Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2014

Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the hon. member for Vancouver East, I would just remind all hon. members that there is great latitude given in terms of relevance, but that members ought to remember the bill that is before the House and keep their comments consistent with that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very relevant that we are looking at the question of mandatory minimum sentences because this is a feature in the bill. The question I heard from my colleague was about why the government continues to do this when it is being challenged and when there is now mounting evidence that there are problems with mandatory minimum sentences. In this case it happens to be six months in prison if a law enforcement animal is killed while helping a police officer enforce the law, so that is the particular provision that is included in the bill.

Unfortunately, I do not know that there is a rationale as to why Conservatives continue to do it. It has become a very political question. It is not a question of evidence. It is not a question of judicial oversight. It is a mindset, a rigid attitude that somehow a mandatory minimum is going to fix the problem and is going to make people feel better. It is a very emotional thing. It is not based on evidence. In fact, as I said, the evidence shows us that it is going the other way.

That is very problematic. I do not think we want a judicial system based on what we think people perceive as tougher. We need to base public policy decisions on evidence, merit and public interest overall. We are facing a very big situation and that is why we are focusing on this aspect in the bill, because it really bothers us that yet again we are seeing this same pattern emerge.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for her very enlightening speech.

At the risk of repeating myself, I want to say that we are studying this bill at second reading in order to send it to committee. That is why we will be supporting it at second reading.

I would like to take advantage of my colleague's extensive experience—she has already been in politics for 17 years—and hear her comments about the committee stage. Unfortunately, during committee work, government members often join forces and use their majority in each committee to reject expert advice and any proposals that come from the opposition parties.

I would like to know how confident she is about the work that will be done on this bill at committee stage.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a speculative question but it is certainly worth answering, especially today where in question period the debate in the House was very collegial and we talked about working together. We talked about good will and having respect. I know those are all things that we share, but somehow it gets lost on the way and sometimes it gets horribly lost at committee where real dogfights take place.

It is very disturbing. Committees used to be very collegial. I can remember when committees used to issue quite a lot of unanimous reports because there was a lot of negotiation, give and take, and they would come out with unanimous reports. I see a member across the way who would remember that. That is very rare today because now there is a kind of shadow from the PMO, a rigidity of how to view a bill at committee and a lot of opposition members feel like we are being shut down at committee. It is unfortunate because some of the good work that MPs can do happens at committee. We want to improve the bill. We want to make constructive suggestions.

The question from my colleague is whether I think that will happen. Well, there is always hope, but unfortunately we have seen a very strong pattern at committee of the government members' votes just kind of washing over and that has been very unfortunate. Because this is a bill that we all do support in a way and it is about the welfare of animals that we all care about, maybe there will be some good will to constructively look at amendments. Let us hope for that. I do not want to be cynical, so let us send the bill to committee and hope that we can come out with a better bill. Would that not be a good thing?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's events, I would first like to say how proud I am to be able to rise in the House and speak freely in this Parliament and in this democracy. I would like to thank all of the security teams that watched over us and protected us.

There are no words that can truly express the gratitude that I think everyone in the House has for the gentlemen who work to protect the House and all Canadians who come to visit it each day. To stand in the House on this day to speak to this bill is of particular pride.

Bill C-35 is a bill that, in its essence, I am very proud to support. I come from a riding that has a large number of animal lovers. I am a cat person. I recently lost my companion animal. When I open my iPad, it is her little face that I see each time. The desire to protect our animal companions and partners is something of import.

Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I will let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

We are only beginning to make the connection between the four-legged companions by our sides in the domestic and leisure sense. We spend a lot of time, energy and money on the care of these companions. Animals and handlers have that very unique relationship where they are working partners, where these animals willingly put their lives on the line to protect their human handlers. Without question, they put themselves between their partners and bullets or knives. It is only right that we pay them the respect they are due for their unwavering sacrifice and dedication. This is where we come together on Bill C-35.

To be able to say that to harm this animal is to harm myself is extremely important. Unfortunately, where we begin to diverge is in how this is going to be expressed. How are we going to quantify the lives of these animals? Unfortunately, this very noble bill is tainted somewhat by the efforts to yet again introduce mandatory minimum sentences. As I understand our government, we are divided into three spheres: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. There are codes in place that create checks and balances so that no one of these sectors, so to speak, can overpower the other.

With the introduction of minimum mandatory sentences, we run into a situation where we invade the jurisdiction of the judiciary. We take away the ability for our judges, who we entrust with their wisdom and knowledge of law, and the intricacies of human nature and human actions, to justly administer the law.

