and about the resources available to them in Canada. The committee recommended in its report to the House:
 ... that the Government of Canada expand pre-arrival orientation to ensure sponsored spouses receive information in a language they understand and to ensure that the topics covered include gender equality, women's rights, their legal rights, what constitutes abuse in Canada and how to seek help. 
However, no funds were earmarked in the 2015 budget to implement this recommendation. 
Here is another example of the government ignoring expertise and forgoing data and information and in so doing putting people at risk, sacrificing vulnerable people on the altar of political expediency. I call it political expediency quite deliberately, because the truth here is that so much of what is in the bill actually duplicates existing laws. 
For example, the bill would amend the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent legal requirements for marriage, but these requirements already exist as part of the civil code of Quebec and of common law in other provinces. The bill would limit the defence of provocation, ostensibly to exclude honour killings, but the courts have already ruled that the concept of honour and a culturally driven sense of what is an appropriate response does not count as provocation under the Criminal Code. The Canadian Criminal Code also already provides recourse that is relevant in most cases involving forced marriages, prior to and after marriage, as well as in cases of travelling with minors with the intent of forcing them to marry.
There is a broad range of existing Criminal Code provisions on everything from intimidation to forceful confinement to sexual assault that deal with these issues already.
So much of what we are talking about here today in this House stands as so fully representative of the four years of the 41st Parliament and the style and substance of the current Conservative government. It takes complex social issues, with real victims, and responds the only way it seems to know how, with its reflex to criminalization without regard to evidence, experience, expertise, or the potential of the unintended consequences of its reflex. 
Witness its response to the over 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women: no inquiry, no search for intelligence or understanding, just criminalize, as though that helps victims, as though that will somehow prevent having more victims.
With so few days left in the 41st Parliament, this elected chamber is here considering a bill put forward by a chamber of unelected people. We have a Conservative government giving priority or ceding priority to an ill-considered, reactionary, and potentially harmful bill from the unelected Senate while at the same time it is shutting down debate in this elected chamber, as it has done 100 times already, as has been the fate of nearly 60 bills to date, on matters that elected representatives of this chamber want to debate.
In all, what a fitting way for the current government to close out the final days of this Parliament, and what an unfortunate way for Canada and Canadians.
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to my colleague's speech. I am struggling to find in this bill something that is not already illegal. It is almost like we are making it illegal twice because we hate it so much. In doing so, we are ignoring what I think is the real cruelty in the government's current legislation with respect to marriage, in particular marriage that spans the globe, which is that families have had their separation extended from 11 months to 29 months almost arbitrarily.
I was in a restaurant on Queen Street, in my riding, when a young chef came out from the back of the fast-food restaurant and said, “What happened? My spouse was told that she would have to wait 11 months to come to this country. I just checked the website, and it is 29 months”.
 I am not very familiar with the cultural customs on the Barbary Coast from 1,500 years ago, but it seems to me like a cruel practice to make young people suffer like that, yet that is legal in this country. Yet all the steps in this bill simply make what is illegal already illegal twice. It is like the Conservatives like it so much they thought that doing it twice would make it even more of a vice.
[Interjection]
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a habit the current government has of not paying attention to the criminal provisions that already exist in the Canadian Criminal Code across a broad range of issues. The Conservatives put forth legislation in this House that duplicates existing provisions, as though these things are not already taken care of. What is most problematic is not just the reflex to criminalization but the insensitivity to the fact that when they deal with matters of family and social relations through criminalization or immigration only, they are inevitably catching in their web family issues and are doing harm to families.
At committee, there were experts talking about this issue. For example, Dr. Hannana Siddiqui, head of policy and research at Southall Black Sisters in London, the United Kingdom, said:
 Anything that you introduce around immigration is not going to affect just the perpetrator but the whole family—the women and children in that polygamous relationship; and that can have a detrimental effect on them as well. 
According to Avvy Go, director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, the bill seeks to deport people who are engaged in polygamy, and that would include the very women the government claims to be trying to protect. These are the unintended consequences and the insensitivities I talked about in my speech.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beaches—East York for his wonderful speech on this matter. I would appreciate it if the member for Beaches—East York could tell us a bit about the amendments that were suggested by the NDP at committee, which were rejected.
[Interjection]
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, the member will recall that at second reading, the NDP actually put forward a motion in response to this bill. It was rejected. It was a comprehensive motion that was intended to capture a whole bunch of issues that this bill, in its reflex to criminalization, did not capture. The issues dealt with the need for support for families and for social services.
Repeatedly we see that these things are not dealt with by the government. It is a bill that is missing, for example, the social support required by people caught up in a web of domestic violence. It omits, for example, as UNICEF has called for, educational support and mental health services for people who are caught in these circumstances. 
Most critically, and we hear this time and again, this is a bill that is missing anything on affordable housing. We had a budget tabled not long ago by the current government that was missing the same thing. Affordable housing is cited by many as the single most important factor in permitting women and children to escape circumstances of domestic violence and abuse. There is nothing in the Conservative budget to deal with affordable housing. There is nothing to deal with that practical response here in this bill. The amendments proposed by the NDP are intended to build into this bill some of those critical supports for people caught in these cultural practices.
Mr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code. The amendments proposed in Bill S-7 would provide more protection and support for vulnerable individuals, most especially women and children.
The passage of Bill S-7 would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practice polygamy in Canada. It would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 years and by codifying the existing legal requirements for free and enlightened consent for marriage and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another. It would criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriages. It would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new specific court-ordered peace bond where there are grounds to fear someone would commit an offence in this area and ensure that the defence of provocation could not be used in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.
Undertaking these measures would support the government's throne speech commitment to ensure that barbaric cultural practices do not occur on Canadian soil. Women seeking better lives for themselves and their families in Canada should never be subject to constant fear and threat of violence or death simply for living their lives and pursuing better opportunities for themselves. Practices that include early and forced marriages, polygamy and any so-called honour-based violence run counter to Canadian values and democratic norms. They often contravene basic human rights, especially subjecting women and girls to brutal and inhumane treatment.
The negative impacts these practices have on families and society in general range from influencing immigration outcomes to reducing opportunities for integration and success while also limiting the free choice of vulnerable women and children. We know that there are additional barriers for immigrant and newcomer women and girls who wish to protect themselves and seek help. We want to ensure that help and protection is available if and when they need it.
I would like to speak on one specific measure proposed by Bill S-7. I would like to focus the remainder of my time on the provision that aims to augment tools that currently exist to counter the practice of polygamy.
As we know, polygamy has been illegal in Canada for 125 years. For many years we have recognized in this country that this practice is an affront to Canadian values. Polygamist marriages are not legally valid in Canada and are currently prohibited in the Criminal Code. As well, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already specifies that polygamist spouses cannot be sponsored.
When he upheld Canada's criminal law ban on the practice of polygamy, the hon. Chief Justice Bauman of British Columbia's Supreme Court recognized the physical, psychological and social harms associated with the practice of polygamist marriage. For these reasons, it remains against the criminal law in Canada to practice polygamy or to enter into a polygamist union.
While the responsibility for the prosecution of most crimes, including polygamy, rests with the provincial attorneys general, the prohibition in the Criminal Code upheld in 2011 is the responsibility of this Parliament. In turn, this Parliament and the Government of Canada also have jurisdiction over immigration laws and their enforcement. Since polygamy does occur in some countries from which Canada draws immigrants, we need to ensure that our immigration system has the necessary tools to counter it. Bill S-7 would give us these additional tools.
Bill S-7 would create a new ground of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for practising polygamy, increasing our ability to prevent polygamy from occurring on Canadian soil and ensuring that the immigration system is not enabling this practice in any way.
The bill would give immigration officers enhanced tools with which to render both temporary and permanent residents inadmissible for practising polygamy. The new inadmissibility would mean that those in polygamous marriages abroad wanting to enter Canada on a temporary basis would only be able to enter this country alone, without their spouses. Those who cease to practise polygamy would, of course, no longer be inadmissible.
It also means that permanent residents found to be practising polygamy could lose their status and be removed from Canada on that basis alone. Further, we would no longer need a criminal conviction or a finding of misrepresentation in order to begin removal proceedings.
We know that more needs to be done to protect women and girls in our immigration system, despite all of our government's best efforts and intentions. That is why it is so important that the measures in Bill S-7, including the additional measures I have discussed regarding polygamy, are enacted. If passed, they would strengthen our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers to Canada from barbaric cultural practices.
This bill sends a clear message to anyone coming to Canada that such practices are not acceptable and run counter to our principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act stands up for immigrant women and girls who have come to Canada for a better life and better opportunities, ensuring that they have every chance to succeed and make their own choices about the way they want to live their lives.
As legislators, it is our responsibility to prevent those practices that abuse vulnerable women and children, such as polygamy, from happening on our Canadian soil. By ensuring the passage into law of the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, we will be taking a major step towards the goal by increasing the Government of Canada's ability to prevent polygamy from occurring in this country.
I strongly encourage all members to join me in supporting Bill S-7.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, so we participated in the same study. I am surprised that he did not talk about the many expert witnesses who expressed concerns about Bill S-7. Maybe he remembers that everyone, including all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, agreed with the intent of the bill, which is to protect women. However, the debate actually centred on aspects of the bill that could put some victims at risk and make them even more vulnerable.
Experts on the ground who work with these victims every day told the committee to be careful because this could discourage victims from seeking help or result in women being deported or fearing deportation if they report their husband. It is unbelievable that this is not reflected in the amendments to this bill or in the speeches by my colleagues who heard what these experts had to say.
Lawyers and people who are experts on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Criminal Code agreed. They said that some terms are poorly defined and will be open to interpretation. They also said that many of the provisions could do more harm than good because the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already contain provisions that cover these practices.
Does my colleague remember hearing from the experts who expressed their concerns to us? Why did he not say more about that in his speech?
[Interjection]
Jim Eglinski: Mr. Speaker, I did hear those arguments coming from our witnesses, but we had many witnesses there.
I take into consideration the statements made by people such as Aruna Papp who said it is about time. She said:
 I commend the government for its leadership in taking a stand on a very difficult issue and for defending the human rights of vulnerable women who are unable to speak for themselves. 
She is a victim. I listened to her. I listened to many victims. I listened to many lawyers. I listened to many other people. People will always argue on the rights and wrongs, but I believe this bill is the right bill for Canada and for the women and children of this country.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talk about the needs of victims to be addressed in a proactive manner: to craft legislation and government action to try and prevent victimization, as opposed to simply respond to victimization; and rather than simply respond to a problem, actually anticipate the problem and put in place the measures needed to protect people ahead of them being harmed, as opposed to simply tracking the perpetrators afterwards. 
If that is the value system and the approach to solving legal challenges and moral dilemmas in this country, why on God's earth are the cases of 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women being responded to with a data bank for DNA instead of housing; investments in education; and investments in aboriginal, first nations, Métis and Inuit communities? 
Why, if proactive action is the order of the day, is the Conservative government so silent on the 1,200 Canadian women who are missing, and it is unacceptably tolerated by this House?
[Interjection]
Jim Eglinski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question, but I am not exactly sure where he wanted me to go with it.
I will only deal with the first part: What have we done to protect these people prior?
Let us look at the CIC-funded organizations, which provide targeted programming for these individuals. In addition, special language programs are available for immigrant and refugee women. There is a Canadian citizenship study guide, Discover Canada, and the Welcome to Canada orientation guide, which explains the rights of newcomers to Canada, the rights and wrongs, what we expect in Canada and what we tolerate in Canada. CIC also disseminates a brochure and information for sponsored spouses or partners. 
We are actively participating in meeting with immigrants before they even come to Canada. We make sure that they see the information they need so that they will understand what the laws are in Canada and how they can protect themselves when they arrive here.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to share some thoughts in regards to Bill S-7.
The Liberal Party will be supporting Bill S-7. I have had the opportunity in the past to stand and express a great deal of concern in terms of the title of the bill, but there are aspects of the legislation that do warrant support. Therefore, the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill.
However, I will pick up on an issue that my colleague for Trinity—Spadina just made reference to, which is the 1,200-plus murdered and missing first nations aboriginal women and girls, and the lack of action.
I bring this up, and I suspect my colleague brought it up, because if we take a look at this piece of legislation before us, it attempts to deal with gender-based violence or biases. We need to emphasize that every society has some form of gender-based violence.
This is one of the reasons we opposed the short title of the legislation, which has a lot more to do with the spin that the Prime Minister's Office wants to see than it does in terms of what Canadians want to see. That is the reason for the bizarre title, “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act”, and many would suggest racially based rationale that the Conservatives threw in the word “cultural”. This has offended many people in every region of our country, many different stakeholder groups, because of the Conservative government's attitude toward culture.
When we talk about the violence and exploitation that takes place, as I said, every society has some form of gender-based violence. Here in Canada even, we will find it time and time again, and I am one of the members of Parliament, and only one, who has raised the issue of the first nations aboriginal women and girls who have been murdered and missing over the years. In fact, many of those young ladies and girls at one point were in Winnipeg North—
[Interjection]
Mr. Philip Toone: Are you the only one who spoke out on the first nations women—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor. 
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I will allow the New Democrat member of Parliament to reflect on and perhaps read what I said, and I am sure he will answer his own question and assertion. I indicated that there have been many members of Parliament. If the member would listen a little closer, maybe he would be better informed.
The issue is of critical importance. We have raised the issue and will continue to do so. The government has been found wanting on that very important issue.
Before us today is Bill S-7, and there are aspects of the bill that could be supported. I will spend a minute or two on that issue first.
With respect to polygamous marriages, I would suggest that there would be few individuals who call Canada home who would support that. It is a barbaric practice, something that defies what we believe are Canadian values.
 Forced marriages are completely unacceptable based on Canadian values. The idea of setting a minimum age for marriage is something that could be supported, as many Canadians would respond quite negatively to the idea of a 12-year-old girl being married off. This, again, is one of the reasons there is some value in the clarity that the legislation brings to the Criminal Code.
I will emphasize the fourth point, which is domestic violence, something that again goes against Canadian values.
 Therefore, I would suggest that although there is concern with the title of the bill, as well as concerns that other members have raised with respect to the legislation, members would find that there is value in supporting the bill.
The name is something that I have made reference to and is the greatest issue with respect to the legislation. I talked about the Prime Minister and his office. It is not the first time we have seen these names drawn up to appeal to the public at large as opposed to what makes sense for the legislation itself. I have asked numerous questions on behalf of the Liberal Party, and other members have asked, with respect to why the government has chosen to incorporate the word culture in the short title of the bill, which is called the “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act”. We know, through canvassing and talking with stakeholders and a good number of Canadians, that the incorporation of the word culture is not necessary. 
We believe that the Prime Minister, through his office, has instructed that this name be tagged to the legislation, and at a fairly significant cost. At times it appears that the government gives an impression that many would interpret as being of a racial nature, such as with this piece of legislation. Yesterday, during question period, the Liberal critic for immigration questioned comments by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to answering why the government chooses words in order to sensationalize. That is what is happening. The government is sensationalizing certain issues, which ultimately have a fairly negative impact on racial tolerance. This is not new.
When I was the immigration critic, I saw a picture of a boat that came to the shores of B.C. The minister of immigration talked about boat people landing in Canada and how we were going to get tough and bring in legislation to prevent that from happening.The whole “let us get tough” talk does not match the reality or the complexity of many of the different issues that come before the House.
It is interesting that the government has been so keen to bring forward Bill S-7. It has been pushing on this legislation. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has made it a personal priority to make sure that this legislation passes, and he has spent a great deal of resources on it.
An earlier speaker made reference to immigration and another form of cruelty there. I would suggest that there are other priorities that the government, particularly the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, need to get their heads around and start acting on. One of those is processing times for marriages. It is getting worse. The government has created a problem with huge unacceptable delays, and it wants to blame that problem on an administration from years ago. The minister needs to take responsibility for his actions and start cleaning up the mess they have created.
I only wish he would put as much energy in wanting to clean up his mess in processing times as he has in pushing Bill S-7.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He talked about a very wide range of things and addressed some aspects of the bill. His position on the bill at the final stage still is not entirely clear, so perhaps he could clarify whether he supports it or not.
Perhaps he could also talk about the fact that in committee, many experts who work on the ground shared their concerns regarding the fact that the bill could victimize people and make the victims even more vulnerable.
Yes, criminalization is needed; yes, we must intervene to provide assistance to victims, because it is definitely a problem. I agree with my colleague that we need to do something for the victims. However, is Bill S-7 really the right approach, when the experts told us in committee that it could make the victims even more vulnerable?
Would a responsible government not remove this bill and do more studies to ensure that the measures in it do not defeat the very purpose of the bill?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I made reference to the fact that the Liberal Party will be voting in favour of Bill S-7, even though there are some concerns, particularly with the title of the bill. We understand and appreciate a number of concerns that were expressed at the committee stage.
