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.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

In the 2013 Speech from the Throne—we heard a little about this earlier—the government recognized that millions of women and girls worldwide continue to be brutalized by violence, including the inhumane practice of early and forced marriage. The proposed changes in this particular bill, Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, will help ensure that these harmful cultural practices do not occur on Canadian soil.

Let me say in my last 20 seconds that I would strongly urge and implore all members of this committee to speak to their caucuses and to their leaders to ensure that we expeditiously pass this legislation at the end of the day, because what we will be doing, Mr. Chair, is protecting women and girls.

Thank you.

[Joanne Klineberg]

The criminal law with respect to everyone in Canada is exactly the same. The amendments in Bill S-7 in no way affect the applicable criminal law that could apply; it's only law in relation to the immigration context.

As a general matter, everyone who's in Canada is subject to being prosecuted under the same criminal offence. I would let my colleagues from Immigration Canada speak to the immigration-related consequences of polygamy.

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

Do you have any studies that show that sentences, like those in Bill S-7, have a deterrent and preventive effect?

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

Thank you very much.

I know that you can only answer what your duties permit. I simply want to say that this committee did a study where witnesses were selected by various political parties and where the content was made public. Even though several witnesses recommended abolishing or seriously modifying the conditional permanent residence, it was not taken into account.

I'm wondering if the content of those meetings was selected to advance a political agenda or if it was considered as a whole. I know this isn't at all up to you to comment on this. Thank you for your answers.

I have a question about what's been done in other countries. I don't know which one of you will be able to answer.

Were practices in other countries, such as Denmark and the United Kingdom, studied when Bill S-7 was drafted?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to come back to something that Ms. Tsai said a little earlier.

Ms. Tsai, you spoke about consultations that were held in order to draft Bill S-7. Could anyone who attended these consultations testify? If not, who sent out the invitations? How were people chosen to participate in these round tables or consultations?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

Finally, officials in the Senate hearings on Bill S-7 referred to an internal Justice study on provocation. I wondered if it might be possible for you to send a copy of that study to the committee.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay, and you're referring to already existing laws instead of to Bill S-7.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you again for being here. Throughout my years on the force within the RCMP I spent a lot of time in remote communities. I was surprised at the time when I was doing the investigation to find out that there was no age...in Canada. I found a number of cases where we had complaints levied of young people getting involved in a marriage at the age sometimes of 14 and 15.

I'll go back. I believe it's more of a cultural practice. I'm talking about very remote and isolated communities within Canada where they really haven't progressed at the rate that the rest of us have. They're very happy with the very remote lifestyle that they live, living off the land. Their grandparents probably got married at the age of 14 and 15, and maybe their parents did, and maybe they find that's acceptable. I think that as the youth of today in Canada and across this country have more access to the computer Internet system, we definitely need an age bracket put in the act.

I wonder if I could ask Joanne if she would just clarify the real meaning behind the change in the Civil Marriage Act that will come because of Bill S-7, and the requirement for that age factor to be in there?

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

Excuse me, Mr. Minister.

Let's talk about reporting. You spoke about numbers a little earlier. It is clear to everyone that reporting is a problem. There aren't enough people aware of forced marriages or enough victims whose reported cases have the chance to move through all the stages of the existing processes.

Denmark has put in place measures like the ones in Bill S-7 on forced marriages. Since these measures were put in place six years ago, the police have not been able to charge a single person, and the courts have not found anyone guilty. A lot of witnesses said that the measures in Bill S-7 could aggravate the situation and reduce the number of reported cases.

What do you tell them? What amendments to Bill S-7 could you suggest to respond to these fears and ensure that more cases, not fewer, are reported?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two more questions for you, Mr. Minister.

First, I would like to quote what you said in the House of Commons in the first hours of debate on Bill S-7. You said, and I quote:

… we also based this bill on a committee report written in 2013 and 2014. That report was on protecting women in our immigration programs ….

