Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2014

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #297

Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from December 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-247, An Act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident, be read the third time and passed.

Main Point of Contact with the Government of Canada in case of Death Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-247.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #298

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from December 2 consideration of the motion that Bill S-213, An Act respecting Lincoln Alexander Day, be read the third time and passed.

Lincoln Alexander Day

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill S-213.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #299

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 6:45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to what I think is a really important issue. It is an issue that I believe we do not give enough attention to.

Immigration is a very important issue. The motion that we have before us today is a bit confusing in the way it reads and in the message that the member might be trying to get out. It implies, in essence, the issue of proxy marriages and so forth. The member has missed what I believe is an important issue by bringing forward this motion, as opposed to dealing with the broader issue of immigration and marriages that are taking place.

It is an issue that I deal with on almost a weekly basis, and I say that without any exaggeration whatsoever. I have had the opportunity to raise the issue during question period, even when I was the immigration critic for the Liberal Party. It is an issue that is here today, and it has gotten a lot worse under the Conservative government.

Because it is about marriages, I would like to take this opportunity to focus the government on what I and many members of the Liberal Party believe is a very important issue. Let me start by sharing a couple of tangible examples that I have had to experience. One of them is fairly recent.

As much as possible, every week, or I would say 48 to 50 times per year, I go to a local restaurant in my community on a Saturday. The last few Saturdays, I have had an individual come to talk to me about his marriage. I am using this as an example. This individual went back to India in January 2013. He got married and has a wonderful relationship. A few months later, he came back to Canada after staying in India for a period of time and put in his application to sponsor his wife.

It is hard for us to imagine that after being married, one would have to wait weeks or months to be joined by one's spouse. It has been well over a year in this particular case, and it is still a big unknown, a question mark, in terms of when his spouse will be able to join him.

I believe that his application was submitted in May of 2013. There were a few changes made over that summer period. The individual is very emotional and wants to see his wife here in Canada. He is appealing to me as a member of Parliament to try to get his wife here. Sadly, this individual is not alone.

We have now been in the process of trying to assist this particular individual for weeks already. We have been trying to get a better understanding. I believe that my office was actually contacted months ago. The issue seems to be nothing more than the processing of paper. There does not seem to be any question in terms of the legitimacy of the marriage. I have well over 20 years of experience dealing with immigration, and I do not quite understand why this particular file is taking as long as it is.

It is difficult when we meet with constituents who are pleading to be united with their spouse. By not speeding up the process, we are deferring the opportunity for this gentleman and for thousands like him, of both genders, to be with their spouses here in Canada. I think that is a great travesty, and we need to put more emphasis on it.

The government motion that we have before us is challenging the legitimacy of marriages, and I understand that the government is working on legislation to deal with that particular issue. My challenge to the government and in particular to this member is to look at trying to assist people and to facilitate their being together after marriage in a much more timely fashion. As well, I must say that there is a double standard out there.

I appreciate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration listening to what I am saying. I appreciate that he appeared to have taken some action, and I give him credit. A while back, information was passed on to my constituency office about paperwork that had been processed, but there seemed to be a freeze on issuing the visa. Shortly thereafter, we raised the issue in question period. The matter seemed to resolve itself. I am not too sure what the minister might have done, but I recognize that he put in some effort in making that situation turn around.

Because we are dealing with an emotional matter, I am suggesting that we try to recognize the issue that no doubt is there. There are some serious issues with proxy marriages. I look across the way for someone to correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, the government is attempting to deal with the issue through legislation. As much as many people in Canada, especially stakeholders, would have some concerns in regard to this issue, I suggest that there is a bigger issue that needs to be dealt with. That issue is the processing times, because there is so much room for improvement.

If a person happens to marry in a country where visas are not required, it is very easy to bring the spouse back to Canada. My son is a good example of that. He went to the United States and fell in love with a wonderful young lady who is now my daughter-in-law. They had no problem coming to Canada, and they started their lives together. I am very happy about that. There are many countries where that can take place.

However, if countries require visas, I would suggest that when individuals leave Canada and get married there, they later find themselves in a situation in which one partner is coming back to Canada and the other partner is in the process of waiting. To what degree would we want our friends, our children, or whoever it might be, to have to wait through the time period that is expected today? It is far too long.

I say this because I really do believe there is so much room for improvement. If it were one of us being affected, I suspect that we would get fairly upset and demand action.

For people who are here today, whether they are landed residents or were born in Canada or have been here for a year or 15 years, the level of priority for reuniting families should be equal among us all. I do not believe we are putting enough emphasis on speeding up the processing times.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on Motion No. 505. It says, in part:

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....

As the Minister of Status of Women, this is an issue that is very near and dear to me. I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for all her work on this extremely important file, and for providing me the opportunity to speak to it.

It seems appropriate, given the subject matter of today's debate, for all of us in Canada and across the world to take a moment to mark the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. These 16 days began on November 25 and will end on December 10, International Human Rights Day. We will also mark our National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women on December 6, which this year marks the 25th anniversary of the tragic murders of 14 young women at École Polytechnique de Montréal in 1989 who were killed simply because they were women. Each year these occasions provide us a solemn reminder that gender-based violence is never far from everyday life here in Canada. They remind us that we can no longer be a country that sees gender-based violence as a women's issue. Everyone in Canada needs to be part of the solution.

It is in this context that I want to address the motion before the House today. This motion calls on the government to amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations in order to “ban the use of proxy, telephone, and fax marriages as a means to spousal sponsorship”, and to exclude the use of such marriages for the purpose of immigration, and to set out measures that communicate to visa officers how to detect such marriages. Marriage by proxy is a cultural practice in certain parts of the world. While the performance of such marriages is not legally permitted here in Canada, they may be recognized for purposes of Canadian immigration law when conducted in jurisdictions outside of Canada where these types of marriages are legal.

I thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for introducing this important motion, which I support completely. Let me explain why I feel this motion is so valuable and very much in line with our government's priorities.

Last year, our most recent Speech from the Throne indicated that addressing the vulnerabilities of women in the context of immigration would be a very important area for the government to focus on. Our government committed to ensure that women and girls would no longer be “brutalized by violence, including through the inhumane practice of early and forced marriage” on Canadian soil. That is why our government, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, has introduced a new bill, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I am pleased that we on this side of the House are focused on strengthening the protection of vulnerable women in Canada's immigration system and on forcefully and resolutely supporting the rights of immigrant and newcomer women.

In order to do so, our government must ensure that Canada's immigration policies and practices are especially focused on strengthening the protection of immigrant and newcomer women. Indeed, it is deeply troubling that harmful cultural practices, such as polygamy, female genital mutilation, and forced and under-aged marriages, still exist as a reality for some Canadian women. That is why I am happy to note our government's proactive approach to decreasing the vulnerabilities of immigrant and newcomer women. For example, regulations put in place in recent years have made it much more difficult for people convicted of crimes that result in bodily harm against members of their family or other particular violent offences to sponsor any family class member to come to Canada.

Other measures have been introduced to deter foreign nationals from entering into marriages of convenience to gain permanent residence status in Canada. This includes two-year conditional permanent residence status for certain sponsored spouses. To protect sponsored spouses who are in abusive relationships, our government put in an exemption to these measures in instances where there is evidence of any abuse of a physical, sexual, psychological, or financial nature.

Better guidelines and training have been introduced to assist front-line officers in processing requests for exemptions based on abuse or neglect, and in handling sensitive information related to abusive situations. Under Canada's settlement program for newcomers, our government provides funding to a variety of organizations that offer programs and services that respond to the specific needs of permanent residents, including immigrant women and their families, who may find themselves in vulnerable situations.

As I mentioned, earlier this year, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration devoted a considerable amount of time meeting with representatives of organizations that provide services to immigrant women, as well as with victims or abuse, at a number of round table discussions across the country.

I and many of the members of the status of women House of Commons committee have done exactly the same: reaching out to immigrant women, finding out exactly what their concerns are and where they find themselves to be the most vulnerable.

These important discussions focused on: domestic violence, polygamy, forced marriage, the immigration process and how to strengthen the protection of these vulnerable women and girls.