Having said that, if the member had been listening to her colleague who started off the debate on the bill this morning, she would have heard him acknowledge that there are many aspects of the legislation that even the NDP supports. I am not sure how the NDP is going to be voting on the legislation; I have been told that the New Democrats will be voting against it. However, I will let them make that determination when the vote occurs.
[Interjection]
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure who is not listening to whom here.
The NDP has been clear that we will be opposing this bill, as we did at second reading. Our reasons for doing so are very simple and have been clearly explained. If my colleague would like to know what they are, everything is in the committee minutes.
When so many experts agree that some measures in the bill, never mind the title, will discourage victims from reporting forced marriages and polygamy for fear of being deported, and so many experts who are familiar with the Criminal Code and the immigration act tell us that this bill is dangerous, it is impossible for the NDP to support it. If we take the committee study seriously, it is obvious that this bill must be stopped and we must adopt better measures.
However, the Liberals are displaying their typical reaction, which is to say they disagree with a bill and then turn around and vote for it anyway. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree to disagree with the member. If anything is classical, it is the attitude of the NDP in saying that there are many things good in the bill but because they are opposition that means they have to vote against the bill. 
We should recognize that at times there is legislation that could improve upon a law, and on balance if it is good legislation it is something that can be supported. We have even seen that the New Democrats will often support government legislation.
We had concerns with the legislation, but in dealing with the issues of polygamous, forced, and early marriages, and the issue of domestic violence, there would be clarification in acts that would assist in dealing with these issues in a more progressive way. Therefore, it is legislation that is ultimately worth voting for. 
It is unfortunate that the government has labelled the bill as barbaric culture, but that is not something that is incorporated into the legislation itself, even though it would have been a good amendment. 
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-7, zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.
I want to comment on two confusions that have arisen in the context of the debate of the bill and were also reflected in some of the testimony before committee.
I want to briefly touch on two topics today: the first concerning the proposed minimum age for marriage; and the second, about the definition of “practising polygamy”. 
During the debate and in the testimony before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, there was considerable discussion about whether the bill should have set the minimum age for marriage even higher than 16 years of age, as is proposed, with some suggesting that age 18 would be more appropriate.
In Canada, the age at which individuals can marry without additional consent is either 18 or 19, depending on the province or territory. Under our Constitution, it is within provincial and territorial jurisdiction to make the determination of “independent marriage age”. 
Under our Constitution, it is the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to determine the age below which no minor may legally marry, sometimes called the “absolute minimum age for marriage”. Right now in Canadian law, federal legislation specifies that age 16 is the absolute minimum age for marriage only for the purposes of the law in the province of Quebec. Elsewhere in Canada, because there is no federal legislation, the common law still applies and it is usually interpreted as an absolute minimum age for girls of 12 and for boys of 14. 
The other issue I wanted to touch on is concern that the bill has no definition of “practising polygamy”. One witness before the Committee referred to the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in the Polygamy Reference case and suggested that it did not determine the meaning. This is incorrect. 
There was disagreement before the court on the correct interpretation of the Criminal Code polygamy offence, but Justice Bauman clearly indicated that polygamy was a form of marriage involving more than two people, and included legal marriages, as well as “purported forms of marriage”, meaning religious marriages that were not recognized in law, but where the parties believe they were bound together. He further accepted the Attorney General of Canada's argument that “marriage” was a form of union that is dependent on an event, a ceremony of some kind that sanctions a union of individuals. It is absolutely clear that polygamy does not include common law relationships or other informal relationships, such as polyamory or affairs.
All of the evidence presented demonstrated the harms, both to individuals and to society, of multi-party marriage. These harms of polygamy caused Justice Bauman to find the prohibition against polygamy constitutional .
Clear guidance with respect to the meaning of "practising polygamy" will be provided to front-line immigration officials.
 Another witness suggested that only the man was practising polygamy because of his union with more than one spouse, but that the women in a polygamous union should not be included because their union was to only one spouse. This suggestion, while I am sure well-meaning, completely defies logic. 
The final point I want to make concerns another confusion. Some have suggested that a person who is married to someone and either does not know that the person is already married to someone else, or who is forced into that marriage, would be considered to be practising polygamy. This is completely untrue. Under the Criminal Code, a person who has no actual knowledge that he or she are in a polygamous union, or a person who was forced into such a union, has not behaved in a morally blameworthy manner, which is the cornerstone of the criminal law. If a person is unaware of relevant facts, or has been compelled to act, he or she is not guilty of a criminal offence. 
Bill S-7 would protect young people from early marriages by enacting a new, national, absolute minimum age for marriage that would apply to all marriages performed in Canada, and to all marriages performed outside of Canada that involved young people ordinarily resident here. This is an important protection for all our young people. I have been told of instances where young people are excused from classes to be married by telephone at age 12 and 13. That will no longer be possible once the bill receives royal assent. 
 The bill would also give young people the ability to tell their parents that they could not be forced to marry someone they did not want to marry because it was against the law. It would give young people the ability to ask for a court order to take their passports from their parents if they were afraid they may be taken out of the country to marry.
These are important changes in the law to protect vulnerable youth until they are old enough to better know their own minds. Marriage is hard enough, and young married couples will face many challenges without adding to them the burden of marrying too young or marrying someone they do not wish to marry. 
Our government is taking a strong stance against these practices and is leading international efforts to address them as a violation of basic human rights. I hope all members of the House will join with me in supporting this important bill.
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have taken this bill to heart. It is one that resonates with almost every woman across the country. In fact, I wrote to every woman in my constituency and I received back unanimous support. Every person who wrote back to me was in favour of the bill for the very reasons that it would protect women and girls.
This could also happen to a young man or boy, however, the reality is that it is young affects women and girls. How important is it to stand up and protect vulnerable women and young children in our country?
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her hard work on this bill that is aimed at protecting the most vulnerable, women and young women and also, males, because it is a universal application.
I have three daughters and I can hardly envision a situation where the parents would force them into a relationship that they would not be willing to undertake of their own free volition. As I commented earlier, it is hard enough leading a married life with someone one truly loves, but to be forced into a situation where one has no control because of the wishes of parents is beyond any element of human dignity.
This is an important bill, and I would ask all members to get on board and support it. It is for protecting the most vulnerable.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the definitions he provided to us today in his speech. However, I want to go to the basic idea that we are passing this law that is going to do something.
In Denmark, the parliament there unanimously passed a law making it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry. Six years after the law was enacted, not one single charge has been brought up under that law. The people who deal with these types of issues in Denmark say that they do not think the law has had any impact. In fact, it might have a negative impact of driving the process of forced marriages underground and increasing the sophistication of those who make these decisions for their children. That is what has happened with that law.
We have gone into this time allocation procedure on a law that affects many people in our country. Marriage laws are extremely important to people and now we have made a decision about this. Is this going to help? We do not know whether it will. Therefore, why does the member think that by criminalizing this act somehow it will change the cultures of the people who are involved in it?
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to the willingness of the Denmark law enforcement officials to enforce their laws in a country over which we have absolutely no jurisdiction. However, we are now in an age today with the Internet. Young people are on the Internet and on Facebook. There was a time when a child would come to us and say “Dad, can you fix my car?” Now I go to my daughters and ask “Can you fix my computer?”
The abundance of information is out there, despite the cultural bounds of from whatever family one comes. This information will be readily available to children. We are a Canadian society and they will be encouraged to come forth. I am confident they will come forth and the authorities will act accordingly.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have put forward a number of amendments to this bill, a bill with a title that seems almost silly that it would be put forward for a bill of this nature. We have proposed amendments that try to enhance or fix the bill, but we do not anticipate these amendments will pass and we will likely oppose the bill at report stage.
Dealing with this issue is fine, but, as I pointed out in a previous question, we would simply be criminalizing an action that takes place within families and between individuals. This action is normally considered to be very much a decision made by those people, not by the state, not by the community, engaged in matrimonial practices. The bill very clearly states that marriages cannot be forced and someone cannot be forced into marriage. 
This is my 40th year of a happy marriage, and I am very proud of having accomplished that. Luckily enough, I did not force anyone into a marriage. Due to her beauty, charm and good nature, it made it unbelievably compelling for me to enter into marriage and, luckily, she said yes. 
We are concerned that this be dealt with in a very careful fashion. We are concerned that the criminalization of these acts is probably not the appropriate method to deal with this situation. It will not make the difference that needs to be made.
When we talk about marriage laws, the age of marriage in the Northwest Territories, under the NWT marriage act, is 15. That is what has been determined by the NWT government and put into place under section 46 of its act. Under this proposed bill, we will have to change the law now to 16 years of age. Any marriages that are contemplated in the next while by people under the age of 16 will have to wait. That is fair enough.
I wonder what consultation the government conducted with the provinces and territories about what they considered to be a fair age and how the provinces and territories felt about having their authority to set the age of marriage as they deem fit taken away from them and established by Parliament. I would like to some answers to those questions. I think we all would.
When it comes to violence against women and children in society, all of us in the House want to do things to prevent that, to change society so it is less violent, so people can live their lives in a good fashion, free from duress and living under the control of others, whether it is in marriage or the relationship after marriage. We are all in favour of those things.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I regret having to interrupt the member for the Northwest Territories. He will have five minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

Statements By Members
Lighthouses in Thunder Bay—Superior NorthMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP): Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Paul Morralee, Paul Capon, and Canadian Lighthouses of Lake Superior for their successful bid to protect heritage lighthouses in Thunder Bay—Superior North.
Their work will create much-needed economic development opportunities for rural communities and augment our new Lake Superior marine conservation area.
On May 29, the minister announced that 74 lighthouses will be designated under the act, but she did not specify which ones. Many groups are still in the dark about whether their lighthouses have been given heritage protection. Without this status, it is difficult for them to move forward with any needed repairs or apply for any new funding opportunities for lighthouse maintenance.
 Once again this government's secrecy is affecting Canadians and Thunder Bay—Superior North's regional economic development opportunities.
Child LabourMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, every year on June 12, World Day Against Child Labour is observed to raise awareness of the plight of millions of children who are involved in child labour and vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. This year the focus is on the importance of quality education as a key step in tackling child labour.
Our government is committed to ensuring that the best interests of children are given priority, including access to education. Children should be learning and developing their skills in school, not working in factories.
That is why we recently tabled in this House the International Labour Organization's Convention 138 on minimum age. 
 One of the convention's key objectives is to ensure that children and young workers do not leave school to join the workforce full time. This important step towards ratifying a core convention demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that all children can pursue an education and enjoy their childhood.
Volunteerism in Nickel BeltClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to all the volunteers who do so much to keep our communities vibrant. I particularly want to acknowledge the hard work of individuals in the west end of Nickel Belt.
 Those are the people responsible for events like the fantastic Canada Day celebrations held at the Northern Ontario Railroad Museum in Capreol, the blueberry pancake breakfast in Skead, Capreol Days in August, the Spudsbury Potato Festival in Blezard Valley, the Cavalcade of Colours in Onaping Falls, and the 40th annual Valley East Days.
 These events give visitors to Nickel Belt an opportunity to see how northern hospitality is second to none.
I would like to pay tribute to Gary Michalak and Maurice Berthiaume, the extraordinary volunteers who are organizing the Café-Heritage Festival that will be held on September 18 and 19, in Azilda, as well as the 400th Festival Champlain, which celebrates Franco-Ontarian history, this Saturday in Bell Park. 
I am sure all members will join me in saluting all the volunteers who keep our communities thriving.
AlbinismMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians and this government are always prepared to stand up and speak out about systematic discrimination. Today I stand to speak about one of the most despicable and disturbing forms of discrimination that has ever been presented in this House. 
Witch doctors in eastern Africa in and around Tanzania have been systematically murdering local Africans who suffer from albinism, which is a lack of skin pigment, to sell their body parts, believing that those human body parts bring good luck. More than 80 people with albinism have been murdered in Tanzania since 2000, including a one-year-old boy just a few weeks ago.
According to the International Red Cross, witch doctors are prepared to pay up $75,000 for an individual with albinism, alive or dead. Canadians are a tolerant people, but this practice must stop.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be talking about the same subject as my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora.
Albinism is a rare, hereditary genetic disease found all around the world. In North America and in Europe, roughly one in 20,000 people has this disease. In West Africa, one in 2,000 people has it.
The Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, which I co-chair, recently adopted a resolution urging parliamentarians to protect the rights of persons with albinism.
The resolution follows up on the association's recent mission in West Africa, where persons with albinism are subject to discrimination that can lead to attacks, kidnapping, dismemberment, infanticide, murder, and gang rapes.
Our association invites all parliamentarians to use their influence in their community to fight against prejudice and misinformation, educate their constituents on the fundamental rights of persons with albinism, pay particular attention to this issue, and respect the rule of law.
Cycling FatalitiesMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the tragic deaths of three people, including two cyclists, in my riding last week. On June 7, Ross Chafe and Kelly Blunden were cycling north of Whistler when they were struck and killed by a driver who was reportedly impaired. They were both fathers and key figures in the community. 
Also killed was the passenger in the car, Paul Maurice Pierre Jr., a member of the Lil'wat Nation. The driver had three previous convictions for impaired driving. He was prohibited from being behind the wheel. 
Our grief can compel us to action. We need good safety protocols for cycling and we need to incarcerate impaired drivers. My hope is that initiatives such as the Attorney General's new proposed law, the cycling town hall I convened in Ottawa on May 25, and the forum on cycling safety that I have organized for June 20 in Squamish will create positive change. 
For the sake of Ross and Kelly and those who loved them, and for all who bike, may we bring about enhanced rules and policies for both drivers and cyclists. 
Fellow members of the House, please rise with me in a united spirit of condolence for those who grieve the loss of Ross, Kelly, and Paul.
Newfoundland Military Service in World War IIMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the 75th anniversary of the deployment of some of Newfoundland and Labrador's finest and bravest in World War II.
Twenty-five hundred men and 500 women served in the Canadian armed forces. Others served in the Royal Navy and we fielded two royal artillery regiments in the British army. 
The 57th Newfoundland Heavy Regiment, later becoming the 166th Newfoundland Field Regiment, fought in North Africa and Italy, and the 59th Newfoundland Heavy Regiment fought alongside Allied forces in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany.
 The exceptional valour and incredible skill of the Newfoundland artillerymen was widely recognized and celebrated. Sir Anthony Eden, then Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, said upon their arrival in England:
 Newfoundland, whose sons have fought side by side with Englishmen since the days of the Tudors, responded at once to the call that echoed round the world last September. ... You may be sure that the spirit of Newfoundland...is not forgotten. 

Samuel de ChamplainMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, this year we are celebrating 400 years of French presence in Ontario. In this House seven years ago, I talked about this anniversary. 
To mark this anniversary, in the company of Ontario's minister responsible for francophone affairs, Madeleine Meilleur, I had the pleasure last night of unveiling a new silver coin engraved with the image of explorer Samuel de Champlain.
Champlain visited the Great Lakes area in 1615. This gave him the opportunity to build lasting relationships with our first nations. 
He also created conditions that favoured economic growth for a vibrant francophone community in Ontario, one that is still thriving today. This newest silver coin issued by the Mint sheds a new light on the explorations of Samuel de Champlain in Huronia. It also serves as a reminder that, four centuries later, Champlain’s heritage lives on and is reflected in the richness of the French culture in Ontario.
Human SmugglingHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have recently witnessed horrific tragedies of people fleeing from their homes because of persecution, devastating economic conditions, and deteriorating security in their homelands. We have witnessed these desperate people using any means to seek safe refuge. 
To make matters worse, human smugglers exploit these situations with no regard for human life. The recent deaths of boat migrants from Africa and the plight of Rohingyas from Myanmar are just a few examples of people being exploited. 
It is important for the international community to raise its voice by telling governments like that in Myanmar in no uncertain terms that its treatment of Rohingyas is unacceptable as well as by targeting human smugglers, who must be punished as murderers of innocent people. 
Canada is doing its share by offering refugee status to these vulnerable people through the UN. We must act before more lives are lost. 
Local Drummond StakeholdersMr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as you know, local stakeholders in Drummond make a major contribution to the social, economic and cultural vitality of our beautiful region.
Commerce Drummond, the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Drummond and the Société de développement économique de Drummondville have made significant contributions to our economic strength. In terms of culture, there is the Regroupement interculturel de Drummondville and the Mondial des cultures, an event not to be missed. 
 I had the opportunity to meet with these organizations. They told me that, unfortunately, the Conservative government's changes to visa rules for foreign interns jeopardize the socio-economic development of our region. In fact, our organizations and employers in Drummond are suffering the consequences of this bad decision.
There is no doubt that on October 19 an NDP government will be listening to the needs of Drummond's stakeholders.
