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

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric practices act. This is an important initiative for our government, one that links up with many other initiatives that we have taken over many years now.

The bill has a simple set of principles. First, we are convinced that no young girl or no woman in this country should be subject to forced or early marriage, meaning marriage before the age of 18. Second, we believe that the practice of polygamy in this country on any scale as part of Canadian communities, as part of our immigration system, as part of our visitor streams into Canada, is unacceptable and should be stopped.

We are taking action through this legislation to ensure that there is no place in Canada for so-called honour-based violence. Honour in any of its forms, whether it is widely seen to be in play in a given situation or subjectively seen to be in play by one single person, has no place in the defence of an individual charged with a violent act. Violence must be dealt with by our criminal justice system on its own terms, and an honour defence, in our view and under the terms of this act, would no longer be as readily available as it has been up until now.

We will pursue these changes to our legislative framework through the proposed amendments in the bill to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues across the House who have shown an interest in these issues. I would also like to thank individuals in our ministry. This is a joint effort with the Minister of Status of Women, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, and many others, such as the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was so active on these issues around the world. We are passionate about these issues, as are many members of our caucus, committee chairs, committee members, and individual members of Parliament.

We are fulfilling a Speech from the Throne commitment with this legislation. That commitment recognizes that there are possibly tens of millions of young women and girls around the world who are still subject to forced and early marriage and the violence and the forms of compulsion that go with that. We see these practices as absolutely incompatible with Canadian values, and for that reason are proud to be putting forward concrete initiatives today to ensure that these barbaric practices that represent implicit support for the commission of violence in this country are eliminated from Canada, are discouraged and deterred, and that when they do take place, are punished.

All members will recall the events of April 17, 2009, when Zainab Shafia fled her home in Montreal at the age of 19 because her parents had forced her to marry a man she did not want to marry. Three months later, the bodies of Zainab, two of her sisters and the first wife of her father, who was in a polygamous marriage, were found in a canal in Kingston, Ontario.

These young women wanted a better life for themselves and their family in Canada. They never should have been subjected to constant fear and threats of violence or death solely because they wanted a better life in Canada.

The amendments in this bill would strengthen provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code to add further protection.

The Shafia case reminds us of how catastrophic the consequences of inaction on this issue can be. This was a forced marriage, combined with a polygamous relationship and a so-called honour-based motive for murder. Thankfully, there was a conviction for murder in this case, but none of those elements should have been in place in the Shafia family's life as immigrants to this country. This bill will help to ensure that such a situation never arises again.

These amendments would improve protection and support for vulnerable individuals in a number of different ways, especially for women and girls. This is the summary of the substance of this bill, which I will elaborate upon shortly in more detail.

First, the bill would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practise polygamy in Canada. In other words, if immigrants and visitors to Canada practice polygamy in Canada with one wife or one spouse, they would now be inadmissible.

Second, the provisions would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 years old, as well as by codifying both the existing legal requirements for a free and enlightened consent for marriage and by codifying the requirements for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another. It seems almost to go without saying to many of us in this place, but these measures have not been part of the Civil Marriage Act and have not been obligatory across Canada until this proposal that is being made under this legislation.

The measures would also criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriage ceremonies. In other words, anyone knowingly taking a substantive role in solemnizing or officiating at an early or forced marriage of a girl or a boy under the age of 16 years old would face consequences under the Criminal Code that have not previously been there.

Fourth, these measures would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new and specific preventive court-ordered peace bond when there are grounds to fear 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 in many spousal homicides.

Let me delve into each of these initiatives in some more detail and elaborate on some of the important measures Bill S-7 proposes.

Polygamy is an affront to our values. As such, it has been illegal in Canada since 1890. While it is against the law in Canada to practice polygamy or to enter into a polygamous union, we know that is not the case in every country in the world. According to our most recent analysis, upwards of 60 countries allow polygamy and make it legal to some extent. The rate at which polygamy is practised in many of these countries is very low and may be only a couple of percent of the population, although in some cases it is much higher. However, we in Canada are adamant that this is not featured among our practices. It is antithetical to our values. While it has been on the books as a crime since 1890, it is only in more recent years that the first prosecutions have taken place under that law, so it is a current issue in the criminal justice system as well.

Thus, polygamy is already illegal in Canada. However, we must do more to ensure that this Canadian value is respected by everyone in the immigration system in order to strengthen our ability to prevent polygamy in Canada and to ensure that our immigration system does not in any way facilitate this practice.

Bill S-7 will make polygamy grounds for inadmissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This would give, for the first time, immigration officers the tools they need to render temporary and permanent residents, visitors, and immigrants inadmissible when they are practising polygamy. The new inadmissibility would mean that those who are entering on a temporary basis and who are are in polygamous marriages abroad can only enter on their own, not with their spouses. This is not presently the case. We do not have the ability to prevent those practising polygamy from coming into Canada, either as immigrants or visitors.

Currently, visitors who practise polygamy in their countries of origin are generally allowed to enter with only one spouse at the time of seeking entry. It is unacceptable that our immigration system would allow this practice to continue. To ensure polygamy is not practised on Canadian soil, this bill proposes to ban foreign nationals who practise polygamy from entering Canada with any of their spouses, even on a temporary basis. It would also mean that permanent residents found to be in polygamous marriages would be removed on that basis alone.

The anecdotal evidence is considerable. The number of immigrants who have come to this country in polygamous unions but disguised that fact and misrepresented themselves as either not being married or not being in a polygamous union is substantial. Under these provisions, we would, for the first time, no longer need a criminal conviction or a finding of misrepresentation in order to begin deportation proceedings. We would simply need the evidence of the practice of polygamy.

Measures in Bill S-7 would also amend the Civil Marriage Act in order to address the problem of early and forced marriages. In Canada, as things stand now, there is no national minimum age for marriage. Specific federal laws that apply only in Quebec set the minimum age at 16 years old; in other parts of Canada, the common law applies.

There is some uncertainty about common law minimum age, which is sometimes interpreted as setting a minimum of 12 for girls and 14 for boys, although in some instances the legal records, the precedents in the common law, set an age as low as seven years old. I think everyone in the House would agree that this is completely and unequivocally unacceptable. It hearkens back to the Middle Ages and to other periods when those traditions, if they were such, would certainly, from today's perspective, be considered barbaric. The medical evidence of harm to young people below mature ages is overwhelming, and setting a national minimum age of 16 years old would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and will not be tolerated.

Other amendments to the Civil Marriage Act proposed in Bill S-7 will codify the requirement for free and enlightened consent of the parties who intend to marry and the requirement that any previous marriage be dissolved.

This might seem quite obvious to us, but it is extremely important to those who, to date, have had no say in their own marriage. We must ensure that the voices of all those who embark on the joyful journey of marriage are heard and respected.

On behalf of the voiceless, we are acting in many cases in these measures to codify a minimum age for marriage and to prevent forced marriage. For those who have been compelled into unhappy unions, unions that have resulted in violence or have subjected women to sexual assault on a repeated and continuing basis, we need to make sure that we can take action for their sake to prevent such violence against women, and violence generally.

Building on the proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act, Bill S-7 also contains measures that would amend the Criminal Code to help prevent forced or underage marriages, including, henceforth, making it a criminal act to knowingly officiate at an underage or forced marriage; to knowingly and actively participate in a wedding ceremony in which one party is marrying another against his or her will or is under 16 years old; or to remove a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage.

For example, if a parent, a mother or a father, who received payment from another family in this country or outside this country to marry off one of their children to a member of that other family, but who did not seek and certainly did not obtain the enlightened and free consent of the child involved, were there simply as the parent of the bride or the groom, even if they were not officiating at the marriage ceremony, would be committing a crime. The crime would be that they had brought forward a child, compelled a child, to be married without their consent, against their free will. This should be a crime, and I think we all agree on that in Canada today.

There is a very clear distinction between this and an arranged marriage, where families introduce children, parents want the union to happen, and the parties to be married themselves consent and agree, where they have truly decided that this is the right choice for them. That type of marriage is not affected by this bill. However, a forced marriage, where the parents or anyone else who is involved in a transaction or in the compulsion agree, but the parties themselves do not agree, would henceforth place those responsible, those with a substantial role in arranging the marriage, in a position where they are committing a criminal act.

Other proposed amendments would create a new peace bond that would give courts the power to impose conditions on an individual when there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or marriage under the age of 16 would otherwise occur. This is particularly important in our efforts to prevent those who know that a forced marriage would not be tolerated in Canada from having an underage child, or any child, removed against their will so that the marriage could take place in another jurisdiction.

We will have the tools under Bill S-7 to take action against those who would choose this unfortunate and, indeed, dangerous course of action as well. Such a peace bond could be used to prevent an underage or forced marriage by requiring, for example, the surrender of a passport, as well as preventing a child from being taken out of Canada. This is a very important option for a young girl, for example, who wants to stop her family from taking her out of the country for a forced marriage, but does not want to press charges against her family members, a situation that arises quite commonly. She would have that important option and would be able to save herself from an unwanted fate.

Anyone who wonders whether this is widespread or necessary need only pick up the phone or come to speak to any of us at the citizenship and immigration committee, who will put them in touch with people in our global network, those retired or those still in service, who will tell them that this is happening. Forced and underage marriage is a reality in Canada, and the removal of young people to face these dreadful consequences abroad is also all too common.

Measures in the bill would also amend the Criminal Code to address so-called honour killings. Unfortunately, we have seen these cases too often on our soil. In fact, while there is not a large number—several dozen in recent decades—there have more cases in the last 10 or 15 years than in the previous 20 years, according to the available studies. So called honour-based violence is usually perpetrated against family members, usually women and girls, who are perceived to have brought shame or dishonour to the family.

These honour killings are usually premeditated and committed with a certain level of approval from family members and the community, and sometimes with their participation.

However, in some cases, they may also be alleged to be spontaneous killings in response to behaviour by the victim that is perceived to be disrespectful, insulting, or harmful to a family's reputation. Under the Criminal Code, anyone charged with and found to have committed murder can raise the defence of provocation in seeking a reduction to the lesser charge of manslaughter. Under Bill S-7, that option would no longer be available.

We think, taken together, these measures represent important progress against barbaric practices that are all too common in the world today and still present in Canada. I appreciate the opportunity to present them to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He explained some of the measures in Bill S-7.

As a preface to my question, I must say that I agree with a number of the things he said. Naturally, I agree that no girl should be subject to violence and that there is no place in this country for forced marriage, honour crimes or any other type of violence against women. We agree with this principle and with the objective here.

However, I must point out that today we are not debating whether someone who forces a child to marry should be sentenced, punished or criminally charged. Anyone who commits violence against children and women should be punished. We must all do everything we can to stop this kind of barbaric practice and this type of violence.

That said, my question is about the bill itself. Will Bill S-7 really help us achieve this goal?

The minister is certainly aware that the Senate conducted a study, that a number of experts and lawyers spoke out against the bill and that some serious concerns were expressed by witnesses. Bill S-7 could make victims more vulnerable. Instead of helping victims and bringing the guilty parties to justice, the bill could have the opposite effect. A number of victims' advocates and groups working directly with victims say that the provisions in the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as the amendments to the Criminal Code, could make people less inclined to speak out for fear of reprisals from their family.

Is the minister aware of these concerns and is he interested in improving the bill to ensure that it truly protects victims?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her question and her general support for numerous measures found in the bill. Yes, we all have the shared goal of preventing violence against women, and, in fact, all violence, period. I also want to thank her for using the term “barbaric”, because these practices really are barbaric and should be called what they are.

I am well aware of the testimony given in committee. When it comes to both immigration and the Criminal Code, we always see so-called specialized groups in one sector or another that say there is no need to legislate, that we should just let them take care of it and they will solve the problem, and no one from the legal system or the immigration system needs to get involved. We tried that method for decades. Early and forced marriages, polygamy and honour killings continue to be practised in many cases. It is time to provide women and girls who have been the victims of these crimes the same degree of protection as that provided to Canadians in all other areas and for all other crimes.

We need the full force of the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prevent these barbaric practices and crimes. There is no other way to ensure proper protection other than legislating as we are prepared to do.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the intention of the legislation before us. I think all here agree that violence against women and girls, forced marriage, polygamy, and the other issues the minister spoke of in his speech are all things to be abhorred. However, the difficulty I have and that I want the minister respond to is the inclusion of the word “cultural” in any of these things.

All of these things are ethical questions, not cultural questions. I would suggest that it is inappropriate to tie any of these practices to a specific culture. Not only is it inappropriate, it is simply unnecessary. We can pass a law that bans these things, and we should, without tying them to culture. They should be tied to ethics. I would suggest that tying them to culture causes us to judge cultures by some of the worst practices within them. It is entirely unnecessary to approach this by including any cultural element.

What is added to the bill by the inclusion of “culture” in the title? Would the minister consider removing it so that the perception that any particular culture is being criticized or judged can be expunged and we can move forward collaboratively with this effort, because we all agree on the principles?

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

Mr. Speaker, no, we will not remove the word “cultural”, because it is deeply relevant to the objective we are trying to achieve here.

No specific culture, either national, ethnic, or territorial, is being targeted by this bill. What is being targeted is a culture of tolerance and sometimes a culture of indifference to these issues that have found a place in Canada and in many other places around the world. I would challenge anyone in the House to deny that there is a certain cultural environment, yes, in some communities in Canada, but definitely in some countries around the world, that tolerates these barbaric practices.

I am not surprised to hear this criticism from a member of the Liberal Party, because it was his leader who objected to the use of the term “barbaric” to describe any of these practices whatsoever. He was not willing to describe violence against women, whether female genital mutilation, forced marriage, or honour killings, by the name that Canadians, with our principled approach to these issues, insist on using.

This violence, whether against aboriginal women and girls, immigrant women and girls, or women and girls in some other community in Canada, is unacceptable and barbaric. That culture has no place in Canada. It is incompatible with Canadian values.

I will take the example of Lee Marsh, a Jehovah's witness who just turned 18. As reported in a recent issue of Maclean's, Lee Marsh's mother came into the room and told Lee that she would marry a 20-year-old man whom she had met only once before. She was quoted as saying that she was not allowed an opinion. She wanted to run, but she was not allowed to. She was compelled into this marriage.

The culture surrounding that type of practice is unacceptable, and the consequences, the violence that can ensue, the repeated sexual assaults, are indeed barbaric.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

First, as I mentioned in the question I asked the minister a little earlier today, I agree that no girl or woman in this country or in any country in the world should have to be subject to any kind of violence. I want to emphasize that. Today, we are talking particularly about violence against women in the form of forced marriage or honour killings, for example.

Canadians are appalled by these practices, which are not acceptable in Canada and in most other countries. We need to fight against these practices. As a parliamentarian, I would be pleased to support any bill that would provide additional protection to victims and would represent a step in the right direction, even if it involved only a small contribution or a small amendment that could provide tools or help to prevent such crimes. I would be the first to support such a bill.

The battle to combat violence against women is one that is primarily being fought on the ground. I tip my hat to the front-line workers, security personnel, border officers and, in short, everyone who works on the ground and witnesses this type of violence and crime. They have to intervene to prevent these crimes and help victims. It is an ongoing battle. I tip my hat to all of those who are directly or indirectly involved in fighting this type of violence against women.

Nevertheless, this fight is not just being fought on the ground. People on the ground need decision makers and those with the power to change the laws to listen to what they are saying and partner with them so that they can get the tools and resources they need to move forward and combat violence against women.

In short, as I said, I would be pleased to support any bill that represents progress in combatting this type of violence against women, such as forced marriages. However, I am not sure that Bill S-7 is such a bill, and I will explain why.

First, little has been said about this inside the House, but a lot has been said about it outside the House, in the media. The public has talked about this a great deal and so have experts and workers in the field. I am referring to the title of this bill.

I agree that forced marriage or any type of violence against women is barbaric and cruel and must be eliminated. However, I take issue with the word “cultural” in the title of the bill, and so do many Canadians. Is forced marriage really exclusive to a few cultural communities, or any culture? Of course not. Unfortunately, violence is committed against women in every country and in every culture. Anyone who thinks that the way to fight this practice is to engage in a witch hunt and identify certain cultures is mistaken. That is not the point and it is not the right approach.

I said a little earlier that the fight against violence against women is taking place primarily on the ground. To effectively fight against this violence, we have to establish partnerships with all those who can help. That includes people from all cultures. We cannot alienate them or attack any culture. We have to bring people together and establish a partnership with all cultures.

A bill title like this one only puts up obstacles to establishing the necessary partnerships for taking on this fight.

I would like to quote Ms. Miville-Dechêne, president of Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme:

Of course, punishment must be imposed, but prevention is also important, and using such a strong title and the word “barbaric” may inhibit community cooperation. However, community cooperation is a necessary part of prevention.

Basically, putting the words “barbaric” and “cultural” together will not lead us to positive solutions and will not really help us fight violence against women.

I recently met some people who need police protection to get to work. Kids now need police protection to get to school. Why? Because the social climate is so tense and some cultural communities are being targeted and experiencing tensions they definitely do not deserve.

That is due in part to the language that leaders like us use publicly and misguidedly. When ministers tell people to go back to their own country if they are not happy, when they give their own definitions of a terrorist act and associate it with a particular culture, that does not make a positive contribution to solving problems. On the contrary, that kind of language ostracizes communities and cultures and endangers children and law-abiding people who deserve to have us do everything in our power to keep them safe too.

In short, the title of this bill is completely inappropriate and could undermine our fight to protect women from abusive practices.

Second, in addition to the title, parts of this bill lead us to believe that these measures could also jeopardize women's safety and undermine efforts to fight violence against women.

Bill S-7 will amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, supposedly to help combat polygamy. We are concerned that these amendments will interfere with the protection of women. Women will be affected in one way or another by the fact that under Bill S-7, the mere suspicion of polygamy can result in inadmissibility to Canada or removal orders. This could have unintended negative consequences.

I would like to once again quote Ms. Miville-Dechêne, a witness who appeared before the Senate committee. This is what she had to say about the measures on polygamy.

However, we want women, who are not themselves polygamists—and I want to stress this—to be protected and be able to stay in the country when a deportation takes place. What would be the point of deporting the polygamist man with his women, who are not polygamists, to their country of origin? We feel that care should be taken to protect women.

That is just one of many quotes. I would also like to quote Ms. Siddiqui, the head of policy and research at Southall Black Sisters. She said:

Anything that you introduce around immigration is not going to affect just the perpetrator but the whole family — the women and children in that polygamous relationship; and that can have a detrimental effect on them as well.

Avvy Yao-Yao Go, director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, said:

The bill seeks to deport people who are engaged in polygamy, and that would include the very women that the government claims it's trying to protect.

Many witnesses testified about this. I quoted three. If our experts on the ground have these concerns, we need to listen to them. The minister clearly told us that these opinions did not hold much water and that we had to move forward in spite of them.

I am concerned when I hear comments like that from a minister who is already telling us that he is not prepared to change the title or the content of the bill, claiming that this is what people on the ground are asking him to do. That is worrisome. I am not prepared to support a bill that could interfere with the protection of women and their children.

It is also important to address the changes to the Criminal Code with regard to forced marriages.

The bill suggests, for example, prison sentences for family members who participate in the marriage. The minister talked about this earlier.

This measure runs the risk of silencing the victims and preventing them from seeking the services and protections they need. Let me explain. Take for example the case of a forced marriage of a 16-year-old girl. The parents say that it is an arranged marriage, not a forced one. The girl has the choice to speak out or not. If she is given the choice between sending her parents to prison to be safe and keeping her mouth shut and figuring out a way to deal with this in order to keep people she has known her whole life, such as her parents, around her, then this 16-year-old girl might very well be too scared to say anything that could send her parents, brothers and sisters to prison.

Clearly, these people have committed reprehensible acts, but if we show a bit of empathy and put ourselves in the place of the 16-year-old, are there no other measures we could put in place to ensure that she gets the protection she deserves without having to send her parents to prison for up to five years? Of course, these cases call for punishment or intervention, but we have to think about how to go about this and how to ensure that the maximum number of victims seek the help they need. That is the goal.

How many forced marriages or child marriages are there in this country? We certainly have numbers and statistics. Nonetheless, we are unable to truly understand the extent of the problem because the biggest problem in all this is the secrecy surrounding these practices. That is the number one problem. The first thing we have to ask ourselves, as legislators, is how to address this problem, how to ensure that people are more inclined to report what they see and seek the help and security they need. Bill S-7 will not do that.

I would again like to quote Ms. Siddiqui, the head of policy and research at Southall Black Sisters in the United Kingdom:

The problem for us was that we worked directly with survivors and victims. A lot of them are girls and young women who say to us, “I do want protection from the police, but I don't want to prosecute my parents or my family. I don't want to see them go to jail.” They clearly said that if they went to the police and they were going to prosecute, then they would withdraw their charges; they would not cooperate or would not even go to the police in the first place.

I could also quote Ms. Butt, executive director of the Social Services Network:

Criminalization of forced marriage, without the much needed institutional support for victims, would only further alienate and harm those facing forced marriage and gender-based violence, with the added insult of being stigmatized that they come from barbaric cultures.

In short, many people are opposed to the bill because of events that have taken place and what the experts are seeing in real life. We need to pay attention to what these people have to say. That is why I moved a motion in the House. I understand and agree with the minister's stated goal of fighting against forced marriages and violence against women and also helping victims. However I do not agree with the proposed approach, which could not only lead us in the wrong direction, but move us backwards, further ostracize victims and reduce the number of cases reported.

I will read part of the motion that I moved in order to explain it. I recommend that all my colleagues on both sides of the House support it. It reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, forced marriages are a crime that constitutes violence against women and consequently, the government should:

(a) strongly condemn the practice;

I believe that with this bill the minister wants to condemn these practices. It is important to do so. These practices must be condemned, but we must ensure that by condemning them we do not harm those who suffer because of them.

Furthermore, a number of experts have said that this bill did not do much, since there are already Criminal Code provisions to convict those guilty of pushing someone into a forced marriage or a forced child marriage.

For example, Mr. Spratt, a criminal lawyer and member of the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa, spoke about the section regarding a recognizance to keep the peace:

I'm not saying that that's bad or that this section is bad. It's just not a cure to the ills that this bill aims to correct, and it's not going to be effective in limiting these types of situations. It seems to be nothing more than mere puffery because it's not going to play out in court how it's been billed.

Not only are these measures dangerous, but they also do not seem relevant in terms of their application.

Deepa Mattoo, a lawyer and the acting executive director of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, said that in most cases, there is adequate recourse in the Criminal Code of Canada to deal with forced marriages before and after the marriage. For example, she mentioned sections 292 and 273.3 regarding procuring a feigned marriage:

No person shall do anything for the purpose of removing from Canada a person [a child] who is ordinarily resident in Canada...(a)...with the intention that an act be committed outside Canada that if it were committed in Canada would be an offence...

These are just examples to show that the Criminal Code already includes several provisions to convict people who do this. However, do we have the resources we need on the ground to ensure that we first get the reports that will then lead to prosecutions?

My motion also asks the government to increase funding for organizations that work with potential or proven victims. As I said a bit earlier, the low reporting rate is another problem with respect to these practices. It is difficult to get witnesses and victims of these practices to report them. It is also difficult to have resources on the ground to help these people. My motion is therefore a step in the right direction. Punishment alone is not enough. We have to remember our primary objective, which is to protect victims and prevent these crimes.

My motion also calls on the government to consult women, communities, organizations and experts so that we can get a more accurate picture of the situation and figure out the best ways to fix it. I get the feeling that Bill S-7 was concocted by departmental people who never consulted lawyers or people on the ground. These problems exist. That is what the minister said, and I agree with him.

Whether these practices are widespread or not, if we can help even one victim, it is worth it. These practices exist, but we need to find out exactly what is going on. Then we have to identify the main obstacles and implement smart measures, not just measures that respond to an electoral base's fears.

Other countries have studied this issue before our debate here in the House, and they have implemented measures. We can learn from their debates and from the outcome of their measures.

The United Kingdom, for instance, has adopted a method that allows victims to choose between a civil process and a criminal process in the event of prosecution. Giving victims this power gives them the confidence they need to seek help and report someone, without necessarily sending a family member to prison, if that is something they are afraid of.

In 2008, Denmark introduced criminal offences similar to those set out in Bill S-7, and not one guilty party has been brought to justice since that time, which reinforces what I was saying earlier. If we pass Bill S-7, will we not hurt victims and prevent them from reporting violence, rather than help victims and bring criminals to justice?

I wish I could go on, but I will close by saying that the bill's title and the measures in it are hardly a step forward. That is why I recommend that the House not vote in favour of Bill S-7 at second reading, and instead vote in favour of my motion.

We need to keep our primary objective in mind, which is to combat these practices and help victims, not harm them, and yet that is exactly what Bill S-7 could do.

That is why the rhetoric has to stop. We need to completely change our perspective and our focus when it comes to issues like violence against women and adopt positive measures that really will help the people affected.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague's speech, but I was disappointed by its content.

She used the word “barbaric” in her first question, but she refuses to use that word in the title of the bill. This is a reflection of the NDP's approach to everything, when it comes to criminal justice and this bill. The NDP denounces forced marriage, honour crimes and violence against women, but it does not want to take any action. It advocates inaction. It wants young girls to report offenders and people who hurt them, but without making it clear that a crime was committed. Why?

Does the hon. member not think that in the case of misrepresentation, someone living in a polygamous relationship should be deported like anyone else found guilty of misrepresentation? If we are talking about sexual assault, of course, there is recourse and the possibility of staying here. However, misrepresentation is unacceptable in the case of polygamy and in other cases.

Let us talk about provocation. Should a person be able to use honour as a reason for pleading provocation as a defence for a crime like murder? If a young girl does not want to go through the criminal process, is the hon. member aware of peace bonds? Using—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. I ask all hon. members to keep their questions to under a minute.

The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to everything my colleague said, but I will try to cover as much as possible.

I think my colleague misunderstood what I said about the title. I do not oppose using “barbaric“ in the title. I am opposed to associating the term “barbaric” with “cultural”. Do we need to say that these are cultures with barbaric practices?

I mentioned it in my speech and I will not repeat it, but that will alienate some cultural communities, rather than building bridges and ensuring that we can work with them to eliminate these practices. They are essential partners, and solutions will be found only by forging partnerships with people from all cultures. Thus, I am not against the use of the term “barbaric”.

I completely agree that forced marriages and violence against women are completely unacceptable, even barbaric. However, I am against calling them cultural practices because we have seen in several cases that, in fact, we find these practices in any culture.

I would like to continue but I have run out of time. I hope I can talk more about this when I answer the next question.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may have answered the question I was going to ask. I would just like to be sure.

I believe that the NDP and the Liberals agree that we accept the term “barbaric”, but not the term “cultural”. It seems to me that if we use the term “cultural”, some communities will believe that they may be the problem, which is not the case. We believe that these practices are barbaric, but found in all cultures. It seems to me that the term “cultural” adds nothing to this bill.

I would just like to check whether my colleague agrees with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree, and that is more or less what I was just saying.

I would like to take this opportunity to also speak about the purpose of this bill, because we have not really addressed that. This is a classic example of the Conservatives claiming to want to combat some type of wrongdoing or crime and then proposing a bill that is completely off the mark.

In 2012, the Conservatives introduced the conditional permanent residence status in order to combat fraudulent marriages. Everyone on the ground agrees that rather than helping to do away with such marriages this measure makes women more vulnerable. What is more, many experts are calling on the government to reconsider this measure and do away with the conditional permanent residence status. The Conservatives are turning a deaf ear.

More recently, Motion No. 505 was implemented in 2014. The purpose of that motion is also to combat fraudulent marriages; however, it actually attacks proxy marriages. Since refugee claimants are often married by proxy, this motion does more to interfere with family reunification than it does to combat fraudulent marriage. This is a classic example of the Conservatives saying that they want to combat x, y or z but then implementing measures that are harmful to victims and that make certain groups more vulnerable.

That is unacceptable, and Bill S-7 is yet another example.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. We have had two very high profile cases that have shown the power of our courts to go after groups that abuse young women.

The case involving the Mormon fundamentalists in Bountiful was brought all the way to the Supreme Court. Some said that they were fighting for religious freedoms, but clearly this was an abuse of young women and girls, and the courts upheld the anti-polygamy laws.

It is the same with Lev Tahor, the fundamentalist orthodox cult. The Quebec and Ontario police moved against it because they recognized that within the so-called claim of religion there was an ongoing attack against young women and girls, and there was a need to protect them.

What is in this bill that would give the police and the authorities any new powers that they do not already have in going after anyone who uses religion, or culture or whatever to abuse young women and girls in forced marriages? If the laws already exist, if they have been upheld at the the Supreme Court level, what possible additions have been added to this at which Parliament needs to look?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I would also like to thank him for making those important points.

Many also believe that this bill will not only harm victims but it will also fail to provide the additional necessary tools. I can mention others. The minister spoke earlier about honour killings. The government is saying that Bill S-7 will ensure that the provocation defence will not apply to honour killings. Meanwhile, a number of rulings have shown that cultural grounds cannot be used to justify an honour killing. On the contrary, the court interpreted such arguments as a reason for the crime, rather than mitigating grounds. The court saw these arguments as proof that the unacceptable crime was planned. If we look at the decisions rendered in the past, we see that the courts are able to deal with such grievances under the Criminal Code.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's intervention on this bill. I take exception to and would like clarification on something she said. She takes exception to the term “barbaric culture”. She has no problem with the word “barbaric”, but takes issue with the word “culture”, thinking that somehow that speaks to a specific cultural group, which the bill does not.

Within some families in specific groups, if a 15-year-old girl is forced into a marriage against her will and if she rebels against it and says that it is not consensual, that she does not want that, she is stoned, or killed, or defamed in some way because she somehow has brought disrespect to the family. Is that not a barbaric culture? This is a cultural tool that is used in some groups to resolve an issue they think has brought disrespect to the family.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one to say so. A number of people on the ground are saying that we need to be careful because this title will hurt us and prevent us from achieving the objective of the bill.

Earlier, my colleague mentioned Bountiful. Could the parliamentary secretary tell me what culture is in Bountiful?

This is not what we are debating, and it does no good to point fingers at certain cultures that are already ostracized as a result of debates being held at different levels in this country. I can name a number of people who say that the very title of Bill S-7 and the various legislative amendments it would bring about are based on racist stereotypes and contribute to xenophobia against certain radicalized communities.

This title encourages xenophobia and racism, and it further ostracizes communities. These are major problems that we need to look at. What good does that do for this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague, the member for Charlottetown.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it means that members only have to listen to me for half the time. They might approve of that proposition.

I am pleased to say that the Liberals will support this legislation, but as I will indicate in a few minutes, we have problems with the title. We also, in particular, want to remove the word “cultural”.

We are, of course, opposed to these barbaric practices, including forced marriages, underage marriages, polygamy, honour killings, and domestic violence. We would argue that on the whole, this legislation would do little to advance the fact that these practices are already illegal. Maybe around the edges some improvement would be achieved, but my main point is that this legislation misses a golden opportunity to do something real on the subject of domestic violence and in particular on the abuse of women.

This issue came up very strongly in the hearings at the immigration committee over the past months on the subject of the treatment of women by the immigration system and measures to reduce violence against women.

One of the issues that got a lot of attention was the provision for a two-year conditional state for people who bring in spouses from overseas. In the old days, the spouse from overseas would immediately become a permanent resident, but now that person has to live with his or her spouse for a period of two years before achieving landed permanent resident status. Witness after witness testified that this system led to the potential for abuse and actual abuse, and it is not difficult to understand why. It is an extremely unequal relationship. If one is a woman who is married to a man, and the woman has just come from overseas, and if that woman is subject to abuse of any kind and moves away from the marriage, she has no status in Canada anymore and is liable to be deported back to her own country. That forces the woman to stay within the marriage, even if it is abusive.

I remember counting the expert witnesses who testified to this effect and argued that this provision should be terminated. I do not remember the exact number, but it was perhaps six out of eight witnesses or something to that effect. All of these expert witnesses, who ran organizations, who sought to help women who had been subject to abuse, believed that this provision was aiding and abetting the abuse of women.

If the government wanted to do something concrete in this area, it has missed a golden opportunity to simply repeal this two-year provision. I understand that marriages of convenience are a challenge that have to be dealt with in many ways, and I do not minimize the importance of the issue. However, my point would be that the fight against marriages of convenience should not be fought on the backs of women who are subject to abuse because of this two-year rule. More important than all of the other parts of the bill, which are largely covered by existing law in any case, would have been action on this front, which would have a real impact on the barbaric practices and domestic violence that we all decry.

In that respect, I agree with my colleague in the NDP that this legislation largely addresses issues that are already covered by existing law and leaves a big hole on issues it chooses not to cover. As a consequence, at the end of the day it would not do a great deal to advance the cause.

The other point I would like to focus on is the use of the word “cultural”. That word is both offensive and unnecessary. We on this side of the House agree that these practices are barbaric, so we do not object at all to the use of that word.

When one inserts the word “cultural”, it carries the implication that there are certain cultures, certain communities, that are being targeted. Whether that is in the minds of the Conservatives is something we can debate, but it certainly carries that implication across the country. There is no reason to force that implication to be carried, because as has been pointed out, in terms of polygamy and other barbaric practices, they are certainly not limited to any one community. We had the example of the Bountiful group, which is Christian. We had the Jewish group that was mentioned. Across all religions and all cultures we see, in some cases, the practice of these barbaric acts.

I do not think the word “cultural” adds anything. It certainly does not add anything to the content of this bill, and it is misleading in that it carries the implication in the minds of some Canadians that this bill is targeting their particular culture or community.

I know that the Conservatives are not always quick to accept suggested changes to their wonderful legislation, but I would say to them that this word adds nothing to the content of the bill and nothing to the agreement we have on all sides of the House that these practices are indeed barbaric. All it does is lead certain communities to believe that they are being targeted or insulted, and there is no reason whatsoever to carry that implication. I would once again urge the Conservatives to drop that word.

With regard to the elements in the bill, we certainly agree that underage marriage is and should be illegal. We agree with the age of 16 that is in the bill. We obviously are opposed to forced marriages, to polygamy, and to honour killings. It is almost unnecessary to make these statements, because the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to these practices. The existing law already makes these practices illegal. The bill would add a few details to make them even more illegal. Therefore, we will support it. However, I do not think that, at the end of the day, this bill would do very much more than is already in the existing law.

I also think that with the use of the word “cultural” the Conservatives are unnecessarily insulting segments of Canadian society.

Last but not least, by ignoring important practices and allowing them to continue, such as these two-year conditional marriages, they are wasting an opportunity to do something real to improve the situation for immigrants, and particularly for women, in this country.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Party will be supporting this piece of legislation, although I have some concerns regarding some of the content of the member's speech this morning.

I see quite a significant flip-flop in the Liberals' position on the name “barbaric”, as the Liberal leader took exception to the word “barbaric”. However, I am happy to see that the Liberals have now seen the light that these practices are indeed barbaric and are not taking exception to that word.

I want to talk about the tie the member tried to make between the phrases “barbaric cultural practices” and “cultural communities”. They are two completely different things. A cultural practice that would impose violence and possibly death on a young lady because she does not concede to what the family decided the day she was born is indeed a barbaric cultural practice. Does the member not see that there is no correlation between that and specific communities? This fearmongering and trying to point to specific cultural communities is way off base.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for thanking us for our support, so I will be pleasant in my comments. However, I think he is tying himself in knots in terms of the definition of the word “cultural” in the English language.

Of course, a culture of honour killings is something we oppose, but there is no need to use the word “culture”. As I said, the word “culture” adds nothing to the content of the bill and nothing to the message being sent. However, it sends a negative message to many individuals within this country. It is unnecessary. It adds nothing. It is offensive to some.

If the government had an element of consideration for Canadians across this land, it would remove that word.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague about the content of the bill.

He knows that a number of witnesses spoke to the bill. For example, Ms. Yao-Yao Go of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic said:

The bill seeks to deport people who are engaged in polygamy, and that would include the very women that the government claims it's trying to protect.

Ms. Mattoo of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario said:

We stand for victims and survivors of gender-based violence, whose voices have told us, time and time again, that they would not come forward if it meant criminal sanctions or deportation of their families.

The bill could hurt and further ostracize women and victims of forced or polygamous marriages. What does my colleague have to say about such statements? Does he not worry that by supporting Bill S-7, he is promoting the victimization of women?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just quoted some of the witnesses I mentioned, who oppose the notion of having to be married for two years before permanent residence is granted. Those quotations support our proposal concerning that provision.

I am not sure whether the bill's provisions make things any worse, but I do not think they improve things, either. The government could have taken other measures, but it chose not to.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill targets several practices that the Liberals fundamentally disagree with, including early or forced marriage, polygamy, and domestic violence. Although we have been accused otherwise, we agree that these practices are barbaric and will be supporting the bill for further study at committee.

I want to state off the top that we do not agree with linking violence against women to culture, as the Conservatives have tried to do. Violence against women is a phenomenon that exists in every culture, and we are saddened that the government is trying to score cheap political points with respect to this serious matter. Violence against women is not an issue of culture; it is an issue of ethics. It is not an issue tied to place of origin, language, wealth, or ethnic nationality. Wherever we find it, violence against women is an issue of right and wrong.

Equality and justice are universal values. Kindness and respect are universal values. They are not linked to any particular culture any more than misogyny is linked to a particular culture. Barbarism is barbarism wherever we find it, and we should not judge any cultural group by the worst practices of some of its members.

My point is that for the Conservatives to look outwardly and point out how other cultures treat women is to ignore the misogyny that transcends culture. As great philosophers and religious intellectuals have demonstrated, ethics are rational, and people everywhere can reason about right and wrong, so I say again that misogyny is not a cultural problem; rather, it is an ethical one. I would say the same of discrimination or violence based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

Let us not denigrate entire cultures. Instead, when talking about barbaric practices, let us talk about ethics. Let us talk about universal values instead of suggesting that entire cultures are somehow in conflict.

Canada's multicultural success story insists the exact opposite. Many cultures have come together and flourished here on the basis of universal values, the values enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our charter is an ethical document, not a cultural one. It gives legal force to rational, moral principles based on the best arguments, not cultural principles based on history or tradition. Therefore, let us agree to language that unites, not language that divides. Let us build consensus on what is right and wrong rather than drawing lines between cultures and shouting back and forth. For that reason, I repeat that barbaric practices are unethical actions, not cultural actions.

That is how this conversation should be framed, and language makes a huge difference. People are more likely to accept a valid moral argument if we do not make it while insulting their entire culture. For that reason, the Liberals will move an amendment to remove the word “cultural” from the short title of this bill and change it to “zero tolerance for barbaric practices”. After all, if we listen to how it sounds, it has a nice ring to it. It is something everyone in the House can get behind.

Therefore, why not cut one word from this bill? Heaven knows that the current government has cut everything else. In Prince Edward Island, we know that better than most.

With respect to the content of this bill, I say at the outset that there are some good ideas here. What would the bill do? On early and forced marriages, Bill S-7 would establish a national minimum age for marriage of 16 years of age. Previously, only Quebec has had a legislated minimum age, while other provinces relied on common law definitions. The bill also proposed to codify the requirement for free and enlightened consent for marriage or divorce.

Bill S-7 also creates a new Criminal Code offence for knowingly officiating at a forced or early marriage, for knowingly and actively participating in a forced or early marriage, or for removing a child from Canada for the purpose of an early or forced marriage. These measures are similar to current laws in the Criminal Code that relate to bigamy.

In addition, Bill S-7 would create a peace bond regime with regard to early or forced marriages that would allow a person to petition a court for a peace bond to prevent an early or forced marriage. Violating the requirements of this peace bond would be an offence. The peace bond provision would create an opportunity for someone from outside the affected family, such as a community member or a teacher, to petition the court if they became aware of an issue.

As to polygamy, that practice is already illegal in Canada. The B.C. Supreme Court has upheld that limit on freedom of religion because of the harm the practice causes to women, children, and the institution of monogamous marriage. Bill S-7 further addresses polygamy by amending Canada's immigration rule to make those planning to practice polygamy in Canada inadmissible to the country. It also clarifies that those seeking permanent residence in Canada must stop practising polygamy and will be permitted to immigrate with only one monogamous spouse.

Colleagues, though I agree that we do not want to see polygamy coming into Canada, I would flag to the committee that there could be some practical legal problems flowing from this chain. For example, what happens to additional spouses that an immigrant to Canada leaves behind? Would their property claims against their absconding husband be enforceable in Canada if we do not recognize the marriage? If somehow an additional spouse also gets into Canada—independently, for example—could they obtain a divorce from their husband? Also, what happens to the children of additional spouses? Could they come to Canada, but only if they leave their mother behind?

I do not know the answers to these practical legal problems, but I expect the committee to take a good, hard look at them before changing the law. The last thing we want to do is exacerbate the harms of polygamy and hurt vulnerable women and children who have done nothing wrong.

Finally, we come to the issue of domestic violence, and in particular crimes that are often called honour killings. Stories of such atrocities have shocked Canadians, particularly the Shafia family quadruple murder in Kingston in 2009. In an attempt to address this issue, Bill S-7 would place restrictions on the long-standing provocation defence, which can reduce culpable homicide from murder to manslaughter.

As it currently stands, provocation reduces murder to manslaughter if the accused acted in the heat of passion and immediately following a sudden provocation. The provocation must be an act or insult by the victim that would be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control. Further, that act or insult cannot be something that the victim was incited to do by the accused to gain an excuse.

First, it is worth noting that this defence has never succeeded in an honour killing. Second, the proposed change would require the victim to have committed a criminal act against the accused for the defence to be available. Notably, this amendment would mean that insults are no longer provocation, including insults using racial epithets and so forth.

I am not sure this change is a good one, since some insults are actually more provocative than some assaults or threats. I trust the committee will look closely at this issue.

I will leave my concerns at that for the time being. I will say that when this bill goes to committee, Liberals will expect the government to act responsibly, to consider legal expertise, and to maintain the coherence and logic of Canada's Criminal Code.

In conclusion, this bill targets several practices with which Liberals fundamentally disagree. However, at this stage we have three concerns with Bill S-7. The first is the use of the term “cultural” in the title. The second concern relates to practical legal problems arising from immigration changes around polygamy. The third has to do with meddling with the provocation defence in a way that may go against common sense.

Of course, more concerns may arise on closer review, and I hope the committee will be open to constructive amendments. Our goal, as always, should be making good public policy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague.

Bountiful, the fundamentalist Mormon cult, escaped from Utah to escape prosecution and set itself up in British Columbia. There was a huge challenge that went all the way to the Supreme Court around whether Canada's polygamy laws would stand. There was a bogus argument that this was somehow a religious right, a religious freedom argument. However, the courts disagreed and upheld the anti-polygamy laws, because in these kinds of patriarchal cults, the issue of abuse is clearly paramount.

We can look at the issue of Bountiful and other fundamentalist cults. Lev Tahor is another one. It has been called the Jewish Taliban. The Quebec police moved against them, and the Ontario courts moved against them as well, so laws are already in place against these kinds of actions.

Could my hon. colleague explain whether he thinks this bill is redundant and whether it adds new powers currently unavailable to police in protecting young girls and women against this kind of abuse?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay raises a very valid point in that virtually all of the practices that are the subject of the bill are already illegal in Canada. This is true.

A constant question we have when we see these types of bills come before Parliament is whether the efforts of government would be better spent on resources than in tinkering with the provisions of the Criminal Code or, in this case, the Immigration and Refugee Act.

I will point to one specific measure in the bill that appears to provide new provisions as a new tool that would be available to law enforcement. The peace bond provisions proposed in the bill do not presently exist. They represent an expansion of those powers and will have some value in the issues the bill seeks to address.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually wondering how my Liberal colleague could even think of supporting this bill when we know that the title reeks of sensationalism and xenophobia, and furthermore, it does not in any way address the source of the problem. We are talking about criminalizing these things, although community groups, specialists and victims are saying that that will not work.

Instead, we need to provide support and funding to organizations that help victims. They can then provide information on Canada's immigration system, which is complex, and give them a plan with basic information on how to get out of these kinds of situations. We must give them the tools needed to seek help, but that aspect does not appear in Bill S-7 as it stands.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comment is quite right. It is true that we almost always find, in the debates of the House, that the best way to address a problem is through bills or fiscal measures. She made a very good point regarding the fact that fiscal measures would probably be more effective.

It is important to point out that that is not the question that was asked. The question is whether we support this bill. The bill clearly speaks out against forced marriage and polygamy, for example. I think it is important to send the message that we are against those practices. It is important to show this through our votes.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, reflects the high priority that our government places on supporting women and girls to live their lives free of violence.

As Minister of Status of Women, I am proud of the many actions our government has taken to address violence against women and girls, and Bill S-7 is yet another example of these efforts. This bill would ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of early or forced marriage, polygamy, or violence committed in the name of so-called honour, in addition to other forms of barbaric cultural practices. I can say that this is something about which I feel very strongly. Let me be clear. Our government is taking a very strong stance against these abhorrent practices and all forms of gender-based violence.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, we highlighted the fact that millions of women and girls worldwide continue to be brutalized by violence, including those inhumane practices of early and forced marriages. That is why Canada is leading an international effort to address these cultural practices as violations of basic human rights.

In fact, the elimination of child marriage, early marriage, and forced marriage was a key priority for me when I led Canada's delegation to the 58th meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York last year, and it will be a focal point for me and the Government of Canada yet again this year at the UN commission.

Canada was proud to be a leader in having the United Nations declare October 11 of each year to be International Day of the Girl. This important day ensures that girls' rights get the attention they deserve around the world. I was delighted when I visited India just a month ago that the Indian government is starting to take action and heed our direction in leading the way and is following our lead of dealing with this issue of early and forced child marriages.

We are also committed to ensuring that these cultural practices do not take place here on Canadian soil, and that is the reason I am here today, to speak to the measures in Bill S-7 to bring about real action. This bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code to provide protection and support for vulnerable individuals, primarily women and girls. Let me list a number of the protections and supports.

I noted earlier that the member opposite commented on how there is only one change. I disagree. There are some fundamental changes here that would make a tangible difference for women and girls across the country.

The changes would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practise polygamy in Canada. They would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age of marriage at 16 years of age 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 would criminalize certain conduct in underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriage ceremonies. This is fundamental. Children should not be put in harm's way, and we would put an end to this practice.

They would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new and specific preventive court-ordered peace bond where there are grounds to fear someone would commit an offence in this area.

Finally, they would ensure that the defence of provocation would not apply to so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

Bill S-7 sends a clear message to anyone coming to Canada and to those who are already part of Canadian society that these practices are incompatible with Canadian values. Like all forms of violence against women and girls, they will simply not be tolerated here. The legislation before the House today is part of a multifaceted approach our government is taking to help make sure women and girls can live free of violence.

Among other important actions that have been taken has been the funding of Status of Women Canada that is at a record high, funding more than 720 projects through the women's program since 2007. This includes funding for violence against women and girls in rural and remote areas, post-secondary campus communities, and high-risk neighbourhoods. Additional projects are working to prevent the trafficking of women and girls through community planning. We are helping communities engage youth in preventing and eliminating cyber violence and sexual violence against young women and girls, and we are engaging men and boys in their efforts to end gender-based violence.

Just last week I spent a significant amount of time in Vancouver. One of the announcements I made was with the BC Lions, men who are taking responsibility to end violence against women and girls by making sure that other young men are well educated and treat women appropriately. This social behaviour change is essential in making sure that we end violence against women and girls, which is something our department of Status of Women Canada is focused on, as I hope all Canadians are.

Status of Women Canada is also focused on the elimination of harmful cultural practices through community-based approaches. In Montreal, we are supporting a project in partnership with the Shield of Athena family services to address family violence and violence against women and girls committed in the name of so-called honour.

In announcing this project, the Prime Minister said:

Our government is committed to protecting women, girls and other vulnerable persons from all forms of violence, and to hold offenders accountable for their acts. Honour crimes are intolerable and barbaric, and violate Canadian laws and values.

This funding will help train community liaison officers to promote awareness in their communities, identify at-risk situations, and refer potential victims to assistance.

What could be more important than making sure victims of these horrific crimes actually receive the support they deserve?

Status of Women Canada is also partnered with the Indo-Canadian Women's Association in Edmonton, on a project to find ways to end violence committed in the name of so-called honour. This project mobilizes local southeast Asian and Middle Eastern communities, service providers, faith organizations, teachers, academics, advocates, and students to find ways to end forms of gender-based violence. It included a two-day conference entitled “In the Name of Honour: Cultural Practices that Hurt Women”.

