Debates of March 12th, 2015

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It is great to see so many MPs speaking to this bill.

One of the reasons I got involved in politics from the very beginning was to work on issues like this, to empower women to fight for equality, liberty, and more than anything, an end to violence. Since being elected in 2006, this government and this government alone, under the Prime Minister's leadership, based on our values of pluralism, tolerance, and respect, has acted as one of the loudest, most determined governments in the world in pushing for safe communities and environments for women. We have taken the strongest measures in Canadian history to protect vulnerable women.

We raised the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years to protect young people, including girls, from sexual exploitation by adult predators, and we strengthened peace bond provisions concerning those who were previously convicted of sexual offences against children. It might sound like a small thing, but we have also improved the availability of testimonial aids for vulnerable adult victims and witnesses, including women, who have experienced violence and have to go through the justice system. As someone who volunteered in women's shelters in my life before politics, I can say that these measures make a huge difference for victims and women who are at risk of violence.

Human trafficking is a heinous crime that adversely affects women and girls, especially aboriginal women and girls as young as 12 years old. Our government amended the Criminal Code to create specific offences that prohibit the trafficking of persons for any exploitative purpose—including forced sexual exploitation or forced labour—receipt of a financial material benefit from the trafficking of persons, and the withholding or destroying of traveller identity documents to facilitate the trafficking of persons.

These measures, of course, are all designed to protect vulnerable women from these predators, prosecute the traffickers, and prevent these serious crimes and human rights violations. It is also why this government supported the creation of a mandatory minimum penalty of five years in prison for the trafficking of a person under the age of 18.

For all of the Liberals' talk about their support for aboriginal women, it was this government, under our Prime Minister, that after 100 years, introduced matrimonial property rights on reserve to provide aboriginal women with basic rights and remedies on the fair division of the family home when there is a breakdown in relationship. As well, it was this government that guaranteed people living on reserves the same protections as all Canadians enjoy under the Canadian Human Rights Act, so that aboriginal women also have the same legal protections and supports that are afforded all Canadian women.

These are some of the important actions that our government has taken to improve the legal equality of aboriginal women, but our government is also working to improve the lives of other groups of vulnerable and disenfranchised women in our country. That is why we have introduced Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It sends a very clear message that harmful or violent cultural practices are unacceptable in Canada. These practices, whether they are gender-based violence, female genital mutilation, early, forced, or polygamous marriage, or of course, so-called honour-based violence, are incompatible with Canadian values and will not be tolerated in our country.

Bill S-7 builds on our government's record of taking very strong action to ensure the equality, safety, and security of all women and girls in communities across Canada by strengthening our laws to prevent and respond to harmful cultural traditions that deprive individuals, particularly women, of their human rights. I am especially proud that this government will not fall victim to political correctness and cultural relativism by ignoring these problems or ignoring the problem of violence motivated by so-called honour. These heinous acts are an extreme and brutal violation of the values that we hold dear, and it is shameful that there are those who encourage them.

It bears repeating, when discussing this issue, that all forms of violence are fully prohibited by the Criminal Code, whatever the motive.

Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code to limit the defence of provocation, ensuring that culture could never be an excuse for murder or violence when the victim committed a lawful act that made another person feel so enraged or so dishonoured or insulted or humiliated or ashamed that the person would inflict violence.

The defence of provocation can currently be raised by persons with what are, in my view, warped values who are found to have committed a crime even as serious as murder where they claim that they did so in the heat of passion and in response to what was a wrongful act or insult by the victims themselves that caused them to lose their self-control. If successful in the defence, even though they are found to have committed murder, they are instead convicted of perhaps manslaughter, which has no mandatory minimum sentence unless a firearm is used. By contrast, a conviction for murder carries a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum of 10 years incarceration before being eligible for parole.

The defence of provocation has been raised in several so-called honour killing cases in Canada. It has been raised on the basis that the victim's behaviour, such as choosing one's own marriage partner or dating partner, or even making other personal decisions, such as what kind of clothing to wear, without the support or permission of the father, usually, or sometimes the mother or extended family, amounted to a wrongful act or insult.

This so-called wrongful act or insult, when considered in the context of the cultural community to which the family belonged, apparently would provoke the accused to inflict violence, and maybe even kill, over a sense of damaged honour or reputation. The defence has been invoked in spousal homicides of women in response to legal conduct of the victim, including cases in which the victim was simply trying to end the relationship or said something that the killer found insulting, as well as in cases of real or perceived infidelity.

All Canadians know about some of these very high-profile cases, but what they do not know about is the insidious nature of this kind of oppression that they may not have read about in the paper or the Ottawa Citizen. It would make Canadians sick to know that an attempt could be made to excuse a murder because the killer was insulted, embarrassed, ashamed, or humiliated, or suffered some other emotional upset based on the concept of honour. It is unacceptable, of course, to excuse murder that is committed because a person was unable to control the actions or decisions of another person.

In Canada, I think all of us agree that men and women are equal under the law, and the ability to make one's own choices in life is a cornerstone of our democracy. No one deserves to be oppressed or to experience violence because their legal choices are unwelcome to a spouse, a parent or brothers, or by anyone else in their community. Accordingly, Bill S-7 proposes to restrict the application of the defence of provocation so that it would no longer be available to those who intentionally kill another person in response to conduct that was legal.

The harmful practices that this bill seeks to end—gender-based violence; early, forced, or polygamous marriage; and so-called honour-based violence—typically affect women and girls. They are heinous abuses of human rights and have no place in Canadian society.

Our government has been clear on this issue from the beginning. Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to such barbaric cultural practices, and we are sending a very strong message, both to people in Canada and to people who wish to come to Canada, that we will not tolerate cultural traditions that deprive individuals, specifically women and girls, of their human rights. The preservation and promotion of human rights, our deep respect for fundamental freedoms, and a wholehearted commitment to the universal dignity of all persons stand at the heart of who we are as Canadians.

I hope that all members of this House will join me in supporting Bill S-7, which signals to Canadian society and, most importantly, signals to women and girls all across Canada and to the rest of the world that ensuring the equality, safety, and security of all women and girls in communities across Canada is paramount.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech.

I admit that although I agree with many points, my greatest reservation about Bill S-7 often concerns the surrounding discussion, the way it is presented and even its title, which refers to barbaric cultural practices. All the presentations implied that the Criminal Code does not currently apply to a good number of these situations.

My colleague spoke at length about, among other things, the limit of the defence of provocation for the express purpose of prohibiting honour crimes. The courts have already established that the culturally defined concept of honour does not represent a valid defence of provocation under the Criminal Code.

We have all the means already available in the Criminal Code to fight these practices, and what Bill S-7 will add. However, there is also everything that Bill S-7 does not address. For example, at their arrival in Canada, how do we inform women and young girls, who are often the first victims, of their rights guaranteed under the Criminal Code?

Could we take an approach to this bill that is a little less sensationalist and that focuses a little more on promoting the real rights that women should be aware of so they can exercise them?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member knows full well that when immigrants arrive in Canada, they do learn about their rights. Issues around harmful traditional cultural practices, including female genital mutilation and honour crimes, are very clearly articulated in our citizenship guide. It is very well spelled out and articulated that in Canada those kinds of harmful cultural practices are not to be tolerated and that men and women are equal under the law.

I have been to citizenship ceremonies, as I am sure have many of my fellow MPs, and they have heard exactly that from the citizenship judges. Immigrants do learn what their rights are.

However, most importantly, this is the government that invested in programs to reach out to young girls in the South Asian community, where we know honour-based violence occurs, to help them feel comfortable coming forward if they are feeling any level of oppression. We are now also funding shelters with resources in multiple languages so that those girls who may have any sort of a challenge in understanding English will have resources available to them. We are also providing training across the country to women's shelters that did not traditionally deal with other ethnic and cultural practices so that they can learn about the challenges that some of these young girls are facing.

At the end of the day, not only do we have to support these young women but also send a very clear, unambiguous message that barbaric cultural and harmful practices will never be tolerated here. We are going to shut the door on the opportunity to use this as a defence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment regarding the short title. The idea that one has to incorporate the word “culture” is questionable. We in the Liberal Party have suggested that it be amended out of the short title. Some form of domestic gender abuse has existed in all societies, and there is no need to tie in the word “culture”. I opposed this wording as well with others who spoke on the issue, but to no avail. I would be interested in the member's opinion on that point.

My question is in regard to the first part of the member's comments, when she somewhat glorified the government's approach in dealing with the abuse of women and girls. The question is related to the 1,200-plus aboriginal women and girls who have been brutally murdered or gone missing. Everyone, whether municipalities, chiefs, provincial premiers, or both opposition parties, is calling for a public inquiry—everyone except the current Prime Minister. Everyone is calling for it, and the need is there. If the government and this particular minister are saying that the government is active on this file, why would they not call for a public inquiry?

Then she can perhaps add her comments on the word “culture” in the remaining time.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I am glad that our government is not going to treat this issue with political correctness, because the young girls I have met, particularly in the South Asian community, are very clear about the harmful cultural practices that occur in their own culture.

These are not religious practices but cultural practices. They are harmful traditional practices that happen in the country of origin and they are now happening in Canada. We need to work with these young women and groups within their cultures who are seeking solutions to very tough challenges.

There is no doubt that this is happening and that these are cultural practices that originate not in religion but in culture. They are harmful. Those who are within the culture, women's groups that I have worked with, identify that very clearly.

Therefore, we should call it what it is. We have to face it head-on and work with these women, who call it exactly the same thing we do: barbaric and harmful. These are practices that they are working very hard to eliminate within their own communities. We cannot be ambivalent or ambiguous about this situation. We have to be clear and call it what it is. These are barbaric cultural practices that harm and sometimes kill women and girls, and our government will not equivocate on that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for York South—Weston, Housing.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Consular]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here today to speak to this important bill.

I am a little disappointed. I expected we would be able to find unanimous and enthusiastic support for the bill. I hear the official opposition complaining about the language, which it wants to toy with today. I am concerned that it is perhaps not as concerned about the issues as it is about the wording in the title. The opposition needs to refocus on that.

The Liberals today have at least been consistent, but it is a very strange position to take. The member opposite seems to continually suggest that there is absolutely no cultural component anywhere that creates specific practices. I do not understand why the members would take that position. We all know we have universal challenges. He talks about spousal abuse and those kinds of things. That is a universal challenge, but we certainly are talking about some very specific things.

