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.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in the House to speak to Bill S-7, which is before us today. You just read the motions that were moved by the various opposition parties, and if I am not mistaken, you did not read out any motions from the Conservative Party. That is because there probably were none, just like there were none proposed by the Conservatives in committee. Furthermore, just like all of the opposition's amendments in committee at second reading stage, all of these ones were rejected.

I obviously support the idea behind Bill S-7, which is to address violence against women and children, particularly in the context of forced marriages, child marriages and honour crimes, and also to address polygamy. This is the type of violence that Bill S-7 supposedly addresses.

The NDP, like all the parties in the House, wants to ensure that we have meaningful measures to address violence against women and children. Everyone supports that. I wanted to point that out, since some members claim that other members do not care about protecting women and children. That is an all-time low of partisanship in a debate like this one.

We also support other aspects of this bill. We are not necessarily opposed to all aspects of the bill. For example, we support the establishment of a minimum age for marriage, and we also support making it an offence to knowingly solemnize a forced marriage. We support these two measures. However, there are other measures in the bill that are worrisome and that we must review carefully.

The NDP is proposing amendments at report stage that would entirely remove certain parts of Bill S-7, because the Senate's study of this bill and that of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration brought to light a number of worrisome points related to the specific measures we are seeking to remove.

When so many experts working on the ground with the victims tell us that we are at risk of making the victims we wish to protect even more vulnerable, we must take these warnings seriously, withdraw the elements that cause serious concern from the bill, re-examine them and propose measures that will not make the situation worse for victims. So far, unfortunately, the government has not shown any willingness to consider these necessary changes.

The first clause we wish to delete is the short title, “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act”. The NDP proposed a motion to amend it, but that motion was rejected by the Conservatives.

This title has stirred a debate among Canadians, because many people felt they were being singled out, as if they were part of a barbaric culture. In fact, saying “barbaric cultural practices” makes one think that certain cultures are in favour of violence against women and children.

In the Canadian cultural context where considerable racism, discrimination and—we must say it—Islamophobia exist, we must be careful with the words we use. If certain cultural communities living in Canada feel hurt and targeted by such a title, the simple solution is to get rid of it.

Are the practices mentioned in the bill barbaric? Indeed, they are cruel. They might be called “barbaric” or “unacceptable” but are they cultural? That is the problem. In the title of a bill, the word “cultural” does not add much.

How can it prevent us from achieving the purpose of this bill? That is the question.

Julie Miville-Dechêne, president of Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme, said:

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

If the title of a bill antagonizes the very people on the front lines who can help us solve this problem, that is problematic. That is what is happening. Associations of Muslim, South Asian and Chinese people—women—tell us that this title does not work for them. It threatens and hurts them. Why not remove that word to gain as many allies as possible in the fight against violence against women?

Yao-Yao Go, director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, also said that the title invokes racist stereotypes and fuels xenophobia towards certain racialized communities. Why not change the short title of a bill when it could undermine the very purpose of the bill?

The second amendment we are proposing today also deletes a clause, clause 2, which deals with denying access to Canadian territory to persons charged with polygamy. I would like to give a little more background on this.

This targets not only people charged with practising polygamy, but also people suspected of having practised it or currently practising it, and people who might practise it in the future. Based on suspicion alone, an immigration officer can deny entry into Canada not only to people who want to live here, but also people who want to visit Canada. Officers can also deport individuals suspected of having practised polygamy or currently practising it, and people who might practise it in the future.

The officers' latitude of interpretation is problematic, and some people have suggested that we need to be very careful. Telling officers they can guess whether someone might eventually practise polygamy opens the door to discrimination. The last thing we want is for any particular group to be discriminated against as a result of this.

On that point, Rupaleem Bhuyan, a professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto, added:

The low burden of proof may lead to racist discrimination against immigrants from particular regions of the world who are considered undesirable. This provision would also put women who are spouses of polygamous men at risk of being deported or being separated from their children.

That is another problem. If we deport people who practise polygamy because we want to protect women, let us not forget that the women are also part of the polygamous relationship. If, in order to protect women, we deport them with their husband, then how exactly are we protecting them? Perhaps that was an oversight by the people who drafted this bill, but it raises serious concerns about the fact that the women we want to protect will be made even more vulnerable because of this bill.

