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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I made reference to the fact that the Liberal Party will be voting in favour of Bill S-7, even though there are some concerns, particularly with the title of the bill. We understand and appreciate a number of concerns that were expressed at the committee stage.

Having said that, if the member had been listening to her colleague who started off the debate on the bill this morning, she would have heard him acknowledge that there are many aspects of the legislation that even the NDP supports. I am not sure how the NDP is going to be voting on the legislation; I have been told that the New Democrats will be voting against it. However, I will let them make that determination when the vote occurs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure who is not listening to whom here.

The NDP has been clear that we will be opposing this bill, as we did at second reading. Our reasons for doing so are very simple and have been clearly explained. If my colleague would like to know what they are, everything is in the committee minutes.

When so many experts agree that some measures in the bill, never mind the title, will discourage victims from reporting forced marriages and polygamy for fear of being deported, and so many experts who are familiar with the Criminal Code and the immigration act tell us that this bill is dangerous, it is impossible for the NDP to support it. If we take the committee study seriously, it is obvious that this bill must be stopped and we must adopt better measures.

However, the Liberals are displaying their typical reaction, which is to say they disagree with a bill and then turn around and vote for it anyway.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree to disagree with the member. If anything is classical, it is the attitude of the NDP in saying that there are many things good in the bill but because they are opposition that means they have to vote against the bill.

We should recognize that at times there is legislation that could improve upon a law, and on balance if it is good legislation it is something that can be supported. We have even seen that the New Democrats will often support government legislation.

We had concerns with the legislation, but in dealing with the issues of polygamous, forced, and early marriages, and the issue of domestic violence, there would be clarification in acts that would assist in dealing with these issues in a more progressive way. Therefore, it is legislation that is ultimately worth voting for.

It is unfortunate that the government has labelled the bill as barbaric culture, but that is not something that is incorporated into the legislation itself, even though it would have been a good amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-7, zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I want to comment on two confusions that have arisen in the context of the debate of the bill and were also reflected in some of the testimony before committee.

I want to briefly touch on two topics today: the first concerning the proposed minimum age for marriage; and the second, about the definition of “practising polygamy”.

During the debate and in the testimony before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, there was considerable discussion about whether the bill should have set the minimum age for marriage even higher than 16 years of age, as is proposed, with some suggesting that age 18 would be more appropriate.

In Canada, the age at which individuals can marry without additional consent is either 18 or 19, depending on the province or territory. Under our Constitution, it is within provincial and territorial jurisdiction to make the determination of “independent marriage age”.

Under our Constitution, it is the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to determine the age below which no minor may legally marry, sometimes called the “absolute minimum age for marriage”. Right now in Canadian law, federal legislation specifies that age 16 is the absolute minimum age for marriage only for the purposes of the law in the province of Quebec. Elsewhere in Canada, because there is no federal legislation, the common law still applies and it is usually interpreted as an absolute minimum age for girls of 12 and for boys of 14.

The other issue I wanted to touch on is concern that the bill has no definition of “practising polygamy”. One witness before the Committee referred to the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in the Polygamy Reference case and suggested that it did not determine the meaning. This is incorrect.

There was disagreement before the court on the correct interpretation of the Criminal Code polygamy offence, but Justice Bauman clearly indicated that polygamy was a form of marriage involving more than two people, and included legal marriages, as well as “purported forms of marriage”, meaning religious marriages that were not recognized in law, but where the parties believe they were bound together. He further accepted the Attorney General of Canada's argument that “marriage” was a form of union that is dependent on an event, a ceremony of some kind that sanctions a union of individuals. It is absolutely clear that polygamy does not include common law relationships or other informal relationships, such as polyamory or affairs.

All of the evidence presented demonstrated the harms, both to individuals and to society, of multi-party marriage. These harms of polygamy caused Justice Bauman to find the prohibition against polygamy constitutional .

Clear guidance with respect to the meaning of "practising polygamy" will be provided to front-line immigration officials.

Another witness suggested that only the man was practising polygamy because of his union with more than one spouse, but that the women in a polygamous union should not be included because their union was to only one spouse. This suggestion, while I am sure well-meaning, completely defies logic.

