Bill S-7 (Historical)

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

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

Part 1 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to specify that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of practising polygamy in Canada.
Part 2 amends the Civil Marriage Act to provide for the legal requirements for a free and enlightened consent to marriage and for any previous marriage to be dissolved or declared null before a new marriage is contracted. Those requirements are currently provided for in the Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1 only in respect of Quebec and under the common law in the other provinces. It also amends the Civil Marriage Act to provide for the requirement of a minimum age of 16 years for marriage. This requirement is currently provided for in the Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1 only in respect of Quebec.
Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to
(a) clarify that it is an offence for an officiant to knowingly solemnize a marriage in contravention of federal law;
(b) provide that it is 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;
(c) provide that it is an offence to remove a child from Canada with the intention that an act be committed outside Canada that, if it were committed in Canada, would constitute the offence of celebrating, aiding or participating in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that the child is doing so against their will or is under the age of 16 years;
(d) provide that a judge may order a person to enter into a recognizance with conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the purpose of preventing the person from committing an offence relating to the marriage of a person against their will or the marriage of a person under the age of 16 years or relating to the removal of a child from Canada with the intention of committing an act that, if it were committed in Canada, would be such an offence; and
(e) provide that the defence of provocation is restricted 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.
Finally, the enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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—

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

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?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

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.

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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I saw that my friend the opposition House leader was out in the foyer of the House of Commons yesterday having a press conference at which he showcased the incredible productivity of the House of Commons during the 41st Parliament. Of course, these were actually Conservative initiatives he had on display, which were passed thanks to our diligent, hard-working, orderly, and productive approach to Parliament. However, I sincerely appreciate the New Democrats' efforts to associate themselves with the record of legislative achievement that our government has demonstrated.

Before getting to the business for the coming few days, I am sure that hon. members and Canadians will have noticed that we have been bringing forward a number of pieces of legislation in recent days, and we will continue to do so for the days to come.

These bills will give effect to important policy initiatives that the Conservative government believes are important for Canada's future. Together they form the beginning of a substantial four-year legislative agenda that our Conservative government will begin to tackle under the Prime Minister's leadership after being re-elected on October 19.

Thanks to the productive, hard-working, and orderly approach that I just spoke about, we have delivered real results on our legislative agenda. In fact, over 90% of the bills that were introduced by our Conservative government between the 2013 Speech from the Throne and the beginning of last month will become law before Parliament rises for the summer.

Now I will go on to the schedule for the coming days.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law, at third reading. I am optimistic that we can pass it later today so that the other place will have a chance to pass it this spring.

I also hope that we will have an opportunity to have some debate today on Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations bill.

Tomorrow, we will finish the report stage debate on Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. Early and forced marriages, honour-based violence and polygamy should not be tolerated on Canadian soil, but unfortunately the opposition disagree and are striving to rob Bill S-7 of its entire content.

On Monday, we will consider Bill C-59, the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, at third reading. This bill will reduce taxes, deliver benefits to every Canadian family, encourage savings with enhanced tax free savings accounts, lower the tax rates for small businesses, introduce the home accessibility tax credit, expand compassionate leave provisions—and the list goes on.

Tuesday will see the House debate Bill S-7 at third reading.

On Wednesday, we will take up third reading of Bill S-4, Digital Privacy Act, which will provide new protections for Canadians when they surf the web and shop online.

On Thursday I will give priority to any legislation to be considered at the report or third reading stages. On that list will be Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference bill, which would help keep our laws up to date in response to emerging scientific and technical recommendations.

Bill C-50, the citizen voting act, will also be considered once it has been reported back from the procedure and House affairs committee. This legislation would play an important role in accommodating the decision of the Ontario Superior Court should we not have the benefit of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in time for this year's election.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that the government is imposing yet another gag order today—the 99th one—on a very controversial bill that could have serious unintended consequences.

What is more, this bill originated in the Senate. It is a poorly designed bill introduced by unelected senators that could have serious consequences for people we want to protect.

Under this legislation, if a man is found guilty of violence against his wife or their children, the entire family, including the victims, could be deported. The bill could also split up families, which is something that the victims do not want to happen.

There really was not enough consultation with experts. The NDP wanted to make all sorts of amendments. However, the Conservatives simply dismissed those amendments even though they knew that experts had asked that we make them in order to improve Bill S-7, which is before us today.