I am glad to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. In the Speech from the Throne in October, 2013, our Prime Minister promised that he would ensure that early and forced marriage and other harmful cultural practices, including things like polygamous marriages and so-called honour-based violence, would not occur on Canadian soil. Bill S-7 would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code in a variety of ways, and it would address these practices.

For instance, Bill S-7 would create new and specific offences in the Criminal Code related to participation in a forced or early marriage ceremony. That includes things like removing a minor from Canada for the purpose of such a ceremony abroad, and establishing a targeted peace bond that could be used in a preventative way before the marriage and its associated harm occur.

Today, I would like to build a bit on what the minister spoke about, which is the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code that would limit the scope of the provocation defence.

During debates in committee proceedings in the Senates, there appeared to be a number of misconceptions about the merits of the existing law. There are good reasons for the proposed law reform, and I hope we can clarify some of those matters this afternoon.

The defence of provocation, sometimes known as the “heat of passion” defence, currently applies only to a charge of murder. It comes into play only if the murder has actually been proven. It is called a partial defence, which means that where it is successful, this defence claim does not give rise to complete acquittal, but rather changes the verdict to manslaughter instead of murder.

The defence of provocation is successful where the murder was committed in response to some sort of wrongful act or insult from the victim that was so strong that it “deprive(s) an ordinary person of the power of self-control”, and where the accused acted suddenly “before there was time for his/her passion to cool”.

Although the defence of provocation is only partial, as I said, it provides two very significant benefits to the accused if they are successful in applying for it. First, a conviction for manslaughter as opposed to murder leaves the judge with very wide sentencing discretion. A conviction for second degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison and strict parole ineligibility. However, a manslaughter conviction carries no mandatory minimum sentence unless a firearm was used, in which case, it would be a minimum of four years. In all other circumstances, manslaughter carries no minimum sentence.

At the sentencing stage following a successful provocation plea, the provoking conduct or provocation of the victim is taken into account again as a mitigating factor that can reduce the sentence. As members can see, the sentencing benefit provided by the provocation defence is, indeed, substantial.

A second benefit of the defence, if it is successful, is that it allows a murderer to avoid the stigma associated with the label of murderer. It is this aspect that we, as legislators, need to keep in mind in reviewing this provision. The law treats some killings as less blameworthy than others and effectively says that murder is not always murder.

Under the current law, which has been in the Criminal Code since 1892, to constitute a provocation, the victim's conduct only needs to be a wrongful act or insult. If the victim had a legal right to do what they did, this is not to be considered provocation, but that exclusion is very narrow. It applies to things that are legally and expressly authorized, such as police officers executing a search warrant.

Provocation is presently considered where the victim's conduct was actually lawful. The defence is frequently raised where the alleged provocation was conduct such as verbal insult or offensive gestures. The proposed amendment would limit provocation so that it could only be raised where the alleged provocative conduct by the victim would amount to an offence punishable by five years in prison or more.

The defence would therefore be available in cases where a person killed in the heat of passion, provoked by criminal offences such as assault, things like verbal threats, criminal harassment, theft or fraud of property over $5,000, extortion, and a few others. Many provocation claims are in fact based on alleged provocation now of this type of criminal activity.

The kinds of conduct that would no longer be treated as provocation under this act would be things like verbal insults or other types of offensive but lawful behaviour. However unpleasant or hurtful an insult may be, if it is lawful conduct, it should not excuse or mitigate murder or be allowed to do that.

In the debates in the other place, some suggested this proposed reform went too far and limited the defence too much. However, it is reasonable to expect that Canadians can and should be expected to control their reaction to insult and offensive gestures with reactions other than killing the person.

There are two primary objectives of the proposed reform. The first is to prevent the defence from being raised in future honour killing cases, possibly successfully. We have seen examples of young girls and women who have been killed because they refuse to follow their parents' wishes. This can involve an issue such as dating, or marriage partners, or how to dress. These young people have the freedom in our country to make their own choices. That actually is a fundamental freedom for everyone who is in Canada.

This is not just theoretical. This defence has been raised so far in at least three murder prosecutions where the murder could be characterized as honour based. Thankfully the defence failed in all three of those cases, which some have used as proof that the law is working perfectly and does not need amending. We would argue that this is an overly optimistic view. For one thing, all three cases were appealed on complex questions of law and evidence that included how the defence should or should not incorporate evidence of the accused's culture.

These issues are not definitively resolved by the courts. Despite some discussion of gender equality in a couple of the cases, none of the rulings establishes a matter of law that the defence is excluded in honour killing cases. It remains available to be argued by any person accused and convicted of murder.

If a teenage girl does not wish to marry the person chosen for her by her parents and in refusing their wishes they feel she insults their cultural heritage, community and beliefs, if one or both parents were to react by killing the child, this defence could actually be used. We do not believe it is appropriate that this could potentially be successful.

Our second objective of the proposed reform is to modernize the defence with respect to violence against women overall. It can no longer be used to excuse spousal murders resulting from the offender's violent reaction to the victim's lawful conduct.

There is a long history of the provocation defence being raised and sometimes accepted to excuse spousal murders in Canada. Most disturbingly, this often happens in the context of marriage breakdown. These cases have not gone unnoticed. As one academic has noted in her review of the honour-killing provocation cases:

While it may be true that gender equality is, at a rhetorical level, a fundamental Canadian value and that violence against women is neither accepted nor encouraged in Canadian society, the operation of the defence of provocation in the criminal courts is certainly not exemplary of either of those values.

