Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 5th, 2015

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

What amendments would you propose to Bill S-7 in terms of measures on polygamy?

[Peter Edelmann]

There are two aspects to consider.

First, we should create another definition that specifically targets abusive polygyny. The entire discussion is not about polygamy, but about the victim in the polygamous relationship. The so-called barbaric practices are much more limited than the scope of what Justice Bauman described as polygamy and that was presented by the Attorney General of Canada as the scope of polygamy.

Our discussions here and in the Senate do not deal with this small part of so-called barbaric practices. We can include this definition in the IRPA or in the Criminal Code. In that sense, the constitutional situation could change if the objective set out in the Criminal Code is not the institution of monogamy or its protection. The section was found almost constitutional. Aside from a small part that was considered slightly too broad with regard to young people between the ages of 16 and 18, the section was found constitutional by Justice Bauman.

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

I would like to ask a quick question on forced marriages and honour killings.

Does Bill S-7 provide the tools to prevent crimes that have not yet been committed when victims are afraid that they will be committed? If a young woman fears that her parents will force her to get married or they will commit an honour killing, does Bill S-7 provide additional tools to prevent that?

[Peter Edelmann]

Since that is related to the sections in the IRPA, I will ask my colleague to answer your questions.

[Suzanne Costom]

I know that a peace bond has been issued to prevent a person from committing an offence related to forced marriage.

That is not mentioned in our written presentations that you all have, but we believe that those tools are already in the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. McCallum.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I notice Ms. Douglas said the best thing the government could do would be to withdraw this bill. I notice the CBA's analysis was quite damning.

I guess my first question for you is, do you think the government should withdraw this bill?

Either Ms. Costom or Mr. Edelmann?

[Suzanne Costom]

Certainly in the area of provocation we are against the bill, particularly because, as I said, this a really wholesale change to the substantive criminal law and it should not be done in a piecemeal fashion. Even on that basis alone, we believe that Bill S-7 has been put forward without appropriate consultation, without appropriate thought to the collateral consequences. As my colleague pointed out—and I'll let him add to that—we laud the objectives. We don't think this legislation meets the objectives and therefore it doesn't add anything.

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

I said earlier that naturally all of us political parties are totally opposed to these practices. That is not the issue. The issue is whether this law helps to protect women better, or possibly does more harm than good.

On the question of polygamy, I had originally thought, having listened to witnesses, that the best thing to do might be to provide a definition, because if you are going to deport somebody for some infraction, it is good to have a definition of what that is. Then, having listened further to Ms. Douglas and others, I wonder if maybe even if it is properly defined, the law is sufficient, because we keep hearing that there will be a lot of damage done to the children and to the wife or wives of polygamists. Perhaps the purpose should not be to find a definition, but to not do this.

I would like to ask Mr. Edelman or Ms. Costom that question.

[Peter Edelmann]

I'll refer back to the decision in the polygamy reference, where a number of definitions were put forward by different intervenors. At the one end, you had very limited definitions that specifically dealt with exploitation or the types of problems you see that are the target of much of the discussion about polygamist relationships around this table, for example, the ideas around the abusive nature of, the inequality, and the other problems that arise in certain polygamous relationships. When I say “certain polygamous relationships”, what Chief Justice Bauman found was that polygamy is much broader than just the polygynous relationships that have been the focus here.

If there were a focus on the polygynous relationships and whether or not certain people are inadmissible.... When we are dealing with cases of spousal abuse, for example, the person who is the victim of the abuse is not rendered inadmissible by the abuser. In this case, the problem with certain forms of polygyny is that the man with several wives is the focus of abuse or exploitative relationships in certain circumstances, but it renders all the people in the relationship inadmissible. You are talking about rendering the wives inadmissible as well.

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

We are going to run out of time.

What should we do about that?

[Peter Edelmann]

If this is a major problem, and this does need to be addressed, I would suggest that it should be defined more precisely to say that these are the types of relationships that we are targeting, and define them with reference to exploitation or whatever the situation might be, to more narrowly define what is the focus here.

The section 293 definition is much broader than what is being targeted here, and the interpretation that is given is not the same one that is used in the criminal courts. If this is a problem, focus your definition. The scope of the problem clearly is not the scope of this inadmissibility or the way this inadmissibility has been framed.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Aspin, go ahead.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for helping us with this legislation.

Personally, I believe another important amendment to the Civil Marriage Act is adding the phrase “free and enlightened consent”, which is required for marriage. This is clearly an important step, and quite frankly I was shocked to hear that it did not exist before.

My question is for you, Ms. Shahida. How does adding these words further protect victims of forced marriages?

[Arooj Shahida]

You mean, in this bill. Is that right?

Before they go to get a certificate to get married, there can be something like this, where they have to appear in front of some authority. That is my suggestion. There could be something where they have to appear in front of authorities before marriage to say that they are ready and that they have consented to this marriage.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Okay.

I guess I focused on that specific phrase to be added to the Civil Marriage Act, that “free and enlightened consent” is required for marriage. How do you feel the addition of these words further protects the victims of forced marriages?

[Arooj Shahida]

It does, because if we look into these communities, we don't find this given the family pressures and everything. We don't see them having free will to consent to the marriage. There are family pressures and controls. If we added this phrase, it could warn those families and people who are enforcing this marriage. It can be a warning to them.

The only thing we can do is to warn them that if they were to enforce something like marriage, or something that is against an individual's rights, that can be a crime. That can certainly help to prevent that. I can't say that it will help completely, but it can help to prevent some of the cases.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Okay, thank you.

If I may ask you as well, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices bill has finally raised the absolute minimum age to 16. Quite frankly, I was surprised and shocked to hear that this did not exist before. There was some debate about the minimum age in common law, with some establishing the date at 12 for girls, and 14 for boys, and others as low as 7.

Last week, Kathryn Marshall, a lawyer and women's rights activist, explained that we cannot rely on common law and that we should codify the minimum age.

Can you comment on this? Do you believe this is an important step?

[Arooj Shahida]

It's a very important step. I find that even 16 is too young an age. It should be 18.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

Again, last week, we heard from Mr. Tahir Gora of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum, who said the following: “Critics criticize the name of the bill, calling it a pretty loaded one.” But I guess, to be quite frank, it's better that we call a spade a spade. He also said that “Violence against women is an absolutely barbaric act.”...and that “Calling a spade a spade should not be a political issue in a country like Canada where human rights guarantee equal rights to men and women.”

Do you agree with this?

[Arooj Shahida]

I do agree. I believe that individual rights come under gender equality. We should call a spade a spade. I just wanted to say that the name “barbaric cultural practices” is very appropriate even if it happens to one child, one girl, or one person. It is barbaric. It is even more than that when we see the things that come out. Things are being covered up.

It is “barbaric cultural practices”, because one person's life is just one time....

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Okay. How am I doing for time, Chair? One minute. Okay.

Two weeks ago, Salma Siddiqui mentioned that by dealing with the issue of polygamy through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, “The government is syncing the rules for immigrants and Canadians.” Could you please expand on this thought? How important is it that immigrants understand that these values are not welcome here in Canada?

[Arooj Shahida]

It is very important. As I've said, communities take this for granted. They should understand what Canadian values are. Canadian values are actually to respect every individual's rights and freedoms. Every immigrant should know these Canadian values before immigrating.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair.