Debates of Feb. 17th, 2015

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric practices act. This is an important initiative for our government, one that links up with many other initiatives that we have taken over many years now.

The bill has a simple set of principles. First, we are convinced that no young girl or no woman in this country should be subject to forced or early marriage, meaning marriage before the age of 18. Second, we believe that the practice of polygamy in this country on any scale as part of Canadian communities, as part of our immigration system, as part of our visitor streams into Canada, is unacceptable and should be stopped.

We are taking action through this legislation to ensure that there is no place in Canada for so-called honour-based violence. Honour in any of its forms, whether it is widely seen to be in play in a given situation or subjectively seen to be in play by one single person, has no place in the defence of an individual charged with a violent act. Violence must be dealt with by our criminal justice system on its own terms, and an honour defence, in our view and under the terms of this act, would no longer be as readily available as it has been up until now.

We will pursue these changes to our legislative framework through the proposed amendments in the bill to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues across the House who have shown an interest in these issues. I would also like to thank individuals in our ministry. This is a joint effort with the Minister of Status of Women, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, and many others, such as the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was so active on these issues around the world. We are passionate about these issues, as are many members of our caucus, committee chairs, committee members, and individual members of Parliament.

We are fulfilling a Speech from the Throne commitment with this legislation. That commitment recognizes that there are possibly tens of millions of young women and girls around the world who are still subject to forced and early marriage and the violence and the forms of compulsion that go with that. We see these practices as absolutely incompatible with Canadian values, and for that reason are proud to be putting forward concrete initiatives today to ensure that these barbaric practices that represent implicit support for the commission of violence in this country are eliminated from Canada, are discouraged and deterred, and that when they do take place, are punished.

All members will recall the events of April 17, 2009, when Zainab Shafia fled her home in Montreal at the age of 19 because her parents had forced her to marry a man she did not want to marry. Three months later, the bodies of Zainab, two of her sisters and the first wife of her father, who was in a polygamous marriage, were found in a canal in Kingston, Ontario.

These young women wanted a better life for themselves and their family in Canada. They never should have been subjected to constant fear and threats of violence or death solely because they wanted a better life in Canada.

The amendments in this bill would strengthen provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code to add further protection.

The Shafia case reminds us of how catastrophic the consequences of inaction on this issue can be. This was a forced marriage, combined with a polygamous relationship and a so-called honour-based motive for murder. Thankfully, there was a conviction for murder in this case, but none of those elements should have been in place in the Shafia family's life as immigrants to this country. This bill will help to ensure that such a situation never arises again.

These amendments would improve protection and support for vulnerable individuals in a number of different ways, especially for women and girls. This is the summary of the substance of this bill, which I will elaborate upon shortly in more detail.

First, the bill would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practise polygamy in Canada. In other words, if immigrants and visitors to Canada practice polygamy in Canada with one wife or one spouse, they would now be inadmissible.

Second, the provisions would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 years old, as well as by codifying both the existing legal requirements for a free and enlightened consent for marriage and by codifying the requirements for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another. It seems almost to go without saying to many of us in this place, but these measures have not been part of the Civil Marriage Act and have not been obligatory across Canada until this proposal that is being made under this legislation.

The measures would also criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriage ceremonies. In other words, anyone knowingly taking a substantive role in solemnizing or officiating at an early or forced marriage of a girl or a boy under the age of 16 years old would face consequences under the Criminal Code that have not previously been there.

Fourth, these measures would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new and specific preventive court-ordered peace bond when there are grounds to fear someone would commit an offence in this area.

Finally, they would ensure that the defence of “provocation” would not apply in so-called honour killings and in many spousal homicides.

Let me delve into each of these initiatives in some more detail and elaborate on some of the important measures Bill S-7 proposes.

Polygamy is an affront to our values. As such, it has been illegal in Canada since 1890. While it is against the law in Canada to practice polygamy or to enter into a polygamous union, we know that is not the case in every country in the world. According to our most recent analysis, upwards of 60 countries allow polygamy and make it legal to some extent. The rate at which polygamy is practised in many of these countries is very low and may be only a couple of percent of the population, although in some cases it is much higher. However, we in Canada are adamant that this is not featured among our practices. It is antithetical to our values. While it has been on the books as a crime since 1890, it is only in more recent years that the first prosecutions have taken place under that law, so it is a current issue in the criminal justice system as well.

Thus, polygamy is already illegal in Canada. However, we must do more to ensure that this Canadian value is respected by everyone in the immigration system in order to strengthen our ability to prevent polygamy in Canada and to ensure that our immigration system does not in any way facilitate this practice.

Bill S-7 will make polygamy grounds for inadmissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This would give, for the first time, immigration officers the tools they need to render temporary and permanent residents, visitors, and immigrants inadmissible when they are practising polygamy. The new inadmissibility would mean that those who are entering on a temporary basis and who are are in polygamous marriages abroad can only enter on their own, not with their spouses. This is not presently the case. We do not have the ability to prevent those practising polygamy from coming into Canada, either as immigrants or visitors.

Currently, visitors who practise polygamy in their countries of origin are generally allowed to enter with only one spouse at the time of seeking entry. It is unacceptable that our immigration system would allow this practice to continue. To ensure polygamy is not practised on Canadian soil, this bill proposes to ban foreign nationals who practise polygamy from entering Canada with any of their spouses, even on a temporary basis. It would also mean that permanent residents found to be in polygamous marriages would be removed on that basis alone.