Canadian judges and juries have accepted the defence where men murdered their current or former spouses, or their former spouses' new partners, in response to other forms of lawful conduct such as verbal insults, questioning paternity, refusal to talk privately following termination of a relationship, and real or perceived infidelity.

These cases are very similar to honour killing cases in that women are killed because husbands or other family members reacted violently when they failed to control their behaviour. Women and girls are still seen as the property, in some places and in some minds, of their husband or their families. Their aspirations and desires are subjected to the will of others for their own good.

While feelings of dishonour and shame are experienced at the family or community level in the case of honour killings, they are at the personal or private level in the case of spousal killings.

No one should be able to use the defence that they violently harmed another person because of they were provoked. Our bill addresses this issue in a way that removes that excuse. I would urge all members to work with us and to support this important bill.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by the member's own admission, there were three cases and there were no problems in the prosecution of those cases. In fact, as far as I know justice was served in all three.

Why the change in law? Is there not a certain amount of redundancy here?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I explained in my speech that these three cases were argued on very complex issues of law, that this continued to be allowed as a defence and we felt it needed to be removed. We have found a reasonable balance between serious offences that may be considered as part of the provocation, but we certainly do not think things like insulting someone, making a comment, or disobeying is enough to allow someone to use that an as excuse for murdering family members or those close to them.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in his remarks, the member defended the words that are in the short title, and that is one of our sticking points. He particularly defended the inclusion of the word “cultural”.

I will ask the question as directly as I can. Which cultures are being targeted? Does he care to name one and if not, what purpose does the word “cultural” serve in the title?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been listening earlier, he would have heard one of the ministers talk about the fact that there were certain customs and traditions that were cultural, that were in practice and that were not compatible with Canadian values. We have talked about a few of those things today.

I am sure we would all agree in this place that early and forced marriage, honour killings and genital mutilation are not the kinds of things that Parliament will support in any form. We believe those practices are incompatible. They come out of certain customs and traditions and they are not acceptable in Canada. People need to understand that. Young women, in particular when they come here, need to have the support and the services they need to understand that as well.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for making it clear about the principle being used in the courts today in regard to provocation. I am really grateful he also tackled relativism with regard to the term “cultural”. The exact term is being used as a defence, so we are confronting that, as the member mentioned.

I want to ask a question in regard to something that has not been mentioned, at least in the recent speeches. We spent quite a bit of time years ago debating the age of protection and moving it from age 14 to 16. I think many Canadians would be surprised that there is no minimum age for marriage in Canada. Would the member like to comment on that aspect of the bill?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a couple aspects of marriage are dealt with, such as early and forced marriage and the age of sexual consent in that situation. The whole notion that young women come here or have been taken from Canada to other countries and have been forced into marriage are the kinds of things we can be united on in the House. We can come together and talk about a limit on when people should be getting married. We need to talk about the conditions under which young people might be leaving our country to get married or the conditions in our country under which young people might expect to get married.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues on this side of the House to speak in opposition to Bill S-7.

I have to, as I always do when we get bills with the letter “S” in front of them, note my opposition to having bills derive from the other place. We are elected in this House to represent Canadians; they are not. In a mature democracy all bills should come from the House of Commons, the appropriate place for bills to originate. We see a government that used to talk about political reform and the reform of our parliamentary democracy use this parlour trick over and over again. As a democrat, I object to it and most of my constituents do. I note that in this case, Bill S-7 comes from the Senate and I want to state my opposition to that continued abuse of our parliamentary democracy.

I want to touch on another process issue, and I will give a number instead of a letter this time: 91. It is the 91st time we have had the government invoke closure. We all remember when this government's members were in opposition they decried, opposed strongly and fervently, certainly Preston Manning did, the whole notion of closure and limits on debate.

Today the House leader got up to do his duty for his government and abuse the power it has and shut down debate. It is interesting, because we have present members, we just heard from one, who used to be Reformers. They talked about the importance of debate and the fact that the Chrétien government was always shutting down debate. Now it is water off their backs.

Today, the Conservatives brought in Bill S-7, a bill coming from the Senate into Parliament, which is strike number one against the whole notion of any form of reform of the parliamentary system we have here. Second, they brought in time allocation for the 91st time with this government. It is unprecedented, historic. Those numbers and those letters say everything about the government. The Conservatives have lost their way. I am not sure if they will be able to come back, but it says a lot about principles.

The title of the bill is interesting, because we are also debating a very important bill right now, Bill C-51. The term the Conservatives are using is “an act to combat terrorism”. The actual nomenclature for that bill is “an act to enact the security of Canada information sharing act”, which is actually about giving more powers to CSIS and about sharing information, but the Conservatives want to make it sound like it is having an impact on terrorism.

With the bill before us, it is actually the inversion of that. The Conservatives are making a political statement with the title that somehow they are taking on barbarism, as if that is presently an issue in daily life in Canada. It is actually about evocation, and the person who stated it best was the Minister of National Defence when he said that they used that title because they want to educate people. It is kind of interesting. I have never heard before from the government that it would use the titles of bills to educate. I know it uses them often to provoke, and certainly at times in the past to wedge, but the fact that it is using the word “barbaric” to educate is rather fascinating. I did not really understand the minister's lesson other than that the Conservatives wanted to let people know that there are barbaric things going on in our world and they will clean them up. When we actually look at the bill and look at the testimony, it does not measure up at all.