I was here at the beginning of this study. I helped draft that report. As you have probably noticed in the supplementary report, the vast majority of witnesses—almost all of the witnesses, in fact—said that they did not support the conditional permanent resident status, saying that it was an important factor in the vulnerability of women. They said that abolishing a status like that, or at least changing it, would help women in violent situations, such as situations of forced marriage.

If you really drafted this bill by considering the testimonies made during the study and the report of this committee, do you intend to make changes to the conditional permanent resident status or to abolish it in the near future?

The purpose of the question isn't to get your opinion on conditional permanent residence. Do you plan to abolish it or change it soon?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Someone who is here as a citizen and is found to be in a polygamous relationship obviously could not be removed. Their citizenship could not be revoked. They would be facing criminal proceedings. We hope in the wake of the prosecutions now under way in Bountiful and the attention this issue is now getting, there will be more criminal prosecutions and convictions of Canadians born in this country and naturalized Canadians.

A permanent resident who is found by an immigration officer to be in a polygamous relationship will now, under the changes proposed in Bill S-7, be inadmissible to Canada. Yes, they will lose their permanent residence and be asked to leave and removed if they don't leave, as would anyone else who is found to be inadmissible to Canada after having been granted permanent resident status.

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

Thank you. I understand what you are saying.

You have actually repeated that the most important issues in this bill have to do with forced and underage marriage. However, several people who testified before the Senate committee complained that this bill—or even the bill's overall approach—had overtly racist and discriminatory connotations. We can see it in the title, but I think we also see it in the fact that you, not the Minister of Justice, are the champion of the bill.

Of course, there are significantly more forced marriages in other countries than in Canada, but we don't want to solve the problem of forced marriages in other countries. We are interested in the situations in Canada. Regardless of people's countries of origin and cultural background, if they use violence against women, especially through forced marriage, what matters is the crime they are committing as well as the response triggered by their crime.

In that light, Ms. Yao-Yao Go, who is the clinic director of Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, said the following when she appeared before the Senate committee:

From the very naming of this bill to the various legislative amendments it seeks to amend, Bill S-7 invokes racist stereotypes and fuels xenophobia towards certain racialized communities.

Furthermore, in the House of Commons, you quoted Ms. Miville-Deschênes by saying that she supported some aspects of your bill. However, if you really attach importance and credibility to her testimony, you will agree that she criticized the title of the bill as well. She said the following:

The title should essentially be changed because we think it might encourage xenophobia.

Further on, she said:

...for prevention purposes, we need communities to be with us and not against us. That is why the title of this legislation must absolutely be changed.

We are talking about the overall approach of the bill, which includes the title. I don't want you to stop talking about Bill S-7. It is being studied right now at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. However, we need to make sure that forced marriage does not become a “racialized” issue and that it is handled as a crime, an act of violence against women, period.

Given that all those witnesses have criticized the title of the bill, do you think it would be appropriate to change it?

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

Thank you.

More specifically, Bill S-7 adds two subsections to one section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Most of the amendments proposed in Bill S-7 are actually amendments to the Criminal Code. If I'm not mistaken, the bill proposes to amend seven or eight sections of the Criminal Code. However, you rose first in the House to talk about Bill S-7, and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is studying Bill S-7.

Why is it being studied in relation to immigration rather than in relation to the Criminal Code? Why is the bill not being studied by the Minister of Justice or the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights? The vast majority of the bill deals with the Criminal Code.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Bill S-7 amends the sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that have to do with eligibility. It adds the principle of ineligibility for those practising polygamy.

The amendments also relate to the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Let me also thank the witnesses for joining us today.

I would like to quickly go back to the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Eglinski. He said that the opposition found that it was a waste of time and it was useless. The NDP is convinced that violence against women and children exists in Canada. One instance of violence is one too many. There is a lot of work to do on that.

However, we definitely have a difference of opinion on Bill S-7 itself. I am not sure that Bill S-7 is really the most appropriate solution to the problem. That is what I would like to ask the minister about.

How many sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does Bill S-7 amend exactly?