From that conference came Daughters Day, a significant initiative that now takes place every September in Edmonton to make sure that individuals understand what changes have to be made and, quite frankly, what is unacceptable behaviour.

All of these projects demonstrate our government's strong commitment to giving communities the tools they need to end gender-based violence.

Our government is also taking action and dealing with the issue of violence against aboriginal and girls. This is something I take very seriously. More than talk, we believe in strong actions that reflect our society's desire to reduce and prevent violence against these aboriginal women.

We demonstrated this commitment in taking action when I announced the Government of Canada's action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women last September. This action plan takes immediate and concrete action to prevent violence, support victims, and protect aboriginal women and girls through new and ongoing commitments over the next five years. Also, there is new funding of $25 million over five years, as well as renewed and ongoing supports, and in practical terms, nearly $200 million over the five-year period.

The action plan includes measures that prevent violence, support aboriginal victims, and protect aboriginal women and girls from violence. This plan will support community safety plans across Canada, focus on projects that break intergenerational cycles of violence and abuse by raising awareness and building healthy relationships, support projects that engage men and boys such as I was just talking about, with our support for the BC Lions, to denounce and prevent violence, as well as provide support for aboriginal victims and their families.

In addition, Status of Women Canada will share information and resources with communities and organizations and report regularly on this progress under the action plan. We are also supporting the creation of a DNA-based missing persons index through Public Safety Canada.

I should add that these Government of Canada efforts to address violence against aboriginal women and girls also complement important work being done in the provinces and territories, the police and justice systems, aboriginal families and communities, and organizations across the country.

Status of Women Canada is very focused on this, as I said. Our dedication of an additional internal $5 million over five years will be accessible as of April 1 to really focus on improving the economic security of aboriginal women and girls and promote their participation in leadership and decision-making roles.

It is important to note that all of these measures outlined in the action plan represent a substantive investment of close $200 million, with some of the investments beginning as early as month and a half from now.

These complement a number of additional actions that our government has taken to make sure the communities are safer; quite frankly, to make sure the most vulnerable in these communities, women and girls, are safer, whether or not that be the introduction of the victims bill of rights to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, the first time in Canadian history this has been created.

We launched a national plan on anti-cyberbullying. I would encourage many people to look at the stop hating online initiative. Again, particularly young women are the targets of these cyberbullies.

We introduced legislation to give police and prosecutors new tools to address cyberbullying, and we launched an action plan to combat human trafficking.

We did all of this, as well as pass the Safe Streets and Communities Act to improve the safety of all Canadians.

However, one government, one person, or single organizations simply cannot do this alone. All Canadians need to be part of this solution. We must rededicate ourselves as a society to changing attitudes by underlining the fact that violence is never acceptable or normal behaviour. We need to continue to empower girls and women to speak out. We cannot continue to sweep these issues under the carpet.

We must keep working together to increase the responsiveness of our systems to meet the needs of these victims and other survivors. We must keep taking actions like those outlined in Bill S-7. This legislation sends a strong message to those already in Canada and to those who wish to come to our country that we will not tolerate cultural practices that deprive individuals of their basic human rights. We will not tolerate those who would use their cultural practices as an excuse for committing violence against women and girls. As I said earlier, these practices simply will not be tolerated on Canadian soil.

Bill S-7 is another important step we are taking as a country to help women and girls live free of violence. Creating a society in which violence against women is no longer tolerated will take a long-term commitment and continuous action, but it actually is possible. There must be a zero tolerance policy on the issues. Canadian women and girls deserve this, and I personally and our government are committed to making sure this is achieved.

Let us all pass this legislation, and let us all support this legislation and send a strong message to those who want to perpetuate these heinous crimes, these barbaric acts against women, that they simply will not be tolerated here in Canada.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her remarks on the bill. Clearly everyone in Canada is opposed to polygamy and abuse of young people who are being forced to marry against their will. However, I was speaking just last night to a young Muslim woman in Edmonton, who reviewed the bill and gave me her feedback. Her concern is that proposed section 293.1 of the Criminal Code would make anybody guilty of an indictable offence if they celebrate, aid, or participate in a marriage rite knowing one of the persons may be marrying against their will.

What is not clear from this, as she pointed out, is whether that would apply to a marriage only in Canada. It does not say so. She is deeply concerned, and I notice today that the minister misconstrued what the provisions said. When he testified at the Senate, when the same concern was raised, he said people would have to be active participants and undertaking a substantial role.

I wonder if the minister can speak to that, whether she can defend section 293.1, and whether she agrees with this young Muslim woman that she may be subject to an indictable offence if she attends a marriage where somebody is unwilling to be married, whether here or in another country.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear that early and forced marriages are simply unacceptable. I have been very clear on this. Our government has been very clear. These barbaric practices will not be practised in Canada.

Young women and girls need to be protected. We know that, when young women are married under the age of 16, there are huge ramifications for their education and huge ramifications for their health. These are basic human rights that need to be protected, and we as Canadians have a responsibility to protect these young women.

I am happy to chat about the details involved here, but the principle is what is important. The principle is that we make sure these early marriages, child marriages, and forced marriages simply do not happen to Canadian children.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have three short questions for the minister. First, does the minister agree that forced marriage, early marriage, and polygamy are wrong and should be condemned, regardless of the culture? Second, if she agrees with that, does she agree that the world “culture” adds nothing to the bill? Third, if she thinks the word “culture” adds something to the bill, which cultures should be condemned?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear: early and forced child marriages should be condemned. They are a breach of basic human rights.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her very eloquent, but also very passionate, speech. I know how important this issue is to her, not only as a parliamentarian but also as part of her lifelong work to assist women and girls who have unfortunately found themselves in these very difficult situations.

The minister spoke about the importance of not allowing these barbaric cultural practices to happen in our country. I wonder if she could elaborate a little on the importance and significance of educating and empowering these young girls and women so they know what avenues they have—and the bill provides many of those—and can seek some assistance when they find themselves in very difficult situations. These are often very personal family situations where, indeed, it is a cultural practice to force violence on a young girl because she did not heed what the parents promised the day she was born. I wonder if she could elaborate a little on the education and empowerment aspect of the bill.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what occurs many times, as I have personally seen when standing in an emergency department, is that the young girl is scared. These young girls do not necessarily know where to go and do not know what their basic rights are. They do not know that these violent acts being committed against them are things they can simply say “no” to and that here on Canadian soil they will be protected.

Status of Women Canada has been working with a number of community based organizations across the country to make sure that the individuals who would be available to help these young victims can have access to the supports they require. These individuals would both educate them, to make sure they understand what their rights are, and let them know where they can go to seek support and be supported within their own local communities and within their families, so they can achieve a healthy outcome for themselves in the future.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Status of Women in Canada if she thinks we need a national action strategy to prevent and end violence against women.

The issue we are talking about today is really violence against women. Why does the government want to isolate one community by saying that it is different and it is cultural? We are talking in general about violence against women. This is a problem that we have to consider in its entirety, not in a piecemeal way depending on culture and different groups, such as aboriginal women and newcomers. We need to approach this problem the same way for everyone, not propose an essentially racist bill.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken action in a number of areas dealing with eliminating violence against women and girls. I guess what I find most concerning is that when we put forward initiatives, the opposition simply says “no”, whether in response to our action plan to support aboriginal women and girls, the victims of crime, or to our national action plan against human trafficking, which obviously substantially impacts women. We have put forward initiatives to decrease and eliminate cyber violence and cyberbullying. We know that this disproportionately impacts young women. However, the opposition has voted against all of these things.

We are moving forward and acting to make sure that these victims of crime are supported, that we prevent crime, and that those who conduct these heinous acts are put behind bars. I wonder why the members opposite never seem to understand that they should support these initiatives to protect women from these violent offenders.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would follow up by asking the minister whether she realizes that this bill would further marginalize women whose family members have put them in this situation of violence and who are, therefore, not able to bring forward criminal charges. They often do not want to.

They need resources and tools available to them, rather than our simply changing the law and saying that we are going after this problem in isolation, when we are just going to drive these women further underground.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am surprised by this comment.

Women and girls deserve to be protected. As I mentioned in my speech, if the member had been listening, there have been 726 projects since 2007 that focus particularly on eliminating violence against women and girls. Our government is focused on action to support these victims of crime and the individuals who have experienced these horrendous acts.

I do not know if the member opposite has met any of these women. I have met them in the emergency department after they have been beaten and harmed. I would encourage her to step up and support these women and to support what our government is doing, because we are going to protect these victims. We are going to support them and their families.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.

This issue is very important to me. I am very concerned about violence against all women in Canada. This is my first speech as the NDP critic for status of women, and this is a very relevant issue that is all about violence against women.

This is now the most important issue facing women in Canada and around the world. There is still so much work to do to achieve equality, and one of the first things we have to do is end this violence for the sake of all women. It is very important to take a holistic approach and to recognize that social inequality, which affects all women, is the cause of this violence.

Let us start, though, by speaking about and understanding what forced marriage is in Canada. I will read some of the great work that has been done on the issue of violence against women in the form of forced or non-consensual marriage, because I think it will give us a good idea of what it is to live in a forced marriage.

This is from the report entitled, “Report on the Practice of Forced Marriage in Canada: Interviews with Front Line Workers”, prepared by Nai'ma Bendriss, presented to the Department of Justice in November 2008:

Although contrary to the law and an infringement of human rights under international law, forced marriage is most often the repetition of a cultural practice and a significant part of matrimonial traditions in families which practice it.

It continues:

A marriage is regarded as forced when the people who bring it about are not concerned about the consent of the individuals involved and put pressure on them in order to achieve their goal. Violence is always present, whether verbal, psychological or physical, and mainly targets young women. Because it is a taboo, this practice is still greatly underestimated if not completely ignored in Canadian society, and victims keep it a secret so as not to bring public disgrace to their families. The secrecy is heightened by the fact that the situation occurs in private.

It further states:

...women who are in a position of dependency and a relationship of subordination with their husbands because they have been sponsored by them. This situation can hinder women’s independence and strengthen the spouse’s hold over them and thereby create an unequal relationship. This is the case with many women who met our respondents, who were married against their will and sponsored by their spouse and who, in addition, are victims of conjugal violence, making their lives a series of painful events [that] can leave them increasingly vulnerable.

It goes on to state:

Because...they are vulnerable because they are in a dependent situation precisely as a result of their status as a sponsored family member, which ties them to their husbands and can be used by the husbands for all sorts of blackmail, threats and humiliation.

Bill S-7 would further chip away at these women's opportunities. This legislation would greatly exacerbate the problem, in other words, and I want to talk about why and why the government needs to understand the issue better.

It happens far too often now that we throw legislation at a problem and say, “We've changed the rules. This is now in the Criminal Code, this is now illegal and, therefore, the problem is solved”.

In this particular case, there are already Criminal Code routes to address this. It is not as though one cannot be prosecuted for beating one's wife just because it happens to be an honour killing or because it a case of a forced marriage. Those are still prosecutable crimes. They are not changed based upon where one comes from. That is something to keep in mind.

However, I wonder if this is really what this is about, because we recently heard comments by the Prime Minister singling out niqab-wearing women and antagonizing them, which is simply a way of dividing and singling people out and creating a national debate about something that really should not be happening, when we really should be working on empowering people rather than antagonizing them and creating and “us and them” narrative. This “us and them” mentality, this idea that violence against women is barbaric in some cultures, is simply unfortunate, because it seems to imply that if it is not part of a cultural community or something done by new immigrants, then it is simply some bad choice or not something systemic or societal. That is something I cannot support. I think it is incredibly important to ensure that we look at all forms of violence against women, no matter which community someone comes from.

Experts who came before the Senate committee and studied Bill S-7 told us that criminalization is not enough to solve the problem and that it will have the opposite effect and exacerbate the problem. While survivors and victims rarely choose to take legal action in cases of forced marriage, a number of provisions in the Criminal Code already provide legal recourse with regard to the offences named in this bill.

Instead of politicizing the issue of gender-based violence, the government could and should strengthen the legislative measures already in place and invest in the organizations that provide services on the ground, where the real work is done. I sincerely believe that we need to have a national action plan to end violence against women, because violence exists in every community.

The short title of this bill, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, is truly xenophobic. It isolates a community, calling it barbaric for its violence against women. This is a problem that exists everywhere. It does not make sense to target one community in particular. It is an extremely serious problem that we all experience, and we should do everything we can to stop it. However, it is racist to isolate a community in this way. This title reinforces the prejudices against certain cultural groups by targeting them. We have to address the problem as a whole instead of marginalizing these women.

As I said, current legislation sufficiently addresses the issue. Civil and common provincial laws require marriage to be entered into with free and enlightened legal consent. Canadian criminal law provides recourse relevant in most cases involving force, minors, threats, abduction, confinement, sexual offences, et cetera. Further, Canada is a signatory to multiple international treaties, including CEDAW, which is the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. These are already things that we are doing.

Of course we need to reinforce these things. That means we need to help shelters and organizations that work with communities and women on the ground. That is how we do that. We give tools to law enforcement. We give tools like legal aid, and we give mental health and health services as well. Simply going about it in having a law that specifically targets one community is a one-track way of doing it and it is not looking at the whole problem in totality.

Further, criminalization would prevent individuals from seeking help. It would marginalize the women. Over and over, we have heard front-line workers and women and girls saying that they do not want protection from police, that they do not want to prosecute their parents and family, and that they do not want to see them go to jail.

We need to keep what they are asking of us in mind. We need to listen to these women. They will often withdraw charges rather than see someone in their family prosecuted. I completely acknowledge that it is a difficult situation, but we do need to work with them. We need to recognize that where there is the desire to prosecute, those laws are there and if there is no desire, then we still need to find a way to intervene. That is why a national strategy is important.

They may often also be financially or otherwise dependent on the person who is violent toward them. They may be afraid of the repercussions of revenge by other family members, or something like that, or other people in the community.

Victims have reported that being forced to break up family ties forever can lead to rejection, stigma, ostracization, a sense of shame and dishonour, and depression. We need to keep all these things in mind.

I want to quote from the testimony given by Hannana Siddiqui, head of policy and research in the United Kingdom, during the Senate hearings. A women's minority organization called Southall Black Sisters works on the needs specifically of black and minority women who face gender-based violence in the UK. Dr. Siddiqui said:

We obviously wanted to condemn forced marriage as a practice within communities, but we disagreed on the need to criminalize it. The problem for us was that we worked directly with survivors and victims. A lot of them are girls and young women who say to us, “I do want protection from the police, but I don't want to prosecute my parents or my family. I don't want to see them go to jail.” They clearly said that if they went to the police and they were going to prosecute, then they would withdraw their charges...I think the concern was that the whole problem of forced marriage would be driven underground, particularly at a time when we were trying to encourage victims to come forward. The other thing victims said was that if you criminalize it, then it may mean that they have to break up family ties...

That is important to keep in mind. This is from someone who has been through the legislative process in the United Kingdom saying that this is exactly what is happening in this debate.

Furthermore, this legislation is inherently racist, as I said. Treating violence toward immigration women specifically as somehow being more barbaric than any other kind of gender-based violence is simply ridiculous because all violence should be considered unacceptable. Therefore, specifying “particularly” is really just adding a racist dimension to it. This makes it a cultural problem rather than a gender one, which is what it really is, therefore making us forget that we need to tackle it in all communities.

It is also important that I quote from the FEWO committee. Just two weeks ago Dr. Deepa Mattoo appeared before us. She said:

—it's not only marginalizing women, it's also marginalizing the communities they come from and targeting certain communities more so. I think it takes us away from the discourse and the reality that violence against women happens across cultures and across people's historical backgrounds, and more so when there has been a history of colonization and there has been a history of marginalization of other kinds.

Not considering violence against women a holistic issue and coming up with the discourse that there is some kind of barbaric culture in certain communities and new immigrants are necessarily more violent than people living here in Canada I think is very problematic.

As I mentioned as well, it also drives people further underground because they do not know what to do. They cannot come forward and prosecute because they do not have the resources in the community and the services to help them. The only option they have is to send a family member to jail, which would result in a very difficult situation for the individual in the community.

This bill would also politicize the issue. That is what we would be doing. Like I said, it is this us and them mentality. This is a cultural problem. It is not a gender problem. It is not something we all need to be addressing. It is specific to this community. That is very problematic as well.

It is also important to mention the lack of work or consultation with stakeholders. It does not listen to women, to survivors. It does not listen to their story, and that is also incredibly important to point out.

While the bill purports to protect and support vulnerable individuals, arguing that these practices exist as a result of immigration and that the government is committed to ending it, it is really a problem that is gendered.

In the time I have left, I want to talk about violence against women.

Violence against women happens all across Canada and around the world. The United Nations defines violence against women as any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life. That can include, and this is very serious stuff we are talking about, physical abuse such as slapping, choking, punching, using hands or objects as weapons, threatening with a gun, a knife and committing murder. That is physical abuse.

Sexual abuse is using threats, intimidation or physical force to force women into unwanted sexual acts.

Emotional or verbal abuse is threatening to kill, whether it be the woman, her children, her loved ones, or pets: threatening to commit suicide; making humiliating or degrading comments about her body or behaviour; forcing her to commit degrading acts; isolating her from friends or family; confining her to the house; destroying her possessions; and other actions designed to demean or restrict her freedom and independence.

There is financial abuse such as stealing or controlling her money or valuables. This is particularly a problem with regard to older women. Forcing her to work or denying her the right to work is also including in this.

There is also spiritual abuse such as using religious or spiritual beliefs to manipulate, dominate or control.

Criminal harassment and stalking is considered violence against women, following, watching in a persistent, malicious and unwanted manner, which is important to underline, and invading privacy in a way that threatens personal safety.

There are so many ways in which violence against women exists in our society, and who is affected? All women are affected, young women, elderly women, working women, mothers, teachers, sex workers, CEOs, members of Parliament, indigenous women particularly and immigrant women as well because they face these double whammies of racism and sexism. That is why, when we look at intersecting a violent problem, we need to do it in a lens that is all-encompassing toward ending violence against women. It happens as much to women in Toronto as it does in rural Saskatchewan, so we really need to look at it holistically.

This is what we need to do, and I want to cite Deepa Mattoo one more time. When they started to work on the issue, she said:

—one thing that we have been clear about is that it is part of the continuum of violence against women and nothing else. It should be dealt with within that same framework. We were never wanting it to be dealt with any differently....we wanted the systems to be sensitive and alive to the issue of the distinct experiences of the women who faced this form of violence, but we wanted it to be included in the violence against women framework. But unfortunately it has been somehow discussed in a way...and we know there's Bill S-7 that is on the table at this point as well.

There is an assumption that is coming that somehow the current legal system does not have enough in it to address this issue, whereas our education from our clients, the survivors, and our education from the communities, very much tells us that the existing systems and the structures are enough to serve the needs of the population if they want to access the law and justice in that way. Unfortunately, I think we haven't learned enough from what we see, that women don't necessarily want to report.

We need to support those communities. We need legal aid. We need to listen to the women who come forward. We need to consult our stakeholders that are able to list recommendations of specifically what needs to be done, and that includes supporting women when they do immigrate to Canada. This means really ensuring that economically, socially, physically and politically, women are equal, all of us, and that means structurally, helping out the organizations on the ground and really listening to women.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to that very confusing speech. Clearly, the member is confused about the legislation. It is doubtful that she read the legislation, and if she did, whether she understood the purpose of the legislation. For her to suggest there is a correlation between a barbaric cultural practice and a targeted cultural community is bizarre and absurd. To also suggest in this House, in this sacred place, that a piece of legislation that two of the parties are supporting, the government and the third party, is racist is way beyond the pale and crosses the line.

The member also said that we should be listening to people across the country. Well, we are.

My question to her is simply this. What does she have to say to Aruna Papp from the National Post, who stated on November 3, 2014:

Forced into an abusive marriage at 17 and unable to leave it for 18 years, I can attest to the fact that a forced marriage is effectively a life of slavery. I congratulate the Canadian government for taking a bold step on behalf of women who have nowhere to turn for help.

I would hope that the member would retract some of the shameful words she used in her dissertation earlier.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am offended by the fact the member suggested that I had not read the legislation and that I did not know what I was talking about.

I would point to a continued sexism that exists in this House. I really think he misunderstands. Perhaps he was not listening to my speech. I did go into French at some point, so I am not sure if he followed me the entire way.

I am saying that the way he has brought forward this issue is creating an us-and-them mentality, which is evidenced as well by the comment he just made. This is a cultural issue. It is a problem that exists here, and that approach is racist, because we know that violence against women exists everywhere. That does not mean that just because people belong to a community, they are violent toward women, and that is why what the Conservatives are doing right now is problematic.

It is important that we listen to what women want us to do. Currently, there are criminal ways of prosecuting when these things happen, but we need to figure out how not to marginalize. One thing we could be doing is to have better protection for permanent residents and persons without status. That is a concrete action. It is something we could be doing that we are not. Instead, we are trying to marginalize these women by saying that the only option for them is to prosecute.

I am not saying that the way they are living is not horrifying. All violence against women is horrifying, and we need to address all of it.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague think it is responsible to criminalize all these acts without any concern for the potential consequences to the lives of these women and without any plan to minimize these consequences or to help the women get through these trials and integrate into the community?

Should we be more concerned about what happens after these acts are criminalized? Should the government have presented a plan to address the potential consequences along with the provisions that further criminalize these acts?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times, there needs to be a national action plan to address violence against all women. We need that.

That would include actually consulting with women, all women, to understand what the problem is. Part of understanding what the problem is means having accurate data and doing accurate research. That is a really important thing that is currently missing with the present government, because it does not fund that kind of research.

Also very important is safe and affordable housing. We need to be helping out the shelters that are doing the work on the ground. We can cite specific funds sent to certain specific shelters, and it is good that we are helping, but we are nowhere near to helping as much as we should be. We need to make addressing this problem part of a national strategy. Shelters are where women go to get services and to get help to get out of a situation. That is the front line. That is where we need to be putting our effort.

As I was saying, it is really important to remember that it is not just by doing such things as changing the criminal law that we should be addressing this issue. We need to be giving women a way out.

Very quickly, I am going to quote Deepa Mattoo, who said that women:

....are threatened with deportation by the abusers. Also, the system is built in such a way that they can actually face, as a consequence of that violence, being deported. Irrespective of whether or not they reported it, they can face the consequences of being deported because they were violated or because they chose to report abuse.

Maybe we need to be addressing this issue rather than simply criminalizing it further.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the audacity of a member of Parliament to stand in this House and suggest that a question arising from her presentation is somehow sexism in the House is unbelievable, truly unbelievable.

I am going to quote Julie Miville-Dechêne, president of Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme, in an article in the November 6, 2014, edition of Le Journal de Montréal: “This will allow us to address the phenomenon of young girls forced to marry when they are sent abroad during their vacation.”

I would like to know what the member would say to Julie Miville-Dechêne.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member is understanding me. It breaks my heart1 to understand that women across this country and around the world face incredible violence. I cannot believe that the member does not see that I feel that way about it.

What I am saying is that when women are faced with this situation, they can prosecute. Those laws are there. Would it not be ridiculous if in Canada a woman could not prosecute because she was living in a situation of violence? However, we know that very few women report any kind of violence, let alone make it through the complicated and cumbersome legal system to actual see a conviction. What we need are services and supports. That is what we need to be doing.

I do not understand why the member is accusing me of not understanding that. I do see these things myself. I know women who have been beaten, who have been murdered. It is very important that we address that for all women. We need specific, culturally appropriate services that are helpful, including housing and shelters, across Canada.

This is something that all of us are facing as women. To isolate it as the member is doing is, as I said earlier, simply racist.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to this very important piece of legislation.

Canada is a free and open society built upon the premise of the equality of all of our citizens. While it is clear to most Canadians that violence against women and girls is unacceptable, unfortunately, violence against women and girls can and does still occur anywhere, including at home, in our workplaces, and on our streets.

In the 2013 Speech from the Throne, our government committed to taking further action that would help to prevent barbaric practices involving violence against women on Canadian soil. This bill would meet that commitment.

Unfortunately, harmful cultural practices continue to brutalize millions of women and girls worldwide. Among those affected are some individuals and families within Canada's diverse cultural communities. We know that some immigrant women in Canada are more vulnerable to such forms of violence. They may not be familiar with our laws. They may not know that certain practices are a crime or unacceptable, or that they interfere with their basic human rights. Such practices include early and forced marriage, polygamy, and so-called honour-based violence. These practices are the subject of the bill before us today.

Tolerance of any individual's or family's view that cultural traditions can somehow justify depriving other individuals of their basic human rights goes against the very essence of our great country's values. It is imperative that we prevent such barbaric practices from occurring on Canadian soil.

This Conservative government firmly believes that any practice that involves violence directed at women is barbaric. The opposition refuses to condemn these practices as barbaric. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party thought that the word “barbaric” was too harsh to use when referring to these practices. We believe that this is an insult to all women facing violence from their own family members.

All Canadians know that a free and democratic society requires the full participation of women and that any practice that constitutes violence against women and girls negatively affects our democracy and our society. It goes against the very fabric of what it is to be Canadian. It must be condemned as a barbaric cultural practice.

Any practice that involves violence is abuse that must be stopped, particularly when meted out behind closed doors and within families, where women and girls are especially defenceless, or when whole families conspire to ensure that underage women lie about their age or take part in a forced marriage. No one in Canada should have to face violence and abuse, especially from their own family. This is barbaric, and I emphasize that.

That is why I am pleased to speak in the House about our government's zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It contains very concrete steps that would help to further prevent and address certain forms of violence against women and girls in all of our diverse communities.

I gained a greater understanding about the nature and extent of this problem over the past year when the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration conducted a study on strengthening the protection of women in our immigration system. We heard from victims of abuse and from representatives who provide services to immigrant women from right across the country. These important discussions focused on domestic violence, forced marriage, the immigration process, and how we could strengthen the protection of vulnerable women and girls.

They also revealed many ways in which our government could help address the problems stemming from harmful cultural practices. If implemented, the measures in this bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code.

Let me first address the practice of polygamy, which is already illegal in Canada and is an affront to Canadian values. While it is against the law in Canada to practise polygamy or to enter into a polygamous union, and that ban has been upheld as constitutional, that is not the case in every country of the world.

To complement the existing criminal law and to prevent polygamy on Canadian soil within the immigration context, Bill S-7 would create a new inadmissibility provision in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for anyone practising polygamy. This would enhance existing immigration tools to render both temporary and permanent residents inadmissible for practising polygamy in Canada, where there is a criminal conviction or misrepresentation. This new inadmissibility would strengthen officers' ability to refuse visa applications and would also allow removal orders to be made where there is clear evidence that the person is or will be practising polygamy in Canada.

However, polygamy is not the only barbaric cultural practice contradicting Canadian values. Additional measures in Bill S-7 would also amend the Civil Marriage Act to address the problem of early and forced marriage.

In Canada there is no national minimum age for marriage. While provincial and territorial laws have added requirements for minor children, such as parental consent or court approval, they do not have the authority under the Constitution to set the minimum age below which a child may never marry. Only in Quebec is the minimum age set at 16 under a federal statute. In other parts of Canada, the common law still applies, which sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls, although historically it went as low as age seven. Yes, age seven.

In contrast, Austria, Australia, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom all have a minimum age below which no one can marry, even with parental consent. Thankfully, very few marriages in Canada now involve people under the age of 16, but setting a national minimum age of 16 for marriage would make it clear that early marriage is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in our country.

Other amendments to the Civil Marriage Act proposed in Bill S-7 would codify the requirement that those getting married must give their free and enlightened consent to the marriage and would codify the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriage. This is very important. A marriage should be a union between two consenting people. It should not be forced on them.

Building on the proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act also contains measures that would amend the Criminal Code to help prevent forced or underage marriage. These measures would criminalize knowingly officiating at an underage or forced marriage, actively participating in a wedding ceremony knowing that one party was marrying another against his or her will or was under the age of 16, and removing a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage.

Let us think about that for a moment. A student in grade 10, born and raised in Canada, can conceivably be put on a plane to go on vacation to another country only to find out when he or she arrives that a forced marriage has been arranged. There is a big difference between an arranged and a forced marriage. Young people can find themselves coming back or staying there, married, when they are just out of grade 10. It is unbelievable.

Building on these proposed new offences, a related amendment would create a specific new peace bond that would give courts the power to impose conditions on an individual. Such a peace bond could be used to require the surrender of a passport and to prevent the child from being taken out of Canada.

Such conditions would apply when there were reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 would otherwise occur, whether in Canada or abroad.

Finally, there is a measure in the bill that would also amend the Criminal Code in relation to honour killings and many other spousal homicides. So-called honour violence is perpetrated against family members, usually women and girls, who are perceived to have brought shame or dishonour to the family, usually by not respecting what the family has chosen for them, quite often at birth or at a very young age. It is usually premeditated and committed with some degree of approval from family, or in many cases, community members.

Generally speaking, violence committed for a motive related to a family's honour can take many forms and be of varying degrees of seriousness, all of which are fully prohibited in Canada under our criminal law. So-called honour killings are murder, just like any other intentional killing. However, under the Criminal Code, someone charged with murder can use the defence of provocation in seeking a reduction to a lesser charge of manslaughter. In other words, a person found to have committed murder can argue that the victim's conduct in some way provoked his or her own killing, twisted as that might sound. This defence has been raised in several honour killing cases in Canada. Accused murderers have claimed that lawful conduct by the victim, such as real or perceived marital infidelity, disrespect, defiance, or insulting behaviour on the part of the victim toward a spouse, sibling, or parent, provoked the killing.

On the facts and evidence presented, the provocation defence has been rejected in so-called honour killing cases. However, our government is mindful of the fact that the provocation defence has been and continues to be successful in spousal killings, where men have killed their partners in circumstances that are very similar to those in honour killing cases. In fact, for many decades, both in Canada and abroad, one of the most serious concerns expressed about the defence of provocation has been that it excuses male homicidal rage against women who exercise their right to make personal choices for themselves.

Canadian women from immigrant and non-immigrant communities deserve the full protection of the law. Therefore, the proposed change in the bill would apply in both situations. Measures in Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code so that legal conduct by the victim could no longer be legally considered as provocation. This would not only prevent the defence from being raised but would also bring our criminal law in line with Canadian values with respect to other spousal killings, holding people responsible for their murderous rage and actions, even when they were verbally insulted before the killing. Similar changes to the defence of provocation have already been made in most like-minded countries.

In summary, these amendments would improve protection and support for women and girls in Canada, including the particularly vulnerable from immigrant communities, in a number of different ways. They would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practiced polygamy in Canada. They would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 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, which is a key point.

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

Five years ago, our government introduced a new citizenship guide called Discover Canada, which is used by prospective new Canadians to learn about Canadian citizenship and to prepare them for their mandatory citizenship test, and ultimately their integration into our country. Since its introduction, the guide has proven to be popular not only with newcomers to Canada but with many Canadians interested in learning about the rights and responsibilities that come with being a citizen of our great country. One of the most important points made explicit to all readers of Discover Canada is that men and women are equal under Canadian law. In fact, the guide states:

Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence.

Although the equality of men and women under the law is a fundamental Canadian value, unfortunately violence against women and girls continues to affect tens of thousands of Canadians each year, and barbaric cultural practices still exist as a reality for some Canadian women and girls. Our government is determined to address gender-based violence so that all women and girls in Canada can be empowered and protected from harm and can feel safe at all times.

Our Conservative government has already taken a number of actions to help end violence against women and girls in all its forms and in all communities across the country. We have strengthened criminal justice measures and provided greater support for victims of crime. For example, we recently introduced the action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women and girls. These build on the recommendations of the House of Commons Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women and on earlier concrete action taken to address the devastating and truly barbaric cases of murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls.

We also introduced a national action plan to combat human trafficking to address a heinous and barbaric form of violence against women and girls. Imagine those who are so sick as to profit by trafficking women, bringing them to Canada just so they can make money in illicit fields.

With the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act we are strengthening our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers from barbaric cultural practices. We are also sending a strong message to those in Canada and those who wish to come to Canada that we will not tolerate cultural traditions that deprive individuals of their human rights.

Our Conservative government is committed to taking concrete steps to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls in Canada. We will continue to stand up for all victims of violence and abuse.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague. I am interested in the issue and what we saw with the cult of Bountiful that came across the border into Canada to escape prosecution in Utah. They set themselves up in Canada. There were all manner of allegations of abuse and of young girls as young as 12 being forced into marriage. This had gone to the courts in B.C. in 2007, I believe it was. It did not believe it had the power to go through with it, but it was tested at the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2011, which upheld Canada's polygamy laws.

We have the tools necessary to go against these cults.

We saw the same thing with Lev Tahor, where there was all manner of allegations of abuse and forced marriages of children. The Quebec police and the Ontario courts moved against them.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the one provision that concerns me, which would apply to participants in a wedding. I am concerned about this, because there may be people who are brought to a wedding who would now be complicit. If we attempt to draw the circle too wide, we are actually not going to be able to target who we need to target, which are the people running these cults. The courts have already given us the tools in Canada. The police have the tools to go after them for forced marriages, child abuse, and polygamy. Would not the criminalization of the overall community actually drive people underground?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly polygamy, as the member knows, is not legal in our country. The Supreme Court of Canada has, as he stated, upheld the polygamy laws of the land. If anything, Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, clearly indicates that those who are in a polygamous relationship would not be welcome to come to Canada. In fact, as the minister said earlier, they can come here as individuals but cannot bring their spouses here with them.

We have also introduced the peace bond, as the member would note, upon review of the legislation. This bond would assist us in many respects in stopping that activity from happening in our country, and stopping those who want to come to Canada and unfortunately want to partake in polygamous relationships.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have three short questions that I posed to a couple of the members of the cabinet, who did not answer them. Perhaps I could try with the parliamentary secretary.

First, does the parliamentary secretary agree that violence against women, forced and early marriage, polygamy, and genital mutilation are wrong in any culture? Second, if the parliamentary secretary agrees with that, does he agree that there is no need to reference the word “culture” in the title? Third, if he does not agree, which cultures would he seek to condemn?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the member ask that question earlier, but did hear succinct and clear responses. Perhaps I can assist him by providing the following.

Of course, violence against women and girls of any kind is clearly wrong, clearly a crime in Canada, and clearly we as parliamentarians should all be on board in doing everything we can to ensure that it does not happen in our communities.

The phrase “cultural practices” does not refer to a specific cultural community. It is a cultural practice in some families to tell their children when they are five, six, seven, or eight that when they are 14, 15, or 16, they will have chosen for them the person they will marry and that if they do not marry that person, they will bring shame to the family. When the children bring shame to the family, the members of the family threaten them with violence. It is a cultural practice. There is a huge difference between the words “barbaric cultural practices” and “a cultural community”. There is no relationship between the two phrases. That kind of practice is barbaric, cultural or not, anywhere.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is deeply concerned about the treatment that women and girls in Canada have suffered because of some cultural practices that Canadian society and the Supreme Court of Canada reject. These include genital mutilation, and being forced into polygamous marriages and marriage at a very young age.

I would think that any reasonable, concerned, and decent Canadian would also want to protect women and girls in this country from those terrible fates. Yet, unbelievably, we see the opposition members, including young women over there, doing everything they can to attack this legislation, to disagree with it, to find reasons not to support it. I cannot believe this.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain why the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party in the House would not want to protect Canadian women in this way?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her passion and commitment because I know that over the course of her life, she has been a very strong voice for women's rights and, certainly, a strong advocate for putting in place crime legislation to ensure that women and girls are protected in our country no matter where they live.

The problem I have with the opposition, particularly the New Democratic Party, and with some of the wording from the Liberal party, even though they are supporting the bill, is that this is one of those pieces of legislation that should transcend political parties and alliances. This is not a piece of legislation to hang one's hat on. I say to my friends in the NDP who oppose this that it is impossible to justify to Canadians our not putting into place legislation that would educate and empower women and protect them in their communities, particularly within the walls of their own homes.

I implore the member to speak to her leader—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it insulting to be told by members on the other side that I am not opposed to violence. The young female members on this side of the House are opposed to all forms of sexual violence, whether it is polygamy, forced marriage or early marriage. That has been clear from the start.

What we are saying is that a number of women's advocacy groups are opposed to this bill because it criminalizes the victims. The victims do not want their family members to face criminal charges. There are several shortcomings. This bill has a number of serious consequences, including the potential deportation of children and victims.

I want to know whether the government will undertake to broadly consult experts and groups and whether it will undertake to eliminate the bill's unintended consequences, such as the deportation of the victims' children and families.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question I would like to ask the NDP member. In the November 6, 2014, edition of Le Journal de Montréal, Julie Miville-Dechêne, president of Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme, said, “This will allow us to address the phenomenon of young girls forced to marry when they are sent abroad during their vacation.”

Does the NDP member have something to say to Julie Miville-Dechêne today?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before resuming debate, I would like to remind all hon. members that we are now moving into mostly 10-minute speeches, with only five minutes for questions and comments. I have allowed the questions and answers to become rather lengthy, but the harness will be tightened when we move to questions for the hon. member for Surrey North, who now has the floor.

The hon. member for Surrey North.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

I have some grave concerns regarding Bill S-7, a bill that has made its way to this House from the other side, the Senate side, which is the unelected, unethical, and unaccountable place. I will not talk about that because we have talked about it at other times.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the very hard-working member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

First, the bill is an example of Conservative rhetoric, of doing something yet achieving nothing. It is a waste of taxpayers' time and money and a cruel joke on our democratic system, as most of these measures would not actually achieve anything. Basically, it would duplicate existing laws that are in place. Additionally, a couple of the legislative amendments in Bill S-7 would invoke racist stereotypes and fuel xenophobia toward minority groups, rather than achieving anything positive.

The bill would seek to deport people engaged in polygamy or forced marriages, including the very women the government claims it is trying to protect.

We on this side, the NDP, the official opposition, recognize that violence against women remains a systematic and widespread issue in Canada, and we have shown to Canadians that we are committed to ending violence against women and to protecting them within our immigration system, and system at large. However, Bill S-7 does not intend to protect women; instead, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act intends to further marginalize racial minorities as part of the Conservative agenda.

What is “barbaric” to me is the very title of the bill, which is simply racist. It actually suggests that all cultural practices are somehow barbaric. The title of the bill alone reinforces prejudice against certain cultural groups by targeting racial minorities for practices that are in fact found in Canadian society at large, not only in these communities. The Conservatives are once again politicizing a very serious issue. They are targeting racial minorities with offensive stereotypes, meanwhile claiming that these measures somehow address the issue of gender-based violence when, in fact, they do not.

We have heard from many experts who expressed concern about the purpose of the bill and have stated that the bill would in fact worsen problems of violence against women.

Lawyer Deepa Mattoo from the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario stated that:

Bill S-7 lacks the understanding of the complex issues of violence faced by women and children and does not achieve the goal that the government desires to achieve with this ^[bill].

Another witness, Dr. Naila Butt from the Social Services Network, also stated that:

Criminalization of forced marriages, without the much needed institutional support for victims, would only further alienate and harm those facing forced marriages and gender-based violence, with the added insult of being stigmatized that they come from barbaric cultures.

Canadians are clear that the current government does not actually care about women's rights.

This is the same government that, time after time, has neglected the very issues facing women in Canada, across our country. If the Conservatives really wanted to tackle the issue of violence against women, they would finally launch an inquiry into Canada's missing and murdered indigenous women.

Over the Valentine's Day weekend, we saw protests across this country. Women, men, children, boys, and girls were out in full force across this country demanding that the Conservative government hold an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.

We have heard, over and over, that there are more than 1,200 cases of missing and murdered indigenous women in this country. The stats are absolutely shocking. Yet the Prime Minister stated this issue “isn't really high on our radar”. This is coming from our Prime Minister.

It is very concerning to me that we have violence that has happened across this country, that 1,200 women are missing or murdered, and the government is not looking into it or calling for an inquiry, yet it claims that it is somehow protecting the women of this country. I find that very appalling. A lot of Canadians find this appalling. I have heard it from constituents in my community. I have heard it from people across this country. They want to know why the government is not calling an inquiry into the murdered and missing indigenous women.

This kind of attitude, the Conservative government's attitude towards issues of violence against women, is simply a lack of respect toward all Canadians.

This bill also has many unintended negative consequence. The bill follows a pattern of the Conservative government of sensationalizing measures that do not actually achieve their stated goals and instead have unintended negative consequences for many Canadians.

Many witnesses who testified before the Senate committee on human rights stated that Bill S-7 is likely to have many unintended consequences. UNICEF expressed concerns that the bill would impose criminal sanctions against minors who attend, celebrate, or help organize a forced marriage, effectively impacting their future with a criminal record. These are minors I am talking about.

Essentially, this bill re-victimizes women and children who are at risk of violence by imposing criminal sanctions on them rather than protecting them from predators.

Additionally, the Senate committee heard that because the penalties include criminalization and deportation, some women and children will not want to come forward to report forced marriages.

There are many other negative consequences for Bill S-7 and its impact on family reunification. We heard in the immigration committee that, when families are not able to reunite with their family members, it has consequences on women and children.

No woman, regardless of race, citizenship status, or religion, should be subject to gender-based violence, including the practice of forced or underage marriages. Women at risk of violence need adequate support and programs.

However, this bill makes no reference to support services. That is what is needed at the ground level, support services that provide education and additional help for these women. The Conservative government has been cutting the very programs that actually provide these services to women in these situations.

This bill's intentions are only political and are not actually meant to protect women. If the Conservatives were actually concerned about preventing violence against women, they would make a serious investment in services that support vulnerable women.

In conclusion, this bill is yet another example of the government's abuse of power in making useless pieces of legislation that only sensationalize a very serious issue and that discriminate against a part of the population in order to further the Conservative agenda.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech, and I have two questions.

First, the indication from the speaker opposite is that they are not supporting the bill because they do not like the words “cultural” and “barbaric” together. I looked up the definition of culture. Merriam-Webster's definition of culture is:

the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.

a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business)

Where in the bill does the NDP find a specific cultural group identified? It is about barbaric activity that individuals believe is the right thing to do to their wives, children, and other women. We do not agree with it. It is not the Canadian way.

Where in the bill does it mention any particular cultural group?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a question has been asked of the Conservatives, and they have been dodging and ducking it. Why have “culture” in the title of the bill? They are saying it is not culture based, so why do the Conservatives have “culture” in the title of the bill?

On this side of the House, we believe that violence against women is gender-based, and we should be looking at ways to protect our women across the country. However, the Conservatives are somehow linking it to a particular cultural group, as if it has been imported here by a different culture.

The very problem we need to address is violence against women. That runs across cultures. It is a part of Canadian society, and we need to take steps to protect women.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I somewhat appreciate the comments from the member. I do not necessarily agree with everything he said, but there is a lot of validity in some of his comments.

The issue of zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices, the name of the act, is something that could be held into question. The Liberal Party has strongly suggested that the word “culture” should be dropped from the title at the very least, and we hope to see that.

Having said that, going through the legislation, it seems to me that there are some positive attributes to it that somewhat obligate us to seriously look at voting in favour of the legislation. An example is the minimum age being set at 16 for marriage here in Canada.

I wonder if the member sees any benefits inside the current legislation? I will be voting in favour of it. I would like to see it amended to take out “culture”, but does the member see any benefit?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are always open to new legislation and having proper scrutiny of the legislation that is brought to the House.

What we have seen from the Conservatives is that any sort of positive addition, whether it is in witness testimony or amendments from the official opposition to prop up the bill and ensure that its intention is kept, is turned down. Experts say that we need the amendments that we have introduced. What we have seen time after time is those amendments being turned down by the Conservatives.

I know that the Conservatives do not believe in facts. They do not believe in expert testimony. They do not believe in consulting the very stakeholders who are going to be affected by this.

I will support this bill if the Conservatives take into consideration the number of amendments that we will introduce and the amendments that experts will bring to committee.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I prefer throughout my speech to refer to this as Bill S-7, and it will become apparent why that is the case when I speak. It is an act that would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, the Criminal Code, and a number of other ancillary criminal-related bills.

I would like to make the comment right at the outset that what has coloured this legislation, based on the testimony given in the Senate, is that it is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who has chosen to speak to the bill. Normally it would be the Minister of Justice tabling a government bill to amend the Criminal Code. That probably explains why, in the public, people are reacting and why they are concerned about targeting certain cultures and certainly targeting immigrants.

I feel obliged to make reference to the offensive title of the bill, which I choose not to repeat, and which others have expressed as grossly offensive and an unnecessary descriptor. As pointed out by many others, it harkens back to the reprehensible historic descriptions of aboriginal Canadians.

As the bill is by and large focused on immigrants, many view it as discriminatory. It is as if the government has alleged the bill does not target immigrant communities and yet it is tabled by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This is clearly a confused message.

As testified by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women:

The title is racist, discriminatory and further exacerbates the racism and stereotyping of some of us in Canadian society.... We should all remind ourselves of the treatment meted out to our First Nations, who were seen as barbaric, primitive and uncivilized....

The overt message of this act is that these barbaric practices will be brought into a pristine Canada where there is no violence, where women and girls are not subjected to these horrible practices of forced or early marriages, where polygamy is abhorred, and where there is no femicide — that is, no killings of women and girls. Our organization objects...to the label of honour-based violence....

I remind the government that is coming from the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. This association and a number of others testified before the Senate and referenced the instance of polygamy in British Columbia since the 1950s, yet to be effectively addressed by Canadian authorities.

In speaking to the bill before the Senate committee, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shared that, in his view, the intent of the bill is to:

...help to ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of early or forced marriage, polygamy, so-called honour-based violence or any other form of barbaric cultural practice.

Those are the very words of the minister.

He further went on to claim the measures “would improve protection and support for vulnerable individuals, especially women and girls”. The question then before us is this. Would Bill S-7 actually deliver on that intent? I wish to make it clear that in my opinion no woman, or frankly any man, girl, or boy regardless of their race, citizenship, or religion, should be made a victim of gender-based violence, including forced or underage marriage.

As a co-founder of a sexual assault centre in Edmonton, I am well apprised of the dangers and risks far too many girls and women face. I am also aware of the many factors that prevent girls or women from revealing the abuse to authorities. This is a significant factor raised by many who have concerns with the effectiveness of the bill to genuinely address or prevent abuses, particularly by criminalizing the actions.

It should also be kept in mind that polygamy is already prohibited in Canada.

My comments will by and large reflect the views of the bill and the issues involved held by a number of communities of women, as well as legal experts and associations that address trafficking and abuse, as to whether Bill S-7 would actually deliver the remedies and protections alleged to be contained in the bill by the minister.

A common concern has been raised about the inadequate consultation with the potentially impacted communities and the many organizations and experts involved in the matter of forced or underage marriage. I have spoken with the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the Edmonton-based Indo-Canadian Women's Association and many of its members, as well as organizations addressing trafficking.

Some time ago, I met with a group of Canadian women who were concerned about the failure of the Government of Canada to take enforcement action against the situation in Bountiful. This is despite the direction of the courts that enforcement action is possible under the Criminal Code, reportedly, to protect young girls brought into Canada from the United States for the purpose of polygamous unions.

According to the Indo-Canadian Women's Association:

Given the widespread occurrence of this practice and its harmful effects, many countries have undertaken a number of initiatives to counter it....

In Canada, there are a number of grassroots initiatives launched by community organizations such as the Indo Canadian Women's Association that seek to educate the community and provide links to social and medical resources for those seeking assistance in the community. Through education and continuing efforts of the community, we can begin to leave our mark in ending this harmful practice.

I would like to add that just a few minutes ago I spoke to a very respected member of the Edmonton Muslim community, Soraya Hafez, who is concerned about the bill, in particular because she is seeing a refocusing away from prevention and support to the community organizations, such as her own, and toward the criminalization of this kind of behaviour.

That view has also been endorsed by Preet Atwal, a young Sikh woman in Edmonton. She writes:

The statements presented do not seem to be supported by real statistical or realistic data, spreading myths about arranged marriages. It is making it seem as if violence against women is a cultural issue only taking place in certain communities. Criminalization will only further marginalize radicalized communities and will not do anything to actually prevent forced marriages and violence against women. If we truly wish to combat that issue we should use education, community awareness, and law enforcement....

Those are profound viewpoints.

I noticed that the Minister of Status of Women had previously said that she had also spoken to this Edmonton community. They are deeply disturbed that she had suggested that their conference on honouring young women was about honour killings. In fact, it was actually about honouring young women in the Asian community, and I was delighted to participate in that conference.