This kind of evocative title does a disservice to the Conservatives' own issue, which might be an important issue. It is an important issue to look at any abuse of anyone, and certainly the rights, the misuse and abuse of the sanctity of marriage. If there is a real issue, it should be dealt with, but when we go to extremes in our language or our rhetoric, it undermines the issue on which we should be focused.

Yes, there are cases in this country of polygamy. There are cases of female genital mutilation and cases of children whose rights are being abused. We were talking about child protection today at the foreign affairs committee and what things we could do to help protect children abroad.

When we get into the business of using language to evoke or, as in the mind of the Minister of National Defence, educate, as if he is going to educate the rest of Canada on this issue, which is interesting, it actually undermines what we are setting out to do. This is where I would like to get into the meat of the bill and what it purports to do.

We just heard the parliamentary secretary answer an excellent, simple question from my friend from Pontiac, which was could he give us examples, certainly the three recent cases, as to where this bill would actually make a difference. To give credit to the parliamentary secretary, he said the case was dealt with within the parameters of the law we have now. The question is, what is this really about?

I think everyone in the House has concerns about abuse of the immigration system, trying to force people into marriages or the practice of polygamy, and it should be dealt with, but I want to enumerate for people why New Democrats are opposed to this bill when looking at the criminal law now.

I know that you, Mr. Speaker, as a practising lawyer and having taught law, will appreciate this. Right now, criminal law already provides resources, irrelevant in most cases, involving forced marriage prior to and after the marriage, as well as in cases of travelling with minors, which we have seen, with the intent to force them to marry, including uttering threats. That is covered off in subsection 264.1(1) with regard to assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault, sections 265 to 268.

Another aspect of this bill, which the government claims we need is around sexual assault causing bodily harm or sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, forms of intimidation. That is covered under sections 271 to 273 of the Criminal Code. Kidnapping, as it is relevant and cogent to the issue, is covered off in section 279. Forcible confinement, which was referred to by the government as being required, is covered off in subsection 279(2). Abduction of a young person is covered in sections 280 to 283. Procuring feigned marriage, which is simply forcing someone into a marriage that is not the case, is covered off in section 292 of the Criminal Code.

Removal of a child from Canada with the intent to commit an act outside of Canada, which would be one of the listed offences if committed in Canada, is covered off in section 273.3. What about extortion? That is covered off in section 346. There are a couple more, but I will not go through them all because it would take me longer than the time I have. The one I want to highlight in the Criminal Code is spousal abuse, abuse of a child, and abuse of a position of trust or authority. The aggravating factors are covered off in section 718.2.

The question is: why is this in front of us and what is required? There is a case to be made that more needs to be done in terms of resources to help the people who might be victimized, and that is where we have to focus. That is not being provided. The government is cutting budgets in these areas.

I will leave the House with the following. It is interesting that the Conservatives are dealing with this case, but at the beginning of this month, I attended a protest outside the immigration office made up of people, who were legitimate actors, trying to get their marriages recognized. They are having to wait two years because of a lack of processing by the government. I would like the government to take a look at that.

What about the legitimate people who are waiting here, who are inland marriage sponsors, and having to forgo their families, having to pay for their own health care, et cetera? While the Conservatives are looking at this issue, I hope they are seized with those who are legitimate actors, who have legitimate marriages, who are legitimately recognized, and who the Conservatives are ignoring. Hopefully, they will turn their attention to that issue, because these people are forgoing the opportunity to provide Canadians with their talents and plans to have families, et cetera.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the official opposition for his presentation. Part of his presentation, the first three or four minutes, did not deal with the actual issue but dealt with process, so I have a process question based on his speech.

This is the second day. There were speakers on the previous day on this item. There has been a time allocation. There is another day coming on this. This is second reading, meaning once this moves through the House it will go to committee and then will come back to the House for third reading. Before it goes to committee, there will be 20 official opposition time slots. We will hear 20 speeches from the New Democratic Party on this.

I have been in the House all day, from the first part of this. I have heard nothing new from the NDP on it. From any speech it is always the same issue, which is fair. However, is it not time that people would expect, even people from Ottawa, that Parliament would move things forward? We have had lots of discussion. We know what the issues are. We will take it to committee and bring it back to hear what we heard at committee. That is the process. It is an appropriate process. Time allocation is more than appropriate for this size bill.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to get the member's dander up. I was simply pointing out the fact that the government has absolutely abandoned the principles of democratic reform when it has bills coming from the Senate and time allocation, 91 times limiting debate.

I have to add another little caveat. To his saying that we are repeating our points of debate too often, each person gets to decide how they articulate their points. I brought in new points. I was talking about the fact that the government has failed those who are legitimately married who are waiting for the government to process things. However, it is interesting, coming from a party that every day has the same talking points reiterated over and over. However, that is for him to figure out.

When it comes to democracy, the best thing is debate and there should not be time limits on it, certainly not 91 times. That is just not the way it should be in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat a question I have asked other members who have spoken. We have indicated we have very strong concerns with Bill S-7. In fact, we want to see an amendment that would take the word “culture” out from the short title. I understand the NDP is very much concerned about that issue also.