Harry Bowes Public SchoolMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as another school year comes to a close, I want to take the opportunity to thank the wonderful men and women, the staff and teachers of Harry Bowes Public School in my hometown of Stouffville. I have had the very fortunate opportunity to work closely with great teachers, such as Karen Smiley, Fern Grenon, Gail Sedgewick, Amy Davis, Vivienne Searles, and Kaitlin Eby. They are wonderful teachers who have spent a lot of time with my kids and all the kids in our great school, and who have provided a happy, safe, healthy learning environment. They have been ably led by Principal Dixon, who unfortunately will be leaving us for another school. This is an incredible place, where they take the time to learn and to give our kids all of the support they need.
I also want to highlight the work of Lori Davenport and Deb Battler, who know that when dad is in town, the kids might be a bit late getting to school. They have always been very patient.
On behalf of my family, and all the families in our community, I thank them so much for all the great work they do. They are very much appreciated.
New West Pride WeekMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as pride celebrations take place across Canada, I rise today in support of New West Pride, which aims to promote equality and diversity. New West Pride Week will be August 8 to15, in New Westminister.
August 7, 2010 was our first Pride Day in the city, organized by Vance McFadyen.
The Royal City Pride Society's primary mission is to promote inclusiveness, tolerance, and understanding, and support LGBTQ citizens of New Westminster.
New West Pride is recognized throughout B.C. and across Canada as a celebration of all sexual orientations and gender identities. It happens with the active and wonderful participation of local businesses and civil society. It is a highlight of the year.
I wish to congratulate the Royal City Pride Society for bringing different cultures and creeds together to express our common values of peace, love, and respect for human rights and human dignity.
I hope to see thousands of people again celebrating at the Columbia Street party, on Saturday, August 15.
 Let us celebrate Pride.
TaxationRobert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, the hard-working middle-class workers of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe reject the Liberal leader's plan to impose a $1,000 tax hike. By promising to enforce the Ontario Liberals' dramatic hike in payroll tax across Canada, the Liberal leader would impose a tax hike on every single Canadian family. It would force employers to cut jobs, hours, and wages.
Our Conservative government, this year alone, has cut taxes by $6,600 for every typical family. We have expanded the tax-free savings account so Canadians can save more tax-free money. 
The Liberal leader, of course, would take these away and would raise taxes.
Now is not the time for risky Liberal tax schemes and an untested leader.
Scientific ResearchMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I came to Ottawa in 2008 hoping to promote science in Canada. I believe that to innovate, we must prioritize science. 
However, in seven years, I have seen how little respect the government has for science. Our funding of scientific research has dropped below the OECD average, to just 1.6% of GDP.
The current government eliminated the long-form census questionnaire, damaging what was previously the most important social database in the country.
The current government has muzzled our federal scientists, particularly environmental scientists who dare to speak the truth about global warming. The current government has ceased funding the Experimental Lakes Area, a priceless outdoor laboratory. It has diverted funding away from fundamental science, and it has nothing but contempt for the social sciences.
Our health, safety, and prosperity critically depend upon how we choose to prioritize science and how readily we are willing to share it.
On this, I am sad to say, the current government has totally failed Canadians.
TaxationMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Liberals do not believe that helping every single family is fair.
We also heard that the NDP thinks that only families who use licensed daycares are real families. This is actually what they believe. They believe that only a few select families deserve support in Canada.
On this side of the House, we believe that 100% of Canadians with families should get help. This is why we introduced the universal child care benefit and the family tax cut. We will not dictate to Canadians how to spend their own money.
While we are keeping more money in their pockets, the opposition parties' only plans are to raise taxes on families.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a clear choice to make.
On one side, there are the Conservatives, members of a worn-out party that, rather than truly defending the middle class, would prefer to defend its corrupt senators and let them use taxpayers' money to pay for their golf games and vacations. 
On the other side, there is the NDP, which has a clear economic plan to create jobs in our regions, a plan that includes lowering the tax rate for small businesses. The NDP also has practical solutions to help families make ends meet, such as an affordable day care system for all Canadians.
In summary, the choice between a party that wants to maintain the status quo to protect its senator friends and a party that wants to clean up the Senate is a clear one. In October, Canadian families can finally have a government that they can trust and that will stand up for their interests in good times and in bad, and that is an NDP government.
International TradeMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal record on free trade speaks for itself. It is the party that campaigned to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement. When they were in government, the Liberals completely neglected trade. In fact, they only completed three free trade agreements.
The Liberals took Canada virtually out of the game of trade, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in the era of global markets. Even to this day, they are opposing the biggest export contract win in Canadian history. It is a contract that will create and sustain thousands of jobs right here in Ontario, especially in London, and the advanced manufacturing industry across our country.
Thankfully, our government is fixing the mistakes of the Liberals. We have concluded agreements with 38 countries, and there are more to come. As Conservatives, we know that the best job creators are liberalized markets through free and open trade in the world.

Oral Questions
EthicsMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in February 2013, the Prime Minister rose in this House and declared “...all senators conform to the residency requirements”.
That is not what the Auditor General found in his devastating report on Senate corruption. He found that five of the nine senators whose cases are now referred to the RCMP were not actually residents of the provinces they were appointed to represent.
Did the Prime Minister at least ask any of these senators whether they were eligible to sit in the Senate, before he appointed them?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, the rules with respect to appointing senators have been clear for almost 150 years.
 At the same time, it is worth highlighting that in 2013 when we were starting to eliminate direct voter subsidies, taxpayer subsidies for political parties, the New Democrats were in the middle of a scam to still get voter subsidies. Unfortunately, they did that by breaking the rules of this House. They cheated in order to help their political party. That is against the rules. That is not why taxpayers send us money. The New Democrats owe $2.7 million, and they might as well do the right thing and just pay it back.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, that is more nonsense from that member.
Clearly, the Prime Minister never even tried to confirm that his appointees were actually eligible. No wonder the senators think they can get away with anything, and the secrecy continues. When asked about its new appeals process, the Senate replied “...we do not disclose information about legal contracts”. The entire process will be shrouded in secrecy. This is accountability, Conservative style.
Do the Conservatives agree that a secretive internal board is the right place to dispute the evidence-based findings of our Auditor General?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as members know, it was the Senate that invited the Auditor General in to review its expenses, and it is the Senate that should respond to that report. We expect that the senators will abide by the recommendations.
At the same time, we know it is very public that the New Democrats owe the Canadian taxpayers $2.7 million for illegal offices. That is three times as much as has been identified by the Auditor General with respect to the senators' expenses. However, unlike some of the senators, the New Democrats are refusing to pay back the $2.7 million they owe. The member for Hochelaga owes—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax.
Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to tell us what he thinks about the Senate scandal, because rather than apologizing, senators are continuing to defend the indefensible. Senators are going to decide for themselves, in secret, whether their personal expenses for fishing trips or golf games are legitimate.
Does the Prime Minister agree with this secretive process in the Senate?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not correct, and the member knows that is not correct. 
The Senate has invited in former justice Ian Binnie, and we support that process. Again, it was the Senate that invited in the Auditor General to review its expenses in the first place.
At the same time, Canadians do not differentiate. When parliamentarians owe them money, they want it back. That is why it is important that the 68 members of the NDP caucus who have been identified as owing $2.7 million to the Canadian people ought to pay it back. It is very clear that they need to pay back the money they owe.
The EnvironmentMegan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, Loblaws has announced that it is going to stop production of products containing microbeads, which are bad for the environment.
This excellent decision reminds us that it is urgent that the government take action to eliminate microbeads. The NDP moved a motion that was adopted unanimously by the House, but the Conservative government has not taken any action since then.
When will the government finally take action?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada has initiated a scientific review to assess the effect of microbeads on the environment. This review builds on the work we have already done to reduce harmful chemicals. Since 2006, we have taken action on more than 2,700 substances under the chemicals management plan, and we are on track to assess 4,300 substances by 2020. We are also putting the issue of microbeads on the agenda of this summer's meetings of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, it is really not that complicated. The House unanimously passed a motion calling for Canada to move to eliminate microbeads. There are 40,000 Canadians who have signed petitions to get rid of them, and now Loblaws is taking microbeads out of all of its personal care products. There is a lot of momentum to get this done. This Conservative has failed to take any action at all. 
When will the government do what Canadians want and what other countries have already done? When will it take the first steps toward banning microbeads?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise to that question. We have taken immediate action. Environment Canada has initiated a scientific review to assess the effect of microbeads on the environment. We have to rely on the science. This review builds on the work we have done to reduce the risk of harmful chemicals.
Since 2006, as I said in French, we have taken action on more than 2,700 substances under the chemicals management plan, and we are on track to assess 4,300 substances by 2020. We are also going to include the issue of microbeads on the agenda of December's meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. We are taking action; we are not just talking.
TaxationMarc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals' plan for fairness, all families that earn less than $150,000 a year will receive a larger monthly cheque.
A couple struggling to raise two kids on $45,000 a year will receive $9,850 a year under our plan, compared to $5,900 a year under the Conservatives. We are able to do this because we will not bring in policies that primarily benefit wealthy Canadians.
Why do the Conservatives always refuse to support those who need it most?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader admits that he wants to eliminate the universal child care benefit, the child tax credit and income splitting for families.
Even after all that, he admits that there would be a $2 billion hole in his plan, which he will have to make up for by increasing taxes. Furthermore, a few weeks ago he admitted that he wanted to impose a new $1,000 tax on every worker.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, average Canadians need a break, all of them, including single people and single parent families. Our fairness plan will substantially reduce income taxes for middle-class Canadians, including singles. Our child benefit plan is more generous and simplified and is tax free. Unlike the Conservatives' income splitting, it is not aimed only at a small percentage of families that are so rich they can get by on one paycheque. It reaches a much larger number of families, including single parent families. That is what fairness looks like.
Why is the government failing to do as much?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader admits he will get rid of the universal child care benefit. He admits he will get rid of the child tax benefit. He admits that he will cancel income splitting and replace the family tax cut with his family tax hike, but he also admits that even after all those tax hikes and clawbacks, he is still at least $2 billion short. Economists say the number is much bigger. 
We know when Liberals have a financial shortfall what they do. They raise taxes on the middle class, and we are doing exactly the opposite. We are cutting taxes and increasing benefits for 100% of Canadians.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the National Post writes that "The Liberals' revamped child benefit appears broader, simpler and better targeted than the Tory plan, without imposing punitive clawback rates”. We are reducing middle-class income tax by a full 7% on top of that. 
Unlike the NDP's promises, our plan is fiscally responsible. Unlike the Conservatives', it is fairer and benefits a much larger number of Canadians.
Why does the government not take a leaf from our book?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Liberals propose is a new tax. They confirmed that they support Kathleen Wynne's payroll tax, which would be $1,000 in extra taxes for every single worker earning $60,000 a year. This is a new tax on every single worker that will hit especially hard for middle- and lower-income people, and it will be matched by the small businesses that employ those people. We oppose the Liberal job-killing payroll tax. We are lowering taxes for workers and families.
Aboriginal AffairsDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on the seventh anniversary of the apology to residential school survivors, the Prime Minister had the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the government's commitment to reconciliation by asking the Pope if he would be willing to issue an apology. Indigenous people are deeply disappointed that the Prime Minister refused to do so, with National Chief Perry Bellegarde saying it was “sad and unfortunate that it did not happen”.
Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore this critical opportunity to show good faith on the path to reconciliation?
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister did no such thing. 
The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has written to the provinces, the territories, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Vatican to bring to their attention the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Prime Minister referenced that letter in his meeting with Pope Francis yesterday.
Our government remains committed to a fair and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian residential schools. As acknowledged by the Prime Minister's historic apology here in 2008, there is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian residential schools to ever prevail again. We will continue to take concrete action on behalf of aboriginal people.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, where there is a will, there is a way.
In this case, the federal government clearly lacks political will, and the provinces are the ones showing the way. For example, Quebec recognized that residential schools were a form of cultural genocide against aboriginal nations. As a result, it is calling on the federal government to take action.
Will the federal government follow the example of these elected officials and show some leadership?
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it was this Prime Minister who issued the historic apology in 2008 on behalf of all Canadians. He said that this was an assimilation policy that had no place in Canada and that we should never let the attitude that inspired that policy to take root in Canada again. It was our Prime Minister who set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which reported just last week.
We will continue to take concrete action and concrete measures to promote reconciliation between non-aboriginal and aboriginal Canadians.
HealthMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Supreme Court, our country's highest court, handed down a unanimous ruling regarding the use of medical marijuana. The ruling had barely been announced when the minister declared, “Frankly, I'm outraged by the Supreme Court.”
Once again, the Conservatives are trying to discredit decisions by our highest court. Unfortunately the Conservatives have a habit of thinking they are above the law. 
Will the minister stop denigrating our justice system?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, this expansion of a pre-existing court-imposed program to now include cookies and candies makes marijuana more attractive and accessible to youth and really is reflective of the Liberal campaign to normalize marijuana use. It is really important that most medications in Canada go through a very stringent process in terms of being safe for use. 
Another important point is that recent figures showed that St. Paul's Hospital saw 63 patients for marijuana intoxication in one day, and most of them had taken edibles.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is not just some suggestion the minister can just take or leave. We are talking about a unanimous judgment in Canada's highest court. The Supreme Court carefully weighed the evidence and found that the Conservative government's medical marijuana policies are not in the best interest of public health. 
I understand that the Conservatives do not really believe in evidence-based policy and that they love to throw blue meat to their anti-judiciary base, but will the minister now stop attacking the court and do her job to implement the decision?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, medical treatments need to meet strict Health Canada requirements so that patients can be sure that they are safe and effective. It is important that serious researchers interested in investigating the potential benefits of derivatives such as oils should go through a clinical process. Continued normalization through cookies and candies is, in our opinion, something that is going to be very detrimental to the health and safety of Canadians.
EthicsJack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Senate is a bastion of entitlement, yet the Conservatives have thrown up their hands and given up. The change is not only possible, it is absolutely necessary. Senators have invented a secret process for disputing the Auditor General's findings, and days after the Senate Speaker promised a new age of openness, he has gone to court to block the release of a potentially embarrassing internal report on residency.
Did anyone in the Prime Minister's office speak to anyone in the Senate about this latest attempt to cover up an embarrassing Senate report?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that. As members know, it was the Senate that invited the Auditor General to review its expenses, and we expect senators to assist in the process.
 At the same time, this member could help us out by turning around and looking at his colleagues and asking the 68 of them who owe taxpayers $2.7 million to repay that money to the taxpayers. It is absolutely unacceptable that the NDP owes Canadian taxpayers $2.7 million for illegal partisan offices and are refusing to pay it back. They ought to do the right thing and pay back the taxpayers.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, after promising to bring change to the Senate, the parliamentary secretary now clearly thinks it is not a priority. That is not acceptable to Canadians. When asked about the use of public funds to attend his brother-in-law's funeral, one senator replied that he brought “the dignity of the office”. The Auditor General is calling for transformational change, yet the Senate refuses even to confirm how much it is paying arbitrator Ian Binnie.
Why have the Conservatives abandoned their principles and refused to demand accountability from the Senate?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. The Senate invited in the Auditor General to review their expenses. A report has been tabled, and we expect the Senate to work with the Auditor General to implement the recommendations of that report, but what is also on the table is the fact of finding that 68 members of that caucus owe $2.7 million to the people of Canada, and they refuse to pay it back. 
The member for Louis-Hébert owes $31,888 and refuses to pay it back. The member for Gatineau owes $24,498 and refuses to pay it back. The member for Hochelaga owes $24,000—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we still do not know if the Prime Minister looked into where senators reside before appointing them. 
Senators' extravagant expenses are downright shameful. They treated themselves to fishing trips, personal trips for themselves and their spouses, rounds of golf and tickets to hockey games, all on the taxpayer's dime and with impunity. It is high time we got rid of this archaic institution. Most Quebeckers no longer want it.
Will the Conservatives finally stop defending the status quo?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. At the same time as the Auditor General was revealing the expenses of senators, there was a report issued with respect to members of Parliament. What that report found was that 68 members of Parliament owed $2.7 million to the taxpayer. All of those 68 members happen to be sitting in the NDP caucus. 
At a time when we were bringing in accountability to the House of Commons, they were finding a way to cheat and rip off the Canadian taxpayer and are now refusing to pay it back. They should pay back the $2.7 million they owe Canadians. It is the right thing to do, and they ought to do it.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is still defending the indefensible.
Worse still, rather than apologize for their unacceptable behaviour, Liberal senators and those who were appointed by the Prime Minister are rubbing salt in the wound. Now they want to to be their own judge and jury behind closed doors. Seriously, what a lot of nerve.
Why is the Prime Minister allowing these internal, secret, backroom games? Why is he not getting on board with the NDP's proposal to eliminate all of these secret House and Senate committees and give the people the transparency they deserve once and for all? 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I will not defend anybody who deliberately misuses taxpayer dollars. I certainly will not get up in the chamber and defend that. That is why I think like Canadians think. I do not differentiate. Whether it is a senator or a member of Parliament, if they deliberately misuse taxpayer dollars, they ought to pay it back.
