Debates of March 23rd, 2015

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate in the debate on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It reflects the high priority our government places on supporting the ability of women and girls to live violence-free lives.

As a standing member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am proud of the many actions the government has taken to address violence against women and girls. The bill is another important example of these efforts.

Allow me to provide a little context.

One of the most important actions we have taken is to increase the funding for the women's program at Status of Women Canada to record levels. We have invested over $153 million in more than 750 projects since 2007. This includes over $70 million for projects to end all forms of violence against women and girls.

In fact, through Status of Women Canada, close to $3 million has been provided in support of projects to eliminate harmful cultural practices using community-based approaches. These projects are building partnerships with cultural community organizations, settlement, legal and law enforcement agencies and school boards. This has resulted in the development of comprehensive, collaborative strategies that address violence against women and girls committed in the name of so-called honour.

For example, a project in Montreal, led by Shield of Athena Family Services, is providing training to liaison workers from cultural communities in order to identify at-risk situations and identify sources of assistance for the victims.

We also partnered with the Indo-Canadian Women's Association in Edmonton, Alberta in a project that mobilized the South Asian and Middle Eastern communities, service providers, faith organizations, teachers and students to help develop strategies to end this form of gender-based violence.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act would represent another very important step we could take as a country to end gender-based violence. It would help ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada would become a victim or early or forced marriage, polygamy, violence committed in the name of so-called honour or any other form of barbaric cultural practice.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, our government highlighted the fact that millions of women and girls worldwide continued to be brutalized by violence, including through the inhumane practices of early and forced marriage. That is why Canada is leading international efforts to address these cultural practices as violations of basic human rights.

In fact, the elimination of child early forced marriage remains a key priority for Canada. At the most recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York this March, it was raised again. We are committed to ensuring this cultural practice does not occur on Canadian soil.

The measures in the bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code to provide more protection and support for vulnerable individuals, primarily women and girls. They would do it in a number of difference ways. They would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practised polygamy in Canada. They would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new minimum age for marriage at 16 and by codifying the existing legal requirements for free and enlightened consent for marriage, and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another.

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

The bill would send a clear message to anyone coming to Canada and to those who would already a part of Canadian society that these practices would be incompatible with Canadian values. Like all other forms of violence against women and girls, they will not be tolerated here.

However, it is abundantly important to note that all Canadians need to be part of the solution. No single government, or person or community organization acting alone can achieve these goals. We must rededicate ourselves as a society to changing attitudes and changing the conversation by underlining the fact that violence of any kind, including violence against women and girls, is never acceptable or normal behaviour. We need to continue to empower girls and women to speak out. We must keep working together to increase the responsiveness of our system to address the needs of victims and survivors. We must keep taking actions like the measures contained in this bill. As I said earlier, these practices simply will not be tolerated on Canadian soil.

The opposition refuses to take action. It wants more studies and more analysis. However, the time to take action is now. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration spent his summer going from coast to coast to coast, talking to Canadians. It is the victims of these barbaric practices who are asking him to take action. It is the actual victims who are supporting the legislation.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act represents another important step that we can take as a country to help women and girls live violence-free lives. That is why I am proud to say that I will support the bill, and I urge all hon. members of the House to do the same.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, free and enlightened consent is already a legal requirement in the Civil Code and in common law, in Quebec and in the other provinces. The courts have already established that the culturally defined concept of honour does not represent a valid defence under the Criminal Code. Furthermore, there is sufficient means of recourse in our laws for most cases of forced marriage.

Why would the government reproduce these measures in a new bill, when it could simply enforce the existing laws?

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is being brought forward simply because it needs to be addressed. We are being asked to address it by the communities that are most affected and by the people who are most adversely affected by these situations.