We also note that the bill, in terms of substance, does have some very positive aspects and attempts to deal with polygamy, forced marriages, early marriages, and to a certain degree, domestic violence. This is not in any huge, dramatic or profound way, it is somewhat of a small step. I underline the word “small”. However, there does seem to be some value in the actual content of the legislation. Does the member see any value in the content of the legislation if we put aside the short title?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I should note that on Bill C-51, unlike the Liberal Party, we are stating exactly where we stand. We are against Bill C-51. It is for reasons around oversight, et cetera, but also because we are taking a stand. We are not saying that later on when we are government we will fix it all. That is a little arrogant. We have heard that from the Liberal Party before. At some time it has to take a stand in this place. I know it is difficult for the Liberal Party, but it has to take a stand.

We have taken a stand on Bill S-7. We are opposed to it at second reading. I have just laid out why. Polygamy is illegal, if he is worried about that. I know it is tough for him because Liberals are saying they do not like Bill C-51. However, they are going to put forward amendments, knowing that they are going to be defeated and then they will vote for it. If someone can actually understand that I give them credit.

Here we go with the Liberal Party again trying to find a niche where it can actually open up its own rationale. It is just not working. That is why I am proud to be a member of my party. We take a principled stand and we stick with it because that is where our values are.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

Our government has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to making Canadian communities safer for everyone, including by taking action to prevent and address violence against women and girls.

As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explained before the Senate committee, all violent acts committed against women and girls are indeed barbaric. It is this Conservative government that has taken, and will continue to take, action to address various forms of violence against women and girls.

There is increasing evidence that Canadians are being subjected to forced marriages. Our government has provided international assistance to individuals, including Canadian children, who were taken abroad for forced marriage.

While forced marriage can affect men and boys, it is predominantly a form of gender-based violence targeting women and girls. It is clear that more needs to be done to tackle these unacceptable practices, which may violate basic human rights, cause harm to the victims, and create barriers to full participation of women in our free and democratic society. These forms of gender-based violence are being addressed by Bill S-7.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act contains important legislative measures, which would protect potential and actual victims of forced marriage. These measures would also provide protection against other harmful practices, which predominantly and adversely affect women and girls, such as polygamy and so-called honour-based violence.

In short, Bill S-7 proposes to set the absolute minimum age of marriage at 16 in the Civil Marriage Act and entrench in that same act the requirements that a marriage involve free and enlightened consent and that all previous marriages be dissolved prior to entering into a new marriage.

Bill S-7 would introduce changes to the Criminal Code to also criminalize active participation in an underage or forced marriage ceremony and removing a child from Canada for these same harmful purposes.

This bill would also expand the peace bond regime in the Criminal Code to provide for a new peace bond, which could be ordered by the court to prevent an early or forced marriage from taking place in Canada or prevent a child from being taken out of the country to be forced into a marriage.

Another important change to the Criminal Code proposed in this bill is to limit the defence of provocation so that it could not be raised in cases involving so-called honour killings and in many spousal homicides where the alleged provocation can often consist of verbal or other types of insults. Our government will not allow for a life to be harmed or taken with the excuse that one was provoked.

Finally, this bill puts forward important changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which would specify that permanent residents or foreign nationals are inadmissible to Canada if they are or will be practising polygamy in the country, adding to the current provisions that prohibit the practice of polygamy in Canada.

I would like to focus my remaining remarks on the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code that would help prevent forced marriages from occurring in Canada or with Canadians taken abroad.

In some of the media coverage and debates related to Bill S-7, there appears to be a number of misconceptions about the provisions of the bill related to forced marriage, which I would like to address.

The first misconception is that the bill would ban individuals in a forced marriage from immigrating to Canada. Let me be very clear. The only immigration-related reform proposed in this bill relates to the introduction of a new inadmissibility in relation to the practice of polygamy. As regards forced marriage, this bill proposes to codify the requirement for free and enlightened consent to marriage in the Civil Marriage Act and to introduce additional measures in the Criminal Code to prevent forced marriages from occurring and to sanction those who would harm others by forcing them into marriage.

The second misconception that I would like to address relates to the scope of the proposed criminal offence of participating in a forced marriage ceremony. The proposed offence would not criminalize mere passive attendance by a community member or relative at a forced marriage ceremony. Canadian criminal law does not impose liability on persons who are merely witnessing wrongdoing and failing to stop it. An individual who is merely at the scene without any active conduct that is specifically directed toward helping the marriage ceremony occur would not be subject to prosecution.

The law would require active participation in the ceremony, such as acting as a signatory witness, driving an unwilling bride to the ceremony, or restraining that individual so that she does not flee. Moreover, this active participation has to be coupled with actual knowledge that one of the parties to the marriage is marrying against his or her will. Mere suspicion or speculation that the marriage is forced would be insufficient to trigger criminal liability.

The third myth that I wish to dispel relates to concern that the victims of forced marriages would be forced to criminalize their family members. Our government has heard the concerns expressed by some victims that, although they do not want to be forced into marriage, they also do not wish to see their loved ones criminally prosecuted. For this reason, the bill is structured specifically to provide victims with a means of preventing a forced marriage from occurring in the first place through a process that would not involve a criminal prosecution.