These discussions, of course, strongly informed Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, which was introduced in Parliament just a few weeks ago.

The measures in Bill S-7, which I am sure we will be debating in the near future in this House, would improve the protection and support for vulnerable individuals, especially women and girls, by rendering permanent and temporary residents inadmissible for the practice of polygamy in Canada by strengthening Canadian marriage and criminal laws in order to combat forced and underage marriage, and by ensuring that the defence of provocation would not apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

Bill S-7 would be yet another example of our government's commitment to the protection of vulnerable Canadians, particularly immigrant and newcomer women. I look forward to supporting it in this House.

Motion No. 505, the motion on proxy marriage that we we are debating today, is another unambiguous example of an initiative that would increase the protection of vulnerable women and girls in the context of the immigration system.

Barring or excluding marriages conducted by proxy, telephone, fax, or Internet for immigration purposes would help prevent the immigration system from facilitating forced marriages conducted by these means and would help reduce the number of vulnerable individuals, principally women and including girls, young women under the age of 18, who are forced into such marriages for immigration purposes.

Why are immigrant women particularly vulnerable to the harm caused by these practices?

For one, they are more likely to lack proficiency in English or French, which can be a barrier to accessing social services and information on their legal rights in an abusive relationship.

They may also lack the economic independence to leave an abusive situation, especially if they are underage.

Victims of forced marriages can face many long-term consequences, including isolation from their communities, strained relationships with family, depression and anxiety. From the perspective of a physician, substantive physical and psychological violence, if they attempt to leave these abusive relationships, can result in long-term medical challenges that they may face well into their older years.

For all these reasons I have outlined today, I urge my hon. colleagues to support Motion No. 505. I look forward to this government taking action to exclude proxy and other non-in-person marriages in the immigration system.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise and address the House, especially on a topic that I care about as deeply as the issue of forced marriage and, on a broader level, women's rights.

While the government majority is once again showing off its ability to muddy the debate and create confusion, I will try, through this intervention, to bring a little clarity to our discussion. It is always important to remember the philosophers who have interpreted the world in the past, in order to learn from their reflections and extract the principles that guide our political action. Thus, we learn from Albert Camus that to call things by incorrect names is to add to the world's misery.

That expression perfectly sums up the four years of Conservative government majority: adding confusion to misery and suspicion to distress, pretending to act when really they just run around in circles, mixing up words and forgetting the facts. Once again, the text of this motion is a glaring example of this government's intellectual dishonesty when it comes to immigration. I witnessed this first-hand as deputy critic for immigration for three years, and I see the same deficiencies in this motion.

The motion confuses some rather specific and complex concepts, such as forced marriage, arranged marriage and marriage by proxy. It is important to clarify these concepts and to define the terms of the debate by pointing out some fundamental notions.

A forced marriage means that one of the spouses is forced to marry against their will. This is something I witnessed when I worked as a social worker, and I can tell you how horrible it is. This practice is an untenable attack on human dignity, on the dignity of women and in particular on the humanist values set out in section 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we support.

In the case of arranged marriages, families get together to set up a marriage. Even though this practice may seem outdated to us, at least both spouses are consenting parties. With marriage by proxy, both spouses are also consenting parties. This practice enables two spouses who are separated by circumstance, often in war-torn countries, to get married remotely, but they are both willing, at all times. I think it is terrible that the Conservatives continue to mix up these three practices in their speeches.

As we heard from the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, forced marriages are very rarely conducted by proxy.

With its majority, the government claims to want to fight forced marriage outside of Canada. Okay, that is great. As I said, I think it is an appalling practice that has no place in Canada or anywhere else. However, if the government really intends to prevent forced marriages, why is it attacking proxy marriages? Once again, the government is attacking a problem that does not even exist with all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop. I am quite sure that this document will eventually be added to the endless list of government laws and motions that serve no purpose. There are three reasons for that.

First, the quantitative scope of this phenomenon is extremely limited. I will quote the director general of the immigration branch:

Forced marriages are something...difficult to quantify. The known incidence of forced marriages in the immigration system is quite small, and the instances tend to be anecdotal.