The anecdotal evidence is considerable. The number of immigrants who have come to this country in polygamous unions but disguised that fact and misrepresented themselves as either not being married or not being in a polygamous union is substantial. Under these provisions, we would, for the first time, no longer need a criminal conviction or a finding of misrepresentation in order to begin deportation proceedings. We would simply need the evidence of the practice of polygamy.

Measures in Bill S-7 would also amend the Civil Marriage Act in order to address the problem of early and forced marriages. In Canada, as things stand now, there is no national minimum age for marriage. Specific federal laws that apply only in Quebec set the minimum age at 16 years old; in other parts of Canada, the common law applies.

There is some uncertainty about common law minimum age, which is sometimes interpreted as setting a minimum of 12 for girls and 14 for boys, although in some instances the legal records, the precedents in the common law, set an age as low as seven years old. I think everyone in the House would agree that this is completely and unequivocally unacceptable. It hearkens back to the Middle Ages and to other periods when those traditions, if they were such, would certainly, from today's perspective, be considered barbaric. The medical evidence of harm to young people below mature ages is overwhelming, and setting a national minimum age of 16 years old would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and will not be tolerated.

Other amendments to the Civil Marriage Act proposed in Bill S-7 will codify the requirement for free and enlightened consent of the parties who intend to marry and the requirement that any previous marriage be dissolved.

This might seem quite obvious to us, but it is extremely important to those who, to date, have had no say in their own marriage. We must ensure that the voices of all those who embark on the joyful journey of marriage are heard and respected.

On behalf of the voiceless, we are acting in many cases in these measures to codify a minimum age for marriage and to prevent forced marriage. For those who have been compelled into unhappy unions, unions that have resulted in violence or have subjected women to sexual assault on a repeated and continuing basis, we need to make sure that we can take action for their sake to prevent such violence against women, and violence generally.

Building on the proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act, Bill S-7 also contains measures that would amend the Criminal Code to help prevent forced or underage marriages, including, henceforth, making it a criminal act to knowingly officiate at an underage or forced marriage; to knowingly and actively participate in a wedding ceremony in which one party is marrying another against his or her will or is under 16 years old; or to remove a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage.

For example, if a parent, a mother or a father, who received payment from another family in this country or outside this country to marry off one of their children to a member of that other family, but who did not seek and certainly did not obtain the enlightened and free consent of the child involved, were there simply as the parent of the bride or the groom, even if they were not officiating at the marriage ceremony, would be committing a crime. The crime would be that they had brought forward a child, compelled a child, to be married without their consent, against their free will. This should be a crime, and I think we all agree on that in Canada today.

There is a very clear distinction between this and an arranged marriage, where families introduce children, parents want the union to happen, and the parties to be married themselves consent and agree, where they have truly decided that this is the right choice for them. That type of marriage is not affected by this bill. However, a forced marriage, where the parents or anyone else who is involved in a transaction or in the compulsion agree, but the parties themselves do not agree, would henceforth place those responsible, those with a substantial role in arranging the marriage, in a position where they are committing a criminal act.

Other proposed amendments would create a new peace bond that would give courts the power to impose conditions on an individual when there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or marriage under the age of 16 would otherwise occur. This is particularly important in our efforts to prevent those who know that a forced marriage would not be tolerated in Canada from having an underage child, or any child, removed against their will so that the marriage could take place in another jurisdiction.

We will have the tools under Bill S-7 to take action against those who would choose this unfortunate and, indeed, dangerous course of action as well. Such a peace bond could be used to prevent an underage or forced marriage by requiring, for example, the surrender of a passport, as well as preventing a child from being taken out of Canada. This is a very important option for a young girl, for example, who wants to stop her family from taking her out of the country for a forced marriage, but does not want to press charges against her family members, a situation that arises quite commonly. She would have that important option and would be able to save herself from an unwanted fate.

Anyone who wonders whether this is widespread or necessary need only pick up the phone or come to speak to any of us at the citizenship and immigration committee, who will put them in touch with people in our global network, those retired or those still in service, who will tell them that this is happening. Forced and underage marriage is a reality in Canada, and the removal of young people to face these dreadful consequences abroad is also all too common.

Measures in the bill would also amend the Criminal Code to address so-called honour killings. Unfortunately, we have seen these cases too often on our soil. In fact, while there is not a large number—several dozen in recent decades—there have more cases in the last 10 or 15 years than in the previous 20 years, according to the available studies. So called honour-based violence is usually perpetrated against family members, usually women and girls, who are perceived to have brought shame or dishonour to the family.

These honour killings are usually premeditated and committed with a certain level of approval from family members and the community, and sometimes with their participation.

However, in some cases, they may also be alleged to be spontaneous killings in response to behaviour by the victim that is perceived to be disrespectful, insulting, or harmful to a family's reputation. Under the Criminal Code, anyone charged with and found to have committed murder can raise the defence of provocation in seeking a reduction to the lesser charge of manslaughter. Under Bill S-7, that option would no longer be available.

We think, taken together, these measures represent important progress against barbaric practices that are all too common in the world today and still present in Canada. I appreciate the opportunity to present them to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He explained some of the measures in Bill S-7.

As a preface to my question, I must say that I agree with a number of the things he said. Naturally, I agree that no girl should be subject to violence and that there is no place in this country for forced marriage, honour crimes or any other type of violence against women. We agree with this principle and with the objective here.

However, I must point out that today we are not debating whether someone who forces a child to marry should be sentenced, punished or criminally charged. Anyone who commits violence against children and women should be punished. We must all do everything we can to stop this kind of barbaric practice and this type of violence.

That said, my question is about the bill itself. Will Bill S-7 really help us achieve this goal?