I would also like to share briefly the words of Avvy Yao-Yao Go, who is the director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. She also testified before the Senate on Bill S-7. She stated:

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. It exudes hypocrisy disguised as morality. It mocks the practice of polygamy elsewhere as a sign of cultural inferiority while ignoring the fact that polygamy, both formal and informal, is being practised in Canada by some Canadians and that all too often marriages break down in Canada due to infidelity and/or abuse.

Alia Hogben, the executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, testified at the Senate that she thinks it is important to consider the views based on the direct experiences working with women who are at risk of forced marriages or abuse in their marriages.

She said:

First let me acknowledge how pleased we are that the government is paying attention to the issues within violence against women and girls. There is definitely a kernel of genuine concern being expressed by this act, and we support the intent of addressing the issues of forced or early marriages, polygamy and other forms of gender-based violence.

She says the council is less convinced that these proposed measures are necessary or appropriate. They are also disappointed they were not accorded the courtesy of being consulted in the initial stages of drafting the bill.

They identified that the current Criminal Code and Civil Marriage Act already criminalize polygamy and bigamy. In their view, what is sorely missing is the attention to actually enforcing these laws and the assignment of resources to address problems faced by immigrants and other victims. This appears to be a common view of those actually working with trafficked women or women attempting to escape forced or abusive marriages.

They are equally concerned at the focused attention on certain backgrounds, given the high level of violence against all Canadian women and girls. Some have mentioned, as have some of my colleagues, the fact that there is still a refusal by the government—and, sadly, by the Premier of Alberta—to call an inquiry into the over 1,800 missing aboriginal women and girls.

They have noted the failure to prosecute polygamy over the past six decades. They remind us that as recently as 2011, the courts have clarified that charges can go forward under existing laws.

What they recommend instead is to engage and educate the community on the law and their rights and to build the capacity for community-based responses to human trafficking. They also emphasize the need to eliminate the vulnerabilities that lead to trafficking.

Those I have talked to say that they think there should be more support to settlement services and that we need to consider the particular vulnerability of poor or abused women. We need organizations to be onside with the law, as they are the very mechanisms who help those who are being abused.

Finally, I would like to add in closing that they are puzzled that the government is not also including civil proceedings, as many of women would be frightened to be engaged in criminal proceedings.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague think it would have been good for the government to take a look at our country's history? Our grandmothers were subject to an enormous amount of violence and they did not speak up. For example, if a woman went into town wearing a skirt that was too short, her husband could beat her. There are many examples of fathers beating their daughters. This was not too long ago.

I think that the focus on autonomy and education for these women and the institution of many social measures really helped put an end to these barbaric practices—not a focus on criminalization.

Does my colleague think that social measures like the ones taken here in the past could apply in some cases in order to help these women combat the barbaric practices we are discussing today?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand my colleague's question, I think she is asking if we can look at how we have addressed and reduced abusive marriages in the history of Canada and apply that to situations we are running into now. I can only attest to the fact that many women's organizations deal with the trafficking of women and girls or with women in forced marriages, as opposed to arranged marriages, and they are deeply concerned that there may be a misunderstanding between the two.

There certainly seems to be strong, profound evidence across Canada from the very organizations that are working with vulnerable women in these situations that what they need are more resources, both to prevent these kinds of activities and to help remove women from that kind of situation. They are deeply concerned that criminalizing is only going to ostracize these women from the very communities and families they need to turn to for support.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke quite eloquently in her speech, but she referred to women somehow having difficulty in their own communities arising from this particular piece of legislation. I wonder if the member could elaborate a bit.

Does she not see that there are hundreds of cases annually in this country of women being forced into marriages and being threatened with physical violence if they refuse those unions? It may be here or abroad, since sometimes they are forcibly taken out of the country. It actually happens. It is a cultural practice in some families, and it is barbaric.

To establish a law that would help prevent and hopefully eliminate that from happening in our country seems to be widely supported by Canadians. Certainly that is what the citizenship and immigration committee heard from a wide variety of witnesses who testified before it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the parliamentary secretary has asked a question, because I want to put a question to him.

I mentioned the testimony that was presented in the other place, and hopefully the committee will hear similar testimony if the bill goes to committee. We heard from rape crisis centres, organizations dealing with the trafficking of women and girls, Indo-Canadian organizations, and the Muslim association for women. These organizations are telling us, based on their experience, that in the case of forced marriages, merely relying on criminal law would make it highly unlikely that any of these women would lay a complaint.

I would put to the member a situation in which a young, vulnerable woman is up against her parents, aunts and uncles, grandmother and grandfather, the head of the community, and so forth. She may well be a woman located in another country, so she will not be able to bring the charge here anyway.

There is good intent here. There are a lot of good provisions in the law, but what we are being told is a reality fix.

What I would ask the government is why it did not adopt the British law that allows for the laying of charges either criminally or civilly. Apparently in the United Kingdom the majority of women are choosing the civil proceeding route.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the chance to speak about Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Burlington.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, our government recognized that millions of women and girls around the world continue to suffer from violence, including the appalling practices of early and forced marriage. That speech emphasized the government's commitment to ensuring that such barbaric cultural practices do not occur in our country.

In his appearance before the Senate human rights committee on this bill, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made it clear that any practice that involves violence directed at women is barbaric. Our government firmly believes that women should never be subjugated to violence or even death for any reason, especially the reasons used in honour-based violence.

The measures in Bill S-7 are the culmination of that commitment to improve protection and support for vulnerable individuals, primarily women and children, and would do so in a number of 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 national minimum age for marriage of 16 years old 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 would criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriage ceremonies.

These measures would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new and specific preventative court order peace bond when there were grounds to fear someone would commit an offence in that area, and they would ensure that the defence of provocation would not apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

I would like to take the opportunity to focus on those measures in Bill S-7 that address what I have already described as appalling practices involving violence directed against women and girls, namely early and forced marriage. These are practices that contradict Canadian values and cause great harm to victims.

In Canada, there is no national minimum age for marriage. Provincial and territorial legislation set out certain ages for additional requirements, such as parental consent for those under the age of majority or court approval for even younger children. However, they lack the Constitutional jurisdiction to set the absolute minimum age below which no child can marry.

Federal law currently sets the absolute minimum age at 16 years old, but in Quebec only. In other parts of Canada, the common law applies because there is no federal legislation. However, there is some uncertainty about the common law minimum age, which is usually interpreted as setting a minimum of 12 for girls and 14 for boys, although historically it has been as low as seven years old.

While very few marriages in Canada now involve people under the age of 16, amending the Civil Marriage Act in order to set a national minimum age of 16 years old for marriage would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and will not be tolerated. In contrast, Austria, Australia, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom all have a minimum age below which no one can marry, even with parental consent.

Other amendments to the Civil Marriage Act proposed in Bill S-7 would codify the requirement that those getting married must give their free and enlightened consent to marry each other and would codify the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriage.

Building on the proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act, Bill S-7 also contains measures that would amend the Criminal Code to help prevent forced and underage marriage. These measures would criminalize knowingly officiating at an underage or forced marriage, actively participating in a wedding ceremony knowing that one party is marrying the other against his or her will or is under the age of 16 years old, and removing a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage.

Other proposed amendments would create a new peace bond that would give courts the power to impose conditions on an individual when there were reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age 16 would otherwise occur.

Such a peace bond could be used to prevent an underage or forced marriage by, for example, requiring the surrender of a passport as well as preventing a child from being taken out of Canada. This is an important option for a young woman, for example, who wants to stop her family from taking her out of the country for a forced marriage but does not want to press charges against her family members.

At the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, members had the opportunity to listen to Kamal Dhillon who was forced into a marriage at a young age and repeatedly abused for the 12 years of her marriage. She told the committee that she was constantly subjected to emotional, physical, sexual and financial abuse, and even attempted murder several times. The bill seeks to prevent situations such as Ms. Dhillon's. I am glad to say that she escaped her marriage and is now an advocate for women who have been the target of barbaric practices.

The provisions in Bill S-7, including those that address underage and forced marriage, will help ensure that immigrant women and girls are protected from isolation and violence. The full participation of women and girls is essential in our democracy. Women seeking a better life for themselves and their families in Canada should never be subject to constant fear and threat of violence or death simply for living their lives and seeking out better opportunities for themselves.

We know that immigrant and newcomer women and girls face additional barriers in protecting themselves and seeking assistance compared to women born in Canada. These practices also have a very negative impact on families and society in general, as does all violence directed against women and girls. They also seriously affect all those involved from influencing immigration outcomes to breaking down opportunities for integration and success.

Bill S-7 would strengthen our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers to Canada from barbaric cultural practices that direct violence against women and girls. Through the enactment of Bill S-7, Parliament will send a strong message to those in Canada and those who wish to come to Canada that we will not tolerate activities that deprive individuals of their human rights.

I am sure we would all agree that we must stand up for all victims of violence and abuse, and take necessary action to prevent these practices from happening on Canadian soil. That is exactly what we will be doing by ensuring the bill's passage into law. That is why I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the members in the Liberal Party have indicated that, in principle, we support the legislation going to second reading and quite possibly beyond. One of issues our critic has asked today is in regard to having the reference to “culture” in the title of the legislation.

Could the member explain why she believes it is important for the word “culture” to be incorporated into the title of the bill? It seems it is just not necessary. Could she expand on why she believes it is absolutely critical for the legislation?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act would send out a clear message to those coming to Canada that forced marriage, honour-based violence or any other form of harmful cultural practices would unacceptable and would not be tolerated in Canadian society. That is why I like the word “cultural” in there, because we are talking about harmful cultural practices.

Our government will continue to ensure that Canada is protected from harmful barbaric cultural practices and continue to protect Canadians vulnerable to these abuses.

We will continue to take action by increasing the support for victims of crime, including through the victims bill of rights. We also passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Since 2007, over $2.8 million has been approved through Status of Women Canada for community-based projects that address harmful cultural practices such as honour-based violence and forced marriages, and 720 projects were funded that support women and girls.

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

Mr. Speaker, many people who immigrate to Canada are not familiar with Canadian laws, and many women who immigrate to Canada are not aware of their rights.

If the Canadian government wants to provide real assistance to these women by taking positive action, could it not provide or help to provide prevention and support services to victims, instead of potentially criminalizing these women?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that many women who come to Canada do not know their rights and we have taken steps to ensure they do. Victims advocates have said that they needed resources and we gave them those resources.

Our government has taken action to protect vulnerable Canadians, particularly women and girls, from early and forced marriage and other harmful cultural practices through, for example, special language programs for immigrant and refugee women. We are able to address issues such as family violence, spousal abuse, women's rights, legal rights, responsibilities and health care, and include bridging or referral to other available services in the community. This is very important for them.

Also publications such as Discover Canada and Welcome to Canada are guides that clearly communicate that Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to harmful cultural practices such as forced marriage or other forms of gender-based violence. This is for everyone, not specific to a particular culture or community. These are some examples of what we are doing to ensure women are aware of their rights when they get to Canada.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women for her great work on the committee and for her dedication to this very important cause.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell us how important this legislation is in giving additional powers to both educate and empower women so they know their rights when they are in Canada and find themselves in abusive situations such as these?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the bill get passed so women and girls will be safe in Canada. This bill is all about that. Every time we put through measures to strengthen laws or bills that would help women and girls, the opposition members always vote against them.

It is time we help women and girls. This is a problem in Canada and we need to support it. Everyone should remember too that part of the bill would commit to an age of 16. Right now, as I said in my speech, someone could force a young girl to get married as young as age seven.

We need to pass the bill so all women and girls in Canada safe.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill S-7. I have listened to the speeches all morning. I have been on duty here and have been able to take in the speeches from all sides.

In particular, as a father of two daughters, it is important for me to express my feelings on Bill S-7 and what it means to me as a father. My two girls do not listen to their father that much to start with, so I cannot imagine me forcing them into doing anything. However, it boggles my mind that there are cultural beliefs from a variety of different organizations.

I received a tweet a few minutes ago from someone who asked me which cultural group the Government of Canada was targeting with Bill S-7. The Liberal Party agrees to have the bill go to committee, which is excellent. The official opposition says that it disagrees with some of the wording. It does not like the word “cultural”. I think what is happening is the message is getting out that the bill is targeting different cultures. That is absolutely inaccurate. I read the definition of “cultural”. It is about a set of beliefs and values. People can look it up in Webster's Dictionary.

However, this is about barbaric cultural practices. It does not say it is X culture that does this. It could be any group or organization. The laws of our land have opposed polygamy since the 1800s. When the government of the day made the decision that polygamy was the wrong, it did not target a specific culture. The opposition has tried to portray cultures through the bill, which are not mentioned anywhere in the legislation. There is no specific culture identified. Those cultures the opposition have tried to to identify did not exist in Canada, unless we consider Scottish culture or English culture as groups.

It is a cultural practice, a belief system, that an individual or organization has. Wherever the origin, if families have grown up believing that their fathers have the absolute right to force their daughters to marry someone against their will at the age of 15, regardless of where they are from, that is not tolerable in Canada. This legislation would put an end to that barbaric activity.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicated that the official opposition members should take this back to their leadership and ensure they understood what they opposed. They do not like the title of the bill because of the use of the word “cultural”. It does not say X cultural activity. They really should reconsider their position on this.

Of course everyone cannot withstand “barbaric” activity. Some people in the House may think that word a bit strong, but that is exactly what it is. Why would we not call it what it is? Who in the House, who in the country, believes in violence against their sons or daughters because they disagree with them on who, when and at what age they should marry? How is that not barbaric? The legislation would deal with that.

I have heard some other comments that we are ending people's ability to have an arranged marriage. That is not the case. Arranged marriages, the ones I am familiar with, have two consulting individuals, two people who decide. An arranged marriage would not work in my family, but it may work in others, and that is fair. The man and the women, based on an arrangement made by their parents, consent to the marriage. They say it is a relationship, a marriage, they would both like to enter into. There is nothing wrong with an arranged marriage of two consenting adults.

The difference between an arranged and a forced marriage is that in the latter, one of those individuals, either the male or the female, does not agree, has had no say in it, and is not consenting to the marriage. That is what the bill is aiming at addressing.

There is a discussion about how many people this would affect and whether or not we have good statistics. In my personal view, if we have legislation that protects one young woman, one victim, from this happening to her, we have done our job as parliamentarians to pass laws protecting individuals. We cannot decide whether or not this is a barbaric activity based on whether or not it only affects one person that we know of. It is barbaric in itself as an action, and not barbaric based on its numbers.

We on this side understand that the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill at second reading. There may be some amendments. The Liberals are supporting the concept that there cannot be one more victim.

I was at an event this past weekend in my riding. I think it was called “one billion awareness”. An organization was bringing awareness across the globe to the fact that one billion women in this world have faced some sort of aggression from a male, whether physical or not. In this country, we need to take every opportunity to make sure that barbaric activity, that aggression against women, comes to an end here and around the world.

Unfortunately, we cannot make it happen in other countries, but we do have a responsibility. I have a responsibility to my children, to my daughters. I have a responsibility to my wife to make sure that we take every opportunity we have to protect women and young boys in this case, young men and young women, from barbaric activities not of their choice but a result of a cultural norm some of their family members believe in. We need to be able to protect them from that. We cannot and should not tolerate that here in Canada.

This piece of legislation, in my view, should be supported by all parties. We should be able to deal with this at second reading, quickly get it to committee, quickly get it back to the House and pass it. We should have done it long ago. It is long overdue, and I appreciate the support of all members of Parliament for Bill S-7.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Seeing that the time for government orders has expired, the five minutes of questions and comments for the hon. member for Burlington will take place when this matter returns before the House.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to 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, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period.

One minute will be allowed for each question and answer, and priority will be given to opposition members wishing to ask questions.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day again for Canadian Parliament. This is the 91st time the government has used closure, or time allocation, in this Parliament. It goes beyond any previous government in Canadian history. It is twice as bad as what was the previous worst government in terms of open intolerance of democratic debate in this House. The only solace for the Canadian population is that Canadians know that in 200 days, they will be able to vote the current government out of office and bring in a government that actually respects parliamentary traditions.

With the last three closure motions and time allocation, we have seen a real intolerance of debate. We have seen with Bill C-51 that the government is systematically refusing witnesses who could bring a lot to bear on the bill, which is a controversial piece of legislation. Yesterday in the House, the minister might as well have told Yukoners that the government will not accept any amendments to Bill S-6. The Conservatives want to make a show of going up to Whitehorse but have absolutely no intention of actually listening to witnesses and bringing amendments to Bill S-6.

My questions to the minister with respect to Bill S-7 are simple. Will the government hear from witnesses who want to come forward on this bill? Will it actually entertain amendments, or will it show the same disdain it has shown with so many other pieces of legislation by refusing amendments put forth by parliamentarians?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. opposition House leader is forgetting one vital fact about Canadian democracy, and all effective functioning democracies in the world, which is that populations have the right to judge governments and decide whether they are getting good government not by the length of debate, not by the prolixity of debate or the level of obfuscation by the opposition, which in this House and Parliament has been enormous, but by the results achieved.

This bill would bring real results for Canadian women, those who are born here or who come here as newcomers and immigrants, and it has been debated. In fact, it was by listening to the report by one of the House standing committees on strengthening the protection of women in the immigration system, to which the NDP and all the opposition had ample opportunity to contribute, that we have come to the drafting of this bill.

The bill has been debated in the House and for three days in the Senate at second reading and three days at third reading. There were three full days at the Senate committee. Seventeen speakers have already spoken to it in the House. We look forward to hearing from many more and from many good witnesses at committee. This bill, which is urgently needed, is getting the democratic consideration it needs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a change in the way this House has operated since the Conservative/Reform Party acquired its majority. Since then, we have seen the government implement time allocation, which is closure. When the member said that there were three days of debate, that might work out to a few hours of actual debate. It is not 72 hours of debate, which is what the member might be trying to imply when he makes that simple statement.

The reality is that members of Parliament traditionally are afforded the opportunity to voice the concerns expressed, in good part, by the constituents they represent here on the floor of the House of Commons. Never in the history of the parliamentary system in Canada have we witnessed such a disrespect for allowing debate to occur on government bills, budget bills, and so forth.

My question is for the government House leader, and it is very simple. Why do the government and the Prime Minister not allow for genuine debate and dialogue on all forms of legislation brought to the House? Why are there limits? It is highly undemocratic.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We are at a historical watershed in this place. We are seeing things we have never seen before, and we are seeing them from the Liberal Party of Canada. It claims to have the best economic interests of Canadians at heart. However, when we get a glimpse of what the Liberals' policies might be, they only want to raise taxes. The Liberal Party of Canada, which claims to be pro-immigration, has supported absolutely none of our reforms to the immigration system to clean up the mess it left us in 2006. The Liberals have complained about every single step forward we have made.

The Liberals have already said in this House that they support the bill. The member just stood to say that he wants an endless debate. He wants everyone to be able to express the same view over and over again. He wants that inefficiency. He wants the time of this House to be wasted, even though that party has made up its mind. We have never seen such hypocrisy in this place before.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, the minister said he was looking forward to hearing from witnesses at committee on Bill S-7. Well, I have some doubts about his comments that I would like to share, if I may.

First of all, just this week, some newspapers referred to a Conservative Party internal document that revealed that the Conservatives had already decided on the content of the report before the latest committee review even began. This proves how little the Conservatives care about the evidence given by witnesses.

Furthermore, during debate on Bill S-7, we had not even finished the second hour of debate when the minister said that the title was just fine as it is and it would not be changed.

When the minister says he is looking forward to hearing from witnesses, frankly, I do not a believe a word of it, because we know very well that the Conservatives' minds are already made up and they have no respect for the parliamentary process or for the opinions of the experts who appear in committee.

This time allocation motion is just further proof of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, not only are we prepared to hear from witnesses in committee and continue to debate here in the House, but we also based this bill on a committee report written in 2013 and 2014. That report was on protecting women in our immigration programs and on the issue of forced marriage. We had already heard from the opposition and various witnesses when we drafted this bill.

It is hard to understand why the NDP cannot come together and support a bill that is so positive for women and so warmly welcomed by women across the country.

We are confident in our position on our side of the House because we want to move forward with the necessary reforms to ensure that forced marriage, barbaric practices, underage marriages, and honour killings have no place in our country.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up the theme the hon. member for Winnipeg North was developing, and that is the issue of process and democracy in this place. I believe that the government has invoked closure on debate through time allocation more than 90 times in this Parliament. Over four years, that works out to 22 times per year. That, for Canadians who may be watching this, says that the government, 22 times a year, approximately, tells this House that we, as parliamentarians, cannot stand up in this place and represent our constituents and contribute to the debate and discussion in this place.

The consequence of that is that amendments, necessary improvements to legislation, which are contributions from all parties in this House, particularly the opposition, are not made. That is why there have been a record number of government bills that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in this country, including Bill C-31, which I, in committee, warned the government would be unconstitutional. Sure enough, that was found to be the case.

In terms of making good legislation, I understand that the government has a majority, and ultimately it needs to get business done, and we, as a responsible opposition, co-operate with that. However, does the member not agree that good suggestions on this side of the House that can improve the legislation are things a responsible democratic government would want to welcome in this place, not for the good of the opposition but for the good of Canada and the good of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians understand that being elected to this place, having the right to stand in one's place and speak in this place, should not give any of us, any party, an unlimited right to obstruct and slow the business of this House.

The fact that closure has been invoked a number of times in this place has brought Canadians enormous benefits through changes to the tax system. There are lower taxes. It has brought protections, over 40 of them, through the justice system, with improvements to the Criminal Code that are bringing the crime rate in this country down. It has brought us free trade agreements, a record number, dozens of them, which is way beyond the record of any previous government.

On this particular issue, let us listen to the words of Aruna Papp. “Canada was designated the best country to be a woman”.

We are morally bound to take a stand on behalf of all women who are victims of abuse, especially on behalf of young girls, the most vulnerable in our immigrant communities. That is why we are moving forward with this legislation. That is why we want it to become law sooner rather than later. That is why we agree that the Criminal Code needs to be changed to protect women.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion with New Democrats on this issue. They do not want to change the justice system. They do not want to strengthen it. That is their policy. Month after month, year after year, Canadians have rejected it. We will continue to listen to Canadians.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this may not be the last time that I say this, but I have sat in this chamber for 18 years and I have never seen a government that has shown such disrespect for democracy and the institution of Parliament. The government has imposed time allocation 91 times.

I would like to remind the Minister of Immigration that he was formerly the ambassador to Afghanistan. We sent our young soldiers there to fight for democracy, a parliament and freedom of speech for Afghans. This same freedom of speech is not being afforded to us as parliamentarians. It is as though the Conservatives believe that they have all the answers and that they will settle this with an election. Basically they are saying that they do not believe in the democracy of Parliament or in debate and they do not want Canadians to hear arguments against their bill.

However, it is a fundamental right in a democracy and the very purpose of Parliament. I am sure that when the Minister of Immigration was the ambassador to Afghanistan, he fought to give Afghans a parliament and freedom of speech. The Conservatives are stripping us of this constitutional right. What the government is doing is so very wrong. It is regrettable and Canadians are watching. It goes against our country's democratic tradition.

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

Mr. Speaker, in no country has democracy ever given an elected official the right to do nothing about anything. If we were to do what the NDP proposes, this Parliament would have been much less productive. Canada's crime rate and tax burden would be much higher, we would have lost growth and we would not be in a position to create 1.2 million new jobs across the country.

If were to open the door to inaction or paralysis, we would look much more like the Afghan government. Canada's standards are much higher than that.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the minister's time allocation motion, which would limit the time for debate on this bill. Since I am not running in the upcoming election, I would like to put something on the permanent record here in the House.

I believe that the quality of debate in the chamber could be improved. The government says that speeches are repetitive. That is its argument for limiting debate. I think what is going on is that the opposition is doing its job in criticizing the government's legislation. However, the speeches we hear, and I would say we hear this a lot from the government side, and to be fair, sometimes from the opposition side, are not real debate in terms of a clash of ideas, in terms of responding to each other in a give and take, back and forth exchange of ideas and a testing of ideas.

The reason the debate needs to continue is to have better-quality debate. If we had good-quality debate, we could finish it in a couple of days and would not need to limit the number of speeches.

We in the opposition are challenging the government. We are pointing out problems. We are bringing up facts and evidence, and we need a response from the government. If we got a proper response and had a back and forth debate, a real debate, instead of just reading speeches where we pass by each other, from an intellectual point of view, we would not need to limit debate.

Therefore, I call on the government—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

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

Mr. Speaker, here I am and here we are, in debate with the opposition members, responding to their individual questions. I am not passing the hon. member in the night. I am not sticking to some prepared line. I am listening to him, and I am prepared to collide with his view.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party of Canada has agreed to support this bill. The Liberals have not made any suggestions for improving it. They made some outrageous comparisons and engaged in some outrageous rhetoric in the Senate committee, which lowers their party's credibility. Now, they have turned around to support the bill, with one exception: they want to drop the word “cultural” from the title. We are not going to do that, and we have made our view clear.

There is nothing more to say from our side to the Liberal Party, because the Liberals have made no proposals on this bill. Why would they not be prepared to move forward? Why would they not be prepared to move on to another question where they do have views? Could it be that they simply do not have views on most questions, and therefore would rather tie themselves into procedural knots to disguise the fact from Canadians that on these issues, as on others—on protecting women, on enhancing the economy, on lowering taxes, on opening new markets—the Liberal Party of Canada—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We have 13 minutes left and I see that a number of hon. members wish to participate, so I am going to enforce the one-minute rule more strictly as we go through these next 13 minutes.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 is the product of a report that came out after extensive study done by the citizenship and immigration committee in the House. We have heard extensive debate in this House, as has been heard in the Senate. To continue to hear regurgitated speeches that are not only repetitive but ad nauseam repeating of the same points over and over, does not add to the quality of the debate as the Liberal member was so eloquently trying to explain.

However, I want to ask the minister this question.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Do not disagree with your minister, please.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Be careful. You are talking too long. The minister is going to tell you to stop talking. On Afghanistan, do not forget.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not heckle anybody when they were speaking. They like to heckle. This is the Liberal and the NDP way. When we bring up a valid point to which they do not have a response, they heckle. That is their style.

I have a very simple question for the minister. I understand the minister did country-wide consultations on this subject. I wonder if he could share with us some of the things he heard that have brought urgency to the fact that we need to pass this legislation in an expeditious way so we can respond to those folks who are victims of these—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary, who has done extraordinary work on this bill and across the board on immigration, citizenship, and passport issues, for that question and for engaging in this debate.

Let us listen again to Aruna Papp, who said that it is about time and she commends the government for its leadership, for taking a stand on a very difficult issue, and for defending the human rights of vulnerable women unable to speak for themselves.

In addition, according to Julie Miville-Dechêne, the president of Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme, “This will allow us to address the phenomenon of young girls forced to marry when they are sent abroad during their vacation.”

Just on the question of civil marriage, we are making important changes here that we all agree on in this place: that there be a requirement for free and enlightened consent before two people marry; that there be a requirement for an existing marriage to end prior to someone entering into another marriage; and that there be a national minimum age of 16. That minimum age does not exist in this country outside of Quebec. We need to move on this.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually with a great deal of sadness that I rise in this House today to once again have to speak against another time allocation where the government is using its majority to shut down debate. It gets rather tiring when we hear, “Let us get it through this House; we will get it to committee because that is when we will have the in-depth study”.

I saw how that worked for Bill C-51. Once we got to committee, the government's proposal was no more than three meetings. On top of that, the Conservatives kept the Privacy Commissioner from testifying there.

What I am finding confusing is that the minister said it is absolutely imperative that they take action on this right now. We already have legislation prohibiting marriage before the age of 16. We already have laws saying that one can only be married to one person at a time. All of this rhetoric is so divisive and meant to create a milieu that the Conservative government is doing something, when all it is doing is feeding fear and suspicion and trying to pretend it is fixing something that is not broken in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, there we have it again. The NDP position on this bill is to do nothing; it is not important; life is perfect in Canada for women and girls, and so nothing needs to be done.

That is what the member just said. The member said that there is no need to do anything because it is not broken.

One settlement agency in Toronto, in its workload, identified more than 200 cases of forced marriage. Dozens of settlement agencies across this country have identified dozens, and potentially hundreds, of cases of polygamy so far without even really looking into this in detail.

Marriages are not being dissolved before other marriages take place. Free and enlightened consent is not being given. Marriages of people under the age of 16 are not prohibited from occurring in this country. Girls are still being removed from this country to be forcibly married elsewhere against their will and then brought back to Canada.

We need action on this if Canada is to live up to its standards.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

My goodness, the minister is not actively listening this morning, Mr. Speaker. It is rather discouraging.

I rise to speak to this time allocation motion because I take exception to the idea that we in the NDP are not concerned about matters of justice. On the contrary, as the justice critic, I can tell you that every bill introduced in the House by the government is studied carefully. The only difference between the Conservatives and us is that we try to be consistent with the Criminal Code.

What my colleague from Newton—North Delta said quite eloquently is that these provisions already exist. It is not that the NDP does not want to stand up against forced marriage, polygamy and honour crimes, it is that all these provisions already exist. The Conservatives are playing with people's heads, and it is insulting. We have carefully reviewed all the justice bills and we even supported a number of these bills, including the one introduced by the Conservative member for Yukon on fetal alcohol syndrome. Perhaps because we supported it, the Conservatives decided to withdraw it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about Bill S-7. We are talking about women and girls facing forced or underage marriages. The members opposite from Gatineau and Newton—North Delta keep saying that the justice system already offers enough protections.

What should we tell the hundreds of women and girls who are victims of this type of crime and had no protection? They were literally taken from their homes, forced to leave Canada, forced to marry abroad without their consent and return here, against their will, to spend their life with that person. The existing protections are not enough. That is what people and stakeholders across the country told us quite clearly.

Why is the NDP not listening to those people?

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Bill S-7, the Liberals will be proposing an amendment that, instead of the bill's short title referring to “barbaric cultural practices”, the word “cultural” be eliminated and it simply be “barbaric practices”.

The reason for this is that such practices are not limited to any one community. There is Bountiful in British Columbia, which is Christian. There was a Jewish group in Quebec.

The word “cultural” is taken to be demeaning to the Muslim community, among others perhaps. I know the minister is highly aware of insults to the Muslim community in which he has indulged, not appearing to know the difference between a hijab and a niqab.

However, the general point is that I do not think the word “cultural” is necessary. It can be taken away. I wonder if the minister would agree to that amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will not, as we have said in this place many times, remove the word “cultural” from the title of this bill, because the defence of these barbaric practices is often mistakenly made in the name of culture.

We want to point out that the only culture that is unacceptable here, and which we hope would be eliminated from Canada with this bill, is the culture of violence against women. There should be no defence of violence against women that makes a cultural reference. There is no room for any particular group to be insulted by this bill because, if they are engaging in violence against women, they are engaging in a crime, a barbaric practice, and all Canadians understand that it is wrong.

We, on this side of the House, are very clear about what we are trying to correct here. There are legal systems around the world that allow polygamy. There are 62 countries that allow polygamy in one way or another. Some of them are Christian-majority countries, many of them. Some of them are Muslim-majority countries. Some of them are mixed. We consider that a practice barbaric.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed in what the minister has been saying this morning. At this point, everyone can see that there are good reasons the NDP has for years been calling for more funding for police forces and those working on the ground.

What we are hearing clearly this morning is that they want to stifle the debate and send out messages from an electioneering perspective. They want to pique the interest of the people their party is constantly sending messages to about current events and urging to donate money to their campaign.

There is a debate going on this morning, but we are being prevented from speaking. If the minister believes that Bill S-7 is a priority, then how does he explain the previous 90 times?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always proud to talk about our government's productivity and the number of free trade agreements that have made their way through all of the government's decision-making bodies and been debated in the House. I am always proud to talk about the more than 150 tax cuts that the government has given to Canadians through debates in the House, the budget and other measures. That is taking action. That is what ensures Canada's competitiveness and growth, job creation, the protection of Canadian families and communities and, with this bill, the protection of women and girls in Canada.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I listened to the minister's remarks. From what he said about this Parliament, one would think we were working in a sausage factory. This is not a war room; this is a parliament. We need to discuss and take our time dealing with these bills.

The interventions from the members on this side of the House this morning have brought a different, new and constructive perspective. I cannot imagine how the minister can in good conscience continue to ignore our message and forge blindly ahead, running roughshod over anything we say.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only ones forging blindly ahead are of course on the other side of the House. Stubbornly and without due consideration, they insist on delaying every debate and the passage of every measure we propose to protect women.

We have just spent half an hour in this place talking about the need to move forward with the bill, and I have not heard a single comment from members on the other side indicating how they might improve the protection of women, how they might improve our work to ensure barbaric practices are not happening in this country.

Yes, I have always known the difference between a head scarf and a veil. Our policy will remain to ensure that citizenship ceremonies take place among people who have removed their face coverings. That is one of the practices in this country that protects women, protects girls, and protects Canadian values and traditions, and that is why we are taking action on this issue today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #352

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to a subject that is particularly crucial in the current debate. I would like to point out that Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, was introduced in the Senate, therefore by parliamentarians who were not elected by Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. There is a lot of noise in the House. We are back on orders of the day. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has been recognized and is partway through her remarks, so I would ask all hon. members who wish to carry on conversations to make their way out of the chamber to the respective lobbies.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7, which I will be speaking to, was introduced in the Senate. It was introduced by people who were not democratically elected by Canadians. I also want to thank my colleague from Joliette, with whom I will be sharing my time, and who will speak at the end of my speech.

First, like the NDP member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, I think that no child should ever be the victim of violence, and that forced marriages, honour crimes, or any form of violence against women and children should not have a place in this country. In that sense, we all agree on the principle and the goal. People who commit such violence against children and women must be punished.

The battle to combat violence against women is one that must be fought on the ground. I tip my hat to the front-line workers, security personnel, border officers and, in short, everyone who works on the ground and witnesses this type of violence and crime. These are situations that are not easy to see or experience. We should commend these people for the work they try to do on the ground. They have to intervene to prevent these crimes and help victims. It is an ongoing battle. That is why I tip my hat to them. I hope they are prepared to keep up the fight to stop violence against women.

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights presented a report on this bill in which it points out that other measures are needed to address the problems of polygamy, forced marriage, or underage marriage. More specifically, the committee confirmed that we need to educate people, raise awareness and provide support services. However, Bill S-7 was passed by the Senate without amendment.

Faced with this major problem and such a complex issue, it is regrettable that all the government is doing is bringing forward legislation when, according to the Senate committee, education and public awareness should be part of this approach.

For people whose memories may not reach back that far, I would like to remind them that about 100 years ago in Canada there were many situations where women were victims of violence and forced to marry. How many young girls were forced to marry to cover up a pregnancy? The only way that they could leave the family home and hope to have a decent life was either to marry or to become a nun. Many women were forced to marry for cultural or socio-economic reasons.

Over the years, a change in attitudes and the education of parents has meant that men and women are equal today, even though there is still work to do on that. The principle of gender equality has been recognized even though in real life there is still work to be done.

As a nurse, I had the opportunity to work with seniors. When you talk to women who are 85 or 95 years old, you realize that their lives were completely different. There are women who were raped by their husbands every night because they were unlucky when they were told that it was time to marry, move on or enter religious life. There were some very difficult situations.

The experience of these women can help us end these practices. Unfortunately, what happened here is being completely ignored as though everything has always been fine for women in Canada. We must take this into account if we really want to change the mindset.

Over time, women have done some historic work to change the culture. This work was not done through legislation but through involvement, by changing attitudes and by getting people who work on the ground and in the communities involved in changing these practices. It could be beneficial for us to look at what has been done in the past.

One of the problems with this bill, especially with respect to polygamy, is that if we recognize that a man has engaged in polygamous relationships, his entire family can be deported. This part of the bill does not make sense. Either women are victims of polygamy or they are accomplices. Based on what I have heard from all members, included the Conservatives—unless I am mistaken, but I do not think so—everyone seems to think that women are victims of polygamy and are not accomplices. If they are victims of polygamy, why are they not allowed to stay here instead of being forced to return to their country with their polygamous husband? They are not even given the chance to stay here, even though we believe that they were victims. That does not make sense.

I think that is very important. We would like to amend the bill so that victims are exempt from fulfilling the requirements of conditional permanent residence, to allow the wives and children of someone who is deported for having lied to the authorities about his marital status to remain in Canada, where they are living. That is essential.

We must also be aware of the consequences. What will happen to a woman when the authorities realize that she is a victim of polygamy? What impact will her deportation to her country of origin have on her health and physical safety? Her husband may believe that it is her fault that he was unable to remain in Canada. What do my colleagues think? Will he give her flowers and a new dress or will he give her the beating of her life? It is important to think this through. I believe that it is clear to all parliamentarians that women are victims of polygamy, and if they are victims, we must ensure they do not suffer any of the negative consequences that deportation may have on their health, their safety and even their lives.

This government has a responsibility to ensure that these women are not doubly victimized. We cannot tell ourselves that they may get the beating of their life but this will not happen in Canada so it is not our problem. That is not a responsible way of thinking. We must therefore make sure that we clearly understand the full scope of our actions when we impose consequences on women who are the victims of polygamy.

We must also ensure that the children who are left behind in their home country are eligible for immigration to Canada and that they have access to the Canadian immigration system. Moreover, we must provide prevention and support services to victims. I want to say that children should not have to suffer because they were born to the wrong one of their father's wives. Children should not have to suffer the consequences of the choices of their father, who is really their father and who, unfortunately, chose another one of his wives. Those children should have the right to settle here if they are not a risk to Canadian society.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

The hon. member mentioned a few problems with this bill. I think the biggest problem is in the title: Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

I find it misleading. We can disapprove of polygamy, but this is the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It only directs itself to polygamy. What does the hon. member suppose the Conservative administration means to do by giving it this overblown and somewhat hyperbolic title?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is once again playing with words in order to whip up fear of strangers, fear of others.

These are practices that are still being used. I completely disagree with calling them “barbaric cultural practices”. As I illustrated, forced marriage was practised in Canada and in the British and French traditions. In that case, our own culture, our cultural heritage, is also barbaric. It is not the right word. The acts are barbaric, not the culture, regardless of who commits them.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her speech.

Ten minutes is not a lot of time to get one's point across. Does the hon. member want to add anything she did not have time to say, but is important for Canadians to know?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea to consult Canadian experts in women's history. They would be able to tell us exactly what happened in Canada that made people want to put an end to that kind of practice and focus more on gender equality.

We need to know what that process was like and how people's practices, culture and ways of thinking were influenced so that we can achieve the same results for immigrants. Immigrants may not have gone through a period that focused on their rights in their country of origin.

I think we have so much to learn, and there are lots of people who could give us much better advice about consulting and approaching the communities instead of merely considering a purely legislative approach, as always. These people could advise us on providing the financial means to create strategies and programs to fight this problem on the ground.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of examples of barbaric cultural practices in the west, in our fabulous civilization that wants to tell everyone on earth how to live. For example, we have had two world wars, the Holocaust and the war in the Balkans.

Maybe there is a reason that we have been accused of all kinds of things. We should start by fixing our own barbaric cultural problems. For example, we should investigate the murder and disappearance of aboriginal women.

I would like my colleague to comment further on that.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I said in response to the question from my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands that the title is problematic. These are not barbaric cultural practices; these are barbaric acts that occur in many cultures. These acts are not an implicit part of the culture. Many people are very open-minded.

For instance, when I worked in Senegal, people were becoming very open. More and more men said themselves that they did not want to have four wives, but rather just one. Attitudes can change.

Of course, if you are a hypocrite and believe that you have always acted appropriately and you judge others without looking at yourself, your own history and what you have done in the past, then you do not have much credibility.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will talk about Bill S-7, but we will do so under the 91st gag order.

Considering what I heard earlier, before the vote, I hope that some people are watching us debate once again under a gag order.

I am pleased to rise today to share my opinion on Bill S-7. However, as in many cases in the past, I think the Conservatives are proposing an inadequate solution to a problem they see. This results in the politicization of a serious problem, and that is deplorable, to say the least.

Just look at the short title: Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. They must really like sensationalizing things to include those kinds of expressions in our legislation. I think such a title promotes xenophobia in Canada and does not allow for a fair assessment of the problem.

Of course, I strongly oppose polygamy, forced and early marriages, and gender-based violence. I am a feminist and I have been fighting for women's rights for nearly 40 years, so of course I am not okay with forcing girls to marry.

In my family, some of my mother's sisters had to get married at 16 because families were large and these girls had to leave home. They had to leave because of the attitudes of the era. However, that does not mean that these women wanted to get married at 16 or 17 and be forced to have a dozen children.

This started to change with my generation, because women worked to forge a better society for themselves and for men as well.

That said, this is all about how we solve these problems. The experts who appeared before the Senate committee said that criminalization alone would not solve this problem and, on the contrary, it could make it worse. Why criminalize people who ultimately are victims of a certain mindset?

Instead of trying to score political points by fostering xenophobia, which does not involve much thought, the government could strengthen existing legislation. It should also undertake to implement a national action plan to combat violence against women and invest more in organizations that provide assistance to women who are victims of sexual violence.

At present, many aboriginal women are raped or murdered and disappear. However, nothing is being done about that.

The government is, quite simply, not on the right track to help women, who are the real victims of sexual violence. No woman should be subjected to gender-based violence, forced marriage or underage marriage.

Unfortunately, this bill may also have serious unintended consequences, including the criminalization of victims of polygamy, the criminalization and deportation of children, and the separation of families. Why criminalize the victims of polygamy? I do not understand. Perhaps we will get some answers to that today.

This is simply not the right approach, since we are missing an opportunity to do what we should be doing: protecting victims.

The Conservatives do not care about the plight of victims of gender-based violence because they would rather exploit these victims to promote their agenda focused on intolerance and sensationalism. They are prepared to sacrifice the future of women who are the victims of gender-based violence, all to score a few points, and in doing so they are affecting all of Canada by fuelling xenophobia.

Xenophobia leads to knee-jerk reactions, and when people fall prey to that mindset, they no longer think. That is why the Conservatives love to fuel xenophobia, since it allows them to score a few easy points.

I want to appeal to the intelligence of the Canadians watching us today. Instead of promoting a sensationalist bill that will not fix anything, should the minister not undertake some serious consultations? I am obviously talking about some real, serious consultations.

In my opinion, the government should hold extensive consultations in co-operation with community groups and experts in order to find an effective solution to the problem of gender-based violence. These groups could give us a lot of assistance in drafting a bill that protects women from violence.

If the government were acting in a thoughtful manner, it would also invest more in the organizations that provide support services, such as safe and affordable housing and assistance for families. Perhaps if we were to try to eradicate poverty and help families, there might be less violence and attitudes would change with time.

Just for a minute, let us put ourselves in the shoes of victims of gender-based violence. Imagine a young immigrant woman who just barely speaks Canada's official languages. If she speaks just one of the two languages, it can be hard for her to understand all of our bills and laws. She must defend herself in a complicated justice system and cope with immigration rules that are hard to understand. She needs some help. Instead, the government will tell her that what she is doing is barbaric and that she is the problem. For hundreds of years we have been hearing that women are to blame for violence against women.

This young immigrant woman will have to fight even harder against a government that could tear apart her family, deport her or separate her from her children. That is not the right solution. Gender-based violence is a very serious issue, and we cannot exploit these victims' misery for the sake of meaningless sensationalism.

The victims of gender-based violence—primarily women and children—need support, assistance and attention. They do not need to be turned into criminals overnight. These victims did not choose their situation, so we must help them through it instead of pushing them even further into despair.

There are a number of aspects of the current bill that could have devastating consequences. For example, 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. That is a very clear sign that the government is going after victims. Furthermore, the bill does not allow for the reunification of families in instances where a polygamist man immigrates with one of his wives and all of his children, effectively separating mothers and children. UNICEF has also expressed concerns that the bill would impose criminal sanctions against minors who celebrate a forced marriage. Starting a life with a forced marriage is hard enough, but adding a criminal record on top of that is even worse.

Another pernicious effect of the bill is that it could impede the work of groups fighting forced marriages and gender-based violence. Criminalization does have that “tough on crime” angle that the Conservatives like, but there is a major downside to it too. Criminalization will prevent many victims—women and children—from coming forward for fear of being deported or having a criminal record. As a result, it will be hard to do anything for these families, and the problem could end up getting worse.

Another problem with this bill is that it does not take into account the fact that immigrant women often have significantly less information about the rules than their sponsoring partners, which exposes them to threats and manipulation.

We want victims of forced and underage marriage to be exempt from the requirements of conditional permanent residence. We also want to enable the wives and children of an individual who is deported for having misled authorities about his marital status to remain in Canada where they have settled. We need to eliminate the amendments to the Criminal Code and allow children who are left behind in their home country by a father who dissolves a polygamous marriage to be eligible for immigration. Finally, we need to provide prevention and support services for victims of gender-based violence.

For all of these reasons, and in light of the shortcomings of Bill S-7, I have no choice but to oppose the bill.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, the member misses the entire point of this legislation. The legislation is about preventing the victimization of women in the first place. Let us understand what is barbaric about this practice. It forces 14-year-old girls to get married to older men so that they can be raped over and over again. It is about preventing that from happening.

How does the member respond to the fact that she complains about victims being revictimized? We are trying to prevent that. Victims themselves of this barbaric act have come out to support the bill. How can she continue with the rhetoric the New Democrats have come out with and state in this House that they will not vote to support at least one more measure to protect women and girls from being victimized in the first place?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing is that those of us on this side never understand bills, as though we were not smart enough to figure out that yes, there is a serious problem with passing this bill. Women will continue to be victimized, and they will be deported to their countries of origin where they will continue to be abused, raped and killed.

We are against this bill, period.

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

Mr. Speaker, the oddest part of this bill is that it seeks to make illegal that which is already illegal. It is like making murder illegal twice to somehow cut crime in this country. It is a peculiar approach to preventative strategies.

The United Nations has just isolated a country and criticized it for committing a grave violation of the rights of women by failing to properly and thoroughly investigate the high levels of violence they suffer. I left out two words in that, which are “Canada” and “aboriginal” women.

Does the member find it passing odd that when it comes to violence against women who may not even live in this country, the government is investing in preventative measures, but when we ask it to take preventative measures to prevent violence against aboriginal women in this country, all it wants to talk about is prosecution after the fact, databases after the fact, and helping police after the fact? Why does the government want to take preventative action for women and pass laws that are already on the books but does absolutely nothing to prevent violence against aboriginal women when it has the opportunity?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why introduce a bill when we already have everything we need to protect women and all Canadians? Why introduce a bill that will create even more difficulties for women and children who are victims of violence? Why introduce this bill? We already have everything we need. We just have to strengthen the laws that already exist. Why criminalize women in polygamous marriages, who will then be forced to return to their home countries? I do not understand that.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one brief question for my colleague. Everyone was horrified when the women in the Shafia family were murdered. What would have happened if Bill S-7 had been in force? The first wife and the young women would have been sent back to Afghanistan, where the husband could have arranged their murder in a country with no security, no justice and no legal system. He could have murdered them with complete impunity. Here at least, he got what he deserved.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reminding us of the terrible tragedy that that family endured.

He is quite right; the women would have been deported back to their home country. That man would have been sent back as well, without any penalty. He could have continued doing what he always did, which was punish the women for not listening to him. Here in Canada, those days are over.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

I am thankful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill S-7. Implementing the measures in this bill would provide more protection and support for vulnerable individuals, primarily women and girls. It would do so by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code.

I am sure we can all agree that Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to underage, forced, or polygamist marriages or to other harmful cultural practices that deny gender equality. In this country, we do not and should not accept spousal abuse, so-called honour killings, or other gender-based violence. As legislators, it is our duty to uphold the equality of men and women under the law. I would go so far as to say that this is a fundamental Canadian value.

Nevertheless, we must recognize that thousands of Canadian women and girls continue to be subjected to violence and that barbaric cultural practices still exist as a reality for many Canadian women.

The Criminal Code prohibits some of these harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation and most of the criminal behaviour involved in a forced marriage, including assault, forcible confinement, and uttering threats. However, to improve protection and support for vulnerable individuals, especially women and girls, it is important that the measures in this bill pass into law. These measures would include rendering permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practice polygamy in Canada; strengthening Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 and by codifying the existing legal requirement for free and entitled consent for marriage and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another; criminalizing certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriages; helping protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new specific court-ordered peace bond where there are grounds to fear that someone would commit an offence in this area; and ensuring that the defence of provocation would not apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

In my remaining time, I would like to offer some details about the important measures Bill S-7 proposes.