We call it the justice system for a reason. It is not the vengeance system. It is not the vindictive system. It is the justice system. To mete out justice, one must have the ability to take all things into consideration. Justice may be blind, but it is not deaf and dumb. The ability for a judge to take all the evidence into consideration is something that we protect. It is our job to ensure it is done in a way that speaks to our society.

Unfortunately, yet again, the government introduces minimum mandatory sentences, basically using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat. The importance of being able to create a full picture of what a person has done, what crime a person has committed, is the hallmark of our justice system. The sledgehammer analogy that I used is referring to the fact that for some reason the government seems to shy away from the details, the minutia, of the creation of legislation. They say, “Let us put a bill together. Let us make it wrong to do this thing and let us throw them in prison forever”.

That is not our job. Our job as legislators, and the reason we have debates, is to take a concept, an idea, a bill and go through that bill with a fine tooth comb to ensure that when we come to conclusion, each and every detail results in a bill that serves the people of Canada; that it protects the interests of those we are trying to protect and the rights of those who might be falsely accused; and allows for the judgment, from our judges, to take extenuating circumstances, to take all the information that is presented to them, into consideration in handing out a just sentence. The details of Bill C-35 are virtually absent.

We definitely empathize with the origin of the bill. It is nicknamed Quanto's Law. We understand where it comes from and we agree wholeheartedly that our companion animals, those who serve the people who protect us, help find contraband materials at our borders, help find mines in war zones, and help find lost souls in avalanches, should be protected. However, are they really going to be protected with mandatory minimum sentences?

My colleague spoke to the effect of mandatory minimum sentences. She mentioned that we have no real proof that mandatory minimum sentences work.

In this spirit of camaraderie that was expressed today, I hope we can take this noble bill to committee, to look at how we can give judges the latitude to impose the proper punishments on individuals who harm our friends without making it something which is basically killing a gnat with a sledgehammer.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and riding neighbour for his speech.

He also spoke about yesterday's events, as well as what companion animals do for people. These animals can include cats, which he loves. For the constituents we represent, especially seniors, these companions are important.

I would also like the member to talk more about the importance of pets. As we have heard, they can help with security, but they can also help with general well-being. Pets are good for our psychological well-being, which is an important aspect of the role these animals play.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Our relationship with animals is truly special and unique. It takes time for service animals to be trained and for a relationship to develop. It is truly special. That is why we need to treat these animals as partners and friends.

They deserve the protections this bill would offer. What I am putting out there is that mandatory minimums is not the way to go. We should give judges the opportunity and range to respond in kind to whatever threat is posed to our animal friends.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about mandatory minimums, so I would like to hear his comments. After the speeches we have heard, it is clear that this issue is very important to us with this bill.

During my speech I said that this would take powers away from judges—no one disagrees there—and would put those powers in the hands of prosecutors, but that it was also a question of governance. This bill would remove power from the legislative branch and give it to the executive branch. We know that prosecutors work under the jurisdiction of various justice departments and ministers at the provincial and federal levels. It is not simply a question of effectiveness or even cost. It is also a question of a change in governance.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the separation of the executive, the judicial and the legislative is something that is fundamental to our system of governance. The introduction of mandatory minimum sentences is dangerous to those divisions because it takes away the flexibility and wisdom of the judiciary, and places the balance in the hands of both the executive and legislative branches wherein the total governance of our nation could become imbalanced.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak in support of Bill C-35, which we are debating today.

I want to express my gratitude to the guards, the first responders, who basically saved our lives yesterday. They went through a lot yesterday and we cannot thank them enough. Let me be frank. On a daily basis in this place and in this precinct, we take them for granted. Our hearts are with them not only because of what they did for us yesterday but for what they do for us on a daily basis.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the RCMP and to the Ottawa police force. What happened yesterday is fresh in our memory. As this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the horrific events of yesterday, I want to take this opportunity to thank them. I am grateful for their help. They did their job. If they had not done their job, we might not be in this place today. We should never take that for granted.

I want to thank all of them for not only what they have done for us in the past but particularly for what they did yesterday and will continue to do in the future.

We understand the context of Bill C-35. This legislation is in memory of an Edmonton police service dog named Quanto. I recall many times in this place bills that have been attributed to events or to individuals, but this legislation is quite unique. People who are not aware of the context of this legislation would not really appreciate the fact that we are talking about protecting animals and the importance of what they do.

Some people may be scratching their heads because we are having a debate about dogs in the Parliament of Canada. It would appear to be strange.

However, the context of this legislation is important because of the horrific violence that took place involving this police service dog. It ups our game in looking at protecting those who serve and those who are first responders. That is a good thing and something we should celebrate. Again, I think of the events of yesterday. Now more than ever we can appreciate every device used to protect people.

This legislation is inspired by the case of the Edmonton police service dog named Quanto. It was a horrific event. The dog was stabbed to death during its pursuit of a fleeing suspect. The case really grabbed people's attention in October 2013 and pushed people to act. The Deputy Speaker and one of my colleagues had a private member's bill on this same issue.

We must look at the whole context of first responders. We must look not only at service dogs and what they do in the case of police services but also rescue dogs and what they do to help people who are stranded. Many of my colleagues have given us their stories. This past Fall there were a couple of stories involving kids who had walked away from their homes. Rescue dogs found those kids and they were returned to their homes safely. I was inspired by those stories.

It is important that we look at the whole issue of first responders and that is what this legislation does. Obviously, first responders are supported by technology, but they are also supported with backup, like logistics and communications. We saw that yesterday.

However, to have dogs that are highly trained and supportive gives first responders confidence that they will be supported.

If people do not understand the kind of work our police services and our military do, they might not appreciate the importance of service animals. Service animals have a very long tradition, a history that is not particularly new. What is new is that we are recognizing that their importance merits putting amendments into the Criminal Code to make sure it is recognized.

To branch out a bit beyond police service dogs, having travelled a bit in my capacity as foreign affairs spokesperson, I know that overseas our military uses service dogs to accompany soldiers. Dogs were trained in Afghanistan to help in terms of IEDs, explosives, and munitions. Through their work they provide safety for our military abroad and for civilians who might be affected by conflict. These dogs are there to sniff out explosives so that the explosives can be deactivated and will not be used to kill people. These dogs provide an extraordinarily important service.

We have to understand rescue animals in that context. Particularly with dogs, which I know best, this approach is important.

We also have to understand the importance of these animals in terms of what they are able to provide. It is not just that they are trained to aid and abet the work of first responders, police, military, et cetera; they also provide important support for those people, who are working in highly stressful situations.

We have come to learn a lot about the importance of animals in the field of mental health and the effect dogs can have. I think of what is happening with veterans, for instance. A lot of work being done with veterans uses animals, particularly dogs, to help them. I have seen it with seniors as well. I have seen it with kids with autism, et cetera. It is important to understand this capability, and it is really smart to provide this service to people, because it works.

We have a dog in our home, Wesley. He was a rescue dog from Iqaluit in Nunavut. He is a little West Highland Terrier and a mix of some other breeds—a Heinz 57, if you will, and I know the kind of support he provides our family. My two teenage boys might not be able to talk to me about everything, but certainly they can confide in Wesley. We know that really does help.

We see this as an important good, both for first responders in making sure people are safe as well as in providing that personal support, but there are times when the dogs are put in harm's way or in perilous situations, such as in the example from last October, so it makes sense to put this reform into the Criminal Code. We acknowledge the government's promises in the Speech from the Throne and we look for its commitments on some of the other issues we noted in the Speech from the Throne coming forward as well in regulation legislation.

It is important to note what my colleagues have noted when we are talking about Criminal Code changes. When I was first elected, I recall my colleague from Windsor, the Deputy Speaker, noting the government's agenda on justice matters and saying that it would be really smart to have an overview of the Criminal Code. However, one of the things we should stay away from is putting mandatory minimums on all legislation, which seems to be a dominant response of the Conservative government. The Criminal Code was passed by Parliament and it is important that we get it right, but as my colleague from Montreal stated, the judiciary must have some leeway—some—to interpret and to sentence appropriately after having had a full hearing of evidence provided on a case.

That point is very important when it comes to this piece of legislation and others, simply because when a mandatory minimum law was put in place in the past, judges felt it restricted their ability to sentence in a sensible way. This meant that as a result of the mandatory minimum declaration, justice sometimes could not be done.

That is why, on this side, we believe that a mandatory minimum approach should be restricted to very few cases. Our colleague from Windsor has taught law and understands these issues. I think that the one case for which we have evidence that it might work was in the case of drunk driving, but other than that, we have not seen evidence that it works.

We believe that this is a good initiative. We think that we should go forward, take it to committee, and improve it. We should make sure that the government understands that, as with other justice issues and bills, it should resist the temptation to have mandatory minimums.

On this day, let me say that there is a lot of agreement on the issue. There is a lot of support, and the importance of the issue is recognized. That is a good thing. Let us work together to improve the bill and make sure it is the best bill that we can provide.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

moved:

That the House call on the government to take action to prevent forced marriages and any kind of non-consensual sponsorship in the immigration system by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations so as to: (a) ban the use of proxy, telephone, and fax marriages as a means to spousal sponsorship; (b) disallow explicitly, in section 5, the use of proxy, telephone and fax marriages for the purpose of immigration; and (c) set out administrative measures that communicate clearly to visa officers how to detect a proxy, telephone or fax marriage.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to introduce my motion, which pertains to telephone, fax, Internet or proxy marriages; specifically, as they relate to immigration to Canada.

The issue is both timely, I would say urgent, in fact, as well as deeply troubling. My motion is related to forced marriages, in that the sad truth is that these practices can be used to force individuals, usually women and girls, into non-consensual marriages.

Allow me to elaborate on the issue that I am bringing forward today.

A marriage by proxy is one where one or even both participants are not present at the ceremony and are represented by another person. Sometimes, these marriages are conducted via telephone, the Internet, or even by fax. Some visa offices around the world encounter marriages by proxy on a regular basis, as it is a cultural practice in some parts of the world. Rest assured, such marriages are not legally recognized when performed in Canada.

They are currently recognized by Canadian immigration law, however, when conducted outside of Canada. I am not telling members that all of these arrangements are invalid. Simply put, my motion asks the government to make the necessary regulation changes to disallow telephone, fax, Internet or proxy marriages for the purpose of immigration, and in particular, spousal sponsorship.

I am sure we all would agree it is essential to protect Canadians, as well as those who dream of a new life in Canada. That is why we must do whatever we can to strengthen the protection of vulnerable women in Canada and to support the rights of immigrant and newcomer women in the strongest possible way. The motion we are debating today would provide that strong protection.

Now, let me be clear. The motion is not an indictment of cultural practices related to arranged marriages. An arranged marriage is a marriage in which families take a leading role, but both parties have the free will to accept or decline the arrangement. What we are debating today is the issue of forced marriages, whereby one or more parties to the marriage have not given their consent.

However, the focus of the motion is the increasing concern that some marriages by telephone, fax, Internet or proxy can make it easier for someone to be forced into a marriage to which they do not consent. Indeed, as I have stated, there have been reports of spousal sponsorship cases that were, in fact, cases of forced marriages facilitated by proxy. The effects on the victims are devastating and far-reaching as it also impacts children and communities.

Unfortunately, violence against women and girls continues to affect tens of thousands each year and harmful cultural practices, such as forced marriage, still exist as a reality for some women and girls. Men and boys can also be victims, but women and girls are particularly vulnerable. As a member of the status of women committee, these issues of violence against women and girls are top of mind for me.

However, forced marriages also have an impact upon the integrity of our immigration system, which is the focus of the regulation change required to solve this problem. I can think of at least two possible scenarios that illustrate this point.

The first involves a Canadian or a permanent resident being forced to marry a foreign national and then being compelled to bring that person and their dependants to Canada through family sponsorship. For example, let us say a young woman is pressured by her family, or others, to marry a foreign national so that her sponsored spouse can then come to Canada and bring with him any dependants.

The second is the possible situation of a Canadian or a permanent resident forcing a foreign national into marriage and then compelling that person to come to Canada as their sponsored spouse. In this scenario, a woman abroad could be forced against her will to marry a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident and then be compelled to come to Canada as a sponsored spouse.

In both of these situations, the marriage can take place by proxy, telephone, fax or the Internet and then can be used as a basis upon which to apply to immigrate to Canada. This is not how Canada's spousal sponsorship is intended to work, nor should it be allowed in other immigration streams that support keeping families together through the migration process. These scenarios not only underscore our responsibility as legislators to ensure that we uphold and strengthen the protections for vulnerable women, they also bring home our responsibility to protect our immigration system from abuse.

It is time to close this loophole.

Central to our country's success, prosperity, and social harmony is the fact that we are united as Canadian citizens not by shared ancestry but by a pledge of mutual responsibility and a shared commitment to values and traditions rooted in our history. As the daughter of immigrants myself, and therefore as a first-generation Canadian, these values are central to my personal beliefs, and I will work to protect them as a Canadian and as a parliamentarian. This includes ensuring that everyone who interacts with our immigration system is treated fairly and that we do everything we can to help people successfully integrate as citizens of our country, regardless of their country of origin, their ethnic heritage, their economic circumstance, or their gender.

While not all telephone, fax, Internet, or proxy marriages are forced, it is clear from the information received by visa officers in Canada's regional offices that some most certainly are. It is not an exaggeration to characterize forced marriage as a form of family violence. It is an extremely harmful practice that must not be tolerated.

To protect the integrity of our immigration system and to protect those who might be victimized by harmful practices, the government has made it much harder for people convicted of crimes that result in bodily harm against members of their families, or other particularly violent offences, to sponsor any family-class member to come to Canada. These are the kinds of actions the Government of Canada has taken recently to address family violence in the context of immigration.

As members can see, family violence is not tolerated in Canada under any circumstance, and individuals who do not respect Canadian law and commit serious crimes should not benefit from the privilege of sponsorship.

Millions of girls and women continue to be brutalized by violence, including through the inhumane practice of early and forced marriage. Sometimes these are conducted by telephone, fax, Internet, or proxy. As promised in last year's Speech from the Throne, this government will take steps to ensure that it does not occur on Canadian soil.

Last, I want to recommend to the government one specific exemption to any new regulation that would be implemented. That is for members of the Canadian Armed Forces in active military service. These dedicated brave men and women should be exempted from any new regulations disallowing telephone, fax, Internet, or proxy marriages for the purposes of immigration.

I want to let members know that telephone, fax, Internet, and proxy marriages do facilitate non-bona fide marriages and may facilitate forced marriages as well. The regulation change my motion asks of government would protect women, girls, and vulnerable people as well as protect Canada's immigration system from abuse. I ask that all members of this House support this fair, reasonable, and common-sense motion.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is the member opposite aware of any province that legally recognizes proxy marriages in Canada?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, these marriages by proxy, Internet, and fax are not currently allowable in any province in Canada. Perhaps the member may be concerned that this might be the case, so I want to reassure him that it is not. My bill focuses exclusively on disallowing these marriages that have taken place elsewhere, where they are allowed, for the purposes of immigration. The member can rest assured that these do not occur in Canada and are not registered in any province in Canada.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering how the member could address the concerns that civil society has raised that, in fact, this piece of legislation, while it claims to deal with forced marriage, actually creates obstacles to a legitimate couple's ability to achieve family reunification through the immigration system.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the piece the member opposite is perhaps not fully understanding is that many of these marriages, it has been shown, are in fact not valid, not legitimate, and are conducted simply for the purpose of immigration. It is an abuse of our immigration system and our generous spousal sponsorship provisions.

I would say to the member that as these are not acceptable in Canada, for that reason alone they should not be acceptable as a basis upon which to allow those married in this fashion to immigrate to Canada.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South, on her initiative in bringing this motion forward and for her excellent speech here today.

Can the hon. member comment on how her motion supports our government's commitment to end early and forced marriage? As well, does the member have a sense of whether the opposition parties are supporting her motion?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is definitely in line with a number of other initiatives the government has taken to reduce the incidence of violence against women. In particular, we have initiated programs to protect temporary foreign workers, for example, who have been abused or refugees who have been found to have been abused by their new spouses. We are trying very hard to make sure that vulnerable women and girls are not taken advantage of in this way.

When the member mentioned the opposition, it brought to mind something the member for Papineau said before he was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. That was that words like “barbaric” should not be used to describe honour killings, forced marriages, or female genital mutilation, because those words are unnecessarily jarring and pejorative.

I would disagree strongly with that, as I think many members of this House would, as would the government. Our actions speak for themselves.

This motion closes a loophole in the immigration system for abuse and for those who wish to propagate what I would say are indeed barbaric practices.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to express our opposition to the motion on behalf of the official opposition.

Violence against immigrant and refugee women in Canada is a real problem with systemic roots. Immigrant and refugee women are at higher risk, and the Conservative government is empowered to make critical changes. Sadly, this motion is not one.

Sponsorship laws must be changed so that women who experience domestic violence can safely leave their marriages without fear of deportation. Humanitarian and compassionate grounds for staying refugee deportations must include the threat of violence against women. Foreign embassies and consular officials must be trained to deal with instances of domestic violence and forced marriage. Legal aid must be increased to support divorce and custody cases that are brought forth by immigrant women. Culturally sensitive shelters, medical aid, police services, and counselling services must be increased, funded, and sustained. All this I have heard directly from women and service providers across the country as I have consulted for Motion No. 444, a motion to create a national action plan to end violence against women. As well, the issue of forced marriage has been raised in these consultations by those who are experts on the subject.

The motion before us is particularly insidious, because it seeks to exploit the reality of forced marriage, which is violence against women, to mask something that, according to all experts, has nothing to do with it. The premise of the motion is entirely speculative, and no credible data exists to substantiate it. The language of violence against women is once again being used carelessly for political gain.

In my years on Parliament Hill, I have rarely come across a motion that is so misleading on the nature of a problem and that relates to such a serious issue as violence against women. That is why New Democrats will be voting against the motion, and I urge the government member to withdraw it and truly deal with the root issue, which is the violence and inequality women face.

My colleague, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, explained to me that while the study of immigrant and refugee women was taking place in the standing committee, Conservative members of Parliament were inexplicably insisting that proxy marriage was a problem, while expert witnesses were testifying that in fact it was not. In fact, what we see in this motion is a veiled attempt to further hinder family reunification in Canada.

Proxy marriage is a legal marriage that takes place long distance over the telephone or even by Skype. Forced marriage is a form of domestic violence and a global human rights issue. It takes place without consent, has nothing to do with immigration, and is already classified as a crime in Canada and in most countries around the world.

The fact is, forced marriage is the subject of several myths, and the rhetoric I have heard to justify this motion only exacerbates those myths.

The South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, SALCO, has been working since 2005 to create empirical data and research on the subject of forced marriage, and in its report published in 2013, it was able to dispel those myths.

Number one is that forced marriage is not an immigration issue. The report said that forced marriage “impacts Canadian citizens. It is not restricted to a particular geographic area or culture”.

Number two is that forced marriage is not a thing of the past. It “is very much an issue that continues to affect Canadians today”.

Number three is that forced marriage happens only in certain cultures. “The survey results reveal that forced marriage takes place across cultures and religions”.

Deepa Mattoo from SALCO said that this motion confirms that the current government lacks the tools for the proper identification and understanding of forced marriages. There has been no indication from the research done by the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario and the Department of Justice that forced marriage victims face victims face proxy marriages. She said that the proposed motion suggests once again that our lawmakers and government are focusing on potential fraud elements in spousal sponsorship situations but that the issue of forced marriages continues to be ignored and sidetracked.

Inventing a link between spousal sponsorship, immigration policy, and an egregious form of violence against women is not only irresponsible and fallacious, but it is also dangerous, as it fans the flames of the exact xenophobia and racism that makes the lives of immigrant women so vulnerable. I am gravely concerned that South Asian communities are targeted and persecuted by these myths in particular. Arranged marriages exist in South Asian communities as they do in many cultures, but these marriages are often consensual and loving and must not be confused with forced marriage or immigration fraud.

The immigration and refugee protection regulations already investigate sponsorship marriages for genuineness, and we have heard from lawyers, as well as community leaders, that South Asian marriages are targeted unduly for these investigations. This motion would only heighten those unjustified suspicions and create unnecessary delays in reuniting family members across borders.

We must diligently respect the rights of the South Asian community, as with all minority communities in our multicultural landscape. Chantal Desloges, another experienced immigration lawyer who strongly disagrees with this motion, said that marriage sponsorships for Pakistani couples now take close to three years for processing. As a result of this, due to cultural reasons, many couples choose to do an inexpensive and fast proxy marriage in order to get the sponsorship filed, then do a big public wedding once the couple is able to move to Canada together.

Chantal also speaks to the needs of another highly targeted community when she asks what is to be done about the situation of refugees—for example, Afghans or Syrians—where it is physically impossible for the intended spouses to marry in person.

In my role as critic for the status of women and as an elected representative, I am consistently in contact with women who are the victims of violence. I have dedicated a large part of my mandate to the eradication of this violence, and I am taken aback by how callously this motion pretends to help the victims of violence while, in fact, it is only an attempt to further close down our immigration regulations and will be used to further stigmatize members of ethnic groups that are already unduly scrutinized.

We must strive to create and implement an agenda that seeks to eradicate violence against women and, very importantly, seeks to achieve the equality all women deserve.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I wish to note as many members today have the deep gratitude we have in particular for the folks we affectionately call “the blue shirts”, the parliamentary precinct security guards with whom I spent most of the day yesterday in their lunchroom under lockdown. They were professional, courteous and in good spirits in very trying times and put themselves in harm's way with the bravery that all of us are indebted to and I would like to thank them and pay my respects personally from the floor of the House.

Our thoughts are also of course with the six-year-old boy whose father has been lost. The flags are at half-mast across the country in respect, but our hearts are held high and our love for that young child and our support for him remain as high as possible and stream straight into the night tonight as we remember a soldier who lost his life in the line of duty.

I now turn my attention to the motion in front of us. It is a confusing motion. It is a piece of legislation that comes forward with a name and intent to go in one direction, but it heads off completely in the opposite direction. It focuses its language around the issue of trying to prevent proxy marriages, but it really seeks to try to address the issue of forced marriages. It is this confusion that makes it a difficult motion to debate because we are not really sure what the intent of this private member's motion is. It would be much clearer if the government would simply bring forward legislation that changes our immigration act and changes our Criminal Code in a way that was much clearer, much more direct in its intent, but also sought to ban a practice that was not already illegal.