The minister is certainly aware that the Senate conducted a study, that a number of experts and lawyers spoke out against the bill and that some serious concerns were expressed by witnesses. Bill S-7 could make victims more vulnerable. Instead of helping victims and bringing the guilty parties to justice, the bill could have the opposite effect. A number of victims' advocates and groups working directly with victims say that the provisions in the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as the amendments to the Criminal Code, could make people less inclined to speak out for fear of reprisals from their family.

Is the minister aware of these concerns and is he interested in improving the bill to ensure that it truly protects victims?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her question and her general support for numerous measures found in the bill. Yes, we all have the shared goal of preventing violence against women, and, in fact, all violence, period. I also want to thank her for using the term “barbaric”, because these practices really are barbaric and should be called what they are.

I am well aware of the testimony given in committee. When it comes to both immigration and the Criminal Code, we always see so-called specialized groups in one sector or another that say there is no need to legislate, that we should just let them take care of it and they will solve the problem, and no one from the legal system or the immigration system needs to get involved. We tried that method for decades. Early and forced marriages, polygamy and honour killings continue to be practised in many cases. It is time to provide women and girls who have been the victims of these crimes the same degree of protection as that provided to Canadians in all other areas and for all other crimes.

We need the full force of the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prevent these barbaric practices and crimes. There is no other way to ensure proper protection other than legislating as we are prepared to do.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the intention of the legislation before us. I think all here agree that violence against women and girls, forced marriage, polygamy, and the other issues the minister spoke of in his speech are all things to be abhorred. However, the difficulty I have and that I want the minister respond to is the inclusion of the word “cultural” in any of these things.

All of these things are ethical questions, not cultural questions. I would suggest that it is inappropriate to tie any of these practices to a specific culture. Not only is it inappropriate, it is simply unnecessary. We can pass a law that bans these things, and we should, without tying them to culture. They should be tied to ethics. I would suggest that tying them to culture causes us to judge cultures by some of the worst practices within them. It is entirely unnecessary to approach this by including any cultural element.

What is added to the bill by the inclusion of “culture” in the title? Would the minister consider removing it so that the perception that any particular culture is being criticized or judged can be expunged and we can move forward collaboratively with this effort, because we all agree on the principles?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, we will not remove the word “cultural”, because it is deeply relevant to the objective we are trying to achieve here.

No specific culture, either national, ethnic, or territorial, is being targeted by this bill. What is being targeted is a culture of tolerance and sometimes a culture of indifference to these issues that have found a place in Canada and in many other places around the world. I would challenge anyone in the House to deny that there is a certain cultural environment, yes, in some communities in Canada, but definitely in some countries around the world, that tolerates these barbaric practices.

I am not surprised to hear this criticism from a member of the Liberal Party, because it was his leader who objected to the use of the term “barbaric” to describe any of these practices whatsoever. He was not willing to describe violence against women, whether female genital mutilation, forced marriage, or honour killings, by the name that Canadians, with our principled approach to these issues, insist on using.

This violence, whether against aboriginal women and girls, immigrant women and girls, or women and girls in some other community in Canada, is unacceptable and barbaric. That culture has no place in Canada. It is incompatible with Canadian values.

I will take the example of Lee Marsh, a Jehovah's witness who just turned 18. As reported in a recent issue of Maclean's, Lee Marsh's mother came into the room and told Lee that she would marry a 20-year-old man whom she had met only once before. She was quoted as saying that she was not allowed an opinion. She wanted to run, but she was not allowed to. She was compelled into this marriage.

The culture surrounding that type of practice is unacceptable, and the consequences, the violence that can ensue, the repeated sexual assaults, are indeed barbaric.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

First, as I mentioned in the question I asked the minister a little earlier today, I agree that no girl or woman in this country or in any country in the world should have to be subject to any kind of violence. I want to emphasize that. Today, we are talking particularly about violence against women in the form of forced marriage or honour killings, for example.

Canadians are appalled by these practices, which are not acceptable in Canada and in most other countries. We need to fight against these practices. As a parliamentarian, I would be pleased to support any bill that would provide additional protection to victims and would represent a step in the right direction, even if it involved only a small contribution or a small amendment that could provide tools or help to prevent such crimes. I would be the first to support such a bill.

The battle to combat violence against women is one that is primarily being fought on the ground. I tip my hat to the front-line workers, security personnel, border officers and, in short, everyone who works on the ground and witnesses this type of violence and crime. They have to intervene to prevent these crimes and help victims. It is an ongoing battle. I tip my hat to all of those who are directly or indirectly involved in fighting this type of violence against women.

Nevertheless, this fight is not just being fought on the ground. People on the ground need decision makers and those with the power to change the laws to listen to what they are saying and partner with them so that they can get the tools and resources they need to move forward and combat violence against women.

In short, as I said, I would be pleased to support any bill that represents progress in combatting this type of violence against women, such as forced marriages. However, I am not sure that Bill S-7 is such a bill, and I will explain why.

First, little has been said about this inside the House, but a lot has been said about it outside the House, in the media. The public has talked about this a great deal and so have experts and workers in the field. I am referring to the title of this bill.

I agree that forced marriage or any type of violence against women is barbaric and cruel and must be eliminated. However, I take issue with the word “cultural” in the title of the bill, and so do many Canadians. Is forced marriage really exclusive to a few cultural communities, or any culture? Of course not. Unfortunately, violence is committed against women in every country and in every culture. Anyone who thinks that the way to fight this practice is to engage in a witch hunt and identify certain cultures is mistaken. That is not the point and it is not the right approach.