First, I will address polygamy, a practice that has been illegal in Canada for many years and that represents a clear affront to Canadian values. Although it is against Canadian law to practice polygamy or to enter into a polygamist union, which is a form of marriage involving more than two persons, that is not the case in a number of source countries for immigrants to Canada. With that in mind, Bill S-7 would create a new inadmissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for practising polygamy. This would enhance the ability to refuse visa applications and to also allow removal orders to be made where there is evidence that the person is or will be practising polygamy in Canada on those grounds alone.

Additional measures in Bill S-7 would amend the Civil Marriage Act to address the problem of early and forced marriages. These measures would include setting a national minimum age of 16 for marriage, codifying the requirement that those getting married must give their free and entitled consent to marry each other, and codifying the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriages.

There are measures in Bill S-7 that would help prevent forced or underage marriage by amending the Criminal Code. If these measures pass into law, it would be a criminal offence to knowingly officiate at an underage or forced marriage, to knowingly and actively participate in a wedding ceremony at which one party is marrying against his or her will or is under the age of 16, and to remove a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage.

Bill S-7 would create a new peace bond giving courts the power to impose conditions on an individual when there were reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 will occur.

Finally, measures in this bill would also amend the Criminal Code to address so-called “honour killings”. So-called “honour-based” violence is perpetrated against family members, usually women and girls, who are perceived to have brought shame or dishonour to the family. Under the Criminal Code, someone charged with murder can raise the defence of provocation in order to obtain a reduction to the lesser charge of manslaughter. Measures in Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code so that legal conduct by the victim cannot be legally considered as provocation. This would preclude accused murderers, including those involved in honour killings, from trying to reduce the charges they face by using the argument that a victim's legal conduct provoked them into a heat of passion and that they killed while in that state.

In summary, the measures in Bill S-7 would strengthen our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers to Canada from barbaric cultural practices. That is why this bill is so important. By supporting these measures and ensuring that they pass into law, Parliament would send a strong message that we will not tolerate on Canadian soil any practices that deprive anyone of her or his human rights.

I have no doubt that everyone in this House would agree that in our capacity as representatives of the people of Canada, we have an obligation to always support victims of violence and abuse and to do everything that we can to prevent such practices from happening in this country. That is why I urge all members in this House to support these necessary measures and ensure that Bill S-7 passes into law.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I just want to say that the NDP is against polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage.

That being said, I will say that the bill before us will not effectively combat these practices. In fact, it may do more harm than good. To support my comments, experts who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights told us that criminalization is not enough to solve the problem and that it will in fact exacerbate it.

I want to know what my Conservative colleague across the way intends to do beyond criminalization to protect children from forced and underage marriage and women from polygamy.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the position of the opposition in this case seems to be that if it is happening, we should just close our eyes and allow it to happen.

Bill S-7 would, first of all, change the provisions in immigration policy so that we could stop those who are in a polygamous relationship from coming to Canada in the first place. That is step one. Those people who are in Canada in a polygamous relationship would have the opportunity to report this relationship and have something done about it.

Many times it is about education as well, through such programs as those under our immigration and our justice departments. We have funded programs to reach out to different communities to people who may be in polygamous relationships and give them more information about their rights as Canadians and how they can deal with their situation.

It is important that we deal with these issues and not ignore them as the opposition members would do. It is important that we address them as barbaric cultural practices and ensure that they do not happen on Canadian soil.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be afforded the opportunity shortly to speak to the legislation. For now, my question for the member is in regard to the short title of the legislation.

One can question why the government has chosen to incorporate the word “cultural”. The title is “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices”. In fact, there is no real need to have the word “cultural” put into the short title.

Can the member attempt to explain to this House and to Canadians why the Prime Minister and his government feel it is appropriate to incorporate the word “cultural”? Other meanings that could be taken from it are not very positive. I am curious as to what the argument is for having “cultural” in the short title of the bill.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the title “culture” does not refer to any one individual culture. In fact, many of the issues we are concerned about are clearly present in a number of different cultures.

A number of people who have been accused of these horrible and barbaric practices tell the court that how they treat women or how they treat their daughters is part of their culture, so it is important to point out exactly what this is.

This question is coming from a party whose leader, the Liberal leader, did not want to call these practices barbaric. We will say exactly what this is. They are barbaric cultural practices and they have no place in Canada.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for bringing forward and speaking to the bill today. Bill S-7 is really a landmark piece of legislation for women's rights in Canada, and as a member of the status of women committee, I am really proud of our government for putting it forward.

I could not believe it when I was sitting here listening to opposition members complaining against the bill and speaking out against it and calling themselves feminists. This is the kind of bill that feminists need, that women need, so that they can be protected and not be treated as chattels in our country and married off to people they do not wish to be married to and put in polygamous relationships.

I would like to ask the member if he could talk a little more about how the bill upholds our Canadian values and makes clear to women what their rights are in Canada as equal citizens.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary for the work she has done in protecting women's rights in the country.

I would point to the fact that many of the victims, especially those in forced marriages, are young women who are forced into marriages that they do not want to be in. This legislation would send a clear message to family members who may be forcing them into a marriage that it is illegal and not allowed here in Canada. It also gives information to the victims that they have rights in our country and can come forward.

It could be dealt with as a criminal matter, but it could also be dealt with through a peace bond. A peace bond could be put into place if an early or forced marriage might be taking place. There would be protection there. They could also be protected from being taken out of the country to be forced into a marriage outside Canada.

Having these laws in place would allow Canadian women to know their rights and would allow our police forces and others to also understand how to deal with these situations. This measure would ensure that all these barbaric cultural practices would not happen on Canadian soil.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sincerity and gravity that I stand today to speak in support of this bill, which provides additional legislation to address the disgusting, abhorrent, and deeply misogynistic practice of early and forced marriage as well as so-called honour killings.

Let us get to the heart of the matter, because the key piece of opposition resistance to this bill has been the use of the term “barbaric”. We have heard it over and over again from the opposition. In fact, the NDP status of women critic said in her speech:

The short title of this bill, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, is truly xenophobic. It isolates a community, calling it barbaric for its violence against women. This is a problem that exists everywhere.

This particular statement is hyperbolic. It clearly shows that the NDP has not looked at the form and substance of this bill, because there is no reference in it to any community.

What our government is trying to do with this piece of legislation is send a clear message that Canada, in a pluralistic culture that respects the rights of women and respects the rights of equality of personage, does not allow in any way, shape, or form this particular practice in our country.

What actually isolates women, when we talk about isolation in a community, is this practice. That is why it must end. That is why our law enforcement officials must have every tool at their disposal in order to be able to combat this practice.

Let us ask the question. Let us ask if this practice is barbaric. Let us talk about it right here and right now. “Barbaric” is defined as “savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal and primitive”.

I believe that taking away choice from a woman by forcing her into a marriage takes away the fundamental freedoms that we are afforded in this country as women enjoying equality of personage. This practice equates to women becoming property and being sold, and that is barbaric. That is not equal; it is primitive. It is well beyond where we are as a country.

I want to read some stats about what early and forced childhood marriage means to women.

Every year millions of girls—some as young as five years old—are forced into marriage.

One in every three girls in the developing world is married by the age of 18. One in nine marries before the age of 15.

Complications in childbirth are the leading cause of death among girls between the ages of 15 and 19 in the developing world.

Globally, between 2004 and 2014, an estimated 100 million girls will have been forced into marriage before their 18th birthday.

Girls who are married before 18 are more likely to report being beaten by their husbands and forced to have sex than girls who marry later.

Ninety percent of adolescent pregnancies in the developing world are to girls who are already married.

A study in Kenya and and Zambia found that among 15 to 19 year old girls who are sexually active, being married increased their chances of having HIV by more than 75%.

Girls under 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women aged 20-24.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states that “Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.” This is because we know that early and forced marriage takes young girls out of education. It removes their ability to achieve their full potential in their society. It isolates them.

Is this practice barbaric? Darned right it is. Our government will absolutely call a spade a spade on that. We will continue to ensure that people across this country and across the world understand that this is a leading cause of women not having full economic participation and full rights.

Is it barbaric? Yes.

My colleague across the way danced around the issue and talked about the use of the words “cultural practice”. The member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, in one of her speeches, said that she takes issue with the word “cultural” in the title of the bill and that so do many Canadians. The great irony in this debate is that it was the NDP status of women critic who cited the following study in her speech, a report entitled “Report on the Practice of Forced Marriage in Canada: Interviews with Frontline Workers”, which was prepared by Naïma Bendriss and presented to the Department of Justice in November 2008. Again, this was in the speech by the NDP status of women critic:

Although contrary to the law and an infringement of human rights under international law, forced marriage is most often the repetition of a cultural practice and a significant part of matrimonial traditions in families which practise it.

Again, New Democrats were probably reading a speech that was prepared for them and on which they did not do research. Right in the speech of the NDP's status of women critic, she acknowledges the reason this title is what it is. Let us look beyond the title, which I think calls a spade a spade and adequately says that this is a barbaric cultural practice, and talk about why it is necessary, because part of the other discussion that has come up is that the Criminal Code already covers these practices.

Let us go through some of the legislative components of this bill. Right now, temporary residents who practise polygamy in their countries of origin are generally allowed to enter with only one spouse at the time of seeking entry. Under this change, foreign nationals seeking temporary residence would be found inadmissible if they tried to enter with even one spouse.

Again, there are other things that are just so pertinent. The one I want to highlight is with regard to peace bonds. Right now, if there are any grounds for law enforcement officials to suspect that a forced marriage is about to occur, there are certain situations in which they can order peace bonds. We are looking at ways to make that easier and more effective so that people can end an abusive situation in a much more expeditious fashion.

In this legislation, where there are reasonable grounds to believe a person will specifically aid or participate in a forced, early, or child marriage ceremony involving someone else—for example, his or her child—or will take a young person out of Canada for the purpose of a forced or early marriage ceremony abroad, that individual could be brought to court and ordered to enter into a peace bond to keep the peace and be on good behaviour. A court would be empowered to make court orders that could be particularly useful in specifically preventing an early or forced marriage, whether in Canada or abroad, such as ordering the person to surrender travel documents and refrain from making arrangements or agreements in relation to marriage or to participate in a family violence counselling program.

There are several other measures in this bill, and I encourage the opposition to actually read the change from the existing legislation to the new legislation, which is as my colleague the Minister for Multiculturalism mentioned, taking away the provocation argument with regard to the defence of so-called honour killings.

Going back to the term “barbaric”, if someone murders a daughter or female relative because of her life choice in a free and democratic country, one should not be able to argue that the woman did something to offend the family's honour or delicate sensibilities, which is justified by murder. That is not Canadian. That is not part of our pluralistic culture whatsoever. That is barbaric. With these common-sense pieces of legislation and amendments to the Criminal Code, we are trying to prevent that practice and send a clear message that we do not support it.

One of the other arguments is that maybe we should look beyond the Criminal Code. There was another argument that we are not doing other things in Canada to support women who are in these situations, and I strongly disagree with that.

With the time I have left, I will discuss what we are doing both internationally and at home. Internationally, we have invested heavily. Actually, our country is becoming a world leader in the fight against early, forced, and child marriage. For example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced last year that Canada is contributing $20 million over two years to UNICEF toward ending early childhood and forced marriages. There are several other international aid measures that we have done to support this.

Here at home, through special language programs for immigrant and refugee women, we were able to address issues such as family violence, spousal abuse, women's rights, and legal rights and responsibilities, as well as in several different initiatives through the Department of Justice, sector-specific workshops, and legal education pamphlets. Since our government came into office in 2007, we have provided, through Status of Women Canada, over $70 million for projects to prevent and eliminate violence against all women here in Canada.

I will close with this. When we look at our record of preventing violence against women, we see that it was this government that stood up and gave first nations and aboriginal women the right to own property, which allows abusers to be moved from homes and women to have the same right as every other Canadian woman. It is our government that stands up on criminal justice legislation. It is the party across the way that consistently votes against this. We are standing up for women and standing up against misogyny.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government has no credibility whatsoever in preventing violence against women.

The member opposite cited Bill S-2, which related to matrimonial property rights on reserve. It was actually opposed by first nations and first nations women across the country because it does not protect victims.

We see the same problems in this bill, Bill S-7, which is supposed to prevent forced marriages. We see that this bill would have many adverse effects. Among other things, it would expel from Canada the victims of forced marriages and the victims of potential spousal abuse.

This Senate bill does not receive support from the very groups that represent the women that the Conservatives say they are helping. I hope the government would be open to amending this bill to make sure victims are not expelled from Canada and put into the even more precarious situation that this bill would put them in.

I would like to know why the government has not worked to put in place measures to prevent violence against women, and why it has not put in place services that would help the victims of forced marriages. Why does the government not have a plan to transmit these immigrant women information on services that are available to them, and services that are available to help their integration into Canadian society?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's last assertion was false. Our government has provided several different packages through Citizenship and Immigration Canada. It has provided pamphlets, educational materials, and workshops, and it has worked with immigrant services groups and local police services to help people understand that they have rights in this country. It is our government that has been standing up for them, while the opposition has been voting against them.

The second assertion that was false was that our government has not been funding programs to support violence against women. Just through Status of Women Canada alone, over $70 million has gone to prevent violence against women.

I find it deeply embarrassing that my colleague opposite could stand up in this place and say that we should not support a bill that would give adequate and equal rights to first nations and aboriginal women that every other Canadian woman in this country has. It took over 20 years to get that piece of legislation. It is one of our government's proudest moments to stand up and say that there is equality in legislation and property ownership in that group of people.

It is so shameful.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will save some time for commenting on the whole aboriginal file in terms of abuse for later, when I get the chance to speak to the bill, but I do have a question for the member, which relates to the first question that I asked her colleague.

There should not be a link between domestic violence and abuse of women and the idea of culture. All societies have that gender issue. There is no society that does not have to deal with the gender violence issue.

My question for the member is this. Why does the government think it is necessary to incorporate culture, when it is, in fact, just not warranted?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague opposite is why he finds it necessary to stand up behind a leader who dances around issues that are of deep and grave importance to the equality of women in this country, such as calling a spade a spade and saying that these particular practices are barbaric. It was his leader who took offence to calling these deeply misogynistic and disgusting practices what they are, which is barbaric. I dedicated five minutes of my speech to the topic.

Again, I refer him to the report from the Department of Justice that I mentioned earlier in my speech, which said:

Although contrary to the law and an infringement of human rights under international law, forced marriage is most often the repetition of a cultural practice and a significant part of matrimonial traditions in families which practice it.

Rather than argue over semantics, let us get on with the business of protecting Canadian women

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for the last comment, if it were just an issue of semantics, as the hon. member just finished stating, then why not drop the word “culture”?

At the end of the day, the Liberal Party is supporting Bill S-7, and we have highlighted what we believe is a significant shortcoming in the name that has been associated with the bill.

The government's ability to defend its position has been found lacking. The government has not been able to clearly demonstrate why the word “culture” needs to be in the short title.

However, it speaks volumes about why the government is bringing forward legislation of this nature, from my perspective, at this juncture of the government's mandate.

There are a few things I would like to get on the record in debating the bill. I will start off by talking about the process we are in today. Once again we have a bill before the House for which the government House leader has moved time allocation. Never before in the history of our country have we seen a government abuse the rule of time allocation on legislation that Canadians are concerned about.

Ever since this Conservative/Reform Party acquired a majority, its attitude for this chamber changed dramatically. There is a lack of respect for democratic process in debating legislation, and it goes beyond the chamber. It goes into committees.

It does not matter whether it is a non-controversial bill, whether political parties are supporting the bill or are in opposition to the bill, the government continuously invokes time allocation, thereby preventing individual members, whoever they might be, from being able to participate and get engaged in the debate on the legislation.

Then we talk about the committee stage. Again, this majority Conservative/Reform Party is headed by a Prime Minister who says, “We do not accept amendments at committee stage”. If we looked at the hundreds of amendments that have been brought forward to legislation at the committee stage, we would find that if it comes from the opposition side, if it comes from Liberals or New Democrats, then it does not have a chance of passing.

I have even seen legislation where Liberals have brought amendments to the bill and the Conservatives will vote them down in committee stage; then it will be the Conservative majority in the Senate that will ultimately have to bring in the very same amendment that the Liberal Party brought in at the committee stage, but they had too much pride. They have that directive from the Prime Minister's Office saying that they do not accept amendments coming from Liberals or New Democrats. It has to be a Conservative amendment.

I bring that up because this legislation, I would suggest, could use some amendments. The Liberal Party has talked at great length in regard to the issue of culture in the short title. We want to bring forward an amendment that will delete the word “culture”. I am not overly optimistic, for the simple reason of the government's attitude toward amendments in general. Whether it improves the legislation or not, the government does not recognize the value that opposition amendments can, in fact, have at the committee stage, and it does that by continuously voting down every one. I find that most unfortunate.

We are in a debate in the House where once again the government has invoked closure on legislation. I know the government House leader will say that it is about too much repetition. Members on all sides of the House represent the people of Canada, our constituents, who want to hear what their members of Parliament have to say if they choose to address a particular issue. If it is somewhat repetitive, that is okay.

I can assure government members, in particular the government House leader, that when their party was in opposition, there was likely a considerable amount of repetition. There is nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is when a government invokes closure time after time to the degree in which it has become part of the process. Closure has now been invoked 90 or 91 times. Imagine the number of hours we have had to vote on the motion of closure, some 45-plus hours, not to mention the question and answer portion, which would be another 45-plus hours. We are talking about weeks of a session just dealing with the government and the Prime Minister's desire to limit contributions to debate on very important issues. I have a difficult time with the government on that.

Here we are in the dying months of the Conservatives' mandate and the Conservative Party is desperate to give all kinds of impressions. I indicated the Liberal Party will support Bill S-7, and why not? When I look at the details, minus something like the short title, the content of the bill has some value. It deals with issues like polygamy, forced marriages, early marriages, domestic violence, and I will go into detail on those in time. These are all wonderful initiatives to take some action on.

However, why did the government wait this long? Conservatives have been in government for eight-plus years and in the dying months of their mandate, they decide to act on the issue. The issue has been there for three years. Why the sudden urgency now? Why has the government now brought in a bill and has forced through closure to limit debate and dialogue on it? Why is it doing it now? I suspect it has a lot more to do with politics than anything else.

This is somewhat unfortunate, but it is not the only case in the type of legislation the government is bringing forward in the dying months of its term to send out a political message. I will give the Prime Minister credit. No one can spend tax dollars like the Prime Minister when it comes to political spin. We have seen in excess of $750 million tax dollars spent on advertising all about Conservative spin. Not only should it have been the Conservative Party paying for those ads, but the Conservative Party should also be reflecting on how it is abusing its office of governance. Canadians will be looking for change in 2015 because the attitudes of the government do not reflect well on its future.

The legislation has its merits, and I will provide some of those to the House, but before I do that let me make this suggestion with respect to priorities.

Although the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and a few others within cabinet are excited about this legislation and are keen to act, I have dealt with immigration for over 20 years as member of both Parliament and the Manitoba legislative assembly. Over the past few years, my office has dealt with 400-plus immigration or temporary visa files on average in any given month. There are many serious issues with which the government has failed to deal, and they have a real impact on the daily lives of people. We are not talking about a few dozen or a few hundred people, we are talking about thousands of Canadians and permanent residents in every region of our country.

I do not question that it is an important issue. However, we have the political priority agenda of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and cabinet saying that this is it and that they want to force it through. However, where is that same attitude when dealing with the many other issues within the Department of Immigration, let alone the other departments?

I know of a young girl who has waited close to two years to come to Canada to be with her father. She was born in another country and is four or five years old today. She still has not been reunited with her father. I have had discussions with immigration officials through my office. Based on the explanations that have been provided to me to date, I am concerned about a process that does not allow a father to be reunited with his child for close to two years.

There are many examples I could give of spouses who are abroad, whether male or female, who are trying to come to Canada in a more timely fashion.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration seems to be keen on dealing with issues of this nature. Because of that, he has gone to the government House leader, or perhaps vice versa, although I suspect the link goes from the Prime Minister's Office to the government House leader to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and has said that this is an important message to convey to the public and a good way to do that is to bring in legislation. Then, through all kinds of media attention, the government can show how tough it is on certain issues, citing this as an example and making it a priority issue. Many other priority issues have been found wanting.

I am a bit biased and have a passion for the immigration and citizenship file. However, contrary to all its bogus spin, the government has not done well on the immigration and citizenship file. I am afraid there is not enough time in the day, let alone the time limits I have for this speech, to go through some of the details with respect to that. However, it is important.

To get right to the bill and the part I highlighted at the beginning, it is unfair to link what is, at its core, domestic violence to culture. Every society struggles with gender-based violence. It is not confined to any specific cultural community. As the Liberal Party critic, that is why I and others within the party have challenged the government to amend the short title, “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act”. We think it should read “zero tolerance for barbaric practices act”. There is no need to tie in the word “cultural”. We need to recognize that every society has issues of violence that are gender-based, and there is no need to incorporate the word cultural.

I will outline why the Liberal Party will vote in favour of the bill.

Some research has been provided to me that deals with the issues of polygamy, forced and early marriages, and domestic violence. I will just expand on that.

We recognize that Bill S-7 would establish a national minimum age for marriage at 16 years of age. Most Canadians would be quite surprised to find that there currently is no minimum set age. Only Quebec has a legislated minimum age, while other provinces rely on common law definitions, some of which would allow marriage as low as age seven.

The bill would also codify the requirement for a free enlightened consent for a marriage or a divorce.

The legislation would also create new code offences for knowingly officiating a forced or early marriage; knowingly and actively participating in a forced or early marriage; and, removing a child from Canada for the purposes of an early or forced marriage. These measures are similar to the current laws related to bigamy in the actual code.

It should be noted that Bill S-7 would also create a peace bond regime with regard to early or forced marriage, which would allow a person to petition a court for a peace bond to prevent an early or forced marriage. Violating the requirements of this peace bond would be an offence, and justifiably so. The peace bond provision would create an opportunity for someone from outside the affected family to petition the courts. That would include social workers, or teachers or people of that nature, especially if they have been made aware of a certain issue.

Dealing strictly with polygamy, it is already illegal in Canada. We know that. However, Bill S-7 would address it by amending Canada's immigration rules through IRPA to make those planning to practise polygamy in Canada inadmissible to the country. It would also make it clear that those seeking permanent residence in Canada must stop practising polygamy and would be permitted to immigrate with only a monogamous spouse. A practical effect of these provisions would be that people who practised polygamy legally in their home country, seeking to visit Canada, would not be allowed to enter the country with any of their spouses.

It is important to recognize the gender violence issue. There is reference, which the Conservatives continually use, based on honour. It is important for us to recognize that Bill S-7 would further restrict the use of the provocation defence in order to combat gender violence.

I appeal to the government to recognize that the opposition should be allowed full and healthy debate on the pieces of legislation that come before the House. It is wrong of the Prime Minister and his office to use the tool of time allocation and abuse it to the degree he has.

I can only hope that we will see significant change in the fall, thereby restoring more confidence in the democracy of the House of Commons.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I can understand why he is surprised and disappointed to see the government once again cutting short our speaking time on this sort of bill.

Does this urgency not make him think that the government wants to send another email to party members to encourage them to donate generously, by putting the word that my colleague is calling into question in the title of the bill? Does it not benefit the Conservatives to label their campaign with this type of terminology?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend has got it right. In fact, I believe that the government, through the Prime Minister's Office, must have a group who determine how to name pieces of legislation. They come up with short titles for legislation to create positive Conservative spin to generate funds for their fundraising campaigns of emails, letters and so forth.

I do not say this lightly, but all one has to do is read some of the short titles of bills from the past to get a very good sense of what the current government's first priority is. The first priority of the current government has always been how to retain power, period, and there is a full stop there.

It should be about the desire to work with Canadians to build our country, and to have a vision. There are so many other things to be done when one holds the office of power.

I would challenge government members to reflect on the short titles and compare them to previous Houses, whether Progressive Conservative under Brian Mulroney or Liberal under Jean Chrétien or Pierre Trudeau. They will find that the names and the way legislation is named have dramatically changed under this administration.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague feels that this bill seeks to make things illegal when they already are, in order to give the impression that the government is solving a problem. If the government really wanted to solve the problem and help victims, it would train stakeholders on the ground.

Does my colleague feel that the Conservative Party is cloaking itself in virtue by introducing a bill that, in fact, will not provide more resources on the ground and will have no impact?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt there are some modifications within the legislation that would have very limited real effect, for example, the polygamy law, which has been cited. It is more about spin.

In response to one of the questions I had there were answers about our aboriginal women and girls and the need for a public inquiry. At some point I would love to see the Chamber get into more of a debate on this. The Conservatives talk about wanting to deal with violence against women and girls. We have premiers, mayors, chiefs, community members and many other stakeholders saying they would like to have a public inquiry on the thousand plus missing and murdered women and girls.

Just a few months ago it was highlighted again for the city of Winnipeg where a girl was sexually assaulted, thrown in the river and left for dead. She was able to pull herself out of the river. People are looking around saying they want leadership, that we need to deal with the problem.

We have been calling for a public inquiry, yet the government refuses. That is why I am so proud of the leader of Liberal Party saying a Liberal government would call for a public inquiry. Dealing with the issue of violence against women and girls is something we take seriously. That is why, at least in part, we recognize the bill does have some value and we will support it. However, there is so much more the government could be doing. If it really wanted to impress us today, it just has to call a public inquiry into the more than 1,200 murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls across Canada.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my hon. friend's speech and there were a few points I think ought to be clarified.

If I understood him correctly, he indicated that the Liberal Party would support the bill because it thought it actually had some merits to it. One of the things he mentioned was he thought it codified a minimum age for marriage. I actually do not think that is correct. I am fairly certain we already have laws in every province in the country and federally as well that set a minimum age for marriage and require parental consent if there is an attempt to marry under those ages.

My real question is this. We have seen the Conservative government, particularly lately, play the worst kind of wedge politics where the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet and government are specifically segregating Canadians by their religion, their religious attire or their particular cultural preferences, whether it is the member who was referring to people as “brown people and whities”, whether it is the Prime Minister talking about cultures that do not support women, or religious clothing. However, the member has spent a long time, I think very accurately and well, identifying the wedge problem and the offensive part of using the word “cultural” in front of “barbaric practices”, yet the Liberal Party is going to support the bill anyway.

Therefore, I would ask him to clarify that for us and for Canadians watching. Why is the Liberal Party going to support a bill that he acknowledges right in the title plays right into the Conservative practice of segregating Canadians and trying to wedge culture against culture, when he so clearly acknowledges that these barbaric practices that the bill deals with have nothing to do with culture? However, the Liberal Party will play along and allow this very offensive practice of wedge politics to continue by the Conservatives. Could he explain why he is doing that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a judgement call that has to be made when we are looking at legislation.

In the past, New Democrat members of Parliament have voted in favour of legislation at second reading going into the committee stage, believing that they will be moving amendments at the committee stage. Even if those amendments do not pass at the committee stage, those members will still vote for a particular piece of legislation.

It happens far too often, but at the end of the day we have to make an overall assessment of the legislation and then base our vote on whether or not we feel it is in society's or Canada's best interest to see it pass. I suspect that in many ways we will find that the legislation will be amended.

I know the New Democratic Party members have moved numerous amendments on numerous pieces of legislation at the committee stage and had every one of their amendments rejected. Then at third reading, they will come back and ultimately vote for the bill.

I know it is very difficult at times, especially if the government does not accept good, sound amendments or if it refuses to acknowledge that the legislation could in fact be improved. Both Liberals and New Democrats have witnessed that first-hand.

Unfortunately, that means we will have to buy our time, allowing a bill to pass and supporting it, with the idea that we will make changes. Bill C-51 is a good example of a commitment to make changes if the government refuses to do that.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke Centre.

As an immigrant to Canada, I must say that the reason for coming to Canada was that this is such a glorious place. There is opportunity from every which way one wants. I am an example of that, having come to Canada some 25 years ago and having had the opportunity to be elected to Parliament. Unfortunately, many countries do not have the laws we have that give us the freedoms that make this country the best country in the world to live in.

Many countries have draconian laws related to the age of consent for marriage, the way women are treated, and many other things in those kinds of regimes. Canada is a magnet for many people who want to escape those systems, yet there are still some people who would like to continue those practices in Canada and change Canada. I am certainly against that, and therefore, I support Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

We should not and will not tolerate spousal abuse, so-called honour killings, and other gender-based violence in our Canadian society, and it is for this reason we are taking steps to strengthen our laws to help ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada, or proposing to come to Canada, becomes a victim of early forced marriage, polygamy, so-called honour-based violence, or any other harmful cultural practice. 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. Our government will continue to ensure that Canada is protected from harmful barbaric cultural practices and to protect Canadians vulnerable to these abuses.

As I have stated, we are not going to tolerate cultural traditions from other countries in Canada that deprive individuals of their human rights. Our government believes that subjugating a woman to repeated sexual assaults is indeed barbaric. Polygamy is also an affront to Canadian values and as such has been illegal in this country since 1890. This bill would provide immigration officers with the tools they need to render both temporary and permanent residents inadmissible for practising polygamy.

One of the things this bill also introduces is a different level for the defence of provocation. The defence of provocation is that someone was provoked into doing something violent against a woman, such as an honour killing. Now the threshold would be be changed by increasing the threshold for when an accused could plead provocation for a lesser conviction.

Our government is taking a strong stand against perpetrators of honour killings. Under this piece of legislation, an accused could only use the defence of provocation if the victim was committing an act of violence that would lead to an offence indictable by five years or more. Our government is ensuring that wearing a short skirt or dating someone one's family does not approve of would no longer be the excuse that could be used as provocation. As such, we have actually tried to educate some of the immigrants coming to Canada. However, unfortunately, as I said, many countries have different values, different laws, and different systems that allow some of these things to happen.

I relate back to my own province of Kerala in India. I relate to that, because it is one of the few provinces that actually has a literacy rate of almost 100% for men and women. That is not the case in many other countries. In many countries, women are considered chattel and therefore are not educated and are not literate.

CIC has special documentation and special language programs for immigrants and refugee women that are able to address some of the issues, such as family violence, spousal abuse, women's rights, legal rights, and health care, including bridging referrals to other available services in the community.

Through publications such as the Discover Canada and Welcome to Canada guides, we clearly communicate that Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to harmful cultural practices. As such, forced marriages and other forms of gender-based violence are not acceptable.

Through information for sponsored spouses or partners, we advise immigrant women that those who are subject to conditional PR and who are victims of abuse or neglect do not have to remain in an abusive situation. This brochure informs them how to contact CIC and others and where they can find help. This is great, but the problem is that many of them do not have literacy or language skills, even though we insist on some of those being in place before they can come to Canada. As such, it makes it very difficult for them to communicate and let people know what is happening to them in their circumstances and situations.

This is an important thing we are doing. Even though we are doing a lot to make sure that, from a Canadian cultural point of view, information is available to all immigrants, many of them do not get the opportunity to use it, because they are not literate and do not know the language. Some of these things are quite difficult when people come here.

Through the Department of Justice, our government has been holding sector specific workshops on forced marriage and honour-based violence with police, crowns, victims services, child protection officials, and shelter workers. These workshops will assist in front-line capacity building. The Department of Justice has also funded research papers on forced marriage and honour killing, including specific information on those forms of family violence in two public legal education pamphlets. One of these, Abuse is Wrong in any Language, is available in 12 languages. There are a variety of projects to prevent and respond to forced marriage and honour-based violence.

Unfortunately, as I said, many of these immigrants and victims of this violence may not actually even be able to read some of these documents, and because of their language skills, may not be able to contact those who can help them in any way.

Let me move on now to the action our government has taken to increase support for victims of crime, including through the victims bill of rights, which was passed, and the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Since 2007, a total of $2.8 million has been approved through Status of Women Canada for community-based projects that address harmful cultural practices, such as honour-based violence and forced marriage. The RCMP has developed online training on forced marriage and honour-based violence for RCMP officers and plans to make it available to municipal police and other agencies through the Canadian Police Knowledge Network in 2014.

Are we targeting any specific community? Our government is clearly not targeting any specific community. Our government has been clear on its stance against polygamy and other barbaric practices that constitute gender-based violence. This a victims rights issue rather than an issue based on ethnicity.

In August 2013, a report was released citing 219 cases of forced marriage in Ontario between 2010 and 2012. All the individuals in the survey who had been forced into marriages experienced violence. Most victims were young and from various cultures and religions. The majority of victims were unaware of their rights in the forced marriage situation.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the Conservative member knows, the Liberal Party objects to the world “cultural” in the short title. It is unfortunate that the short title of legislation should start to trigger emotional responses. I do not think that is a good way to write laws. Laws and the administration of justice should be as dispassionate as possible when we have the chance.

If the legislation really tried to address culture and changing culture, the Conservatives might want to put the word “culture” somewhere in the short title. Really, though, if they want to address domestic violence and abuse or forced marriages, why not just use the plain terms? Why restrict the offences we are trying to limit by calling them cultural? Why not just say that we want to fight domestic violence, domestic abuse, forced marriage, and honour killings? Why not just talk about what we are writing legislation about?

Why talk about culture, which potentially brings in all sorts of other biases we might have against certain groups?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the question can be reversed in the sense that almost all of these activities tend to be based on culture, and that is why it is in the title. It is not that the general public is actually implementing all of these things. Cultural practice is what this is all about, and that is why it is in the title.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about the provision included in the bill about the defence of provocation. We have heard from opposition members that this is an unnecessary provision in the bill. If the member could enlighten us, why is it needed, and why is it important?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the provocation provisions that currently exist actually allow people to use any excuse to say that they were provoked into doing what they did. This changes that by setting the standard at a much higher level, a level that would mean that most of these people would be prosecuted for what they have actually committed, which is murder, instead of trying to turn it into something less, with a lesser penalty. It is actually murder that has been committed.

It is important that we take that provision and make it much stronger. Under this legislation, an accused could only use a defence of provocation if the victim were committing an act of violence that would lead to an offence indictable by five years or more.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Don Valley East specifically about the polygamy aspect of the legislation, because he mentioned the frightening statistics. While I understand that it has been illegal in Canada since 1890, does the bill provide extra tools for immigration officers to deal with these cases? If so, could he explain to the House how this would benefit Canadians and why this was included in the legislation?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the issue is that many of the polygamist situations that arise from immigration are based on rules that apply to their countries, not to our country. We get polygamy propagated here, with even young children being married. This provision would prevent that. We want to bring it up to the Canadian standard of law in terms of the age of consent, et cetera.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. Bill S-7 introduces important legislative measures to protect potential and actual victims of early and forced marriage. These measures would also provide protections against other harmful practices and forms of violence that predominantly and adversely affect women and girls, such as polygamy and so-called honour-based violence.

Bill S-7 proposes to set the absolute minimum age of marriage at 16 in the Civil Marriage Act and codify in the same act the requirements that the marriage involve free and enlightened consent and that all previous marriages be dissolved prior to entering into a new marriage.

The bill also introduces changes to the Criminal Code to criminalize active participation in an underage or forced marriage and criminalize removing a child from Canada for these same harmful purposes.

Moreover, Bill S-7 would expand the peace bond regime in the Criminal Code to provide for a new court order designed to prevent an underage or a forced marriage from taking place in Canada and to prevent a child from being taken out of the country to be forced into a marriage.

Additionally, Bill S-7 proposes to limit the defence of provocation in the Criminal Code so that it could not be raised in cases involving so-called honour killing and in many spousal homicides, for which the alleged provocation often consists of verbal or offensive but otherwise lawful behaviour.

Finally, the bill puts forward important changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, that would specify that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible if they practice polygamy in Canada.

I would like to focus my remarks today on the proposed forced and earlier marriage peace bond provisions of the bill.

The prevention of violence has been a key aspect in our Conservative government's action on violence against women and girls. Expanding the peace bond regime in the Criminal Code by way of the proposed amendments in Bill S-7 is consistent with these important efforts.

Peace bonds are preventive court orders under the Criminal Code that require a person to agree to specific conditions to keep the peace. A peace bond does not require a finding of guilt or result in a criminal conviction unless the conditions of the peace bond are proved to have been breached.

When a peace bond is issued, the court imposes a mandatory condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and may also impose any other reasonable condition necessary to ensure the good conduct of the offender.

The new peace bond would provide guidance to the court and the types of optional conditions that may be imposed. Some of these are the same as the other peace bonds in the Criminal Code—for instance, no contact or communication with a person who fears for their safety—while others have been designed for the types of circumstances that would specifically assist in preventing a forced marriage, such as preventing the defendant from leaving the jurisdiction of the court; preventing the defendant from making plans or arrangements related to the underage or forced marriage, such as booking a wedding venue or a plane ticket to leave the country for the ceremony; requiring the defendant to surrender passports or other travel documents to the court; and requiring the defendant to participate in a treatment program that includes family violence counselling.

The proposed peace bond could last for a period of one year, and up to two years if the defendant had previously been convicted of a forced or early marriage offence. Subsequent peace bonds could be taken out on behalf of a victim should the threat of an early or forced marriage persist.

The new peace bond would play an important role with respect to victims who might be reluctant to engage the authorities because they do not want their family members prosecuted. In some cases, family members may be otherwise law-abiding individuals whose actions are simply misguided and not intended to be harmful.

The availability of a peace bond would encourage potential victims to seek out the support of the criminal justice system without fear of criminally prosecuting family members. However, peace bonds are enforceable through the threat of a criminal sanction. A violation of the terms of the peace bond is an offence under section 811, punishable by a maximum of a two-year prison sentence. Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, proposed to increase the maximum penalties for breaching a peace bond to four years of imprisonment on indictment.

The proposed forced marriage peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code are similar to the highly successful civil forced marriage protection orders available presently in the United Kingdom. Apart from that fact, the U.K. forced marriage protection orders are civil, while the proposed forced marriage peace bonds in Bill S-7 would be under the Criminal Code. However, they are otherwise alike in many respects. For instance, both are preventative court orders that do not constitute a criminal charge. Both are available by way of an emergency application on behalf of the victim, and conditions can be applied against a defendant prior to a hearing on the merits. Both require a hearing before the court and both rely upon a civil standard of evidence, which is the balance of probabilities, as opposed to a criminal one, which requires establishing the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

It should be noted that any individual may make the application, including the victim, relatives, or any other person. The victim would not be required to apply for the peace bond personally. In many cases, it would be expected that a police officer would swear the information against the defendant, although a child protection or victim service worker might also do so.

As members can see, peace bonds are just one essential part of this very important piece of legislation.

It is this government, under this Prime Minister, that is taking steps to strengthen our laws to help ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of an early or forced marriage, polygamy, so-called honour-based violence, or any other form of harmful cultural practices. While the opposition refuses to even call these acts “barbaric”, our government is taking action.

I hope that all members appreciate the importance of this bill, and I encourage all members to give Bill S-7 their full support.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the NDP is opposed to forced marriage and polygamy and that we want to discuss this issue further.

Since the debate on Bill S-7 began, we have raised a number of problems with the bill, but the Conservatives always seem to deny that they exist. However, this bill will have unintended consequences. For example, the victims—women and children—could be deported from Canada if this bill that criminalizes the aggressors goes ahead.

Many expert groups are saying that they wish they had been consulted because there are no resources that provide direct support for the women, who are not necessarily familiar with all of the Canadian laws that could protect them. No support services are offered. Not much is being done in the way of prevention and there are no support services available after the fact. Many of these expert groups work with battered women or women who have experienced these problems.

The Conservatives are only making things worse by limiting debate for the 91st time on a subject that is so important: a bill that is supposed to help victims of violence in forced or polygamous marriages.

It is really frustrating to see the Conservatives sensationalizing such a serious issue, rather than really addressing the root causes of the problem and proposing solutions that will actually help women.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I of course acknowledge that all members in this House stand against violence against women and girls. Those are Canadian values, and that is what we stand for.

No government and no prime minister has been stronger in making sure that our Canadian values, our laws, and, as I just mentioned, peace bonds are in place to protect victims. They are in place to protect the sanctity of women and girls and to protect them from being forced into marriages or otherwise subjected to barbaric practices that are against Canadian values everywhere in this country.

Although I appreciate the hon. member's point of view, I reject the premise of her question. This government stands for women and young girls. We stand firmly against violence and barbaric practices, which are against Canadian values. Bill S-7 supports all of those things.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ever since I was kid, and especially when I was a kid, my parents tried to tell me about Chinese culture, because our family immigrated from China. They wanted me to learn about it, understand what it was, and even pass it on to my own kids.

One of the things I remember they would also tell me about was how life is so good here and that in the old days, many generations ago, everybody used to have arranged marriages. Of course, this is not something people would ever contemplate today, and my parents would say that we are very fortunate in not doing this anymore.

However, I believe they would be insulted, and I am insulted, when somebody calls that a barbaric cultural practice. It may be wrong. It may be wrong for society today, but to call it a barbaric cultural practice is going too far. For example, there are reasons that some marriages, a long time ago, may have been arranged. Some societies do not have a lot of extra wealth to put into choosing mates in the way that our society does.

To completely classify that sort of activity as a barbaric cultural practice is going too far. We can say that domestic abuse, domestic violence, forced marriages, and all these things are wrong and against the law in Canada, but to condemn cultures in that very general way is not needed in this law.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am entirely confused by what the member actually stands for. That might actually epitomize the third party.

We are a nation of values. We are a nation of laws. We are a nation of freedom, democracy, and human rights. We allow people to have free choice and personal liberties. That is what this government stands for.

Nobody should be forced into any practices that violate Canadian laws. I understand some of these other practices may occur around the world, and many of them are barbaric. Many of them do not stand in Canada, because they violate Canadian values and they violate Canadian sensitivities. We will not stand for that. Bill S-7 will not stand for that. This government will not stand for it.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and be part of this debate today on Bill S-7, which intends to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The short name of this bill is the “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act”. I am pleased to speak to this today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

I think all of us the House would agree that domestic violence is a problem in all of Canada, not just in some communities as this bill seems to imply. We see violence at all socio-economic levels in society, in all cultural communities. It is not just among certain populations. Clearly, I think we would all agree that no woman should be subjected to gender-based violence, regardless of her race, religion or citizenship status. That violence would include being subjected to a forced or underage marriage.

I will preface my remarks by saying that if the government sincerely wants to address the issues of violence against women, first we would call on it to immediately hold an inquiry into the more than 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada. That would be a good start. Second, it should bring in a national action plan to end violence against women in Canada. Those two measures would go much further than the Bill S-7, which would be to benefit all women in Canada.

The issue the bill pretends to address, which is underage and forced marriages, is not really addressed. What gets heard by people who are learning about the bill, and certainly by the communications that surround this bill, is that it targets a particular culture. People hear that as being very xenophobic, very unwelcoming. Of course, we all stand together in opposing underage marriage, forced marriage and gender-based violence.

Let me be clear that Bill S-7 contains no new tools or resources to help front-line workers and organizations, the very people who are actually working with the women who are the victims of forced and underage marriage. They have expressly argued against the provisions of the bill because they know it would help fewer rather than more women in that situation.

Not only would this bill not solve the problem of gender-based violence that it seeks to address, but if passed, could very likely and in all probability make the situation worse by driving those victims of forced and underage marriages further underground, leaving them even less able to seek assistance.

In 2013, a clinic in my area in downtown Toronto, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, released a report on forced marriage after conducting an analysis of the surveys that it gave to support providers in order to collect data on forced marriages. It was a survey of the people who worked with and directly helped victims of forced marriage. Of the recommendations accompanying the report, one in particular was not to further criminalize forced marriage, that these women were already very marginalized.

That may sound counterintuitive. Why would we not say that this is against the law? Because most of the perpetrators of forced marriage are in fact their family members, their husbands and sons, et cetera. Victims reported their hesitation to criminalize members of their own family. That is a very real situation with which communities deal. In fact, victims reported that they would be “hesitant to seek any outside assistance if this would result in criminal...consequences for family members”. We must remember that these may be women who have children with the people who have forced them into this marriage situation.

No one is suggesting that forced marriages should be allowed; clearly, they should not be allowed. No one is suggesting that they do not ever occur in Canada; they do occur in Canada. We believe there is a role for government. However, rather than helping the victims of gender-based crimes, which is based in a rather patriarchal view of the role of women in society, the government is too focused on criminalizing this behaviour, locking people up and throwing away the key, instead of eliminating it.

Since this legislation has been introduced, we might ask if there is not other legislation that already covers this situation. The government could have beefed up the enforcement of existing legislation, because obviously polygamy and forced marriage is already illegal. For example, uttering threats, forcible confinement, procuring a feigned marriage and polygamy are already prohibited and illegal. Spousal and child abuse are aggravating factors. The Civil Code of Quebec and the common law of other provinces already require free and enlightened consent for marriage. In other words, this provision already exists in law so the bill is redundant. All the bill serves to do is sensationalize this issue without getting to the root of the problem and helping people.

I referenced a report from the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario. The government could have implemented many of the recommendations in that report. For example, it found that 50% of the clients who sought its services were not even aware of their existing rights with respect to forced marriage. Therefore, educational campaigns about their rights aimed at service providers, such as social workers, police, teachers and guidance counsellors, to help them understand the warning signs and the pressures faced by victims of forced marriage would have gone much further in terms of preventing forced and underage marriage than the bill does.

There is no allowance for the wives and children of an individual found to be committing these crimes. What happens to them? Those who are found to be engaged in a forced marriage are deported, whether or not they are the perpetrator or the victim of the marriage, which seems very unfair and makes it much less likely that anyone would report that situation or go to the police. That leaves little room for women who are fleeing violence or want out of that situation to officially report that they have been subjected to a marriage against their will. This is especially so if they have children.

Another way the government could have addressed this problem would have been to add forced or underage marriage to the definition of family violence for the purpose of seeking housing. That would have provided women greater flexibility to leave this kind of oppressive situation as they would be given preference for housing along with other people fleeing domestic violence.

Simply put, the legislation does nothing to address the real problem of forced and underage marriage. There is no help for victims, only the threat of deportation and the criminalization of their family. There is no help for enforcement. It would be a very different bill if the government only sought to prosecute by using the laws that are already on the books. There is no help for organizations and government service providers who work with newcomers and citizens to identify and prevent forced and underage marriage to assist victims who are fleeing these situations.

After 10 years in office, the Conservatives have taken Canada in the wrong direction, and the bill just continues along that path. The Conservatives are taking Canadians down the wrong path. Canadians can trust the experience and the principled leadership of the New Democratic Party leader to replace the Prime Minister and address the real issues of gender-based violence in a meaningful way.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few little things that I do not understand.

From the title of the bill, one has to wonder whether it is attacking certain types of crime or certain cultures. My colleague raised another interesting point in her comments and that is the issue of aboriginal women. The Prime Minister himself has categorically said that this is strictly a crime problem that must be resolved by the police and the justice system, but all of a sudden it becomes a cultural issue.

I do not understand that and I would like my colleague to try to shed some light on the matter.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I will never know what the Prime Minister and his caucus members are thinking. However, I completely agree that this bill targets a culture rather than a crime. It is dangerous for a government to try to divide people and foster a backlash against a certain culture.

If the government really wants to do something effective, it can conduct an inquiry into the murdered aboriginal women. That is what the communities want and that is what we want. This is already long overdue, but it must be done as quickly as possible.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not understand why the NDP sees things in the bill that are not there and seems to be blind to the things that are in it.

The last time the bill was debated in the House, members of the official opposition kept saying that the bill would marginalize victims. The truth is that actual victims of these barbaric practices, like Aruna Papp, an amazing woman whom I have had the honour to meet, and Lee Marsh support the bill. How does the opposition justify using this kind of rhetoric when actual victims are coming out and supporting the bill?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. The executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, for example, says:

We wish the government had consulted with some of us prior to drafting this legislation, and we hope that there will be respectful consultation between the government and community groups so that a concerted effort can be made to address the issues of violence against women.

There are several community agencies that deal everyday on the front lines with newcomer women who are affected by violence, who are affected by forced marriage, who are facing all kinds of challenges. If the government had had the respect to hear from their experiences and their recommendations, we could be debating a very different bill today.

I would ask my colleague opposite to consider the experience of front-line women and to respect that. Let us work together to try to get rid of the xenophobia in the bill and help the women who the bill supposedly is designed to help.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on a bill, the title of which I find quite abhorrent, the title being zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices. I do not know when this kind of language started to enter the House when we talk about legislation that is going to impact the lives of many people.

Let me first say that nobody on this side or that side of the House will tolerate any barbaric practices, but to say that barbaric practices are embedded in one culture or the other seems a little bizarre to me and, in the present context, seems to be very inflammatory in light of the comments made by backbenchers, the Prime Minister, and other people.

I want to take the tone down, because I take this issue very seriously. Gender-based violence is a serious issue, and all of us know there is enough research to show that it crosses all social, ethnic, and cultural boundaries. We always excuse it when we put the word “cultural” in front of it, that somehow it only happens in other countries and not across our communities.

I also want to say at this stage that it seems a bit strange to me that I have got up to speak on this bill without mentioning something significant that happened in my riding over the last 48 hours. There have been five shootings in my riding in recent hours. The RCMP has brought in extra police, who are very working very hard, and the community is very worried. When I look at the context, I keep thinking there are so many things we should be addressing right now in this country. My heart goes out to all those in my community who are worried, and I thank the members of the RCMP who are putting their lives at risk in order to make our communities safe right now.

There is a link with what I am talking about happening in Surrey and this bill, and it is called resources. Many times I have stood in the House and asked for additional resources for the City of Surrey so it can get the additional policing it needs, because it has incredibly low ratios. It is those kinds of resources that help with preventive work and stop the shootings that have been taking place over the last 48 to 72 hours.

I want to talk about domestic violence. First, let me assure everybody across the aisle, before anybody decides to point fingers—because I have experienced that before—that there is no one on this side of the House who supports gender-based violence, no matter which cultural group one may belong to. There is no one on this side of the House who supports child or forced marriages, and there is no one on this side of the House who supports polygamy.

Now that I have put those issues out there, I am going to tackle them one at a time. When it comes to domestic violence, we know that we have laws right now, and if passing one more law, saying all domestic violence shall end, would actually eradicate it, I think all of us would be rushing to vote for it.

We have laws already, but I would say what is lacking now are resources and enforcement. I say resources because we know that if we want victims to come forward, we have to provide them with a support system, and this bill would not do that. As a matter of fact, this bill could have the collateral damage—language my colleagues across the way sometimes use—of making victims go underground and not speak up because they know that if they speak up, either the victims or their children could be deported and criminalized.

Once again, one thing I know as a teacher and counsellor is that, if we really want to talk about domestic violence and to end gender-based violence, it starts with education, information, and with having laws that we actually enforce, but for that we need people to come forward with evidence. We need to put a support system in place so that the victims, the women and the children, have safety and security while they are going through the system and tackling the abuse that is going on at home.

Also it is also very offensive to see that word. Of course any kind of domestic violence is barbaric. However, to relate it to culture is going over the top and is the kind of politics I have been hearing a lot about, whether it is talking about brownies and whities, or brandishing all Muslims across the globe as being anti-women, or the extreme reach of Bill C-51, or not even allowing the Privacy Commissioner to give evidence because it might not agree with my colleagues across the way.

We already have laws and if they need to be tightened up, that is where the focus should be. If they need to be resourced, that is where my colleagues should be bringing forward legislation, if we really want to tackle gender-based violence. It is my understanding that we already have laws to prevent forced marriages and child marriages. There is an age of consent before the age of 16, and surely we do not have laws that put up with people forcing themselves on minors. We have legislation like that. Once again, this is another one of those window-dressing bills to appeal to a base, where they believe they can collect millions of dollars from hard-working Canadians.

The other issue I want to tackle is the issue of polygamy. Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I do not have this right and I am sure you will correct me if I do not, but it is my understanding that in Canada, we actually have laws that prevent people from being married to more than one person at a time. This legislation is not for what happens in other countries; it is about what happens within Canada, a Canadian law to apply to those living in Canada.

We live in a country where people get married, the marriages do not work out, and they end up getting divorced. We are not saying they do not get married again, but under Canadian law we can have only one wife at a time. I have a very vivid memory of this because, in the case in B.C. over Bountiful, I was one of the witnesses. It shocked me when I was reading the bill that we have a government that believes polygamy is okay in Canada. That is why Conservatives are bringing the bill forward. This is absolute nonsense. We do not have polygamy in our country. If people want to get married again because a marriage does not work out, that is okay, but it is one marriage at a time.

We already have laws against polygamy, so really what is the bill all about? Once again, what the Conservatives want to achieve in the bill could have been done in other ways, but it would not have given them the sound bites they needed to go to the media and say, “We are against barbaric cultural practices”. We on this side are against barbaric practices, period, without any modifiers and without any excuses.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member's intervention on this particular piece of legislation, Bill S-7, I find it abundantly obvious that she does not have a good grasp of it. For example, on the issue of polygamy, she correctly stated that polygamous marriages and unions are not permitted in our country. However, this legislation deals with someone who shows up in Canada with three or four wives from the country he is coming from, and it would prevent that from happening.

This is something that the member opposite seems to have missed in the legislation, as well as a whole bunch of other things. I would be pleased to sit with her and give her a better briefing, outside the confines of the House, so that she has a good understanding.

This legislation is the product of a very extensive study done by the citizenship and immigration committee. It would be wise if the member spent some time with the NDP members of that committee so that she can be briefed on the recommendations that came out of the report.

The member also seems to want to allude to the fact that this piece of legislation is somehow an affront to one particular culture or group of people. There is no reference to one particular culture, cultural group, or multicultural unit within Canada. As a matter of fact, I personally know of several people who would fall under this, who are from different communities.

Perhaps the member is going to elaborate on that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, through the Speaker, for offering his time to brief me on what is in the legislation. Maybe he will give me the time so that I can go through the bill and tell him why it is not needed and why it is so overarching and not necessary.

We are not the only ones who are saying this. He said when people come here “with three or four wives”. What is our immigration department doing letting people into the country bringing three or four wives with them? In my riding, people find it hard enough to bring one wife with them, and for those who get married overseas, it takes months and years to bring their spouse over; yet, according to the parliamentary secretary, we now have people coming into the country bringing three or four wives with them from other countries as their wives, because I do not see how else they would be entering the country.

The parliamentary secretary needs to go and have a word with the immigration officers to make sure that is not happening.

Second, he talked about the victims and the fact that we do not understand the bill. We do understand the bill. Of course we are against any kind of violence. However, when we look at the rhetoric in this bill, we see it is definitely meant to inflame and not address real issues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the short title, because I think it has really offended a great number of Canadians. We live in a very multicultural and tolerant society, and the government has chosen some fairly strong wording for the short title, “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices”.

I want the member to focus on the word “culture”. I would argue that there is no link between domestic violence and culture. In fact, every society has some form of gender-based violence. There is no argument whatsoever to be made that the word “culture” should be incorporated.

Would she not agree with that assessment?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do agree with my colleague that the very title is so offensive. Once again, it creates that culture of fear, suspicion, and divisiveness. Once again, as I have said over and over again, domestic violence crosses all socioeconomic and ethnocultural barriers, and it is a scourge that we need to address in all society.

Using terms like “barbaric cultural” does nothing but appeal to the base, where the government wants to collect more money.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The 5 hours for 20-minute speeches has now expired.

All speeches that will follow will be ten minutes with five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would remind all members that we have now moved to the speeches of ten minutes, and five minutes of questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. Among other things, this bill strongly condemns underage and forced marriages, which are deplorable human rights violations that are regrettably taking place with Canadians and may even be taking place on Canadian soil.

A forced marriage is one in which at least one of the two spouses is entering the marriage without his or her free and enlightened consent. There is a clear distinction between forced and arranged marriages. In an arranged marriage, both spouses consent to the marriage.

There have been various studies and reports on forced marriage that demonstrate that this is an unfortunate reality in Canada. In August 2013, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario published a report that found that front-line service providers in Ontario had encountered 219 instances involving persons in forced marriages between 2010 and 2012. In 92% of the cases, the victim of the forced marriage was a female, and in 30% of the cases the victim was under the age of 18. All of the individuals forced into marriage experienced violence.

A study conducted for Justice Canada that was based on interviews with service providers from Montreal and Toronto in 2008 also confirmed that there were Canadians who had been subjected to forced marriage, and concluded that, “...it is the government's duty to address the problem of forced marriage and to protect those who are threatened with it or are already its victims”.

Another study for Justice Canada, conducted in Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver in 2010, concluded:

Based upon the estimate from service providers who are dealing with the incidence of forced marriage in Western Canada, our conclusion is that forced marriage is not sporadic in Western Canada. ...half of the respondents said it is “widespread” or “common” or “becoming common”.

The victims of this deplorable practice are most often young women, and occasionally men, who are being forced, usually by their own parents or other family members, to marry someone they are unwilling to marry. These young people are sometimes even made to abandon their education for the purpose of being married against their will. Some victims are told that they are going overseas to a relative's wedding, only to discover upon arrival that the wedding ceremony is, in fact, their own. Indeed, Canadian consular affairs has received over 100 requests for consular assistance from Canadians abroad related to forced marriages since 2009.

International studies show that girls who marry early are at far greater risk of experiencing complications in pregnancy and childbirth, including higher maternal mortality rates; experiencing violence in the home; and having their education disrupted. It is clear that underage marriage violates girls' basic human rights and prevents them from fully participating in society.

There is currently no national minimum age below which marriage may be legally contracted in Canada. Federal legislation applicable only in Quebec sets the minimum age at 16. Elsewhere in Canada, the common law is unclear but appears to set the minimum age at 14 for boys, 12 for girls, and sometimes as low as 7 years of age.

Bill S-7 would introduce a national minimum age for marriage of 16, below which no marriage may be contracted under any circumstances. Setting the minimum age to marry at 16 across Canada is consistent with current practices in like-minded countries, such as the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. Provincial and territorial legislation would still impose requirements for marriages between the ages of 16 and 18 or 19, depending on the age of majority in the province or territory. Requirements such as parental consent or a court order would provide added safeguards to permit mature minors between the ages of 16 and 18 to marry in exceptional circumstances, such as where they have a child together and wish to marry.

However, parental consent to the marriage of a minor may not be sufficient to protect against forced marriage because it is typically the parents who are forcing the marriage upon the unwilling child. As a result, the Minister of Justice has engaged his provincial and territorial counterparts in a discussion with respect to enhancing legislative measures that fall within their constitutional jurisdiction to protect against forced marriages by requiring judicial consent in all marriages involving a minor.

Last fall, the House debated my private member's motion, Motion No. 505, to request that the government ban the use of proxy, telephone, fax and Internet marriages as a means to spousal sponsorship. Such marriages are not legally recognized when performed in any Canadian province or territory, but they are currently recognized by Canadian immigration law when conducted outside of Canada in the countries where they are legal. The unfortunate reality is that these practices can be used to force individuals into non-consensual marriages.

When I spoke to people in my riding and across Canada about my motion, I gave the example of a young man who lives in Canada, and was born and raised in Canada. What often happens is that he has a cousin in a country where this practice of telephone, fax or Internet proxy marriages is legal. The family of this young man might want the cousins, aunts, uncles and relatives to be able to immigrate to Canada and become new Canadians, which is obviously a desirable and good goal to have. There are many people who are applying for status in Canada.

In this case, what the family would do is force their son to marry by signing a fax or by signing on to Skype and marrying someone who he has perhaps never met and who is in another country. Sometimes, it is someone who is already related, such as a cousin, for example. After that marriage is performed, the family would ask that young man to then sponsor his new bride for a spousal application for citizenship to Canada.

Frankly, this was a huge loophole in the immigration regulations that I believed needed to be fixed. Not only was this a loophole, but the motion would prevent those marriages from being forced. It is just not in line with Canadian values of openness and gender equality. People get married to someone who is not even in the same room at the time. We at least want to ensure that they have met.

To be clear, Bill S-7 is about barbaric cultural practices. It is not about arranged marriages, neither was my private member's motion.

It was certainly a proud day when my motion passed in the House of Commons in December 2014. I look forward to the government amending the necessary regulations in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect these young women and men. As I said, this was an important fix that needed to happen.

Speaking of forced marriages, we have seen the tragic consequences of young people who refuse a forced marriage. Some run away and go into hiding. Some are beaten or even murdered because of a misguided belief that their refusal to enter into or continue in a forced marriage has somehow tarnished the family's honour.

On January 2, 2010, a young woman was brutally beaten by her uncle and three cousins in Calgary because she refused to marry a man her uncle had chosen for her. They were convicted of assault causing bodily harm in 2013, three years later.

On April 17, 2009, a 19-year-old woman fled her home in Montreal, terrified because her parents were going to force her to marry a man she did not want to marry. A few months later, on June 30, 2009, that same woman, her two younger sisters and her father's first wife in a polygamous marriage were brought together on the pretext of a family vacation. Their bodies were found in a car submerged in the Kingston locks. This barbaric honour killing of the young Shafia sisters and their stepmother came as a shock to the whole country.

Preventing such tragedies from occurring again is the primary objective of this laudable bill. It contains tools to protect potential victims from an impending forced or underage marriage in the form of specific peace bonds, which can be ordered by a court when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person will participate in an early or forced marriage or will take a child out of Canada with the intent of subjecting the child to an early or forced marriage. I can talk more about peace bonds later.

Our government will not tolerate spousal abuse in so-called honour killings or other gender-based violence. While the opposition refuses to even acknowledge these practices as barbaric, our government is taking a strong stand against these practices and is leading international efforts to address them. I hope all hon. members will support this important piece of legislation.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with a statement in one of the very last sentences the member pronounced, when she said that the opposition does not find these practices to be barbaric. That is not the case. What we do take issue with is their being described as “cultural”.

My questions for the member are these: Does she agree that forced and early marriage and violence against women are wrong, regardless of culture? If so, what does it add to have the word “culture” in the title of the bill? Should it be removed? If it should not be removed, which cultures does the Conservative Party seek to condemn?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I believe that the member for Charlottetown understands that these practices are indeed barbaric and understands that the short title of the bill refers to the practices being barbaric, not the cultures, as should be fairly obvious, I do want to point out—and I am not making this up—that his leader, the leader of the Liberal Party, who is also a member of the House, has said that “barbaric” is too harsh a term to use in referring to such practices, and “too harsh” is a direct quote.

I am not sure if his leader still has that same stance or if he has possibly changed his mind, but I think most members would agree that these practices are barbaric.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague on the other side. I had the pleasure of sitting with her on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

First of all, I think the word “barbaric” is very strong and it hints at xenophobia and stereotypes.

Why does my colleague think the government is targeting racial minorities by perpetuating offensive stereotypes instead of implementing constructive measures to prevent gender-based violence everywhere in Canada?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was an honour to serve on the status of women committee with the member opposite. We did have many conversations about violence against women, gender-based violence, and the actions the government could take to deal with these.

I want to first say in response to the question, as I clearly stated in my speech, that our government will not tolerate the types of cultural traditions in Canada that deprive individuals of their human rights.

Most of the time the victims are women. I want to quote one victim in particular, whom I had the honour to meet. Her name is Aruna Papp. She was a victim of the barbaric practice of forced marriage. She had this to say about the bill:

Forced into an abusive marriage at 17 and unable to leave it for 18 years, I can attest to the fact that a forced marriage is effectively a life of slavery. I congratulate the Canadian government for taking a bold step on behalf of women who have nowhere to turn for help.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to rise to defend the rights and freedoms of women in Canada. As a woman, as a mother and as a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I believe that no woman should be subjected to gender-based violence. This is not a cultural problem—it is a societal one.

That is why I find the title of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, offensive. We have gotten used to the Conservatives' catchy titles, since they love to turn their bills into newspaper headlines, but this one is an alarming racist stereotype. Without even reading the text of the bill, we already know that the government is targeting specific communities that act in a brutal or cruel way, which is what “barbaric” means.

All forms of violence against women are brutal and cruel. We do not need to target a specific community to address violence. Once again, the Conservative government is seeking to please a voter base without worrying about the consequences of what it is proposing.

As I said, I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Witnesses shared their opinions on the provisions of this bill before this committee on several occasions. I would like to draw from what they said to explain why this bill is not the appropriate response to the serious problem of gender-based violence.

With regard to polygamy, 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. The bill provides for the deportation from Canada of anyone who practices polygamy.

My first question is this: will the communities in western Canada who practice polygamy be affected by this bill or is the Conservative government just trying to target immigrant populations? Does the word “barbaric” apply to everyone in this case or does it apply only to immigrant communities?

I am also concerned about the argument that the Conservative government is using to defend this bill. The government is saying that this bill will protect immigrant women. Polygamy becomes grounds for a departure order and for banning polygamist men and women from entering the country.

How can we protect these women if we are deporting them? Where are the provisions to protect them? The government is going to send them back to their own country and wash its hands of them, saying that the problem of polygamy is resolved in Canada. However, it is my understanding that even the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights submitted a report indicating that complementary measures must be implemented to address the polygamy problem. What is the point of those recommendations?

This Conservative government does not even consider the recommendations of its own senators.

Part 3 of the bill amends the Criminal Code regarding forced marriage in order to clarify that it is an offence for an officiant to knowingly solemnize a marriage in contravention of federal law. It also provides 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.

It is clear that everyone in the House wants the same thing: we are fighting forced marriage, which is an attack on the rights and freedoms of women. No woman should be subjected to gender-based violence, which includes forced and underage marriage. However, criminalizing forced marriage by creating a separate offence in the Criminal Code is not a wise solution. In saying that, I am echoing what the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic said when it appeared before the Standing Committee on Status of Women last month. This organization works on violence against women and fights forced marriage. I want to emphasize that because these are the people we should be listening to as we make decisions about legislation. We cannot draft bills as important as Bill S-7 without listening to the advice of people on the ground.

Women who are forced to marry do not necessarily want to speak out because they are afraid of leaving their family or exposing them to prosecution. Once again, if we criminalize forced marriage, these women will no longer seek out assistance or legal services.

Also, addressing the problem of forced marriage by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is a delicate matter. A number of witnesses told us that women who have a precarious immigration status and are victims of violence, particularly by forced marriage, are less protected than Canadian women or permanent residents. Because of the way the system is designed, they can be deported just for being victims of violence.

In addition to this lack of protection there is also a lack of information. Sponsored women who are victims of violence do not report their sponsor for fear of being deported, because they do not know what consequences this will have on their status. Instead of blaming them, as this bill does, we should be creating a process that ensures that women have basic information on immigration rules. The more women know about their rights, the more comfortable they will be speaking out against the violence they suffer.

Every time we talk about violence against women, the organizations and individuals we hear from mention the need to have a national strategy to prevent violence against women. Practically everyone says the same thing: education through prevention must be the focal point of our efforts to fight violence against women. In order to do that, associations and organizations must receive adequate funding and support for their initiatives. They have ambitious, promising programs that could help put an end, in the long term, to all forms of violence, including polygamy and forced marriage, as we are discussing here today.

In closing, I would like to say that people want to be protected and they want to integrate. Unfortunately, this bill targets them and makes them out to be criminals.

The use of the word “barbaric” in the title of the bill categorizes violence against women. It reinforces marginalization and stereotypes. To marginalize is to isolate the people we should be protecting and helping break free of this vicious circle.

I know that the Conservative government has a tendency to turn a deaf ear when we on this side of the House try to make changes to its bills. However, I invite the minister to hold serious consultations on a wide scale with community groups and experts in order to effectively deal with the problem of sexual violence.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much liked my esteemed colleague's speech.

Over the past few weeks, months even, it seems that the government's rhetoric and what is acceptable in public discourse concerning the marginalization of communities, has no place in a country like Canada. We have the Prime Minister talking about a community as anti-women, and this bill that uses the term “barbaric”—a term first used be the Greeks to mean “strangers”.

Has my colleague heard from cultural communities in her riding and elsewhere that feel threatened and attacked by this government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his relevant question.

I can speak from my own experience. I come from what is known as an invisible visible minority community. However, I am visible. I am lucky to be here in the House to talk about these problems and try to stop the Conservative government from leading us down a slippery slope.

I heard from people who are very concerned about the fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was speaking about Canadian values. I was asked: “Ms. Sellah, will we be dealing with the same issue at the federal level—”

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member cannot refer to herself by name.

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

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I was asked, as the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, whether I thought that there was a parallel between the charter of values that the PQ introduced in Quebec in 2013 and the comments made by the immigration minister regarding Canadian values.

I could not answer that question because I never thought we would ever find ourselves in such a situation in Canada. The government is criminalizing people rather than trying to help them integrate, talk to them and find out their motives and reasoning so that it can raise awareness and work on prevention. I was truly unable to answer that question because, unfortunately, I cannot read the immigration minister's mind.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to the NDP's position on Bill S-7. I understand the New Democrats will vote against the bill. We have expressed concern in regard to the short title, and we will propose an amendment to it. However, there are some actions within the legislation that would seem to have some value, for example, dealing with polygamy, forced marriages, early marriages or domestic violence. It is questionable just how much value there will actually be, but it is progress.

Does the member find there is any value at all in the legislation?

[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, John 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, NDP, 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.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Consular]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here today to speak to this important bill.

I am a little disappointed. I expected we would be able to find unanimous and enthusiastic support for the bill. I hear the official opposition complaining about the language, which it wants to toy with today. I am concerned that it is perhaps not as concerned about the issues as it is about the wording in the title. The opposition needs to refocus on that.

The Liberals today have at least been consistent, but it is a very strange position to take. The member opposite seems to continually suggest that there is absolutely no cultural component anywhere that creates specific practices. I do not understand why the members would take that position. We all know we have universal challenges. He talks about spousal abuse and those kinds of things. That is a universal challenge, but we certainly are talking about some very specific things.

I am glad to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. In the Speech from the Throne in October, 2013, our Prime Minister promised that he would ensure that early and forced marriage and other harmful cultural practices, including things like polygamous marriages and so-called honour-based violence, would not occur on Canadian soil. Bill S-7 would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code in a variety of ways, and it would address these practices.

For instance, Bill S-7 would create new and specific offences in the Criminal Code related to participation in a forced or early marriage ceremony. That includes things like removing a minor from Canada for the purpose of such a ceremony abroad, and establishing a targeted peace bond that could be used in a preventative way before the marriage and its associated harm occur.

Today, I would like to build a bit on what the minister spoke about, which is the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code that would limit the scope of the provocation defence.

During debates in committee proceedings in the Senates, there appeared to be a number of misconceptions about the merits of the existing law. There are good reasons for the proposed law reform, and I hope we can clarify some of those matters this afternoon.

The defence of provocation, sometimes known as the “heat of passion” defence, currently applies only to a charge of murder. It comes into play only if the murder has actually been proven. It is called a partial defence, which means that where it is successful, this defence claim does not give rise to complete acquittal, but rather changes the verdict to manslaughter instead of murder.

The defence of provocation is successful where the murder was committed in response to some sort of wrongful act or insult from the victim that was so strong that it “deprive(s) an ordinary person of the power of self-control”, and where the accused acted suddenly “before there was time for his/her passion to cool”.

Although the defence of provocation is only partial, as I said, it provides two very significant benefits to the accused if they are successful in applying for it. First, a conviction for manslaughter as opposed to murder leaves the judge with very wide sentencing discretion. A conviction for second degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison and strict parole ineligibility. However, a manslaughter conviction carries no mandatory minimum sentence unless a firearm was used, in which case, it would be a minimum of four years. In all other circumstances, manslaughter carries no minimum sentence.

At the sentencing stage following a successful provocation plea, the provoking conduct or provocation of the victim is taken into account again as a mitigating factor that can reduce the sentence. As members can see, the sentencing benefit provided by the provocation defence is, indeed, substantial.

A second benefit of the defence, if it is successful, is that it allows a murderer to avoid the stigma associated with the label of murderer. It is this aspect that we, as legislators, need to keep in mind in reviewing this provision. The law treats some killings as less blameworthy than others and effectively says that murder is not always murder.

Under the current law, which has been in the Criminal Code since 1892, to constitute a provocation, the victim's conduct only needs to be a wrongful act or insult. If the victim had a legal right to do what they did, this is not to be considered provocation, but that exclusion is very narrow. It applies to things that are legally and expressly authorized, such as police officers executing a search warrant.

Provocation is presently considered where the victim's conduct was actually lawful. The defence is frequently raised where the alleged provocation was conduct such as verbal insult or offensive gestures. The proposed amendment would limit provocation so that it could only be raised where the alleged provocative conduct by the victim would amount to an offence punishable by five years in prison or more.

The defence would therefore be available in cases where a person killed in the heat of passion, provoked by criminal offences such as assault, things like verbal threats, criminal harassment, theft or fraud of property over $5,000, extortion, and a few others. Many provocation claims are in fact based on alleged provocation now of this type of criminal activity.

The kinds of conduct that would no longer be treated as provocation under this act would be things like verbal insults or other types of offensive but lawful behaviour. However unpleasant or hurtful an insult may be, if it is lawful conduct, it should not excuse or mitigate murder or be allowed to do that.

In the debates in the other place, some suggested this proposed reform went too far and limited the defence too much. However, it is reasonable to expect that Canadians can and should be expected to control their reaction to insult and offensive gestures with reactions other than killing the person.

There are two primary objectives of the proposed reform. The first is to prevent the defence from being raised in future honour killing cases, possibly successfully. We have seen examples of young girls and women who have been killed because they refuse to follow their parents' wishes. This can involve an issue such as dating, or marriage partners, or how to dress. These young people have the freedom in our country to make their own choices. That actually is a fundamental freedom for everyone who is in Canada.

This is not just theoretical. This defence has been raised so far in at least three murder prosecutions where the murder could be characterized as honour based. Thankfully the defence failed in all three of those cases, which some have used as proof that the law is working perfectly and does not need amending. We would argue that this is an overly optimistic view. For one thing, all three cases were appealed on complex questions of law and evidence that included how the defence should or should not incorporate evidence of the accused's culture.

These issues are not definitively resolved by the courts. Despite some discussion of gender equality in a couple of the cases, none of the rulings establishes a matter of law that the defence is excluded in honour killing cases. It remains available to be argued by any person accused and convicted of murder.

If a teenage girl does not wish to marry the person chosen for her by her parents and in refusing their wishes they feel she insults their cultural heritage, community and beliefs, if one or both parents were to react by killing the child, this defence could actually be used. We do not believe it is appropriate that this could potentially be successful.

Our second objective of the proposed reform is to modernize the defence with respect to violence against women overall. It can no longer be used to excuse spousal murders resulting from the offender's violent reaction to the victim's lawful conduct.

There is a long history of the provocation defence being raised and sometimes accepted to excuse spousal murders in Canada. Most disturbingly, this often happens in the context of marriage breakdown. These cases have not gone unnoticed. As one academic has noted in her review of the honour-killing provocation cases:

While it may be true that gender equality is, at a rhetorical level, a fundamental Canadian value and that violence against women is neither accepted nor encouraged in Canadian society, the operation of the defence of provocation in the criminal courts is certainly not exemplary of either of those values.

Canadian judges and juries have accepted the defence where men murdered their current or former spouses, or their former spouses' new partners, in response to other forms of lawful conduct such as verbal insults, questioning paternity, refusal to talk privately following termination of a relationship, and real or perceived infidelity.

These cases are very similar to honour killing cases in that women are killed because husbands or other family members reacted violently when they failed to control their behaviour. Women and girls are still seen as the property, in some places and in some minds, of their husband or their families. Their aspirations and desires are subjected to the will of others for their own good.

While feelings of dishonour and shame are experienced at the family or community level in the case of honour killings, they are at the personal or private level in the case of spousal killings.

No one should be able to use the defence that they violently harmed another person because of they were provoked. Our bill addresses this issue in a way that removes that excuse. I would urge all members to work with us and to support this important bill.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by the member's own admission, there were three cases and there were no problems in the prosecution of those cases. In fact, as far as I know justice was served in all three.

Why the change in law? Is there not a certain amount of redundancy here?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I explained in my speech that these three cases were argued on very complex issues of law, that this continued to be allowed as a defence and we felt it needed to be removed. We have found a reasonable balance between serious offences that may be considered as part of the provocation, but we certainly do not think things like insulting someone, making a comment, or disobeying is enough to allow someone to use that an as excuse for murdering family members or those close to them.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in his remarks, the member defended the words that are in the short title, and that is one of our sticking points. He particularly defended the inclusion of the word “cultural”.

I will ask the question as directly as I can. Which cultures are being targeted? Does he care to name one and if not, what purpose does the word “cultural” serve in the title?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been listening earlier, he would have heard one of the ministers talk about the fact that there were certain customs and traditions that were cultural, that were in practice and that were not compatible with Canadian values. We have talked about a few of those things today.

I am sure we would all agree in this place that early and forced marriage, honour killings and genital mutilation are not the kinds of things that Parliament will support in any form. We believe those practices are incompatible. They come out of certain customs and traditions and they are not acceptable in Canada. People need to understand that. Young women, in particular when they come here, need to have the support and the services they need to understand that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for making it clear about the principle being used in the courts today in regard to provocation. I am really grateful he also tackled relativism with regard to the term “cultural”. The exact term is being used as a defence, so we are confronting that, as the member mentioned.

I want to ask a question in regard to something that has not been mentioned, at least in the recent speeches. We spent quite a bit of time years ago debating the age of protection and moving it from age 14 to 16. I think many Canadians would be surprised that there is no minimum age for marriage in Canada. Would the member like to comment on that aspect of the bill?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a couple aspects of marriage are dealt with, such as early and forced marriage and the age of sexual consent in that situation. The whole notion that young women come here or have been taken from Canada to other countries and have been forced into marriage are the kinds of things we can be united on in the House. We can come together and talk about a limit on when people should be getting married. We need to talk about the conditions under which young people might be leaving our country to get married or the conditions in our country under which young people might expect to get married.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues on this side of the House to speak in opposition to Bill S-7.

I have to, as I always do when we get bills with the letter “S” in front of them, note my opposition to having bills derive from the other place. We are elected in this House to represent Canadians; they are not. In a mature democracy all bills should come from the House of Commons, the appropriate place for bills to originate. We see a government that used to talk about political reform and the reform of our parliamentary democracy use this parlour trick over and over again. As a democrat, I object to it and most of my constituents do. I note that in this case, Bill S-7 comes from the Senate and I want to state my opposition to that continued abuse of our parliamentary democracy.

I want to touch on another process issue, and I will give a number instead of a letter this time: 91. It is the 91st time we have had the government invoke closure. We all remember when this government's members were in opposition they decried, opposed strongly and fervently, certainly Preston Manning did, the whole notion of closure and limits on debate.

Today the House leader got up to do his duty for his government and abuse the power it has and shut down debate. It is interesting, because we have present members, we just heard from one, who used to be Reformers. They talked about the importance of debate and the fact that the Chrétien government was always shutting down debate. Now it is water off their backs.

Today, the Conservatives brought in Bill S-7, a bill coming from the Senate into Parliament, which is strike number one against the whole notion of any form of reform of the parliamentary system we have here. Second, they brought in time allocation for the 91st time with this government. It is unprecedented, historic. Those numbers and those letters say everything about the government. The Conservatives have lost their way. I am not sure if they will be able to come back, but it says a lot about principles.

The title of the bill is interesting, because we are also debating a very important bill right now, Bill C-51. The term the Conservatives are using is “an act to combat terrorism”. The actual nomenclature for that bill is “an act to enact the security of Canada information sharing act”, which is actually about giving more powers to CSIS and about sharing information, but the Conservatives want to make it sound like it is having an impact on terrorism.

With the bill before us, it is actually the inversion of that. The Conservatives are making a political statement with the title that somehow they are taking on barbarism, as if that is presently an issue in daily life in Canada. It is actually about evocation, and the person who stated it best was the Minister of National Defence when he said that they used that title because they want to educate people. It is kind of interesting. I have never heard before from the government that it would use the titles of bills to educate. I know it uses them often to provoke, and certainly at times in the past to wedge, but the fact that it is using the word “barbaric” to educate is rather fascinating. I did not really understand the minister's lesson other than that the Conservatives wanted to let people know that there are barbaric things going on in our world and they will clean them up. When we actually look at the bill and look at the testimony, it does not measure up at all.

This kind of evocative title does a disservice to the Conservatives' own issue, which might be an important issue. It is an important issue to look at any abuse of anyone, and certainly the rights, the misuse and abuse of the sanctity of marriage. If there is a real issue, it should be dealt with, but when we go to extremes in our language or our rhetoric, it undermines the issue on which we should be focused.

Yes, there are cases in this country of polygamy. There are cases of female genital mutilation and cases of children whose rights are being abused. We were talking about child protection today at the foreign affairs committee and what things we could do to help protect children abroad.

When we get into the business of using language to evoke or, as in the mind of the Minister of National Defence, educate, as if he is going to educate the rest of Canada on this issue, which is interesting, it actually undermines what we are setting out to do. This is where I would like to get into the meat of the bill and what it purports to do.

We just heard the parliamentary secretary answer an excellent, simple question from my friend from Pontiac, which was could he give us examples, certainly the three recent cases, as to where this bill would actually make a difference. To give credit to the parliamentary secretary, he said the case was dealt with within the parameters of the law we have now. The question is, what is this really about?

I think everyone in the House has concerns about abuse of the immigration system, trying to force people into marriages or the practice of polygamy, and it should be dealt with, but I want to enumerate for people why New Democrats are opposed to this bill when looking at the criminal law now.

I know that you, Mr. Speaker, as a practising lawyer and having taught law, will appreciate this. Right now, criminal law already provides resources, irrelevant in most cases, involving forced marriage prior to and after the marriage, as well as in cases of travelling with minors, which we have seen, with the intent to force them to marry, including uttering threats. That is covered off in subsection 264.1(1) with regard to assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault, sections 265 to 268.

Another aspect of this bill, which the government claims we need is around sexual assault causing bodily harm or sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, forms of intimidation. That is covered under sections 271 to 273 of the Criminal Code. Kidnapping, as it is relevant and cogent to the issue, is covered off in section 279. Forcible confinement, which was referred to by the government as being required, is covered off in subsection 279(2). Abduction of a young person is covered in sections 280 to 283. Procuring feigned marriage, which is simply forcing someone into a marriage that is not the case, is covered off in section 292 of the Criminal Code.

Removal of a child from Canada with the intent to commit an act outside of Canada, which would be one of the listed offences if committed in Canada, is covered off in section 273.3. What about extortion? That is covered off in section 346. There are a couple more, but I will not go through them all because it would take me longer than the time I have. The one I want to highlight in the Criminal Code is spousal abuse, abuse of a child, and abuse of a position of trust or authority. The aggravating factors are covered off in section 718.2.

The question is: why is this in front of us and what is required? There is a case to be made that more needs to be done in terms of resources to help the people who might be victimized, and that is where we have to focus. That is not being provided. The government is cutting budgets in these areas.

I will leave the House with the following. It is interesting that the Conservatives are dealing with this case, but at the beginning of this month, I attended a protest outside the immigration office made up of people, who were legitimate actors, trying to get their marriages recognized. They are having to wait two years because of a lack of processing by the government. I would like the government to take a look at that.

What about the legitimate people who are waiting here, who are inland marriage sponsors, and having to forgo their families, having to pay for their own health care, et cetera? While the Conservatives are looking at this issue, I hope they are seized with those who are legitimate actors, who have legitimate marriages, who are legitimately recognized, and who the Conservatives are ignoring. Hopefully, they will turn their attention to that issue, because these people are forgoing the opportunity to provide Canadians with their talents and plans to have families, et cetera.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the official opposition for his presentation. Part of his presentation, the first three or four minutes, did not deal with the actual issue but dealt with process, so I have a process question based on his speech.

This is the second day. There were speakers on the previous day on this item. There has been a time allocation. There is another day coming on this. This is second reading, meaning once this moves through the House it will go to committee and then will come back to the House for third reading. Before it goes to committee, there will be 20 official opposition time slots. We will hear 20 speeches from the New Democratic Party on this.

I have been in the House all day, from the first part of this. I have heard nothing new from the NDP on it. From any speech it is always the same issue, which is fair. However, is it not time that people would expect, even people from Ottawa, that Parliament would move things forward? We have had lots of discussion. We know what the issues are. We will take it to committee and bring it back to hear what we heard at committee. That is the process. It is an appropriate process. Time allocation is more than appropriate for this size bill.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to get the member's dander up. I was simply pointing out the fact that the government has absolutely abandoned the principles of democratic reform when it has bills coming from the Senate and time allocation, 91 times limiting debate.

I have to add another little caveat. To his saying that we are repeating our points of debate too often, each person gets to decide how they articulate their points. I brought in new points. I was talking about the fact that the government has failed those who are legitimately married who are waiting for the government to process things. However, it is interesting, coming from a party that every day has the same talking points reiterated over and over. However, that is for him to figure out.

When it comes to democracy, the best thing is debate and there should not be time limits on it, certainly not 91 times. That is just not the way it should be in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat a question I have asked other members who have spoken. We have indicated we have very strong concerns with Bill S-7. In fact, we want to see an amendment that would take the word “culture” out from the short title. I understand the NDP is very much concerned about that issue also.

We also note that the bill, in terms of substance, does have some very positive aspects and attempts to deal with polygamy, forced marriages, early marriages, and to a certain degree, domestic violence. This is not in any huge, dramatic or profound way, it is somewhat of a small step. I underline the word “small”. However, there does seem to be some value in the actual content of the legislation. Does the member see any value in the content of the legislation if we put aside the short title?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I should note that on Bill C-51, unlike the Liberal Party, we are stating exactly where we stand. We are against Bill C-51. It is for reasons around oversight, et cetera, but also because we are taking a stand. We are not saying that later on when we are government we will fix it all. That is a little arrogant. We have heard that from the Liberal Party before. At some time it has to take a stand in this place. I know it is difficult for the Liberal Party, but it has to take a stand.

We have taken a stand on Bill S-7. We are opposed to it at second reading. I have just laid out why. Polygamy is illegal, if he is worried about that. I know it is tough for him because Liberals are saying they do not like Bill C-51. However, they are going to put forward amendments, knowing that they are going to be defeated and then they will vote for it. If someone can actually understand that I give them credit.

Here we go with the Liberal Party again trying to find a niche where it can actually open up its own rationale. It is just not working. That is why I am proud to be a member of my party. We take a principled stand and we stick with it because that is where our values are.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

Our government has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to making Canadian communities safer for everyone, including by taking action to prevent and address violence against women and girls.

As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explained before the Senate committee, all violent acts committed against women and girls are indeed barbaric. It is this Conservative government that has taken, and will continue to take, action to address various forms of violence against women and girls.

There is increasing evidence that Canadians are being subjected to forced marriages. Our government has provided international assistance to individuals, including Canadian children, who were taken abroad for forced marriage.

While forced marriage can affect men and boys, it is predominantly a form of gender-based violence targeting women and girls. It is clear that more needs to be done to tackle these unacceptable practices, which may violate basic human rights, cause harm to the victims, and create barriers to full participation of women in our free and democratic society. These forms of gender-based violence are being addressed by Bill S-7.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act contains important legislative measures, which would protect potential and actual victims of forced marriage. These measures would also provide protection against other harmful practices, which predominantly and adversely affect women and girls, such as polygamy and so-called honour-based violence.

In short, Bill S-7 proposes to set the absolute minimum age of marriage at 16 in the Civil Marriage Act and entrench in that same act the requirements that a marriage involve free and enlightened consent and that all previous marriages be dissolved prior to entering into a new marriage.

Bill S-7 would introduce changes to the Criminal Code to also criminalize active participation in an underage or forced marriage ceremony and removing a child from Canada for these same harmful purposes.

This bill would also expand the peace bond regime in the Criminal Code to provide for a new peace bond, which could be ordered by the court to prevent an early or forced marriage from taking place in Canada or prevent a child from being taken out of the country to be forced into a marriage.

Another important change to the Criminal Code proposed in this bill is to limit the defence of provocation so that it could not be raised in cases involving so-called honour killings and in many spousal homicides where the alleged provocation can often consist of verbal or other types of insults. Our government will not allow for a life to be harmed or taken with the excuse that one was provoked.

Finally, this bill puts forward important changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which would specify that permanent residents or foreign nationals are inadmissible to Canada if they are or will be practising polygamy in the country, adding to the current provisions that prohibit the practice of polygamy in Canada.

I would like to focus my remaining remarks on the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code that would help prevent forced marriages from occurring in Canada or with Canadians taken abroad.

In some of the media coverage and debates related to Bill S-7, there appears to be a number of misconceptions about the provisions of the bill related to forced marriage, which I would like to address.

The first misconception is that the bill would ban individuals in a forced marriage from immigrating to Canada. Let me be very clear. The only immigration-related reform proposed in this bill relates to the introduction of a new inadmissibility in relation to the practice of polygamy. As regards forced marriage, this bill proposes to codify the requirement for free and enlightened consent to marriage in the Civil Marriage Act and to introduce additional measures in the Criminal Code to prevent forced marriages from occurring and to sanction those who would harm others by forcing them into marriage.

The second misconception that I would like to address relates to the scope of the proposed criminal offence of participating in a forced marriage ceremony. The proposed offence would not criminalize mere passive attendance by a community member or relative at a forced marriage ceremony. Canadian criminal law does not impose liability on persons who are merely witnessing wrongdoing and failing to stop it. An individual who is merely at the scene without any active conduct that is specifically directed toward helping the marriage ceremony occur would not be subject to prosecution.

The law would require active participation in the ceremony, such as acting as a signatory witness, driving an unwilling bride to the ceremony, or restraining that individual so that she does not flee. Moreover, this active participation has to be coupled with actual knowledge that one of the parties to the marriage is marrying against his or her will. Mere suspicion or speculation that the marriage is forced would be insufficient to trigger criminal liability.

The third myth that I wish to dispel relates to concern that the victims of forced marriages would be forced to criminalize their family members. Our government has heard the concerns expressed by some victims that, although they do not want to be forced into marriage, they also do not wish to see their loved ones criminally prosecuted. For this reason, the bill is structured specifically to provide victims with a means of preventing a forced marriage from occurring in the first place through a process that would not involve a criminal prosecution.

That process would be a new and targeted peace bond. Peace bonds are preventive court orders contained in the Criminal Code. When individuals are subject to a peace bond, they have not committed a crime and so will not have a criminal record unless they choose to violate the court order. As a result, the bill would make it possible for a victim to get the protection she or he requires to prevent the forced marriage ceremony from happening without having to criminalize family members. The peace bond process would also not require the child to take an application to court, as the application is usually made by a police officer on behalf of the person who is afraid.

Finally, I would like to address one last misunderstanding related to the forced marriage provisions of this bill. Some people have claimed that this new offence is unnecessary, as the current criminal law is sufficient to address the use of force to make people marry against their will. While it is indeed true that much of the conduct employed to force someone into a marriage is already covered by one or more of the existing criminal offences, such as assault or unlawful confinement, this bill would fill a gap in the law specifically with the goal of preventing forced marriages from happening.

For example, currently child protection officials are often unable to intervene to protect a child from being removed from the country to protect him or her from a forced marriage abroad because the marriage itself is not a crime under the law. This new offence would make it clear that celebrating or assisting at an unwanted marriage within which sexual offences are expected to occur is in itself a crime, as it is a violation of the individual's basic human rights to choose whether and whom they will marry. Consequently, attempts to force someone into a marriage against his or her will or to remove a child from Canada for a forced marriage would be sufficient to warrant the imposition of a peace bond. This change could save lives, save young children, and avoid traumatizing them. One victim is too many. Nothing can justify the status quo, and closing our eyes on this is unacceptable.

It is this government's priority, under our great Prime Minister, to put an end to the victimization of Canadians, notably women and children from vulnerable segments of society. The legislative measures proposed in this bill are sincere and important steps to address and prevent specific forms of gender-based violence that require prompt action. It is simply unacceptable for any woman or girl in Canadian society to be subjected to the violence and abuse typically encountered in a forced marriage.

I urge all members to support this bill in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is related to the term “culture” in the short title. My colleague and I have questioned the need for it. The government seems to respond by saying that it is the right thing to do because it does not want to be politically correct. It wants to be bold.

I wonder if the member would be bold. If she believes that it is about culture, can she provide a list of those countries where she would suggest that this cultural definition applies? Can she list off some countries for us today?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been very bold in addressing the issue of early and forced marriage. It was our former foreign minister along with our Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2013 who put early and forced marriage on the agenda at those meetings.

I have been in countries where I saw girls as young as 12 with babies on their hips. I asked them if the baby was their brother. They said, “No, this is my baby”.

I have spoken to doctors in other countries, who told me that these young girls come to their hospitals in such a state of far advanced delivery. They have lost so much blood. They are in such terrible medical condition that it is beyond the ability of the doctors to save their lives.

Our government is bold in its attempts to put maternal, newborn, and child health on the agenda for the millennium development goals. It is spending Canadian taxpayers' dollars to save moms and babies around the world.

Why would we not seek protection for girls and women right here in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, Bill S-7 is yet another example of the Conservatives' tendency to present sensationalized measures that do not actually meet the intended objectives or that have negative consequences for women and children.

Why does the Conservative government insist on criminalizing parents and spouses, when women and girls have clearly indicated many times that this is not the right way of addressing these problems and it is not what they want?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very privileged last July to attend the Girl Summit in London, England, that was put on by Prime Minister David Cameron. I was privileged to be there with our foreign minister and to listen to the many presentations by women from multiple countries around the world who want the issues of early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation brought to the table and spoken about on the agendas of world fora. They are against these practices in their own countries. They want the world to address them.

I was proud to be there, and I was proud to be a participant in those discussions and talk about what Canada is doing, first of all to protect girls and women in our own country, and second, to put these issues on the agendas of world fora so that they can be discussed. They are probably not issues that are comfortable conversation for many people, but it is important that we have these discussions because they are the things that are going to save the lives of moms, girls, and babies around the world.

That is what we want to see. That is what Canadian taxpayers' dollars are doing around the world. Why would we not want to save the lives of girls right here in our own country?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about unintended consequences. As we look at the bill, we think about the intended consequences, but I want to talk about the unintended consequences.

Intention is important. If we look at the intention of the bill, we look at the short title of the bill, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. That is offensive. I am not going to get into how offensive it is. There is the fact that it is xenophobic, that it is politicizing the issue of gender-based violence, and that it is reinforcing prejudices and stereotypes we have about certain cultural groups.

However, if we look at the intention of the bill, I would think the intention is to prohibit certain acts, such as forced marriage and polygamy. Maybe some of those are laudable goals, but then we have to open the legislation and read it and figure out if the intention would be met. It may be or may not be, but what are some of the unintended consequences, because that is equally important. We do not want to do things that we did not intend to do. There are many unintentional consequences in the bill that would actually victimize or re-victimize women, in particular, and children.

Some of the unintentional consequences are that we could criminalize the victims of polygamy. We could criminalize them, and that could lead to the deportation of children. Is that our intention? Is it our intention to criminalize victims? The bill could lead to the separation of families. It would further victimize women. I do not think those are intended consequences, but that is what the consequences of the bill would be.

Imagine being in the position of being forced into marriage. This is a woman who does not have control over her life, a woman who is a victim of family pressure, who is the victim of family control and community pressure and control. If we intend to end that practice, if we intend to help that woman, what would we do? We would think about sensible, reasonable policy responses. What is the policy response to end a practice like that? We would want to make it as easy as possible for women to come forward. We would get rid of all those barriers to prevent them from keeping it secret and to prevent these practices from going underground. We would want to make it as easy as possible for women to come forward and as easy as possible for friends or family members of that woman to come forward and go to the authorities.

If we are looking at a reasonable and sensible policy response, we would also want to reach out to certain communities to raise awareness of forced marriages, to reach out to service providers and government officials who might actually be called upon to assist in the prevention of forced marriages. That is a reasonable policy response. Let us make it easy for those government officials or those community leaders to come forward. A reasonable policy response would be to make it obvious that there are supports in place for these women if they do come forward and that we will help them. We do not want to make things worse, but we would with the bill, because it has so many unintended consequences.

The bill makes no provision to allow women who are conditional permanent residents to remain in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported, so why would they come forward? Why would they come forward, knowing they that they will be deported? UNICEF has talked about the fact that the bill would impose criminal sanctions against minors who attend or celebrate or help organize a forced marriage. It is incredible to think that they would be impacted with that kind of criminal record.

Because some of these penalties include criminalization, some women and children are not going to want to come forward. Why would they come forward when they would be at risk of seeing their parents end up with a criminal record, or their spouse, or other family members, people from their community? How do they come forward knowing that someone is going to be charged? They should be able to come forward to get out of a situation if that is what they need to do. However, this bill does not have any of those supports we are talking about. All it would do is drive these practices underground.

Imagine a women in a forced marriage. She is under the control of her family or her husband, and she is without a voice. She wants to leave, but if she does, she may be deported. I cannot imagine having to make that choice. Would I live with the violence and continue to live in that situation?

The parliamentary secretary spoke earlier about having travelled around the world and seeing terrible conditions in other countries, terrible situations for women. Is that what we are doing here, risking these women being sent back to those conditions? That is the risk they are going to take if they come forward. They could see their parents end up with a criminal record. What woman is going to come forward?