The final point I want to make concerns another confusion. Some have suggested that a person who is married to someone and either does not know that the person is already married to someone else, or who is forced into that marriage, would be considered to be practising polygamy. This is completely untrue. Under the Criminal Code, a person who has no actual knowledge that he or she are in a polygamous union, or a person who was forced into such a union, has not behaved in a morally blameworthy manner, which is the cornerstone of the criminal law. If a person is unaware of relevant facts, or has been compelled to act, he or she is not guilty of a criminal offence.

Bill S-7 would protect young people from early marriages by enacting a new, national, absolute minimum age for marriage that would apply to all marriages performed in Canada, and to all marriages performed outside of Canada that involved young people ordinarily resident here. This is an important protection for all our young people. I have been told of instances where young people are excused from classes to be married by telephone at age 12 and 13. That will no longer be possible once the bill receives royal assent.

The bill would also give young people the ability to tell their parents that they could not be forced to marry someone they did not want to marry because it was against the law. It would give young people the ability to ask for a court order to take their passports from their parents if they were afraid they may be taken out of the country to marry.

These are important changes in the law to protect vulnerable youth until they are old enough to better know their own minds. Marriage is hard enough, and young married couples will face many challenges without adding to them the burden of marrying too young or marrying someone they do not wish to marry.

Our government is taking a strong stance against these practices and is leading international efforts to address them as a violation of basic human rights. I hope all members of the House will join with me in supporting this important bill.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken this bill to heart. It is one that resonates with almost every woman across the country. In fact, I wrote to every woman in my constituency and I received back unanimous support. Every person who wrote back to me was in favour of the bill for the very reasons that it would protect women and girls.

This could also happen to a young man or boy, however, the reality is that it is young affects women and girls. How important is it to stand up and protect vulnerable women and young children in our country?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her hard work on this bill that is aimed at protecting the most vulnerable, women and young women and also, males, because it is a universal application.

I have three daughters and I can hardly envision a situation where the parents would force them into a relationship that they would not be willing to undertake of their own free volition. As I commented earlier, it is hard enough leading a married life with someone one truly loves, but to be forced into a situation where one has no control because of the wishes of parents is beyond any element of human dignity.

This is an important bill, and I would ask all members to get on board and support it. It is for protecting the most vulnerable.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the definitions he provided to us today in his speech. However, I want to go to the basic idea that we are passing this law that is going to do something.

In Denmark, the parliament there unanimously passed a law making it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry. Six years after the law was enacted, not one single charge has been brought up under that law. The people who deal with these types of issues in Denmark say that they do not think the law has had any impact. In fact, it might have a negative impact of driving the process of forced marriages underground and increasing the sophistication of those who make these decisions for their children. That is what has happened with that law.

We have gone into this time allocation procedure on a law that affects many people in our country. Marriage laws are extremely important to people and now we have made a decision about this. Is this going to help? We do not know whether it will. Therefore, why does the member think that by criminalizing this act somehow it will change the cultures of the people who are involved in it?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to the willingness of the Denmark law enforcement officials to enforce their laws in a country over which we have absolutely no jurisdiction. However, we are now in an age today with the Internet. Young people are on the Internet and on Facebook. There was a time when a child would come to us and say “Dad, can you fix my car?” Now I go to my daughters and ask “Can you fix my computer?”

The abundance of information is out there, despite the cultural bounds of from whatever family one comes. This information will be readily available to children. We are a Canadian society and they will be encouraged to come forth. I am confident they will come forth and the authorities will act accordingly.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have put forward a number of amendments to this bill, a bill with a title that seems almost silly that it would be put forward for a bill of this nature. We have proposed amendments that try to enhance or fix the bill, but we do not anticipate these amendments will pass and we will likely oppose the bill at report stage.

Dealing with this issue is fine, but, as I pointed out in a previous question, we would simply be criminalizing an action that takes place within families and between individuals. This action is normally considered to be very much a decision made by those people, not by the state, not by the community, engaged in matrimonial practices. The bill very clearly states that marriages cannot be forced and someone cannot be forced into marriage.

This is my 40th year of a happy marriage, and I am very proud of having accomplished that. Luckily enough, I did not force anyone into a marriage. Due to her beauty, charm and good nature, it made it unbelievably compelling for me to enter into marriage and, luckily, she said yes.

We are concerned that this be dealt with in a very careful fashion. We are concerned that the criminalization of these acts is probably not the appropriate method to deal with this situation. It will not make the difference that needs to be made.