My question for the motion's sponsor indicates that proxy marriages in many provinces, in fact all provinces, are not recognized. Therefore, we are seeking to make illegal something that is already illegal and redundancy is at the heart of where our concern about this motion lies.

We understand and support moves to prevent forced marriages and to prevent forced marriages from being the pretext for immigration or any other legal follow-up in this country. We understand that and we are in total support of the concerns that have been raised by all members of the House in speaking to this issue about how seriously a forced marriage violates the principles of what we see as both a spiritual and a legal arrangement that deserves much greater respect.

We note that forced marriages have a disproportionate impact on young women, on women who have been subjected to violence. The evidence presented by the South Asian Legal Clinic is very clear on this. This is a concern that the House should be concerned with and the Canadian government and Canadian law should deal with and in fact does.

The issue of proxy marriages is what the motion seeks to sculpt and limit as a legal reality, and we have concerns there. Many members may know that I was a city councillor and as a city councillor one becomes a public notary while holding the office. I remember getting instructions from our city clerk's department but also in conversation with legal colleagues about the absolute importance to be present to witness all the documents. One is part of the legal process and must bear witness to the person signing and presenting the identification.

The same is true for marriage. It is very easy to understand it and see it as simply a spiritual or religious exercise, the joining of two families as an emotional or romantic conclusion to a courtship. It is also though fundamentally at its core a legal arrangement. When that legal arrangement is extended and blended with technology, problems start to arise, in particular, if forced marriage is involved. However, when we extend or use technology to record or codify or make legal that union, there are concerns that are raised. The idea of a marriage by fax is one of those areas where we share a concern, but we do not think this is going to deal with the pretext of the motion, which is about preventing forced marriages.

A fake marriage, a bad marriage, a marriage made out of convenience to do an end run or circumvent the laws of the country are a serious matter and we share those serious concerns. None of us want to see marriage or any legal arrangement used to circumvent laws. That is not appropriate.

This is an issue where we must also accommodate modern realities, where borders change quickly, where family situations and a profoundly dysfunctional immigration system in this country prevents people from being next to each other even when they are properly and legally married. It is a concern that we all share.

I will give members an example. Without naming names, there was a case that came into my constituency office of a Canadian citizen, a professor with a Ph.D., who was working overseas in one of the Commonwealth countries and married a colleague, another recipient of a Ph.D., another person with highly-prized skills. When she came back to Toronto to teach, her partner was told that he could wait two years before rejoining her or could come here for two years and not travel or work. That is absurd. This was a legal marriage that was not forced or done by proxy and nonetheless was not honoured here.

As I listened to some of the remarks that were being made here, I noted that the members opposite denigrate people with real credentials from somewhere else with great ease. No wonder foreign-trained professionals have such a difficult time getting recognition of their citizenship, their intelligence and their capacity in this country when people with degrees from Ivy League universities are joked at for having gone abroad to receive them. Shame on the members opposite. Shame.

[David Anderson]

You lecture us. You did not do anything for 13 years.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Could members listen to their colleague who has the floor. If members are not able to do so, perhaps they can remove themselves from the chamber, if that is what it takes.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

The hon. member for Trinity--Spadina.

We are speaking about whether or not legal arrangements overseas are recognized here in this country. As I said, when a Rhodes scholar goes off to Oxford and his or her credentials are mocked, when somebody teaches at Harvard and his or her credentials are mocked, it is no wonder that people who come to this country with credentials from elsewhere, whether they are marriage certificates or university degrees, feel so alienated when they arrive in this country and have to take extreme measures to get their legal reality recognized. It is a shame.

Those of us whose parents come from other countries or have family members who were trained in other countries are appalled when the laws of this country are not applied evenly to all Canadian citizens and people are mocked for their international experience or the documents and information they bring to this country.

I would ask the members opposite to bring forward motions that are clear, that are named appropriately and that address the issue they are trying to bring resolution to because when they confuse us or mock us, they do not do a service to this House.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this very important debate today. As my honourable colleagues know, women in Canada have been building this great nation of ours through their contributions to every facet of Canadian life and history. One of Canada's most well-known feminists, Nellie McClung, once said that “People must know the past to understand the present and to face the future”.

Indeed, whether they were born here or arrived as newcomers to Canada, our history is full of stories of strong, outstanding women who were a part of the foundation of our country's success. Inspiring and driven women start businesses, they create jobs and contribute brilliant ideas in fields like the arts, science, technology, medicine, and so much more.

Canada is a country that respects the equality of opportunity for all individuals, no matter their gender, nationality or religious beliefs. As I look around the House today, I am proud to see that our Parliament now has a record number of women representing the interests of their communities and their nation.

