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

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what values my colleague is talking about. I already answered that, for us, Canadian values are freedom, democracy and mutual respect.

The language used in this bill is shocking for some communities who feel targeted. When we talk about values, we need to ask why the government is targeting certain communities. Unfortunately, I get the impression that these communities feel as though they are being singled out whether it is at the provincial, federal or international level. What is more, the government is trying to criminalize people for engaging in certain practices rather than trying to prevent those practices by reaching out to those people, and trying to help them and teach them Canadian values.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to stand in debate in this place, particularly on the matter currently before us, Bill S-7,, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I have had the privilege of being the Minister for Multiculturalism for over seven years. During my mandate, I was also the minister of citizenship and immigration for almost five years, during which we introduced important reforms to strengthen Canada's great tradition of openness to the world, pluralism and unity in our diversity.

I often recall that our country, according to McGill University historian Desmond Morton, was founded by those on the losing side of history. This is a very sensitive thing to say, but he talks about the aboriginal peoples; the inhabitants of New France, who lost out in the conquests; the United Empire Loyalists who were on the losing side of the American Revolution and became established in English Canada; and the black loyalists who were freed U.S. slaves. There were also several other generations, such as the Jewish refugees in the early 20th century; refugees from communist regimes, such as the Hungarians in 1956, the Czechs in 1968 and the Vietnamese in 1979; and my ancestors, the Irish who fled the great famine and the Scots, or the Highland Clearances Scots.

All of these people were, in a sense, the underdogs of history, including our founding prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Because of that, we have, in our DNA, deeply rooted in our culture, habits and political reflexes across party lines, developed this sense that we have a special vocation among the nations of the world to be a land of freedom that respects cultural differences and that encourages people to celebrate what is best about their cultural antecedents. Today we call multiculturalism, what some refer to as pluralism, which perhaps as a term reflects more respect for people's most deeply grounded beliefs.

We also believe, of course, that freedom of conscience and religion are fundamental freedoms. It is not a coincidence that these are the first freedoms mentioned in the Charter of Rights, because it is through such freedoms that we define who we are and our deepest commitments as human beings. These are values that are primordial for us as Canadians, but they are not the only values that are.

We also believe as a country that freedom of religion and conscience, respect for cultural diversity, our democratic values, all of these things are rooted in our shared belief in the inviolable dignity of the human person. To quote the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, former prime minister, these values are rooted in what we understand to be “the sacred personality of man”, and certain values flow from that sense of human dignity.

For example, we believe that in the equality of men and women, as a self-evident principle of our society, some practices, which may be rooted in culture or tradition and seek to treat women as property rather than people, are simply wrong, must be discouraged and, where appropriate, rendered illegal. We believe that to compel women, for example, or potentially even men, boys and girls, to enter into marriages against their will is a fundamental violation of their personal integrity and dignity as human persons. We believe that compelling people to adopt the aberrant practice of polygamy should be discouraged and ultimately prohibited in our law.

I do not believe that the assertion of such absolute principles in our law contradicts the spirit of pluralism that is one of our great defining characteristics. To the contrary, the two support each other. That is to say that I do not believe that our multiculturalism equates to cultural relativism. I believe it is an invitation again to celebrate what is best about our particular cultural antecedents, but it is not a licence to import to Canada practices that are profoundly undemocratic, which are predicated on a denial of the equality of men and women, for example, or freedom of religion and conscience, or the integrity of the human person.

That is why we have proposed Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I know the short title is provocative and it has elicited debate here. Frankly, that was the point. Mission accomplished.

We wanted to drive home the fact that these practices are unacceptable in our society.

That is why, when I was minister of citizenship and immigration a few years ago, I published the new study guide for citizenship applicants called Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship.

Let us be clear: the Citizenship Act has long stipulated three obligations for permanent residents who want to become Canadian citizens. First, they must reside in Canada for a period of four years; second, they must demonstrate knowledge of one of Canada's two official languages; and third, they must demonstrate a knowledge of Canada, for example, its history, institutions and symbols.