When we talk about marriage laws, the age of marriage in the Northwest Territories, under the NWT marriage act, is 15. That is what has been determined by the NWT government and put into place under section 46 of its act. Under this proposed bill, we will have to change the law now to 16 years of age. Any marriages that are contemplated in the next while by people under the age of 16 will have to wait. That is fair enough.

I wonder what consultation the government conducted with the provinces and territories about what they considered to be a fair age and how the provinces and territories felt about having their authority to set the age of marriage as they deem fit taken away from them and established by Parliament. I would like to some answers to those questions. I think we all would.

When it comes to violence against women and children in society, all of us in the House want to do things to prevent that, to change society so it is less violent, so people can live their lives in a good fashion, free from duress and living under the control of others, whether it is in marriage or the relationship after marriage. We are all in favour of those things.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I regret having to interrupt the member for the Northwest Territories. He will have five minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed consideration of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported without amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Northwest Territories had five minutes remaining in his remarks.

The hon. member for Northwest Territories.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak again to this bill in short order after question period. Prior to question period, I talked about some of the issues that were involved with the bill. I want to speak now about what is ahead of us on family matters.

I would refer the House to a Globe and Mail article this morning that talked about a Nanos poll. Nanos indicates:

When asked which federal party was most trusted to help Canadian families, 34 per cent of the poll’s respondents picked the NDP. That compared with the 27 per cent who chose the Liberals and the 26 per cent who chose the Conservatives.

This speaks directly to the problems with this bill. The Conservatives have proposed an approach on marriage, a part of the family cycle that is so valuable to everyone. They proposed changes to it without consultation with the provinces and territories, putting forward an idea that really does not accomplish much. The laws of duress are already in place. Other countries that have established similar laws have shown no results from them.

What the NDP would do for families and for women to deal with violence was very clearly articulated by the member for Churchill when she put forward Motion No. 444. It was a motion to establish a coordinated national action plan to address violence against women. Part of that would be strategies that address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of different communities, including specific attention to aboriginal women, women with disabilities, women from minority groups, and young women.

What we proposed in our national action plan was to get to the bottom of the issues surrounding groups such as those. Certainly the ideas that the Conservatives are concerned about and would deal with by criminalizing forced marriages would be dealt with inside a framework that would look for actual solutions to the problems rather than by criminalizing those engaged in it, and criminalizing them in a very broad and capricious way that really does not allow for definition or for any kind of rational action on that part.

I think this is really important, as it comes on the heels of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, which followed many groups in society by asking for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.

Violence against women is one of the biggest and most pressing problems that we have with families in this country, and the need for that public inquiry is so important. Why is it so important? The Prime Minister said that this is not a social issue. Of course it is a social issue, much as forced marriages are a social issue. All of these are social issues that need to be dealt with in a respectful, responsible fashion. We need to get to the bottom of the issues in society that create the conditions that lead to violence and forced marriages and all of the things that all of us in this House today would not want to have happen in our families, in aboriginal families, or in minority group families.

Yes, we are concerned about it, but using retail politics to put forward a bill that does nothing except provide a title to an issue is really the wrong approach. That is why the polling results that we see today across this country with respect to who the Canadian population trusts to deal with issues for families are so revealing. We talk about real ways to come to grips with society's ills. That is not through legislation; that is through careful, enunciated conditions that arise out of a careful examination of the issues.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the member's earlier speech before question period. He made a comment questioning why there would be criminal charges if it is within a family. Child abuse and incest are within a family as well, and thank goodness we have laws against those offences to protect young people across this country.

The member also scoffs at the title of this bill, saying that it should not be called “barbaric cultural practices”. When someone who is a minor, a child, a girl of 12 or 13, is forced into an early marriage with a man 40 years old who is overseas, from another country, that young woman, that young girl, that child is going to be raped every single day for the rest of her life.

How could the member not think that is barbaric? Does he just simply think it is all in the family?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with what the member pointed out that I supposedly said. I will look at the record to make sure that it was not said.

All of the things the member is talking about are laws that now exist in society. All of the things she is talking about are issues that we have legal recourse to deal with in society. Those are not issues that stand outside of society today.

We support the intent of the bill. We are just saying that it does not work. It will not be competent in what it is going to do for society.