House of Commons Hansard #185 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was marriages.

Topics

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, we will not, as we have said in this place many times, remove the word “cultural” from the title of this bill, because the defence of these barbaric practices is often mistakenly made in the name of culture.

We want to point out that the only culture that is unacceptable here, and which we hope would be eliminated from Canada with this bill, is the culture of violence against women. There should be no defence of violence against women that makes a cultural reference. There is no room for any particular group to be insulted by this bill because, if they are engaging in violence against women, they are engaging in a crime, a barbaric practice, and all Canadians understand that it is wrong.

We, on this side of the House, are very clear about what we are trying to correct here. There are legal systems around the world that allow polygamy. There are 62 countries that allow polygamy in one way or another. Some of them are Christian-majority countries, many of them. Some of them are Muslim-majority countries. Some of them are mixed. We consider that a practice barbaric.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed in what the minister has been saying this morning. At this point, everyone can see that there are good reasons the NDP has for years been calling for more funding for police forces and those working on the ground.

What we are hearing clearly this morning is that they want to stifle the debate and send out messages from an electioneering perspective. They want to pique the interest of the people their party is constantly sending messages to about current events and urging to donate money to their campaign.

There is a debate going on this morning, but we are being prevented from speaking. If the minister believes that Bill S-7 is a priority, then how does he explain the previous 90 times?

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am always proud to talk about our government's productivity and the number of free trade agreements that have made their way through all of the government's decision-making bodies and been debated in the House. I am always proud to talk about the more than 150 tax cuts that the government has given to Canadians through debates in the House, the budget and other measures. That is taking action. That is what ensures Canada's competitiveness and growth, job creation, the protection of Canadian families and communities and, with this bill, the protection of women and girls in Canada.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

I listened to the minister's remarks. From what he said about this Parliament, one would think we were working in a sausage factory. This is not a war room; this is a parliament. We need to discuss and take our time dealing with these bills.

The interventions from the members on this side of the House this morning have brought a different, new and constructive perspective. I cannot imagine how the minister can in good conscience continue to ignore our message and forge blindly ahead, running roughshod over anything we say.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, the only ones forging blindly ahead are of course on the other side of the House. Stubbornly and without due consideration, they insist on delaying every debate and the passage of every measure we propose to protect women.

We have just spent half an hour in this place talking about the need to move forward with the bill, and I have not heard a single comment from members on the other side indicating how they might improve the protection of women, how they might improve our work to ensure barbaric practices are not happening in this country.

Yes, I have always known the difference between a head scarf and a veil. Our policy will remain to ensure that citizenship ceremonies take place among people who have removed their face coverings. That is one of the practices in this country that protects women, protects girls, and protects Canadian values and traditions, and that is why we are taking action on this issue today.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #352

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion 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.

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to a subject that is particularly crucial in the current debate. I would like to point out that Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, was introduced in the Senate, therefore by parliamentarians who were not elected by Canadians.

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order. There is a lot of noise in the House. We are back on orders of the day. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has been recognized and is partway through her remarks, so I would ask all hon. members who wish to carry on conversations to make their way out of the chamber to the respective lobbies.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7, which I will be speaking to, was introduced in the Senate. It was introduced by people who were not democratically elected by Canadians. I also want to thank my colleague from Joliette, with whom I will be sharing my time, and who will speak at the end of my speech.

First, like the NDP member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, I think that no child should ever be the victim of violence, and that forced marriages, honour crimes, or any form of violence against women and children should not have a place in this country. In that sense, we all agree on the principle and the goal. People who commit such violence against children and women must be punished.

The battle to combat violence against women is one that must be 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. These are situations that are not easy to see or experience. We should commend these people for the work they try to do on the ground. They have to intervene to prevent these crimes and help victims. It is an ongoing battle. That is why I tip my hat to them. I hope they are prepared to keep up the fight to stop violence against women.

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights presented a report on this bill in which it points out that other measures are needed to address the problems of polygamy, forced marriage, or underage marriage. More specifically, the committee confirmed that we need to educate people, raise awareness and provide support services. However, Bill S-7 was passed by the Senate without amendment.

Faced with this major problem and such a complex issue, it is regrettable that all the government is doing is bringing forward legislation when, according to the Senate committee, education and public awareness should be part of this approach.

For people whose memories may not reach back that far, I would like to remind them that about 100 years ago in Canada there were many situations where women were victims of violence and forced to marry. How many young girls were forced to marry to cover up a pregnancy? The only way that they could leave the family home and hope to have a decent life was either to marry or to become a nun. Many women were forced to marry for cultural or socio-economic reasons.