Honour killings, polygamy and taking underage children overseas to their parents' home country to have them married to someone and brought back here are all things that do exist and happen. If we have proper legislation and laws to to address these things, it will allow us to have a society that can protect these young girls and women in a situation that the existing laws just do not provide.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to appreciate, in any way, the government's lack of attention in dealing with violence against women and girls. When we hear what provinces, municipalities, first nations leaders, and many different stakeholders are saying about the 1,200-plus murdered and missing first nations aboriginal women and girls, it seems the Government of Canada, this Conservative government, is the only body in Canada to believe that a public inquiry is not necessary.

Having said that, recognizing that polygamy, forced marriages, early marriages, and domestic violence are all actions that Canadians do not support, there are some mild steps within the legislation.

My question is specifically in regard to the Prime Minister's Office and his determination to label legislation. Why is it necessary to label culture as part of the act, when we know that all societies have different forms of gender violence? Why incorporate culture? If the government wants to amend and make it better legislation, at least it should change the title that the Prime Minister's Office is suggesting and delete the word “culture”.

Would the member not agree that it is inappropriate to put the word “culture” in the title?

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the word is actually “cultural”, not “culture”. It is “cultural practices”, and the specific items within the bill do deal with specific cultural practices that are abhorrent to women and girls.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. In a previous response, my colleague said that the government felt obliged to act in response to pressure from communities. However, our Criminal Code contains answers to all of their questions.

Is that not a clear indication that what communities need is support on the ground so that they can get the education, support and information they need to handle a situation already covered in the Criminal Code?

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if hon. members want to get very specific, some things are not covered in existing law. This is very comprehensive. It is for the specific protection of women and girls.

There are barbaric practices, many of which are not even verbalized here today because they are so gross that we would not want to discuss them. We do not want to see things like that happen to young girls. If the opposition wants the bill to ignore those things, it is not happening.

We are in a situation where we are dealing with reality, and we certainly want to address it properly, as we have been asked to do.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy and very honoured to stand up today to speak in support of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

For many of us, there are very special issues that are dear to our hearts, and when we are able to bring forward legislation that is important and is helping Canadians, it is especially gratifying.

Two years ago, I was able to stand up and speak in support of Bill S-2, a bill that was not widely talked about, that was completely opposed by the opposition parties and virtually ignored by mainstream media, but a bill that had an amazing and profound impact on aboriginal women. For the first time, it gave matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women.

Aboriginal women now have real matrimonial property rights. It is because of this government and that piece of legislation, and it is because we took a leadership role on a somewhat complicated and difficult issue.

We are doing the same thing today with Bill S-7. We are looking at an issue and a problem that primarily victimizes girls and women. We are looking at it in terms of what we, as a government, can do. As with so many issues that negatively affect our country, at the heart of it are people's feelings and attitudes toward women, marriage, and certain practices. Ideally those change first; the hearts and minds of people change first.

As legislators, we cannot change people's hearts and minds; only they can change their hearts and minds. What we can change is legislation. We can change laws, and we can give law enforcement the tools they need to help protect the most vulnerable.

In this case, we are certainly primarily talking about women and girls. I think all of us, and I have listened to some of the comments from the opposition, agree that the following practices are unacceptable, and we would describe them as barbaric. They are wrong and not acceptable in Canada. I think we all agree that forced marriages are wrong. We all agree that the early marrying of very young girls is also wrong and should be stopped. We agree that in Canada not only is polygamy wrong, it is illegal. Certainly we would all 100% agree that honour killings are absolutely wrong. There is no defence to any of these practices.

The next thing we need to agree on are the best ways that we can stop these practices, combat them, and the best ways we can support women who find themselves in these situations. Preferably, we need to agree on how we can stop these situations from happening. That is where Bill S-7 comes in.

We are introducing a number of changes to a number of pieces of legislation that are already in place. Together we believe that they form a good package, whereby we can protect women from some of these practices.

First, we are raising the age of consent for marriage to a minimum of 16 years. That is across the country. Different provinces do have different minimum ages. Some are extremely young; I think as young as 12 or 14 years. We want that to be uniform across the country so that there is a minimum age with consent of marriage. The bill will establish a national minimum age of 16 years for marriage to protect our most vulnerable in society, namely our children.