Since the 1970s, an exam has been used to assess citizenship applicants' knowledge of Canada.

When I became the minister of citizenship and immigration in 2008, I discovered that the exam to assess this knowledge, as well as its accompanying learning and study guide provided a very superficial overview of Canada. They included virtually no Canadian history and almost no information on our cultural expectations.

That is why I wrote the following in the new guide Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship.

Canada's tolerance and diversity do not include certain “barbaric cultural practices”, such as so-called honour crimes, female genital mutilation, forced marriages, violence against women, and other practices, which we condemn in Canada and which are severely punished under our law.

That was an important message to send. We used the word “barbaric” very intentionally. We realized that it would draw attention, and that was the point. It was a teaching opportunity, an opportunity to raise our concern that we do not want such practices being justified in Canada under the licence of multiculturalism.

The bill before us takes that intention one step further by plugging certain loopholes, which frankly never should have existed, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code.

For example, as minister of citizenship and immigration, I learned that families from a polygamous marriage had entered Canada without having declared the polygamous relationship.

They did not declare their polygamist relations, but they came to Canada clearly in violation of the spirit of our law. These amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would close those loopholes.

Similarly, this would clarify, under the amendments to the Civil Marriage Act, the requirement for free and enlightened consent and the requirement for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another to avoid, again, polygamy. It would further create new offences for actively knowing or participating in a forced marriage, which is something the United Kingdom and other countries have done, and other consequential amendments.

I believe that this is a reasonable, and frankly modest, sensible series of measures, which Canadians expect to actually strengthen our tradition of pluralism by demonstrating that there are reasonable limits to it.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 36 years ago, I was in Saudi Arabia. I did not have much of a background in its cultural practices, and when I first heard of the sexual mutilation of women, I was very troubled, as anyone would be. Of course, relative to that, in Canada we have strong laws to protect women from violence, and quite appropriately so.

While I was there, I worked with a number of people closely and got to know their families. In their culture, it was acceptable to have a second wife. In fact, in their culture, they could have four wives, although most had two.

I cannot imagine any one from any party who would accept the practice of forced marriage. It is offensive to us to have anyone forced into it. However, we have a situation, which the minister spoke to himself a moment ago, whereby people have wanted to come to Canada, and the only way they could was to evade the fact that they had a second wife. When I was in Saudi Arabia, that second wife was referred to as a sister wife. I think that in some polygamous cultures in the U.S. it is the same thing. Now we have the problem of a fair number of people, I would suspect, living in our country with these wives. Does that mean that we will force them to go back and leave this country? People who come here are not looking for tolerance. They are looking for acceptance. Is there room for some of that?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my view and that of the government that there is no room in Canada for polygamy, because in its essence, polygamy reflects a regard for women as property rather than people. Polygamist societies and cultures are not predicated on the free will and dignity of women. We believe that there has to be zero tolerance with respect to these relationships.

Typically the pattern by which this would happen is that an individual would come to Canada with a spouse, divorce that spouse in Canada, both of them having obtained permanent residency, and then sponsor a subsequent spouse from abroad, and perhaps do that a third time. Perhaps the person would declare that someone was a sister or something, fraudulently, on their documents. Implicit in that is an act of fraud.

With our typical Canadian humility and politeness, we say that we are sorry, but if people have lied to get into Canada and have lied about a relationship of that nature, there are sanctions for those misrepresentations. Anyone who lies in such a way should lose the privilege of residency in Canada. That is what the law already states. I believe that it is the correct position to take.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism for weighing in on this. He certainly has a record of accomplishment in the areas of outreach to multinational and multicultural communities in Canada and respect for religious diversity. I do not want to read too much into it, but I sense that he was perhaps embarrassed by the short title of this bill. If not, he should be. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act suggests a much more sweeping set of changes than making illegal most of the practices that are already illegal. Polygamy in Canada is illegal. Lying to receive citizenship is illegal. It is fraud. Most of the measures in this bill are covered by a multiplicity of other acts that Canada already has.

