Evidence of meeting #48 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
I think I can add to what I said earlier, Mr. Chair, that we are in constant contact with the provinces. We work very closely with them, and we'll certainly take their input into consideration in the drafting of this particular element and other elements of the bill.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9 a.m.
NDP
9 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
That's okay. I have so much paper. We'll muddle through all this together somehow, but thank you for your assistance.
We have an amendment proposed by Ms. May which is PV-2. If this is defeated, amendments PV-3 and PV-4 cannot be proceeded with.
You have the floor, Ms. May.
9 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hope it would be considered acceptable to you as chair if I speak to all three at the same time, because they work as a package. I know they go out of other clauses, but I think it would be more efficient, if that's all right with you.
9 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Sure. I don't know whether that means you get three minutes, though.
May 12th, 2015 / 9 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Oh no, that's all right. I'll do it in one or one and a half.
I just want to make one brief point. I really wonder if the drafters have considered—which I don't have in an amendment at this point—what “free and enlightened consent” will mean for two people. I note parenthetically that this could save Britney Spears all kinds of trouble if she tried to get married in Canada. In any case, I find that this is a new definition for contracting marriage, and I wonder if it will cause us trouble down the road.
With these amendments, PV-2, PV-3 and PV-4, I am trying to get to the same issue that Mr. McCallum just put forward, which is that there were a lot of witnesses before the committee, including UNICEF and the Canadian Bar Association, who said that we really don't know what the proper age might be in order to provide clarity and protection for young people and to ensure that they are not forced into marriages.
The reason I'd like to present all three at once is that they work together. The idea is to create some time, as this bill is coming into force, within which the government can do further consultations and study to figure out the best federally mandated minimum age of marriage in order to pursue further “evidence-informed analysis, and consultative processes with children and youth and other relevant stakeholders...to determine what course of action will best serve the best interests of Canada's children and youth”. That was a citation from the UNICEF brief.
The way the three amendments work together is essentially to put the same provision that you find in the bill now at a different point in the act so the entry into force can be postponed to allow this section to be clarified.
With that, Mr. Chair, I conclude presentations on three of my amendments at once.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, the government does not support this amendment. The amendment makes no substantive change and is unnecessary.
The amendment moves proposed section 2.2 of the Civil Marriage Act, which sets out a new national minimum age for marriage, to a new section 2.4 in a separate new proposed clause 4.1 in order that it not come into force until a House of Commons committee, a Senate committee, or a joint House of Commons and Senate committee submits a report on the proper minimum age for contracting a marriage. This approach leaves a lack of uniformity in the law in Canada with regard to the absolute minimum age for marriage. It would leave the minimum age for marriage at 16 in the province of Quebec only; in other provinces and territories, the common law would apply. As mentioned, this would deny legal protection to minors who are Canadian residents not residing in the province of Quebec.
We will not be supporting this amendment.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a question for my colleague. If I understand this correctly, it seems this amendment would totally eliminate a minimum age for marriage. If that is correct, I would not agree with that.
9:05 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
The intention here.... It's a convoluted way to try to create space for the minimum age for marriage to be consulted upon before being nailed down in this law. The further amendment extends the period of time for coming into force. The three work together as a package. One by itself wouldn't make sense.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 7)
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We have amendment PV-5 from Ms. May.
Ms. May, you have the floor.
9:10 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, this deals with a very controversial part of this bill, as all members of the committee will know.
Let me confess that I find the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act strange to begin with, in that it basically makes illegal a lot of things that Canadians know to be illegal, such as killing in any form. It's already illegal. Making an honour killing illegal and saying we certainly want to thump our desks about that, to me, is more gimmickry than law-making, but in going forward with gimmickry, one shouldn't do damage to fundamental legal principles, such as access to the defence of provocation.
You did know from the evidence of the Canadian Bar Association and particular members of the bar.... Mr. Michael Spratt, a partner at Abergel Goldstein, spoke very forcefully, as you'll recall, about the risks with the way this section now works, where the allegation in some of the testimony, even from the minister, was that it was common practice to try to use the defence of provocation to reduce the severity of the crime from first degree murder to manslaughter on the part of someone who conducts an honour killing. This was described by Mr. Spratt as “reckless mischaracterization”.
We have not seen the defence of provocation succeed in honour killings, ever. We've seen it attempted only three times. The risk here is that in shutting this down, essentially shutting the door on a straw man, we might actually make it more difficult to have access to such a defence in cases when we would want to.
That's why my amendment puts forward a deletion.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
All in favour of PV-5?
I'm sorry, Mr. Menegakis, you have—
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Well, if you're taking it to a vote, we're ready to vote.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
No. If I have missed hands, we're going to have some discussion.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe's hand was up first, but I'll take it.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All right, I'll play that game.
Go ahead, Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.