I said a little earlier that the fight against violence against women is taking place primarily on the ground. To effectively fight against this violence, we have to establish partnerships with all those who can help. That includes people from all cultures. We cannot alienate them or attack any culture. We have to bring people together and establish a partnership with all cultures.

A bill title like this one only puts up obstacles to establishing the necessary partnerships for taking on this fight.

I would like to quote Ms. Miville-Dechêne, president of Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme:

Of course, punishment must be imposed, but prevention is also important, and using such a strong title and the word “barbaric” may inhibit community cooperation. However, community cooperation is a necessary part of prevention.

Basically, putting the words “barbaric” and “cultural” together will not lead us to positive solutions and will not really help us fight violence against women.

I recently met some people who need police protection to get to work. Kids now need police protection to get to school. Why? Because the social climate is so tense and some cultural communities are being targeted and experiencing tensions they definitely do not deserve.

That is due in part to the language that leaders like us use publicly and misguidedly. When ministers tell people to go back to their own country if they are not happy, when they give their own definitions of a terrorist act and associate it with a particular culture, that does not make a positive contribution to solving problems. On the contrary, that kind of language ostracizes communities and cultures and endangers children and law-abiding people who deserve to have us do everything in our power to keep them safe too.

In short, the title of this bill is completely inappropriate and could undermine our fight to protect women from abusive practices.

Second, in addition to the title, parts of this bill lead us to believe that these measures could also jeopardize women's safety and undermine efforts to fight violence against women.

Bill S-7 will amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, supposedly to help combat polygamy. We are concerned that these amendments will interfere with the protection of women. Women will be affected in one way or another by the fact that under Bill S-7, the mere suspicion of polygamy can result in inadmissibility to Canada or removal orders. This could have unintended negative consequences.

I would like to once again quote Ms. Miville-Dechêne, a witness who appeared before the Senate committee. This is what she had to say about the measures on polygamy.

However, we want women, who are not themselves polygamists—and I want to stress this—to be protected and be able to stay in the country when a deportation takes place. What would be the point of deporting the polygamist man with his women, who are not polygamists, to their country of origin? We feel that care should be taken to protect women.

That is just one of many quotes. I would also like to quote Ms. Siddiqui, the head of policy and research at Southall Black Sisters. She said:

Anything that you introduce around immigration is not going to affect just the perpetrator but the whole family — the women and children in that polygamous relationship; and that can have a detrimental effect on them as well.

Avvy Yao-Yao Go, director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, said:

The bill seeks to deport people who are engaged in polygamy, and that would include the very women that the government claims it's trying to protect.

Many witnesses testified about this. I quoted three. If our experts on the ground have these concerns, we need to listen to them. The minister clearly told us that these opinions did not hold much water and that we had to move forward in spite of them.

I am concerned when I hear comments like that from a minister who is already telling us that he is not prepared to change the title or the content of the bill, claiming that this is what people on the ground are asking him to do. That is worrisome. I am not prepared to support a bill that could interfere with the protection of women and their children.

It is also important to address the changes to the Criminal Code with regard to forced marriages.

The bill suggests, for example, prison sentences for family members who participate in the marriage. The minister talked about this earlier.

This measure runs the risk of silencing the victims and preventing them from seeking the services and protections they need. Let me explain. Take for example the case of a forced marriage of a 16-year-old girl. The parents say that it is an arranged marriage, not a forced one. The girl has the choice to speak out or not. If she is given the choice between sending her parents to prison to be safe and keeping her mouth shut and figuring out a way to deal with this in order to keep people she has known her whole life, such as her parents, around her, then this 16-year-old girl might very well be too scared to say anything that could send her parents, brothers and sisters to prison.

Clearly, these people have committed reprehensible acts, but if we show a bit of empathy and put ourselves in the place of the 16-year-old, are there no other measures we could put in place to ensure that she gets the protection she deserves without having to send her parents to prison for up to five years? Of course, these cases call for punishment or intervention, but we have to think about how to go about this and how to ensure that the maximum number of victims seek the help they need. That is the goal.

How many forced marriages or child marriages are there in this country? We certainly have numbers and statistics. Nonetheless, we are unable to truly understand the extent of the problem because the biggest problem in all this is the secrecy surrounding these practices. That is the number one problem. The first thing we have to ask ourselves, as legislators, is how to address this problem, how to ensure that people are more inclined to report what they see and seek the help and security they need. Bill S-7 will not do that.

I would again like to quote Ms. Siddiqui, the head of policy and research at Southall Black Sisters in the United Kingdom:

The problem for us was that we worked directly with survivors and victims. A lot of them are girls and young women who say to us, “I do want protection from the police, but I don't want to prosecute my parents or my family. I don't want to see them go to jail.” They clearly said that if they went to the police and they were going to prosecute, then they would withdraw their charges; they would not cooperate or would not even go to the police in the first place.

I could also quote Ms. Butt, executive director of the Social Services Network:

Criminalization of forced marriage, without the much needed institutional support for victims, would only further alienate and harm those facing forced marriage and gender-based violence, with the added insult of being stigmatized that they come from barbaric cultures.

In short, many people are opposed to the bill because of events that have taken place and what the experts are seeing in real life. We need to pay attention to what these people have to say. That is why I moved a motion in the House. I understand and agree with the minister's stated goal of fighting against forced marriages and violence against women and also helping victims. However I do not agree with the proposed approach, which could not only lead us in the wrong direction, but move us backwards, further ostracize victims and reduce the number of cases reported.

I will read part of the motion that I moved in order to explain it. I recommend that all my colleagues on both sides of the House support it. It reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, forced marriages are a crime that constitutes violence against women and consequently, the government should:

(a) strongly condemn the practice;

I believe that with this bill the minister wants to condemn these practices. It is important to do so. These practices must be condemned, but we must ensure that by condemning them we do not harm those who suffer because of them.