That process would be a new and targeted peace bond. Peace bonds are preventive court orders contained in the Criminal Code. When individuals are subject to a peace bond, they have not committed a crime and so will not have a criminal record unless they choose to violate the court order. As a result, the bill would make it possible for a victim to get the protection she or he requires to prevent the forced marriage ceremony from happening without having to criminalize family members. The peace bond process would also not require the child to take an application to court, as the application is usually made by a police officer on behalf of the person who is afraid.

Finally, I would like to address one last misunderstanding related to the forced marriage provisions of this bill. Some people have claimed that this new offence is unnecessary, as the current criminal law is sufficient to address the use of force to make people marry against their will. While it is indeed true that much of the conduct employed to force someone into a marriage is already covered by one or more of the existing criminal offences, such as assault or unlawful confinement, this bill would fill a gap in the law specifically with the goal of preventing forced marriages from happening.

For example, currently child protection officials are often unable to intervene to protect a child from being removed from the country to protect him or her from a forced marriage abroad because the marriage itself is not a crime under the law. This new offence would make it clear that celebrating or assisting at an unwanted marriage within which sexual offences are expected to occur is in itself a crime, as it is a violation of the individual's basic human rights to choose whether and whom they will marry. Consequently, attempts to force someone into a marriage against his or her will or to remove a child from Canada for a forced marriage would be sufficient to warrant the imposition of a peace bond. This change could save lives, save young children, and avoid traumatizing them. One victim is too many. Nothing can justify the status quo, and closing our eyes on this is unacceptable.

It is this government's priority, under our great Prime Minister, to put an end to the victimization of Canadians, notably women and children from vulnerable segments of society. The legislative measures proposed in this bill are sincere and important steps to address and prevent specific forms of gender-based violence that require prompt action. It is simply unacceptable for any woman or girl in Canadian society to be subjected to the violence and abuse typically encountered in a forced marriage.

I urge all members to support this bill in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is related to the term “culture” in the short title. My colleague and I have questioned the need for it. The government seems to respond by saying that it is the right thing to do because it does not want to be politically correct. It wants to be bold.

I wonder if the member would be bold. If she believes that it is about culture, can she provide a list of those countries where she would suggest that this cultural definition applies? Can she list off some countries for us today?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been very bold in addressing the issue of early and forced marriage. It was our former foreign minister along with our Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2013 who put early and forced marriage on the agenda at those meetings.

I have been in countries where I saw girls as young as 12 with babies on their hips. I asked them if the baby was their brother. They said, “No, this is my baby”.

I have spoken to doctors in other countries, who told me that these young girls come to their hospitals in such a state of far advanced delivery. They have lost so much blood. They are in such terrible medical condition that it is beyond the ability of the doctors to save their lives.

Our government is bold in its attempts to put maternal, newborn, and child health on the agenda for the millennium development goals. It is spending Canadian taxpayers' dollars to save moms and babies around the world.

Why would we not seek protection for girls and women right here in Canada?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, Bill S-7 is yet another example of the Conservatives' tendency to present sensationalized measures that do not actually meet the intended objectives or that have negative consequences for women and children.

Why does the Conservative government insist on criminalizing parents and spouses, when women and girls have clearly indicated many times that this is not the right way of addressing these problems and it is not what they want?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very privileged last July to attend the Girl Summit in London, England, that was put on by Prime Minister David Cameron. I was privileged to be there with our foreign minister and to listen to the many presentations by women from multiple countries around the world who want the issues of early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation brought to the table and spoken about on the agendas of world fora. They are against these practices in their own countries. They want the world to address them.

I was proud to be there, and I was proud to be a participant in those discussions and talk about what Canada is doing, first of all to protect girls and women in our own country, and second, to put these issues on the agendas of world fora so that they can be discussed. They are probably not issues that are comfortable conversation for many people, but it is important that we have these discussions because they are the things that are going to save the lives of moms, girls, and babies around the world.

That is what we want to see. That is what Canadian taxpayers' dollars are doing around the world. Why would we not want to save the lives of girls right here in our own country?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about unintended consequences. As we look at the bill, we think about the intended consequences, but I want to talk about the unintended consequences.

Intention is important. If we look at the intention of the bill, we look at the short title of the bill, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. That is offensive. I am not going to get into how offensive it is. There is the fact that it is xenophobic, that it is politicizing the issue of gender-based violence, and that it is reinforcing prejudices and stereotypes we have about certain cultural groups.

However, if we look at the intention of the bill, I would think the intention is to prohibit certain acts, such as forced marriage and polygamy. Maybe some of those are laudable goals, but then we have to open the legislation and read it and figure out if the intention would be met. It may be or may not be, but what are some of the unintended consequences, because that is equally important. We do not want to do things that we did not intend to do. There are many unintentional consequences in the bill that would actually victimize or re-victimize women, in particular, and children.

Some of the unintentional consequences are that we could criminalize the victims of polygamy. We could criminalize them, and that could lead to the deportation of children. Is that our intention? Is it our intention to criminalize victims? The bill could lead to the separation of families. It would further victimize women. I do not think those are intended consequences, but that is what the consequences of the bill would be.

