Debates of March 23rd, 2015

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I would like to take this opportunity to address the comments that have been made in this and other places suggesting that the reform to the defence of provocation is unnecessary in light of three cases of so-called honour killing in which it was unsuccessfully raised.

The defence of provocation, sometimes known as the heat of passion defence, applies only to the charge of murder and comes into play only if murder is actually proven. It does not give rise to complete acquittal but rather produces a verdict of manslaughter instead of murder.

The defence offers significant benefits to an accused. A conviction for second degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison and strict parole ineligibility rules, whereas a manslaughter conviction carries no mandatory minimum sentence, except if a firearm is used, and allows a murderer to avoid the stigma associated with the label.

The defence will be successful where the murder was committed in response to a wrongful act or insult from the victim that would be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control and where the accused acted suddenly, before there was time for his passion to cool. The killing must be a spontaneous reaction to an unexpected provocation.

Most honour killings are believed to be premeditated. If the crown can prove premeditation, resulting in a conviction for first degree murder, the defence of provocation will not succeed. However, some killings that may be characterized as honour killings can be spontaneous reactions to something unexpectedly said or done by the victim.

In cases where the crown prosecutor proves that the killing was intentional but not premeditated, the provocation defence is available.

The defence of provocation has been raised in at least three cases that could be characterized as honour killings. These are R. v. Nahar in 2004, R. v. Humaid in 2006, and R. v. Sadiqi in 2013. All of these reported cases were appealed to the appropriate courts of appeal. In the case of Nahar, it was to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The other two were to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

It is true that in each of these cases, the defence of provocation failed. However, this cannot be taken to have the consequence some have suggested, namely that the defence is now barred in an honour-killing context and that therefore there is no reason to amend the law.

As a general matter, even assuming that a court of appeal determines conclusively that the provocation defence is unavailable in these circumstances, the relevant legal issues have arisen in only two provinces: British Columbia and Ontario. Rulings from one provincial court of appeal are not binding in any other province. Without a ruling on the relevant legal issues from the Supreme Court of Canada, it is simply incorrect to say that the legal questions have been definitely resolved in Canada.

When we come to the substance of what was actually decided by these courts of appeal, a careful reading of these cases shows that the courts did not, as a matter of law, rule out the possibility of the defence operating in situations of honour killings. The defence continues to be available to be raised in cases where family honour has played a role in the killing. For instance, it would be available to an accused who, upon finding his teenage daughter in her bedroom with a boy from school, becomes enraged at this breach of the family's honour code. If he intentionally kills her in the heat of the moment in response to her verbal insults against his cultural traditions and beliefs, he could benefit from the potentially successful defence of provocation.

In the two cases, it was the defence that submitted evidence on the cultural background of the accused to demonstrate how a wrongful act or insult from the victim would give the provocation significance and would have gravity for an ordinary person from the same culture as the accused.

For instance, in Nahar, the accused claimed that he killed his wife in the heat of passion following disrespectful comments from her about men and behaviour such as smoking, drinking, and socializing with men. He introduced evidence that the victim's behaviour was completely at odds with acceptable behaviour for wives in his culture.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal actually found this cultural context to be relevant to understanding how an ordinary person of the same background as the accused would be provoked by the behaviour of the victim.

This may come as a surprise to those who have tried to suggest that all three cases definitively ruled out provocation in an honour-killing context.

This provocation claim failed for different reasons. First, the trial judge had grounds to find that the alleged provocation by the victim was not unexpected to the accused but rather had been going on for several months. In this regard, the killing was on the sudden, following an unexpected provocation. Second, the nature of the provocation by the victim was not found to be such as to cause an ordinary person to lose self control, even assuming that the ordinary person was from the accused's cultural community.

In the Humaid case, the accused alleged that he was provoked by comments his wife made that he interpreted to be an admission of sexual infidelity. The accused led expert opinion evidence that in the accused's cultural tradition, infidelity by a female member of a family was considered a very serious violation of the family's honour and was worthy of harsh punishment by the male members of the family.

