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.

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

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, colleagues.

I'm delighted to appear here today with my colleagues before this committee about Bill S-7, zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, which has as its principal aim to ensure that no 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. Obviously, we aim to extend those protections to all Canadians.

As you know, the measures contained in Bill S-7 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, but also boys and men.

Our government is taking a strong stance against these practices because they are wrong, but we are also leading international efforts to address them as violations of basic human rights.

According to the NGO Girls Not Brides, every year approximately 15 million girls are married before they turn 18 across dozens of countries, cultures, and religions. In fact, there are hundreds of millions of men and women around the world who are living today with the consequences of forced marriage, who faced those circumstances and were denied protection. Robbed of their childhoods and denied their rights to health, education, and security, they are often victims of sustained violence, including sexual assault. In the most recent Speech from the Throne we recognized that millions of women and girls worldwide continue to be brutalized in these ways by violent practices, including through the inhumane practice of early and forced marriage. Our government committed to help ensure that barbaric cultural practices do not occur on Canadian soil.

Bill S-7 follows up on the commitment the government made in its throne speech. lt sends a clear message to anyone coming to Canada, and to those who are already part of Canadian society, that such practices are incompatible with Canadian values and will not be tolerated here.

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 protections. These amendments would improve protection and support for vulnerable individuals, especially women and girls, in a number of specific ways.

First, they would render permanent and temporary residence inadmissible if they practise polygamy in Canada.

Second, they would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 years, by codifying 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. They would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new and specific preventative court-ordered peace bond where there are grounds to fear someone would commit an offence in this area, and they would ensure that the defence of provocation wouldn't apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

Allow me to elaborate.

Mr. Chair, polygamy is an affront to Canadian values, a contradiction of our understanding of marriage, and as such it has been illegal in this country since 1890. While it's against the law in Canada to practise polygamy or to enter into a polygamous union, that's not the case in every country in the world. To increase our ability to prevent polygamy from occurring on Canadian soil and to make sure the immigration system is not facilitating this practice in any way, Bill S-7 would create a new ground of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for practising polygamy. Keep in mind that these grounds of inadmissibility as codified in the act are few. They are limited. They are important to our immigration system. They have, to date, related to national security concerns, threats to national security; criminality, those convicted of crimes abroad; and extreme cases of ill health, where the medical conditions of those coming to Canada are such that we simply wouldn't be able to cope in this country.

Polygamy would be added to that very limited set of inadmissibilities. It would provide immigration officers with the tools they need to render both temporary and permanent residents inadmissible for practising polygamy. The new inadmissibility would mean that those entering on a temporary basis who are in polygamous marriages abroad would be able to enter only on their own.

It also means that permanent residents found to be in a polygamous marriage will be removed on that basis alone. In other words, if someone applied for immigration and received permanent residence without informing authorities of the reality of their situation, and were found to be in a polygamous union, they would be removed. We would no longer need a criminal conviction or a finding of misrepresentation in order to begin deportation proceedings.

Mr. Chair, measures in Bill S-7 would also amend the Civil Marriage Act in order to address the problem of early and forced marriage. This is almost certainly the part of the bill with the widest potential application, certainly from my understanding of the scale of the phenomenon we're dealing with.

In Canada today there is no national minimum age for marriage. Specific federal laws, which 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 and debate about the common-law minimum age, which is sometimes interpreted as setting a minimum of 12 for girls and 14 for boys, although in some instances, and historically, it can be as low as seven years old. Setting a national minimum age of 16 years old for marriage would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and won't be tolerated.

Other amendments 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. In other words, it has not been unambiguously clear in our law today that you cannot enter another union without dissolving the previous one.

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 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 or underage marriage.

These measures would criminalize essentially celebrating, aiding, or participating in a forced marriage ceremony: anyone knowingly officiating at an underage or forced marriage; anyone knowingly and actively participating in a wedding ceremony in which one party is marrying another against his or her will or is under 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 are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 will otherwise occur.

Why is this important, Mr. Chair? Because in cases where family members are affected by forced or underage marriage, as we know from experience, there isn't always a willingness to bring criminal charges. A peace bond allows individuals to place restrictions on their family members by court order without having to go through the additional trying experience of pressing charges against an immediate family member. Such a peace bond 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. This is an 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.

Mr. Chair, measures in the bill would also address so-called honour killings. 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. Honour killings are usually premeditated and committed with some degree of approval and sometimes participation of 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.

Under the Criminal Code, anyone charged with and found to have actually committed murder can raise the defence of provocation in seeking a reduction to the lesser charge of manslaughter. In other words, the accused can argue that the victim's conduct in some way provoked them into the heat of passion that brought them to kill the other person in that state. Yes, disrespect and defiance could lead to a defence of provocation in a murder case, which could potentially lead to a lesser conviction.

A conviction for manslaughter instead of murder carries greatly reduced stigmatization, and more importantly, wide latitude for judicial discretion in sentencing. Manslaughter carries a maximum of life imprisonment with no minimum sentence unless a firearm is used, whereas murder carries a mandatory life sentence with ineligibility to apply for parole for at least 10 years. Of course, we would be tightening the penalties in some of these cases under the “life means life” legislation now before Parliament.