I am not objecting to the substance of the bill. Making it clear that polygamy is illegal in Canada, and making sure that young people cannot be in any way lured to another country for a polygamist or forced marriage is all to the good. However, I hope that the hon. minister will forgive me for saying that I find it deeply offensive that so much legislation comes to us for the purpose of bumper stickers. This is one such title, and I would urge him to speak to his cabinet colleagues and make this bill reflect in its title what it is in substance, a bill to ensure that polygamy remains illegal in Canada.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just polygamy but those who participate in forced marriages or help to arrange them, or female genital mutilation, all of which we consider to be barbaric practices. Yes, it is a strong term. It is a judgmental term, but we do sometimes need to make judgments. We sometimes need to use legislation as a teaching opportunity.

I will be absolutely blunt. When I first came to government and started as minister of multiculturalism eight years ago, for political reasons I would have probably recoiled at the name of this bill. However, my enormous exposure to and close work with the huge diversity of our cultural and faith communities taught me something over the course of time. It taught me that the vast majority of new Canadians believe passionately that there are certain hallmarks of integration into this country that we must all respect, that there is a duty to integrate, and that there are certain practices that are rooted in custom or tradition that have no place in Canada.

It is those new Canadians who gave me the inspiration, the confidence, to speak frankly and to not be encumbered, quite frankly, by political correctness on these matters. It was those new Canadians who asked me why we tolerate these things in Canada, which they fled such countries to escape. They said, “Please do not tolerate female genital mutilation, forced marriages, or polygamy. Please stop this. We see it happening in our own communities”. It was women who were victims of forced marriages, including here in Canada, who most strongly motivated the bill.

I want to give credit to the Minister of Health who during her time as minister for Status of Women heard the same message from women, such as Aruna Papp and so many other women, who said to us, “Please take strong measures. Please use strong language. Please condemn these practices. Please close the loopholes”. This bill is dedicated to all of those women who were voiceless.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand with pleasure to speak to the bill. I would like to say at the outset that we are opposing the bill. My hon. colleagues across the way may likely fan the flames of fear and intolerance by using such rhetoric as to say we are in favour of forced marriages or polygamy, but I believe that Canadians will see through this distasteful practice and hear our objections for the reasoned and human positions that they take.

I will be addressing my remarks to the more human side of this issue. Using the word “cultural” in these days unfairly creates an image of “other”, “them”, and “those who are not us”. When we go as far as adding the word “barbaric” to “cultural”, on top of that, we go back directly to a time of colonialism, to a time when those others were referred to as savages, as barbarians.

We have an obligation as government to be responsible in the type of legislation we bring forward to the floor, and not only to the type of legislation, but to how we communicate that legislation, how we communicate the reason and the need for the proposed legislation. Calling any culture barbaric, directly or indirectly, is unforgivable

There may be, and there are, some individuals who either alone or in self-identifying groups may engage in violent and despicable acts, barbaric acts, but painting an entire culture with these acts, the acts of a few, has its own inherent dangers. We see this played out on a daily basis on the news where those people of culturally diverse communities are painted with the same brush as the acts of a few. It smacks of arrogance, and it is the same arrogance that fuelled those attitudes of an era that should be long gone.

Do we want to create a safe haven in this country for women and girls who might otherwise be threatened by forced and/or polygamous marriages and, yes, even some of the other distasteful and despicable acts, such as female genital mutilation? Yes, we want to be able to protect women and girls from these sorts of acts. Should we do so by threatening everybody under the sun with imprisonment, including the victims? No.