If we are looking at sensible, reasonable policy responses to this problem, I think it makes sense to look at what other countries are doing. Denmark, as members have probably heard, actually tried something along these lines. We should learn from their record and learn about what is happening.

In 2008, Denmark actually made it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry, but six years later, no one has been charged under this law. That is relevant.

Even more relevant, we have heard from the head of the National Organization for Women's Shelters. She thinks that not only has the law not had any impact on protecting young women from being forced into marriage but that it may have backfired and is actually driving the problem underground.

A reasonable policy response is to make it clear to women that we will be there to help them and we will support them, not that there will be criminal charges, not that there will be deportation.

We can look at other countries as well. I know that some of my colleagues have talked about the situation in the United Kingdom. If we are making legal changes, if we are looking to enact legal changes, we have to have those supports in place as well.

We have had testimony. We have had experts come forward to say that any legal challenge has to go hand in hand with more funding for women's organizations, which are really on the front lines providing services to isolated and stigmatized victims to help them navigate the criminal justice system and the civil justice system and to help them access safe housing and welfare support. All of those things are needed if we are going to enact legal changes.

Unfortunately, this bill is another example of a pattern of the Conservatives. They want desperately to have their tough-on-crime buttons they can wear: “We are tough on crime and we stand up for victims”. They love this narrative. They love the narrative so much that they do not actually care if they make it tougher for victims.

What is the pattern I am talking about? In 2012, we had new measures introduced to crack down on marriage fraud, including the requirement for a sponsored spouse to live with the sponsor for two years or face deportation and possible criminal charges. I remember that debate. I remember the fact that the NDP talked about this leaving women vulnerable to abuse. Why would women come forward when the law says that they have to stay with that person for two years or lose permanent residency? Why would they come forward?

We have seen private member's bills that talk about fact sponsorship or proxy sponsorship for marriages, but that is not about forced marriages. The people using that form of transmission are really refugees, by and large. By cutting off that access, we are limiting family reunification. That is an unintended consequence. We need to think long and hard about what these kinds of bills will do and the fact that they re-victimize victims.

I will finish up with the fact that I heard our Minister of National Defence, the former minister of citizenship, and multiculturalism, saying that sometimes we need to act with legislation.

Maybe during the question and answer period I will have the opportunity to list some of the legislation, because we have the legislation in place we need. The Criminal Code is fulsome. It does not have the unintended consequences we are talking about here. It gets to the root of the problem.

There is no way I can support this bill in good conscience.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked several members a question regarding the value of the legislation. The last person I asked was the member for Ottawa Centre, and he seemed to take exception and questioned the Liberal Party's principles. I would ask the member to reflect on her colleague's answer.

The New Democratic Party, on numerous occasions, has actually voted in favour of legislation going to committee, ultimately to be amended. The New Democratic Party often moves amendments at committee, even though they all get defeated, but ultimately it goes to third reading, and it still votes in favour of the legislation.

The only party that has actually been consistent with regard to its approach to legislation, at least on the opposition side, is the Liberal Party. The questionable behaviour might be coming from the New Democratic Party.

Could the member explain why it is that the member for Ottawa Centre believes that the NDP has never voted for something its members did not support going to committee or second reading, or could she answer the question I have posed to other colleagues? Does she see any value whatsoever in the content of the legislation, not the name?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between voting for a park and trying to get amendments at committee and human rights. There is a difference between Sable Island and the fundamental rights and revictimization of women.

I am not going to stand here in this House and support a bill that is about revictimizing women. We need to stand up for these women. We need to provide support for these women. We do not need to vote for this at second reading and hope that we get an amendment later.

The bill is fundamentally flawed, and there is no way we can compare it to the other pieces of legislation we have supported to get them to committee.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague from Halifax.

She mentioned the specific case of Denmark, and I thank her for that. Criminal provisions that are too broad generally have the opposite effect to what was intended and, as a result, it is no longer possible to enforce a decision or a law.

Under the Conservatives, we have become accustomed to this sort of thing, whether it was with Bill C-10, which criminalizes the possession of more than six marijuana plants, or with Bill C-36, which criminalizes the purchase of sexual services. The consequence is that the tougher the criminal sentences we impose through these laws, the less viable it becomes to implement them, and therefore the police are much less likely to enforce them.

Can my colleague elaborate on the fact that further criminalizing something we condemn, in this case forced marriage, will only serve to ensure that women will not try to escape that situation because the consequences would be too severe?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The Denmark example is a very good one, because in six years, we have not seen a charge.

We have a Criminal Code here in Canada. We have sections under the Criminal Code under which we have seen charges for uttering threats, assault causing bodily harm, and sexual assault. We have seen charges laid under those provisions. These provisions exist already. They work already.

If we actually want to stop these kinds of acts, like forced marriage, which 100% the NDP would like to stop, then let us look at what works. What works is making sure that women can come forward, making sure that they are safe, and making sure that they are not criminalized, revictimized, or deported because they came forward. I mean, a person would have to have no heart to think that this is actually going to solve the problem of forced marriages in Canada.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in August 2013 the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario released a report on forced marriages. It reported that 219 cases of forced marriage happened between 2010 and 2012 in the province of Ontario alone. All of these individuals experienced a form of violence. Most were young and from a variety of cultures and religions. Furthermore, the majority of victims were unaware of their rights in a situation of forced marriage. These victims were often forced into marriage by a family member, in most cases by their own parents.

I am the father of a 14-year-old daughter, whom you know, and these statistics explain why I speak today in favour of the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill is consistent with a variety of actions by our Conservative government to help the victims of these horrible situations.

This bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Criminal Code, and the Civil Marriage Act to provide additional protections for Canadians against certain practices involving violence against women and girls. I will be supporting this bill and I would urge my colleagues to do so. This government is taking steps to strengthen our laws to help ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of early or forced marriage.

In addition to a having a career in international law, I am a dedicated advocate for human rights and have spoken in this House, in my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, and abroad to urge action against oppression. I have also had the privilege of serving communities across Canada through my former role as chair of Food for the Hungry International Federation. I also joined with others to create the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which to this day advocates for the constitutional rights of Canadians. In my role as MP, I have defended the rights of Canadians incarcerated overseas. This past October, I stood with the member for Mount Royal publicly to call on the Iranian government to spare the lives of three Iranian prisoners on death row. I have also travelled to Pakistan and Iraq with One Free World International on human rights missions.

Whether as lawyers, MPs, or fellow human beings, we who have a voice and a platform have a responsibility to speak on behalf of those who cannot do so themselves. We must stand up for the victims of barbaric practices such as the ones targeted by this bill. My constituents stand for human rights, and I stand together with them.

Today I address a key misconception that has arisen during debate on the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. Critics of this bill say Canada does not need a new law imposing a minimum age for marriage. However, the bill would raise the lowest age at which anyone can marry in Canada to age 16, with no exceptions. Currently, federal law sets age 16 as the lowest age for marriage, but only in the province of Quebec. As difficult as this may be to believe, elsewhere in Canada there is no federal legislation, and the old pre-Confederation common law applies. This means that girls can marry at age 12 and boys at age 14. Raising the lowest age that anyone can marry to age 16 for all those who live in Canada would create a long-overdue new national standard that would increase protections for children, as no marriages could occur below that age.

During the debate, some asked why the Government of Canada is proposing to lower the minimum age of marriage to 16. They believe that provincial law already sets a minimum age higher than 16, such as 18 or 19.

This is a serious misunderstanding of the law, understandably caused by confusion, because constitutional jurisdiction over marriage is shared in Canada. Both the federal and the provincial legislatures have jurisdiction over complementary but different aspects of marriage.

Under the Constitution, only the federal Parliament can set the lowest age for anyone to marry across the country. The provincial legislatures can determine the age at which a child becomes an adult, and adults can consent to marriage for themselves with no additional requirements. The age of adulthood, or majority, is currently set at either age 18 or 19, depending on the province. For young people between the lowest age for marriage and the age of majority, provincial law requires the consent of the child's parents to any marriage. In the case of younger children who are closer to the lowest age for marriage, the provincial law may also require the approval of a court or restrict such marriages to situations in which the young couple is expecting a child.

As we can see, provincial and federal laws work together, with federal law setting the lowest age for anyone to marry and provincial laws adding requirements for marriages above that age until the child becomes an adult and can consent for himself or herself.

Because the constitutional powers are complementary, it is not possible for provincial laws to set the lowest age for anyone to marry. The bill would raise the current lowest age for anyone to marry up to age 16 for all those living in Canada. Provinces and territories would continue setting additional requirements for mature young people who wish to marry between that federal minimum age of 16 and the age of majority as established by the province or territory of residence.

Under private international law rules, the lowest age for anyone living in Canada to marry would apply wherever in the world that marriage is conducted and registered. In other words, the bill would also extend protections to Canadian children under the age of 16 who are taken out of the country to marry or who are married through telephone or proxy marriages overseas while they remain physically present in Canada.

The provisions of the bill would protect children and should be fully supported by the House.

We must not forget the powerful, positive, egalitarian aspects that accompany our citizens' general respect for various cultures. Canada is focused on accepting and accommodating people from all different backgrounds, religions, races, and ethnicities. Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to the belief that all citizens are equal. It ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, take pride in their ancestry, and have a sense of belonging. I continue to believe that acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures.

The Canadian experience has shown that multiculturalism encourages cross-cultural understanding. However, this acceptance and understanding does not extend to harmful cultural practices that victimize people. Our Conservative government is taking a strong stance against the harmful practices of early and forced marriage. We are leading international efforts to address these practices as a violation of fundamental human rights.

I hope all my colleagues will support this important piece of legislation.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. He focused mainly on underage marriages and the forced marriage of people who are too young.

He pointed out that the only place where provincial legislation sets out an age of consent for marriage is Quebec. None of the other provinces have anything like that because they use the common law system.

Given that common law is part of the British tradition, can my colleague explain why the short title of this bill is the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act to end barbaric practices?

Is he telling us that the British common law tradition is a barbaric practice? It sure looks that way to us. What is the intent behind the use of the words “barbaric practices” for a legislative measure in the British common law tradition?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the question the member for Saint-Jean asked is very sincere and interesting. His question puts the debate in a historical and cultural context.

Still, things have changed a lot. In our modern culture, it really is barbaric to force a young woman to marry someone. Most of the people here agree on that, and that is why my colleagues and I hope that the New Democrats will support this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, within the content of the legislation there are a number of issues that deal with polygamy, forced marriages, early marriages, and domestic violence, to a certain degree. As I have indicated before, it is a very modest step forward. We see it as that, and the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill going to committee.

However, there has been a great deal of concern expressed in regard to the title. One member of the Conservative caucus seemed to imply that it is meant to be provocative because it wants to be educational. Does the hon. member believe that government should be using provocative titles that might take away from the content of the legislation, that it is okay to use the short title because it could be used as an educational tool? What are his thoughts in that regard?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is what we are doing to advance the rights of individuals whose rights are being ignored and violated. There are young people who are being forced to marry. They are people as young my daughter and the children of people in this chamber. That is truly a barbaric practice.

It is important for us to convey what we are doing through the titles of our legislation. It is certainly critical for us to make sure that we are standing up and giving a voice to voiceless people. That is what we as parliamentarians ought to do, and that is what this bill proposes to do. That is why I am glad the Liberal caucus will be supporting it.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and pride to rise today in my place to speak in support of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I have been a member of Parliament now for almost four years for the great riding of York Centre. I was born and raised in the riding of York Centre, and now I am raising my family there. It is probably one of the most ethnocultural ridings in Canada.

We have the largest number of Russian-speaking people of any riding in the country. We have one of the largest populations of Filipino people, one of the largest populations of Vietnamese people, one of the largest populations of Hispanic people and one of the largest populations of Jewish people. Plus, we have ethnic representation from virtually every other imaginable ethnicity of which we can dream. That is a wonderful thing, and that is what makes Canada such a great country. York Centre is merely a microcosm of our great country of Canada.

We are a nation of immigrants. We are all from somewhere else, and we come here because Canada represents this great country of hope and opportunity, yes for ourselves but, more important, for our kids. People come here because they want to escape racism and persecution. They want a better life for themselves and, more particularly, for their kids so they can achieve all the hopes, dreams and aspirations possible for a human being.

I rise today and speak about the various ethnicities and ethnocultural representation we have in our great country of Canada. We are this country of diasporas. When I am in my riding of York Centre, I am privileged to go to a different event almost every night that is ethnocultural based. Sometimes I go to two, three or four events in a night.

All these ethnic groups are different. They all celebrate something different, representing their own culture. However, what they are doing is the most Canadian thing we can ever imagine. They are celebrating where they come from, but what they are most proud of and what unites them all, notwithstanding where they originally come from, is that they are proud Canadians. They are proud of our Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. They take great pride in that. Whenever I mention the word “Canada”, bar none, we get a standing ovation because everybody wants to celebrate being Canadian. They know the value of what it is to live in our great country of Canada, and they know what they left behind. Yes, they can celebrate their culture and their differences, but they know at the end of the day they are most proud of being Canadian.

That is why it is so important we pass Bill S-7. As a country, it is inconsistent with our values, and we will not tolerate allowing people into it who will practise barbaric acts. People say that the title of the bill is provocative. Yes, it is intentionally so because we want to label these acts as barbaric.

That is unlike the leader of the Liberal Party who, a few years ago, had a problem with the word “barbaric”. When Citizenship and Immigration Canada put out a guide for new Canadians, it used the word “barbaric“ in the guide, and it referred to certain acts like female genital mutilation and forced marriages for young women. These acts were declared barbaric, and the Liberal leader went to his Twitter page stated his objection to the use of the word “barbaric”. He said that it did not take into account cultural sensitivities. He said that there were different cultures out there that were inconsistent with the values that we had in Canada, but that we nevertheless must respect those values, and such barbarism must be respected. He took umbrage with that word. However, when the Liberal leader was confronted by many Canadians who objected to his objection of the word “barbaric”, he said, “Perhaps I got tangled in semantic weeds”.

He said, and this is the best, that the government should use the words that make “an attempt at responsible neutrality”. We are not in the neutrality business. We are in the business of promoting the values of Canadians, what Canadians take pride in. As I said earlier, we take pride in our Canadian values and stand up for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law because we are proud of our country and we will not accept people who come to our country and want to practise barbaric acts.

The opposition says that the bill would put it underground. It is underground right now. A woman cannot go to a hospital and ask to have her genitals mutilated. We as a country are taking a stand. We as a government are saying this is wrong. Yes, the legislation serves an educational purpose and a pedagogical purpose because we need to send a strong message to those people who would dare think that in our great country of Canada these barbaric practices are acceptable, because they absolutely are not.

I would hope the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party would not engage in their moral relativism and think that there is nothing right and there is nothing wrong, that everybody needs to debate and everything is a gray area. No, there are certain rights, imperatives and things that are right and wrong, and barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriages and honour killings are wrong. We take a stand against that as do Canadians. We know where Canada stands.

The Canadian people sent us here to do a job. We take that job very seriously. We are honoured to have that responsibility. We have a responsibility to the Canadian people to ensure our country is protected.

We are sending our armed forces to northern Iraq to fight against ISIS. What is ISIS doing? We have seen it burn human beings alive. We know it takes little girls from their towns and use them as sex slaves and sells them into slavery. It cuts off the heads of women, children and men. We have sent our armed forces there, along with a coalition, to fight against this objectionable behaviour, to fight against these thugs and barbarians. We do not want this in Canada.

The Canadian people have spoken. The Canadian people have made it clear that we will never—we have not in the past, we will not now, and we will not in the future—accept these barbaric acts. We will never do it, and we stand firm in that. Our government is representing the views and beliefs of the Canadian people by introducing this legislation.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding in my colleague's remarks, including what he said about the Canadian army's actions in Iraq. Unfortunately, he failed to mention the situation and the chaos created in Iraq by American intervention. Nor did he mention the fact that intervention in Libya, for instance, destabilized that country even further, and as a result, the situation in Libya is now completely out of control. Iraq is also a country out of control.

Before explaining that a simple intervention can restore peace and order in a country, he should look at the history and the background that led to the situation. This speaks to his lack of understanding of the problems of the Middle East. I, on the other hand, being an immigrant myself, know a little more about what he is talking about.

I would like him to explain how further criminalizing the aspects that we want to limit will achieve this objective in practical terms. In fact, as we have seen, the opposite always happens.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the epitome of ignorance to stand and cast aspersions on and call another member of Parliament names. I take great umbrage with that. I thought he was a better person than that, but evidently he is not.

In answer to his question, clearly the member could not even follow the line of debate. He does not know we are talking about Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. He went off on some tangent about something in the Middle East.

What I think would be acceptable to the NDP, which seems to engage in this form of relativism, is if we named Bill S-7, the tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I am sure that would make those members happy.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the bill since we said we are going to vote for it.

Nonetheless, I would like to talk about its title. When I was studying literature at university and it came time to write essays and choose titles, I learned that a title should always reflect the text that followed.

This is not some tabloid we have here. This is a bill and it is serious. Imagine reading this 10 years from now. A bill must not be emotionally charged. It has to be neutral and impose certain rules on certain things.

I find this title to be far too emotional and provocative. I will vote for this bill, but in committee I would choose a more neutral title that does not pass judgment on the bill itself.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite typical of the Liberal Party. We have seen that for many decades in the House. The Liberals do not support Bill C-51, but they will vote in favour of it. This goes back to the times of Mackenzie King, the times of conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription.

We have the Liberals once again getting up and saying that they are going to support the bill but they have a bit of a problem with the title.

This is not a university paper. This is not a college essay. We are in the Parliament of Canada, representing the Canadian people who sent us here, the Canadian people who stand for Canadian values. Those are the people we represent.

The people have told us that they will not stand for barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriages, sexual assault, and we have put this into the legislation. I ask the opposition parties, the NDP and the Liberals, to get on board, support us and represent the wishes and will of the Canadian people.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this bill. I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak in support of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

In the Speech from the Throne in October 2013, our government promised that it would ensure that early and forced marriage and other harmful cultural practices, such as polygamous marriages and so-called honour-based violence, do not occur on Canadian soil.

I might add that it is within my living memory that in our east Asian cultural tradition there were polygamous marriages. I can still remember my grandparents having a polygamous marriage, because that was the society of that time. However, over time, over the last two generations, that has changed. We can change it.

Bill S-7 delivers on that promise. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act demonstrates that Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to early and forced marriage, polygamy, or other types of barbaric cultural practices.

Canada will not tolerate any type of violence against women or girls, including spousal abuse, violence in the name of so-called honour, or other mostly gender-based violence. Those found guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws.

This bill would establish a national minimum age of 16 for marriage to protect our most vulnerable in society, our children, from early marriages. The minimum age of 16 for marriage currently only exists in federal legislation pertaining to Quebec. As a result, the common law applies to the rest of Canada, which is usually interpreted as a minimum age of 14 for boys and 12 for girls, but could be as low as 7. This bill would now set 16 as the minimum age for marriage across Canada.

The Civil Marriage Act would also be amended to codify two existing legal requirements for a valid marriage. Currently, these requirements are legislated only in Quebec: the legal requirement for free and enlightened consent to marriage, and the requirement for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another. Consent is truly the most critical aspect of a lawful marriage.

This amendment would make it clear that no Canadians should ever be forced to marry against their will and complements certain amendments to the Criminal Code, which I will discuss.

The requirement for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another is consistent with section 2 of the Civil Marriage Act and the longstanding Criminal Code prohibition against bigamous and polygamous marriages.

Also 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 in Canada. Under the current immigration law, non-citizens can only be removed in cases where there is a criminal conviction for practising polygamy or where there is a finding of misrepresentation.

To eradicate this practice on Canadian soil, this 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.

Coming back to the issues of early and forced marriage, this bill proposes several amendments to the Criminal Code to better prevent Canadians from being victimized in these ways. The proposed amendments in this bill fill a gap in the existing legislative scheme by creating offences that focus on the active participation in the forced or underage marriage ceremony itself.

The bill proposes two new offences that would extend criminal liability to anyone who knowingly celebrates, aids, or participates in a marriage ceremony where one or both of the spouses is either under the age of 16 or is marrying against his or her will. This would cover both those who conduct the marriage ceremony and those, such as family members, who have full knowledge that a marriage is forced or involves a child under 16 and actively participate in the marriage ceremony. However, to be prosecuted for this offence, a person would need to have engaged in some conduct specifically directed toward helping an early or forced marriage to occur.

The proposed offences address the social harm caused by the public sanctioning of these harmful practices. Studies have indicated that the vast majority of victims of a forced marriage are subjected to violence within that marriage. Similarly, girls who marry early are at far greater risk of experiencing complications in pregnancy and childbirth, including higher maternal mortality rates, experiencing violence in the home, and having their education disrupted.

Underage marriage violates girls' basic human rights and prevents them from fully participating in society.

These two new offences would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment. The bill also proposes to make it an offence to remove a child from Canada for the purpose of a forced or underage marriage outside of Canada. This government is aware of disturbing cases of Canadian children being taken abroad for forced or early marriage.

Child protection officials who believe that the child would be removed from Canada for a forced or underage marriage currently lack the requisite legal tools to intervene and prevent the child's removal from Canada. The bill would change that by adding the new offences related to an underage or forced marriage ceremony to the list of offences in the provisions that makes it a crime to remove a child from Canada.

I am confident that these proposed amendments would help prevent and deter the removal of children for such harmful practices and effectively punish those perpetrators who violate the law.

Moreover, the bill has prevention measures to protect vulnerable Canadians and residents from early or forced marriage.

The bill also proposes to introduce specific forced or underage marriage peace bonds to allow potential victims to seek protection against a pending forced or underage marriage. An order under the new peace bond provision could specifically prohibit people subject to the order from making arrangements or agreements for the forced or underage marriage of victims; require people subject to the order to surrender passports in their possession; prohibit them from leaving the country or taking a child out of the country; and require them to participate in a family violence counselling program.

Finally, in the area of violence motivated by so-called honour, it bears repeating that all forms of violence, whatever the motive, are fully prohibited by the criminal law. There is no need to create specific offences for honour-based violence.

The defence of provocation has been raised in several so-called honour killing cases in Canada on the basis that the victim's behaviour such as choosing one's own marriage partner or making other such personal decisions for oneself without a family or a husband's approval amounted to a wrongful act or insult that, when considered in the context of the cultural community to which they belonged, provoked the accused to kill due to a sense of damaged honour or reputation. To date, the defence has not been successful in so-called honour killings in Canada, however, the defence remains available to be raised in similar cases in the future.

Canada will not tolerate early and forced marriage and other harmful practices taking place in our country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:00 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of purpose that I am participating today in this debate on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I am supporting this legislation because I believe that men and women are equal, and our government believes that men and women are equal. Passing this bill is critical to ensuring that immigrant girls and women have the same chances to position themselves for success in Canada as men and boys do.

Canada has opened its doors to many people who have left their home countries to come here for a better life. Many have come for the rich opportunities. Many have fled persecution in search of safety and security. We want to ensure that they can live here in safety and security. We want them to know that they can live freely, because Canada upholds the enduring principles of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Those apply equally to men and women. We cannot just talk the talk; we have to walk the walk. This bill is an example of that today.

Even in this House, we can see that immigrant women are making great contributions to Canada. I think of my fellow colleagues who are immigrant women, the MPs for Vancouver South, Richmond, and Fleetwood—Port Kells, just to name a few who were born elsewhere. They have been elected to Parliament, and they work every day toward a better Canada.

As legislators, we all owe it to immigrant girls and women to ensure that they are not hampered from making great contributions to Canada by discriminatory cultural practices and barbaric cultural practices, such as early and forced marriage, polygamy, and yes, so-called honour killings, which have no place in this country. Indeed, we have zero tolerance for such practices, and this bill sends that strong message.

To that end, the Government of Canada is taking concrete steps. Already our government is providing women who are newcomers to Canada with a whole range of services and programs to help them build their skills so they can enter the workforce and get great jobs here. I have had the opportunity to participate in graduations from some of these programs. I have to say that they truly are inspiring. They have such vim and vigour and a desire to get out and make a contribution.

Two great organizations in my community, among many, that are doing this work are the Calgary Immigrant Women's Association and Immigrant Services Calgary. They do things like co-op programs for professional women, job retraining, and mentorship.

However, shockingly, groups that work with many of our immigrant women and girls also report that when they have left countries where barbaric practices are common, they find themselves subjected to them here.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, our Conservative government committed to ensuring that barbaric cultural practices do not occur here on Canadian soil. The Government of Canada, the people of Canada, will not tolerate barbaric cultural practices that hold women back. That is the bottom line.

It is up to us to ensure that immigrant women and girls are not being subjugated through isolation and violence. This bill codifies that in law. It says that practices like early and forced marriage, like polygamy and honour-based violence, will not be tolerated.

Women and girls seeking a better life for themselves here in Canada should never be subject to living in constant fear under threat of violence or death simply for living their lives, for choosing whom they wish to marry, and for seeking better opportunities for themselves.

These practices are antithetical to the fundamental Canadian values of freedom and gender equality in which I firmly believe. According to Justice Canada, reports from criminal court cases, the media, and refugee decisions, there were at least a dozen killings from 1999 to 2009 committed in the name of so-called honour. These were premeditated killings, killings of girls and women, murders by family members.

I am haunted by a case in my own home town of Calgary in March 1991, when 20-year-old Kulvinder Dulay was gunned down with her husband and a friend in a parking lot outside the mall by a family member. Ontario was rocked in 2009 when four strong, vivacious women, the Shafias, were murdered by their own family in Kingston.

We are prosecuting such crimes under our current laws, but we know that immigrant and newcomer women and girls face additional barriers when it comes to protecting themselves and seeking assistance compared to women who are born in Canada.

There were a reported 219 cases of forced marriage from 2010 to 2012 just in Ontario, and all of those individuals reported being victims of violence. These practices have a very negative effect on families and on society at large as well as on the communities in which they occur. Bill S-7 is the latest example of this government taking strong action to protect women and girls.

Our government has also recently updated Canada's citizenship guide, called Discover Canada, and the newcomers' orientation guide, called Welcome to Canada, to clearly state for people coming to Canada and people who want to be citizens that Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to harmful cultural practices like forced marriage or gender-based family violence. This is a great step. I have talked with our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recently about expanding the scope of the distribution of these guides to all of our embassies worldwide.

However, our efforts do not stop there. Status of Women, a committee on which I am privileged to sit, has also invested $2.8 million for community-based projects that address harmful cultural practices. Justice Canada and the Status of Women co-chair an interdepartmental working group on early and forced marriage, honour-based violence, and female genital mutilation. Since 2009, Justice Canada has been busy holding workshops. It has held six sector-specific workshops with police, crowns, victims services, child protection officials, and shelter workers to build capacity among the people who deal with these issues on the front lines.

As I said, we know that more needs to be done to protect girls and women in our immigration system. That is why Bill S-7 is necessary. To ensure the effectiveness of the measures in this bill, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration consulted with immigration advocates and others in this field for many months, across the country, to formulate the policies that would stop violence and abuse. Those experts told us that barbaric practices still occur on Canadian soil and that we need to act. They gave advice and made very important recommendations that were included in this bill. That led us to where we are today.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act would send a clear and unambiguous message to Canadians and newcomers that such practices are verboten. It would strengthen our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers from these harmful practices by ensuring, for example, that people know that it is a crime to participate in these barbaric cultural practices. We would remove the defence of provocation in the case of so-called honour killings. We would declare that the practices of some cultures are not consistent with Canadian laws and that Canadians will not tolerate cultural practices that deprive individuals, girls, and women of their human rights.

To repeat, this bill would support women and girls who have come to Canada for a better life. It would make it clear that under no circumstances do Canadians accept or allow the propagation or enactment of barbaric cultural practices that target women.

Aruna Papp, who was a victim of early and forced marriage, says this about Bill S-7:

The government's Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act recognizes the plight of these women. In presenting this bill, the government of Canada has said, in effect, “as a Canadian citizen, you, too, deserve to live a life free of violence and coercion.” For this, I am grateful.

For this, I too am grateful. This bill needs to become law to prevent more young victims like Aruna Papp.

I implore the opposition members who refuse to stand up for those victims and who say that action is not needed for such a small problem to support this bill, to think of Aruna Papp, of Lee Marsh, of the four members of the Shafia family, and of all the victims of these barbaric practices.

I know that members of both opposition parties say that they are in favour of women's rights. Yet both parties voted against Bill S-2, which gave aboriginal women long-denied matrimonial property rights last year. That is a game changer for them.

I encourage all of my hon. colleagues, and especially those members of the opposition who sit with me on the Status of Women committee, to lead their colleagues and stand up for women and girls. I ask them to vote for Bill S-7 and stand up for victims of violence and abuse.

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

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

In her introduction, she outlined the fundamental principle of gender equality in Canada, a principle that we obviously subscribe to.

In that sense, Bill S-7 seems to contain a tremendous number of measures that deal with what happens after the fact, in other words, the way the Canadian government or the court must react once the action we wish to avoid is committed.

Can my colleague explain what measures in Bill S-7 deal with prevention, support or education to ensure that what the bill seeks to criminalize simply does not happen in the first place?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I take the member at his word and I hope he will show that he and his party do stand for the equality of women by supporting the bill.

One of the most important aspects of the bill is prevention. The bill sends a message to immigrant men and other people in the community at large that these barbaric cultural practices that are sometimes practised in the countries from which our immigrants come, will not be tolerated in Canada. That would be clearly defined in the Criminal Code. They would know that the defence of provocation, which is often used in other places as a way of justifying the horrific act of killing their daughters because they disagree with whom they wish to go out with or marry, is not acceptable in Canada.

That is exactly the message the Immigrant Services Calgary and the Calgary Immigrant Women's Association are telling me. These people need to hear it. They need to hear it in Canada and before they come to Canada so that they are aware that they cannot continue these practices in our country, on Canadian soil.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 is a very important piece of legislation because it seeks to protect the most vulnerable, these young girls who in many cases have absolutely no choice. There are children born and raised in our country who at a young age find themselves having to deal with a situation where they are being forced into a marriage in another country. Quite often during a summer break from high school their parents force them to go overseas to marry someone who has been promised from birth.

Could the member tell us what she hears in her communities about the impact on these young ladies who feel powerless today to speak out so these kinds of things do not happen? Bill S-7 clearly puts measures in place that would prevent such atrocious acts from happening in families in Canada.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really feel grateful that I have colleagues who will stand up for young women, like my fellow colleague who is asking me the question. It is critical that we have the support of men for these sorts of bills.

In the case of forced marriages, I am sure all of us in the House actually know, or have heard of cases close to them, of someone who has been coerced or is fearful of being coerced into a forced marriage. The bill would make it a crime to take a young girl out of the country for the purpose of a forced marriage. It would give the opportunity to have passports revoked in some instances. It would show those young girls, because their friends and other people would tell them, it is not allowed in Canada, it is illegal and that they cannot make them do that in Canada.

My own niece told me of an example of someone in her university class who told her this was the situation she was being placed in. Fortunately, I do not think it happened, but it is something that is happening. There were 219 cases in Ontario alone between 2010 and 2012, and those are just the ones we know about. We must act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we count in days or months, but as of May 2, it will be four years that I have been sitting in this House. In four years, I have considered every opportunity to speak as a great privilege. The problem is that today, I have come to consider this not only a matter of privilege, but also a matter of chance since we will soon be approaching the 100th time allocation motion.

This morning, we are having another fundamental debate in the House. We are debating a bill from the Senate instead of from the House of Commons and we are doing so under a time allocation motion. I therefore have just 10 minutes to speak to an issue as important as the one we are addressing this morning.

I am well aware that in taking a minute of introduction to talk about what I call procedural irregularities, I am cutting into my speaking time. However, since I do not have enough time anyway, I think it is important to convey a clear message.

The place for debate is in the House of Commons, and every member of Parliament should have not only the opportunity to speak to issues that are important to them, but also the time to get their point across, which is less and less the case these days.

Let us get to the crux of the matter. Before advancing some well-founded criticisms of Bill S-7, I would like to stress that we are totally opposed to the practices of polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage. I remain firmly convinced that these practices are completely inconsistent with the common values we share, both in Quebec and in Canada.

The NDP strongly condemns these types of violence endured by women, but refuses to associate these practices with specific cultural groups. By associating these crimes and these types of violence with cultural practices, the short title of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which I have read for the benefit of everyone following our debate, reminds us of the Conservatives' mediocrity and their ignorance of the realities of cultural communities. By claiming that cultural groups have a monopoly on these types of violence, the Conservatives are engaging in their usual practices of witch hunts, divisiveness and stigmatization.

In addition to playing on racial prejudices, Bill S-7, at best, duplicates provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada and, at worst, has negative effects that exacerbate the exclusion of women and children who are the victims of violence. I will give a few examples of the negative effects of Bill S-7.

This government has a long history of flawed legislation, for example, the measures introduced in March 2012 to supposedly crack down on marriage fraud. Under these measures, sponsored individuals are required to live with their sponsor for two years. If the sponsored person does not meet that requirement, then he or she could face criminal charges and deportation from Canada.

Fear of deportation leads these sponsored individuals to remain silent in the face of domestic violence and other types of discrimination. As a result, sponsored women who are abused become withdrawn, which only serves to further exclude them from society.

In the same vein, Motion No. 505, which was moved by a Conservative member, sought to combat forced marriages by banning distance marriages. Once again, the Conservatives completely missed the mark, since it is mainly refugees who make use of distance marriages. In an attempt to do away with the harmful practice of forced marriage, the Conservatives instead limited family reunification for refugees.

Bill S-7 confirms the Conservatives' reputation as bad legislators.

Bill S-7 deprives women who are conditional permanent residents of provisions that protect them from deportation if their spouse proves to be a polygamist. What is more, the bill imposes criminal sanctions on minors who participate in a forced marriage, which can seriously harm their future since they would have a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

These negative effects show that the Conservatives' repressive approach is quickly reaching its limits and is counterproductive. Rather than dealing with problems at their source, the Conservatives are focusing their efforts on a bill with a sensationalized title that is designed to win votes. Rather than just trying to score points with its voter base, this government should set up a consultation process with stakeholders to truly address the problem of gender-based violence.

Although experts and groups made recommendations as part of the study by the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, the minister chose to ignore their advice and warnings about the negative effects of Bill S-7. The minister chose to base the provisions of his bill on social prejudices and the stigmatization of certain cultural groups. In short, the minister is playing politics by deliberately associating harmful practices with cultural groups. The Conservatives deliberately ignored the opinions of experts and community groups, and their superficial approach in the provisions of this bill is bewildering.

For example, the bill would amend the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent legal requirements for marriage. However, these provisions are already part of the Quebec Civil Code and common law provisions in the other provinces. The bill does not add a single new measure. It is nothing but smoke and mirrors. This legislative inflation is compounded by the flaws in this bill. Sponsors are often more familiar with the workings of the immigration and legal systems than the immigrant women they sponsor. This bill denies sponsored immigrant women access to a process that would inform them of the basic immigration rules, which means that these individuals are on their own and are at an increased risk of social and economic exclusion. Once again, education, awareness and support services are being set aside in favour of a largely repressive and election-minded approach.

The NDP's approach to the matter is much clearer. As I mentioned, the minister's approach is simplistic and focuses above all on the punitive component. To address the problems this bill deals with, the NDP has developed an approach based on awareness and prevention and on providing services to help newcomers integrate more effectively. First of all, we want to amend the bill to ensure that victims of forced or early marriage are exempt from the requirements of conditional permanent residence. This exemption would protect vulnerable women against violence and abuse at the hands of their sponsors. The conditional permanent residence status requires that the person being sponsored live under the same roof as the spouse who is sponsoring them for two years. If the sponsor is being violent or abusing the person being sponsored, that requirement for two years of cohabitation must be removed.

We are also calling on the government to introduce a provision in the bill that guarantees the delivery of prevention and support services for victims of forced or early marriage.

I will close by saying that for all of these reasons and others that I unfortunately did not have time to go over, I will be opposing this bill at second reading. However, I would like to reiterate that we unequivocally condemn forced marriage, polygamy and early marriage.

However, the fact remains that this bill creates more problems than it solves. The Conservatives have managed to fail on three counts in this area. There is the legislative failure, since Bill S-7 has many adverse effects that increase the exclusion of immigrant women and children. They also failed when it comes to consultation, as they have done for almost every other bill, too. Lastly, the Conservatives have failed in terms of their approach when it comes to violence against women by refusing to implement our national action plan to end violence against women in Canada.

I will stop there and I look forward to questions from the members.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed a fairly glaring omission in the member opposite's speech today, in that he neglected to mention honour killings. He said he was opposed to polygamy, forced marriage, and underage marriage, even though he is voting against them, which is unconscionable, but makes no mention of being against honour killings. This is an extremely serious issue, with girls and women being killed by family members under the guise of them having been dishonoured when the girls and women want to date or marry someone.

Does the member believe he should be denying support for women and girls who are facing these kinds of barbaric practices under the guise that he does not like them being called “cultural practices”, which I should point out is what the United Nations calls them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It gives me an opportunity to talk about some issues I did not have time to address because of the lack of time. We are under time allocation, so I had to keep my speech to 10 minutes.

It goes without saying that I cannot condone honour killing, but the way I am defending our position shows that the Conservatives' Bill S-7, like so many of this government's bills, is an attempt to create a tough-on-crime image.

Still, what else are we saying? We are saying that after the crime is committed, we will react vigorously. What I would also like to see in the bill, and what we have proposed pretty much every time in connection with this new law, are measures to prevent these crimes from being committed and to give the people who are victims of these crimes the financial resources, knowledge and support to become full Canadian citizens, people who are aware of all of the measures available to them, as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understood my colleague's speech correctly, this is a punitive bill. It is not in any way preventive. There is no help for the people affected by this bill. It covers things that other laws already cover, and it could produce consequences such as the deportation of people who have done nothing wrong. Given all of that, what is the purpose of this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague reads the bill exactly the same way I do.

The goal, if we can call it that, is patently clear. This is electioneering based on fear, to shore up support from the Conservative base and, provided people buy this type of speech, to try to broaden that base.

However, I do not see anything in Bill S-7 that deals with prevention and support. We ask our friends across the way the same question every time and the answers are consistent with the bill every time. In other words, the government does not see the problem and does not seem open to amendments that would help improve this bill. Every time, we get rhetoric that is black or white, positive or negative, for or against, when in reality the world we live in is much more nuanced than that and there are many shades of grey that almost never appear in the Conservatives' bills.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the second reading debate of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that all people in Canada have the right to be free from violence and to reach their full potential. It is a sad reality, however, that there are people in Canada, principally women and girls, who are subjected to forced or early marriage. Prior to or within these marriages, the victims experience various forms of violence, and because of these marriages they are hindered in their ability to fully and successfully participate in our free and democratic society.

I would like to take this opportunity to focus my remarks today on the specific issues of early and forced marriage. An early marriage is a marriage that takes place before one or both individuals involved have reached the minimum legal age of marriage. International studies have shown that a girl married at an early age can face domestic servitude, as well as sexual and domestic violence. Girls are predominately the victims of child marriage, increasing the risk of violence and creating a significant barrier to achieving gender equality, as they are regularly forced to disrupt or abandon their education.

A forced marriage is considered to be a marriage that takes place without the free and enlightened consent of one or both individuals involved. As with early marriages, forced marriages are predominately perpetrated by the victim's own family members. The consequences of a forced marriage are numerous, including repeated sexual violence and possible physical assault and domestic servitude. We have seen tragic cases in Canada and around the world where individuals who have refused to enter into a marriage against their will, or who have left their forced marriage, have been brutally assaulted and even murdered by their family members.

Our government takes the safety and well-being of Canadians, particularly children, very seriously. It is firmly committed to protecting vulnerable Canadians from all types of violence and to holding perpetrators accountable for their acts. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act proposes important legislative measures to better prevent Canadians from being victimized by early or forced marriage. Changes to the Civil Marriage Act would set a new national minimum age for marriage at 16 years. It would formally entrench in federal law the existing requirements that each party to a marriage enter into it with their free and enlightened consent, and that any previous marriage must be officially dissolved before a new marriage is entered into.

There is currently no national minimum age below which a marriage is legally invalid. Under the Constitution, setting an absolute minimum age for marriage is a matter of federal jurisdiction, yet, apart from federal legislation that sets a minimum age of 16 years for marriages in Quebec, the minimum age elsewhere in Canada is set out in the common law or court decisions. Remarkably, this old common law sets the minimum age at 14 years for boys and 12 for girls. It is time that we modernize and set in legislation an absolute national minimum age of 16 years for marriages in Canada.

Many have questioned why this bill proposes an absolute minimum age of 16 years as opposed to 18 years. The short answer is that there are exceptional circumstances where a mature minor wishes to marry and has already engaged in a significant commitment with their partner, for instance, where they have a child in common. This approach is also consistent with the majority of like-minded countries that also have 16 years as an absolute minimum age for marriage, and 18 as the free age for marriage without any additional requirements for consent. Between the age of 16 years and the age of majority, either 18 or 19, depending on the jurisdiction, the provincial and territorial marriage acts provide additional safeguards to help protect young people from marriages that are not in their best interest.

Bill S-7 proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code so that it would be a criminal offence for anyone to solemnize a marriage, whether they have legal authority to do so or not, who does so knowing that one of the parties being married is under the age of 16 years or is marrying against their will. This is a pretty strong deterrent, and it would send a clear message that solemnizing this marriage is not only illegal under civil law but it is also a crime.

To complement the underage marriage offences, Bill S-7 also amends the provisions in the Criminal Code that set out the minimum age for sexual activity. As members will recall, in 2008 this government increased the minimum age of consent to sexual activities from 14 years to 16 years, with exceptions for those who are close in age and where the parties were married. Because there was no national minimum age of marriage at the time, the exception for married couples was retained.

I am proud to say that Bill S-7 will change that. Once this legislation is in force, it will be illegal to marry a person under the age of 16, which corresponds to the age of consent for sexual activity. There will no longer be a need for an exception where the victim is below the age of 16 and married to the accused.

The bill would also amend the Criminal Code to make clear that anyone who actively participates in a marriage ceremony with full knowledge that one or both of the participants is under the age of 16 or is marrying against their will may be criminally liable. This will not apply to a person who is merely present at the ceremony, even if they know that a party to the marriage does not consent. In order to trigger the criminal offence, the individual must play an active role in ensuring that the ceremony takes place while knowing that it involves a child under the age of 16 or a person who is being forced to marry against their will.

Moreover, there have been cases of Canadian children being taken abroad to be married at an early age and forced into a marriage. This is simply unacceptable. The bill would make it a crime for anyone to remove a child who is ordinarily resident in Canada from the country with the intent that the child be subjected to an underage or forced marriage abroad.

Finally, the bill would introduce a new peace bond in the Criminal Code, which would be available where there are reasonable grounds to fear that an underage or forced marriage will occur. The new peace bond would permit a court to impose conditions precluding the defendant from making arrangements related to the marriage of a potential victim, requiring him or her to surrender travel documents, and preventing him or her from leaving the country with a potential victim.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration travelled across Canada, conducting round tables with various cultural communities, and participants told him that early and forced marriage is still a harsh reality in this country. While the opposition refuse to support this legislation, our government is taking a stand and making it clear: forced marriage, honour-based violence, or any other form of harmful cultural practices are unacceptable and will not be tolerated in Canada.

In closing, the bill would provide individuals, communities, and criminal justice system authorities with the tools that are needed to tackle these issues. I encourage all members of the House to support Bill S-7.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and it goes without saying that we share his concerns about violence against women and girls.

Another concern is the title of this bill. We are not saying that these practices are acceptable, but we are very concerned about the language used. This concern was also expressed when this bill was being examined in the Senate, and a number of MPs have spoken about this issue in the House.

Obviously, we want to do everything we can as legislators to protect women and girls and put an end to this violence.

However, does my colleague not think that using words like “barbaric” in the title of the bill is putting us on a slippery slope and is a way of distorting the debate rather than getting to the heart of such an important issue?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not hiding behind words. I want to reiterate that the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act demonstrates that Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to early and forced marriage, polygamy, or other types of barbaric cultural practices.

Canada will not tolerate any type of violence against women nor girls, including spousal abuse, violence in the name of so-called honour, or other, mostly gender-based violence.

Those who are guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal law.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Pickering—Scarborough East for focusing his speech on forced marriages. I also thank the member for his support of my private member's bill which disallowed forms of forced marriages, those being telephone, fax, Internet and proxy marriages, for the purposes of immigration, and which asked the government to change those regulations so newcomers to Canada and new Canadians would understand clearly that these kinds of practices would not be tolerated.

The Liberal leader stated that the use of the term “barbaric”, in particular, was not warranted when talking about some of these practices. I would like to know what the member for Pickering—Scarborough East thinks about that and, specifically, the government's efforts to acknowledge that these are, in fact, barbaric practices. Should we be doing this and why is it so important for the government to do so?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are in a great country, a democratic country, and enjoy our freedoms and liberties. Unfortunately, some actions by people who live in our beautiful country are not in line with our history, our country and our democracy.

It is very important not to hide behind the words of barbarians, and there are barbarians in our country. We should look forward, develop legislation to replace outdate legislation, and implement it so we can evolve in the future and not go back to the past.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to 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. This Conservative government calls this Senate bill the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

Before I talk about the substance of the bill, I would like to make a few comments about its title, which, when studied in the Senate, was severely criticized by stakeholders, the people who work on the ground and community groups that help women in precarious situations. We find that the short title of the bill is xenophobic because of the use of the term “barbaric”, and that it reinforces existing prejudice against certain cultural groups by targeting racial minorities for certain practices that are in fact found in Canadian society. We know that violence against women occurs throughout Canadian society and that we must address this serious problem. However, as several witnesses and stakeholders pointed out, targeting minority groups and using language that instils fear and reinforces prejudice against cultural groups does absolutely nothing to improve the situation.

This is a very serious issue. Polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage are practices that we must tackle. We must find solutions that help women who find themselves in such situations in Canada. Yes, this does exist and does happen here in Canada. However, we are convinced that this bill is not an appropriate response to the serious problem of gender-based violence, which, I repeat, is not a cultural problem. In fact, we have seen that Bill S-7 could further aggravate the problems that exist in Canadian society with respect to forced marriage and could also jeopardize the safety and autonomy of women in forced marriages. The Conservatives are fearmongering by introducing this bill, which does nothing to solve the problems faced by women in forced marriages.

We have studied Bill S-7 and we believe that it could have some serious consequences. For example, victims of polygamy could be criminalized, children could be deported and families could be separated. The Conservative government claims to want to help women, but it is doing nothing to ensure that women have access to the services they truly need. Groups across Canada that work to help these women are vastly underfunded. I have visited a few of them in Montreal, including the South Asian Women's Community Centre. This group is one of dozens of others across the country that help these women and these families. They work very hard with very few resources.

What do these groups want, so that they can help these women and families, who are often living in precarious situations? They are calling for safe, affordable housing to provide more security for these families and these women. They are also calling for resources to provide psychological help to these families and these women, since, as members will understand, the situations these women are in can sometimes be traumatic. It is important to provide this assistance as well. Groups working on the ground are also calling for assistance for the families, which are often traumatized by having to go through the complicated legal and immigration systems.

Organizations on the ground are also asking for help for families that have, in many cases, been traumatized by complicated processes in the justice and immigration systems. This bill offers none of the much-needed resources to help these families and these women.

This bill will also have some deeply damaging consequences. The Conservative government is used to pushing its bills through without consulting the community or the people who work directly with these women.

On that note, I would like to talk about some of the laws the Conservative government has passed that have had unintended consequences for immigrants to Canada.

In March 2012, the Conservatives introduced new measures to crack down on marriage fraud, including a requirement for a sponsored spouse to live with their sponsor for two years or face deportation and possible criminal charges. Again, witnesses who came to Parliament to offer recommendations criticized this bill because of its negative consequences. It leaves women vulnerable to abuse because they are reluctant to report abuse for fear of losing permanent residency.

What is more, the Conservative member for Mississauga South, who is in the House today, moved Motion No. 505 in April 2014. This motion purported to attack forced marriages by banning marriages by proxy, telephone or fax from qualifying for spousal sponsorship.

Perhaps her intention was good since more measures are needed to address the issue of forced marriage. However, this measure does not help vulnerable individuals, immigrants and refugees, who are often the ones who make use of distance marriages. This measure served to limit family reunification rather than forced marriage.