Imagine being in the position of being forced into marriage. This is a woman who does not have control over her life, a woman who is a victim of family pressure, who is the victim of family control and community pressure and control. If we intend to end that practice, if we intend to help that woman, what would we do? We would think about sensible, reasonable policy responses. What is the policy response to end a practice like that? We would want to make it as easy as possible for women to come forward. We would get rid of all those barriers to prevent them from keeping it secret and to prevent these practices from going underground. We would want to make it as easy as possible for women to come forward and as easy as possible for friends or family members of that woman to come forward and go to the authorities.

If we are looking at a reasonable and sensible policy response, we would also want to reach out to certain communities to raise awareness of forced marriages, to reach out to service providers and government officials who might actually be called upon to assist in the prevention of forced marriages. That is a reasonable policy response. Let us make it easy for those government officials or those community leaders to come forward. A reasonable policy response would be to make it obvious that there are supports in place for these women if they do come forward and that we will help them. We do not want to make things worse, but we would with the bill, because it has so many unintended consequences.

The bill makes no provision to allow women who are conditional permanent residents to remain in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported, so why would they come forward? Why would they come forward, knowing they that they will be deported? UNICEF has talked about the fact that the bill would impose criminal sanctions against minors who attend or celebrate or help organize a forced marriage. It is incredible to think that they would be impacted with that kind of criminal record.

Because some of these penalties include criminalization, some women and children are not going to want to come forward. Why would they come forward when they would be at risk of seeing their parents end up with a criminal record, or their spouse, or other family members, people from their community? How do they come forward knowing that someone is going to be charged? They should be able to come forward to get out of a situation if that is what they need to do. However, this bill does not have any of those supports we are talking about. All it would do is drive these practices underground.

Imagine a women in a forced marriage. She is under the control of her family or her husband, and she is without a voice. She wants to leave, but if she does, she may be deported. I cannot imagine having to make that choice. Would I live with the violence and continue to live in that situation?

The parliamentary secretary spoke earlier about having travelled around the world and seeing terrible conditions in other countries, terrible situations for women. Is that what we are doing here, risking these women being sent back to those conditions? That is the risk they are going to take if they come forward. They could see their parents end up with a criminal record. What woman is going to come forward?

If we are looking at sensible, reasonable policy responses to this problem, I think it makes sense to look at what other countries are doing. Denmark, as members have probably heard, actually tried something along these lines. We should learn from their record and learn about what is happening.

In 2008, Denmark actually made it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry, but six years later, no one has been charged under this law. That is relevant.

Even more relevant, we have heard from the head of the National Organization for Women's Shelters. She thinks that not only has the law not had any impact on protecting young women from being forced into marriage but that it may have backfired and is actually driving the problem underground.

A reasonable policy response is to make it clear to women that we will be there to help them and we will support them, not that there will be criminal charges, not that there will be deportation.

We can look at other countries as well. I know that some of my colleagues have talked about the situation in the United Kingdom. If we are making legal changes, if we are looking to enact legal changes, we have to have those supports in place as well.

We have had testimony. We have had experts come forward to say that any legal challenge has to go hand in hand with more funding for women's organizations, which are really on the front lines providing services to isolated and stigmatized victims to help them navigate the criminal justice system and the civil justice system and to help them access safe housing and welfare support. All of those things are needed if we are going to enact legal changes.

Unfortunately, this bill is another example of a pattern of the Conservatives. They want desperately to have their tough-on-crime buttons they can wear: “We are tough on crime and we stand up for victims”. They love this narrative. They love the narrative so much that they do not actually care if they make it tougher for victims.

What is the pattern I am talking about? In 2012, we had new measures introduced to crack down on marriage fraud, including the requirement for a sponsored spouse to live with the sponsor for two years or face deportation and possible criminal charges. I remember that debate. I remember the fact that the NDP talked about this leaving women vulnerable to abuse. Why would women come forward when the law says that they have to stay with that person for two years or lose permanent residency? Why would they come forward?

We have seen private member's bills that talk about fact sponsorship or proxy sponsorship for marriages, but that is not about forced marriages. The people using that form of transmission are really refugees, by and large. By cutting off that access, we are limiting family reunification. That is an unintended consequence. We need to think long and hard about what these kinds of bills will do and the fact that they re-victimize victims.

I will finish up with the fact that I heard our Minister of National Defence, the former minister of citizenship, and multiculturalism, saying that sometimes we need to act with legislation.

Maybe during the question and answer period I will have the opportunity to list some of the legislation, because we have the legislation in place we need. The Criminal Code is fulsome. It does not have the unintended consequences we are talking about here. It gets to the root of the problem.

There is no way I can support this bill in good conscience.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked several members a question regarding the value of the legislation. The last person I asked was the member for Ottawa Centre, and he seemed to take exception and questioned the Liberal Party's principles. I would ask the member to reflect on her colleague's answer.

The New Democratic Party, on numerous occasions, has actually voted in favour of legislation going to committee, ultimately to be amended. The New Democratic Party often moves amendments at committee, even though they all get defeated, but ultimately it goes to third reading, and it still votes in favour of the legislation.

The only party that has actually been consistent with regard to its approach to legislation, at least on the opposition side, is the Liberal Party. The questionable behaviour might be coming from the New Democratic Party.

Could the member explain why it is that the member for Ottawa Centre believes that the NDP has never voted for something its members did not support going to committee or second reading, or could she answer the question I have posed to other colleagues? Does she see any value whatsoever in the content of the legislation, not the name?