New Democrats owe three times as much as the Auditor General has identified in the Senate. They owe $2.7 million. The Leader of the Opposition owes $400,000 to the taxpayers of Canada, and he refuses to pay it back. He ought to do the right thing and pay it back.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, as the scandals in the Senate have exploded, the Conservatives have taken to hiding the Prime Minister. Instead of answering questions, they bring on the very sad theatrics of the member for Oak Ridges—Markham. We remember that he tearfully apologized to the House for his antics. He promised to change his ways, and then he broke his promise. Every time he speaks, he loses more support for Conservatives. This morning, Conservatives hit historical lows. Keep up the good work.
New Democrats believe we can and must bring change to the Senate. Why do Conservatives lack the political will to scrap the Senate, and why will they not listen to Canadians?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have turned their backs on that party for 16 straight elections. They have never, ever been given the confidence of Canadians to sit on this side of the House. I am very proud of the fact that Canadians have given us the confidence to sit on this side of the House, and I will continue to work everyday to do that.
This is a member who admits that he actually owes money, $189,000. He is refusing to pay it back. He might think that is funny; Canadians do not. They want the money back. Pay them $189,000.
InfrastructureHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has botched the preparations for the 150th anniversary of Confederation.
We have been calling for plans for these celebrations for over a year now. Instead, the Conservatives have come up with a preposterous infrastructure program, leaving just a few weeks for submitting proposals, and excluding lots of players, including the municipalities of Quebec. This patchwork plan has been rushed and handled in a disorderly fashion.
Will they admit that they are just waiting to hand out goodies before the election?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is very proud to have established the Canada 150 community infrastructure program.
We are seeing significant interest from community groups, from not-for-profit organizations, from legion halls and from across the country. We look forward to working with them, to partnering with those important organizations in our communities to not only renew recreational infrastructure but to celebrate this country's 150th anniversary.
Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister clearly is not known for bridge building.
In fact, after pilfering 90% of the building Canada fund, Canada's 150 slush fund will now dole out ad hoc goodies without a plan for Canada's long-term infrastructure needs. Municipal leaders know that federal co-operation with our cities is at an all-time low. Canada's mayors are begging for money for sewer lines, subway lines and all the Prime Minister does is offer them political lines.
Cities know the difference between civil engineering and campaign engineering, but when is the Prime Minister going to know it?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, that question is a bridge to nowhere.
We will take no lessons from the Liberals with respect to infrastructure. Since our Conservative government formed office, Canada has consistently led G7 countries with respect to investments in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP. Over the next decade, our Conservative government will invest $80 billion in infrastructure. This includes the $53-billion new building Canada plan.
What will the Liberals do? They will hike taxes, and we learned this week they will raid pension plans in this country. Canadians want the Liberals to keep their hands off—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, if Canadians want to build the country, there is a party on this side prepared to do it. If all they want are talking points, those are talking points.
Across Canada, cities and towns are scrambling, holding emergency meetings, and trying to fill out very complicated and convoluted application forms for the Canada 150 fund. There is different criteria for different cities. There are different provinces dealing with different applications forms. The government has spent more time composing its talking notes and creating billboards than it has actually creating an infrastructure program that works for towns and cities.
Why does the government not sit down with the FCM and municipalities, and come up with real money for transit, housing and infrastructure, instead of these gimmicky plans and silly programs?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, we are not only making record investments in infrastructure across this country, we are also making record investments in public transit.
These investments in public transit will go even further. Public transit is an eligible category under every component of the new building Canada plan. Of course, in our recent budget we announced the public transit fund. This will provide support to major projects in large cities across this country.
This Conservative government is getting it done. Canadians understand these achievements.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the former minister of citizenship proclaimed with great fanfare that the government was going to revoke the citizenship of thousands of fraudsters.
Three years later, the government has acted on only 81 cases, and the department has quietly admitted that many of the people it was pursuing were innocent. This is a consistent pattern from the Conservatives and especially that minister, exaggerating threats to score political points.
Why do the Conservatives not, for once, put partisanship aside and focus on finally eliminating huge immigration backlogs?
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is a strange question coming from that party, which opposed our measures to improve the integrity and strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship.
We have taken action to revoke citizenship for misrepresentation, for fraud, based on due process, based on investigations under the law, and we will continue to do so.
What is scandalous is that that party continues to oppose the idea that dual nationals should have their citizenship revoked. That provision is now enforced, thanks to this government, when they are convicted for terrorism.
That is what Canadians want, and the NDP has always refused it.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, the minister is all talk and no action: in 2012, he was extremely proud to announce that his government was going to revoke the citizenship of 3,000 people who allegedly obtained it under false pretenses. Three years later, 81 people saw their citizenship revoked. Again, the Conservatives chose to play politics on the backs of new arrivals by accusing them of fraud and by inflating the figures. What is more, the processing of these cases has dragged on. Some files have not moved in three years.
Will the minister apologize to the Canadians he unjustly accused of fraud and will he fast-track these files?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, there are still thousands of investigations under way, hundreds of serious cases where revocation is still on the table, and, yes, dozens of cases where we revoked citizenship on account of fraud. It is no thanks to the support of the NDP that this was possible, quite the contrary. The NDP insisted on opposing all our measures to enhance the integrity and value of Canadian citizenship, including by revoking citizenship from dual nationals who are convicted of terrorism. It is scandalous.
Foreign AffairsLysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, the completely inhumane treatment of blogger Raif Badawi seems to be mobilizing everyone but the government. Today, the Government of Quebec will announce that it will immediately issue a selection certificate to Mr. Badawi on humanitarian grounds. The minister in Ottawa has not said a word. It is the eleventh hour for Mr. Badawi, as his cruel punishment could even resume today.
Will the minister follow his Quebec colleague's lead and take action to reunite Mr. Badawi with his family?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken with Minister St-Pierre from Quebec. The minister discussed their mutual concerns regarding the sentence given to Mr. Badawi. The minister looks forward to meeting with Minister St-Pierre in the very near future.
Again, Canada considers the sentencing to be a violation of human dignity. We will continue raising this matter with the Saudi officials as we have in the past.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent situation. Mr. Badawi's health is at risk and his punishment is certainly inhumane. Advocating for human rights and democracy is certainly not a crime. Now the Government of Quebec has said that province would welcome Mr. Badawi and is prepared to deliver a certificate of humanitarian selection to Mr. Badawi.
The obvious question: Why is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration not taking action to reunite Mr. Badawi with his family?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the minister discussed this week our concern regarding the sentence given to Mr. Badawi with Minister St-Pierre from Quebec. We are deeply concerned that Saudi human rights activist Raif Badawi has been sentenced. Canadians officials have raised this matter with the Saudi government.
Canada considers the punishment of Mr. Badawi to be a violation of human dignity and we continue to call for clemency in this case. This will continue, going forward, until clemency is granted.
TaxationMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians, jobs and economic growth. Our plan for jobs is tax cuts, trade and training. 
Since the recession, 1.2 million net new jobs have been created, and almost 59,000 jobs in May alone.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance update this House on what the government is doing to make life more affordable for Canadians?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to note that Canadian household net worth increased in the first quarter to an all-time high, reflecting continued gains in household assets. This is proof our low-tax plan is working.
Our government has delivered on its promise to Canadians to make life more affordable and continue to lower taxes. This past year alone, we have doubled the tax-free savings account, introduced the family tax cut and enhanced the universal child care benefit. As a result, the average family of four has $6,600 more in their pocket this year.
With a fragile global economy, now is not the time for risky schemes and untested—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Laval.
Canada PostMr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Laval has had enough of Canada Post's intransigence. Together with Montreal, Longueuil and Westmount, Laval has decided to go to court to stop Canada Post from eliminating home delivery. This movement is growing across the country. More than 600 municipalities are opposed to the end of home mail delivery.
Will the Conservative government finally stop and consider the thousands of petitions against this plan that have been signed by the people of Laval?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2014, Canada Post delivered 1.4 billion fewer pieces of mail than in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not have mail delivered to their door, and Canada Post must balance its books without being a burden on Canadian taxpayers. The NDP plan for Canada Post will cost taxpayers half a billion dollars a year, which means that the NDP will increase the tax burden on all Canadians to finance its plan. That is not what we on this side of the House are going to do. Instead, we are going to keep taxes low for Canadians. 
InfrastructureMatthew Kellway: Cities, Mr. Speaker, are where most of us live. They are the engines of the Canadian economy. Yet, they have been saddled with an infrastructure deficit of nearly $170 billion by Liberal and Conservative governments.
The Minister of Finance has called further investment in urban infrastructure a risky spending scheme, ignoring most obviously the billions lost to our economy due to gridlock.
The New Democrats are ready to partner with our municipal leaders. It is in our national interest to do so. Why are the Conservatives refusing to invest any more in our cities?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, it is this Conservative government that is making record investments in infrastructure with $80 billion over the next decade. This includes the $53 billion new building Canada plan.
Not only are we making record investments, our government is keeping taxes low and we are balancing the budget.
What would the NDP do? It would take an “Ottawa knows best” top-down approach. It would hike taxes and run permanent deficits. It would do all of the above.
Social DevelopmentMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again, it is our most vulnerable citizens who are paying the price for the Conservative government's choices.
We have just learned that the 300 Quebec branches of meals on wheels will no longer have access to the federal new horizon for seniors program. This means that 30,000 people in Quebec, whose average age is 72, could see their services reduced. 
Is the Conservative government really going to cancel funding for meals on wheels?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we created that program to help seniors all across the country. I am pleased to report to the House that that program is working and is meant to fund very specific programs for seniors. The Minister of State for Seniors travels all across the country in order to allocate funding and improve our seniors' quality of life. We are also lowering taxes for seniors, unlike what the New Democrats would do. 
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, funding for meals on wheels is not the only funding that might disappear.
Some $232,00 of the funding that was allocated to the Lower Laurentians under the homelessness initiative and that will not be used could end up back in the public purse, even though these organizations desperately need it. Just look at the work done by Accueil communautaire jeunesse des Basses-Laurentides in Saint-Eustache. 
Will the government use that money to help combat homelessness in the Lower Laurentians?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the program in question was created and funded by our budgets and managed by the Minister of State for Seniors. She does an excellent job allocating that funding, but she also supports tax cuts and income splitting for our seniors so that they can save money. The New Democrats want to raise taxes for our seniors, the people who built our country. We will do the opposite.
Citizenship and ImmigrationHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Maclean's magazine, Paul Wells wrote that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was “delusional and culpably misleading capsule history of Canadian immigration policy” and concluded that “He’s one of the least impressive ministers in an increasingly weak government bench”.
The minister's goose may be cooked, but will he at least do the right thing and offer a sincere apology to Canadian Muslims?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, as some members know, I spent six years in Afghanistan. I saw first-hand the systematic oppression of women by extremists like the Taliban, who often forbade women to uncover their faces on pain of death.
I take offence to what the member said in the House yesterday. I take offence to what the Liberal Party said two days ago. I await their apology.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, despite what the minister just said, he was asked about niqabs and immediately answered about terrorists. There is incontrovertible video evidence of this that cannot be denied. 
 Why does the minister keep playing to his party's old immigration Reform Party base by attacking refugees and Muslims? Why does he do that? Why will he not do the right thing, reflecting that background that he just described, and apologize to Canadian Muslims?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the member opposite has trouble taking responsibility for his own words, for the history of his own party, which has been anti-immigration, which has been against all of the reforms that have been undertaken since 2006.
The words he has ascribed to me were never spoken by me. 
On behalf of all the women of Afghanistan, on behalf of all the victims of Taliban oppression, on behalf of all those who have been forced by pain of death not to uncover their faces, I would ask the member to apologize. 
Consumer ProtectionMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, small and medium-sized businesses are our economic lifeblood and they create the vast majority of jobs in Canada. 
Unfortunately, our SMEs are still being forced to pay some of the highest credit card fees in the world—an average of 2%. A number of countries have restricted these fees to rates from 0.5% to 0.3%, far lower than Canada's rates. My motion to lower these exorbitant fees will be debated today.
Will the government support my motion and SMEs?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, we heard the concerns of small business and introduced a code of conduct. The code has been welcomed by consumers and industry groups, especially small business. We continually monitor compliance, and we are working with small business and consumers to ensure that both are heard.
However, the NDP voted against the code and against supporting small business and consumers. 
LabourMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we now better understand why no inspections have been done at the Cliff Street central heating plant.
The number of health and safety inspectors has dropped from 120 to 80 as a result of the Conservatives' cuts. Nickel-and-diming is unacceptable when it puts the lives of public servants at risk.
Will the minister intervene quickly to ensure that all public servants have access to a safe workplace?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, certainly our government is committed to workplaces that are safer and productive. To state that the inspectors have been cut is categorically false. As of March 31, there were 160 labour affairs officers who enforce the workplace health and safety standards that are set out in the Canada Labour Code. 
We are proud of the hard work our dedicated labour officers do each day to keep Canadians safe on the job.
Foreign AffairsMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again Israel has come under attack. In recent days, a number of rockets have been launched from the Gaza strip. These rockets are indiscriminate in terms of where they land and are primarily intended to instill fear within Israel's civilian population. To be perfectly clear, these are terrorist attacks. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please provide the House with Canada's reaction to these acts of terror.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his hard work in Parliament. 
Canada condemns, in the strongest possible terms, these rocket attacks from Gaza. According to the reports, one such rocket actually fell short of its target and landed within Gaza. This is just another proof of what we have said all along. The only group responsible for the sufferings of the Palestinian people is the terrorist group Hamas. 
 Israel is Canada's greatest ally in the region. While others like the NDP take every opportunity they can to single out Israel, our Conservative government stands with Israel. 
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the treatment of blogger Raif Badawi is a violation of Saudi Arabia's obligations to Canada under the convention against torture.
Now that the Saudi supreme court has upheld Raif's cruel sentence, the only possible recourse is a royal pardon. It is up to the Prime Minister to take up Raif's case directly with the Saudi king.
Will the Prime Minister ask the king to mark the beginning of Ramadan with a show of compassion and justice by freeing Raif Badawi and reuniting him with his family in Quebec?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, Canada is deeply concerned with the sentence given to Raif Badawi of 1,000 lashes. Canadian officials have raised this matter with the Saudi government.
Canada considers the punishment of Mr. Badawi to be a violation of human dignity, and we continue to call for clemency in this case. This will continue as long as he is being sentenced.
Canadian HeritageJohn Weston: Mr. Speaker, the principles of habeas corpus, no taxation without representation, the rule of law and other fundamental pillars of a free and democratic society trace their roots to the Magna Carta. In my own life, appreciation for these things drove me to become a constitutional lawyer and to found the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
On behalf of all Canadians who love freedom, could the Minister for Democratic Reform please update the House about the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for accurately pointing to the historical importance of this eight century old document, the anniversary of which we celebrate next week. In fact, Canada will play host to one of the issuances of the Magna Carta at the Canadian history museum. I was pleased to help unveil the new exhibit. I encourage all Canadians to go there. 
I am so enamoured with it because it was born out of a tax revolt. It was one of the first examples of where the power of the Crown, also now known as the state, was restrained and the power of the individual was elevated. We need to build on those principles.
Democratic ReformBruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, when in opposition, our Prime Minister made many promises. He promised to never appoint a single unelected senator, but he has appointed 59. We see how well that is working out. He also promised to implement proportional representation. Now, with only 39% of the popular vote but 100% of the power, he rather likes our archaic and undemocratic electoral system. 
Why does the Prime Minister not keep his word?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, he is keeping his word. The Prime Minister has been very clear that he does not support proportional representation, just as Canadians who have been surveyed on the matter in numerous referenda across the country have likewise been clear in their rejection of that approach to democracy.
We believe in the parliamentary system in which members of Parliament are responsible to their constituents and must go back to their geographical constituency for reaffirmation in every single election cycle. That is responsible government and that is what we support.
InfrastructureMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, on May 15, the Prime Minister announced an infrastructure program to mark Canada's 150th anniversary and invited all municipalities to participate. Municipalities in Quebec, including Ahuntsic-Cartierville, will be excluded from the program even though Quebec's Minister of Municipal Affairs submitted a memorandum of understanding.
When will the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs sign the MOU?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, our government is very proud to have established the Canada 150 community infrastructure program. It will help to preserve and improve treasured cultural and community locations, not only through the province of Quebec but across the country. 
We look forward to working with not-for-profit organizations in the province of Quebec and across the country to renew important recreational infrastructure in our communities and to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation.
Points of OrderHon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I understand that there was a profanity over the microphone when the question came from the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North. Some of my colleagues definitely heard it. It came from the member for Trinity—Spadina. It would be appropriate if the member for Trinity—Spadina were to apologize for speaking in such a fashion, which the microphone happened to pick up because he was sitting adjacent to the member who was asking the question.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, if something slipped out of my mouth that offended the hon. member, I will not contest it. If members were offended, I of course apologize. The colleague next to me had the question. I was just astounded that the Tea Party is not good enough; the Magna Carta is now a Conservative document.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I believe this closes this matter.