Canada has laws that prohibit these types of marriages and these types of acts, yet these laws are very seldom enforced. We need to ask ourselves why this is. In the same way that we needed to bring changes to our own laws in regard to domestic and sexual violence in order to make it safer for victims to come forward, we need to do the same thing for the victims of forced marriages, polygamy, and other barbaric acts. We need to create that protection for victims and potential victims of any and every culture, including our own, who may find themselves in these unacceptable situations.

Over the past little while, we have seen the climate of fear and division being created and exploited by the very people and institutions that should be at the forefront of bringing our nation together.

Bill S-7 with its short title, zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, serves no purpose other than to inflame the fears, shortsightedness, and closed mindedness of a few individuals and brings into question the very nature of what it means to be Canadian.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is in essence the same one I asked another member of his caucus, which is in regard to the bill itself.

We all know that there are serious issues with the short title of the bill, and in good part we agree with many of the comments the members have put on the record with respect to that.

The question I have is more specifically in regard to the content of the legislation. Even though it might make a marginal difference, at best, it is a step forward, albeit a very small step, that deals with the issue of polygamy, forced marriages, early marriage, and to a certain degree, domestic violence. It is not a significant step forward, but it would appear that there is some value to that aspect of the legislation.

Does the member see any value whatsoever in any parts of the legislation? I share the concerns he has in regard to the short title.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my issue is, and the Minister of National Defence alluded to it as well, that we have laws in place already to deal with polygamy. Also my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands said we have laws already. Polygamy is already illegal in Canada. Forced marriage is illegal in Canada.

Many of the things the bill purports to want to address are already being addressed, so it seems to me that we should look at why we are not enforcing these more readily and then find out where the holes are in terms of addressing these issues directly.

Again, to paint a whole culture with the brush of “these are the only people who are doing this” is unfair and dangerous.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It is great to see so many MPs speaking to this bill.

One of the reasons I got involved in politics from the very beginning was to work on issues like this, to empower women to fight for equality, liberty, and more than anything, an end to violence. Since being elected in 2006, this government and this government alone, under the Prime Minister's leadership, based on our values of pluralism, tolerance, and respect, has acted as one of the loudest, most determined governments in the world in pushing for safe communities and environments for women. We have taken the strongest measures in Canadian history to protect vulnerable women.

We raised the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years to protect young people, including girls, from sexual exploitation by adult predators, and we strengthened peace bond provisions concerning those who were previously convicted of sexual offences against children. It might sound like a small thing, but we have also improved the availability of testimonial aids for vulnerable adult victims and witnesses, including women, who have experienced violence and have to go through the justice system. As someone who volunteered in women's shelters in my life before politics, I can say that these measures make a huge difference for victims and women who are at risk of violence.

Human trafficking is a heinous crime that adversely affects women and girls, especially aboriginal women and girls as young as 12 years old. Our government amended the Criminal Code to create specific offences that prohibit the trafficking of persons for any exploitative purpose—including forced sexual exploitation or forced labour—receipt of a financial material benefit from the trafficking of persons, and the withholding or destroying of traveller identity documents to facilitate the trafficking of persons.

These measures, of course, are all designed to protect vulnerable women from these predators, prosecute the traffickers, and prevent these serious crimes and human rights violations. It is also why this government supported the creation of a mandatory minimum penalty of five years in prison for the trafficking of a person under the age of 18.

For all of the Liberals' talk about their support for aboriginal women, it was this government, under our Prime Minister, that after 100 years, introduced matrimonial property rights on reserve to provide aboriginal women with basic rights and remedies on the fair division of the family home when there is a breakdown in relationship. As well, it was this government that guaranteed people living on reserves the same protections as all Canadians enjoy under the Canadian Human Rights Act, so that aboriginal women also have the same legal protections and supports that are afforded all Canadian women.