The court of appeal expressed the strong view that the application of cultural values that are contrary to gender equality to the defence of provocation was inappropriate. However, this was not the reason the defence failed. One reason the defence failed was that the accused did not introduce any evidence that he personally shared the views his community was said to have. It also failed because the crown had proven premeditation, which is inconsistent with the provocation defence. The views of the court on the question of cultural values were not matters that were necessary to decide the appeal, so they are not binding on lower courts.

Finally, in the Sadiqi case, the accused raised the defence of provocation in the killing of his sister and her fiance by alleging that his sister had refused to seek their father's approval for the proposed wedding and that she and her fiance insulted him in the moments before the murders.

The crown tendered expert evidence of honour killings within the traditional culture of the community of origin of the accused. The jury found the accused guilty of first degree murder. The appeal was about whether the crown's use of expert evidence was appropriate. The court of appeal held that it was. That is the only legal proposition this case stands for.

Despite some helpful discussions on gender equality in these cases, none of the rulings established as a matter of law that the defence is excluded in honour-killing cases. It remains available to be argued by any person accused of murder. The provocation claims failed in these three cases because of the facts and evidence presented and not because of any principle of law.

Taken together, these cases reflect outcomes all Canadians would hope for, but it is purely wishful thinking to say that these cases legally closed the door on the provocation defence in the honour-killing context.

Moreover, there is a long history of the provocation defence being raised and sometimes accepted to excuse spousal murders in Canada in circumstances that closely resemble the Nahar and Humaid cases. The principle difference is that the feelings of dishonour and shame are experienced at the family or community level in the case of honour killings and at the personal or private level in the case of spousal killings. What is the same is that men kill women when they feel that they have lost control over them.

It is high time we amended this defence so that it can no longer mitigate killing in response to a lawful insult. No person has a right to control another, and where people fail to get what they want, they should not have the murder of another person mitigated through a 500-year-old defence that originated in a culture that treated women as the property of their husbands.

This reform is about reaffirming the value of gender equality in Canada and about making it clear that homicidal violence against all women in reaction to lawful conduct will no longer provide an excuse for murder.

Bill S-7 proposes to address this long-standing problem in our criminal law by limiting the defence so that it can only be raised where provoking conduct by the victim amounts to an offence punishable by five years or more in prison.

People should not be able to use the defence that they violently harmed others because they were provoked.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act sends a clear message to those coming to Canada that forced marriage, honour based violence or any other form of harmful cultural practices are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the other week I had the opportunity to put a number of concerns with Bill S-7 on the record. In general, we believe some of the positive things it hopes to achieve are somewhat small in nature in terms of steps forward.

However, I have raised a great deal of concern about the title of the bill. In reflecting on the short title of the bill, could the member explain to the House if the short title could be used in a court of law? If it cannot be used, why does the government feel so passionately that it has to be “as is”, without amendment?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act sends a clear message to those coming to Canada that forced marriage, honour based violence and any other form of harmful cultural practices are unacceptable and will not be tolerated in our Canadian society.

The Government of Canada will continue to ensure it will protect Canadians from the harmful barbaric cultural practices and it will continue to protect Canadians vulnerable to these abuses.

That is why we have the strong context in the title of the bill. It is to show Canadians that this type of behaviour is unacceptable.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very sensitive and complex topic. Obviously, nobody here is in favour of barbaric practices that do not respect freedom. No one is condoning crimes or murders. My wife and I have two daughters, and we would obviously not want them to be forced into marriage.

However, I would like to ask this question: why do the Conservatives systematically use this sort of controversial issue to play politics, divide people and instill fear? The laws that we have are sufficient to prevent people from being forced to marry or from coming up with excuses for murdering someone or throwing acid in someone's face.

I think the Conservatives are just trying to mislead Canadians. This is nothing but demagoguery. This bill is extremely populist and completely unnecessary.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I want to be very clear about is that a murder is a murder.

In Canada any type of legal defence that promotes this type of cultural barrier is unacceptable. It is of the utmost importance that we have to protect the rights of those individuals who come to Canada or reside in Canada.

I come from an RCMP background and I have seen what individuals are capable of doing. Having to go to a crime scene and investigate a murder where cultural practices are being used as a defence is unacceptable. That is why our government is looking at making these changes. As a Conservative government, we are here to defend the rights of Canadians.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member address the issue of marriages between young Canadians in their teens and the laws that do not currently exist but which this bill will now address?

I have received a number of letters and inquiries from my constituents who are surprised to hear that the laws across Canada, by province, are not consistent on this matter. Could he tell us a bit about what other countries have done to remedy this situation, and what the bill would do on that issue?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, countries such as Austria, Australia, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom have 16 as the minimum age, below which no one can marry without parental consent. This is consistent with the proposal in this bill.

Several like-minded countries have set 18 as the age for marriage without additional consent from parents in court, but have no minimum age of marriage. For example, in Belgium, France, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and most of the United States laws are similar to the current law in Canada.

Setting a national minimum age of 16 years for marriage is consistent with the federal legislation that applies only with regard to the province of Quebec, in section 6 of the Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1. It is also consistent with what happens now in Canada, where there are few marriages contracted between individuals under 16. However, some limited exceptions are made for mature minors of 16 and 17 years of age under certain circumstances, for example, where one is pregnant.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Ahuntsic, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Québec, Housing; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Seniors.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to strongly oppose 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, also known as the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

The NDP and I want to emphasize that we are opposed to polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage. These three practices are unacceptable. They target women specifically and go against the freedoms we enjoy here in Canada. That being said, we know that the solution proposed by the Conservatives is not suitable and will not achieve the desired results.

I would like to begin by saying that this bill is incomplete. The requirements that the Conservatives are presenting as new are already present in our existing legislation. What good does it do to duplicate legislation? It is a waste of our time and Canadians'. To be more specific, the requirement of free and enlightened consent is already present in the Quebec Civil Code and in the common law of the other provinces.

Moreover, Canada's Criminal Code contains avenues of remedy tailored to each situation to fight these kinds of marriages. These avenues of remedy can be employed before or after the marriage, which gives victims the opportunity to seek justice. The victims have to know about the avenues, however, and that is where we should be focusing our energy.

I would like to talk more about the many shortcomings of this bill. These deplorable gaps will endanger victims of forced and underage marriage. The bill contains no solutions whatsoever to help immigrant women learn about their rights. These women have virtually no way to defend themselves. Our goal should be to give them the tools they need to navigate our legal system.

The Conservatives are either refusing or do not know how to implement a policy to make the law accessible to everyone, particularly the most vulnerable. One could be forgiven for believing that the government wants to keep them in the dark. How can they protect themselves if they do not know our laws? It is impossible, and that is why the NDP intends to make this information more available and minimize this kind of inequality around awareness of rights that is unfortunately present in Canada.

Another important point that the Conservatives have once again left out is the creation of programs and services to support the victims of forced marriage and polygamy. The bill does not address this aspect at all, despite how important it is. Another shortcoming has to do with the lack of education and mental health support, which will be crucial to protecting children who are victims of human trafficking. These situations unfortunately affect all too many children in this country. How do the Conservatives plan to help children living in high-risk situations if they have no programs in place specifically for such victims?

It is clear that the Conservatives did not do very much research in these areas for this bill. The NDP encourages the government to consult the parties involved and meet with front-line stakeholders and experts in order to really be able to address the problem of forced and underage marriages. This lack of consultation is an alarming reality in the case of many Conservative bills, and we find that very troubling.

I believe that the bill is not only incomplete, but it is also alarming. It is harmful for two main reasons. First, it helps further stigmatize immigrant populations in Canada. We see that in the title: the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill is based on racist prejudices and fuels xenophobia by associating immigration, illegality and barbarism. The NDP fights every day against this simplistic type of view that contributes to excluding immigrant populations. A policy based on fearing the other and rejecting differences is not a policy the NDP wants.

What is more, this bill that claims to protect victims from situations of forced or underage marriage and polygamy in fact risks putting victims in greater jeopardy. By making the law even tougher, the government is discouraging immigrant women from reporting their situation out of fear of then being deported from the country. This bill includes no provision allowing conditional permanent residents to stay in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported. This bill is paradoxical because it isolates the victims and puts them further at risk.

Worse yet, by preventing the reunification of the family in a polygamous situation, the bill contributes to separating children from their mother. Children are once again the primary victims of senseless legal decisions. Minors would be at risk of being criminalized for participating in a forced or underage marriage. A solution based on criminalization is not sound. It discourages victims from reporting this type of situation because of the threat of a criminal record weighing on them or members of their family.

The NDP is prepared to offer solutions to this issue in a culturally appropriate manner. One main focus would be to alter immigration policy in a direction that enables women to be independent.

The NDP is in favour of immigration implementing support services and amending processing times to allow wives and children of men who are to be deported to reside in Canada. This would reduce limitations on their ability to escape unhealthy relationships at the expense of their residency.

This can also serve as a better solution than the conditional permanent residency introduced by the Conservatives in October 2012, which further increases the vulnerability, abuse, and isolation of women and the degree of manipulation they are subjected to in the general state of the issue and by the CPR.

The NDP supports the notion of preventing and responsibly addressing this issue, by implementing programs and listening to experts in the field, as opposed to criminalizing and further marginalizing citizens. The way to address this issue can be seen through our national action plan, which addresses violence against women by examining the root of the issue of violence against women and offering support as opposed to further limitations.

We must put in place a policy that goes to the root of the problem, rather than applying a superficial and sensationalist policy, as proposed by the Conservative government. That is why the NDP is proposing to provide prevention and victim support services. The NDP and I want to support and fund such initiatives as the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, or SALCO, which plans to promote more prevention. This organization offers information sessions for police officers and those in charge of social services. This is a concrete and useful response.

We need a strategy that is appropriate for each situation and not an evasive and useless response like the government's. Instead of tackling the problem of forced or underage marriage or polygamy by passing a law that focuses on criminalizing the victims, the NDP has come up with concrete and insightful solutions. It is proposing to adopt a national plan to combat violence against women that responds to the specific vulnerability of each community. Furthermore, the NDP believes that it is vital to put in place culturally appropriate training for government officials so that they are able to prevent forced marriages. Government officials must be better prepared to fight ignorance in order to protect the victims in these situations.

This bill is yet another example of the Conservatives' habit of introducing legislation that is both ill-suited to the problem and dangerous to Canadians. They are not capable of helping the most vulnerable members of society and they are playing with fire by constantly linking immigration, illegality and insecurity. The serious problem of gender-based violence must be resolved as quickly as possible, but it must be done effectively. Only the NDP truly understands the true implications.

In conclusion, I want to share the story of a case in my riding. In 2012 I helped a woman, Ms. Hernandez, who was the victim of domestic violence. She had started her immigration process and was therefore not yet a Canadian resident. She had been threatened with deportation because she had reported domestic abuse against her and her child. It took me several weeks, it took a number of protests, in particular one on International Women's Day last year, and it took the the help of the media and of groups like Solidarity Across Borders to ensure that Ms. Hernandez was able to remain in Canada.

Women in these types of situations are very vulnerable. It is dangerous for them. Women and children cannot live their lives in limbo. These people should not have to wonder whether they can remain in Canada or whether they will be deported.

That is why I am opposed to this bill. I think all Canadians agree with us and I hope that every member of Parliament will oppose this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in short, I would have to agree to disagree on a couple of the points that the member has brought forward. I have been focusing a lot of attention on the name and title of the bill and suggesting that the short name of the bill should be amended to better reflect what Canadians would find more acceptable.

There are areas in which the legislation attempts to improve upon the system, albeit in a very small fashion. Is the member aware of some of the stakeholder groups that have been brought to her attention that are in opposition to the legislation, outside of the short title? If so, could the member give us specifics as to what part of the legislation offends them?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I wish I could have talked about that, but as many of my colleagues mentioned, we are unfortunately under time allocation once again, which means we have less time to speak.

I would like to quote Hannana Siddiqui, head of policy and research for Southall Black Sisters, who talked about criminalization:

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.

Criminalization is therefore a problem. The government is always trying to make laws tougher instead of trying to do prevention. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That means it is our responsibility to help prevent these crimes against women, to inform them about their rights and to help them navigate our legal system.

I work with women's groups in my riding in west Montreal, and that is exactly the problem I see there. We have to help them with existing laws. Criminalization does not solve existing problems.

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

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

The Conservatives are caught up in wishful thinking. Unfortunately, Bill S-7 is another example of a heavy-handed bill that attempts to solve a problem in a way that has not been validated by the experiences of other countries.

The Danes tried this. They passed legislation in 2008, if I am not mistaken, banning forced marriage, but not a single arrest has been made. A Danish national organization for refugee women even said that the legislation passed in Denmark made the problem even worse by forcing women into secrecy.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

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

I am not familiar with that Danish organization, but as I mentioned earlier in my speech, criminalizing this aspect will increase feelings of isolation among these women. They will feel as though they have fewer avenues of recourse, because they will be afraid of the consequences of criminalization.

Naila Butt, executive director of the Social Services Network, had this to say:

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.

As I mentioned, this is a racist bill that will isolate women, not help them. The bill does not give them any tools to get out of those situations. Everyone here agrees that these are terrible situations that should not exist, and this bill does nothing to improve things.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

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

In the Speech from the Throne in October 2013, our government promised it would ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada would become a victim of any cruel practice that violates basic human rights. Such practices are not acceptable on Canadian soil. Bill S-7 would send this clear message to all Canadians and those coming to Canada.

Bill S-7 would deliver on that promise. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act would demonstrate that Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to early and forced marriage, polygamy, and other types of barbaric cultural practices. Canada will not tolerate violence against women or girls, including spousal abuse and violence in the name of so-called honour. Those found guilty of these crimes will be severely punished under Canada's criminal law.

This bill would establish a national minimum age of 16 for marriage in the Civil Marriage Act. Currently, a minimum age of 16 for marriage exists only in federal legislation pertaining to Quebec. It has never been legislated for the rest of Canada. As a result, the common law applies, which is usually interpreted as a minimum age of 14 for boys and 12 for girls. This bill would set 16 as the minimum age for marriages across Canada, consistent with current practices in countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Civil Marriage Act would also be amended to codify the legal requirements for free and enlightened consent to marriage. Currently the legal requirements for free and enlightened consent for marriage and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another are legislated in Quebec. Consent is the most critical aspect of a lawful marriage. This amendment would make it clear that no Canadian should ever be forced to marry against their will.

Amendments to the Criminal Code are proposed to provide protection against early or forced marriage, prevent victims from being removed from Canada, and effectively punish perpetrators for violating Canadian laws. The proposed amendments in Bill S-7 are very important because they create offences that specifically address the social harm caused by the public sanctioning of these harmful practices.

More so, the bill proposes two new offences that would extend criminal liability to anyone who knowingly celebrates, aids, or participates in a marriage ceremony in which one or both of the spouses is either under the age of 16 or is marrying against his or her will. This would cover both those who conduct the marriage ceremony and those, such as family members, who have full knowledge that a marriage is forced or involves a child under 16 and actively aids the marriage ceremony taking place. This would include, for example, transporting an unwilling bride to the ceremony or acting as a legal witness.

It is important to note that a person could not be prosecuted for merely being at the scene of a crime and witnessing it; a person would need to have engaged in some conduct specifically directed toward helping an early or forced marriage to occur.

The bill also proposes to make it an offence to remove a child from Canada for the purpose of a forced or underage marriage outside the country. This government is aware of the very disturbing stories of Canadian children being taken abroad for a forced or early marriage. They are told that they are going overseas to a relative's wedding, only to discover upon arrival that the wedding ceremony is, in fact, their own.

Child protection officials who believe that the child will be removed from Canada for a forced or underage marriage lack the requisite legal tools to intervene and to prevent the child's removal from Canada. This bill would change that by adding new offences related to an underage or forced marriage ceremony to the list of offences in the provision that makes it a crime to remove a child from Canada.

The Criminal Code amendments provide a foundation for the very important prevention measures in Bill S-7 to protect vulnerable Canadians and residents from early and forced marriages. The bill proposes to introduce specific forced or underage marriage peace bonds.

Peace bonds, which are preventive court orders, currently exist in the Criminal Code and are available in circumstances when a person fears, on reasonable grounds, that another person will cause them personal injury or will commit certain types of offences. Amendments would provide courts with the power to impose conditions on an individual when there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 will otherwise occur. For example, an order under the new peace bond provisions would prevent a victim from being taken out of Canada and would require the surrender of a passport.

We have heard that many victims of forced marriages are reluctant to contact the authorities prior to the marriage because they do not want their parents or other relatives prosecuted. These peace bonds are an important option available to victims of forced marriages who might be reluctant to contact the authorities prior to marriage because they do not want their parents or other relatives prosecuted. These peace bonds would also reinforce the clear message that forced and underage marriages will not be tolerated in Canada.

Another important measure in Bill S-7 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to limit the defence of provocation so that it would not be available in so-called honour-based killings or many spousal homicide cases. The defence of provocation can currently be raised by a person who is found to have committed murder on the basis that a wrongful act or insult by the victim was sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control, causing them to act suddenly, before there was time for their passions to cool. If successful, even though the person is found to have committed a murder, they are instead convicted of manslaughter.

This bill 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. It would only be available when the victim's conduct amounted to a relatively serious criminal offence.

It is an important amendment because, as a society, we need to send a clear signal that murder should not be excused because the killer was insulted or embarrassed or suffered some other emotional upset. The strongest penalties should be imposed for murder committed because a person was unable to control the actions and decisions of another person.

Finally, Bill S-7 addresses polygamy and reinforces the message that it is a practice that is an affront to Canadian values. Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would specify that a permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on the grounds of practising polygamy in Canada. It would allow for the removal of non-citizens who practice polygamy in Canada without the need for a Criminal Code conviction.

I am very proud that the government is sending a strong message to Canadian society and to the world that Canada will not tolerate barbaric cultural practices. I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting Bill S-7.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would ask the member the same question that I asked the previous member regarding the legislation.

As the member is no doubt aware, we have been talking a lot about the short title. From the member's perspective, can the short title actually be used in a court of law as an argument for or against any of the measures that are taking place? If the answer to that is no, why would the government not be open to receiving an amendment that would make the legislation less offensive to many of the different stakeholders and Canadians who are quite concerned, particularly about the use of the word “cultural” in the short title?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that we are spending so much time and focus on the title and not on the substance of the bill.

The bill is at second reading. It will go to committee, where there will be an opportunity for further discussion and debate. I would suggest that we should actually focus on what the bill is about.

It is about practices that I think, wherever members sit in this House, we have to consider barbaric. They are. What does “honour killing” mean? Are people going to kill their daughters because they did something that is considered unacceptable on cultural or religious grounds? Practices that include violence against women and girls or domestic violence are barbaric practices that are not allowed in this country.

This country accepts people from all corners of the world. Those people should know, and are informed, that some of the practices or actions that are legal in the country they come from are not legal here—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Our time on the five minutes is starting to wane. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Mr. Speaker, all NDP members will obviously oppose this bill. It is problematic because instead of trying to find a solution to the problem of forced marriage and the resulting abuse, the bill is merely punitive or tends to take a punitive approach. The Criminal Code already contains all the legislative tools we need to sentence someone who, for example, abuses his spouse or confines her.

I would like my colleague to explain what more this bill will actually contribute, given that the courts and police services are already very well equipped to address the problem. We heard from Canadian organizations and international stakeholders that instead of solving this problem, the bill will even drive many women underground, forcing them to remain in the shadows and suffer their plight in silence.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really understand the logic here. How is this bill going to drive women underground?

The bill contains preventive measures to help women to deal with barbaric, terrible practices. Is it ideal? Probably not. Nothing is perfect in life. Therefore, it probably could be perfected or made better, but its aim is to help people who come to this country.

I go and meet with organizations in my riding that provide settlement services that help women who come from different countries to understand that in this country they have rights and are protected, and that restrictions that they may have faced in the country they came from do not exist here.

This is something that is happening on the ground. It is financed by CIC. It is financed by Status of Women. It is going on. Is it easy? No, it is not, but this has to continue. We have to inform those people who come here to start a new life in this country. They have to be informed of our regulations and of their power—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill S-7. This bill contains measures to better protect women and girls in our country.

With this bill, our government is fulfilling a commitment made in the Speech from the Throne in October 2013. That commitment is to ensure that early and forced marriage and other harmful cultural practices, such as polygamist marriages and so-called honour-based violence, do not take place on Canadian soil. We see these activities as absolutely incompatible with Canadian values.

Today I would like to speak to the bill's proposed amendment to the provocation defence. I would like to address a number of misconceptions that have been expressed during debate on this bill.

A person who is found to have committed murder can raise the defence of provocation. They can raise, as a defence, that they killed the victim in the “heat of passion” brought on by “a wrongful act or insult” from the victim. The provocation, they can claim, would be sufficient to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control.

Much has been made of the fact that the defence has failed where it has been raised in the context of honour killings. While this may be the case to date, there is nothing preventing a court from accepting it in the future, and we would like to make sure that does not happen.

The defence has already been raised in at least three honour-killing prosecutions in Canada. The alleged provoking conduct in these cases was real or perceived marital infidelity and other conduct by the victim that the offender perceived as disrespectful or defiant toward them or their families. The particular three claims I mentioned failed owing to the inadequacy of supporting evidence in these cases.

The proposed amendment in Bill S-7 would modernize the defence. Under the bill, the defence of provocation would only be available to an accused found guilty of murder where the conduct of the victim that provoked the accused to kill amounted to a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of at least five years. In other words, it would be a serious offence. The reform would limit the defence so that it would no longer excuse murder where the provoking conduct of the victim was lawful.

In the Senate debates on this bill, some suggested that the defence of provocation is a long-standing and sound principle of criminal law that is operating in conformity with Canadian values and should not be changed. It was also suggested that the proposed reform would limit the defence to match.

Therefore, the question for us as legislators is whether modern Canadian values do in fact support showing compassion and leniency to those who kill in response to something they find insulting or offensive. I do not believe they do.

It is a different matter if the provoking behaviour is objectively serious and unacceptable, such as criminal conduct. The defence would still be permitted when the provocation was a physical assault or threat or some other serious form of criminality.

I think it is very important to understand the history of the provocation defence. We should also look at countries that share our common law tradition and at their experiences with this defence.

Historically, the defence of provocation emerged in the common law around the 16th century. Initially it was limited to certain categories of conduct, all related to men defending their honour, such as a spontaneous fight or an arranged duel. This also included what a man might do on finding another man committing adultery with his wife.

In the early common law, let us remember that a man's wife was his legal property. The initial provocation defence reflected this social and legal reality of the day, namely that adultery was “the highest invasion of property”, as per the Mawgridge case in 1707.

Therefore, a man who killed in response to adultery was considered less blameworthy. It may surprise some members to learn that in the history of our own common-law tradition the provocation defence was the original honour defence.

However, at some point in its history, the honour-related basis for provocation was replaced with the idea that the law should make some allowance for “human frailty”, where a person is provoked beyond the ability to exercise self-control. The specific categories of provoking conduct were eliminated and the provocation defence was made available more generally and broadly. The defence would succeed where a person killed after having lost self-control as a result of any kind of wrongful act or insult by the victim, so long as an ordinary person could also have been provoked to lose his or her self-control in the same circumstances even though not necessarily to the point of killing. This is the form of the provocation defence that was incorporated into Canadian law in the 1800s, and it remains unchanged today.