Routine Proceedings
Ways and MeansJohn Duncan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act. 
Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2) I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
Aboriginal AffairsMark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2013-14 Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society in the Nunavut Settlement Area.
I am also tabling copies of the 2012-13 Annual Report of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Implementation Committee. 
PetitionsBruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from many Canadians who are concerned about the election fraud that occurred in the 2011 federal election.
 The petitioners feel that due to fraudulent practices, including in Thunder Bay—Superior North, that election results were affected and the democratic right of Canadians to vote was suppressed.
They call upon the House, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to call an independent, fully empowered royal commission into election fraud, alongside the Elections Canada investigation, to determine whether the Elections Canada Act and any other Canadian laws were violated during the 2011 federal election campaign, and to protect the integrity of our electoral system.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in the House today with respect to affordable child care.
The signatories to the petition want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that after nearly a decade of Conservative government, child care costs continue to soar; that there are nearly one million kids with working parents out there without regulated child care spaces; and that quality child care and early learning offer children a head start in life, while easing poverty. They further note that the NDP has put forward a plan to ensure quality, affordable child care for up to $15 a day.
 The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to work with provinces and territories to implement the NDP plan for affordable child care in Canada.
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, autism spectrum disorders, or ASDs, are pervasive disorders that are characterized by social and communication challenges and a pattern of repetitive behaviours and interests. They are lifelong, profoundly affect development and life experience, and exert immense emotional and financial pressures on families.
The petitioners call on the government to work with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a pan-Canadian strategy for autism spectrum disorder.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition signed by hundreds and hundreds of residents from British Columbia. The petition was created by Gwendy and Alfie Williams, two very passionate advocates from my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. 
The petitioners call on the federal government to ban the sale and use of electric shock collars on domestic cats and dogs. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association states that “Training methods utilizing pain, fear, distress or anxiety, including violent use of choke collars and shock collars are to be condemned”, and I urge the government to consider this petition very carefully.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first is from hundreds of people in my community of Capreol. They call on the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain, expand, and improve postal service and cease any proposal to reduce hours and diminish service to the residents and businesses of Capreol.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from dozens of people in the Nickel Belt. They call on the government to support northerners in our universal health care system and ensure that every citizen of northern Ontario has access to the same high-quality services wherever they live and regardless of financial circumstances.
Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from people in my riding to present today.
In the first, the petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to stop the devastating cuts to postal services.
Marc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, the people who signed the second petition I am presenting today are calling on the government to guarantee stable, adequate, multi-year funding for our public broadcaster so that it can live up to its mandate from coast to coast to coast.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Questions Nos. 1213, 1225, 1227, 1233, 1234, 1235, and 1258 will be answered today.
Mr. François Lapointe:  With regard to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, specifically for each of the following constituencies, Beauce, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lévis-Bellechasse, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madelaine, Beauport—Côte-deBeaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Manicouagan, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Jonquière—Alma: (a) for all submitted projects, (i) how many projects were submitted, (ii) what is the description of each project, (iii) what is the total financial contribution for these projects; (b) for all approved projects, (i) how many projects were approved, (ii) what is the description of each project, (iii) what is the total financial contribution for these projects; (c) among the projects that were approved, (i) what is the total number and description of projects benefitting from a non-repayable financial contribution, (ii) what is the total amount and the amounts broken down by non-repayable financial contribution; (d) among the projects that were approved, (i) what is the total number and description of projects benefitting from a repayable financial contribution or loan, (ii) what is the total amount and broken down by repayable financial contribution or loan; (e) among the projects that were submitted, (i) what is the total number and description of rejected projects, (ii) what is the total amount and the amount broken down by requested financial contribution for rejected projects; and (f) for each rejected project, what are the reasons for the refusal? 
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tThe Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec does not gather data by electoral district for most of its programs. 
However, information on the projects financed by the aAgency since January 1st, 2006, can be found on its website at: http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/disclosure/grant-contribution-awards/index.html. 
Mr. Brian Masse:  With regard to the January 2014 final report to the government on the noise disturbance, commonly referred to as the Windsor-Essex Hum: (a) what measures has the government undertaken to address this problem; and (b) are there future plans to work towards mitigating this issue?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is well aware of the seriousness of the complaints from residents in the city of Windsor as a result of the noise and has acted on these concerns. 
In 2013, following consultation with the International Joint Commission, two experts in the field of acoustic and infrasound monitoring from the University of Western Ontario, UWO, and the University of Windsor, UW, were contracted by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada to undertake acoustic monitoring and other analysis to help determine the source of the disturbance. 
The UWO study was completed in June 2013 but did not find signals which could be plausibly associated with the Hum. In contrast, the UW study, submitted in January 2014, found that a disturbance does exist that is consistent with characteristics of industrial operations on Zug Island, Michigan. The UW study recommended that further noise monitoring be undertaken in closer proximity to Zug Island. Although the results of the study were inconclusive, they demonstrate that in order to precisely determine the source of the Windsor Hum, further work must also take place on the U.S. side of the Detroit River. 
Prior to the May 23, 2014, public release of the two studies, the Government of Canada provided a copy of the study to the Governor of the State of Michigan, the Mayor of River Rouge, in whose jurisdiction Zug Island exists, and other key stakeholders. In July 2014, Canada’s Consul General in Detroit met with officials from U.S. Steel and the Mayor of River Rouge to discuss the report’s results and options for a mutually agreeable resolution to this issue.
The Government of Canada continues to follow up on area resident concerns. Through several written exchanges and numerous phone calls, departmental officials continue to push for a constructive dialogue with representatives from U.S. Steel. Officials are also liaising with the author of the University of Windsor report and the City of River Rouge on appropriate next steps, including with our American partners, on further pinpointing the source and acoustic and other characteristics of the Hum.
Brian Masse:  With regard to harmful algae blooms in the Great Lakes: (a) what government initiatives are in place to study and mitigate the impact of these; and (b) are there future plans to address this problem? 
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada is working with its American and Ontario partners to address this issue. In September 2012, the governments of Canada and the United States renewed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In December 2014, the governments of Canada and Ontario renewed the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement committed both governments to take actions that would result in a reduction of algal blooms. The Canada-Ontario agreement outlines how the Government of Canada will work with the Government of Ontario to address the issue of excess nutrients and reduce harmful and nuisance algal blooms. 
Environment Canada allocated $16 million to implement the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative to meet our commitment to reduce algal blooms. Through the initiative, focused on Lake Erie, we are working in concert with our partners to advance the science to understand and address the complex problem of recurrent toxic and nuisance algae in the Great Lakes; review the effectiveness of current nutrient management programs, policies and legislation; assess the economic impact of algal blooms; propose new loading targets for phosphorus; and provide recommendations to improve nutrient management in the Canadian portion of the Lake Erie watershed. 
In addition to the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative, the Government Canada has allocated $8 million per year to support the restoration of water quality and impaired uses at 17 locations, or areas of concern, that have experienced high levels of environmental harm. Some of these locations experience excess growth of algae. 
In budget 2012 the Government of Canada announced $29 million to support a new Lake Simcoe and southeastern Georgian Bay cleanup fund. The fund supports community-based projects to reduce phosphorous inputs from urban and rural sources that contribute to the algae issue.
With regard to (b), Environment Canada will be working closely with other federal and provincial partners to fulfill our commitments to address harmful algal blooms in both the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health.
The 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement sets out key activities. They include the following: develop, within three years, by 2016, binational substance objectives for phosphorus concentrations, loading targets and loading allocations for Lake Erie; and develop, within five years, by 2018, binational phosphorus reduction strategies and domestic action plans to meet the objectives for phosphorus concentrations and loading targets in Lake Erie. They also include the following: assess, develop and implement programs to reduce phosphorus loadings from urban, rural, industrial and agricultural sources. This will include proven best management practices, along with new approaches and technologies. They also include the following: identify priority watersheds that contribute significantly to lake-wide or local algae development, and develop and implement management plans to achieve phosphorus load reduction targets and controls; and undertake and share research, monitoring and modelling necessary to establish, report on and assess the management of phosphorus and other nutrients, and improve the understanding of relevant issues associated with nutrients and excessive algal blooms. 
Commitments in the 2014-19 Canada-Ontario agreement will support achievement of the following results: improved understanding of sources, transport and fate of nutrients in the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on Lake Erie; improved understanding of nutrient levels and environmental conditions that trigger nuisance and harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on Lake Erie; establishment of phosphorus concentration and loading targets for priority tributaries, nearshore and offshore waters of Lake Erie by 2016; action plans to work towards meeting phosphorus concentration and loading targets for the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on Lake Erie; reduction in excess nutrient loadings from stormwater and wastewater collection and treatment facilities in urban and rural communities; improved understanding and development of practices and technologies for nutrient use efficiency; and increased adoption of cost-effective practices and technologies to improve nutrient use efficiency and reduce the risk of loss of excess nutrients from agricultural production
Mr. Ryan Cleary:  With regard to Transport Canada and the Crown corporation, Marine Atlantic: (a) what is this year’s total operating budget; (b) what is the federal subsidy for the 2015-2016 fiscal year; and (c) how much of the federal subsidy that has been set aside for Marine Atlantic over the past five years has not been spent? 
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), this year’s 2015-16 total operating budget is $237.4 million.
 With regard to (b), the federal subsidy for the 2015-16 fiscal year is $374.3 million. 
With regard to (c), less than 2% of the federal subsidy that has been set aside for Marine Atlantic over the past five years has not been spent, approximately $17 million. 
Ryan Cleary:  With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the recreational cod and food fishery off Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what is the estimated amount of cod caught in the recreational fisheries in each of the past five years; (b) what is the proportion of the codfish caught in recreational fisheries compared to commercial catches in each of the past five years; and (c) what is the estimated number of participants in the recreational cod fishery in each of the past five years? 
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (c), the Newfoundland and Labrador recreational groundfish fishery’s current management allows for two fishing periods during the year, a 23-day summer season, and a 9-day fall season. During these fishing periods, recreational fishers are permitted to catch up to 5 groundfish per day, including cod. However, the maximum boat limit when three or more people are fishing is 15 groundfish. There is no requirement for licence or tags, and the fishery is open to both resident and non-resident recreational fishers. Fishing is only permitted using angling gear and handlines with a maximum of three hooks. Retention of Atlantic halibut, northern and spotted wolffish, and any species of shark is prohibited. 
There is no reporting system for landings for the recreational groundfish fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and exact estimates are uncertain; however, the department monitors the fishery to ensure compliance with conservation measures. An analysis of Fisheries and Oceans science cod tags returned over the past seven years suggests that recreational landings may be substantial.
 With regard to (b), there is no data related to landings in the recreational fishery, therefore this question is not applicable. 
Ryan Cleary:  With regard to the Department of National Revenue and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS): what is the number of constituents in the federal riding of St. John’s South—Mount Pearl who have qualified for the GIS in each of the last ten years? 
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, is not a program administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. The CRA does not have the necessary data to identify who qualifies for the GIS nor can it identify who receives it. As the CRA does not track this information, it is unable to respond to this question. 
Ms. Joyce Murray:  With regard to National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) what are the policies concerning visits to Canadian Armed Forces Bases, other Canadian Armed Forces establishments, or Royal Canadian Navy ships, by Canadian federal Parliamentarians, members of provincial or territorial legislatures, municipal or other elected officials in Canada, or elected officials from outside Canada; (b) in what directive, manual, order, regulation, or other document are the current versions of the relevant policies set forth or promulgated; (c) what are the reference numbers and effective dates of the most recent iteration of the documents, referred to in (b), in which the policies are set forth or promulgated; (d) in what directive, manual, order, regulation, or other document were superseded versions of the relevant policies set forth or promulgated at any time since April 1, 2006; and (e) what are the reference numbers and effective dates of the superseded iterations of the documents referred to in (d), in which the policies were formerly set forth or promulgated? 
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are in the process of finalizing revised direction on visits by dignitaries, parliamentarians and federal parliamentary committees and associations to their establishments. The objective of this revised direction is to provide an interim update to existing policy until a new defence administrative order and directive is issued, and delegates the approval of visits to all organizations that report directly to the Deputy Minister and/or the Chief of the Defence Staff.