The Civil Marriage Act will also be amended to codify the legal requirements for free and enlightened consent to marriage and the requirement for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another. That will remain consistent.

The other step we are taking is on changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in regard to polygamy. In relation to polygamy, this bill proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to specify that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on the grounds of practising polygamy.

The bill would prohibit both temporary and permanent residents from practising polygamy in Canada and provide for the removal of non-citizens who practise polygamy in Canada, without the need for a Criminal Code conviction or a finding of misrepresentation.

Someone who lives outside of Canada and practises polygamy and wants to come to Canada and live here permanently or temporarily will not be allowed. Polygamy is illegal in Canada. We are sending the message loud and clear that polygamy is illegal. It is not allowed, and it is not tolerated in any way, shape, or form.

We are going to ensure that if they are practising polygamy, they will be removed from the country. That is step number two.

Step number three addresses the whole issue of people who participate knowingly in forced or early marriages. This would not only send a strong signal, but it has penalties attached.

The proposed amendment addresses a gap in the current legislation by creating offences that focus on the active participation in the forced or underage marriage ceremony itself. What does this mean? Essentially, the bill proposes two new offences for anyone who knowingly celebrates or aids in a marriage ceremony where one or both of the spouses are under the age of 16 years or are marrying against their will.

We can compare this to violence. If anyone knowingly participates, celebrates, or encourages violence toward another person, there are penalties for that. If someone knowingly encourages, participates, or is active in a forced or early marriage before the age of 16 years, that would now be an offence under the new legislation. It would include those who conduct the marriage ceremony, and those, such as family members, who have full knowledge of the circumstances but still actively participate. These two new offences would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment.

We also want to make sure that it is an offence if someone tries to remove a child from Canada for the purpose of a forced or underage marriage outside of our country. A child could not be taken from Canada to a different country for the purpose of forcing them into marriage. That would also be an offence. There have been disturbing cases of this, and Canadian protection officials currently lack the tools needed to intervene and prevent the child's removal from Canada. I believe these measures would help not only prevent but also deter the removal of children for these harmful practices, and punish the perpetrators.

I have heard that many victims of forced or underage marriage are very reluctant to come forward to contact authorities prior to the marriage because they do not want their parents or other relatives prosecuted. It is very understandable. That makes sense, and it is something we wanted to address. We want to make sure that young women are not feeling this pressure.

Currently, where there are reasonable grounds to fear that a person, including a family member, will cause personal injury to another person, they can be brought to court and ordered into a peace bond or a court order to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Other conditions can be imposed, including that the person have no contact with the person who fears for their safety. A person subject to a peace bond could be prosecuted if they breach the order.

Bill S-7 would give power to courts to help protect these girls without necessarily laying a criminal offence. It basically tells the perpetrator that there is a peace bond on them and that if they break this law then there will be a criminal charge. Therefore, it protects these young women, but also gives them a sense of peace, in that they know they are not going to be prosecuting their relatives. This would also mean that the perpetrator would have to surrender travel documents and refrain from making arrangements or agreements in relation to the marriage. They would also have to participate in a family violence counselling program.

The last part of the bill that I would like to speak to is in relation to the honour killing issue. We definitely know it is an issue. As legislators, we have to look at every way that violence can be inflicted on the most vulnerable, in this case primarily women. Honour killings are some of the most horrible cases. Women and girls are being killed because they dated someone or wore the wrong clothing, or got a tattoo or went to a bar. Girls have been killed in Canada in the name of honour.

Right now, provocation is still a defence. We want to remove that loophole as any possible defence. Therefore, we are going to change “provocation”. Provocation is not when someone dates someone outside of their faith or culture. Provocation is not if someone goes to a bar or wears earrings or gets a tattoo. We are absolutely removing that; provocation would have to be something that is actually illegal and punishable by law.