Over the years, a change in attitudes and the education of parents has meant that men and women are equal today, even though there is still work to do on that. The principle of gender equality has been recognized even though in real life there is still work to be done.

As a nurse, I had the opportunity to work with seniors. When you talk to women who are 85 or 95 years old, you realize that their lives were completely different. There are women who were raped by their husbands every night because they were unlucky when they were told that it was time to marry, move on or enter religious life. There were some very difficult situations.

The experience of these women can help us end these practices. Unfortunately, what happened here is being completely ignored as though everything has always been fine for women in Canada. We must take this into account if we really want to change the mindset.

Over time, women have done some historic work to change the culture. This work was not done through legislation but through involvement, by changing attitudes and by getting people who work on the ground and in the communities involved in changing these practices. It could be beneficial for us to look at what has been done in the past.

One of the problems with this bill, especially with respect to polygamy, is that if we recognize that a man has engaged in polygamous relationships, his entire family can be deported. This part of the bill does not make sense. Either women are victims of polygamy or they are accomplices. Based on what I have heard from all members, included the Conservatives—unless I am mistaken, but I do not think so—everyone seems to think that women are victims of polygamy and are not accomplices. If they are victims of polygamy, why are they not allowed to stay here instead of being forced to return to their country with their polygamous husband? They are not even given the chance to stay here, even though we believe that they were victims. That does not make sense.

I think that is very important. We would like to amend the bill so that victims are exempt from fulfilling the requirements of conditional permanent residence, to allow the wives and children of someone who is deported for having lied to the authorities about his marital status to remain in Canada, where they are living. That is essential.

We must also be aware of the consequences. What will happen to a woman when the authorities realize that she is a victim of polygamy? What impact will her deportation to her country of origin have on her health and physical safety? Her husband may believe that it is her fault that he was unable to remain in Canada. What do my colleagues think? Will he give her flowers and a new dress or will he give her the beating of her life? It is important to think this through. I believe that it is clear to all parliamentarians that women are victims of polygamy, and if they are victims, we must ensure they do not suffer any of the negative consequences that deportation may have on their health, their safety and even their lives.

This government has a responsibility to ensure that these women are not doubly victimized. We cannot tell ourselves that they may get the beating of their life but this will not happen in Canada so it is not our problem. That is not a responsible way of thinking. We must therefore make sure that we clearly understand the full scope of our actions when we impose consequences on women who are the victims of polygamy.

We must also ensure that the children who are left behind in their home country are eligible for immigration to Canada and that they have access to the Canadian immigration system. Moreover, we must provide prevention and support services to victims. I want to say that children should not have to suffer because they were born to the wrong one of their father's wives. Children should not have to suffer the consequences of the choices of their father, who is really their father and who, unfortunately, chose another one of his wives. Those children should have the right to settle here if they are not a risk to Canadian society.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

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

The hon. member mentioned a few problems with this bill. I think the biggest problem is in the title: Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

I find it misleading. We can disapprove of polygamy, but this is the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It only directs itself to polygamy. What does the hon. member suppose the Conservative administration means to do by giving it this overblown and somewhat hyperbolic title?

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is once again playing with words in order to whip up fear of strangers, fear of others.

These are practices that are still being used. I completely disagree with calling them “barbaric cultural practices”. As I illustrated, forced marriage was practised in Canada and in the British and French traditions. In that case, our own culture, our cultural heritage, is also barbaric. It is not the right word. The acts are barbaric, not the culture, regardless of who commits them.

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

March 12th, 2015 / 11:40 a.m.

NDP

Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her speech.

Ten minutes is not a lot of time to get one's point across. Does the hon. member want to add anything she did not have time to say, but is important for Canadians to know?

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea to consult Canadian experts in women's history. They would be able to tell us exactly what happened in Canada that made people want to put an end to that kind of practice and focus more on gender equality.

We need to know what that process was like and how people's practices, culture and ways of thinking were influenced so that we can achieve the same results for immigrants. Immigrants may not have gone through a period that focused on their rights in their country of origin.

I think we have so much to learn, and there are lots of people who could give us much better advice about consulting and approaching the communities instead of merely considering a purely legislative approach, as always. These people could advise us on providing the financial means to create strategies and programs to fight this problem on the ground.

Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of examples of barbaric cultural practices in the west, in our fabulous civilization that wants to tell everyone on earth how to live. For example, we have had two world wars, the Holocaust and the war in the Balkans.

Maybe there is a reason that we have been accused of all kinds of things. We should start by fixing our own barbaric cultural problems. For example, we should investigate the murder and disappearance of aboriginal women.

I would like my colleague to comment further on that.