This motion is not supported by any credible data or statistics. Second, this motion establishes a systematic correlation between forced marriage and proxy marriage. Many researchers and workers on the ground have told us that has absolutely no basis in fact.

Ms. Korteweg, a professor of sociology at the University of Toronto, told the committee that the problems of forced marriage cannot be addressed through this motion and that forced marriages are not caused by marriage by proxy.

Basically, this motion would prohibit something that is actually already prohibited. Forced marriages are already prohibited in Canada, and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations already require Citizenship and Immigration Canada to carry out thorough investigations into spousal sponsorships to verify the sincerity of marriages.

To sum up, this motion is not based on any concrete data or statistics and it condemns a non-existent practice that is already prohibited. However, not only is this motion useless, it is actually harmful on many levels.

Despite all the witnesses heard in committee, the Conservatives are using the victims of forced marriage as a pretext for further limiting spousal sponsorships.

This motion confuses facts that have nothing to do with condemning forced marriages. It heaps shame on communities whose culture and traditions are different from our own, even though they don't practice forced marriage.

This motion is problematic because it amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations yet again. I must point out that the current government has amended these regulations roughly every three months since 2008.

The best way to deal with forced marriages in Canada is to give CIC officers the necessary resources to conduct investigations. These are lengthy and costly investigations that require patience, time and effort. There is no guarantee that they will protect against every case of fraud, but every case of fraud will go undetected without them.

However, how are these officers supposed to work with the requisite equanimity when the government cuts budgets at every turn and changes the regulations every three months? The government is well aware of the adverse effects of its constant tinkering, but it does not care. It prefers to indulge in its penchant for making policy based on back-page stories and then denounce the misfortunes born of its own mismanagement.

We, the members of the NDP, are responsible people. We are getting ready to form the first social democratic government in Canada, and that is why we have clear, concrete proposals on this issue.

Before I list those proposals, I wish to remind the House that we firmly believe that a marriage must be entered into with the free and full consent of both parties. It is unacceptable that a practice as barbaric as forced marriage could take place in a country like Canada. That is why the NDP is calling on the government to invest the material and human resources needed to hear spousal sponsorship applications under the right conditions.

We are also formulating three proposals to effectively strengthen protection for women in our immigration system. The government should start by acknowledging that violence against women goes well beyond forced marriage.

We are also asking that a procedure be put in place to inform potential partners of their legal rights before they arrive in Canada—when they go to the Canadian consulate to ask for their immigration documents, for example.

We believe that the concept of conditional permanent residence should be eliminated for sponsored spouses. Regardless of the intention behind this measure, the practice is disastrous. Although there are exceptions in cases of violence, witnesses told us that this conditional permanent residence endangers the lives of sponsored women who suffer abuse because they prefer to stay quiet for two years rather than running the risk of losing their permanent residence.

That is the essence of our immigration policy: no delusional thinking, no tolerance for outdated practices such as forced marriage, but understanding and help for those who need it.

This motion creates confusion, fuels prejudice and breeds mistrust. Consequently, I will not support it.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

It is incredibly disturbing that so many women and girls around the world continue to be victims of the inhumane practice of early and forced marriages. Right now, it is estimated that one in three girls in the developing world are married before their 18th birthdays. Disturbingly, some are married as young as five years old. This practice is harmful to girls in several ways.

Early or forced marriages hinder most girls' chances of completing an education, which puts them at even greater risk of violence and isolation. Many girls who enter early or forced marriages also typically have children at a very young age and because their bodies are not yet ready for child birth, it is estimated that approximately 70,000 girls die in labour each and every year.

Clearly, early and forced marriages are very harmful practices that threaten the lives and futures of girls around the world with devastating consequences. In fact, they are violations of human rights that often lead to social isolation, poverty and violence. This barbarism is unacceptable to Canadians. 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 help to do so by disallowing marriages by proxy and other non-in-person marriages in the immigration system. A marriage by proxy is where one or even both participants are not present at the ceremony and are represented by another person. Other forms of this type of marriage can be conducted by telephone, fax or Internet for the purposes of immigration to Canada.