However, the use of this defence in the cases of so-called honour killings flies in the face of freedom of expression, a cornerstone of a free and democratic society. In order to protect freedom of expression, there is no room to make allowances for intentional killings on the basis of insult or offence. Allowing the provocation defence to be invoked in response to mere insults or offensive conduct is inconsistent with core Canadian values of freedom of expression, liberty and gender equality.

Both internationally and domestically, the provocation defence has been the subject of similar criticisms from a range of quarters in recent years. The Supreme Court of Canada has referred to these criticisms in some of its rulings, stating that only Parliament can address these concerns.

Many point out that the historic origins of the defence still operate to excuse male proprietary or possessory claims over women. This is clearly at odds with our modern values of gender equality and personal autonomy and freedom.

In the past decade, the legislatures of most jurisdictions with a common-law history similar to ours have acted to address some of these concerns. New Zealand and several Australian states have entirely abolished the defence. Most other Australian states have restricted the defence in some measure, as has the United Kingdom. Just last year, the Australian state of New South Wales reformed its provocation defence, including by limiting its scope to provoking conduct that would be a relatively serious criminal offence. This is the same approach proposed in Bill S-7.

Another question that was asked in the Senate was whether the proposed amendment would have the unintended consequence of taking a viable defence away from battered women who kill their abusers, but this is another misperception. In Canada, the provocation defence is rarely raised in these circumstances, but could still be raised if the woman was treated with criminal activity such as assaults or threats.

There are two primary objectives in this bill: the first to prevent the defence from being raised in the future before it is ever accepted by a court or a jury; and the second to modernize the defence more generally, so that it can no longer be used to excuse spousal homicides based on lawful conduct.

The time has come for Canada to bring our law of provocation out of the 17th century and align it with our modern values. Our women and girls deserve nothing less. I hope that all members will support this proposal and all of Bill S-7.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

She ended her speech by talking about limiting the provocation defence in order to prohibit crimes of honour. This notorious provocation defence is problematic.

I would like my colleague to explain why this bill would simply limit this defence and not abolish it outright in all such cases that could arise.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have chosen not to do that. We believe, in the case of the provocation defence, that where an individual, a Canadian, is threatened, has been criminally assaulted and takes measures to protect himself or herself, this is a reasonable course of action in those cases.

The member will remember that the government passed an act to give lawful protection to people who are threatened, for example, by a home invasion where they may be beaten or tied up and somehow find a way to overpower their attackers, perhaps causing the death of the attacker. Any reasonable society feels that kind of provocation, when it is met with force, sometimes has to be found lawful.

However, in the case of simply an insult or something that another person finds offensive, that is not a legitimate use of the defence, and that is why we are moving to change that.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I do not believe there is any such thing as an honour killing. I think all killings are criminal, and we need to look at them through that lens.

When I had the opportunity to speak to the bill when it was last before the House, I was able to tell the House a little bit about my visit to England last summer where I participated in the Girl Summit that was hosted by Prime Minister David Cameron. There were women from all around the world. There were men from all around the world who were there to discuss the very issues that we are discussing today.

Great Britain has realized that it has its own challenge with early and forced marriage, and it is particularly dealing with that issue.

While I was there I listened to Malala's father, who spoke very eloquently about the issues relating to girls. I wrote down his quote, and I wonder if my colleague might have some thoughts that she could share with the House. He said, “We should work on tomorrow's fathers. Why should I be a different father to my daughter than I am to my son?”

Does my colleague have any thoughts on how we can work with a new generation of young men particularly here in Canada and impress on them the value of girls?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the tremendous work she is doing, a lot of it under the radar, to really support measures that foster and that affirm the equality of all, regardless of gender. This is such an important message.

Sadly, in many places of the world, there is still the idea that women and girls have no value, that they are simply chattels to be used and abused as males in the society feel appropriate.

As Canadians we are so fortunate to live in a society where that kind of discrimination is completely rejected. That is why we brought forward the bill, so that as circumstances come to our attention, as society grapples with some of these things such as honour killings and forced marriages, we have the tools to stop it in its tracks and protect Canadian society as a place where women are treated with dignity, respect and the equality that we believe in so passionately.