This policy is expected to supersede elements of the Canadian Forces administrative order 61-16, promulgated on July 24, 1987, on visits by members of the royal family and Canadian dignitaries to Canadian Forces elements and installations, and a 2010 direction from the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff requiring the Minister of National Defence to approve visits of dignitaries and parliamentarians to National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces establishments. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1206, 1208 to 1212, 1214, 1216, 1217, 1220, 1223, 1239, 1241 to 1243, 1245, 1249, 1253, and 1256 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Megan Leslie:  With regard to government investments made within the constituency of Halifax, including all grants and outstanding commitments made, what are the details of all made from fiscal year 2008-2009 to the present, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) project, (iii) recipient, (iv) fiscal year? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Arnold Chan:  With regards to the government’s telecom services, including cell phones, land lines, voice-over-internet, and other, for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to the present: (a) how much has the government paid for telecom services, broken down by (i) the names of the telecom providers, (ii) the amount paid to each provider, (iii) the number of land lines provided by each provider, (iv) the number of cell phone lines provided by each provider, (v) the number of voice-over-internet lines provided by each provider; (b) how much has the government paid in late fees and to which providers; (c) has the government conducted any internal surveys of telecom services, and, if so, what were the results, broken down by (i) the tracking number and name of the survey, (ii) the questions asked, (iii) the answers provided, (iv) the tracking number and title of any briefing notes created from the survey; (d) how many calls has the telecom help desk received; (e) for each answer provided in (d), (i) what were the most common issues, (ii) where were the calls made, broken down by department; (f) how much has the government collected in fees for 1-900 or 1-800 numbers, broken down by (i) the number, (ii) the amount per number; (g) how much has the government paid for downloading applications on phones, broken down by (i) application, (ii) individual cost; (h) how much has the government paid for texting services, broken down by (i) the name of the service, (ii) the cost; (i) has the government completed any studies on the use of cell or voice-over-internet technology for government employees; and (j) if the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, (i) what are the names and tracking numbers of these studies, (ii) what were the conclusions of these studies, (iii) what are the briefing notes and tracking numbers associated with these studies? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Arnold Chan:  With regard to the government's Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA): (a) how much money does the government project to collect over the next ten years for the fee associated with this program, broken down by (i) annual amount, (ii) country of origin; (b) what programs or rules are in place which would allow the fee to be waved; (c) how much does the government project this program will cost for each of the next ten years, broken down by individual expense; (d) whom did the government consult before putting this program in place; (e) which countries' travellers will be required to get ETA before flying; (f) will individuals entering Canada by means other than by airplane be required to get an ETA, and, if so, how will the government enforce this requirement; (g) what fines or other measures are in place in cases where companies do not ensure that passengers have complied with the rules for ETA; (h) does the new ETA requirement conflict with any other travel agreements Canada currently has; (i) what is the expected impact on the Canadian tourism industry; (j) what factors were taken into account when deciding on the seven dollar fee, broken down by (i) cost, (ii) the results for any business case for these studies; (k) how long does an ETA remain valid; (l) how many full-time employees will review the ETAs, broken down by (i) the number of full-time employees assigned to the ETA file, (ii) the number transferred from different divisions, (iii) the divisions from which employees were transferred, (iv) the location where the full-time employee will be working; (m) what will be the anticipated processing time of an ETA; (n) will there be an additional cost for rush processing times; (o) what contracts have been awarded in relation to this project, broken down by (i) the name of the company, (ii) the amount of the contract, (iii) the dates of the contract, (iv) the description of the work being provided, (v) whether the contract was tendered, (vi) the country where the company will complete the work; (p) will dual Canadian citizens be required to get an ETA to travel to Canada; and (q) will permanent residents of Canada be required to get an ETA when returning to Canada? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. David McGuinty:  With regard to the operation of the Access to Information Act: for each government institution enumerated in Schedule I of the Act, what are the five oldest requests which have been made pursuant to the Act which are still being processed, giving for each of those requests, (i) the date on which it was received by the institution, (ii) the dates on which the time limits set out in section 7 or subsection 8(1) of the Act were extended, (iii) the amounts by which the time limits were extended and the reason for which they were extended, (iv) the file number of the request? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Scott Simms:  With regard to the marketing and branding of Canadian seal products by the government since January 1, 2006: (a) what are the details of all related programs, spending, plans, or other activities or actions broken down by (i) relevant date(s), (ii) department(s), (iii) cost to date, (iv) anticipated costs, (v) objectives, (vi) reports, (vii) any other relevant information; and (b) what are the details of all government correspondence, documents, files, and records, broken down by (i) relevant file or tracking numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, contractors, businesses, international stakeholders and foreign governments copied or involved? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Devinder Shory:  With regard to government funding in the riding of Calgary Northeast, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusively: (a) 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; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:  With regard to the Northumberland Ferry Service between Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, and Caribou, Nova Scotia: (a) how much of the 2014 Budget's $58 million for three Atlantic ferry services has been budgeted for this service, broken down by fiscal year; (b) on what date is the current contract set to expire; (c) what are the details of each contract signed between the federal government and Northumberland Ferry Services Limited for the operation of this service since its establishment, including the (i) date the contract was signed, (i) length of the contract, (iii) funding allocated; (d) based on government findings, what economic impact does this ferry service have on (i) Prince Edward Island, (ii) Nova Scotia; (e) do government plans for this service include (i) provisions for it to be in place for the next five years, (ii) provisions to maintain or exceed current levels of service; (f) what are the details of all government correspondences and documentations relating to this ferry service, broken down by (i) relevant file or internal tracking numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, or contractors copied or involved; and (g) what are the details of the government’s 2010 public service review of this ferry service?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Lawrence MacAulay:  With regard to the March 20, 2015 announcement on the power cable to help stabilize the electricity supply in Prince Edward Island: (a) how much funding is the government committing to providing, broken down by (i) the departments and programs from which the funding will be allocated, (ii) the affected fiscal years; (b) what is the government’s projected total cost of this project; (c) is the federal funding contingent on any specific conditions and, if so, what are the details of those conditions, including any requirements under the Green Infrastructure Fund; (d) why did the government cancel the previous 2005 federal funding commitment for this project; and (e) what are the details of all government correspondences and documentations relating to this project, broken down by (i) relevant file or internal tracking number, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials, agencies, departments, or contractors copied or involved?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Irwin Cotler:  With regard to the process for filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada that will be created by the retirement of Justice Marshall Rothstein on August 31, 2015: (a) when did the government learn of Justice Rothstein’s intention to retire; (b) how did the government learn of Justice Rothstein’s intention to retire; (c) what steps has the government taken to find a replacement for Justice Rothstein; (d) when were each of the steps in (c) taken; (e) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to developing a process to find Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (f) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to choosing Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (g) when did the consultations in (e) occur; (h) when did the consultations in (f) occur; (i) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to developing a process to find Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (j) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to choosing Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (k) when will the consultations in (i) occur; (l) when will the consultations in (j) occur; (m) what date has the government set by which Justice Rothstein’s replacement must be nominated; (n) what date has the government set by which Justice Rothstein’s replacement must be appointed; (o) by what date does the government intend to nominate Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (p) by what date does the government intend to appoint Justice Rothstein’s replacement; (q) when were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (r) who set the dates in (m) to (p); (s) based on what factors were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (t) if no dates have been set regarding the nomination or appointment of Justice Rothstein’s replacement, why have no dates been set; (u) based on what criteria has the government evaluated candidates to replace Justice Rothstein, and if no evaluations have occurred thus far, based on what criteria will the government evaluate candidates to replace Justice Rothstein; (v) how do the criteria in (u) differ from those used to evaluate candidates in the appointment processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon, (iv) Justice Côté; (w) what materials have been sought from the candidates to replace Justice Rothstein; (x) what materials will be sought from the candidates to replace Justice Rothstein; (y) how do the materials in (w) and (x) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon, (iv) Justice Côté; (z) if the materials in (w) and (x) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, Gascon and Côté, (i) why were changes made, (ii) who decided to make these changes, (iii) when was that decision made; (aa) what process has been or will be used to evaluate candidates and make an appointment to replace Justice Rothstein; (bb) in what way does the process to replace Justice Rothstein differ from the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, Gascon and Côté; (cc) if the process to replace Justice Rothstein differs from the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, Gascon and Côté, (i) why was the process changed, (ii) who decided to change it, (iii) when was the decision made to change it; (dd) in what way have parliamentarians been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (ee) what goals have been served by parliamentary involvement in previous Supreme Court appointment processes; (ff) how will the goals in (ee) be served in the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (gg) in what way have members of the legal community been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (hh) other than parliamentarians and members of the legal community, who has been or will be involved in the process to replace Justice Rothstein, and in what way; (ii) will candidates to replace Justice Rothstein be reviewed by an advisory panel; (jj) if candidates to replace Justice Rothstein will be reviewed by an advisory panel, (i) when will the panel be constituted, (ii) of how many members will it be comprised, (iii) who will select its members, (iv) based on what criteria will its members be selected, (v) what will be its mandate, (vi) who will set its mandate, (vi) will its membership include parliamentarians; (kk) will the candidate nominated to replace Justice Rothstein appear before a parliamentary committee, ad hoc or otherwise; (ll) has the process for appointing Supreme Court judges been reviewed by the government since the appointment of Justice Côté; (mm) if the process for appointing Supreme Court judges has been reviewed by the government since the appointment of Justice Côté, (i) when did the review begin, (ii) when did the review end, (iii) who conducted the review, (iv) what groups and individuals participated in the review, (v) what were the objectives of the review, (vi) what were the outcomes of the review; (nn) what has been, or what will be, the cost of the process to replace Justice Rothstein; (oo) what is the breakdown of the cost in (nn); (pp) in what way will the process to replace Justice Rothstein be (i) transparent, (ii) accountable, (iii) inclusive; and (qq) will the process used for the appointment of Justice Rothstein’s replacement be used for future appointments? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Philip Toone:  With regard to fishing in Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, from 1990 to the present: (a) what are the fees and associated costs for fishing permits, broken down by (i) species, (ii) type of equipment used, (iii) province, (iv) year; and (b) what is the total fishing quota for each species, broken down by (i) species, (ii) province, (iii) year?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Hedy Fry:  With regard to food inspections and inspectors from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): (a) how many food inspectors were employed by the CFIA each year from 2006 to 2015; (b) how many food inspector positions were to be filled in each of the years in (a); (c) how many food inspection positions went unfilled in each of the years in (a); (d) what was the percentage of employed food inspectors that were responsible for (i) meat, (ii) dairy, (iii) poultry, (iv) fruits and vegetables; (e) of the positions in (c), which ones went unfilled and for what were they responsible; (f) how many new food inspectors were hired in 2014 and what were their responsibilities; (g) how often are slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities inspected for meat destined for markets in (i) Canada, (ii) the United States, (iii) other countries; (h) is the CFIA aware of any meat processing plants or slaughterhouses that have not been inspected the required number of times each week since January 1, 2013, and, if so, (i) what are the names of those plants, (ii) what was the reason for them not being inspected; (i) are there any facilities in Canada that do not have enough inspectors to meet the required inspection schedules; (j) as of April 29, 2015, how many new inspectors had been hired of the 200 promised by the government in the 2014 Budget; and (k) has the CFIA instructed inspection staff to reduce the number of inspections at any plants across Canada since January 1, 2013, and, if so, (i) what were the names of those plants, (ii) why was the instruction to reduce inspections made? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canada Revenue Agency since January 28, 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? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Emmanuel Dubourg: With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Employment and Social Development 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?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Emmanuel Dubourg:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec since January 22, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contacts' reference numbers; (c) dates of 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? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
John McCallum:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Citizenship and Immigration 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?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Joyce Murray:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Western Economic Diversification 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?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Kevin Lamoureux:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Health Canada 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? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation since January 28, 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?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Kevin Lamoureux:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office 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? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported without amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Northwest Territories had five minutes remaining in his remarks. 
The hon. member for Northwest Territories.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak again to this bill in short order after question period. Prior to question period, I talked about some of the issues that were involved with the bill. I want to speak now about what is ahead of us on family matters.
 I would refer the House to a Globe and Mail article this morning that talked about a Nanos poll. Nanos indicates:
 When asked which federal party was most trusted to help Canadian families, 34 per cent of the poll’s respondents picked the NDP. That compared with the 27 per cent who chose the Liberals and the 26 per cent who chose the Conservatives. 
This speaks directly to the problems with this bill. The Conservatives have proposed an approach on marriage, a part of the family cycle that is so valuable to everyone. They proposed changes to it without consultation with the provinces and territories, putting forward an idea that really does not accomplish much. The laws of duress are already in place. Other countries that have established similar laws have shown no results from them.
What the NDP would do for families and for women to deal with violence was very clearly articulated by the member for Churchill when she put forward Motion No. 444. It was a motion to establish a coordinated national action plan to address violence against women. Part of that would be strategies that address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of different communities, including specific attention to aboriginal women, women with disabilities, women from minority groups, and young women.
What we proposed in our national action plan was to get to the bottom of the issues surrounding groups such as those. Certainly the ideas that the Conservatives are concerned about and would deal with by criminalizing forced marriages would be dealt with inside a framework that would look for actual solutions to the problems rather than by criminalizing those engaged in it, and criminalizing them in a very broad and capricious way that really does not allow for definition or for any kind of rational action on that part.
 I think this is really important, as it comes on the heels of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, which followed many groups in society by asking for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. 
Violence against women is one of the biggest and most pressing problems that we have with families in this country, and the need for that public inquiry is so important. Why is it so important? The Prime Minister said that this is not a social issue. Of course it is a social issue, much as forced marriages are a social issue. All of these are social issues that need to be dealt with in a respectful, responsible fashion. We need to get to the bottom of the issues in society that create the conditions that lead to violence and forced marriages and all of the things that all of us in this House today would not want to have happen in our families, in aboriginal families, or in minority group families. 
Yes, we are concerned about it, but using retail politics to put forward a bill that does nothing except provide a title to an issue is really the wrong approach. That is why the polling results that we see today across this country with respect to who the Canadian population trusts to deal with issues for families are so revealing. We talk about real ways to come to grips with society's ills. That is not through legislation; that is through careful, enunciated conditions that arise out of a careful examination of the issues.
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the member's earlier speech before question period. He made a comment questioning why there would be criminal charges if it is within a family. Child abuse and incest are within a family as well, and thank goodness we have laws against those offences to protect young people across this country.
The member also scoffs at the title of this bill, saying that it should not be called “barbaric cultural practices”. When someone who is a minor, a child, a girl of 12 or 13, is forced into an early marriage with a man 40 years old who is overseas, from another country, that young woman, that young girl, that child is going to be raped every single day for the rest of her life.
How could the member not think that is barbaric? Does he just simply think it is all in the family?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with what the member pointed out that I supposedly said. I will look at the record to make sure that it was not said.
All of the things the member is talking about are laws that now exist in society. All of the things she is talking about are issues that we have legal recourse to deal with in society. Those are not issues that stand outside of society today. 
We support the intent of the bill. We are just saying that it does not work. It will not be competent in what it is going to do for society.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are faced with two typical attitudes.
On the one hand, the Conservatives are saying they want to tackle crime, but they are not providing the means to have a positive impact on victims. On top of that, they allow for a committee study, but then they ignore the recommendations made by experts who work with victims and people who are very familiar with our Criminal Code and immigration act.
On the other hand, we have the Liberals' typical attitude, which is to speak out against a bill, but then turn around and vote for it anyway.
I wonder if these kinds of attitudes surprise my colleague. Personally, I am disappointed, but not all that surprised, unfortunately.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, sincerity in politics is sometimes considerably abused.
In the case of Bill C-51, the Liberals were concerned that by not supporting the bill, they might somehow be tainted in the view of some important constituencies out there, so they decided to support it. I think that is what is going on in this case as well. If the Liberals say they do not like what is in the bill, if they say they think the bill is inadequate and they do not see that it is going to provide the proper results, then, by golly, they should stand up and vote against it. 
We are not here to make bad legislation. We are not here to put laws on the books simply to have laws on the books. We are here to do things for society that work. That is very important. That is why the New Democratic Party is trusted by Canadian families. It is because they know we want to do things that actually work for them.
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill S-7, zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.
The measures contained in Bill S-7 are the culmination of the Government of Canada's commitment to improving protection and support for vulnerable individuals, primarily women and children.
In the most recent Speech from the Throne, our Prime Minister acknowledged that millions of women and girls around the world continue to suffer from violence, including the disturbing practices of early and forced marriage. The Speech from the Throne underscored our government's commitment to ensuring that such barbaric cultural practices do not occur in this country. They have no place here in Canada.
In his appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights on the bill, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made it clear that any practice that involves violence directed at women is barbaric. I think if we asked most Canadians across this country, especially women, they would agree with that statement. 
The measures in the bill would help vulnerable women and children in a number of ways. 
First, it would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 years old, and by codifying the existing legal requirements for free and enlightened consent for marriage and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another. 
They would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practised polygamy in Canada. They 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 marriage ceremonies.
It would also create a new and specific preventive court-ordered peace bond to help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages where there are grounds to fear someone would commit an offence. They would ensure that the defence of provocation would not apply in many spousal homicides and so-called honour killings.
I would like to take a few moments to focus specifically on those measures in Bill S-7 that address early and forced marriages, practices that contradict Canadian values and cause great harm to their victims. 
There is currently no national minimum age for marrying in Canada. Provincial and territorial legislation set out certain ages for additional requirements, such as parental consent for those under the age of majority, or court approval for even younger children. However, they lack the constitutional jurisdiction to set the absolute minimum age below which no child can marry. Again, it is lacking.
Federal law currently sets the absolute minimum age at 16 years old, but only in Quebec. In other parts of Canada, the common law applies because there is no federal legislation. The common law minimum age causes uncertainty. It is usually interpreted as a minimum of 12 years of age for girls and 14 years of age for boys. That is 12 for girls, and 14 for boys.
Amending the Civil Marriage Act to set a national minimum age of 16 years old for marriage would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and will not be tolerated. Even though, in practice, very few marriages in Canada now involve people under the age of 16, it is important that we clarify the law.
Other significant amendments to the Civil Marriage Act proposed in Bill S-7 include codifying the requirement that those getting married must give their free and enlightened consent to marry each other. The amendments would codify the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriage as well.
Continuing on from proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act, Bill S-7 also contains measures that would amend the Criminal Code to help deter and prevent forced or underage marriage. These measures would criminalize knowingly officiating at an underage or forced marriage; actively participating in a wedding ceremony, knowing that one party is marrying another against his or her will or is under 16 years old; and removing a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage.
There is also a new peace bond, which would give courts the power to impose conditions on an individual when there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage, or a marriage under the age of 16, would otherwise occur. The ways such a peace bond could be used to prevent an underage or forced marriage include requiring the surrender of a passport and preventing a child from being taken out of Canada.
This is important for young women, women across this country, and for our children. It would help to prevent family members from taking them out of the country to be forcibly married, without being placed in the difficult situation of requiring individual women or girls to press criminal charges against another family member. 
 All of the provisions in Bill S-7, including those that address underage and forced marriage, would help to ensure that women and girls are protected from isolation and violence. 
Women seeking a better life in Canada should never be subjected to fear and threat of violence or death simply for seeking better opportunities for themselves and living their lives the way they choose to.
We know that immigrant and newcomer women and girls may face additional barriers in protecting themselves and seeking assistance compared to women who are born in Canada. We want to ensure that the protection and assistance they need is available when they need it. Everyone here in Canada deserves the same protection. 
All violence directed against women and girls, including the practices for early and forced marriage, have a very negative impact on families and society in general. They also seriously affect all those who are directly involved, from influencing immigration outcomes, to breaking down opportunities for integration and success and creating isolation and fear.
 Bill S-7 would strengthen our laws, protecting women and girls from violent and barbaric cultural practices. I am sure we would all agree that we must stand up for all victims of violence and abuse and take the necessary actions to prevent these practices from happening in Canada. 
By enacting Bill S-7, our government is sending a strong message to those in Canada, and also those who wish to come to Canada, that we will not tolerate activities in this country that deprive individuals of their human rights. We are sending a signal that we respect the freedom of choice of all individuals, regardless of gender.
That is exactly what we would do by ensuring that the bill is passed into law. I urge all of my hon. colleagues in the House who will be voting on the bill to stand up for the rights of vulnerable women and children, vulnerable women and girls, and join me in supporting the passage of the bill.
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the parliamentary secretary for her hard work on this issue, both in this place, this government, and in her home riding of Scarborough Centre.
Does the parliamentary secretary not agree that the NDP opposing the bill, opposing a minimum age for marriage, opposing the criminalization of facilitation of forced marriage, is absolutely unacceptable in this day and age? We heard testimony at committee of women who had their jaws broken, were forced into marriage, were raped, patterns of rape that threaten to last a lifetime? 
Does she not agree that inaction on these issues, which matter for every Canadian community, every Canadian woman and girl, is absolutely inexcusable, and that the NDP are completely out of line on this front?
[Interjection]
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with everything the minister just said. The NDP members are absolutely on the wrong side of this issue. 
I wrote to the majority of women in my constituency of Scarborough Centre. I outlined the aspects of the bill and I asked for their feedback. Overwhelmingly, every single response that came in agreed on these issues and supported our government's stance. Unfortunately, I did not include in that letter notice of the opposition and obstruction of the bill by both the NDP and the Liberals. It is actually very sad.
Prior to being the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, I sat on the status of women committee and the immigration and citizenship committee, and this issue is very dear to my heart.