While such marriages are not legally permitted to be performed in Canada, they may be recognized for the purposes of Canadian immigration law when conducted in jurisdictions outside of Canada where these types of marriages are legal. Some visa offices around the world regularly encounter marriages by proxy as it is a cultural practice in some parts of the world.

The sad truth is that these practices can be used to force individuals, usually women and girls, into non-consensual marriages. Should this motion pass, Citizenship and Immigration Canada will amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to exclude proxy, telephone and similar forms of marriage for immigration purposes across all immigration streams. In addition, policy and operational guidelines will be updated to assist immigration officers in better detecting such forms of marriage.

Of course, we also recognize there are cases when a marriage by proxy is valid and there will be exceptions in the regulations for these valid types of marriages. Sponsored spouses who decide to marry by proxy will be encouraged to remarry in an in-person ceremony that meets the laws of the country where it is performed to have their marriage accepted for immigration purposes. They can also apply as common law or conjugal partners. Humanitarian and compassionate provisions may also be taken into consideration.

However, the focus of this motion is the increasing concern that some marriages by proxy, telephone, fax, or Internet can make it easier for someone to be forced into a marriage. In addressing the issue of forced marriage in our immigration system, let us also be clear about the intent of this motion. It is not an indictment of arranged marriages. An arranged marriage is a marriage in which both parties have the free will to accept or decline the arrangement.

On the other hand, all forced marriages are, by nature, arranged and when the consent of one of both parties to the marriage is denied, tools such as proxy marriage, telephone marriage and these other means of solemnization may be used to facilitate the forced marriage.

As I have already stated, some of our visa offices have encountered cases of spousal sponsorships that were, in fact, cases of forced marriage facilitated by proxy. This is not how Canada's spousal sponsorship program is intended to work.

Although this barbaric practice of forced marriage is illegal in Canada, we must further strengthen the integrity of our immigration system to ensure we uphold and strengthen the protections of vulnerable women. This is why our government is taking additional steps to ensure it does not occur on our soil.

As we know, the introduction of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, would further strengthen the protections for vulnerable women, including those in our immigration system.

Among other measures, it would amend the Criminal Code to further prevent forced or underage marriage. These measures would criminalize: knowingly officiating at an underage or forced marriage; knowingly and actively participating in a wedding ceremony in which one party is marrying another against his or her will, or is under the age of 16 years old; and removing a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage.

In Canada, there is no national minimum age for marriage. Only in Quebec is the minimum age set at 16 years. In other parts of Canada, if members can even believe it, the common law minimum age varies from as low as 7 years old to 14 years. Setting a national minimum age of 16 years for marriage would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and will not be tolerated here.

Other proposed amendments would create a new peace bond that would give courts the power to impose conditions on an individual when there is reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or marriage under the age of 16 will otherwise occur. Such a peace bond could be used to require the surrender of a passport as well as to prevent a child from being taken outside of Canada.

Other amendments to the Civil Marriage Act proposed in Bill S-7 would require those getting married to give their free and enlightened consent to the marriage and would codify the requirements of the dissolution of any previous marriage.

Through these and other actions, our government is sending a strong message. Our country will not tolerate cultural traditions in Canada that deprive individuals of their human rights. Our government will continue to stand up for all victims of violence and abuse, and take necessary action to prevent these practices from happening on Canadian soil.

I would like to conclude by highlighting some of the investments that Status of Women has made, giving communities the tools to address harmful cultural practices: since 2007, over $70 million for projects to prevent and end violence against women and girls; of this amount, $2.8 million has been invested in projects that address harmful, cultural practices, such as violence committed in the name of so-called honour, forced genital mutilation and forced marriage; the elimination of child, early and forced marriage was a key priority for the Minister of Status of Women to raise as she led Canada's delegation to the 58th meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York earlier this year.

I support these measures and this motion. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important debate and I would like to thank my hon. colleague as well.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House today to support Motion No. 505 from the hon. member for Mississauga South. The motion would help protect the rights of immigrant women who have been subject to family or societal coercion through the practice of early and forced marriage.