These are some of the important actions that our government has taken to improve the legal equality of aboriginal women, but our government is also working to improve the lives of other groups of vulnerable and disenfranchised women in our country. That is why we have introduced Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It sends a very clear message that harmful or violent cultural practices are unacceptable in Canada. These practices, whether they are gender-based violence, female genital mutilation, early, forced, or polygamous marriage, or of course, so-called honour-based violence, are incompatible with Canadian values and will not be tolerated in our country.

Bill S-7 builds on our government's record of taking very strong action to ensure the equality, safety, and security of all women and girls in communities across Canada by strengthening our laws to prevent and respond to harmful cultural traditions that deprive individuals, particularly women, of their human rights. I am especially proud that this government will not fall victim to political correctness and cultural relativism by ignoring these problems or ignoring the problem of violence motivated by so-called honour. These heinous acts are an extreme and brutal violation of the values that we hold dear, and it is shameful that there are those who encourage them.

It bears repeating, when discussing this issue, that all forms of violence are fully prohibited by the Criminal Code, whatever the motive.

Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code to limit the defence of provocation, ensuring that culture could never be an excuse for murder or violence when the victim committed a lawful act that made another person feel so enraged or so dishonoured or insulted or humiliated or ashamed that the person would inflict violence.

The defence of provocation can currently be raised by persons with what are, in my view, warped values who are found to have committed a crime even as serious as murder where they claim that they did so in the heat of passion and in response to what was a wrongful act or insult by the victims themselves that caused them to lose their self-control. If successful in the defence, even though they are found to have committed murder, they are instead convicted of perhaps manslaughter, which has no mandatory minimum sentence unless a firearm is used. By contrast, a conviction for murder carries a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum of 10 years' incarceration before being eligible for parole.

The defence of provocation has been raised in several so-called honour killing cases in Canada. It has been raised on the basis that the victim's behaviour, such as choosing one's own marriage partner or dating partner, or even making other personal decisions, such as what kind of clothing to wear, without the support or permission of the father, usually, or sometimes the mother or extended family, amounted to a wrongful act or insult.

This so-called wrongful act or insult, when considered in the context of the cultural community to which the family belonged, apparently would provoke the accused to inflict violence, and maybe even kill, over a sense of damaged honour or reputation. The defence has been invoked in spousal homicides of women in response to legal conduct of the victim, including cases in which the victim was simply trying to end the relationship or said something that the killer found insulting, as well as in cases of real or perceived infidelity.

All Canadians know about some of these very high-profile cases, but what they do not know about is the insidious nature of this kind of oppression that they may not have read about in the paper or the Ottawa Citizen. It would make Canadians sick to know that an attempt could be made to excuse a murder because the killer was insulted, embarrassed, ashamed, or humiliated, or suffered some other emotional upset based on the concept of honour. It is unacceptable, of course, to excuse murder that is committed because a person was unable to control the actions or decisions of another person.

In Canada, I think all of us agree that men and women are equal under the law, and the ability to make one's own choices in life is a cornerstone of our democracy. No one deserves to be oppressed or to experience violence because their legal choices are unwelcome to a spouse, a parent or brothers, or by anyone else in their community. Accordingly, Bill S-7 proposes to restrict the application of the defence of provocation so that it would no longer be available to those who intentionally kill another person in response to conduct that was legal.

The harmful practices that this bill seeks to end—gender-based violence; early, forced, or polygamous marriage; and so-called honour-based violence—typically affect women and girls. They are heinous abuses of human rights and have no place in Canadian society.

Our government has been clear on this issue from the beginning. Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to such barbaric cultural practices, and we are sending a very strong message, both to people in Canada and to people who wish to come to Canada, that we will not tolerate cultural traditions that deprive individuals, specifically women and girls, of their human rights. The preservation and promotion of human rights, our deep respect for fundamental freedoms, and a wholehearted commitment to the universal dignity of all persons stand at the heart of who we are as Canadians.

I hope that all members of this House will join me in supporting Bill S-7, which signals to Canadian society and, most importantly, signals to women and girls all across Canada and to the rest of the world that ensuring the equality, safety, and security of all women and girls in communities across Canada is paramount.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech.