Furthermore, a number of experts have said that this bill did not do much, since there are already Criminal Code provisions to convict those guilty of pushing someone into a forced marriage or a forced child marriage.

For example, Mr. Spratt, a criminal lawyer and member of the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa, spoke about the section regarding a recognizance to keep the peace:

I'm not saying that that's bad or that this section is bad. It's just not a cure to the ills that this bill aims to correct, and it's not going to be effective in limiting these types of situations. It seems to be nothing more than mere puffery because it's not going to play out in court how it's been billed.

Not only are these measures dangerous, but they also do not seem relevant in terms of their application.

Deepa Mattoo, a lawyer and the acting executive director of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, said that in most cases, there is adequate recourse in the Criminal Code of Canada to deal with forced marriages before and after the marriage. For example, she mentioned sections 292 and 273.3 regarding procuring a feigned marriage:

No person shall do anything for the purpose of removing from Canada a person [a child] who is ordinarily resident in Canada...(a)...with the intention that an act be committed outside Canada that if it were committed in Canada would be an offence...

These are just examples to show that the Criminal Code already includes several provisions to convict people who do this. However, do we have the resources we need on the ground to ensure that we first get the reports that will then lead to prosecutions?

My motion also asks the government to increase funding for organizations that work with potential or proven victims. As I said a bit earlier, the low reporting rate is another problem with respect to these practices. It is difficult to get witnesses and victims of these practices to report them. It is also difficult to have resources on the ground to help these people. My motion is therefore a step in the right direction. Punishment alone is not enough. We have to remember our primary objective, which is to protect victims and prevent these crimes.

My motion also calls on the government to consult women, communities, organizations and experts so that we can get a more accurate picture of the situation and figure out the best ways to fix it. I get the feeling that Bill S-7 was concocted by departmental people who never consulted lawyers or people on the ground. These problems exist. That is what the minister said, and I agree with him.

Whether these practices are widespread or not, if we can help even one victim, it is worth it. These practices exist, but we need to find out exactly what is going on. Then we have to identify the main obstacles and implement smart measures, not just measures that respond to an electoral base's fears.

Other countries have studied this issue before our debate here in the House, and they have implemented measures. We can learn from their debates and from the outcome of their measures.

The United Kingdom, for instance, has adopted a method that allows victims to choose between a civil process and a criminal process in the event of prosecution. Giving victims this power gives them the confidence they need to seek help and report someone, without necessarily sending a family member to prison, if that is something they are afraid of.

In 2008, Denmark introduced criminal offences similar to those set out in Bill S-7, and not one guilty party has been brought to justice since that time, which reinforces what I was saying earlier. If we pass Bill S-7, will we not hurt victims and prevent them from reporting violence, rather than help victims and bring criminals to justice?

I wish I could go on, but I will close by saying that the bill's title and the measures in it are hardly a step forward. That is why I recommend that the House not vote in favour of Bill S-7 at second reading, and instead vote in favour of my motion.

We need to keep our primary objective in mind, which is to combat these practices and help victims, not harm them, and yet that is exactly what Bill S-7 could do.

That is why the rhetoric has to stop. We need to completely change our perspective and our focus when it comes to issues like violence against women and adopt positive measures that really will help the people affected.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague's speech, but I was disappointed by its content.

She used the word “barbaric” in her first question, but she refuses to use that word in the title of the bill. This is a reflection of the NDP's approach to everything, when it comes to criminal justice and this bill. The NDP denounces forced marriage, honour crimes and violence against women, but it does not want to take any action. It advocates inaction. It wants young girls to report offenders and people who hurt them, but without making it clear that a crime was committed. Why?

Does the hon. member not think that in the case of misrepresentation, someone living in a polygamous relationship should be deported like anyone else found guilty of misrepresentation? If we are talking about sexual assault, of course, there is recourse and the possibility of staying here. However, misrepresentation is unacceptable in the case of polygamy and in other cases.

Let us talk about provocation. Should a person be able to use honour as a reason for pleading provocation as a defence for a crime like murder? If a young girl does not want to go through the criminal process, is the hon. member aware of peace bonds? Using—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. I ask all hon. members to keep their questions to under a minute.

The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to everything my colleague said, but I will try to cover as much as possible.

I think my colleague misunderstood what I said about the title. I do not oppose using “barbaric“ in the title. I am opposed to associating the term “barbaric” with “cultural”. Do we need to say that these are cultures with barbaric practices?

I mentioned it in my speech and I will not repeat it, but that will alienate some cultural communities, rather than building bridges and ensuring that we can work with them to eliminate these practices. They are essential partners, and solutions will be found only by forging partnerships with people from all cultures. Thus, I am not against the use of the term “barbaric”.

I completely agree that forced marriages and violence against women are completely unacceptable, even barbaric. However, I am against calling them cultural practices because we have seen in several cases that, in fact, we find these practices in any culture.

I would like to continue but I have run out of time. I hope I can talk more about this when I answer the next question.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may have answered the question I was going to ask. I would just like to be sure.

I believe that the NDP and the Liberals agree that we accept the term “barbaric”, but not the term “cultural”. It seems to me that if we use the term “cultural”, some communities will believe that they may be the problem, which is not the case. We believe that these practices are barbaric, but found in all cultures. It seems to me that the term “cultural” adds nothing to this bill.

I would just like to check whether my colleague agrees with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree, and that is more or less what I was just saying.