Our government has maintained a strong commitment to strengthening efforts to prevent early and forced marriage, and other harmful cultural practices from happening in Canada. This is part of maintaining our Canadian values.

As members may know, Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, was recently adopted in the Senate at second reading. The motion we are debating today complements that bill. This is a much-needed motion that would protect vulnerable women and girls.

We already have many protections in place to prevent forced marriages. Individuals, primarily girls and women, but also some boys and men, who are forced into a marriage to which they do not consent can seek help from the Canadian government.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, forced marriages are illegal when performed within our borders. However, there is no protection against marriages performed in other countries, and they can facilitate these forced marriages once those participants are settled in Canada.

I find it unbelievable that the opposition is opposing this motion today, especially when we hear opposition members talk about their supposed commitment to girls and women at the status of women committee. This motion goes to the very heart of that. The opposition members argue that this is not a problem in Canada, that there is no evidence. I am shocked by that. Immigration officials have reported 1,500 forced marriages to us.

It has been reported that a young university girl in my riding of Calgary Centre has been forced to marry a cousin in another country in order to bring him to Canada. This goes on every day in each of our ridings. I want to commend the member for Mississauga South for bringing this forward.

The subject of this motion is to bar the recognition of proxy, telephone, Internet and fax marriages for immigration purposes because these kinds of marriages are right for non-consensual unions.

I grew up in a home in Lloydminster. There were six children, four girls and two boys, and we were all treated equally. I value that in my life and Canadians value it as well. Being treated equally, regardless of our country of origin, our ethnic heritage, our economic circumstance or our gender is a Canadian value.

As I noted earlier, the practice of forced marriage can also victimize men and boys, but it disproportionately encroaches on the rights of women and girls.

In Canada, we are proud of women in leadership roles. The member for Mississauga South is a perfect example of that, as is our Minister of Status of Women, and the former minister of status of women. We have some excellent women leaders here. As members of Parliament, it is incumbent upon us to remember that one of our roles is to help bring other women along and to protect their rights. That is what the member’s motion would do.

The cultural practice of forced marriage is a barrier to women. When women and girls are forced to marry someone, this is almost always accompanied by restrictions on other human rights, such as their ability to get an education, find employment and limits on their mobility and freedom. These are all abhorrent to our Canadian values of individual freedom for all.

Our government is working hard to remove obstacles that would deny women opportunities and the chance to expand their wings and really achieve their potential and dreams.

I want to quote the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Flavia Pansieri, who equated forced marriage to “the perpetual subjugation of girls and women”, saying that it leaves them vulnerable to physical, psychological, emotional and sexual violence.

At the same UN panel discussion, Kate Gilmore, the deputy executive director of the UN population fund, called such marriages a violation of their human rights. She quoted this shocking statistic that every day, there are 39,000 girls who are married or joined in a union without their free, prior and informed consent, and with no options but to do otherwise.

It is interesting that we are right now marking the 16 days of activism against violence against women because this motion is a perfect example of something we should do to protect the rights of women. These 16 days of activism are all about us talking about these issues. They are issues that are barriers to women in achieving their freedom and potential in our society.

I am proud to see our government taking a lead on this issue. The motion today is a strong step in preventing early and forced marriages, which can often be officiated over the phone, by fax, or by proxy. Imagine a young girl being coerced by someone in the family to be married by Skype to someone she has never met.

I want to be clear that this is what the motion is aimed at. It is aimed at banning marriages that would take place between people who are not in the same room. In Canada we know we have a judge or a religious leader who is there to witness the sacred vow between a man and a woman when a marriage takes place. Part of that witnessing is affirming that those people are there of their own free will.

When we are talking about these proxy marriages, these same criteria do not apply. That is what the motion by the member for Mississauga South is getting at here.

I want to be clear that what we are asking the House to support in the motion is a change in the regulations. This would help prevent the immigration system from facilitating forced marriages by having marriages conducted by proxy, by telephone, by fax and by Internet as a means for them gaining immigration status, which is exactly the case in my riding that I cited.

This family is wishing to have one of the family members brought to Canada as an immigrant and plans to marry-off their daughter to her cousin in order to facilitate that. That is wrong. That goes against Canadian values and that is exactly what my colleague's motion gets at.