This defence has been raised in several so-called honour killing cases across Canada. Accused murderers have claimed that real or perceived marital infidelity, disrespect, defiance, or insulting behaviour on the part of the victims towards their spouse, sibling, or parent provoked the killing. As a society, we need to send a clear signal that this kind of reasoning and these kinds of acts are unacceptable and will result in a severe penalty.

Passage of Bill S-7 into law would send a strong message to those in Canada, and those that wish to come to this country, that we won't tolerate cultural practices in Canada that deprive individuals of their human rights or that lead to violence.

If the committee wishes to go into further detail about any aspect of this legislation, I am happy to address it across the board and to answer your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'll call the meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting 43, Tuesday, March 31.

We are about to study Bill S-7, which is to amend a number of acts. This is the start of our hearings on this bill.

We have with us this morning the Honourable Chris Alexander, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and his colleagues. The minister will appear for the first hour, and then the colleagues will remain. This meeting is televised.

Minister, I'd like to welcome you to the immigration committee. You may begin.

Status of Women

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her excellent work on these issues and on human trafficking. She is a leader.

With Bill S-7, this government is taking action to ensure that no woman or girl in Canada is a victim of early or forced marriage, polygamy or so-called honour-based violence. We are showing zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices because violence against women and girls is always wrong. It is never okay, even when some falsely defend it in the name of tradition or culture.

Sadly, that is exactly what the opposition members have been doing. The New Democrats spoke strongly against this bill in this House. The Liberals refused to call this violence “barbaric”. They have avoided a recorded—

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the House debated and voted at second reading on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. While our Conservative government is taking a strong stance against harmful barbaric practices, the opposition members fail to stand up and take action.

Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please explain to this House how important this piece of legislation is to protect women and girls in Canada?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House debated and voted on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

While our Conservative government is taking a strong stand against harmful barbaric practices, the opposition fails to stand up and take action. The leader of the Liberal Party refuses to even call these acts barbaric. After a thorough debate at second reading, the opposition did not even want to be seen on the record as voting against such an important piece of legislation.

I am proud of this government for taking steps to strengthen our laws to help to ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of these barbaric practices. I hope the opposition will stop playing politics and vote on the record in support of Bill S-7.

[Inspector Steve Irwin, Inspector, Toronto Police Service]

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you very much for allowing me to appear before this committee on behalf of Chief William Blair and the Toronto Police Service.

As stated, my name is Steve Irwin. I am an inspector with the Toronto Police Service. As of next month I will have completed 35 years with the Toronto Police Service. I'm currently seconded to the RCMP-led Integrated National Security Enforcement Team in Toronto, and I'm responsible for national security investigations in the greater Toronto area and throughout southwestern Ontario.

I started my policing career as a uniformed officer in Toronto, and have worked in homicide, sexual assaults, hate crime, intelligence, and in 1995 was the sergeant who started the anti-terrorism unit within the Toronto Police Service to address what we perceived to be a terrorist threat emanating from the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. Since 1995 I've had a lead role within the Toronto Police Service on terrorism-related issues.

In relation to where we are today, 911 taught us there are no rules or boundaries for terrorism. We were shocked into the reality that anything goes. We adjusted our stance and created anti-terrorism sections of the Criminal Code to address that threat from a law enforcement perspective. More recently we recognized there were gaps in our criminal laws to address the evolution of the terrorist threat that manifested through the first decade of this millennium.

New criminal offences were created and preventive processes were recommended to be reinstated in Bill S-7, which we know was passed into law, and all those sections are beneficial in both the prevention of terrorism and in holding accountable those individuals intent on committing terrorist offences.

I'm going to briefly address some aspects of proposals in Bill C-51 from a non-federal policing perspective.

Regarding the Criminal Code amendments, I've dealt extensively with the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code since being assigned to the Toronto Police Hate Crime Unit in 1993. I have considered the application of the hate propaganda sections in numerous cases involving individuals who have publicly preached or advocated for the use of violence in the name of religious, ideological, or political belief.

Unfortunately, the sections are too restrictive for those who are clever enough or counselled sufficiently to avoid divulging any criminal intent. With the current terrorist threat there is a definite need for the new offence of advocating or promoting terrorism. Many hate-mongers hide behind carefully spoken words that lure a growing, vulnerable, often younger, group of people to adopt an extreme radical view that condones or advocates taking up arms against those who have different beliefs.

It is crucial that those who have a criminal intent be faced with the consequences of criminal conduct. Equally it is important to have appropriate tools to address those who use terrorist propaganda to influence those same vulnerable people to adopt a radical view that leads to terrorist acts.

Through these new criminal offences, we will be able to prevent the growth of the terrorist entities and groups. Lowering the threshold of “will commit a terrorist offence” to “may commit a terrorist offence” provides law enforcement and the courts an important preventive tool that will offer those misguided, vulnerable people a path away from serious criminal conduct and the liability that comes with that.