In addition to all of these shortcomings, this bill does not address the issue of affordable housing, for example, or support for families in the area of prevention. These families are often already traumatized by what is happening to them, and now all of those resources are going to be taken from them.

In reality, this bill does not even offer them those resources. That critical aspect is missing from this bill, but the Conservatives have still decided to impose a gag order and ram this bill through. This bill does not make any sense because the serious consequences it could have will cause even more harm to families that have already been traumatized by violence.

It therefore does not make any sense to keep going full steam ahead with this. We need to take the time to look at a number of aspects of the bill to make sure that it is balanced and good for victims.

I do not understand why the Conservatives refuse to see that and how they can continue to suggest that they are taking care of victims of violence.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments illustrate how urgent it is to move forward with this bill. Since the beginning of the debate on Bill S-7, the NDP has been advising inaction when it comes to underage marriage, forced marriage and polygamy. These are problems faced by hundreds of millions of women and girls around the world, and Canada is no exception.

If the hon. member had paid attention to the 25 witnesses in committee and the 17 members of the House of Commons who spoke, most of whom supported this bill, she would have realized that this is not only necessary, but urgent.

It is unacceptable that Canada still does not have a minimum age for marriage like Quebec does. The NDP is basically saying that girls 11 or 12 have the right to be legally married in Canada. That is completely unacceptable. The NDP is incapable of supporting a single measure to protect women and girls and prevent those who are in a polygamous marriage from entering Canada through our immigration programs or by any other means. The time has come to pass this bill.

Bill S-7--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the report stage and third reading stage 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.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at a future sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings of the said stages of the said bill.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government, of course, continues on its commitment to help out families, not just by lowering the costs they pay for products and services but, most important, by lowering taxes that they are required to pay to the government and providing more money in their pockets to help them make ends meet. We think that is one of the most meaningful things we can do as a government: help Canadians succeed and meet their aspirations and dreams for a brighter future.

This afternoon will be dedicated to today’s NDP’s opposition day motion.

Tomorrow, we will wrap up the third reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This will be the sixth day of debate for that particular piece of legislation, which would support economic development north of 60 while ensuring the preservation of the environment.

Monday shall be the eighth allotted day when we will debate another NDP opposition day motion. Regrettably, I have noticed that the NDP leader has never taken me up on my suggestion that he allow the House an extended debate on one of their proposals, under Standing Order 81(16)(a). As a result, next week, we will have the 88th time-allocated opposition day of this Parliament.

That evening, as required by the Standing Orders, we will debate the main estimates. Then, we will consider an appropriations bill, the supplementary estimates, followed by a second appropriations bill.

Tuesday morning, we will consider Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at report stage. This legislation will help streamline regulations and ensure that important safety rules keep up with evolving developments and standards.

In the afternoon, we will take up Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015, No. 1, at report stage, in anticipation that it will be reported back to the House tomorrow.

This package of essential measures—such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit, and a reduction to the small business income tax—is an important priority for our Conservative government and I think, more important, a priority for Canadian families.

Since the budget was delivered this spring, however, the Liberal leader has let us and all Canadians in on his economic plans.

First, we learned he thinks that “benefiting every single family is not...fair”.

Then, he topped it off when he told Canadians that the Liberals are looking at a mandatory expansion of the Canada pension plan. That would mean a $1,000 tax hike for a typical earner and for that earner's employer, and that $1,000 tax increase on two sides would be a significant potential impairment and drag on our economy. Certainly, it would be a huge drag on the personal finances of Canadian families.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill C-59, if additional time is needed.

Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-35, which is the justice for animals in service act, Quanto's law, at report stage and, ideally, third reading.

This is an important bill, which would ensure appropriate criminal penalties for killing or harming police animals and other service animals—dogs, horses, and so on—and speedy consideration of it would be favourable because that would allow it to pass and make it to the Senate for its consideration this spring.

I would remind the House the bill has already received four days of second reading debate and was in the justice committee for over five months.

That afternoon, we will again consider Bill S-2, and I hope it will be at third reading.

Next Friday, we will return to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, at report stage. The House will recall that we are debating the opposition's amendments to gut the bill of its entire contents—contents that demonstrate our Conservative government's commitment to end violence against women and girls.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from York South—Weston.

I want to say at the outset of this debate that one should always be suspicious of legislation from the Conservatives that bears titles such as “common sense”, because we know that there may be a bit of an issue with the packaging and marketing of what they are doing.