This is not a broad brush that is being used to paint other forms of marriage, like arranged marriages, in the same way. Arranged marriages can work. I have friends who have arranged marriages that have worked very well. An arranged marriage is a kind of marriage where families select their sons and daughters to join in matrimony. Often this takes place over many years with families that have known each other for a long time, where both parties do have the free will to accept or reject the arrangement.

The motion we are discussing today would not affect these marriages in any way. This motion proposes that Canada would no longer recognize marriages by proxy for immigration purposes, a practice that is too frequently used as a tool to disguise a forced marriage as one that would appear legitimate on paper.

In a marriage by proxy, one or both of the participants are not present and they are represented by a third party. Who is to know if they have given informed consent? It is a system that is ripe for misuse. These marriages are conducted in a number of ways, including, for example, by fax. There are few of us who would trust one of the most important events in our lives to be done by fax.

These marriages are not recognized legally when they are performed in Canada, nor should they be recognized in Canada when they are performed somewhere else. We must be consistent and clear with the people of Canada that forced marriages are wrong, regardless of borders, cultures or traditions.

The motion makes clear that there would still be measures for those who were married previously by proxy, but who are nonetheless in genuine relationships. They can have their marriages considered for immigration purposes. There are also humanitarian or compassionate provisions that have been taken into consideration.

We would also protect the legitimate use of marriage by proxy and similar marriages for members of the Canadian Armed Forces in active military service.

To conclude, this motion would exclude from the immigration system practices that would harm vulnerable women and girls, practices that could treat them like chattel, practices that are unacceptable in Canada. These practices are incompatible with Canadian values and will not be tolerated.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Mississauga South will now have her five minutes of reply.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to reply, and I would like to thank all members who kindly spoke to my motion.

First of all, let me clarify some comments that were made by a couple of members in the opposition. I would like to thank the members, but there was mention of a confusing message in the motion, so I want to make sure that the members opposite understand that this is an important issue. I do not believe there is confusion with regard to my motion. I would be happy to talk to them about it. I think the motion is very clear in asking the government to put in place a regulation to disallow, for the purposes of immigration, telephone, fax, Internet, and proxy marriages.

The member from the Liberal Party mentioned that he deals with this regularly, and he gave some examples. One of the examples he gave was of marriages that were not recognized in Canada and took place in another country. I would like to say that the remedy for that is quite simple. I would encourage couples in that situation to either come to Canada or the country where one of the spouses lives to be married and hold a ceremony with a presiding official.

It is important that we uphold our Canadian values and that we recognize that being in the same room is a fairly simple criterion to meet when two people are getting married. In the example that the Liberal member gave, that couple would then be free to apply for a spousal application, just like anyone else, and the recommended regulation in my motion would not apply.

I note that he asked why there might be a need for a legislative change, so I want to clarify that my motion is asking for a regulatory change. I do agree with him that this is an important issue and that there is the bigger issue of forced marriage. A couple of our other colleagues mentioned that as well. Telephone, fax, Internet, and proxy marriages are really only one small piece of the puzzle. This is just one loophole that I am seeking to close.

I do hope that clarifies some of the member's questions and misunderstandings, and that he can support the motion.

The NDP member opposite said that she disagrees with the motion because she does not see the need for it and that there are very few applications put forward in this manner. I would like to tell the member opposite that, in fact, we are talking about hundreds every year, and possibly over a thousand. This is not a tiny problem. It is actually a fairly common issue that our visa officers around the world deal with. As I said, I am seeking to close that loophole.

It would not ban something that is already banned. It is correct that these types of marriages are not legitimate on Canadian soil and do not take place here, but that is not what the motion seeks to ban. The motion seeks to disallow these marriages when they take place elsewhere for the purposes of immigration. I want to make that very clear to all members. I do believe this motion would help prevent fraud, and thus would of course serve a purpose.

Lastly, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Centre for talking about the coercive aspect, for helping me to clarify some of the misconceptions, and for mentioning the exemption for active military service.

I would like to thank the Minister of Status of Women and the member for London North Centre for speaking to my motion and for their support.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.