The tools in the Criminal Code are helpful to law enforcement, but truthfully, in my experience, are not sufficient to address all aspects of the current evolution of threats to our national security, both in the form of terrorism and of espionage.

The proposed changes to the CSIS act I see as progressive. CSIS is involved many times before law enforcement and could easily disrupt activities sufficiently so as to mitigate threats. By no means am I suggesting that they would always employ disruption strategies, but certainly having the ability to do so independent of law enforcement could be very effective, essentially for further enhancing the security of Canadians.

In relation to Canada's Security of Information Act, I believe that consideration for provision to include non-federal police services as agencies.... Information that can be shared would be important for a number of reasons, including the major municipal, regional police, and provincial police services. They are frequently involved in intelligence investigations in the early stage of national security-related investigations that are not obviously national security ones in those early stages.

Furthermore, municipal, regional, and provincial police are the police of jurisdiction along much of our international border and at points of entry in international airports.

Often there are no RCMP officers working in the areas, and where they are, it is not on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis, leaving the police of jurisdiction conducting investigations that are of national security in nature. Not having access to available information because they are not a federal entity creates a significant gap that could impact on the safety of the public.

Finally, the police of jurisdiction throughout this country regularly deal with “activity that undermines the security of Canada” as defined in clause 2 of the proposed act, including “interference with critical infrastructure” and “terrorism”, and could find themselves dealing with “proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons”, as well as “an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.”

Respectfully, the RCMP in Ontario does not have the resources to always respond in a timely manner to incidents that could meet the definition and threshold stipulated in the act. I bring to your attention the fact that the RCMP performs the exact same municipal and provincial police duties in many communities in all provinces outside of Ontario and Quebec. It is only the fact that they are RCMP members that gives them access to the information that all other police officers in this country performing the same duties are excluded from.

In relation to the Secure Air Travel Act, consideration ought to be given to adding authority, including pictures and biometric information where available, for people on the no-fly list as aliases are not always known. That, I believe, is a significant gap.

Consideration ought to also include an inclusive list of non-federal police in clause 10, “Assistance to Minister”, paragraph (f), as many international airports are policed by municipal, regional, or provincial police. That includes airports in Toronto, the Toronto Island Airport. Buttonville Municipal Airport in York Region is an example. Also, the Hamilton airport. London, Ontario, has an international airport. All are policed by municipal and/or provincial police initially.

In conclusion, the proposed changes in Bill C-51 are another step forward in closing the gap that leaves Canadians and the public exposed to being victims of criminal acts involving our national security. Admittedly, the balance between the freedom we enjoy in Canada and the security measures required to ensure that freedom is not without its cost to our individual rights and privacy.

In my reading of the proposed legislative changes, the authorities required for the new powers that prescribe oversight and mandated audits, combined with the safeguards already in place for the various government agencies, I believe provide necessary protection from abuses and will safeguard many of the issues raised by those who are against Bill C-51. Recognizing there is no single solution to address the current threats to national security, Bill C-51 certainly will provide better tools to prevent many of those threats from becoming realized in actual terrorist acts or acts of espionage.

I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.

Foreign Affairs

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Raif Badawi is a Saudi Arabian. In 2008, he and Souad al-Shammari, a Saudi Arabian women's rights activist, created the site Free Saudi Liberals in support of religious freedom. It was a blog where people could discuss this issue online.

In 2008, he was arrested, questioned and then released. Nevertheless, he was charged with creating a website that insults Islam and forced to leave the country. He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2009 and, although the charges against him had supposedly been dropped, he was banned from leaving the country and had his bank account frozen.

In 2011, he was again arrested on charges that his website undermined religious values. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for religious insult and blasphemy. The first 50 lashes were administered but the rest of his punishment has been repeatedly postponed, as we have heard in the media.

I, along with other parliamentarians from other places, met with Mr. Badawi's wife, and she told us how urgent the situation is. We know that her husband's physical and emotional health has greatly deteriorated. We must therefore take action.

Many countries have reacted to this inhumane situation. For example, Sweden's foreign affairs minister said that the practice of flogging is straight out of the Middle Ages, and the Swedish government has not renewed its military co-operation agreement with Saudi Arabia, which expires in May.

Mr. Badawi's wife, Ms. Haidar, has been living in Quebec with their children since October 31, 2013, and the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Couillard, told representatives of Saudi authorities in Canada that we want to bring Mr. Badawi here.

Furthermore, Quebec's international affairs minister, my colleague the member for Acadie, Christine St-Pierre, called Mr. Badawi's treatment inhumane and called on the Conservative government to take action in light of the family's situation, even though Mr. Badawi is not a Canadian citizen.

The federal government has granted Mrs. Badawi and her children the status of political refugees in Canada.

People in Sherbrooke mobilized and held vigils to support Mr. Badawi. A vigil was also held in Quebec City. Elected officials in Montreal unanimously called on the Canadian government to take action.

However, the Prime Minister is the first to talk about barbaric practices when it suits him, and we even voted today on a bill that he decided to call the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. He likes to talk about barbarism.

Will he follow the Quebec premier's lead and ask that Mr. Badawi be sent here? Will he personally get involved in this case?

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.