I am very proud of this piece of legislation. I support it. I look forward to the opposition supporting the spirit and the letter of the legislation with their vote.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister what happens to women and children in polygamy cases or in this case, polygyny, when a man has several spouses and is deported for polygamy. Are these people also deported, or does Bill S-7 make it possible for them to stay in the country?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at all times, we want to ensure that victims, women, are not revictimized. There are a number of measures and supports in place from the government, both at the federal and provincial levels, to support these women if they are victims of forced marriages or polygamist situations.

I think we all know that we are one of the most generous, pluralistic, and kindest societies in the world. We absolutely would provide protection for these women who are victimized by things like polygamy, as my opposition just asked about.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say that there are provinces in this country that will marry 12-year-olds. I have been searching on Google, but I have not found a single province that does not require one to be 18 years of age. If one is under the age of 18, the minimum is 16, but one requires parental consent.

Could the member please explain what province 12-year-olds are getting married in?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to find that information. I have been told that there are some provinces where the legal age for marriage is extremely young. It is 12 or 14. If I am incorrect, I will absolutely correct that.

I would ask that member about the age of 18, because there are absolutely lower ages for marriage. I would be happy to talk about that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for Social Development for her important intervention in this debate.

Obviously, both men and women have a beautiful inherent dignity. It has always caused me consternation that people could be deprived of this dignity through certain cultural practices, and even more insultingly, under words like “honour” when applied to honour killing, for example.

I would like the minister of state to comment on how this bill and its measures would enhance and call forth the inherent dignity particularly of women and young women in this country.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great benefits of being a Canadian man or woman is our freedom and democracy and our freedom of choice as to how we live our lives, whom we marry, and when we get married. These are all important parts of lives.

It is difficult when we see in the news or hear stories of young women being brutally murdered simply because they did not follow someone else's wish or belief in terms of who they married, where they went, how they socialized, or how they dressed, which are very simple things all of us take for granted in Canada. However, we have seen women in Canada victimized by this.

The term “honour”, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, is a matter of the heart. I think we need to see hearts changed. Again, I think our local communities and organizations, all of us together, would like to see a change in the hearts of men and women and a true belief in respect and dignity.

In the meantime, we absolutely will carry forward laws and introduce legislation to protect young women from this kind of victimization.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the recent speeches and to the answers that were provided. I would like to start out by saying that we oppose polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage. We strongly believe that this bill is not an appropriate response to the serious problem of gender-based violence, which is not a cultural problem. Bill S-7 could actually exacerbate existing problems.

Experts who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights explained that criminalization alone will not resolve the problem. On the contrary, they said, it will exacerbate the problem. In fact, several sections of the Criminal Code already provide avenues of remedy to the offences targeted in this bill. Instead of politicizing the debate and the issue of gender-based violence, the government could enforce the legislation already in place. It must also commit to implementing a national action plan to fight violence against women and investing more in organizations that provide services to women who are victims of forced or underage marriages.

I was listening to the last speaker answer the following question: will women in a polygamous marriage be protected if the husband is deported? She said that yes, measures could be applied and protections were in place. I am sorry, but there is nothing in this bill about that. The bill does not contain any provisions to allow women who are conditional permanent residents to remain in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported. The hon. member said the opposite of the truth.

No woman should have to suffer gender-based violence, including forced and underage marriage. The bill could have serious consequences by inadvertently criminalizing victims of polygamy and by penalizing and deporting children and separating them from their family.

Instead of focusing on a sensationalist bill that does not address the root of the problem, the minister should commit to holding serious consultations on a wide scale with community groups and experts to effectively deal with the problem of gender-based violence. The government should also invest more in organizations that provide such services as safe and affordable housing and assistance to families that are often traumatized at having to deal with complicated legal and immigration systems.

However, the Conservatives' use of these themes for political ends is nothing new. As members will recall, in March 2012 the Conservatives introduced legislation to crack down on marriage fraud, requiring that the sponsored individual live with the sponsor for a period of two years under penalty of deportation or criminal charges. Speaking of barbaric practices, that is one.

In my riding, I have two constituents who are each married to a woman from Cuba. These Cuban women arrived in my riding last year. Unfortunately for them, the two men were abusive, so the women had to turn to local women's shelters to escape the abuse inflicted by these two violent men. However, by acting to defend themselves, the women faced the very real possibility of being deported from Canada.

