Chris Alexander

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is what the hon. member just said: she would prefer, and I believe this is the NDP position, that women and girls who are forced into underage marriages be allowed to come to Canada and stay here and that they remain in polygamous relationships without any consequences or punishment. She would prefer that the minimum age for marrying, in Canada's nine provinces and three territories outside Quebec, not be defined and that it not be 16 years of age. She would prefer that victims of violence caused by forced marriages and those who facilitate forced marriages not be accountable or held criminally responsible for their actions. The NDP is once again wrong.

This bill has a great deal of support, not just from women and girls, but from all Canadians. Canadians want us to prevent these barbaric practices. They want us to protect women and girls from forced underage marriages, polygamy and honour crimes. They absolutely want us to prevent these kinds of barbaric practices from taking place in Canada. The goal of this bill is prevention.

Why has the NDP not understood that that is the goal and the reason for this bill? By opposing all these measures to prevent barbaric practices and forced marriages in this country, the NDP is showing that it lacks empathy and does not care about Canadians' real priorities.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, from that question, we learn all we need to know about the Liberal Party's position on forced marriage, polygamy and honour killings.

Technically, the Liberals have said that they support the bill, but they do not support getting it done before the end of this session. For them, seeking political advantage is much more important than protecting women and girls who can still be legally married in our country, outside of Quebec, at the age of 12 or 13.

The hon. member has just asked about processing times for legitimate spousal cases. We are not talking about legitimate spousal cases in this bill. We are talking about protecting women and girls who are victims of marriages of convenience, who are victims of domestic violence and intimidation, leading to forced marriage. We are talking about polygamous relationships that are disguised as aunts and uncles, cousins and sisters who are brought to the country and who face a lifetime of abuse and domestic violence.

This bill will help to protect women and girls, newcomers and Canadian-born alike, from these barbaric practices. We need to move forward on the bill, and we will move forward on it, whether the Liberal Party really believes in its position. We know that the Liberal leader was unwilling to use the term “barbaric” even to address the issue or to describe the issue of female genital mutilation.

We, on this side of the House, are prepared to call these practices and these forms of violence by their real names. It is time to bring the bill forward, pass it in the House and for it to become the law of this land. No issue is more urgent issue than protecting women and girls from violence at home, in our streets and, indeed, in partnership with our friends and allies around the world.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 9th, 2015]

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.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hard-working member for Calgary Northeast for his work on strengthening Canadian citizenship.

Of course, the new act will ensure that those who wish to do us harm will not be able to exploit their citizenship in order to endanger our country, our freedoms, and our democracy.

This government knows there is no higher duty for any government than to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. From Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria, we have not been afraid and have never been afraid to call jihadi terrorism by its real name.

Citizenship revocation will be applied to dual nationals convicted of terrorist threat offences, high treason, treason, or spying. We want to show that threatening—

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we lifted the suspension on visa processing for one of the countries affected by the Ebola virus when the World Health Organization indicated that the crisis was over in that country. We are awaiting a similar result in the other countries before taking action because we are committed to protecting Canadians.

Why are the hon. member and her party still opposed to biometrics, cancelling passports, revoking citizenship from terrorists and all the other measures we are taking to keep Canadians safe?

[Privacy Protection, June 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we consulted the Privacy Commissioner, and we accepted all of the recommendations that came. These measures will not be applied to Canadians, and we are, in fact, by doing these things, catching up with many of our allies, like the United States, like the United Kingdom, like Australia, and like other European countries that have had these measures in place for a long time.

The New Democrats are clear that they want to do nothing to protect this country from terrorism. They want to do nothing to revoke the citizenship of convicted terrorists, nothing to enhance the authority of CSIS to protect us, nothing to do what needs to be done in a world where terrorism is a serious threat. The New Democrats are irresponsible on these and other issues.

[Privacy Protection, June 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we consulted the Privacy Commissioner and accepted all of his recommendations. These new measures will not even apply to Canadians. These measures are necessary to protect Canada from threats, including terrorism.

We are well aware that the NDP does not want to do anything about that, that it does not want to do anything with our armed forces in Iraq and Syria, that it does not want to do anything to revoke the citizenship of convicted terrorists, and that it does not want to do anything to cancel the passports of terrorists and people seeking to travel to Iraq and Syria. Everyone knows that the NDP's record on this is very poor.

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the member opposite sees no need to ensure that Canadians and Quebeckers get priority in the labour market. That is why we changed the temporary foreign worker program. The reason we have new fees is to ensure the integrity of the new program. We will continue to seek reciprocity in the exchange program with France and to ensure that Quebec and Canadian workers get priority.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to be very concerned about the situation in Nepal, about reuniting families affected by the disaster there, and about Tibetan populations facing hardship at home, in Nepal, and in India. That is why, thanks to an initiative of my predecessor, we have committed ourselves to the largest resettlement program of Tibetan refugees in Canadian history.

I was pleased to organize an information session very recently in that member's riding to help resolve these issues of documentation.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we have here two New Democrat MPs who, instead of looking after the interests of real people and real families with concerns by coming and talking to us about specific cases, would rather talk about these situations in the House. They know full well that we cannot comment on individual cases in the House. They are also quite familiar with the adoption rules.

If they have cases they need help with, they should come and talk to us about them instead of turning other people's family lives into a partisan issue.