Chantal Desloges also mentioned another problem with this provision in the bill. She said:

If there will be serious consequences such as deportation attached to this behaviour [polygamy], I think we need to draw a clear line in the sand so that people can amend their behaviour to know if they're going to be onside or offside of the legislation.

There is no clear definition of polygamy and that in itself is a problem.

We also want to get rid of the part of this bill that makes it a crime to attend a marriage ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is being forced to do so. The NDP does not have a problem with criminalization, but the goal here is to protect the victims. If they know that by reporting the people who attended their forced marriage they are helping to criminalize them all and put them in prison, then many victims will remain silent for fear of criminalizing their entire family or community. People who work in the field tell us that this is a real danger.

For example, I will quote Ms. Siddiqui, the head of policy and research at Southall Black Sisters. She works in the United Kingdom, a country that has explored several approaches to criminalizing forced marriage. She says that the young girls and women she has been working with in the field for many years have told her that they want to be protected by the police, but do not want their parents or families to be prosecuted or to go to prison. These victims say that if they talked to the police and their family or community were accused of crimes, they would refuse to lay charges. When such pressure is put on the victims and secrecy is encouraged about something—forced marriage—that is already too much of a secret, there is a problem.

In short, Bill S-7 does not address our major concerns; it does not make it possible to achieve its stated goals; and it even threatens to make the victims more vulnerable. That is why we have proposed the amendments the House is debating today.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-7, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported with amendments from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to reducing taxes everyone knows these are Conservative ideas and Conservative proposals. In fact, when we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, saving Canadians billions of dollars, the NDP voted against that measure to benefit Canadians. Therefore, we know who is delivering on lower taxes for Canadians.

This afternoon we will start the report stage of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. Needless to say, I am disappointed to see on today’s notice paper some 17 report stage amendments, which, all told, would eviscerate the content of the bill. From these proposals, the opposition are clearly signalling that they do not support this Conservative government’s efforts to send 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. Early and forced marriages, “honour”-based violence, and polygamy will not be tolerated on Canadian soil, so Conservatives will be voting against all of these opposition amendments.

Tomorrow, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. I am optimistic we can pass the bill soon so the Senate will have adequate time to consider these reductions in red tape, which regular, law-abiding Canadian hunters, farmers and outdoor enthusiasts face.

Monday shall be the sixth allotted day. The New Democrats will provide a motion for the House to debate when we come back from a weekend in our constituencies.

We will complete the report and second reading stages of Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, on Tuesday. Earlier today, the House heard my colleague, the Minister of Industry, explain the importance of this key legislation.

Wednesday, we will see the House return to the report stage of Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This legislation is clearly both needed and wanted north of 60. Bill S-6 would modernize regulatory regimes up north and ensure they are consistent with those in the rest of Canada, while protecting the environment and strengthening northern governance.

Next Thursday, June 4, will be the seventh allotted day, when the House will again debate a topic of the New Democrats' choosing.

Finally, for the benefit of those committees studying the supplementary estimates, I am currently eyeing Monday, June 8 as the final allotted day of the supply cycle. I will, however, confirm that designation at this time next week.

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

I'm well aware of their position with regard to Bill S-7, but we take a contrary position. I'm delighted that our Liberal colleagues, after some dithering and back and forth, have decided to support us on Bill S-7.

Forced marriage is wrong. Polygamy leads to violence against women and girls. Early marriage is unacceptable in Canada. We know that it happens, unfortunately, both to the Canadian-born and to some newcomers. We are giving ourselves the tools in Bill S-7 to make sure that it is prevented.

For there not to have been a minimum age for marriage in Canada up until now, outside of the province of Quebec, and for it to have been to some extent based on the common law, which meant that age seven or eight was, legally speaking, an eligible age of marriage in Canada, was absolutely ludicrous. I don't think anyone in the Canadian public would support that position, whether or not the Canadian Bar Association agrees with them.

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

Thank you.

You referenced Bill S-7. We had the Canadian Bar Association here, and they said to scrap it because it jeopardizes women and children, that it exposes them to being shunned by family, and it exposes them to deportation and potentially to violence and criminality.

I'm wondering why you would proceed with Bill S-7 when there already are existing laws to address concerns expressed by the bill and the Canadian Bar Association has said to scrap it.

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

First, congratulations. You were lucky. My wife took 18 or 19 months to come through the spousal sponsorship program, and that was in 2009-10, so yes, the number has gone up slightly, but why is that the case? There are three reasons.