I would like to take this opportunity to also speak about the purpose of this bill, because we have not really addressed that. This is a classic example of the Conservatives claiming to want to combat some type of wrongdoing or crime and then proposing a bill that is completely off the mark.

In 2012, the Conservatives introduced the conditional permanent residence status in order to combat fraudulent marriages. Everyone on the ground agrees that rather than helping to do away with such marriages this measure makes women more vulnerable. What is more, many experts are calling on the government to reconsider this measure and do away with the conditional permanent residence status. The Conservatives are turning a deaf ear.

More recently, Motion No. 505 was implemented in 2014. The purpose of that motion is also to combat fraudulent marriages; however, it actually attacks proxy marriages. Since refugee claimants are often married by proxy, this motion does more to interfere with family reunification than it does to combat fraudulent marriage. This is a classic example of the Conservatives saying that they want to combat x, y or z but then implementing measures that are harmful to victims and that make certain groups more vulnerable.

That is unacceptable, and Bill S-7 is yet another example.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. We have had two very high profile cases that have shown the power of our courts to go after groups that abuse young women.

The case involving the Mormon fundamentalists in Bountiful was brought all the way to the Supreme Court. Some said that they were fighting for religious freedoms, but clearly this was an abuse of young women and girls, and the courts upheld the anti-polygamy laws.

It is the same with Lev Tahor, the fundamentalist orthodox cult. The Quebec and Ontario police moved against it because they recognized that within the so-called claim of religion there was an ongoing attack against young women and girls, and there was a need to protect them.

What is in this bill that would give the police and the authorities any new powers that they do not already have in going after anyone who uses religion, or culture or whatever to abuse young women and girls in forced marriages? If the laws already exist, if they have been upheld at the the Supreme Court level, what possible additions have been added to this at which Parliament needs to look?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I would also like to thank him for making those important points.

Many also believe that this bill will not only harm victims but it will also fail to provide the additional necessary tools. I can mention others. The minister spoke earlier about honour killings. The government is saying that Bill S-7 will ensure that the provocation defence will not apply to honour killings. Meanwhile, a number of rulings have shown that cultural grounds cannot be used to justify an honour killing. On the contrary, the court interpreted such arguments as a reason for the crime, rather than mitigating grounds. The court saw these arguments as proof that the unacceptable crime was planned. If we look at the decisions rendered in the past, we see that the courts are able to deal with such grievances under the Criminal Code.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's intervention on this bill. I take exception to and would like clarification on something she said. She takes exception to the term “barbaric culture”. She has no problem with the word “barbaric”, but takes issue with the word “culture”, thinking that somehow that speaks to a specific cultural group, which the bill does not.

Within some families in specific groups, if a 15-year-old girl is forced into a marriage against her will and if she rebels against it and says that it is not consensual, that she does not want that, she is stoned, or killed, or defamed in some way because she somehow has brought disrespect to the family. Is that not a barbaric culture? This is a cultural tool that is used in some groups to resolve an issue they think has brought disrespect to the family.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one to say so. A number of people on the ground are saying that we need to be careful because this title will hurt us and prevent us from achieving the objective of the bill.

Earlier, my colleague mentioned Bountiful. Could the parliamentary secretary tell me what culture is in Bountiful?

This is not what we are debating, and it does no good to point fingers at certain cultures that are already ostracized as a result of debates being held at different levels in this country. I can name a number of people who say that the very title of Bill S-7 and the various legislative amendments it would bring about are based on racist stereotypes and contribute to xenophobia against certain radicalized communities.

This title encourages xenophobia and racism, and it further ostracizes communities. These are major problems that we need to look at. What good does that do for this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague, the member for Charlottetown.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it means that members only have to listen to me for half the time. They might approve of that proposition.

I am pleased to say that the Liberals will support this legislation, but as I will indicate in a few minutes, we have problems with the title. We also, in particular, want to remove the word “cultural”.

We are, of course, opposed to these barbaric practices, including forced marriages, underage marriages, polygamy, honour killings, and domestic violence. We would argue that on the whole, this legislation would do little to advance the fact that these practices are already illegal. Maybe around the edges some improvement would be achieved, but my main point is that this legislation misses a golden opportunity to do something real on the subject of domestic violence and in particular on the abuse of women.

This issue came up very strongly in the hearings at the immigration committee over the past months on the subject of the treatment of women by the immigration system and measures to reduce violence against women.

One of the issues that got a lot of attention was the provision for a two-year conditional state for people who bring in spouses from overseas. In the old days, the spouse from overseas would immediately become a permanent resident, but now that person has to live with his or her spouse for a period of two years before achieving landed permanent resident status. Witness after witness testified that this system led to the potential for abuse and actual abuse, and it is not difficult to understand why. It is an extremely unequal relationship. If one is a woman who is married to a man, and the woman has just come from overseas, and if that woman is subject to abuse of any kind and moves away from the marriage, she has no status in Canada anymore and is liable to be deported back to her own country. That forces the woman to stay within the marriage, even if it is abusive.

I remember counting the expert witnesses who testified to this effect and argued that this provision should be terminated. I do not remember the exact number, but it was perhaps six out of eight witnesses or something to that effect. All of these expert witnesses, who ran organizations, who sought to help women who had been subject to abuse, believed that this provision was aiding and abetting the abuse of women.

If the government wanted to do something concrete in this area, it has missed a golden opportunity to simply repeal this two-year provision. I understand that marriages of convenience are a challenge that have to be dealt with in many ways, and I do not minimize the importance of the issue. However, my point would be that the fight against marriages of convenience should not be fought on the backs of women who are subject to abuse because of this two-year rule. More important than all of the other parts of the bill, which are largely covered by existing law in any case, would have been action on this front, which would have a real impact on the barbaric practices and domestic violence that we all decry.

