Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 12th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration meeting number 48. It's Tuesday, May 12, 2015. We are in the process of completing our study of Bill S-7, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and a number of other acts. We have finished hearing witnesses, and we are now about to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

We have a number of guests who I will not be introducing and not asking to speak at this time, because most of you have seen them before. They are representatives from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Justice. They are here in case members of the committee have technical questions on the clauses.

Also sitting with me is a new face. Mr. Philippe Méla is the legislative clerk who will advise me and tell me what to do.

We will start with the clause-by-clause consideration.

As you all know with respect to the short title, pursuant to standing order 75(1) consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, is postponed. We will therefore call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Ms. May, welcome to the immigration committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

My first amendment, Mr. Chair, is an attempt to improve the definition for definitional purposes. The committee will remember the evidence and testimony of the Canadian Bar Association. Their concern was that the way this definition of polygamy has been drafted, it could, rather than protect women, go against Canada's obligation to protect the human rights of all women, particularly those who have been forced or coerced to comply with certain cultural practices against their will.

The CBA concluded that the “inadmissibility provisions could also harm children of polygamous unions, by removing their parent(s) from Canada, removing the children themselves from Canada, and infringing their rights under international law.”

The amendment proposed here by the Green Party is to make sure that women who are forced into polygamous marriages are not punished by exempting them from the application of this ground for inadmissibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

This measure on polygamy was mentioned by a few of our witnesses who were concerned about the repercussions of this measure on women and children, and feared that the measure would further victimize women and children.

I am tempted to support this amendment even though this clause will still not be good enough. One thing that came up often was that the definition of polygamy itself poses a problem. Clause 2 would ensure that it would not be exactly clear who would be targeted and under what criteria because the definition of polygamy itself is not clear.

I find Ms. May's amendment interesting, and I would tend to support it, but I still want to stress that even if this amendment is passed, I think the measure would still be problematic because of everything the witnesses have pointed out during our study on the matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Good morning, everyone.

The exemption provided in this amendment, Mr. Chair, would allow polygamy to continue and runs counter to the objectives of Bill S-7. As the bill's title states, there should be zero tolerance for such practices occurring on Canadian soil. The proposed inadmissibility would support this goal by helping prevent polygamy from occurring in Canada by providing new tools to refuse applications from those who may be travelling to Canada to practise polygamy, and to render inadmissible those who practise polygamy once in the country. If an individual stops practising polygamy, the inadmissibility would cease to apply. If that individual is out of status in Canada, discretionary measures may be used to allow the person to remain in Canada. For example, the person may seek to stay in our country on humanitarian—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis, excuse me, I just wonder if you're talking about the clause as opposed to the amendment.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

The amendment, and I'm giving you the reasons that the government will not be supporting the amendment, sir.

That was it. I was done.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate what Mr. Menegakis had to say, but there are a couple of things that trouble me. First of all, he said “may” allow. There is no guarantee that someone will be allowed to stay if whoever decides that there's been a polygamous relationship. As was pointed out last week, this is counter to what we expect in this country in regard to due process of law. These people are in danger of being deported, people who have been here for a long time. How on earth is that in keeping with our sense of fairness and justice?

I would support the amendment and we're right back to there's no clear definition for polygamy.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Seeing no further hands, we'll vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe, you have an amendment.

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

Yes, I would like to propose an amendment. It asks the minister to inform women arriving here as sponsored immigrants, sponsored spouses, of their rights and of the resources available, in their own language.

You will note that this amendment reflects everything we have heard within this committee, not just on the study of Bill S-7, but also in the context of other studies, including the study entitled Strengthening the Protection of Women in our Immigration System.

As witnesses from various fields of expertise have said, it is clear that women would be much better protected if they were better informed of their rights and the resources available to them. The bill aims to protect women and children from acts of violence and repression. I think that it would completely miss this goal if it did not include any measure to inform women of this.

You will tell me whether this is the right place for the amendment to be proposed. If you deem it in order, I would be pleased to debate it further.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think you have been advised, madam, that we will be ruling this out of order. Part 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 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by adding a definition of polygamy. The amendment seeks to amend the same act by proposing that the minister provide specific information to certain categories of people, which is not envisioned by the act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Therefore, this amendment brings a new concept that's beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. It's therefore ruled inadmissible.

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

Thank you for carefully considering my amendment. I accept your decision, but I would still like to point out that I hope the government will not delay — if it isn't in this bill, may it be in the next one, perhaps even before the end of the House's work — so that these women may be provided with the information on their rights and the resources that may help them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

Mr. McCallum, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

On the provision of the age of marriage being 16, we have concerns, as some witnesses did, that parental consent alone may not be a good idea, because that could involve forced marriages among people who are 16 or 17 years old. The effect of our amendment is to create a provision whereby the minimum age would be 18, except in provinces that have established a regime for some sort of judicial oversight for marriage involving 16-year-old and 17-year-old people. That's our proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague for proposing this amendment.

The witnesses often raised this before the committee. I am happy that we can discuss this and debate it together today. We have even seen a report from UNICEF, I believe, that proposed reviewing the possibility of establishing 18 as the minimum age to marry. It's interesting because it might be more in keeping with the international treaties that Canada has signed.

Actually, it is difficult to understand why the bill proposes the age of 16 years. Perhaps my colleague can explain why it is age 16 and not age 17 or 18, as is the practice in many other countries. I would especially like to point out that this amendment would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to marry.

It would be very important for young people who want to marry to be able to do so, but they must also be able to express their free and full consent, rather than have it be the parent, for example, who can give consent for the marriage of a minor. The experts who testified often made that comment, and I think it is a very important one. So I am somewhat in favour of this amendment.

I would like to know what the government's opinion is on this and why it chose age 16 rather than age 18.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, the government will not be supporting this amendment. The constitutional jurisdiction of the federal Parliament is to set the absolute minimum age for marriage for all Canadian residents. The proposal would result in several different absolute minimum ages. It is unclear whether the age restrictions would apply according to the province or territory where the marriage takes place or the province or territory where one or both of the couple ordinarily reside. This would lead to legal confusion for Canadians and in particular for young people who wish to marry. For those Canadian residents who marry outside of Canada, there would also be legal confusion as to which minimum age applies.

The Government of Canada agrees with the apparent intention of the proposed amendment, which is to provide additional protections to the young people who marry between 16 and the age of majority, but the government prefers to achieve that goal through the cooperation of the provinces and territories. Age 16 is also the absolute minimum age for marriage in like-minded countries, with only limited exceptions, so we're not supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam, you have the floor.

[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?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

We've heard from witnesses at this committee. We also heard from wide consultations the minister held across the country. We're not prepared to support this amendment. I'm just going to leave it at that for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. McCallum.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just note that the amendment we're proposing is a mechanism similar to how the government tried to regulate the payday loan industry, and also the Minister of National Revenue mentioned in her remarks at second reading that the Minister of Justice is already working with his provincial counterparts to ensure that such protections are brought into marriage law. I think there is a real issue of parental consent alone for 16-year-old and 17-year-old people leading to bad outcomes. We heard that from witnesses. It strikes me that the government is being excessively timid in not accepting this amendment, especially given that such discussions, we've been told, are already under way.