The measures that I just mentioned thus have a number of negative consequences that put victims of forced marriage, primarily women, at an even greater risk.

I would like to speak about what we would have liked to see in this bill in order to provide real support for women who are victims of forced marriage and abuse.

First of all, we would have liked that the bill allow victims of forced or underage marriages to be exempt from the requirements of conditional permanent residence. This was also recommended by the experts who appeared before the committee. It has become apparent that conditional permanent residence is revoked in such cases. This measure was introduced in October 2012 and applies to spouses, common-law or conjugal partners in a relationship of two years or less with their sponsor and who have no children in common with the sponsor at the time of the sponsorship application. These sponsored spouses or partners have a condition attached to their permanent residence status for a period of two years from the day they receive their conditional permanent resident status in Canada. Once again, this is the measure that was presented by my colleague.

We are proposing that the spouses and children of a person who is deported for having lied to the authorities about their marital status be allowed to remain in Canada where they have settled. Our approach is focused on protecting victims.

I think that any bill must take into consideration the realities facing victims and help and encourage them to report the abuse. However, that is not what this bill does.

Instead, this is a punitive bill, and that is why we are opposed to Bill S-7.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She mentioned one issue in particular. I tried to ask a member across the aisle a question about this earlier, but unfortunately, he avoided the question and repeated the government's talking points about zero tolerance for such acts, and so on.

As my colleague put it so well, of course we all oppose violence against women and want to get at the root of the problem. I want to come back to that point, which is one that the Conservative members appear incapable of addressing.

Should we not be concerned about the terms used in the bill's title? Rather than getting at the root of the problem and addressing it properly, the Conservatives chose words that fuel fear and could lead to stereotypes about certain cultural communities by painting everybody with the same brush, when we all know very well that the acts listed in the bill are relatively rare.

Indeed, this calls for zero tolerance. However, does my colleague not find the government's approach problematic in that regard?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Indeed, the very title of this bill is an indication that the government wants to use it to play politics and spread fear of cultural minorities. We know that violence against women is committed throughout Canadian society, not just within cultural communities.

We also know that the Conservatives have no credibility when it comes to violence against women. They refused to launch a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women, and they refuse to take other acts of violence against women elsewhere in Canada seriously.

By rejecting our amendments to this private member's bill, the government is refusing to truly take into account the realities that women are facing.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak during the debate on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

To begin, I would like to offer a bit of context. Five years ago, the Government of Canada introduced a new citizenship guide called Discover Canada, which is used by prospective new Canadians to learn about Canadian citizenship and to prepare for their mandatory citizenship test.

Since its introduction, the guide has proven to be popular not only with newcomers to Canada but also with many Canadians interested in learning about the rights and responsibilities that come with being a citizen of our great country.

One of the important points made explicit to all readers of Discover Canada is that men and women are equal under Canadian law. The guide states that:

Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation...or other gender-based violence.

Although the equality of men and women is not only the law but a fundamental Canadian value, unfortunately violence against women and girls continues to affect tens of thousands of Canadians each year. Barbaric cultural practices still exist as a reality for many Canadian women. The effects on victims are devastating and far-reaching, and they impact our children, homes, and communities.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister unambiguously committed to taking concrete steps to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls in Canada. Bill S-7 is exactly such a step, and its passage will meet the throne speech commitment by helping to ensure that barbaric cultural practices, including underage and forced marriage, do not occur on Canadian soil.

If and when implemented, the measures in this bill would improve protection and support for vulnerable immigrants, especially women and girls, and indeed all Canadians in a number of different ways. They would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible for practising polygamy in Canada. They would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 years old 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 would criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriages. They would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new specific court-ordered peace bond if there are grounds to fear someone would commit an offence in this area. They would ensure that the defence of provocation would not apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

All of these proposed amendments are practical and effective measures that would strengthen the protection of vulnerable individuals in Canada and help address the problems stemming from harmful cultural practices.

In my remaining time, I would like to elaborate on some of these measures. I will start with those that address the practice of polygamy.

While it is against the law in Canada to practise polygamy or to enter into a polygamous union and while that ban has been upheld as constitutional, such is not the case everywhere in the world. Indeed, some newcomers to Canada come from countries where polygamy is legal and culturally acceptable.

To complement existing criminal law and prevent polygamy on Canadian soil within the immigration context, Bill S-7 would create a new inadmissibility in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for anyone practising polygamy in Canada. This would enhance existing immigration tools to render both temporary and permanent residents inadmissible for practising polygamy in Canada, regardless of whether there is a criminal conviction or misrepresentation.

I will now turn my attention to measures in Bill S-7 that would address the problem of early and forced marriage by amending the Civil Marriage Act.

It may surprise some to know that Canada has no national minimum age for marriage. It is only in federal law, applicable in Quebec, that the minimum age is set at 16 years old. In other parts of Canada common law applies, and as such, the minimum age is 14 for boys and 12 for girls, although historically it went as low as age seven. Bill S-7 would set a national minimum age of 16 years old for marriage, which would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and will not be tolerated.

Other amendments to the Civil Marriage Act proposed in Bill S-7 would codify the requirement that those getting married give their free and enlightened consent to the marriage and would codify the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriage.

Bill S-7 would also help prevent forced or underage marriage by amending the Criminal Code to criminalize actions that are deliberately taken for the purpose of helping such marriages occur and would create a new peace bond that would give courts the power to impose specific conditions on an individual when there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age 16 would otherwise occur.

Finally, measures in Bill S-7 would also amend the Criminal Code to address honour killings as well as other spousal homicides so that lawful conduct by a victim can no longer be legally considered as a provocation that reduces the seriousness of the murder. This would not only prevent the defence of provocation from being raised in cases of honour killings but would also bring our criminal law in line with Canadian values, which hold people responsible for their murderous rage even where they were verbally insulted or otherwise had their feelings hurt by some lawful conduct of the victim before the killing.

The opposition to this bill is unfounded. The NDP member for Parkdale—High Park suggested that the government give more resources to front-line agencies. Is the member opposite even aware that since 2006, under this government, settlement funding has been tripled from below $200 million to almost $600 million?

In fact, in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we heard settlement organizations ask us to give them more tools to help with so-called honour-based violence. It is clear that while the NDP refuses to take any action, our government is taking steps to ensure that so-called honour-based violence does not continue on Canadian soil.

The Liberal Party refuses to even admit that these practices are barbaric. The leader of the Liberal Party believes that the title is too harsh. Here is another example of the Liberal Party not standing up for what is right. As usual, it refuses to stand up for victims.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act is an important piece of legislation that would send a clear message to individuals coming to this country that harmful and violent traditions are unacceptable in Canada.

I hope all hon. members will support this bill at second reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill could cause some women and children to be sent back to their country of origin. If they are happy in Canada, I imagine they will not really feel like returning with their spouse or their father to their country of origin.

Would the hon. member be prepared to make amendments to the bill in order to protect these people and ensure that no victims are deported?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the NDP refuses to take any action. Since we formed government, some 30 or so bills have been passed. I wonder if the member supported any of those bills, such as the bills that addressed issues to deal with criminals and give victims the rights they deserve.

On the other hand, we are very clear on this side that we will not tolerate any spousal abuse, so-called honour killing, or other gender-based violence in Canadian society. It is also very clear that polygamy is not allowed and must not be allowed on Canadian soil.

This is what the bill is all about, whether it be polygamy, honour killing, or spousal abuse. We on this side strongly believe that spousal abuse should not be allowed and that there should be consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, that does not answer my question at all.

Second, does he not think that this legislation will be for naught if women in polygamous marriages dare not speak out against the criminal actions of their husband for fear of being sent back to their country of origin?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is referring to those spouses who are sponsored and are still under the conditional permanent resident status. Our government has taken action to protect vulnerable Canadians, particularly women and girls, from early and forced marriages and other harmful cultural practices.

I would remind the member that through the information for sponsored spouses and partners, we advise immigrant women that those who are subject to conditional permanent residency and who are victims of abuse or neglect do not have to remain in abusive situations. A brochure, created by CIC, also informs them how to contact CIC and others and where they can find help.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member comment on issues that the department is ultimately responsible for? One of the big issues I have found consistently is the issue of the processing time of marriages.

When we talk about different types of arranged marriages, it is important that we recognize that to a certain degree there are arranged marriages that do occur today that are in fact quite acceptable by modern standards. I wonder if he might want to provide some comment on that.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this bill has to do with arranged and other marriages.

The Liberal Party does not want to talk about protecting women and girls who are forced to be married under age or are forced to live in polygamous relations. On this side it is very different.

The Liberal Party leader refuses to admit that these practices are barbaric. He believes the term is too harsh. It is another example that the Liberal Party does not stand for what is right, and as usual, refuses to stand up for victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, in preparing for this brief speech I was not exactly sure how I wanted to begin. However, after reading my background notes I am left to wonder why this piece of legislation has even been introduced. It is becoming evident to me that the current Conservative government really is not interested in making Canada a better place in which to live. In fact, sometimes I think it is the opposite.

We have seen a number of pieces of legislation introduced with sensational titles such as this one, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, that play to the emotions but often lack substance. We have seen this with various so-called tough-on-crime bills introduced in the past years in spite of the fact that our crime rate is falling. In the U.S., which has an alarmingly high rate of incarceration, there are discussions to reject this punitive and primitive approach that is not working and determine which other measures are needed to ensure that those found guilty can return safely and become productive members of society. In other words, that is the approach we have always had in this country, at least until very recently.

A lot of what is presented by the government I would say is meant to increase fear amongst Canadians with respect to problems that may not even really exist. Let us look at Bill C-51, which gives sweeping powers to the government to infringe upon our rights and freedoms. Thousands of Canadians took to the streets last Saturday to protest against the draconian measures of this bill. The sad truth is that we already have adequate measures to protect us from terrorist threats under existing legislation.

I believe and will venture to say that a lot of these bills are just a simple waste of time. Rather than concentrating on crime and fear, perhaps we could realistically tackle issues that are facing us, such as climate change, poverty, the lack of affordable housing, the erosion of our health care system, and the thousands of working poor we have in this country.

Experts who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights explained that criminalization will not solve the problem and instead will exacerbate it. In fact, several Criminal Code provisions already provide legal recourse with regard to the offences targeted by the bill. Instead of politicizing the issue of gender-based violence, the government could strengthen the legislative measures already in place. It must also commit to implementing a national action plan to combat violence against women and invest more in the organizations that provide services to women in forced or underage marriages.

Naturally, we agree that no woman should be subject to gender-based violence, including the practices of forced marriage and underage marriage. The bill could have serious unintended consequences, including the criminalization of the victims of polygamy, criminalization and deportation of children, and separation of families.

As an aside, I sometimes get the impression that a lot of the bills that are presented here are not really thought out. A bill is presented and then we get an opinion back from the legal profession saying that it may not stand up to court challenges or that it is not well written and thought out. I think this bill falls into that category.

Instead of a sensationalized bill that does not get at the root of the problem, the minister should commit to widespread and meaningful consultations with community groups and experts so that the real issue of gender-based violence is addressed in an effective manner.

The government should also increase investments in organizations that provide services such as safe and affordable housing, counselling and help for families that are often traumatized by the fact that they must navigate complicated legal and immigration systems.

The thing is that what is happening with this bill, what I have learned in going through some background information, is that the information here often duplicates our existing laws. For example, the bill would change the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent legal requirements for marriage, but these requirements are already part of the civil code of Quebec and common law in other provinces. The bill would limit the defence of provocation, ostensibly to exclude honour killings, but courts have already ruled that the concept of honour and the culturally driven sense of what is an appropriate response do not count as provocation under the Criminal Code.

Canadian criminal law already provides recourse relevant in most cases involving forced marriage, prior to and after the marriage, as well as in cases of travelling with a minor with the intent to force her or him to marry.

I am just going to list what it includes because it is important for my colleagues here to understand that we have adequate measures in our current legislation for a lot of this information that we are discussing and we are voting on.

For example, it includes uttering threats, section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. It includes assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, abduction of a young person, procuring feigned marriage, removal of a child from Canada, extortion, sexual offences against children and youth, failure to provide necessities of life and abandoning children, abduction of a young person and, moreover, spousal abuse, abuse of a child and abuse of a position of trust and so on.

We have to ask ourselves this. If in fact we have provisions in our current legislation to address these issues, why are we taking time to do another bill? I would like to submit that perhaps we are doing this because the Conservatives want to sensationalize certain aspects of our society and play to the base, to the fear factor that I talked about before.

Witnesses at the Senate committee hearings pointed out that immigrant women often have significantly less information about the Canadian immigration and legal systems than their sponsoring partners, which allows their sponsors to threaten and manipulate them. However, this bill would make no provision for providing women with basic information about immigration rules or with adequate integration services.

Families who have suffered from violence and harmful practices need adequate supports and programs, especially since the challenges faced by survivors of forced marriages are unique. However, this bill makes no reference to support services. That is an interesting point. We have seen, for example, the sensationalism about Bill C-51, this anti-terrorism bill, and all the provisions that are going into the bill. However, there is really very little about resources to people in the field, to our police and to others who keep our society safe or, in this case, resources that are provided for the safety of women.

It is no secret that under the current government, women's centres have lost funding, that the organizations that support and work with women who are undergoing violence and spousal abuse do not have the resources that they had a decade ago. At the same time, we see a bill that supposedly would address the situation, but there is nothing on the ground to help those people when they approach a centre, if in fact the centre is still allowed to exist.

According to UNICEF, if Canada wants to ensure the protection of children from human trafficking, it must recognize that Canadian children who become victims of trafficking largely end up that way as a result of a series of failures in the protective system.

Many children live in low-income families without adequate access to community support services that could prevent the risk of exploitation. Many need educational support and mental health services, but do not receive them.

In 2008, Denmark's parliament unanimously passed a law making it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry. However, six years after the law was enacted, the police have not yet charged a single person and the courts have not convicted anyone under the act. Why? Susanne Fabricius of the national organisation of women's shelters in Denmark said that she did not think this had any impact on protecting women and, in fact, might have backfired and driven the problem underground. I rest my case with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the long list of barbaric practices the member wished to focus the government's attention on, homelessness being one of them, the tragedy that is challenging and terrifying indigenous and aboriginal women in our country. There is the barbaric practice of tolerating poverty and thinking that tax cuts will present new housing or jobs to people when, in fact, our youth unemployment, in particular, is unbelievably cruel, yet we see no action.

Also, do we think if we make other practices illegal two or three times, they might be eliminated? In other words, if we make murder illegal three times, as polygamy has now been made illegal twice, and impose national and provincial standards that are already in place, therefore reinforcing the law by making a redundant law even more debated, are there any areas where redundancy is effective?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with intent of the question. The fact is that we have existing laws and if we add a third or fourth law, it does not mean the problem will go away.

I would like to share with the member an experience I had last week. I was driving in my riding and saw a hitchhiker with a big knapsack on his back, rings in his nose and tattoos, and decided to give this guy a ride. I told him I was stopping to have some lunch and asked if he would like to have lunch. He said sure. I asked him where he was going and he said to Summerland, which I thought was interesting. He did not talk much, but as we were having lunch, he opened up. He said that he had been on the road for 10 years and was a homeless person. He said that there were hundreds of homeless people around the country who were angry at what was going on with the system, a system they could not access. He said that there were people in power who had no idea what is going on. To me, that illustrates in a small way what is happening in our country today.

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

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

In the case of homelessness or all of these horrific acts that women face and fear much worse, I would like to know whether he found any clauses in Bill S-7 that set out what resources would be allocated to the organizations that work on the front lines and are there when these people are looking for a helping hand or for assistance to get out of a difficult situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The answer is no. As I said in my speech, we have seen the same thing with a number of bills. The government wants to change the policy but does not allocate the necessary resources. It wants to send our soldiers to war, but there are no resources to give them the help they need when they return. It wants to help women, but it does not even want to create a commission of inquiry concerning aboriginal women we have spoken about in the House.

In my opinion, the best way to help these people is to look at what already exists and what resources are already out there. If there are not enough, we can add some. That would be a logical response to existing problems.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate.

The member for Rivière-du-Nord has five minutes remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are back to debating Bill S-7. After 10 years of Conservative rule, we are headed in a direction in which we do not want to go. This bill is yet another example of the government's habit of playing politics at someone's expense—this time at the expense of women who are victims of violence.

In 2012, when we opposed the conditional permanent residence measure, we claimed that it gave too much power to sponsors with respect to the responsibility and rights of their female spouses and that it forced them to remain together for two years. The real effects of that have become clear. In my riding, for example, two women experienced psychological violence and they were forced to flee their homes, under the threat of being deported by their sponsors. Their sponsors would threaten them, saying that if if the women left they would arrange to have them deported. That is too much power in the hands of the sponsor.

The government is still taking—or at least focusing on—a repressive approach, instead of adopting a supportive approach. Earlier, the Minister of State for Social Development said that women in a polygamous marriage, for example, would be protected if the polygamist in question was found guilty, since this practice would be criminalized. She said the opposite of the truth. It is very clear that this bill does not contain any provisions enabling conditional permanent residents to remain in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported.

There is an old naval rule that states “women and children first”. The government is going against that rule and actually putting people who are already vulnerable or being abused in a difficult situation.

Another example of this pertains to forced marriages. The bill criminalizes everyone involved in a forced marriage. Yes, it is an offence and a practice that is unacceptable. Criminalizing everyone involved was already introduced in Denmark. What has been the result? Since the law passed in 2008, not a single charge has been laid. Why? Because it would mean asking the young girl being forced to marry to report her family members, who then would become criminals—her uncles, aunts, parents, brothers, sisters and cousins. Imagine the burden this places on the shoulders of these children. It is unbelievable.

At the same time, the bill contains no support measures for either the victims of polygamy or for the young girls being forced to marry—and yet everyone who took part in the Senate committee debate called for such measures, to make sure that the approach adopted is not based on criminalization but rather on support and prevention. We must work proactively, ahead of the situation. We need to make sure that people integrate into our communities with a better understanding of our way of life, our ways of doing things. Young women also need to know their rights.

I would like to come back to the two women who were threatened in my riding. They have rights; they have the right to be free of violence and constraints at the hands of their sponsors. No one explained those rights to them. They believed that if the sponsor mistreated them psychologically, he could have them deported to their home country with no recourse. We need answers and solutions to those issues. Unfortunately, the bill does nothing to address them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of initiatives within Bill S-7 one could argue have some value, such as those that deal with polygamy, forced marriages, early marriage, particularly the setting of a national minimum age of 16, and issues related to domestic violence. Does the member see any value in any aspect of the legislation that the New Democratic Party could support?

Having said that, from a Liberal Party perspective, we have an issue with the title of the bill, in which the Conservatives make reference to culture. The short title is zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. We believe that at the very least, “cultural” needs to be deleted from the short title of the bill.

I wonder if the member might want to provide some comment on both aspects.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions.

Indeed, the NDP supports the provisions of the bill on prohibiting marriage for those under 16. I too was struck by the title of this bill, considering that my research shows that a third of the world's population, in all countries combined, lives in polygamy. I get the impression that barbaric is not the right word to describe these countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I asked Conservative members and a minister a number of questions and their answers were often vague.

For example, I asked them why they wanted to include in this new legislation measures on things that are already covered by other laws and what this bill does for the spouses and children of people deported for polygamy. Their answers remain vague.

Does my colleague think that this is because the bill was put together hastily, that it is botched and that its only purpose is to please the Conservative base?

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

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague took the words out of my mouth.

Indeed, this is a botched bill that will likely cause more problems than it solves. Earlier, the Minister of State for Social Development answered my colleague's question about what would become of the wives and children of a person deported from Canada for polygamy, claiming that they would be protected and have recourse. However, the bill includes no such provision. I believe the minister said that just for show.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.

Is it simply an impression, or is there a modus vivendi creeping into the government's bills? In Bill C-51, for example, the government would have Canadians believe that existing police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are not equipped to fight terrorism.

In Bill S-7, it seems to be saying that potential victims, and we hope that there will never be victims, also have no recourse. The Criminal Code already contains very clear recourse for almost all these situations.

What is going on? Is this a partisan political vision or a real bill to help people who are going to need it?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government really wanted to help immigrant women with these issues, it would welcome them and provide them with solutions and support.

Unfortunately, this bill offers nothing in the way of prevention. My colleague is quite right: there are dozens of provisions in the Criminal Code—which I will not name—that already address the problems and provide for the prosecution of those who perpetrate such abuse.

In the Criminal Code we find section 264 concerning assaults, section 265 on sexual assaults, and sections 271 and 273 on kidnapping. I could name 50 Criminal Code sections that would apply to forced marriage or forcing young people to leave the country and be married elsewhere.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, regarding Canada's commitment to preventing and responding to early and forced marriage, polygamy or other types of barbaric cultural practices both at home and abroad.

Our government does not shy away from tough conversations about the importance of women's full and equal participation in all aspects of social, economic and political life. The promotion and protection of women's human rights are central to Canada's domestic, foreign and international policy. I am proud to say that our government had made ending child, early and forced marriage a domestic and international policy priority.

For example, in October 2013, our government announced $5 million in new money to address the causes and consequences of early and forced marriage around the world. These funds were used for programs in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Somalia and Zimbabwe. More recently, in July 2014, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada is contributing $20 million over two years to UNICEF, toward ending child, early and forced marriage. The UNICEF project aims to accelerate the movement to end child marriage in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Yemen and Zambia by supporting efforts in these countries to strengthen both programming and political support to end the practice.

Our government's commitment is not limited to funding. For instance, Canada has spearheaded the initiative to establish the international day of the girl and is co-leading with Zambia a United Nations General Assembly resolution on child, early and forced marriage. Additionally, Canada leads the annual resolution on violence against women at the Human Rights Council as we are a strong supporter of the six UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security.

All of this goes to say that our government continues to work domestically and internationally on promoting and protecting the rights of all women and children. Equality of men and women under the law is a fundamental Canadian value that shapes Canadian policy and actions in the international and domestic arenas. Free and healthy societies require the full participation of women. Sadly, in many countries around the world, millions of women and girls continue to be prevented from full participation by violence and intimidation, including through the inhumane practices of early and forced marriage.

The strength of our country is centred on the fact that Canadians of very different origins live and work together, side by side. One of the key elements to this success, prosperity and social harmony of our country is that we are united Canadian citizens, not by our common origins, but rather by a pledge of mutual responsibility and shared commitment to values and traditions rooted in our society.

At the same time, harmful cultural practices that go against Canadian values and are in violation of Canada's international human rights commitments will never be tolerated in Canada. Our government is well aware of cases of Canadian children being taken abroad for an early or forced marriage and has concerns that girls who are from countries where the practice of female genital mutilation is common may be at risk.

Canada is committed to protecting and defending those who are vulnerable to these practices, both domestically and internationally. Our government has demonstrated its leadership in this area by introducing this bill and by continuing to work with our international partners and community members to find ways to end such harmful practices, which are tragically occurring each and every day around the world.

I would like to speak now about how Bill S-7 would protect women and girls here in Canada. The provisions in Bill S-7 would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage at 16 years, as well as codifying the existing legal requirements for a free and enlightened consent for marriage. Setting the minimum age to marry across Canada at 16 is consistent with current practices in like-minded countries, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

Provincial and territorial legislation would still impose requirements for marriages between the ages of 16 to 18 or 19, depending on the age of majority. Requirements such as parental consent or a court order provide added safeguards to permit mature minors between the ages of 16 and 18 to marry in exceptional circumstances. However, given that many forced marriages are perpetrated by parents, parental consent to the marriage of a minor may be insufficient to protect against forced marriage where it is the parents who are forcing the marriage upon an unwilling child. As a result, the Minister of Justice has engaged his provincial and territorial counterparts in a discussion to enhance provincial and territorial legislative measures that would protect young children against forced marriage by imposing judicial consent in any marriages involving a minor.

Bill S-7 also proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create the offences of knowingly celebrating, aiding or actively participating in a marriage ceremony involving a person under the age of 16 or a forced marriage. These new offences specifically address the social harm caused by the public endorsement of an unwanted or harmful legal bond within which sexual violence is expected to occur. These offences will apply to individuals who engage in conduct specifically intended to facilitate the marriage ceremony such as acting as a legal witness knowing that one of the parties is under the age of 16 or marrying against their will.

These proposed new offences would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment. The proposed amendments would also criminalize taking steps to remove a child from Canada for the purpose of an underage or forced marriage. This is done by adding the new offences in relation to underage and forced marriage to the existing offence of removing a child from Canada to commit female genital mutilation or sexual offences. This offence is punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment and Bill S-7 maintains this penalty.

Countries such as Australia and Norway have similar criminal measures, which Canada has looked to in the development of this bill. Other proposed amendments would create a new peace bond that would give courts the power to impose conditions on an individual where there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 would otherwise occur, or if they will take a child out of Canada with the intent that they be subjected to an early or forced marriage ceremony abroad. Such a peace bond would be used to prevent an underage or forced marriage by requiring an individual to surrender travel documents. These measures that would prevent someone from being taken abroad for the purposes of early or forced marriage are similar to forced marriage civil protection orders in the United Kingdom.

Additionally, the bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to address concerns that the defence of provocation has been raised in several so-called honour killing cases here in Canada. Unfortunately, we have seen these cases too often on our soil and one victim is one victim too many.

The defence of provocation currently allows a person found to have committed murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life, to seek a conviction of manslaughter instead with no minimum sentence unless a firearm is used by arguing that the victim's conduct provoked the person to lose self-control and kill. Currently, any conduct by the victim, including insults and other forms of offensive behaviour that are lawful, can potentially qualify as provocation if it is found to be sufficient to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control, the accused was not expecting it and the killing was sudden.

The proposed amendment would limit the defence of provocation so that lawful conduct by the victim that might be perceived by the accused as an insult or offend that person or their sense of family honour or reputation cannot excuse murder. Only conduct by the victim that amounts to a relatively serious criminal offence, that is an offence under the Criminal Code punishable by at least five years in prison, could be argued to be provocation for the purposes of the defence. The provocation defence has been abolished or restricted in almost every common law jurisdiction like Canada, most Australian states, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Finally, the bill proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to increase the Government of Canada's ability to prevent polygamy from occurring in Canada. The bill would make amendments to the IRPA so that a polygamist permanent resident or foreign national who is or will be physically present in Canada with any of their spouses would be considered to be practising polygamy in Canada.

I have discussed some of the very important aspects of the bill to highlight that Canada is taking concrete action in ensuring that early and forced marriage and similar barbaric cultural practices never occur in Canada as was promised in the October 2013 throne speech. The bill also sends a strong message that Canada condemns such practices, not only domestically, but internationally. I hope that the government will get the support of all hon. members in protecting victims, specifically women and girls.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

The Conservatives have a knack for fixing problems that do not exist. My colleague talked about the defence of provocation, among other things.

It is laudable to prohibit honour killings, but all of the courts that have addressed this concept of defence have found that a culturally oriented concept of honour does not constitute a defence of provocation under the Criminal Code.

Apart from the marketing and propaganda angles in advance of the upcoming federal election, what is the point of introducing an amendment just for this given that the courts have already ruled that it is not a defence of provocation?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is such an important issue. It is one that we are taking a stand on as a government. Part of taking a stand is making sure that our laws are in line with the values that we hold dear here in Canada and to protect those most vulnerable. In this case, we are dealing specifically with women and girls.

With respect to the provocation, we are increasing the threshold, because it should no longer be a subjective matter. It should not be one that can even be argued as a defence in a court of law when such a case is brought before it, and that is the point of this legislation.

Our government would ensure that wearing a short skirt or dating someone who one's family does not agree with is not, even in the mind of the perpetrator, considered justifiable because provocation is not specifically limited, as we intend to do with this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the Liberal Party is comfortable supporting certain values within the legislation before us. We recognize that there are particular issues that would deal with polygamy, forced marriage and the whole of idea of early marriage, with 16 being a national minimum that the government would set. It also deals with other issues in a small but important fashion, such as domestic violence.

The issue that we have taken up with the government, and for which I understand we will move an amendment on, is in regards to the short title. It is the short title that many people feel somewhat offended by, zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. We would take nothing away from the legislation by deleting the word “cultural”, yet it is quite offensive for many people who share the same values that we all have inside this chamber towards the attitudes that the member has talked about.

Would the member not agree that dropping the word “cultural” from the short title would do nothing to minimize the effectiveness of the legislation that the government is putting forward and, in fact, would then make it that much better in terms of legislation?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the title is concerned, it is very important that we take a stand here as Canadians, to stand up for Canadian values. I think it also very important that we make very clear what it is that we are standing up against. Hence, we will not tolerate cultural traditions in Canada that deprive individuals of their human rights. The reason for that term in the title is because there are countries where some of these practices are not illegal or where they are illegal, those laws are not enforced.

Therefore, we want to make it very clear where Canada stands on these issues for the protection of women and girls who are very vulnerable with respect to these issues. We want to make it clear to new Canadians coming here that in Canada this is not what we expect or accept, and that is why those words are in the title.

Our government believes that subjugating a woman is wrong, period.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill. I was on the citizenship and immigration committee when it completed the report detailing how to better protect women in our immigration system. Frankly, I hate saying the short title of Bill S-7, which was created after that study, but I will. It is called the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It would not do anything to actually protect women from violence, as it claims to do.

It was interesting to hear in the minister's speech that she thought it would potentially protect women when it really would not. Most of the practices that the bill hopes to curb, including polygamy and honour killings, are already illegal in this country, so Bill S-7 would not do anything new, other than focusing on criminalizing other behaviour.

When the citizenship and immigration committee was hearing testimony for its report, experts agreed that women who are experiencing violence need supports, like housing, counselling, and assistance in navigating the complex family, criminal, immigration, and legal systems. The experts also agreed that women coming into this country should be provided with information about our systems before they even come here, or at the borders when they arrive, in languages they can understand, to ensure that women are protected, educated, and made aware of the support systems available in Canada.

We were sad to hear testimony about how conditional permanent residence status had contributed to people being trapped in abusive relationships. Why? It is because the immigration status of the woman is tied to her partner. If she were to report violence in her relationship or to leave that relationship, she would fail her conditional permanent residence status and be deported from this country. That means she could be sent back to a country or situation that is not ideal or safe, or where she could be persecuted or stigmatized for leaving a conjugal relationship or marriage. There are many countries around the world where women are stigmatized, including Canada, for seeking a divorce or leaving an abusive relationship.

In its report about Bill S-7, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario asserted the following:

This Bill appears to extend a trend in this government’s track record to strip permanent residence and deport more and more racialized people from Canada, regardless of how long they have been here.

SALCO'S report continued to assert this:

In the preparation of this legislative and procedural change, they have failed to consult experts in this field about what creates further barriers to accessing safety for women experiencing violence.

The fact is that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration compiled expert testimony on protecting women in our immigration system, and the report did not include all of the good recommendations that came from experts. The committee spent days and weeks studying this topic, and the recommendations in the report are still not addressed in this bill that the government has brought forward through the other chamber.

Let us talk about what Bill S-7 would actually do. It would make being in a polygamous relationship grounds for finding a permanent resident inadmissible in this country. Polygamy has been illegal in Canada since 1892, so what would it really accomplish? Nothing new. Immigration law and policy already contain provisions addressing polygamous unions, so nothing new is being introduced here.

I know the government has asserted that there are hundreds of polygamists already living in Canada today. If that is a fact, then why is the government not enforcing the existing laws? If it wants to get rid of polygamy in this country, why is it not ensuring that the laws that have existed since 1892 are actually enforced?

Moving on to the topic of honour killings, murder is murder is murder, and it is illegal in this country. This bill would preclude a defendant in a murder trial from arguing that an insult to family honour provoked his or her actions.

Canada's courts are sufficiently equipped to sentence somebody for murder, and that is what we have seen happen in this country when somebody has tried to claim an honour killing. We have seen our courts uphold our laws, sentence the perpetrators of these murders, treat them as murderers, and sentence them to jail time. Therefore, I do not understand why the government is pretending that it is creating a new law here when once again nothing is really changing.

Citing data from the South Asian Legal Clinic's study on forced marriage, the bill also criminalizes forced marriages. However, Bill S-7 ignores SALCO's recommendation, which is to protect families and provide adequate support to vulnerable women. Its experts specifically warned against criminalization, as this would be more destructive than helpful.

I am 100% against anybody being forced into a marriage. However, we have to ensure that we are protecting the women who are already in forced situations. We need to ensure they are given the support to leave in a safe way, and ensure that they are safe and secure in the community they are living in.

I want to read a couple of quotes from the Schlifer Clinic in a report that it issued. It states:

If passed, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, introduced on November 5, 2014, will serve as another example of institutional barriers to marginalized communities reporting violence and having access to support. It will serve as another example of how our government is failing to listen to survivors and targeting racialized communities for exclusion and deportation from Canada.

It continues to state the following:

The Schlifer Clinic has grave concerns about the Act, which would result in the exclusion, deportation and criminalization of families (or of women themselves), which only serves to further harm women experiencing violence.

Therefore, we see from experts on the ground that this bill is not helping women and it is not protecting or supporting them; rather, it would end up doing the opposite.

I said earlier that the first time I read the short title I did not want to say it and that I did not like it. That is because it is xenophobic and reinforces prejudice against certain cultural groups by targeting racial minorities for practices that are found in Canadian society at large today.

I keep coming back to the experts because they are the ones who are doing the research on the ground. Here is a quote from Avvy Yao-Yao Go, who is the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. She states:

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.

Deepa Mattoo, the staff lawyer and acting executive director of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, stated:

Giving it a shock factor name will not eliminate the issue. Instead it will force perpetrators to take this underground, ensuring the victims and potential victims are isolated from any resources. This causes a greater risk to their safety, not to mention their emotional and mental well-being.

That is another example of another expert telling us how the short title of this bill is xenophobic and that the bill as a whole would be more harmful for women in our country.

While I agree that no woman, regardless of her race, citizenship, status, or religion, should be subject to gender-based violence, including the practices of forced marriage or underage marriage, I do not support making women more vulnerable.

I would like to end my remarks by saying that this bill has not had adequate consultation.

As members will notice, I have many more sheets to go in my prepared remarks. However, I will go back to the experts. There is a media release that was sent out by 13 expert organization groups, and I do not have time to name them all. I want to read a small blurb from its introduction.

It states:

The announcements in the tabled Bill perpetuate myths about practices of polygamy and forced marriages while misguiding Canadians to believe that violence against women is a “cultural” issue and happens in only certain communities. The government has blatantly targeted marginalized and racialized communities through the racist framework used in the intent, wording and announcement of this Bill. This inflammatory language and the perpetuation of racist myths is itself an obstacle to understanding the harmful effects of these proposed legislative amendments. As organizations dedicated to advancing the rights of all women, we are painfully aware of the challenges faced by all women in Canada from all walks of life and backgrounds to find a safe and secure home. In that regard, immigrant and racialized women face additional challenges because of their race and/or their precarious immigration status. Contrary to what the government has stated, the proposed legislative changes will not result in greater protection for women victims of domestic violence, but will have the opposite effect.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last time this bill was debated, the members of the official opposition kept saying that the bill would marginalize victims. The truth is that actual victims of these barbaric practices support the bill.

How does the opposition stick to the rhetoric when actual victims are coming up in support of this bill?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, growing up in Canada, I was a victim of domestic violence. I am a survivor of domestic violence, and this barbaric practice happened in Canada by Canadians, not by any foreigner. Therefore, on this barbaric practice, there are many people who are survivors of violence perpetuated against women, everywhere, and not just domestic violence, but violence towards women all across this country. It is a root problem.

It is a systemic problem for women, who continue to face racism, sexism, and all types of discrimination and violence, and that needs to stop. It is the systemic barriers that the current government continues to support that are the problem, and those are the problems that need to go away.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, every society has some form of gender violence. It is very real and tangible.

However, when we take a look at Bill S-7, I listened to the member's comments regarding the number of stakeholders who have taken offence to it.

The Liberal Party has been fairly clear regarding the use of the word “culture”. One would think that the Prime Minister's Office has a special group of individuals who sit around a table creating these names, and they throw in these adjectives. Here we have “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices”. There is no doubt that it is exceptionally offensive to many people that the word “cultural” would be incorporated into the legislation in terms of the short title.

It seems to me in listening to the member that this is more offensive than anything else. However, it seems that there might be some value in certain parts of the legislation.

My question to the member is, if the government were to amend the word “cultural” out of the legislation, would she see any value whatsoever in supporting it?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would support the entire short title being deleted completely. I think that is the best way to fix the title.

Even within the Conservative team, this is what Senator Andreychuk said in a media article about the title:

“...if you wanted barbaric cultural practices, which probably wasn’t going to be my choice, but if you wanted that, I wished you had added something like violence in there...”

I laud Senator Andreychuk for realizing that the root problem here is violence against women and it is prevalent in all societies.

I have worked with Senator Andreychuk on many issues with respect to sexual and reproductive health rights, and I thank her for the work she is doing. The rest of the Conservative team should listen. It is fine if they do not want to listen to experts, but let them at least listen to members in their own caucus and team.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my hon. colleague talk about this important issue, I was wondering if she agrees with me that what we really need are human and financial resources.

One thing is for sure: we need to make sure that we can do things properly when it comes to this issue. I know that her riding must be like mine. We can have an impact on society by investing in resources for organizations, police forces and various front-line actors. That is how we can enable them to tackle the problems we do not really know how to address. The first step is talking to the community and making investments where they are needed. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Québec is exactly right. Instead of a sensationalized bill that does not actually get to the root of the problem, the minister should commit to widespread and meaningful consultations with community groups and experts so that the real issue of gender-based violence is addressed in a meaningful and effective manner.

The government should actually increase its investment in organizations that provide services such as safe and affordable housing, counselling, and support in navigating our very complex systems and services. Immigrating to a new country can be very traumatizing for a young women if this is the first time she has ever left her home country. Ensuring that she has every support she needs in a manner she can comprehend and digest is very important.

I really wish, from the bottom of my heart, that the government would actually take some interest in investing in resources and the agencies that are providing these much-needed services, mostly with volunteers and with very weak budgets.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I would like to take this opportunity to address the comments that have been made in this and other places suggesting that the reform to the defence of provocation is unnecessary in light of three cases of so-called honour killing in which it was unsuccessfully raised.

The defence of provocation, sometimes known as the heat of passion defence, applies only to the charge of murder and comes into play only if murder is actually proven. It does not give rise to complete acquittal but rather produces a verdict of manslaughter instead of murder.

The defence offers significant benefits to an accused. A conviction for second degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison and strict parole ineligibility rules, whereas a manslaughter conviction carries no mandatory minimum sentence, except if a firearm is used, and allows a murderer to avoid the stigma associated with the label.

The defence will be successful where the murder was committed in response to a wrongful act or insult from the victim that would be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control and where the accused acted suddenly, before there was time for his passion to cool. The killing must be a spontaneous reaction to an unexpected provocation.

Most honour killings are believed to be premeditated. If the crown can prove premeditation, resulting in a conviction for first degree murder, the defence of provocation will not succeed. However, some killings that may be characterized as honour killings can be spontaneous reactions to something unexpectedly said or done by the victim.

In cases where the crown prosecutor proves that the killing was intentional but not premeditated, the provocation defence is available.

The defence of provocation has been raised in at least three cases that could be characterized as honour killings. These are R. v. Nahar in 2004, R. v. Humaid in 2006, and R. v. Sadiqi in 2013. All of these reported cases were appealed to the appropriate courts of appeal. In the case of Nahar, it was to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The other two were to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

It is true that in each of these cases, the defence of provocation failed. However, this cannot be taken to have the consequence some have suggested, namely that the defence is now barred in an honour-killing context and that therefore there is no reason to amend the law.

As a general matter, even assuming that a court of appeal determines conclusively that the provocation defence is unavailable in these circumstances, the relevant legal issues have arisen in only two provinces: British Columbia and Ontario. Rulings from one provincial court of appeal are not binding in any other province. Without a ruling on the relevant legal issues from the Supreme Court of Canada, it is simply incorrect to say that the legal questions have been definitely resolved in Canada.

When we come to the substance of what was actually decided by these courts of appeal, a careful reading of these cases shows that the courts did not, as a matter of law, rule out the possibility of the defence operating in situations of honour killings. The defence continues to be available to be raised in cases where family honour has played a role in the killing. For instance, it would be available to an accused who, upon finding his teenage daughter in her bedroom with a boy from school, becomes enraged at this breach of the family's honour code. If he intentionally kills her in the heat of the moment in response to her verbal insults against his cultural traditions and beliefs, he could benefit from the potentially successful defence of provocation.

In the two cases, it was the defence that submitted evidence on the cultural background of the accused to demonstrate how a wrongful act or insult from the victim would give the provocation significance and would have gravity for an ordinary person from the same culture as the accused.

For instance, in Nahar, the accused claimed that he killed his wife in the heat of passion following disrespectful comments from her about men and behaviour such as smoking, drinking, and socializing with men. He introduced evidence that the victim's behaviour was completely at odds with acceptable behaviour for wives in his culture.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal actually found this cultural context to be relevant to understanding how an ordinary person of the same background as the accused would be provoked by the behaviour of the victim.

This may come as a surprise to those who have tried to suggest that all three cases definitively ruled out provocation in an honour-killing context.

This provocation claim failed for different reasons. First, the trial judge had grounds to find that the alleged provocation by the victim was not unexpected to the accused but rather had been going on for several months. In this regard, the killing was on the sudden, following an unexpected provocation. Second, the nature of the provocation by the victim was not found to be such as to cause an ordinary person to lose self control, even assuming that the ordinary person was from the accused's cultural community.

In the Humaid case, the accused alleged that he was provoked by comments his wife made that he interpreted to be an admission of sexual infidelity. The accused led expert opinion evidence that in the accused's cultural tradition, infidelity by a female member of a family was considered a very serious violation of the family's honour and was worthy of harsh punishment by the male members of the family.

The court of appeal expressed the strong view that the application of cultural values that are contrary to gender equality to the defence of provocation was inappropriate. However, this was not the reason the defence failed. One reason the defence failed was that the accused did not introduce any evidence that he personally shared the views his community was said to have. It also failed because the crown had proven premeditation, which is inconsistent with the provocation defence. The views of the court on the question of cultural values were not matters that were necessary to decide the appeal, so they are not binding on lower courts.

Finally, in the Sadiqi case, the accused raised the defence of provocation in the killing of his sister and her fiance by alleging that his sister had refused to seek their father's approval for the proposed wedding and that she and her fiance insulted him in the moments before the murders.

The crown tendered expert evidence of honour killings within the traditional culture of the community of origin of the accused. The jury found the accused guilty of first degree murder. The appeal was about whether the crown's use of expert evidence was appropriate. The court of appeal held that it was. That is the only legal proposition this case stands for.

Despite some helpful discussions on gender equality in these cases, none of the rulings established as a matter of law that the defence is excluded in honour-killing cases. It remains available to be argued by any person accused of murder. The provocation claims failed in these three cases because of the facts and evidence presented and not because of any principle of law.

Taken together, these cases reflect outcomes all Canadians would hope for, but it is purely wishful thinking to say that these cases legally closed the door on the provocation defence in the honour-killing context.

Moreover, there is a long history of the provocation defence being raised and sometimes accepted to excuse spousal murders in Canada in circumstances that closely resemble the Nahar and Humaid cases. The principle difference is that the feelings of dishonour and shame are experienced at the family or community level in the case of honour killings and at the personal or private level in the case of spousal killings. What is the same is that men kill women when they feel that they have lost control over them.

It is high time we amended this defence so that it can no longer mitigate killing in response to a lawful insult. No person has a right to control another, and where people fail to get what they want, they should not have the murder of another person mitigated through a 500-year-old defence that originated in a culture that treated women as the property of their husbands.

This reform is about reaffirming the value of gender equality in Canada and about making it clear that homicidal violence against all women in reaction to lawful conduct will no longer provide an excuse for murder.

Bill S-7 proposes to address this long-standing problem in our criminal law by limiting the defence so that it can only be raised where provoking conduct by the victim amounts to an offence punishable by five years or more in prison.

People should not be able to use the defence that they violently harmed others because they were provoked.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act sends a clear message to those coming to Canada that forced marriage, honour based violence or any other form of harmful cultural practices are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the other week I had the opportunity to put a number of concerns with Bill S-7 on the record. In general, we believe some of the positive things it hopes to achieve are somewhat small in nature in terms of steps forward.

However, I have raised a great deal of concern about the title of the bill. In reflecting on the short title of the bill, could the member explain to the House if the short title could be used in a court of law? If it cannot be used, why does the government feel so passionately that it has to be “as is”, without amendment?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act sends a clear message to those coming to Canada that forced marriage, honour based violence and any other form of harmful cultural practices are unacceptable and will not be tolerated in our Canadian society.

The Government of Canada will continue to ensure it will protect Canadians from the harmful barbaric cultural practices and it will continue to protect Canadians vulnerable to these abuses.

That is why we have the strong context in the title of the bill. It is to show Canadians that this type of behaviour is unacceptable.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very sensitive and complex topic. Obviously, nobody here is in favour of barbaric practices that do not respect freedom. No one is condoning crimes or murders. My wife and I have two daughters, and we would obviously not want them to be forced into marriage.

However, I would like to ask this question: why do the Conservatives systematically use this sort of controversial issue to play politics, divide people and instill fear? The laws that we have are sufficient to prevent people from being forced to marry or from coming up with excuses for murdering someone or throwing acid in someone's face.

I think the Conservatives are just trying to mislead Canadians. This is nothing but demagoguery. This bill is extremely populist and completely unnecessary.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I want to be very clear about is that a murder is a murder.

In Canada any type of legal defence that promotes this type of cultural barrier is unacceptable. It is of the utmost importance that we have to protect the rights of those individuals who come to Canada or reside in Canada.

I come from an RCMP background and I have seen what individuals are capable of doing. Having to go to a crime scene and investigate a murder where cultural practices are being used as a defence is unacceptable. That is why our government is looking at making these changes. As a Conservative government, we are here to defend the rights of Canadians.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member address the issue of marriages between young Canadians in their teens and the laws that do not currently exist but which this bill will now address?

I have received a number of letters and inquiries from my constituents who are surprised to hear that the laws across Canada, by province, are not consistent on this matter. Could he tell us a bit about what other countries have done to remedy this situation, and what the bill would do on that issue?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, countries such as Austria, Australia, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom have 16 as the minimum age, below which no one can marry without parental consent. This is consistent with the proposal in this bill.

Several like-minded countries have set 18 as the age for marriage without additional consent from parents in court, but have no minimum age of marriage. For example, in Belgium, France, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and most of the United States laws are similar to the current law in Canada.

Setting a national minimum age of 16 years for marriage is consistent with the federal legislation that applies only with regard to the province of Quebec, in section 6 of the Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1. It is also consistent with what happens now in Canada, where there are few marriages contracted between individuals under 16. However, some limited exceptions are made for mature minors of 16 and 17 years of age under certain circumstances, for example, where one is pregnant.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Ahuntsic, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Québec, Housing; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Seniors.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to strongly oppose 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, also known as the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

The NDP and I want to emphasize that we are opposed to polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage. These three practices are unacceptable. They target women specifically and go against the freedoms we enjoy here in Canada. That being said, we know that the solution proposed by the Conservatives is not suitable and will not achieve the desired results.

I would like to begin by saying that this bill is incomplete. The requirements that the Conservatives are presenting as new are already present in our existing legislation. What good does it do to duplicate legislation? It is a waste of our time and Canadians'. To be more specific, the requirement of free and enlightened consent is already present in the Quebec Civil Code and in the common law of the other provinces.

Moreover, Canada's Criminal Code contains avenues of remedy tailored to each situation to fight these kinds of marriages. These avenues of remedy can be employed before or after the marriage, which gives victims the opportunity to seek justice. The victims have to know about the avenues, however, and that is where we should be focusing our energy.

I would like to talk more about the many shortcomings of this bill. These deplorable gaps will endanger victims of forced and underage marriage. The bill contains no solutions whatsoever to help immigrant women learn about their rights. These women have virtually no way to defend themselves. Our goal should be to give them the tools they need to navigate our legal system.

The Conservatives are either refusing or do not know how to implement a policy to make the law accessible to everyone, particularly the most vulnerable. One could be forgiven for believing that the government wants to keep them in the dark. How can they protect themselves if they do not know our laws? It is impossible, and that is why the NDP intends to make this information more available and minimize this kind of inequality around awareness of rights that is unfortunately present in Canada.

Another important point that the Conservatives have once again left out is the creation of programs and services to support the victims of forced marriage and polygamy. The bill does not address this aspect at all, despite how important it is. Another shortcoming has to do with the lack of education and mental health support, which will be crucial to protecting children who are victims of human trafficking. These situations unfortunately affect all too many children in this country. How do the Conservatives plan to help children living in high-risk situations if they have no programs in place specifically for such victims?

It is clear that the Conservatives did not do very much research in these areas for this bill. The NDP encourages the government to consult the parties involved and meet with front-line stakeholders and experts in order to really be able to address the problem of forced and underage marriages. This lack of consultation is an alarming reality in the case of many Conservative bills, and we find that very troubling.

I believe that the bill is not only incomplete, but it is also alarming. It is harmful for two main reasons. First, it helps further stigmatize immigrant populations in Canada. We see that in the title: the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill is based on racist prejudices and fuels xenophobia by associating immigration, illegality and barbarism. The NDP fights every day against this simplistic type of view that contributes to excluding immigrant populations. A policy based on fearing the other and rejecting differences is not a policy the NDP wants.

What is more, this bill that claims to protect victims from situations of forced or underage marriage and polygamy in fact risks putting victims in greater jeopardy. By making the law even tougher, the government is discouraging immigrant women from reporting their situation out of fear of then being deported from the country. This bill includes no provision allowing conditional permanent residents to stay in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported. This bill is paradoxical because it isolates the victims and puts them further at risk.

Worse yet, by preventing the reunification of the family in a polygamous situation, the bill contributes to separating children from their mother. Children are once again the primary victims of senseless legal decisions. Minors would be at risk of being criminalized for participating in a forced or underage marriage. A solution based on criminalization is not sound. It discourages victims from reporting this type of situation because of the threat of a criminal record weighing on them or members of their family.

The NDP is prepared to offer solutions to this issue in a culturally appropriate manner. One main focus would be to alter immigration policy in a direction that enables women to be independent.

The NDP is in favour of immigration implementing support services and amending processing times to allow wives and children of men who are to be deported to reside in Canada. This would reduce limitations on their ability to escape unhealthy relationships at the expense of their residency.

This can also serve as a better solution than the conditional permanent residency introduced by the Conservatives in October 2012, which further increases the vulnerability, abuse, and isolation of women and the degree of manipulation they are subjected to in the general state of the issue and by the CPR.

The NDP supports the notion of preventing and responsibly addressing this issue, by implementing programs and listening to experts in the field, as opposed to criminalizing and further marginalizing citizens. The way to address this issue can be seen through our national action plan, which addresses violence against women by examining the root of the issue of violence against women and offering support as opposed to further limitations.

We must put in place a policy that goes to the root of the problem, rather than applying a superficial and sensationalist policy, as proposed by the Conservative government. That is why the NDP is proposing to provide prevention and victim support services. The NDP and I want to support and fund such initiatives as the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, or SALCO, which plans to promote more prevention. This organization offers information sessions for police officers and those in charge of social services. This is a concrete and useful response.

We need a strategy that is appropriate for each situation and not an evasive and useless response like the government's. Instead of tackling the problem of forced or underage marriage or polygamy by passing a law that focuses on criminalizing the victims, the NDP has come up with concrete and insightful solutions. It is proposing to adopt a national plan to combat violence against women that responds to the specific vulnerability of each community. Furthermore, the NDP believes that it is vital to put in place culturally appropriate training for government officials so that they are able to prevent forced marriages. Government officials must be better prepared to fight ignorance in order to protect the victims in these situations.

This bill is yet another example of the Conservatives' habit of introducing legislation that is both ill-suited to the problem and dangerous to Canadians. They are not capable of helping the most vulnerable members of society and they are playing with fire by constantly linking immigration, illegality and insecurity. The serious problem of gender-based violence must be resolved as quickly as possible, but it must be done effectively. Only the NDP truly understands the true implications.

In conclusion, I want to share the story of a case in my riding. In 2012 I helped a woman, Ms. Hernandez, who was the victim of domestic violence. She had started her immigration process and was therefore not yet a Canadian resident. She had been threatened with deportation because she had reported domestic abuse against her and her child. It took me several weeks, it took a number of protests, in particular one on International Women's Day last year, and it took the the help of the media and of groups like Solidarity Across Borders to ensure that Ms. Hernandez was able to remain in Canada.

Women in these types of situations are very vulnerable. It is dangerous for them. Women and children cannot live their lives in limbo. These people should not have to wonder whether they can remain in Canada or whether they will be deported.

That is why I am opposed to this bill. I think all Canadians agree with us and I hope that every member of Parliament will oppose this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in short, I would have to agree to disagree on a couple of the points that the member has brought forward. I have been focusing a lot of attention on the name and title of the bill and suggesting that the short name of the bill should be amended to better reflect what Canadians would find more acceptable.

There are areas in which the legislation attempts to improve upon the system, albeit in a very small fashion. Is the member aware of some of the stakeholder groups that have been brought to her attention that are in opposition to the legislation, outside of the short title? If so, could the member give us specifics as to what part of the legislation offends them?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I wish I could have talked about that, but as many of my colleagues mentioned, we are unfortunately under time allocation once again, which means we have less time to speak.

I would like to quote Hannana Siddiqui, head of policy and research for Southall Black Sisters, who talked about criminalization:

The problem for us was that we worked directly with survivors and victims. A lot of them are girls and young women who say to us, “I do want protection from the police, but I don't want to prosecute my parents or my family. I don't want to see them go to jail.” They clearly said that if they went to the police and they were going to prosecute, then they would withdraw their charges; they would not cooperate or would not even go to the police in the first place.

Criminalization is therefore a problem. The government is always trying to make laws tougher instead of trying to do prevention. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That means it is our responsibility to help prevent these crimes against women, to inform them about their rights and to help them navigate our legal system.

I work with women's groups in my riding in west Montreal, and that is exactly the problem I see there. We have to help them with existing laws. Criminalization does not solve existing problems.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

The Conservatives are caught up in wishful thinking. Unfortunately, Bill S-7 is another example of a heavy-handed bill that attempts to solve a problem in a way that has not been validated by the experiences of other countries.

The Danes tried this. They passed legislation in 2008, if I am not mistaken, banning forced marriage, but not a single arrest has been made. A Danish national organization for refugee women even said that the legislation passed in Denmark made the problem even worse by forcing women into secrecy.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am not familiar with that Danish organization, but as I mentioned earlier in my speech, criminalizing this aspect will increase feelings of isolation among these women. They will feel as though they have fewer avenues of recourse, because they will be afraid of the consequences of criminalization.

Naila Butt, executive director of the Social Services Network, had this to say:

Criminalization of forced marriage, without the much needed institutional support for victims, would only further alienate and harm those facing forced marriage and gender-based violence, with the added insult of being stigmatized that they come from barbaric cultures.

As I mentioned, this is a racist bill that will isolate women, not help them. The bill does not give them any tools to get out of those situations. Everyone here agrees that these are terrible situations that should not exist, and this bill does nothing to improve things.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill S-7, the 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.

In the Speech from the Throne in October 2013, our government promised it would ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada would become a victim of any cruel practice that violates basic human rights. Such practices are not acceptable on Canadian soil. Bill S-7 would send this clear message to all Canadians and those coming to Canada.

Bill S-7 would deliver on that promise. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act would demonstrate that Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to early and forced marriage, polygamy, and other types of barbaric cultural practices. Canada will not tolerate violence against women or girls, including spousal abuse and violence in the name of so-called honour. Those found guilty of these crimes will be severely punished under Canada's criminal law.

This bill would establish a national minimum age of 16 for marriage in the Civil Marriage Act. Currently, a minimum age of 16 for marriage exists only in federal legislation pertaining to Quebec. It has never been legislated for the rest of Canada. As a result, the common law applies, which is usually interpreted as a minimum age of 14 for boys and 12 for girls. This bill would set 16 as the minimum age for marriages across Canada, consistent with current practices in countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Civil Marriage Act would also be amended to codify the legal requirements for free and enlightened consent to marriage. Currently the legal requirements for free and enlightened consent for marriage and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another are legislated in Quebec. Consent is the most critical aspect of a lawful marriage. This amendment would make it clear that no Canadian should ever be forced to marry against their will.

Amendments to the Criminal Code are proposed to provide protection against early or forced marriage, prevent victims from being removed from Canada, and effectively punish perpetrators for violating Canadian laws. The proposed amendments in Bill S-7 are very important because they create offences that specifically address the social harm caused by the public sanctioning of these harmful practices.

More so, the bill proposes two new offences that would extend criminal liability to anyone who knowingly celebrates, aids, or participates in a marriage ceremony in which one or both of the spouses is either under the age of 16 or is marrying against his or her will. This would cover both those who conduct the marriage ceremony and those, such as family members, who have full knowledge that a marriage is forced or involves a child under 16 and actively aids the marriage ceremony taking place. This would include, for example, transporting an unwilling bride to the ceremony or acting as a legal witness.

It is important to note that a person could not be prosecuted for merely being at the scene of a crime and witnessing it; a person would need to have engaged in some conduct specifically directed toward helping an early or forced marriage to occur.

The bill also proposes to make it an offence to remove a child from Canada for the purpose of a forced or underage marriage outside the country. This government is aware of the very disturbing stories of Canadian children being taken abroad for a forced or early marriage. They are told that they are going overseas to a relative's wedding, only to discover upon arrival that the wedding ceremony is, in fact, their own.

Child protection officials who believe that the child will be removed from Canada for a forced or underage marriage lack the requisite legal tools to intervene and to prevent the child's removal from Canada. This bill would change that by adding new offences related to an underage or forced marriage ceremony to the list of offences in the provision that makes it a crime to remove a child from Canada.

The Criminal Code amendments provide a foundation for the very important prevention measures in Bill S-7 to protect vulnerable Canadians and residents from early and forced marriages. The bill proposes to introduce specific forced or underage marriage peace bonds.

Peace bonds, which are preventive court orders, currently exist in the Criminal Code and are available in circumstances when a person fears, on reasonable grounds, that another person will cause them personal injury or will commit certain types of offences. Amendments would provide courts with the power to impose conditions on an individual when there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 will otherwise occur. For example, an order under the new peace bond provisions would prevent a victim from being taken out of Canada and would require the surrender of a passport.

We have heard that many victims of forced marriages are reluctant to contact the authorities prior to the marriage because they do not want their parents or other relatives prosecuted. These peace bonds are an important option available to victims of forced marriages who might be reluctant to contact the authorities prior to marriage because they do not want their parents or other relatives prosecuted. These peace bonds would also reinforce the clear message that forced and underage marriages will not be tolerated in Canada.

Another important measure in Bill S-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to limit the defence of provocation so that it would not be available in so-called honour-based killings or many spousal homicide cases. The defence of provocation can currently be raised by a person who is found to have committed murder on the basis that a wrongful act or insult by the victim was sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control, causing them to act suddenly, before there was time for their passions to cool. If successful, even though the person is found to have committed a murder, they are instead convicted of manslaughter.

This bill 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. It would only be available when the victim's conduct amounted to a relatively serious criminal offence.

It is an important amendment because, as a society, we need to send a clear signal that murder should not be excused because the killer was insulted or embarrassed or suffered some other emotional upset. The strongest penalties should be imposed for murder committed because a person was unable to control the actions and decisions of another person.

Finally, Bill S-7 addresses polygamy and reinforces the message that it is a practice that is an affront to Canadian values. Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would specify that a permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on the grounds of practising polygamy in Canada. It would allow for the removal of non-citizens who practice polygamy in Canada without the need for a Criminal Code conviction.

I am very proud that the government is sending a strong message to Canadian society and to the world that Canada will not tolerate barbaric cultural practices. I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting Bill S-7.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would ask the member the same question that I asked the previous member regarding the legislation.

As the member is no doubt aware, we have been talking a lot about the short title. From the member's perspective, can the short title actually be used in a court of law as an argument for or against any of the measures that are taking place? If the answer to that is no, why would the government not be open to receiving an amendment that would make the legislation less offensive to many of the different stakeholders and Canadians who are quite concerned, particularly about the use of the word “cultural” in the short title?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that we are spending so much time and focus on the title and not on the substance of the bill.

The bill is at second reading. It will go to committee, where there will be an opportunity for further discussion and debate. I would suggest that we should actually focus on what the bill is about.

It is about practices that I think, wherever members sit in this House, we have to consider barbaric. They are. What does “honour killing” mean? Are people going to kill their daughters because they did something that is considered unacceptable on cultural or religious grounds? Practices that include violence against women and girls or domestic violence are barbaric practices that are not allowed in this country.

This country accepts people from all corners of the world. Those people should know, and are informed, that some of the practices or actions that are legal in the country they come from are not legal here—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Our time on the five minutes is starting to wane. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all NDP members will obviously oppose this bill. It is problematic because instead of trying to find a solution to the problem of forced marriage and the resulting abuse, the bill is merely punitive or tends to take a punitive approach. The Criminal Code already contains all the legislative tools we need to sentence someone who, for example, abuses his spouse or confines her.

I would like my colleague to explain what more this bill will actually contribute, given that the courts and police services are already very well equipped to address the problem. We heard from Canadian organizations and international stakeholders that instead of solving this problem, the bill will even drive many women underground, forcing them to remain in the shadows and suffer their plight in silence.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really understand the logic here. How is this bill going to drive women underground?

The bill contains preventive measures to help women to deal with barbaric, terrible practices. Is it ideal? Probably not. Nothing is perfect in life. Therefore, it probably could be perfected or made better, but its aim is to help people who come to this country.

I go and meet with organizations in my riding that provide settlement services that help women who come from different countries to understand that in this country they have rights and are protected, and that restrictions that they may have faced in the country they came from do not exist here.

This is something that is happening on the ground. It is financed by CIC. It is financed by Status of Women. It is going on. Is it easy? No, it is not, but this has to continue. We have to inform those people who come here to start a new life in this country. They have to be informed of our regulations and of their power—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill S-7. This bill contains measures to better protect women and girls in our country.

With this bill, our government is fulfilling a commitment made in the Speech from the Throne in October 2013. That commitment is to ensure that early and forced marriage and other harmful cultural practices, such as polygamist marriages and so-called honour-based violence, do not take place on Canadian soil. We see these activities as absolutely incompatible with Canadian values.

Today I would like to speak to the bill's proposed amendment to the provocation defence. I would like to address a number of misconceptions that have been expressed during debate on this bill.

A person who is found to have committed murder can raise the defence of provocation. They can raise, as a defence, that they killed the victim in the “heat of passion” brought on by “a wrongful act or insult” from the victim. The provocation, they can claim, would be sufficient to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control.

Much has been made of the fact that the defence has failed where it has been raised in the context of honour killings. While this may be the case to date, there is nothing preventing a court from accepting it in the future, and we would like to make sure that does not happen.

The defence has already been raised in at least three honour-killing prosecutions in Canada. The alleged provoking conduct in these cases was real or perceived marital infidelity and other conduct by the victim that the offender perceived as disrespectful or defiant toward them or their families. The particular three claims I mentioned failed owing to the inadequacy of supporting evidence in these cases.

The proposed amendment in Bill S-7 would modernize the defence. Under the bill, the defence of provocation would only be available to an accused found guilty of murder where the conduct of the victim that provoked the accused to kill amounted to a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of at least five years. In other words, it would be a serious offence. The reform would limit the defence so that it would no longer excuse murder where the provoking conduct of the victim was lawful.

In the Senate debates on this bill, some suggested that the defence of provocation is a long-standing and sound principle of criminal law that is operating in conformity with Canadian values and should not be changed. It was also suggested that the proposed reform would limit the defence to match.

Therefore, the question for us as legislators is whether modern Canadian values do in fact support showing compassion and leniency to those who kill in response to something they find insulting or offensive. I do not believe they do.

It is a different matter if the provoking behaviour is objectively serious and unacceptable, such as criminal conduct. The defence would still be permitted when the provocation was a physical assault or threat or some other serious form of criminality.

I think it is very important to understand the history of the provocation defence. We should also look at countries that share our common law tradition and at their experiences with this defence.

Historically, the defence of provocation emerged in the common law around the 16th century. Initially it was limited to certain categories of conduct, all related to men defending their honour, such as a spontaneous fight or an arranged duel. This also included what a man might do on finding another man committing adultery with his wife.

In the early common law, let us remember that a man's wife was his legal property. The initial provocation defence reflected this social and legal reality of the day, namely that adultery was “the highest invasion of property”, as per the Mawgridge case in 1707.

Therefore, a man who killed in response to adultery was considered less blameworthy. It may surprise some members to learn that in the history of our own common-law tradition the provocation defence was the original honour defence.

However, at some point in its history, the honour-related basis for provocation was replaced with the idea that the law should make some allowance for “human frailty”, where a person is provoked beyond the ability to exercise self-control. The specific categories of provoking conduct were eliminated and the provocation defence was made available more generally and broadly. The defence would succeed where a person killed after having lost self-control as a result of any kind of wrongful act or insult by the victim, so long as an ordinary person could also have been provoked to lose his or her self-control in the same circumstances even though not necessarily to the point of killing. This is the form of the provocation defence that was incorporated into Canadian law in the 1800s, and it remains unchanged today.

However, the use of this defence in the cases of so-called honour killings flies in the face of freedom of expression, a cornerstone of a free and democratic society. In order to protect freedom of expression, there is no room to make allowances for intentional killings on the basis of insult or offence. Allowing the provocation defence to be invoked in response to mere insults or offensive conduct is inconsistent with core Canadian values of freedom of expression, liberty and gender equality.

Both internationally and domestically, the provocation defence has been the subject of similar criticisms from a range of quarters in recent years. The Supreme Court of Canada has referred to these criticisms in some of its rulings, stating that only Parliament can address these concerns.

Many point out that the historic origins of the defence still operate to excuse male proprietary or possessory claims over women. This is clearly at odds with our modern values of gender equality and personal autonomy and freedom.

In the past decade, the legislatures of most jurisdictions with a common-law history similar to ours have acted to address some of these concerns. New Zealand and several Australian states have entirely abolished the defence. Most other Australian states have restricted the defence in some measure, as has the United Kingdom. Just last year, the Australian state of New South Wales reformed its provocation defence, including by limiting its scope to provoking conduct that would be a relatively serious criminal offence. This is the same approach proposed in Bill S-7.

Another question that was asked in the Senate was whether the proposed amendment would have the unintended consequence of taking a viable defence away from battered women who kill their abusers, but this is another misperception. In Canada, the provocation defence is rarely raised in these circumstances, but could still be raised if the woman was treated with criminal activity such as assaults or threats.

There are two primary objectives in this bill: the first to prevent the defence from being raised in the future before it is ever accepted by a court or a jury; and the second to modernize the defence more generally, so that it can no longer be used to excuse spousal homicides based on lawful conduct.

The time has come for Canada to bring our law of provocation out of the 17th century and align it with our modern values. Our women and girls deserve nothing less. I hope that all members will support this proposal and all of Bill S-7.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

She ended her speech by talking about limiting the provocation defence in order to prohibit crimes of honour. This notorious provocation defence is problematic.

I would like my colleague to explain why this bill would simply limit this defence and not abolish it outright in all such cases that could arise.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have chosen not to do that. We believe, in the case of the provocation defence, that where an individual, a Canadian, is threatened, has been criminally assaulted and takes measures to protect himself or herself, this is a reasonable course of action in those cases.

The member will remember that the government passed an act to give lawful protection to people who are threatened, for example, by a home invasion where they may be beaten or tied up and somehow find a way to overpower their attackers, perhaps causing the death of the attacker. Any reasonable society feels that kind of provocation, when it is met with force, sometimes has to be found lawful.

However, in the case of simply an insult or something that another person finds offensive, that is not a legitimate use of the defence, and that is why we are moving to change that.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I do not believe there is any such thing as an honour killing. I think all killings are criminal, and we need to look at them through that lens.

When I had the opportunity to speak to the bill when it was last before the House, I was able to tell the House a little bit about my visit to England last summer where I participated in the Girl Summit that was hosted by Prime Minister David Cameron. There were women from all around the world. There were men from all around the world who were there to discuss the very issues that we are discussing today.

Great Britain has realized that it has its own challenge with early and forced marriage, and it is particularly dealing with that issue.

While I was there I listened to Malala's father, who spoke very eloquently about the issues relating to girls. I wrote down his quote, and I wonder if my colleague might have some thoughts that she could share with the House. He said, “We should work on tomorrow's fathers. Why should I be a different father to my daughter than I am to my son?”

Does my colleague have any thoughts on how we can work with a new generation of young men particularly here in Canada and impress on them the value of girls?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the tremendous work she is doing, a lot of it under the radar, to really support measures that foster and that affirm the equality of all, regardless of gender. This is such an important message.

Sadly, in many places of the world, there is still the idea that women and girls have no value, that they are simply chattels to be used and abused as males in the society feel appropriate.

As Canadians we are so fortunate to live in a society where that kind of discrimination is completely rejected. That is why we brought forward the bill, so that as circumstances come to our attention, as society grapples with some of these things such as honour killings and forced marriages, we have the tools to stop it in its tracks and protect Canadian society as a place where women are treated with dignity, respect and the equality that we believe in so passionately.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to bring some clarity to such a sensitive debate, while the government and the majority are actively causing confusion.

I want to begin by reaffirming my unwavering opposition to polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage. As it happens, I have met with women who are victims of these practices. I do not have harsh enough words to condemn such violence and how it undermines women's dignity. These are practices I have fought against my entire life.

As a member of Parliament, I would be pleased to support any bill that would provide more protection for the victims or help prevent these crimes. However, Bill S-7 just confirms the government's ongoing trend. In March 2012, the Conservatives introduced new legislative measures regarding spousal relationships whereby the sponsored person must live with their sponsor for a period of two years. These measures include a penalty of deportation or a criminal charge if this condition is not met by the sponsored person. I want to remind hon. members that this provision was harshly criticized, and rightly so. Sponsored women who are victims of spousal abuse have no choice but to suffer the violence under threat of deportation. We see how compassionate the Conservatives can be. In April 2014, the hon. member for Mississauga South moved Motion No. 505 to supposedly deal with forced marriages through proxy marriages. I strongly opposed that motion at the time. I am opposing Bill S-7 for the same reasons.

With these various measures, the government is causing confusion and perpetuating xenophobic stereotypes. The increasing number of laws that associate cultural practices with violence against women shows that the government is willing to exploit this tendency in a thinly veiled attempt to win votes. The bill title alone, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, shamefully equates violence against women with certain cultural communities. This is a disgraceful way of doing things. It is ethnocentric and promotes the mistaken idea that violence against women occurs only within cultural minorities. The government is targeting racial minorities by perpetuating offensive stereotypes rather than introducing constructive measures to prevent violence against women.

This bill, like the other legislative measures I mentioned, is not only shameful, it will be ineffective. It will not solve the problems it claims to address since the Criminal Code, specifically sections 273.3 and 292, already provides recourse for the offences created in this bill. What is worse, as in the previous examples, this bill politicizes the issue of sexual violence, and the criminal offences it proposes will only exacerbate the problem. The fight against violence against women begins on the ground. In order to win that fight, we must work with all of the partners available, including those in cultural communities, in order to develop and implement a preventive approach. The bill title alone is a major obstacle to establishing such partnerships with people that this government considers “barbaric”.

Beyond the matter of the title, some aspects of this bill jeopardize the safety of women and undermine efforts to combat violence against them. Bill S-7 would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to supposedly help combat polygamy. The fact that, under the bill, the mere suspicion of polygamy can result in inadmissibility to Canada or removal orders will have serious repercussions for women.

The testimony of Avvy Yao-Yao Go, the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, during the Senate committee's study was particularly enlightening:

The bill seeks to deport people who are engaged in polygamy, and that would include the very women that the government claims it's trying to protect.

With respect to forced marriages, the measure providing for a prison sentence for anyone involved could prevent potential witnesses from speaking out.

I strongly believe that the criminalization provisions will be counterproductive. The government should opt to take the constructive method proposed by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard in Motion No. 503 on forced marriage. This motion called on the government to increase funding to organizations working with potential or actual victims.

The organizations working on the ground, which do unbelievable work, have too few material resources. This causes some serious problems, especially when it comes to getting victims to speak out against the practices that victimize them. The government cannot simply punish people. It needs to give organizations in this field the means to protect victims and prevent these crimes.

We would also like to see a consultation process involving women, communities, organizations and experts to form a true picture of the issue and identify the best ways to address it.

I am astounded that the government is refusing to work with the people involved on the ground and to take the necessary measures to accurately quantify this phenomenon.

Other countries have already studied this issue and implemented measures, and we think we should follow their example. The United Kingdom has adopted a method that allows victims to choose between a civil process and a criminal process in the event of prosecution. Giving victims that power can give them the confidence they need to get help and report an individual without necessarily sending family members to jail. What happened in Denmark is also interesting, but for exactly the opposite reason. In 2008, Denmark introduced criminal offences similar to those set out in Bill S-7. In the seven years since, not one criminal has been brought to justice. This shows that Bill S-7's criminalization approach hurts victims by preventing them from reporting crimes.

Our primary objective should be to fight violence against women and help victims, not hurt them, which is what Bill S-7 could end up doing. We need to put an immediate stop to this stigmatizing rhetoric and adopt the proactive approach outlined in my colleague's Motion No. 503.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of thoughts come to mind in regard to the government's approach to this legislation.

One of the issues is that member after member from the Conservative Party will talk about how appalled they are at violence against women, domestic abuse and so forth. However, I could talk at great length about other areas where we could be investing much more of our time here in the House. For example, members of opposition parties have been calling for a public inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls for a long time now. They are now joined by mayors, premiers, and many different stakeholders from coast to coast to coast on the issue.

When we look at the bill, the government has obviously made it a very high priority, yet it seems to take very small steps in two or three areas.

The part that seems to be most controversial is the name itself. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on this question. If the government were to accept an amendment to change the name of the legislation, would the NDP be more open to supporting the legislation?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague for his question and for reminding everyone that the NDP has been calling on this government to launch an inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. Indeed, we need to bring in legislation or even a motion to really help women who are victims of violence of any kind. We are not here to criminalize them or further victimize them. Clearly, Bill S-7 has no place here. I urge all members of the House to oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, they say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The government claims to be a good administrator. However, if we look at just the administrative side of this bill, it seems to me that prevention measures would be better than punitive measures.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that, from a purely administrative point of view?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very good question.

Of course, from a purely administrative point of view, we are well aware of all the positive effects of prevention. Likewise, when we create prevention programs, we must inform and educate the people concerned.

In a society that claims to be evolved and civilized, it is high time we began with prevention, which should be at the heart of all our policy decisions.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to my colleague's speech, I would like to reiterate the importance of avoiding extreme positions.

In any political position, it is important to reflect Canada and be nuanced and balanced. We must not be on either end of the spectrum.

Just by introducing this bill, the government is trying to influence people or scare them, not through the content of the bill, but by exploiting certain prejudices. I invite all the members of the House to be careful and avoid extremes.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks.

In closing, I would like to quote Claude Lévi-Strauss:

The barbarian is, first and foremost, the man who believes in barbarism.

Believing in barbarism is to divide humanity into the “civilized” and the “savages”.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. The bill strengthens Canada's commitment to preventing and responding to early and forced marriage, and other barbaric cultural practices both at home and abroad.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I am pleased to see that our government is taking action in protecting young women and girls. Last year, the committee undertook a study, “Strengthening the Protection of Women In Our Immigration System”, and I am pleased to see that some of the recommendations and comments from witnesses were taken into account when creating the bill.

I am proud to say that Canada has made ending child, early, and forced marriages a priority. In October 2013, Canada announced $5 million in new money to address the causes and consequences of early and forced marriages around the world. These funds were used for programs in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Somalia, and Zimbabwe. More recently, in July 2014, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada is contributing $20 million over two years to UNICEF toward ending child, early, and forced marriage. The UNICEF project aims to accelerate the movement to end child marriage in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Yemen, and Zambia by supporting efforts in these countries to strengthen both programming and political support to end the practice.

Canada also played an important role in bringing world attention and action to this issue of child, early, and forced marriage, through actions such as spearheading the initiative to establish the International Day of the Girl Child, and co-leading with Zambia a United Nations General Assembly resolution on child, early, and forced marriage.

These barbaric practices predominantly affect women and girls and impair their rights and ability to fully participate in society. Equality of men and women under the law is a fundamental Canadian value that shapes Canadian policy and actions both in the international and domestic areas. Free and healthy societies require the full participation of women. Sadly, in many countries around the world, millions of women and girls continue to be prevented from full participation because of violence, including through inhumane practices of early and forced marriage.

It is both the reality and the strength of our country that Canadians of very different origins live and work side by side together. New Canadians work hard to learn our languages, our values, and our traditions, and in turn are welcome as equal members of the Canadian family. The languages, cultures, and traditions of new Canadians add to the diversity of Canada, which enriches our lives. At the same time, harmful cultural practices that go against Canadian values and are in violation of Canada's international human rights commitments will not be tolerated in Canada.

Our government is aware of the cases of Canadian children being taken abroad for early forced marriage. Canada is committed to protecting and defending those who are vulnerable to these practices, both domestically and internationally.

This summer, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration participated in several consultations on these issues across the country. Participants told the minister that early and forced marriages are still a harsh reality in Canada.

Our Conservative government has demonstrated its leadership in this area by introducing the bill and also continuing to work with our international partners and community members to find ways to end such harmful practices, which tragically are happening each and every day around the world.

Bill S-7 will strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 years. Currently, only in Quebec is the minimum age of marriage set at 16 years. This is because specific federal laws apply only in Quebec. In other parts of Canada, the common law applies. The bill will now set 16 years as the minimum age for marriage across Canada. Some may query why the bill has not raised the minimum age to marry to the age of 18.

The approach in the bill seeks to balance the protections for children against flexibility to reflect the choices of mature minors between the ages of 16 and 18 who make a commitment to one another, such as those who have a child together. It also aligns with the approaches taken in other like-minded countries.

Bill S-7 also contains measures that would amend the Criminal Code to criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies by knowingly officiating or knowingly and actively participating at an underage or forced marriage. For example, these offences may apply to individuals who engage in conduct specifically intended to facilitate the marriage ceremony, such as acting as a legal witness, knowing that one of the parties is under the age of 16 or marrying against their will. These proposed new offences will be punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment.

Proposed amendments will also criminalize removing a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage. This is done by adding the new offences in relation to underage and forced marriage in the existing offence of removing a child from Canada to commit female genital mutilation or sexual offences. This offence is punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment. Bill S-7 maintains this penalty. Countries such as Australia and Norway have similar criminal measures which Canada has looked to in the development of this bill.

Other proposed amendments in this bill are prevention measures that will provide courts with the authority to issue peace bonds and conditions on an individual when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a forced marriage or an underage marriage will otherwise occur. As part of the conditions that would be available, a court could order a defendant to avoid making any plans or arrangements for a marriage, whether inside or outside Canada, to surrender travel documents or to participate in a family violence counselling program.

The creation of specific forced or underage marriage peace bonds to prevent someone from being taken abroad for the purposes of early or forced marriage is similar to forced marriage civil protection orders in the United Kingdom. In addition, Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that the defence of provocation would not apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides. Currently, any conduct by the victim, including insults and other forms of offensive behaviour that are lawful, can potentially qualify as provocation if it is found to be sufficient to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control, the accused was not expecting it and the killing was sudden.

The proposed amendment will limit the defence of provocation so that lawful conduct by the victim that might be perceived by the accused as an insult, or offend that person or their sense of family honour or reputation, cannot excuse murder. Only conduct by the victim that amounts to a relatively serious criminal offence, such as an offence under the Criminal Code punishable by at least five years in prison, could be argued to be provocation for the purposes of the defence.

The provocation defence has either been abolished or restricted in almost every common law jurisdiction like Canada, such as most Australian states, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Finally, to better prevent polygamy from occurring on Canadian soil, Bill S-7 would create a new ground of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for practising polygamy. A criminal conviction or finding of misrepresentation is currently required before polygamists can be found inadmissible.

The bill would make amendments to the IRPA so polygamist permanent residents or foreign nationals who are or will be physically present in Canada with any of their spouses would be considered to be practising polygamy in Canada. The permanent resident or foreign national could be found inadmissible on that basis alone, without requiring evidence that the person misrepresented their situation or has a criminal conviction.

I have discussed some of the very important aspects of this bill, which sends a strong message that Canada condemns barbaric cultural practices not only domestically but internationally as well.

Canada has and will continue to be seen as an independent leader on these important international rights. While the opposition refuses to even call these practices “barbaric”, it is clear that our government is taking action to prevent these barbaric practices from occurring on Canadian soil.

I hope all hon. members of the House will support this important legislation that will protect victims, predominately women and girls, from such intolerable and inhumane practices.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and we must admit that his main point is rather absurd.

The short title of this bill, which seeks to eliminate barbaric cultural practices, is obviously offensive. It is tinged with racism. Furthermore, we might ask why the Conservatives are trying to use this type of title and this type of bill. It is probably for election purposes. While we are at it, we could debate other barbaric practices. Perhaps we could discuss torture or the use of information obtained by torture.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of torture, for example. Is that a barbaric practice?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the NDP does not get it. This is very simple. For the purposes of this initiative, the term “barbaric cultural practices” encompasses forms of gender-based family violence, early, forced and polygamous marriage, female genital mutilation and honour based violence. There is nothing racist about that. It is very simple, and I do not understand why the NDP is against the measures that we would put in place to stem these practices.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I can provide some clarity for the member. There is the content of the legislation itself, which deals with polygamy, forced marriage and early marriage by setting a minimum age. It also deals in part with some domestic violence issues.

We then have the short title, which has offended a great number of people for a wide variety of reasons. It is not understood why the Prime Minister's Office has determined that we have to incorporate the word “cultural” into the short title. Ultimately, it would not have any bearing on the legislation when the courts of Canada deal with it. They do not look at the short title of a bill and say that they have to use it as part of their interpretation in a disposition.

The government seems to want to make a political statement. The connotation of that political statement in the eyes of many, especially stakeholders and others, including myself, is that there is a racial component to it.

Why incorporate the word “cultural”? I am not interested in what the Prime Minister's Office has to say. I have heard a lot of the rebuttal coming from the Prime Minister's Office. I am interested in the member's personal opinion on that issue.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the title, “cultural” does not refer to any one individual culture. In fact, many of the issues that we are concerned about are clearly present in a number of different cultures. A number of people who have been accused of these horrible and barbaric practices tell the courts how they treat women or how they treat their daughters as part of their culture. It is important to point out exactly what this is.

Furthermore, this question comes from a member whose party leader does not want to call these practices “barbaric”. We say exactly what they are. They are barbaric cultural practices and they have no place in Canada.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, which has a rather odd title. We are debating the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

I listened to several colleagues on the opposite side of the House, and also on this side, talk about the title. We are talking about the title because the government clearly intends to start this debate in a rather extreme way. The government is generalizing. That has been the trend recently with the government and the Prime Minister. We also heard several Conservative members attack a culture or a cultural community that has already been targeted by a great deal of generalization. The Conservatives clearly intend to breed a culture of fear, whether through the debate in the House on what will happen with Canada's intervention in Iraq or through its practice of pigeonholing certain communities.

As a member of a cultural community myself, I believe that the government is intentionally seeking to divide people with its approach. The government wants to tackle this issue. We see that. Obviously, the Conservatives came up with a certain directive so that they could go back to their ridings, go on the radio and tell women to go back where they came from if they do not like how things are done in Canada. Unfortunately, that is what the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did. I am a member of that committee.

To come back to the debate we are having today on Bill S-7, let us be clear: the NDP is against forced marriage, underage marriage and polygamy. These issues are clear. Despite the rhetoric that we are hearing from the other side of the House, I think everyone here and all Canadians agree on these issues.

However, the government's level of debate is somewhat shameful. I am talking about form. With regard to the substance of the debate, when we listen to the Conservatives speak, we hear a bit about the main objective. However, the problem is the same as it is with many bills. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a short time and I saw Conservative bills that created criminal offences. When it comes to criminalization, the Conservatives' motto is law and order. As a result, they are making everything a crime. They are going to put people in prison. They are going to build megaprisons and that is how they are going to solve society's problems. Unfortunately, that is a very dogmatic approach that is so typical of the Conservatives. It really is their way of doing things. However, the problem with that is that they do not think about the people who will be affected.

In this particular case, when we talk about forced marriage, for example, we are talking about women and children, who are the most likely victims. They will technically be victims of the Conservatives' bill. That is why I will explain why I oppose this bill. The government comes in with a sledgehammer and says that we will throw people in prison without looking at the facts or listening to stakeholders. The government makes a broad generalization and then says that this is the solution. The government has no data on forced marriages, and we have no statistics to know what is going on in Canada. What is really happening?

As sensible legislators, we must look at what other countries are doing. I want to cite one of the examples given today, which I will continue to reference. If we look at what happens in Denmark, for example, we can see that a bill somewhat similar to the government's bill was passed in 2008, if I am not mistaken. Since then, not a single charge has been laid and there has been no meaningful impact.

Once again, the government has come to us with a bill that claims to change everything and fix everything, but in reality it does not address a real problem. Let me clarify. I am not saying that the situation is not a problem. I agree that forced marriages are a problem and that we are against them. However, the government's reaction is excessive. I am not defending the practice. I am simply thinking about the victims.

They want to deport or imprison people who practice polygamy, but that would victimize the women and children. The fact is that most of the people who practice polygamy are men, but the women, who do not always know it, end up suffering the consequences of this crime. Basically, I am worried about these children and these women.

Some of the measures in this bill are already in the Criminal Code. For example, we know that polygamy is not allowed in Canada, and that makes sense. The same applies to forced marriages.

The NDP is opposed to the government's approach because we have a different philosophy: prevention. It is not right to make such practices a crime without considering the consequences for families, women and children. We think prevention should come first. That is why I am so proud of Motion No. 563, which was moved by my colleague, our immigration critic. This motion outlines all of the measures we need to take. Here it is:

That, in the opinion of the House, forced marriages are a crime that constitutes violence against women and consequently, the government should: (a) strongly condemn the practice; (b) increase funding to organizations working with potential or actual victims; (c) consult with women, communities, organizations, and experts to form a true picture of the issue and to identify the best ways to address it; (d) allow women with conditional permanent resident status to remain in Canada if their partners are deported due to polygamy or forced marriage; (e) invest in information programs tailored to immigrant women; (f) develop culturally appropriate training programs for service providers dealing with immigrant women such as the police and social workers, as well as officers of the Canada Border Service Agency and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; (g) restore funding to Status of Women Canada; and (h) implement the NDP’s national plan for a strategy to address violence against women.

I am proud of this motion moved by my colleague, our immigration critic, because it clearly explains our vision and our proposal. At the risk of repeating myself, the Conservatives favour criminalization while ignoring the consequences and without any prevention measures. When we talk about criminalization, it is all about a deed already done. It is about introducing punitive measures and putting people in prison.

We in the NDP believe in investing in prevention and education. It is not through bills with titles that include terms like “barbaric cultural practices”—and so many other Conservative bills—that we will promote dialogue and education. On the contrary, this shows a certain closed-mindedness.

I am not saying that the practices targeted by this bill are acceptable. On the contrary, they are completely unacceptable. However, as an elected member, it saddens me to hear the Prime Minister, some members and even ministers say things that make an entire cultural community in our society feel like it is under attack. This is not coming from me. Unfortunately, the Conservative government clearly had every intention of attacking certain cultural communities for purely partisan political purposes. It is troubling.

For that reason, and all the other reasons I mentioned earlier, I will be opposing this bill at second reading. The government should listen to what the opposition has to say, consult the experts and, above all, do its homework so that it really understands the consequences of its actions for the people it is trying to protect.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments of my colleague. The member opposite does not quite understand that we are not targeting one culture or one cultural community, but those who use their culture as an excuse when practising these barbaric acts. People come to Canada to participate in a shared value, and these barbaric practices are certainly not our shared value.

Let me quote a human rights lawyer, Taima Al-Jayoush, who had this to say about the bill:

When we describe a crime as “barbaric” we are simply calling it what it is. No one should identify with it except the ones who have committed such a crime. It is not directed at any certain community.

Why will the opposition not stand up for these victims and take action? Since this is an important piece of legislation, it should not be playing a political game at this time. It should stand up for people's lives.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned—and I hope he listened to what I had to say—our concern is with the victim. We want to make sure that the victims are protected, and that is one of the problems New Democrats have with this bill.

This measure is not about prevention. The government is actually cutting funds for Status of Women.

On the one hand, as I explained, the bill simply criminalizes people, without really tackling the problem itself. The Conservative government has cut social programs, which has had a direct impact. I have met with community organizations that have told me that their funding has been cut.

These are organizations to help immigrants get involved and get integrated, and that is what the government is cutting. It is cutting funds to these organizations, and New Democrats see the problems that arise from that. Our concern is actually about the victims, the women and kids, who are affected by that. The government's actions are actually making it worse for them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments about the NDP motion that he referred to regarding deportations, and the example that a spouse who has been subjected to abuse would be able to stay in Canada.

My question is about temporary visas or refugee claimants when deportations are involved. Is it the NDP's position, then, that in those two instances, if domestic violence is claimed, those people would also be allowed to stay in Canada?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. It is pretty clear, so I will read it. It states:

Attacking the issue of domestic violence through the lens of immigration and criminal law is wrong-headed. The bill seeks to deport people who are engaged in polygamy, and that would include the very women that the government claims it's trying to protect. The denial of permanent and/or temporary resident status to people involved in polygamous relationships will not have the desired effect of protecting women; it will simply bar women in such relationships from coming to Canada.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to speak in this House in support of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. If the measures in this bill are implemented, they will amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code to add further protection for vulnerable individuals, in particular women and girls.

Unfortunately, gender-based violence is a sad reality for women and girls across this country. Whether they are Canadian-born or newcomers to Canada, in too many cases the violence comes in the form of abusive cultural practices that have no place in this country. I am speaking about practices such as polygamy, underage marriage, forced marriage, and so-called honour killings. These abusive practices have damaging and wide-ranging consequences for the victims, and they also harm victims' children, homes, and communities. Indeed, they severely affect all those involved, from influencing whether individuals can successfully immigrate to Canada to breaking down opportunities for integration and economic success.

Our Conservative government made a strong commitment in the recent Speech from the Throne to prevent and counter violence against women and girls within the borders of this country. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act is a concrete example of this commitment. Its proposed measures are worthy of the support of all parliamentarians, because they would clearly help ensure that barbaric cultural practices do not occur on Canadian soil. Bill S-7 would send a clear message to newcomers to Canada, as well as to those who are already part of Canadian society, that such practices are unacceptable here.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration participated in many round tables and consultations across Canada. Participants told the minister that early and forced marriage, so-called honour killings, and polygamy still occur in Canada. These practices that occur across all cultures and ethnicities will not be tolerated in Canada, and our immigration system will not be used as a vehicle to perpetuate these acts. This bill reinforces the message that these practices are completely incompatible with Canadian values and will not be tolerated.

As I said, one of these practices is polygamy, which although illegal in Canada, is an accepted practice in a number of other countries around the world. In a 2011 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of Canada's polygamy law, Chief Justice Bauman, of the B.C. Supreme Court, found that there were physical, psychological, and social harms associated with the practice of polygamous marriages. He found that women in polygamous relationships “face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse”, that “[c]hildren in polygamous families face higher infant mortality” and “tend to suffer more emotional, behavioural and physical problems, as well as lower educational achievement”, that polygamous families face “higher levels of conflict, emotional stress and tension”, and that “[p]olygamy institutionalizes gender inequality”.

For these reasons and more, we must enact measures that increase our ability to prevent polygamy from occurring on Canadian soil. Bill S-7 would do so by enhancing existing immigration tools to render both temporary and permanent residents inadmissible for practising polygamy in Canada.

Of course, polygamy is not the only cultural practice that contradicts Canadian values and that causes harm to its victims. That is why Bill S-7 contains measures to help counter early and forced marriages. These measures include setting a national minimum age of 16 years of age for marriage. Currently there is no national minimum age for marriage in Canada. Federal law, which applies only in Quebec, sets the minimum age at 16.

In other parts of Canada common law applies. There is some uncertainty about the common law minimum age, but it is generally considered to be 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Although in practice very few marriages in Canada involve people under the age of 16, setting a national minimum age of 16 or older for marriage would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and will not be tolerated here.

Other proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act in Bill S-7 include codifying the requirement that those getting married must give their free and enlightened consent to marry each other and the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriage. In addition, Bill S-7 contains measures that would amend the Criminal Code to help prevent forced or underage marriage and would create a new peace bond that could be used to prevent an underage or forced marriage, for example, by requiring the surrender of a passport, as well as preventing a child from being taken out of Canada.

Also notable are the measures in the bill that address so-called honour killings, which are usually premeditated and committed with some degree of approval from family or community members. However, in some cases they may also be alleged to be spontaneous killings in response to behaviour by the victim that is perceived to be disrespectful, insulting or harmful to a family's reputation. In Canadian law, an individual facing murder charges can raise the defence of provocation. If this defence is successful, it can result in a reduced sentence.

The defence of provocation has been raised, so far unsuccessfully, in several so-called honour killing cases in Canada. Accused murderers have claimed that real or perceived marital infidelity, disrespect, defiance or insulting behaviour on the part of the victims toward their spouse, sibling or parent provoked the killing.

This provision may or may not have yet been successful, but what happens if it is successful one day? We must not take the chance. No one should be able to use the defence that they violently harmed another because they were provoked. It is simply contrary to Canadian values for lawful behaviour by a person, no matter how it may be perceived as insulting, to excuse their murder.

That is why measures in Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code so that such legal conduct by a victim could never be considered as provocation.

In conclusion, I am sure all my hon. colleagues would agree that we must stand up for all victims of violence and abuse and take necessary action to prevent these practices from happening on Canadian soil. That is exactly what we would be doing by ensuring the bill's passage into law, and that is exactly why I hope everyone in the House will join me in supporting the passage of Bill S-7. I hope all hon. members of the House look past politics and vote in favour of the bill.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

The Conservatives' speeches unfortunately sound a bit like the speeches charlatans made in days gone by, when they tried to sell healthy people remedies that would solve all their problems and whatever was ailing them and even give them more energy.

In reality, this bill seeks to replace a host of Criminal Code provisions that in fact prevent assault-related abuses. Obviously, I am not talking about murder. We can talk about threats and coercion, but the troubling thing is that this comes back again to the famous defence of provocation, and it is applied strictly to one category of murder with a racist connotation or, in any case, to only a small part of the population.

I would like my colleague to tell me why this is being applied to that category, where this defence has never managed to prevent a conviction, when this exists for other categories of murder, which are just as unacceptable.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act demonstrates that openness and generosity does not extend to early and forced marriages, polygamy, or other types of barbaric cultural practices.

Canadians, as I said in my speech, will not tolerate any type of violence against women and girls, including spousal abuse, violence in the name of so-called honour, or other violence. Those found guilty of these crimes must be severely punished under Canada's criminal laws.

The purpose of this proposed legislation is to stand up for the victims of violence and abuse and to send a very clear and strong message to those in Canada, and those wishing to come to Canada, that such practices will not be tolerated on Canadians soil.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, other Conservative speakers have said that this is meeting their goals and objectives from the 2013 throne speech. I would suggest that they have set the bar relatively low.

Violence and abuse of women and girls is a very serious issue, but does this legislation make a difference? There are some aspects, to which I have made reference all afternoon, that would make some difference. It is a step forward. However, it is nowhere near what the Conservatives are trumpeting from the rooftops in terms of what it actually does.

There is a great number of Canadians who are offended by the decision from the Prime Minister's Office to incorporate the cultural aspect in the short title.

My last question is to the member because we are under time allocation. Given the importance of the issue, why does she believe that the government incorporated such a provocative short title, which would not be utilized in a court of law. It is more of a political statement coming from the Prime Minister's Office. Why does she feel that “cultural” has to be incorporated in the short title when it offends so many Canadians?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that our government announced its commitment to take these steps in the 2013 Speech from the Throne. This was followed up in the 2015 series of round table consultations, led by our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, on violence against women in the context of immigration.

We think Bill S-7 is also consistent with the aims of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on the issue of protecting women in our immigration system. These actions contained in the bill build on existing initiatives that are aimed at ensuring that immigrant women and girls in vulnerable situations have access to support and services that meet their unique needs.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act sends a clear message to those coming to Canada that forced marriages and honour-based violence, or any other forms of barbaric cultural practices, are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

The bill therefore deserves the full support of all the members on both sides of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, March 12, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find consent to see the clock at 6:30.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.