In that respect, I agree with my colleague in the NDP that this legislation largely addresses issues that are already covered by existing law and leaves a big hole on issues it chooses not to cover. As a consequence, at the end of the day it would not do a great deal to advance the cause.

The other point I would like to focus on is the use of the word “cultural”. That word is both offensive and unnecessary. We on this side of the House agree that these practices are barbaric, so we do not object at all to the use of that word.

When one inserts the word “cultural”, it carries the implication that there are certain cultures, certain communities, that are being targeted. Whether that is in the minds of the Conservatives is something we can debate, but it certainly carries that implication across the country. There is no reason to force that implication to be carried, because as has been pointed out, in terms of polygamy and other barbaric practices, they are certainly not limited to any one community. We had the example of the Bountiful group, which is Christian. We had the Jewish group that was mentioned. Across all religions and all cultures we see, in some cases, the practice of these barbaric acts.

I do not think the word “cultural” adds anything. It certainly does not add anything to the content of this bill, and it is misleading in that it carries the implication in the minds of some Canadians that this bill is targeting their particular culture or community.

I know that the Conservatives are not always quick to accept suggested changes to their wonderful legislation, but I would say to them that this word adds nothing to the content of the bill and nothing to the agreement we have on all sides of the House that these practices are indeed barbaric. All it does is lead certain communities to believe that they are being targeted or insulted, and there is no reason whatsoever to carry that implication. I would once again urge the Conservatives to drop that word.

With regard to the elements in the bill, we certainly agree that underage marriage is and should be illegal. We agree with the age of 16 that is in the bill. We obviously are opposed to forced marriages, to polygamy, and to honour killings. It is almost unnecessary to make these statements, because the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to these practices. The existing law already makes these practices illegal. The bill would add a few details to make them even more illegal. Therefore, we will support it. However, I do not think that, at the end of the day, this bill would do very much more than is already in the existing law.

I also think that with the use of the word “cultural” the Conservatives are unnecessarily insulting segments of Canadian society.

Last but not least, by ignoring important practices and allowing them to continue, such as these two-year conditional marriages, they are wasting an opportunity to do something real to improve the situation for immigrants, and particularly for women, in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Party will be supporting this piece of legislation, although I have some concerns regarding some of the content of the member's speech this morning.

I see quite a significant flip-flop in the Liberals' position on the name “barbaric”, as the Liberal leader took exception to the word “barbaric”. However, I am happy to see that the Liberals have now seen the light that these practices are indeed barbaric and are not taking exception to that word.

I want to talk about the tie the member tried to make between the phrases “barbaric cultural practices” and “cultural communities”. They are two completely different things. A cultural practice that would impose violence and possibly death on a young lady because she does not concede to what the family decided the day she was born is indeed a barbaric cultural practice. Does the member not see that there is no correlation between that and specific communities? This fearmongering and trying to point to specific cultural communities is way off base.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for thanking us for our support, so I will be pleasant in my comments. However, I think he is tying himself in knots in terms of the definition of the word “cultural” in the English language.

Of course, a culture of honour killings is something we oppose, but there is no need to use the word “culture”. As I said, the word “culture” adds nothing to the content of the bill and nothing to the message being sent. However, it sends a negative message to many individuals within this country. It is unnecessary. It adds nothing. It is offensive to some.

If the government had an element of consideration for Canadians across this land, it would remove that word.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague about the content of the bill.

He knows that a number of witnesses spoke to the bill. For example, Ms. Yao-Yao Go of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic said:

The bill seeks to deport people who are engaged in polygamy, and that would include the very women that the government claims it's trying to protect.

Ms. Mattoo of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario said:

We stand for victims and survivors of gender-based violence, whose voices have told us, time and time again, that they would not come forward if it meant criminal sanctions or deportation of their families.

The bill could hurt and further ostracize women and victims of forced or polygamous marriages. What does my colleague have to say about such statements? Does he not worry that by supporting Bill S-7, he is promoting the victimization of women?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just quoted some of the witnesses I mentioned, who oppose the notion of having to be married for two years before permanent residence is granted. Those quotations support our proposal concerning that provision.

I am not sure whether the bill's provisions make things any worse, but I do not think they improve things, either. The government could have taken other measures, but it chose not to.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill targets several practices that the Liberals fundamentally disagree with, including early or forced marriage, polygamy, and domestic violence. Although we have been accused otherwise, we agree that these practices are barbaric and will be supporting the bill for further study at committee.

I want to state off the top that we do not agree with linking violence against women to culture, as the Conservatives have tried to do. Violence against women is a phenomenon that exists in every culture, and we are saddened that the government is trying to score cheap political points with respect to this serious matter. Violence against women is not an issue of culture; it is an issue of ethics. It is not an issue tied to place of origin, language, wealth, or ethnic nationality. Wherever we find it, violence against women is an issue of right and wrong.

Equality and justice are universal values. Kindness and respect are universal values. They are not linked to any particular culture any more than misogyny is linked to a particular culture. Barbarism is barbarism wherever we find it, and we should not judge any cultural group by the worst practices of some of its members.

My point is that for the Conservatives to look outwardly and point out how other cultures treat women is to ignore the misogyny that transcends culture. As great philosophers and religious intellectuals have demonstrated, ethics are rational, and people everywhere can reason about right and wrong, so I say again that misogyny is not a cultural problem; rather, it is an ethical one. I would say the same of discrimination or violence based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

Let us not denigrate entire cultures. Instead, when talking about barbaric practices, let us talk about ethics. Let us talk about universal values instead of suggesting that entire cultures are somehow in conflict.