What happened after that? We lost track of the two women. Of course, they do not want to return to Cuba. They appreciated life here, but in this case, they were not guilty of violence. It was the men who brought them to Canada who were guilty of violence. Thus, we are faced with a measure that is completely unfair and leaves victims of violence to carry the burden of the abuse they suffer. This should not be the case.

I will continue my speech after question period.

Taxation

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is tax season, and I would like to take a moment to read just one of the many emails I have been receiving from middle-income constituents about our family tax cut plan. It reads:

I would like to write and express my appreciation and support to the income splitting reforms. I am a father of 3 young children and my wife is able to stay at home and raise our children, partially due to [your] government friendly family support such as income splitting.

You and the conservative party of Canada can be assured [like many others] that you have me and my wife's votes this coming election.

I have to like that part.

The opposition is committed to taking those important tax savings out of the pockets of my constituents. That is outrageous, but I am committed to not letting that happen. When it comes to protecting hard-working ordinary middle-income families, my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex get it. They know only the Conservative Party will stand up for them.

Electricity Meters

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is growing evidence that wireless technology may be detrimental to our health and that the current Safety Code 6 is outdated. In this regard, I would like to thank my colleague from Oakville for introducing Bill C-648, which would require health warning labels on wireless devices. This is a logical first step.

I am also pleased to see that the health committee is taking the time to study this issue. Unfortunately, instead of applying the precautionary principle, various jurisdictions across North America have been ramming wireless smart meters down our throats. A number of people are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation or have other health concerns and have refused this technology.

BC Hydro charges a punitive opt-out fee of $32.40 per month. Several Slocan Valley residents who rejected this technology have gone through the winter with their electricity disconnected. This is completely unacceptable. The very least that the B.C. government could do would be to adopt the more reasonable Quebec model of a $15 opt-out fee and a monthly charge of $5.

B.C. residents deserve better.

Hamilton-Wentworth Celebration of Rural Excellence

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will not be too long before we see farm fields spring to life with preparations for the coming year's crop, which is why I want to hearken back to a Saturday evening in mid-February when I had the pleasure of attending the annual Hamilton-Wentworth Celebration of Rural Excellence.

Considering that the celebration took place on February 14, the very same day that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture says was Food Freedom Day in Canada this year, these award-winning farming operations and individuals deserve our recognition and appreciation.

We enjoy a safe, abundant food supply in Canada. That is why I rise to congratulate and thank the DeBlieck family of Lynden, Ontario, for their forward-thinking farming operation, Josmar Acres. It was awarded the Hamilton-Wentworth's Farm Family of the Year award.

I also congratulate Cathy McMaster of Troy, Ontario, who was named the Rural Citizen of the Year. My friend Cathy is a tireless advocate for our rural citizens and causes.

Finally, as we look to the future, congratulations and thanks go to Drew Spoelstra, who was recognized as Rural Youth of Excellence by the Wentworth Junior Farmers that same evening.

Farmers feed families.

Run for Rocky Charity Event

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we are inspired by the most unexpected people in the most unexpected places, and they leave us with an impact so intense that we are changed in the process.

Rob and Nancy Campagna of Windsor are two such people. Their son Rocky passed away in August of 2012 after attempting suicide. Rocky's life was short, but his work in the LGBT community was large. He helped create gay-straight alliances in the schools and ran yearly in Toronto's Pride parade. He was a volunteer, a fundraiser, and an activist.

His parents knew Rocky wanted his organs donated, but they were refused because he was gay. Even after his death, Rocky was an activist. In 2014 I, along with other MPs in the House, presented petitions to allow gay men to donate organs.

Rob and Nancy's love and grief made them activists too. They created Rocky's legacy and began the annual Run for Rocky, a five-kilometre charity run, raising over $130,000 for gay-straight alliances and safe schools program in Windsor-Essex to educate parents of LGBTTQ youth, teachers, and students.