I listened as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification and the member for Sault Ste. Marie began their debates in this place, and it was very clear from the outset what this bill is all about. It is about trying to create a wedge issue. They are trying to slam the Liberals for their apparent support of a long-gun registry, which has been denied; trying to suggest that the NDP would somehow bring back a long-gun registry, which is not the case; and mentioning by name many of the members of the NDP in northern ridings to suggest that this is what a common sense firearms licensing act is about. We know what this is about. It is another example of partisan politics and the creation of a wedge issue by the government for no particular purpose.

When I say no particular purpose, and therefore oppose this bill, it is pretty clear why this bill has been criticized by so many. It is not just by the usual suspects, if I can call them that. What about Mr. Jean-Marc Fournier, the Quebec minister for intergovernmental affairs? He said, “It goes against the concept of public safety and security.... I find it extremely inconsistent that the federal government should claim that this is being done for the sake of public safety”.

It is not being done for the sake of public safety. It is being done in a pre-election period for clear partisan purposes, demonstrated so clearly by the two Conservatives who spoke before me this morning.

Let us put that at rest and talk about the bill itself. Bill C-42 would give the cabinet new authority to override firearm classification definitions in section 84 of the Criminal Code by way of regulations that would carve out exceptions. Now, by regulation, the cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise be captured by the definition of prohibited and restricted firearms to be non-restricted firearms. That is a great example of taking away from legislation the authority that was given by Parliament and giving discretionary authority to the cabinet to do what it wishes and to be open now, for the first time, to lobbying by gun interests to make arbitrary changes, should it wish, for political purposes.

That is what we do when we take away from legislation certain powers that are there and provide discretion to the cabinet. It is very clear that this is what is there, and of course, many people talked about that in the committee hearings that led to this legislation at third reading.

The bill would basically transfer the authority over the definitions and classifications to cabinet, rather than leaving it with the public safety emphasis that was previously there. That was so clearly put by the member for Sault Ste. Marie just a moment ago when he talked about the chief firearms officers as bureaucrats and talked in a very pejorative way about the role they play in our system. He would rather have the cabinet make those decisions, I assume, because they are obviously all wise on matters of firearms registration and so forth.

In terms of firearms licencing, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification talked about the grace period as somehow being irrelevant. Much of the testimony talked about how problematic the grace period of six months is. The standard firearms licence is for five years, and then there is a six-month grace period. As part of the process for licence renewal, firearms owners are screened for mental health issues, gauging risks to themselves and others. This assessment can identify potential issues early and assist police in reacting for public safety. Simply providing a grace period of additional time can lead to a delay of the information going to law enforcement, and that is inconsistent with public safety. That is why the witnesses talked about that.

The other part of the bill that has been criticized is the difficulty for some of the people in northern and remote communities to travel to take the test. We certainly agree with this position and salute the government for requiring this mandatory testing, for which aboriginal people have been exempted, which we also agree with. However, there have been concerns expressed about the administration of these new requirements in that context.

There have been concerns, many expressed by the Toronto police department and others, about having the resources needed to deal at the borders with the smuggling of illegal firearms into Canada. What has the government done? As we have seen on television news this week, it has simply cut the Canada Border Services Agency's budget dramatically. For example, by 2014-15, the CBSA's budget will be reduced to $143.3 million a year, with a cut of 1,351 positions, including 325 front-line officers and another 100 intelligence officers. So much for public safety concerns.

I had the honour of going to high school with Wendy Cukier, who is the president of the Coalition for Gun Control. Her organization appeared before the committee that studied the bill. She had some very serious concerns about another aspect of the bill, namely the transportation issue, which we heard about earlier. She said:

We believe that relaxing the controls over the authorizations to transport will increase the risk that these firearms will be misused. If you can transport your firearm to any gun club in the province, it means you can be virtually anywhere with it.

There are people who have spent their lives trying to deal with gun control issues and safety who have expressed very serious concerns about public safety with Bill C-42. There are those who point out that the government talks about safety but at the same time cuts budgets in so many contexts.

The fact that the Quebec government would have to tell us that this is not being done for the sake of public safety suggests that there are many people from many walks of life who have come to the same conclusion I have, and with which I introduced my speech. That is that the government is doing this simply as a wedge-politics issue, simply to draw a wedge, which is not there, on the issue of the gun registry.

When we see words like “common sense” describing the bill, we know the jig is up.