Thank you very much.
I've been practising as a lawyer for over 15 years, specializing only in immigration and refugee law. I'm a regular media commentator on immigration issues. Therefore, because my expertise lies solely in the area of immigration law, I will confine my remarks strictly to the immigration provision of this particular bill. There are other witnesses who I know have a lot more expertise than I do in forced marriage and honour-based violence.
I believe the immigration provisions of Bill S-7 send a very strong statement that polygamy is not and will not be tolerated in Canada. The negative effects of polygamy on women and children are very well documented in sociological studies. Whatever the practical effects of this legislation may or may not be, the bill does at least send a concrete statement about Canadian values. I think this is important in a context where our society is increasingly relativist and, in a rush to respect other cultures, we often overlook the fact that there is a reason why our own Canadian culture has developed in the way that it has.
Much has been made, as my friend Tahir just mentioned, about the rather inflammatory title of the bill. Allow me to say that, in general, I'm not a fan of hyperbolic language when it comes to naming legislation; however, it may not be for the reason you think. Forced marriage, honour killing, and polygamy are barbaric. To the extent that they are cultural practices, it's not a culture I think we should accept or promote, even tacitly by omission. Should there be zero tolerance for these behaviours? Absolutely yes. That being said, I think the language used in the title detracts from serious analysis of the content of the bill. Let's face it, many people, particularly members of the public, never make it past the title. I think naming pieces of legislation with tag lines lessens the decorum of the legislative process and deters citizens from engaging in meaningful discussion of the bill's actual content.
Substantively, my suggestions for improvement on this bill are pretty simple. Practising polygamy is not really defined. The bill refers us to the Criminal Code definition of polygamy, but if you read the Criminal Code definition, that also is not very well defined and leaves a huge grey zone for interpretation as to what it means to be practising polygamy in Canada.
The Criminal Code says that everyone who practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into any form of polygamy or any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it's recognized as a binding form of marriage, is considered to be practising polygamy.
Only one case has ever gone to court on the interpretation of this provision in the criminal context. In that case, none of the parties to the litigation could actually agree on what it meant. Even the attorneys generals who were involved in the case could not agree on what it actually meant. It was a single trial-level judgment that has never gone up on appeal, so the issue is really far from settled in the criminal context.
So what does it mean to be practising polygamy in Canada? Does it mean only multiple legally sanctioned marriages? Could it be a legally sanctioned marriage and the second marriage being just a religious one without being legally sanctioned? What about common-law relationships? Those are conjugal unions. Would it constitute practising polygamy in Canada if your first marriage is not dissolved and you enter into a common-law relationship with the second person?
You start to see the problem. If there will be serious consequences such as deportation attached to this behaviour, 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.
Another thing to note about this legislation, and it could be a plus or it could be a minus depending on your point of view, is that in an immigration context, you don't have to prove accusations against people on a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard like you do in a criminal court. You need to prove it on a basis of reasonable grounds to believe, and you can imagine the implications of that. So on one hand, it's a much lower standard, which will make it easier to apply the consequences of the act to people without having to go through the Criminal Code process, but on the other hand, there are really not very many checks and balances applied to it as there would be in a criminal context.
One thing I think could bear improvement is that nowhere in this immigration amendment does it talk about the effects on children.
I find that troubling, because it has the potential to separate families—it has, I think, as an intention to separate families—and wherever you stand on the moral ground of it, I think the kids are the innocent parties in this. There needs to be something that will recognize that and live up to our international obligations to respect the rights of children.
I'm also wondering if this is intended to be retroactive. There may be people who immigrated to Canada and are already living here as permanent residents and they may have had multiple marriages before coming to Canada—which was legal in their country, and they would not have been violating the law. They may now retroactively face consequences for something that at the time was not considered wrong.
Overall, I support a strong message of zero tolerance on polygamy. I think that's the right thing to do. I don't think you'll have any serious debate in the Canadian public as to whether we should send a strong message on polygamy. However, I do think that with these improvements to the immigration piece it could be a really positive force for reinforcing Canadian values.