Demand has outstripped our capacity to process. We project every year how many spouses, how many dependent children, how many parents and grandparents we expect to have coming into our programs. Sometimes the number of applications exceeds. That is what has contributed to this growing backlog, and we will attack it and we will bring it down. I think the reasonable time for the processing of spousal sponsorship cases should be much lower. We've shown across the board our ability to reduce backlogs. We will do it in this area as well.

What are the alternatives? To reduce other backlogs, we have eliminated them by legislation, or we have ranked and sorted them on the basis of merit. Obviously in the case of spouses, we're not going to do that.

Every application is important. Every application will be processed, but we need to find the resources to do it on the scale where it is required now. We are getting these applications because of the strength of our economic immigration program. Because of the strength of Canada's economy, people want to come here, and they want to come here with their spouses.

We also need to attack some of the vulnerabilities in the spousal program. There is an issue of marriage of convenience. There is an issue of forced marriage, which we're dealing with, we hope, through Bill S-7. There is an issue of fraud and misrepresentation in the spousal program.

As we have tightened up the integrity of other programs, we have seen some people—

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no shortage of very important work to attend to.

This afternoon and tomorrow we will continue debating Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015 act, no. 1, to implement important measures from the spring's budget, such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit and a reduction to the small business income tax.

The parties across the way have made no secret of their opposition to the excellent tax reduction measures we have proposed, and this week the hon. member for Papineau explained why. As he told the House on Tuesday, “benefiting every single family is not...fair”. Well, that is consistent with his approach to fiscal policy, that budgets balance themselves.

However, our budget implementation bill will deliver those benefits to every family, because that is the fair Canadian thing to do.

After our constituency week, on Monday, May 25, we will debate Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act at report stage. This bill will improve opportunities for economic development north of 60.

After question period that same day, we will take up Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act at report stage, and hopefully third reading. Unnecessary, cumbersome red tape facing law-abiding gun owners across Canada will be reduced, thanks to this legislation.

Also, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), I am appointing that day, Monday, May 25, as the day for consideration, in a committee of the whole, of all votes in the main estimates, for 2015-16, related to finance.

Tuesday, May 26, will be the fifth allotted day. We will debate a Liberal proposal. I expect the Liberal leader will explain why helping every family is not fair.

We will return to the third reading debate on Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act, on Wednesday, May 27, when I am hopeful that it will pass.

The following day, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act. In debate last week, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said, “Soon, we will pass this bill”. I look forward to her NDP colleagues proving the hon. member right.

Later that Thursday, we will start the report stage for Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which will re-affirm this Parliament’s ongoing efforts to end violence against women and girls.

National Action Plan to Address Violence Against Women

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the motion before the House today, put forward by the member for Churchill. It deals with the very important issue of ending violence against women and girls. Our government takes the issue of violence against women and girls very seriously, and we have taken a multi-faceted approach to addressing it. Allow me to take a few moments to discuss some of the actions that we have taken.

We have made communities safer for all Canadians by enacting over 30 measures into law since 2006. For example, amendments to the Criminal Code made under the Safe Streets and Communities Act that came into force in 2012 promote safety and security. They also assist in holding criminals fully accountable for their actions through increased penalties for violent crimes, including child sexual offences, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences and house arrest for serious and violent crimes.

Another example is Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, which came into force in March. It provides for a new Criminal Code offence, the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which prohibits the sharing or distribution of nude or sexual images without the consent of the person depicted.

We have supported the needs of victims with Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, which received royal assent on April 23. This bill provides rights for victims of crime, many of which will benefit women who have experienced violence. For example, the bill gives victims the right to have their security and privacy considered, the right to be protected from intimidation and retaliation, the right to request the protection of their identity if they are a complainant or witness in a criminal justice proceeding, and the right to request testimonial aids.

Another recent example is Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill would address forms of family violence that are predominately perpetrated against women and girls. It contains proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, creating a new form of inadmissibility to Canada for those practising polygamy. It includes proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act to codify the requirement for free and enlightened consent to marriage and to introduce a new national absolute minimum age for marriage of 16. The bill would also introduce proposed new offences in the Criminal Code related to forced or underage marriages. It would extend the offence of removing a child from Canada to include removal for the purpose of a forced or underage marriage abroad, introduce a new forced or underage marriage peace bond to prevent these marriages from taking place, and limit the application of the defence of provocation so that it would not be available in honour killings and some spousal homicides.