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, I was in Malawi three years ago with the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, and I sat in front of a group of women who were begging our association to speak out in Malawi about the issue of early and forced marriage.
I was in Dakar, with the Prime Minister, for the Summit of the Francophonie, and we were taken to a museum where our whole delegation was shown the pictures of girls who had been forced into early marriage. 
I was at the Girl Summit in England last summer, with David Cameron, where the topic of early and forced marriage was the topic of the day.
Our government has put this issue on the table. Our former foreign minister took this to the United Nations and said that Canada was going to lead on this. We are leading on child protection globally. We have put maternal, newborn, and child health on the table, and we have a number of other donor countries that are helping us with this. 
Early and forced marriage is one of the issues that goes against the grain of protecting children. I wonder if my colleague has any comments on why Canada should not take issue with it here at home when we are being so vocal on the world stage.
[Interjection]
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for all of the work she does in this area as well.
Canada is absolutely a leader when it comes to standing up for human rights and the protection of women, girls, and children, for people all around the world. 
As I stated in my previous answer, I did sit on the committee for the status of women, and previously on the citizenship and immigration committee, and this is an issue that is extremely concerning to me. Standing up for the rights of women and the protection of our children is the absolute priority that every single Canadian across this country must take to heart and must stand united on.
 It is very unfortunate that the Liberals and the NDP have voted against this bill, are poised to vote against it again at the next reading, and are trying to obstruct it. I am not sure why. It is perhaps that they are trying to win some votes in certain communities. However, I think many of those same communities that they are trying to win votes from actually support this legislation, for all the reasons that our government has brought it forward.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I am standing in the House to speak out firmly against this bill.
 My intention was to discuss it through two lenses. The first is the lens of unintended consequences, because when we present legislation, we need to think about what the consequences will be. Sometimes there are unintended consequences, and there are a lot in this bill. The second lens I want to apply is what we would do if we actually wanted to stop forced marriages. What kind of legislation or policy could we bring forward if we were really serious about putting an end to underage marriages in Canada? I will talk about those two things, because the NDP is very serious about bringing forward legislation and policy that can put an end to underage marriage and put an end to forced marriages. 
First though, I want to tackle the issue of the title. We heard a little bit of a back and forth between my colleague from Northwest Territories and the parliamentary secretary about the title.
 The title of this bill is the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I have a big problem with this title. The parliamentary secretary stood here, wrung her hands, implored us to think of the children, and asked if this was not a barbaric cultural practice. We all agree that these are terrible practices. However, when we have this kind of provocative title it is not about working together to eliminate this kind of behaviour or these practices. What this title does is fuel racist stereotypes. It creates xenophobia toward very particular groups in Canada. We are targeting particular groups with this title.
I think about the other barbaric cultural practices happening in this country. Why are the Conservatives not standing up against other barbaric cultural practices? I happen to think it is a barbaric cultural practice that a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant is forced to carry that baby to term because she cannot access abortion services in this country. I happen to think it is a barbaric cultural practice, yet I do not see the Conservatives standing up and fighting for that.
I happen to think it is a barbaric cultural practice to force a woman to bring a baby to term if she does not want to have that baby, but we do not see the Conservatives crusading to change the fact that only 16% of hospitals in Canada offer abortion services. They are not champions on the lack of access to abortion services in Canada.
I think it is a barbaric cultural act that we have created a culture that puts such shame on women. It shames them to the point that they will do anything to terminate a pregnancy without having to tell someone, like throwing themselves down the stairs, taking drugs to self-abort, and using coat hangers. I happen to think this is a barbaric cultural practice, yet I hear silence in the House about putting an end to that.
In Prince Edward Island, a woman took medication to induce an abortion and had a complication. She went to the ER. She was bleeding. She did not know if she was bleeding to death. She had no idea. She waited for five hours in the ER. When someone actually came in to talk to her about what was going on, the attending health care provider told her that he was not comfortable treating her and that she should go to Halifax. Halifax is not down the street. Halifax is 300 kilometres away. I happen to think it is a barbaric cultural practice to have left that woman in that ER for five hours, not knowing about the health or the state of her fetus, not knowing about her own health, and not knowing if she was going to bleed to death and then having the doctor say that he was not comfortable treating her.
 I happen to think that was a barbaric cultural practice, yet I do not see the Conservatives standing up to enforce the Canada Health Act to ensure that we have equal access to health services across this country. Come to think of it, I do not see any of the Liberals standing up to talk about this either. It is a Liberal government in P.E.I. There are three Liberal MPs here in the House of Commons, and we have a whole lot of silence when it comes to standing up for women's rights and their ability to access abortion services.
Moving on, let us get back to unintended consequences.
If we are serious about putting an end to these practices, then let us look at how we do it. Let us draft some legislation and think about what the consequences are, both intended and unintended. Unfortunately, there are a lot of unintended consequences here.
 We have heard several of my colleagues talk about these unintended consequences. I think they are really serious. I think they are so serious that we cannot support the bill.
There is something as simple as the definition of polygamy. There is no real definition of polygamy here. We might think we all know what polygamy is, so what is the big deal? Well, it is a big deal. We are playing with people's lives here. We need a definition.
We heard testimony at committee about what would happen if there was a legally sanctioned marriage and one that was not legally sanctioned. For example, a person is married, the partners split up, and the person gets into a common-law relationship. If that first relationship has not been legally terminated and that person is in a new common-law relationship, is that polygamy? We do not know. What may be perceived as a small detail could have serious consequences for all kinds of people in Canada who might not know that they are in a polygamous relationship.
 However, this is a small detail that I can maybe even wrap my head around, but there are other unintended consequences that are beyond the pale. 
If we are trying to help marginalized and disadvantaged women, then we cannot put them in situations where they are so fearful that they cannot come forward. We heard tons of expert testimony about this. It is actually shocking when we look at the transcripts from committee how passionate some of these witnesses were about the fact that this legislation would drive those women deeper underground. If we want to help these women and children, we cannot have them be fearful that they will be deported.
Imagine if this deportation happened. It would not be just for the big bad guy we are always talking about, the one who is forcing a little girl into marriage. I heard the minister talk about forced rape for the rest of her life. If that little girl does not know she can get protection from our government, why would she come forward? If there are laws that say that everyone involved in a polygamous marriage will be deported, that will include that little girl. How does it help that little girl to send her to another country where there are no protections, where there probably are not even opportunities for her to go to school? 
How about we put an end to that kind of barbaric cultural practice? Imagine sending a little girl out of the country when all she wants is protection. That is an unintended consequence I cannot get past. The legislation before us is full of these unintended consequences.
 I will skip to how we can work together. We had some really good testimony at committee about how we need to have institutional support for these victims. We can have that kind of support without alienating and harming the women who are involved in forced marriage and gender-based violence. We need to have those institutional supports for them.
UNICEF talks a lot about the fact that if we are going to protect children from human trafficking, we have to recognize the failures in the system that allow those women and children to be trafficked. We have to recognize that they often come from low-income families without access to community support, without access to settlement services, and without access to people in the community they can turn to about their situation to ask for help.
If we were serious, we could get together, sit down, scrap Bill S-7, and start over. We would come to the table and talk about what would help these women and children and what kinds of supports we could give them. I do not think deporting them is exactly what we had in mind when we thought we wanted to put an end polygamy, underage marriage, and forced marriage in this country. I do not think that is the right solution. I think if we took our partisan hats off for a minute, many of us would come to that conclusion.
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it must have been very painful for the member opposite to make that speech, because she clearly understands that women are facing violence in our country and are facing barbaric practices, yet she just spent 10 minutes telling the House and all Canadians why there is no need to take action with legislation to protect women and girls. 
The member said that settlement services are needed and that funding and programs are needed to protect women and girls who are victims of forced marriage, polygamy, sexual violence, or honour-based violence. Yet she will not, and the NDP will not, afford these same women and girls the protection of the law, of Canadian statute, of the Criminal Code. 
Why does the member not accept that there should be a minimum age for marriage in our country? Why does the member not understand that there is a definition of polygamy in this law and in this country, and it is marriage to multiple people? Why does she not understand those basic facts? Why is she not willing to take action to protect women and girls today?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, it was not painful for me to give that speech at all. It might have been painful for the minister to hear it, because I was speaking the truth, and that probably hurt a little.
The NDP is really clear. It supports a minimum age for marriage. Full stop, period. 
I know I cannot ask him a question back, but if he gets another chance to stand, I would ask him to answer this question. How does deporting a woman or a girl who is in a forced marriage protect her? It is beyond any kind of comprehension to think that this is what would help women. If we were going to help women, we would have an opportunity for them to exit that marriage, not for us to kick them out of the country. I would love for him to answer that. 
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Halifax for the speech she just delivered to the House.
During the debate on this bill, we have been talking a lot about trying to help women. Women are generally marginalized enough already. Is marginalizing them even more with Bill S-7 really a step in the right direction?
I would just like to hear what my colleague from Halifax thinks about the Conservatives' chronic hypocrisy when it comes to the status of women in general in Canada. The first thing that comes to mind is the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women. The Conservatives refuse to take any action on that or follow the recommendations made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
Could my colleague comment on the Conservatives' double-talk and hypocrisy regarding the marginalization of women in Canada?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for her question. She underscored the double-talk aspect.
What we have here in the House is legislation that proposes to put an end to barbaric practices. What about the fact that if someone is an aboriginal women, she is more likely to be murdered than someone who looks like me. I do not think that is justice. I do not think that is the kind of Canada we intended to create. However, we are there. Why are we not taking action? There was a truth and reconciliation commission. The report said clearly that it was cultural genocide that was attempted in residential schools. How is it that we do not see any action? There were 94 recommendations, and we have not heard a peep.
If we want to talk about hypocrisy, it is pretty easy. Just come into the House and listen to what the Conservatives have to say about some groups but not others. They are certainly leaving the first nations communities out in the cold. 
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. 
Our government is committed to protecting young women and girls from early and forced marriage and other barbaric practices. During my speech, I would like to highlight the provisions of the bill that are designed to protect Canadian children from early and forced marriage. 
Although we lack national statistics on the incidence of early and forced marriage among children in Canada because these practices are kept hidden, there are indications that children in Canada are in fact subjected to the barbaric practices of early and forced marriage. According to the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario's study on forced marriages, in Ontario between 2010 and 2012, 10% of the 219 victims identified were between the ages of 12 and 15 and 25% were between the ages of 16 and 18. 
International studies have shown that girls are predominantly the victims of a child marriage, increasing their risk of being exposed to violence and complications in childbirth and creating a significant barrier to achieving gender equality, as they are regularly forced to disrupt or abandon their education.
A number of witnesses testified during the committee's hearings about the very disturbing cases of girls in Canada who had been forced to marry or who had been taken abroad to get married, despite their young age or lack of consent. In some instances, young girls are tricked into leaving the country, supposedly to attend a wedding ceremony of a relative, only to discover that the wedding is their own.
While there are currently some legislative tools available in Canada to prevent and respond to underage and forced marriages of children, there are some significant gaps in the law that Bill S-7 aims to fill. 
First, there is currently no national minimum age below which children are not legally capable of consenting to marriage. In Canada, the free age of marriage—the age at which children become adults and can give consent to marry on their own, with no additional requirements—is 18 or 19 years of age, depending on the province or territory where the marriage takes place.
All provincial and territorial marriage acts set out additional requirements for minors to marry, such as parental consent, a court order, or proof of pregnancy. Under the Constitution, setting the absolute minimum age for marriage is a matter of federal jurisdiction. However, apart from federal legislation that sets the minimum age of 16 years for marriages in Quebec, the minimum age elsewhere in Canada is set out in the common law, or court decisions. This old common law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls. There is no clear minimum age across the country setting the absolute minimum age.
Bill S-7 would enact changes to the Civil Marriage Act that would effectively prevent marriage of any person under the age of 16 from occurring anywhere in Canada. This will close the current legislative gap and set a national minimum age for marriage across Canada that would be consistent with countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Further, by making all children under age 16 legally incapable of consenting to marriage, Bill S-7 would also ensure that if a child is taken out of Canada and married in a country where such child marriages are legal, upon the child's return to Canada, the underage marriage would be voidable because the child lacked the legal capacity to marry.
Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code to provide criminal protections against underage and forced marriages. The new provisions are directed to the public sanctioning of an underage and forced marriage ceremony, which creates an unwanted and harmful legal bond within which sexual offences are expected to occur.
The two new offences would criminalize conduct related to knowingly officiating or knowingly and actively participating in a marriage ceremony in which one or both of the spouses is either under the age of 16 or marrying against their will. While a person will not be prosecuted for just being a guest at the wedding, those who conduct the marriage ceremony and those, including family members, who actively engage in conduct directed at facilitating the underage or forced marriage ceremony with full knowledge that one party is underage or marrying against his or her will may be criminally liable.
In keeping with the objective of the criminal law to deter people from committing crimes, these new provisions send a clear and important message about the need for all Canadians to reject the misguided belief that any underage or forced marriage can be in a child's best interest.
As well, the bill would make it an offence to remove a child from Canada for the purposes of a forced or underage marriage ceremony outside of Canada. It would build upon an existing provision in the Criminal Code that makes it an offence to remove a child for the purposes of committing certain crimes, such as child sexual offences and female genital mutilation.
Bill S-7 would add the new offences related to officiating or actively participating in an underage or forced marriage ceremony to the list of offences in the existing provision. This would effectively punish those who attempt to, or who do, remove a child from Canada for the purposes of an underage or forced marriage ceremony abroad. It should also serve to prevent these removals from taking place at all because it would allow officials to intervene before the child left the country.
Without this amendment, the current law requires authorities to have evidence that a sexual offence is intended to be committed abroad following the marriage. With the amendment, evidence of an intended forced or early marriage will enable preventive measures to be taken.
I want to take this opportunity to respond to comments that I have heard many times about how child victims of forced marriages are reluctant to contact the authorities prior to the marriage because they do not want their parents or other relatives prosecuted.
The Criminal Code amendments in Bill S-7 that I have just noted would provide the foundation for a very important prevention measure. Bill S-7 would provide for specific forced or underage marriage peace bonds, which would provide courts with the power to impose conditions on an individual when there were reasonable grounds to fear that a forced or underage marriage would otherwise occur.
For example, an order under the new peace bond provision could prevent a victim from being taken out of Canada or require the surrender of a passport. These peace bonds are available to victims who want protection but do not want their parents or other relatives prosecuted. People subjected to peace bonds are not charged with a criminal offence unless they breach the conditions of the order.
It is important to point out that a third party, such as a social worker, a police officer or a relative, can intervene to request the peace bond on the child's behalf. 
It is important that everyone know and understand that this conduct is illegal because it is the most vulnerable in our society, our children, who suffer serious harm when forced, usually by their family members, to marry underage or against their will. How can we not do everything possible to stop this?
Our government is taking steps to strengthen the laws to help to ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of early or forced marriage, polygamy, so-called honour-based violence or any other form of harmful cultural practices.
I am proud to support the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and I agree with a number of things she said.
Firstly, I agree on the intention of the bill. It is important to act swiftly and forcefully to address inexcusable and cruel crimes like the ones she mentioned. Secondly, I agree with the hon. member when she says that this type of violence against women and children is completely unacceptable, even barbaric, if that is truly the word they want to use. We all agree on that.
The thing we disagree on is the most effective way of fighting this type of crime. The debate we are having is not unreasonable, considering that so many experts who work with victims and who have expertise in the Criminal Code and immigration law raised some legitimate concerns. It is disappointing to see that despite all these interventions by experts in committee, the government did not accept any amendments and did not even question what it is proposing.
Can my colleague tell me whether she knew about the warnings issued by people who are saying, for example, that the victims will shy away from asking for help—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The parliamentary secretary.
[Interjection]
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, no government has done more to protect women and girls than this government with a number of the legislation we have put forward. I have read carefully the testimony that was presented at committee. I would remind the member that the provisions in the bill would allow women and girls to be protected through this legislation.
For example, currently there is no clear minimum age across the country. Setting the absolute minimum age for marriage falls under federal jurisdiction. The measures in the act would go very far in protecting all women and girls.
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about the national minimum age. Quite frankly, I was surprised to learn that there was no national minimum age.
 She also spoke about some international focus on this topic. Could the member talk about some of the other countries that have set a national minimum age, and what is Canada doing in light of those decisions other countries have made?
[Interjection]
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway and the U.K. have 16 as the minimum wage below which no one can marry, even with parental consent. This is consistent with the approach in the bill that we are debating here today.
 Several like-minded countries have set 18 as the age of marriage without additional consent from parents or the courts, but have no minimum age of marriage, for example, Belgium, France, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and most of the United States. This is similar to the current law in Canada.
Setting a national minimum age of 16 years for marriage is consistent with the current federal legislation that applies only with regard to the province of Quebec. It is also consistent with what happens now in Canada, where very few provinces have set that. It does fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government to set this minimum age.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Alfred-Pellan in Laval, whom I have been fortunate to represent for the past four years.
