Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 23rd, 2015

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

Okay.

All of you have touched upon the violence aspect, in regard to violence against women. One of the realities is that violence isn't relegated to any individual group; it's across the spectrum. In fact, we know that half of all the women in Canada, no matter where they come from, whether they're born here or elsewhere, experience violence before the age of 16. If we're going to address the need for protection of women who are new immigrants, and in fact all women in Canada, do we have enough resources? I'm thinking about the fact that there's a lack of shelters and a lack of affordable housing, places for women to escape to if they need to, and a lack of child care so that these women can get on with their lives. I wonder if you could respond to that.

[Chantal Desloges]

I would, of course, support any measures that increase the ability of women to leave abusive relationships and to protect themselves and their children. I'm not an expert on resourcing of social services, but what you're saying sounds logical. If we're going to say to women that we're going to give them equality and we're going to give them these means to get out of these abusive relationships, or polygamous relationships or whatever, then of course they need the means to be able to do that, because economic security is of course a huge factor in these decisions.

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

So you're speaking of housing, child care, shelters, and all of those things.

[Chantal Desloges]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. McCallum, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Welcome to the witnesses.

I should say that we support the broad intent of the bill. This argument that it doesn't happen with enough frequency is not something that I've ever subscribed to. We have concerns with specific areas, and we also have a concern with the title. I don't want to take time asking questions about the title, but my position is that they should take away the word “cultural” because these practices apply in many different communities or cultures or religious groups. Some groups, I think notably the Muslim community, have taken the word cultural as an offence or an attack on them. Certain communities have seen it that way.

If you just look at the costs and benefits, the cost of using the word “culture” is that certain Canadians feel alienated or attacked because of it. That's a negative. I don't see any positive. I don't see that word adds anything to the content of the bill. I certainly believe that word should be removed.

In terms of the content, I think in one way it maybe doesn't go far enough, and in another way it may go too far, or at least it requires clarification. On the first point, the marriage of 16- and 17-year-olds, my understanding is that parental consent is sufficient, but the parents might be part of a forced marriage, so a parental consent for a 16-year-old to marry might just be that the parents are complicit in the forced marriage, which this law is trying to prevent. I guess my question is whether there are other things the law could do to set other conditions—in conjunction with provinces, presumably—to have some further safeguard against forced marriages beyond the consent of parents.

One of the lawyers could answer, perhaps.

[Kathryn Marshall]

That's an interesting point. If you look at the law around sexual assault, the notion of consent is extremely important. That's a legal construct. There's a whole legal test that goes into determining whether informed consent was given.

I think everyone should be on guard within our legal system and our immigration system to ensure that, if there is a situation where parents have given consent, they are doing so in a very enlightened and educated way; everyone is aware of their rights; and this isn't a situation of coercion.

I'm not really sure what that would look like, but I think it is important to map out what informed consent would actually look like under these circumstances.

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

Okay. I'm not sure that really addresses the issue. Is there anyway in which the bill could be changed or strengthened to provide further protection to 16-year-olds whose parents may be complicit in a forced marriage? Is there any amendment that could be made?

[Kathryn Marshall]

I think the bill already does a pretty good job by codifying the age of consent and also creating a provision for peace bonds. One of the issues when we're looking at domestic violence situations is that people are afraid of going to the police because they don't want their loved ones, despite the fact that they're abusive to them, to go to jail. They don't want the law to get involved. They don't want to have to go to court or trial. There's the peace bond element that would allow a judge to make a peace bond, which would put some conditions and restraints on caregivers or parents if a child feels like they're being coerced into a marriage situation.

I think that's really important. It gives people a channel to get help and not see their loved ones carted away to jail at the same time.

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

Okay. Thank you.

My second point was raised by you, Ms. Desloges, about the fact that the courts have yet to define what polygamy is. You said there's only been one court case. The definition of polygamy not being clear, we are now giving the immigration department the authority to deport people on the basis of polygamy, which has not even been clearly defined, according to a lesser standard.

It seems to me those circumstances set up an area of uncertainty and the possibility of abuse. You said a red line should be—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Mr. McCallum, your time has expired. Sorry about that. You don't have time for an answer.