Canada's multicultural success story insists the exact opposite. Many cultures have come together and flourished here on the basis of universal values, the values enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our charter is an ethical document, not a cultural one. It gives legal force to rational, moral principles based on the best arguments, not cultural principles based on history or tradition. Therefore, let us agree to language that unites, not language that divides. Let us build consensus on what is right and wrong rather than drawing lines between cultures and shouting back and forth. For that reason, I repeat that barbaric practices are unethical actions, not cultural actions.

That is how this conversation should be framed, and language makes a huge difference. People are more likely to accept a valid moral argument if we do not make it while insulting their entire culture. For that reason, the Liberals will move an amendment to remove the word “cultural” from the short title of this bill and change it to “zero tolerance for barbaric practices”. After all, if we listen to how it sounds, it has a nice ring to it. It is something everyone in the House can get behind.

Therefore, why not cut one word from this bill? Heaven knows that the current government has cut everything else. In Prince Edward Island, we know that better than most.

With respect to the content of this bill, I say at the outset that there are some good ideas here. What would the bill do? On early and forced marriages, Bill S-7 would establish a national minimum age for marriage of 16 years of age. Previously, only Quebec has had a legislated minimum age, while other provinces relied on common law definitions. The bill also proposed to codify the requirement for free and enlightened consent for marriage or divorce.

Bill S-7 also creates a new Criminal Code offence for knowingly officiating at a forced or early marriage, for knowingly and actively participating in a forced or early marriage, or for removing a child from Canada for the purpose of an early or forced marriage. These measures are similar to current laws in the Criminal Code that relate to bigamy.

In addition, Bill S-7 would create a peace bond regime with regard to early or forced marriages that would allow a person to petition a court for a peace bond to prevent an early or forced marriage. Violating the requirements of this peace bond would be an offence. The peace bond provision would create an opportunity for someone from outside the affected family, such as a community member or a teacher, to petition the court if they became aware of an issue.

As to polygamy, that practice is already illegal in Canada. The B.C. Supreme Court has upheld that limit on freedom of religion because of the harm the practice causes to women, children, and the institution of monogamous marriage. Bill S-7 further addresses polygamy by amending Canada's immigration rule to make those planning to practice polygamy in Canada inadmissible to the country. It also clarifies that those seeking permanent residence in Canada must stop practising polygamy and will be permitted to immigrate with only one monogamous spouse.

Colleagues, though I agree that we do not want to see polygamy coming into Canada, I would flag to the committee that there could be some practical legal problems flowing from this chain. For example, what happens to additional spouses that an immigrant to Canada leaves behind? Would their property claims against their absconding husband be enforceable in Canada if we do not recognize the marriage? If somehow an additional spouse also gets into Canada—independently, for example—could they obtain a divorce from their husband? Also, what happens to the children of additional spouses? Could they come to Canada, but only if they leave their mother behind?

I do not know the answers to these practical legal problems, but I expect the committee to take a good, hard look at them before changing the law. The last thing we want to do is exacerbate the harms of polygamy and hurt vulnerable women and children who have done nothing wrong.

Finally, we come to the issue of domestic violence, and in particular crimes that are often called honour killings. Stories of such atrocities have shocked Canadians, particularly the Shafia family quadruple murder in Kingston in 2009. In an attempt to address this issue, Bill S-7 would place restrictions on the long-standing provocation defence, which can reduce culpable homicide from murder to manslaughter.

As it currently stands, provocation reduces murder to manslaughter if the accused acted in the heat of passion and immediately following a sudden provocation. The provocation must be an act or insult by the victim that would be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control. Further, that act or insult cannot be something that the victim was incited to do by the accused to gain an excuse.

First, it is worth noting that this defence has never succeeded in an honour killing. Second, the proposed change would require the victim to have committed a criminal act against the accused for the defence to be available. Notably, this amendment would mean that insults are no longer provocation, including insults using racial epithets and so forth.

I am not sure this change is a good one, since some insults are actually more provocative than some assaults or threats. I trust the committee will look closely at this issue.

I will leave my concerns at that for the time being. I will say that when this bill goes to committee, Liberals will expect the government to act responsibly, to consider legal expertise, and to maintain the coherence and logic of Canada's Criminal Code.

In conclusion, this bill targets several practices with which Liberals fundamentally disagree. However, at this stage we have three concerns with Bill S-7. The first is the use of the term “cultural” in the title. The second concern relates to practical legal problems arising from immigration changes around polygamy. The third has to do with meddling with the provocation defence in a way that may go against common sense.

Of course, more concerns may arise on closer review, and I hope the committee will be open to constructive amendments. Our goal, as always, should be making good public policy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague.

Bountiful, the fundamentalist Mormon cult, escaped from Utah to escape prosecution and set itself up in British Columbia. There was a huge challenge that went all the way to the Supreme Court around whether Canada's polygamy laws would stand. There was a bogus argument that this was somehow a religious right, a religious freedom argument. However, the courts disagreed and upheld the anti-polygamy laws, because in these kinds of patriarchal cults, the issue of abuse is clearly paramount.

We can look at the issue of Bountiful and other fundamentalist cults. Lev Tahor is another one. It has been called the Jewish Taliban. The Quebec police moved against them, and the Ontario courts moved against them as well, so laws are already in place against these kinds of actions.

Could my hon. colleague explain whether he thinks this bill is redundant and whether it adds new powers currently unavailable to police in protecting young girls and women against this kind of abuse?