Our government is committed to breaking down barriers and supporting all women on their journey to becoming leaders. Of course, this also includes providing immigrant and newcomer women with all the tools they need to succeed and flourish in Canada. That is why our immigrant settlement services are flexible and designed to meet the diverse needs of newcomers, including women who may be facing multiple barriers such as low literacy skills, lack of child care help and limited transportation. Once in Canada, women also have access to a range of employment-related supports that help them build their skills to enter the workforce and advance their careers. Our government is focused on supporting the rights of immigrant and newcomer women in the strongest possible way.

Unfortunately, violence against women and girls continues to affect tens of thousands of Canadians each year and barbaric cultural practices such as forced marriages are still a reality for some women and girls. Men and boys can also be victims, but women and girls are especially vulnerable. That is why we must always do whatever we can to protect victims of these barbaric cultural practices. The motion we are debating today provides another tool to protect these victims and allow them to live fulfilling lives in their new home, Canada.

First, let us be clear about what we are debating today, which is the issue of forced marriages. In a forced marriage, one or more parties to the marriage have not given their consent. Conversely, an arranged marriage is a marriage in which families take a leading role, but both parties have the free will to accept or decline the arrangement.

The motion would not affect these consensual marriages. What the motion proposes is to disallow marriages by proxy, as well as those performed via fax, telephone and Internet. For my honourable colleagues who are unfamiliar with the term, a marriage by proxy is where one, or even both participants, are not present at the ceremony and are represented by a third party. Sometimes these marriages are conducted via telephone, the Internet, or even by fax. Such marriages are not legally recognized when performed in any Canadian province or territory. However, they are currently recognized by Canadian immigration law when conducted outside of Canada.

When our government takes action to implement this motion, we would ensure that marriages by proxy, telephone, fax or Internet would still be recognized for members of the Canadian Armed Forces in active military service. We want to ensure that those in active military service to Canada could still get married if they are deployed for extended periods of time.

It is important to note that immigration applicants who decide to marry by proxy would have options. Couples could choose to remarry in person at a ceremony that meets a specific requirement, or they could apply as common-law or conjugal partners.

I want to reiterate that marriages by proxy, fax, telephone or Internet are not permitted in Canada in any province or territory.

Consideration of proxy marriages on humanitarian and compassionate grounds would also be available. However, the main focus of this motion is the increasing concern that some marriages by proxy, telephone, fax, or Internet originate as forced marriage. These are, for the most part, people who are not attending their own wedding ceremonies. Another individual is giving consent on their behalf by proxy. It is more difficult to give one's consent to marriage when one is not in the same room as the new bride or groom, which is what happens in a proxy, fax, telephone, or Internet marriage.

Indeed, there have been reports from our missions around the world of spousal sponsorship cases that were in fact cases of forced marriage facilitated by proxy. The unfortunate reality is that these practices can be used to force individuals into non-consensual marriages. It is time to close this loophole once and for all.

We are united as Canadian citizens not only by our shared ancestry but by a pledge of mutual responsibility and a commitment to the values and traditions rooted in our history. It is a fundamental Canadian value to ensure that each and every Canadian has a fair shot at a full and happy life and an equal chance at success and integration. This includes ensuring that everyone who interacts with our immigration system is treated fairly and that we are doing everything we can to help them successfully integrate as citizens of our country, regardless of their country of origin, their ethnic heritage, their economic circumstance, or their gender.

Our Conservative government has enacted many measures to protect the integrity of our immigration system and to prevent those at risk from being victimized by harmful practices. For example, our government has made it much harder for people convicted of violent crimes against family members or other particularly violent offences to sponsor any family class member to come to Canada. Family violence is not tolerated in Canada under any circumstance, and individuals who do not respect Canadian law and commit a serious crime should not benefit from the privilege of sponsorship.

Our Conservative government has also brought in new measures in recent years to deter foreign nationals from entering into marriages of convenience to gain permanent resident status in Canada. This includes a two-year conditional permanent resident status for certain sponsored spouses. Of course, our government has also introduced an exemption to the conditional status measures in instances where there is evidence of any abuse of a physical, sexual, psychological, or financial nature.

Our Conservative government has taken many steps to protect vulnerable immigrant and newcomer women.

As the motion before us states, it is time for our government to take action. Once again, we have a responsibility as legislators to ensure that we uphold and strengthen the protection of victimized women. I believe that strong women are the foundation of a strong and prosperous nation, our Canada.

Let us work toward making the next generation of Canadian girls and women the most fearless and accomplished generation yet. The Conservative government is proud to support Motion No. 505, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to it.