Mr. Leung, you have the floor now.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Let me address this issue from another angle and that has to do with the short title of this bill. Semantics is important in that it encapsulates an issue into some very simple words. At the same time, I'm quite cognizant of the fact that words mean separate things to different people. Let me address this from the specific side of what our opposition thinks.

The opposition believes that the short title of the bill is racist. That is quite a loaded term in our culture and society.

I would like to quote the Minister of Multiculturalism in the House of Commons, where he articulated very well our position. He appropriately remarked:

Mr. Speaker, in the title “culture” does not refer to any one individual culture. In fact, many of the issues we are concerned about are clearly present in a number of different cultures. A number of people who have been accused of these horrible and barbaric practices tell the court that how they treat women or how they treat their daughters is part of their culture, so it is important to point out exactly what this is. This question is coming from a party whose leader, the Liberal leader, did not want to call these practices barbaric. We will say exactly what this is. They are barbaric cultural practices and they have no place in Canada.

Starting from Mr. Gora, could you please comment on the semantics of that comment from the Minister of Multiculturalism?

[Tahir Gora]

I personally believe that calling a spade a spade should not a problem in a free society.

I was born and raised in a Muslim family and in a Muslim South Asian culture. First of all, we have to define the culture. When someone asks me who I am, I say that I am Punjabi, South Asian, born in Pakistan, and my faith is Islam. Everything is within me.

All cultures, let me say very frankly, unfortunately are not equal. It's not a matter of equating cultures with each other. It's a matter of finding human core values. Those cultures that support polygamy, and those cultures that support forced marriages, should be denounced and should be addressed. That's why we live in the 21st century and in this part of the world. We should have the courage to denounce cultural barbaric practices.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Ms. Desloges.

[Chantal Desloges]

Yes, I tend to agree that the word “culture” is nebulous. I don't think there is anything inherent in the word “cultural” that targets any specific culture. If people want to be offended, they're going to find a way to be offended, let's face it.

What I find interesting is that with regard to the issue of polygamy in Canada, if you look at the one case that went forward in the criminal context, it was not talking about Muslims. It was dealing with Mormons, American Mormons. That's their cultural group. It's not specifically targeting any one group.

Again, I'm not a fan of hyperbolic language to start with, but I find nothing about the particular language here that's any more offensive than anything else in terms of a short title.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Ms. Marshall.

[Kathryn Marshall]

You know, 33 years ago there were people who were offended by people calling non-consensual sex between married people “rape”. There were people who were offended by this. Now there are people who are offended by calling honour violence, which is legal in parts of the world based on culture and custom, culturally barbaric. There are people who are offended by this. I think 32 years from now we'll look back at those people and shake our heads.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

That is exactly my point. I have been for the past three years the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism. One of the messages that I preach when I am in public is that as Canadians we all come together for our shared values. What are our shared values? It's building upon the cultures of many different societies and groups that come to Canada, as long as those shared values are something that we can build on for what makes us Canadian in the 21st century. Therefore, some of those other practices that are not similar to our culture, really, especially those that cause bodily harm or dysfunction in a society or family, have no place in Canada. That would be the way we look at how we build our Canadian society.

Let me address another question. As has been said, our government will not tolerate cultural traditions in Canada that deprive individuals of their human rights, such as early and forced marriages, honour killing, incest, and polygamy. We believe that subjugating women or young girls to these acts is indeed barbaric.

Do you agree that these acts are indeed barbaric and should be criminalized? Then it comes to the definition of “barbaric”. Is that an appropriate term to use in this case?

Mr. Gora.

[Tahir Gora]

I certainly believe we should endorse this bill in terms of curbing all those malpractices that have been mentioned in this bill—polygamy and forced marriages.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Would you consider them to be barbaric in the context of the 21st century?

[Tahir Gora]

Absolutely.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Ms. Desloges.

[Chantal Desloges]

Yes, I absolutely agree that those practices are barbaric and we shouldn't be afraid to call them that.

I agree with what my colleague Ms. Marshall said earlier. Certainly when we're discussing matters, the language that we use is important. I don't think it has a place in the title of the bill, but I do think the language is appropriate generally.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Ms. Marshall.