These examples highlight the leadership role of our government in responding to violence against women and girls by establishing a strong legislative framework to protect victims and hold perpetrators to account. These legislative actions are a critical element of the multi-faceted approach that we have put in place to reduce and prevent violence against women and girls.

I would now like to describe some of the actions that we have taken beyond legislation. The Government of Canada has allocated more than $140 million since 2006 to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system through initiatives delivered by Justice Canada. Last September, we launched the latest phase of the stop hating online campaign to combat cyberbullying. This is a national awareness campaign to protect our children and youth from cyberbullying. On February 20, the Government of Canada announced a 10-year $100-million investment to prevent, detect and combat family violence and child abuse as part of our government's commitment to stand up for victims.

On April 1, the Government of Canada began the implementation of its action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women and girls. We also continued collaborating with aboriginal leaders, aboriginal communities and other levels of government to get the most out of our respective action plans.

Our government also believes in giving communities the tools to help end violence against women and girls. That is why we have increased funding to Status of Women Canada, including the women's program, to record levels. In fact, we have invested over $162 million in more than 780 projects through Status of Women Canada since 2007. This includes over $71 million in projects to specifically address violence against women and girls. These efforts include a number of different calls for proposals for projects in rural and remote communities and in post-secondary campus communities.

Another call for proposals is helping communities respond to cyber and sexual violence. More than $6 million has been invested in these projects through Status of Women Canada so far.

My view is that we must continue taking actions like the ones I have described today, and therefore I will not be supporting this motion. However, we must continue working together because we know that no single individual, organization or government working alone can address the problem of gender-based violence.

We have made this issue such an important priority because we know that helping women and girls live violence-free lives is the right thing to do. However, we also know something else. We know that enabling women and girls to live free of violence removes a barrier to achieving their full potential for themselves, their families and their communities. Doing that will move us closer to equality in our country, which is something we all wish to see.

Citizenship and Immigration

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration relating 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. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

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

This has been a focal point for the Government of Canada and, quite frankly, for me personally. As a pediatric surgeon, the concept that any human right of a child would be violated is abhorrent. Canada itself has strongly condemned child, early, and forced marriages as a violation of basic human rights, and as a form of violence against girls in particular. Obviously, some boys are impacted by this as well, but it's primarily girls. As a foreign policy initiative this has been a priority area, and Canada is playing a leadership role on the international stage. We are the sponsor of the UN's International Day of the Girl Child on October 11, where we focus significantly on priority issues of girls' rights, and, obviously, the elimination and eradication of child, early, and forced marriages is at the top of that list. We also have had program funding support through the Minister of Foreign Affairs recently announcing $20 million to UNICEF for programming to end child, early, and forced marriages, and with Zambia we put forward the first-ever stand-alone resolution on child, early, and forced marriage at the UN General Assembly to move forward in eradicating this practice.

So the legislation that we're moving forward with, Bill S-7, is to go hand in glove in support of our international position on this that there should be a zero-tolerance policy with regard to these practices.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

There's more I could ask there, but I want to move on because I think the issue of child, early, and forced marriages is really important. This is a basic violation of human rights. I even had someone call my office this week who is being forced to go to another country to get married. You are taking action on this. I would love you to speak to the committee about Bill S-7, and why it's important to address this issue, please. Thank you, Minister.

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

Thank you.

Before we vote on clause 9, I would like to speak to it, Mr. Chair.

Another aspect of Bill S-7 has given rise to controversy. Many witnesses said they were against the clause. First responders who deal with victims expressed their concerns. They fear that clause 9 will marginalize and further isolate victims. It's a risk.

Throughout the study, everyone agreed on the intent of the bill, but the intent is not enough. We need to look at the repercussions that each measure of a bill may have. If the true intent is to protect women and children, we have to vote against this clause and do a more in-depth study of the repercussions it may have before the bill is implemented.

I am not saying that I'm against criminalization. Of course, when a crime or an unacceptable act like a forced marriage occurs, a sentence must be imposed and punishment must occur. We need to demonstrate that such an act is unacceptable.

As for forced marriage, it is clear that one of the biggest problems with this is the secrecy surrounding it. Very few victims speak out and go through the legal system. What could we put in place to ensure that victims will be protected and obtain justice in court? That is not the outcome of clause 9 as worded.