This year's Run for Rocky is April 12 at Dieppe. Please go and donate—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

Carl Tymm

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I announce the passing of Carl Tymm in my riding of Okanagan-Coquihalla. Mr.Tymm was not a household name in my riding, although many would recognize him, and there is a reason for that. Carl Tymm spent many decades involved in community service, both as a dedicated Rotarian and as a Shriner.

All members of this House know the good work of Rotary International and the Shriners organization, but this work would not get done without the outstanding efforts of individuals who volunteer and put service above self. Carl Tymm was one of those individuals, and I suspect members in the house know of someone similar in their home ridings.

Out of respect for the memory of Carl Tymm, I would ask all members to share a round of applause in appreciation of those Canadians who volunteer and serve our Canadian service organizations.

Child Care

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, residents of St. John's East and all of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned about the high cost and availability of child care. Our province has the second-highest child care cost in the country.

In local media over the past week, parents told their stories about the serious consequences for their young families or for them as single parents trying to cope, be part of the workforce, or continue in education. Some couples pay more than their mortgage and sometimes half of their income to obtain child care.

We have a serious problem when families with two working parents say that they just cannot afford to have the family size that they want, or even have children at all.

Fortunately, help is on the way. The NDP has a practical plan for a national child care system, working with the provinces to deliver one million child care spaces over eight years, costing a maximum of $15 a day. According to the TD Bank, every dollar spent by government will return to the federal and provincial coffers, and more besides.

That is a plan that everyone should get behind. It is real progress for families.

Rotary Clubs in Prince George—Peace River

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the hard work of Fort St. John Rotary Club's president Gord Sandhu and new club president Michael Elphinstone, not to mention past presidents Trevor Bolin, Chuck McDowell, Gus McLeod, and Rae Evans. All are dedicated community leaders who are committed to improving the lives of families in need throughout our region.

As we all know, the men and women who participate in Rotary are passionate about their local communities and the world at large. Most significant is Rotary International's work to eradicate polio. To date, Rotary has contributed more than $1.3 billion and countless volunteer hours to help fight polio. This is an amazing achievement and something that all Rotary members should be extremely proud of.

It is for this reason that I am pleased to stand today and recognize the efforts of all Rotary Clubs in my riding, including those in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Fort Nelson, and Mackenzie.

World War II Veterans

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that honours and stands with our veterans by implementing the new veterans charter and its comprehensive review as well as by enhancing benefits and services.

In further honour, our veterans affairs minister went to Washington, D.C., with Devil's Brigade members like our own Ralph Mayville, where they received the Congressional Gold Medal in addition to their earlier Canadian award.

Sadly, we have lost many from that greatest generation and are losing our living legacy with increasing frequency as each year passes. As a Delta Company member and friend of the Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment, I joined the regiment and others at the recent Hochwald dinner, where we honoured those who passed in the last year. They are Marshall Dejaegher, Art Deschamps, Gordon Fralick, Howard Large, Jim McArthur, Roy Rogers, Arthur Rossell, and Hank Thiessen.

They may now be gone, but they will never be forgotten.

Frank Chauvin

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to pay tribute to Frank Chauvin, a retired police officer and an extraordinary Canadian. Some of his many awards recognize his greatness, such as the Order of Canada, the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship, the Windsor Police Services Gordon Preston Memorial Award, and the United States Department Certificate of Appreciation Award.

However, his true greatness was his unlimited capacity for love and charity, from his work with aboriginal Canadians through Madonna House to his lifelong commitment to the children of Haiti through the Foyer des Filles de Dieu orphanage and health clinic to shipping humanitarian aid around the globe. Last year alone, 369 containers were sent to 17 countries.

His faith was always his touchstone and moral compass. He literally saved thousands of lives in both body and spirit. Windsor has prided itself on its citizens' charitable giving. Frank was our most brilliant light in that regard.

Our deepest condolences go to his wife Lorraine, his 10 children, 22 grandchildren, and eight great-grandchildren. He will be missed.