Today, I am speaking 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, or as the Conservatives like to call it, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.
In the speeches that were made today, I heard many references to equal opportunities for women and the marginalization of women. I would really like to talk about that aspect in particular. However, first, I would like to mention a few little things that are directly related to the Conservative government's proposal and the work that my colleagues on this side of the House have done on Bill S-7.
To begin, I would like to thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, our immigration critic, who did an incredible job examining Bill S-7. I saw the work that she did in committee and the amendments that she wants to propose. She has my full support for the amendments she wants to make to improve Bill S-7, as it now stands.
First of all, I have to say that I support the intent of the bill, which seeks to combat polygamy and forced and underage marriage. I also recognize that any violence against women and children is completely unacceptable and that there is still a lot of work to be done to prevent and crack down on these crimes.
However, I remain convinced that this bill does not adequately respond to such serious problems. In fact, Bill S-7 could make existing problems worse. It is important to mention that no woman should be subjected to gender-based violence, and that includes forced and underage marriage. This bill could inadvertently have very serious consequences for women and children by putting more social pressure on the victims of forced marriage and deporting victims of polygamy, for example.
If, as they often say, the Conservatives really care about the victims, they will heed the warnings of the different experts who appeared before the committee and conduct more detailed studies before adopting measures such as the ones proposed here. Instead of focusing on such a sensationalistic bill, with the short title proposed by the Conservatives, a bill that does not address the root of the problem, I sincerely believe that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should conduct serious, large-scale consultations with community groups and experts to fix the real problem of sexual violence.
There are a number of things that the government could do to help women who are marginalized. Despite the fact that the number of women MPs in the House of Commons has reached a record high, women have a long way to go to achieve equal representation. However, I hope we will steadily approach that target as more women stand for office. Nonetheless, there are different measures that the government could adopt to help women throughout the world take an interest in politics—whether municipal, provincial or federal—and in changing laws to meet their needs. We know that when more women hold power, the laws and approaches are very different. Problems are solved by women for women. It has been shown that it is very positive to have a parliament composed of 50% or more women. This leads to changes in the bills that are introduced.
This is an extremely sensationalistic bill, and I deplore that. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House will take the time to examine the amendments put forward by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, who simply wants to bring some common sense to this bill. Once again, I still believe in and have a lot of faith in this Parliament, and that will not stop. I sincerely believe that we can work together.
The House of Commons has committees to study bills with various experts, such as community leaders and experts in general law, civil law or immigration. 
These experts did not have harsh words, but they did share some concerns. On this side of the House I would say that we did some worthwhile work with the proposals made by the experts and others invited to the committee. We took their ideas to try to improve this bill, because what we have been trying to propose all along is common sense. However, the concrete measures set out in Bill S-7 will unfortunately not have the desired impact.
I am making a heartfelt plea to the Minister of Immigration today. I ask him to consider these amendments, eliminate the sensationalistic and partisan aspects of this bill, and bring some common sense to this bill. A real consultation on Bill S-7 is needed.
From what I read of the testimony, there was a lack of consultation. I would like to quote a statement by Action Canada for Sexual Rights and Health:
 The bill reflects a lack of consultation (closed-door meetings and invitation-only consultations), and a lack of transparency, participation and public debate. The proposed amendments are not based on the experiences of women and girls who have survived acts of violence, such as forced marriage. 
That is pretty serious testimony about the lack of consultation. I sincerely believe that if a bill purports to help women and children across Canada in terms of forced marriage and violence against women, it should include real solutions to help them. 
All members of the House are very familiar with the organizations in their ridings and the incredible work they do. In Laval, many organizations work to help women in various ways. They might be active in politics, encouraging women to run for office and participate actively in elections. Organizations also help women who are often in need. One that comes to mind is the Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House also have Afeas in their ridings. I see my colleague from Laval—Les Îles nodding. That organization is very visible in my riding; I am speaking for both of us. Afeas is very visible in Laval. Its goal is to help women, help them escape marginalization and misery, and ensure that women have the same rights as men across the country. So much needs to be done.
I see that my time is almost up, but I would like to comment briefly on what could be done to help women across the country. It is not necessarily just what is being put forward in Bill S-7. There are a lot of things we could do to help women in different communities.
When I asked my colleague from Halifax a question, I mentioned the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which recently submitted its report and 94 recommendations. I think the federal government has a role to play in about a good third of the recommendations. It could do something about the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women all across Canada. It should have done something about that issue a long time ago. I truly believe that if the government really wanted to help murdered and missing indigenous women and their families, it would do something.
A number of other subjects could have been addressed to end the marginalization of women. Two examples that come to mind are pay equity and women's leadership on corporate boards, whether public or private. Something really meaningful could have been done.
Regarding Bill S-7, I have to point out again that we could make it better. It is not too late. The NDP has proposed some amendments. I still hope that the Conservatives will agree to compromise a little, ensure that these amendments are incorporated into the bill and put an end to all the smoke and mirrors. In the end, that is all that Bill S-7 really is.
Marc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, one way to evaluate the quality of a bill is to look at how it could change things in very real situations, instead of listening to the wild speculation coming from across the aisle. For instance, in the case of the Shafia family, how would this legislation have changed things for the women in that family? They would have most likely been deported back to Afghanistan, where they could have been quietly killed, away from prying eyes. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. 
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his questions and his interest in Bill S-7.
As I said, a number of things could be done differently when it comes to Bill S-7. It is up to the Conservatives to make the necessary concrete changes to the bill.
We are proposing some extremely worthwhile improvements to the bill. For example, the government could commit to consulting stakeholders, such as front-line workers and experts, on the programs and measures that would most effectively prevent and combat gender-based violence and the best ways to put these practices in place in Canada.
We are also proposing that the government recognize the need to provide more prevention services and support to the victims of forced and underage marriages and female victims of any type of violence.
These very sensible suggestions were made by a host of witnesses and experts. These are concrete ideas. It is a matter of putting in place prevention and education measures. To me it makes sense.
I sincerely hope that the government will support the amendments proposed by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Mr. Speaker, It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Tuesday, June 9, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House. 
 The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 10.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  I declare Motion No. 4 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 5 to 7, 9, and 11 to 17 defeated.
(Motions Nos. 4 to 7, 9 and 11 to 17 negatived)
 Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the report stage of the bill, however, pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 15, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find agreement to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Accordingly the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Small and Medium-Sized Businesses[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak about the credit card fees that businesses are charged.
I have been working on this campaign for a few years, since 2013, because over the past four years I have heard countless stories from people in my riding about very high credit card interest rates and the exorbitant fees that small businesses are charged by credit card companies such as Visa and MasterCard. Today, we are basically talking about the fees that businesses are charged by credit card companies when consumers make purchases.
In Canada, the processing fee for credit card payments varies between 1.5% and 4% of the purchase price. In 2012, retailers paid $832 million in credit card charges. This is significant, and it is quite a staggering amount for our small business people. 
In 2009, the NDP moved a motion in the House asking the Government of Canada to put in place a binding law—“binding” is the key word—to protect Canadians against excessive credit card interest rates.
However, although the NDP's motion has the support of many Canadian merchant associations, the government still has not passed binding legislation. Instead, the Conservative government opted for a voluntary code of conduct. We know that this does not work for the major credit card companies.
Motion No. 574, which we are debating today, calls on the government to reduce the burden on businesses and consumers by reducing the transaction fees charged to merchants by credit card companies.
The motion also calls on the government to allow merchants to disclose to the consumer the transaction costs relating to the payment method chosen. This is very important, since consumers are not properly informed. They do not necessarily know that when they use their Visa or MasterCard, the merchant is required to pay exorbitant fees.
Unfortunately there is a lack of awareness. That is why I launched a campaign in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles in 2013 to talk about these transaction fees.
The NDP wants a law that will set a limit on these transaction fees. We also held consultations across the country to develop a clear position on this. At the time, our consumer protection critic travelled all over the country and organized a number of round tables on the subject. Six recommendations came out of those round tables. I would like to share them with you.
 First, the NDP recommends the development of robust regulations for electronic and mobile payments in order to establish standards and make the rules transparent and fair for all stakeholders, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, entrepreneurs and consumers. 
We are also calling on the government to tighten the loopholes in the pre-existing governance structure of the payments system to ensure that processors are not taking advantage of these loopholes to the detriment of Canadian merchants. 
We recommend continued support for the Interac payment system, which provides businesses and consumers with a safe, secure and cost-effective means of processing electronic payments in Canada. 
Very few people know that merchants pay a fixed 12¢ fee for every Interac transaction. That is much lower than the fees they may have to pay when customers pay by credit card.
We also recommend ordering the public disclosure of the cost per transaction of the merchant discount rate charged to Canadian companies by issuers of credit cards and other methods of payment. These costs affect companies' competitiveness and retail prices. We want consumers to be educated and aware of the practices and fees associated with using these cards.
We also recommend disclosing to consumers at the point of sale the hidden cost to the retailer of the method of payment used.
Lastly, we recommend establishing dispute resolution processes that are more efficient for merchants and take into account how financial institutions' payment processing services work.
I would like to provide a little background on this file and all of the recommendations and observations of the past few years. Seven years ago, in 2008, several retail associations, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Retail Council of Canada and the Small Business Matters Coalition, launched national lobbying campaigns against the exorbitant merchant fees charged by credit card companies. 
In July 2013, the Competition Tribunal of Canada said that the conditions imposed by Visa and MasterCard on Canadian businesses were anti-competitive and that the fees they charged were excessive. The tribunal called on the government to intervene in the market to correct these problems. The government has since reacted by simply introducing a voluntary code for credit card companies, a code that does not work. That is why the Small Business Matters Coalition and most of the small retailers we talked to are dissatisfied with the government's measures. The government must act and take measures to impose binding laws that cap the excessive fees charged to retailers.
The fees paid in Canada are among the highest in the world. The average rate is more than 2% in Canada, whereas it is roughly only 1% in Australia and 0.79% in the United Kingdom. Those countries have taken measures to cap credit card transaction fees. It is therefore possible to regulate the abusive practices of banks. It is done in other countries. Unfortunately, the banks and the oil companies have this majority government in their pockets. That is why the government does not want to do anything about this. Political will is needed to deal with this and on this side of the House, we want to regulate the abusive practices of the banks.
Choosing to not regulate credit card transaction fees is regressive. It only helps those who can afford credit cards that give them rich rewards and very high points. A document published in 2009 by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston estimated that, on average, each cash-using household actually pays $149 to card-using households every year. What is more, because of the demographics of credit card users and those who use cash or debit cards, this is in fact a regressive transfer from poor consumers to rich consumers. If we really want to reduce inequality in Canada, then capping credit card transaction fees is one way to do that. When I go door-knocking in my riding, my constituents also ask me to put a limit on credit card interest rates.
Political will is needed to protect consumers from the abusive practices of the banks. The NDP will protect consumers when we form the next government of Canada.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the motion brought forward by my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, which is very timely. There is a lot of talk these days about standing up for consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. This issue was addressed in the government's throne speech and two most recent budgets. However, the Conservatives are a long way from walking the walk.
The motion addresses an issue that all small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec and Canada really deplore, credit card interchange fees, which are borne by businesses. These fees are extremely high in Canada. They are usually about 1.5%, but they can be as high as 4% in the case of premium credit cards, which allow cardholders to collect points that they can exchange for goods and services. People need to realize that these cards, although beneficial to the cardholder, are largely paid for by merchants themselves and by other consumers. It is basically a brilliant marketing and advertizing strategy thought up by credit card companies. However, at the end of the day, they entail additional fees that are assumed by all consumers and that contribute to price increases.
I say that because in some places outside Canada, whether it be in Australia or even the European Union, a cap has been placed on these fees. In many cases, small businesses have profit margins of 5%, 6% or 7%, which is not very much. When credit card payments eat up between 1.5% and 4% of that profit margin, it becomes very difficult for these small businesses to survive. What other choice do they have? The only other choice is to no longer accept credit cards.
We know full well that in this day and age, refusing to accept credit cards puts businesses at a huge disadvantage because many people use their credit cards for everyday purchases. Refusing to accept credit cards seems to be the only option for these companies, but it is not a realistic one, because obviously, customers who cannot use their credit card and are not in the habit of using a debit card or cash may choose to shop somewhere else.
This motion is very timely because it confirms the official opposition's intention to cap credit card interchange fees. It also confirms our intention to no longer rely solely on the voluntary code that the Conservatives seem so proud of, but to set real restrictions that will benefit all SMEs, merchants and, by extension, consumers.
The government is saying that it has already negotiated with Visa and MasterCard, which are the two major credit card companies, to ensure that they will voluntarily agree to set a limit on interchange fees. However, that is not enough. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other businesses and organizations representing small businesses and the business community are still on edge and still do not know when Visa and MasterCard might change their minds and do something to violate this voluntary code.
Instead of a voluntary code, what we really need are federal regulations. We could always discuss how to apply the regulations and their parameters. However, it is clear that the government can play a role in a market such as the credit card market, which is neither free nor competitive, but is a duopoly. Visa and MasterCard control approximately 92% of the market. Even a known quantity like American Express cannot bite into the market share of Visa and Mastercard. When we are faced with a duopoly, there is an imperfect market, a failure of market forces. In that sense, the government is completely justified in intervening to protect the consumer, the industry and business.
We can look to the regulations, such as these, that have been adopted in other countries. Australia is an interesting example. I am not saying that this is what an NDP government would do, but it does deserve to be studied.
In Australia, the decision to cap interchange fees is made by the Reserve Bank of Australia. It is not up to the federal government to make that decision, which is not a bad thing, but up to the body responsible for the country's monetary policy. This is an interesting approach, and it demonstrates that such regulations or such an approach can be successfully implemented. Our interchange fees vary between 1.5% and 4%, but Australia has managed to decrease its fees significantly.
Elsewhere, the European Union has just adopted regulations that will impose a cap of 0.3% on credit card fees paid by merchants and a cap of 0.5% on debit card fees. We clearly see that there is the political will in Europe to tackle a real situation that penalizes small and medium-sized business.
The European Union just limited this rate to 0.3%, and in 2006, Australia reduced it to 0.5%. Of course, Visa, MasterCard and other credit card companies will say that this will destroy them and that they will not be able to provide efficient service if the market is disrupted like this. That is what they said in Australia to try to halt the efforts of the Australian government. They said that if the government got involved, the consequences would be disastrous.
In reality, credit card use continued to increase after 2006. There was no disruption to Australia's credit card system. The companies adapted. They lowered their costs elsewhere and adapted to their decreased revenues as a result of the Australian government's regulations. 
It is clear that we need to do something. The merchants I speak to in my riding are happy with voluntary codes of conduct. However, when I speak to them about the interchange fees they have to pay for using credit cards, the reaction is overwhelming. These fees eat into their profit margin, which is often not very high.
When I speak to them about the NDP's proposal, the motion moved by my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, they see a real desire to make meaningful changes. That is the best gift we can give our artists and our merchants, who simply want to provide services in their communities and grow their businesses. However, in order to do so they must be able to set aside this profit margin for future investments, in order to have a greater presence on the domestic market within their community.
That is why they wholeheartedly welcome the NDP's proposal, which is well known. Three years ago, I worked alongside the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who was our tourism and SME critic at the time. We launched a campaign to raise awareness among small business owners and the business community in Quebec and Canada. 
At the time, it was the member for Sudbury who was leading the campaign in the rest of the country. The campaign was very popular, both among chambers of commerce and such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That was three years ago already, but we still need to implement this measure. It was already overdue even before that campaign began, which is why we will continue to advocate for stricter regulations.
The motion brought forward by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is therefore most welcome. It reveals what direction the official opposition plans to take, once we form the new NDP government in October 2015, in order to help small businesses and merchants in Quebec and Canada deal with the various challenges they face by limiting credit card interchange fees.
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, for me, the position of the government is a deception, but absolutely not a surprise. Why? It is because in the House, there are two sides. One side is the side of Canada and of Canadians. It is the side of the spirit of Tommy Douglas, a great Canadian. This Canadian developed a policy to include economic development and social solidarity. At the same time, everybody had a job and the respect and help of the state. 
The other side is the side of great American losers. This un-Canadian government is motivated by the spirit of George W. Bush, a great loser. Those guys are on the other side. Presently, this un-Canadian government refuses to help small Canadian enterprises. Imagine: the result of the un-Canadian government policy is a 2% rate for credit cards in Canada for small enterprises, but in the European Union it is 0.3% and in Australia it is 0.5%, a fraction of the present rate.
For this reason, it is a clear deception, but absolutely not a surprise. Each time this un-Canadian government has a chance to sabotage the Canadian economy, it does not lose the opportunity. It transformed Canada into a kingdom of corporate welfare dumps. That is it. That is all.
It is our choice. We refuse to have such a Canada, and in the next election, Canadians will vote for a Canadian party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen:  
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 17, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:42 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:42 p.m.)