If it were a clause that did not have a major impact, I would not oppose it. A number of witnesses said that the Criminal Code already contains all the provisions required to incarcerate individuals who commit an offence related to forced marriage. However, not only is clause 9 not without consequences, but it could very likely further marginalize the victims. These questions need to be raised. There is cause to discuss this again in greater detail.

We heard from a witness from the United Kingdom who had experience with these kinds of measures and legislation that had been implemented a few years ago. She told us that not only did these measure not have any impact on the number of denunciations or on the criminalization process of individuals committing an offence related to forced marriage, but there was also a drop in the number of individuals who denounced forced marriage.

What's even more important is that other countries have different measures than the ones set out in clause 9. The victims of these other countries have the choice between a civil path and a criminal path. Giving them this power provides them with more confidence to make a denunciation. The purpose is not necessarily to incarcerate the family and friends, but to protect the victim. We must always keep that in mind when studying a bill like this. It's not the intent that counts, but the potential impact on the victims. Will this clause make it possible to fight against forced marriages? Perhaps, but it will very likely harm the victims. I hope that the government has heard all these testimonies, that it is willing to come back to this debate later, and do a consultation and a more extensive study.

Such a bill must not be aimed at simply pleasing a voter base. The goal is not to show that we are concerned and that we are doing something about it. We need to be serious, which is not the case here. The only studies and consultations that took place were in the Senate committee and here. The experts shared their concerns with us. If we want this consultation to be of some use, we need to listen to these experts and do other, more extensive studies before moving forward with this bill.

I hope the message has been understood and that this study will serve a purpose. If this study were to serve a single purpose, it should be to ensure that this bill will not harm victims further. I am sure that this is not the government's goal. I am convinced that the government party does not want to marginalize, stigmatize or make victims more vulnerable.

That is not what I'm saying, but I hope that they have listened and have seriously considered the concerns that have been raised. This might be the right approach, but it might not and perhaps it will be harmful. So if we have even the shadow of a doubt that a measure like this might be harmful, we need to study it further.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, the government will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment would leave the defence of provocation intact and would therefore permit persons accused of murdering their spouses or other family members who provoke them through lawful words or actions to continue to raise the defence.

In some cases or in some types of circumstances, depending on the evidence, the defence could be successful. In many cases, even if the defence is ultimately unsuccessful litigating whether and how the defence applies in these cases, it is likely to be costly and time consuming for all parties.

The amendment therefore runs counter to the objectives of Bill S-7, which is to modify the law so that it clearly excludes provocation on the basis of law conduct.

Criticisms of the defence of provocation have been made in all jurisdictions with a legal tradition similar to Canada's that have the defence. In the past decade, such jurisdictions have either abolished or limited their provocation defences. Three Australian states and New Zealand have abolished the provocation defence entirely.

In 2014 the Australian state of New South Wales passed legislation similar to Bill S-7 that limits the provocation defence to conduct by the victim that amounts to a relatively serious criminal offence. Three Australian states and the United Kingdom have limited the provocation defence in other ways.

The reforms proposed in Bill S-7 would bring Canada's law of provocation into line with those of similar countries. We are therefore opposing the proposed amendment.

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

Thank you.

I agree with eliminating this clause, Mr. Chair, for the reasons mentioned. We were here and we heard the witnesses speak. If I'm not mistaken, everyone who testified and who were experts in law and the Criminal Code raised sincere and serious concerns about this clause.

Given their profession, these people are very familiar with the Criminal Code. They see how it is used and applied. Yet they tell us that this clause, in addition to being useless because an honour killing has never been excused by reason of provocation, is dangerous because it eliminates the discretionary power of judges. It also eliminates the possibility of invoking the notion of provocation in other cases where it might be relevant.

When we have testimonies that are as clear, strong and unanimous in committee, ignoring them becomes an act of total stubbornness. They need to be considered. If the government is truly interested, it could remove the clause, do better work on this, gather some data, some facts about the usefulness of such a measure and rework it. Regardless, we cannot move ahead so quickly when so many experts have expressed their disagreement and concern.

This clause may be one of the most troubling points of Bill S-7, which is why I support the amendment and oppose clause 7.

I hope the government will take into account the concerns expressed by the witnesses.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask Mr. Menegakis a question.

Before setting the age at 16, were there any consultations, public debates or even consultation with the provinces? Could you explain the consultation process that resulted in this measure of Bill S-7?