I admit that although I agree with many points, my greatest reservation about Bill S-7 often concerns the surrounding discussion, the way it is presented and even its title, which refers to barbaric cultural practices. All the presentations implied that the Criminal Code does not currently apply to a good number of these situations.

My colleague spoke at length about, among other things, the limit of the defence of provocation for the express purpose of prohibiting honour crimes. The courts have already established that the culturally defined concept of honour does not represent a valid defence of provocation under the Criminal Code.

We have all the means already available in the Criminal Code to fight these practices, and what Bill S-7 will add. However, there is also everything that Bill S-7 does not address. For example, at their arrival in Canada, how do we inform women and young girls, who are often the first victims, of their rights guaranteed under the Criminal Code?

Could we take an approach to this bill that is a little less sensationalist and that focuses a little more on promoting the real rights that women should be aware of so they can exercise them?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member knows full well that when immigrants arrive in Canada, they do learn about their rights. Issues around harmful traditional cultural practices, including female genital mutilation and honour crimes, are very clearly articulated in our citizenship guide. It is very well spelled out and articulated that in Canada those kinds of harmful cultural practices are not to be tolerated and that men and women are equal under the law.

I have been to citizenship ceremonies, as I am sure have many of my fellow MPs, and they have heard exactly that from the citizenship judges. Immigrants do learn what their rights are.

However, most importantly, this is the government that invested in programs to reach out to young girls in the South Asian community, where we know honour-based violence occurs, to help them feel comfortable coming forward if they are feeling any level of oppression. We are now also funding shelters with resources in multiple languages so that those girls who may have any sort of a challenge in understanding English will have resources available to them. We are also providing training across the country to women's shelters that did not traditionally deal with other ethnic and cultural practices so that they can learn about the challenges that some of these young girls are facing.

At the end of the day, not only do we have to support these young women but also send a very clear, unambiguous message that barbaric cultural and harmful practices will never be tolerated here. We are going to shut the door on the opportunity to use this as a defence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment regarding the short title. The idea that one has to incorporate the word “culture” is questionable. We in the Liberal Party have suggested that it be amended out of the short title. Some form of domestic gender abuse has existed in all societies, and there is no need to tie in the word “culture”. I opposed this wording as well with others who spoke on the issue, but to no avail. I would be interested in the member's opinion on that point.

My question is in regard to the first part of the member's comments, when she somewhat glorified the government's approach in dealing with the abuse of women and girls. The question is related to the 1,200-plus aboriginal women and girls who have been brutally murdered or gone missing. Everyone, whether municipalities, chiefs, provincial premiers, or both opposition parties, is calling for a public inquiry—everyone except the current Prime Minister. Everyone is calling for it, and the need is there. If the government and this particular minister are saying that the government is active on this file, why would they not call for a public inquiry?

Then she can perhaps add her comments on the word “culture” in the remaining time.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I am glad that our government is not going to treat this issue with political correctness, because the young girls I have met, particularly in the South Asian community, are very clear about the harmful cultural practices that occur in their own culture.

These are not religious practices but cultural practices. They are harmful traditional practices that happen in the country of origin and they are now happening in Canada. We need to work with these young women and groups within their cultures who are seeking solutions to very tough challenges.

There is no doubt that this is happening and that these are cultural practices that originate not in religion but in culture. They are harmful. Those who are within the culture, women's groups that I have worked with, identify that very clearly.

Therefore, we should call it what it is. We have to face it head-on and work with these women, who call it exactly the same thing we do: barbaric and harmful. These are practices that they are working very hard to eliminate within their own communities. We cannot be ambivalent or ambiguous about this situation. We have to be clear and call it what it is. These are barbaric cultural practices that harm and sometimes kill women and girls, and our government will not equivocate on that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for York South—Weston, Housing.