House of Commons Hansard #187 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was violence.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Halifax, and I will hear her now.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the urgent situation in the Arctic.
Just last week, the National Snow and Ice Data Centre reported that the Arctic Ocean's winter ice reached its annual maximum extent. Not only has this occurred earlier than normal, but it has hit an all-time low since satellite recording began in 1979.
I am asking today for an emergency debate on this issue as we no longer have time to waste. The reasons are plentiful and warrant immediate action from parliamentarians.
The strong trend of rising temperatures in the Arctic is wreaking havoc on our ecosystems. This will have a profound impact on the lives and livelihoods of northern peoples.
The warming of the Arctic and the melting sea ice will have an effect on the weather of all Arctic regions in Canada and around the world.
We will see more extreme weather, including flooding, heat waves and drought. It is important to note that less Arctic ice means that the uncovered Arctic waters will warm exponentially faster from the sun's rays, melting more ice and raising water levels to disastrous results.
People in the north are very concerned about the increase in Arctic temperatures. Mammals have had to change their eating habits and their migratory movements. This has a huge impact on the northern communities that rely on hunting for survival.
Northern communities also depend on frozen ground for land transport of food and the necessities of life for much of the year. If we ignore the warming trend now, the impacts will be far-reaching and irreversible.
An emergency plan is needed for all aspects of northern life, but Canada does not have one. We are facing an environmental crisis that goes beyond a warning of the impact on our northern communities. The situation is dire and has consequences for our entire planet. We cannot ignore the facts anymore.
This is not the first time I have requested an emergency debate on this issue, and since I first raised it in 2012, things have deteriorated even further. The NDP has tried to bring this issue forward at committee for urgent study, but to no avail. We are facing an emergency situation. We are witnessing unprecedented threats to the lives and livelihoods of our northern peoples, to our coastal communities, to our economy, our security and our way of life. This matter cannot be ignored any further and deserves to be signalled out as an emergency.
We need to have a thoughtful discussion in the House and devise a plan for the future. We must include Canadians in the conversation, as this will not only impact us but future generations. There is no time to waste. Our country needs a plan.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. It is obvious that it is of great concern to the member. I do not know that it meets the test in the Standing Orders for an emergency debate.
Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding events which took place in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on February 26, 2015.
I would like to thank the House leader of the Official Opposition for raising this matter, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Winnipeg North for their comments.
The House leader for the Official Opposition described the sequence of events at issue in the following manner. The member for Northumberland—Quinte West having moved the previous question during debate on a subamendment to the motion regarding the schedule of meetings for the study of Bill C-51, anti-terrorism act, 2015, the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security ruled it out of order. His ruling was then appealed and overturned by a vote of the committee, effectively allowing a procedurally inadmissible motion to pass and ending debate on the matter. He considered this manner of proceeding to be unacceptable, one in which parliamentary rules, practices and precedents were ignored.
The government House leader, for his part, summarized the events somewhat differently. He claimed that it was in response to a filibuster that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West asked the chair to put the question to a vote, citing persistence, repetition and irrelevance on the part of certain members of the committee. Furthermore, he noted that the members were within their right to overturn the chair's ruling pursuant to the rules of the House. He argued that the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security must remain the committee's exclusive concern unless and until it reported this matter to the House, given that committees were masters of their own proceedings and that Speakers had resisted adjudicating committee matters in the absence of a report from the committee.
It is not unusual for issues related to committee proceedings to be raised in the House when, for whatever reason, members feel that they have no other recourse. Needless to say, versions of events often differ significantly.
In the present circumstance, the Chair is concerned by the suggestion that the proceedings that took place in committee on February 26 threatened to undermine the work of the committee and that the committee was unable to find its way to a mutually acceptable solution, even with both sides stating that they wished to proceed with committee consideration of Bill C-51.
Committees enjoy considerable flexibility and fluidity in their proceedings. It is one of the great advantages that they have in the organization of their work. In fact, it is one of the hallmarks of the committee system, since it not only facilitates and fosters greater co-operation among committee members, but it also enables committee members to find their own solutions to the issues they face. Yet this latitude was certainly never intended as a means to thwart existing rules and practices wilfully.
On June 3, 2003, the then Deputy Speaker stated, at page 6775 of the Debates:
I have said that committees are granted much liberty by the House but, along with the right to conduct their proceedings in a way that facilitates their deliberations, committees have a concomitant responsibility to see that the necessary rules and procedures are followed and the rights of members and the Canadian public are respected.
Just as importantly, it has always been understood that bringing deliberations in committee to a procedural standstill is also not desirable.
The work of committees is an essential part of the legislative process; its integrity depends on members remembering that the rules governing its proceedings matter. The rules adopted by the House exist for the benefit and protection of all members as they carry out their parliamentary functions, both in the House and in committee.
It is perhaps useful in the circumstances to remind the House of the underlying principle, as stated on page 250 of O'Brien and Bosc, that:
—parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.
Faced with such a situation arising in committee, how is the Speaker to adjudicate? As has been noted, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 1046 that:
The Speaker is reluctant to intervene in a committee’s internal affairs unless the committee has previously reported on the matter to the House.
This is so because of the freedom that committees have to determine their own approaches to carrying out their work. For this reason, committees are commonly referred to as being “masters of their proceedings”. This is why it is said that matters originating in committee which require the attention of the House must be brought forward by way of a report from the committee itself. This is not merely a technicality. Rather, it is an indication of the breadth and importance of the powers delegated to committees by the House.
The approach taken by the Chair in cases brought to its attention has long been founded on respect for the authority of committees to manage their own affairs, even in times of difficulty. This requires the Chair to refrain from intervening until invited to do so formally by way of a report from the committee itself on a given matter. Speakers have consistently and successively upheld this separation of authorities.
On June 10, 2010, Speaker Milliken stated, at page 3678 of Debates:
Indeed, on numerous occasions, Speakers have restated the cardinal rule that committees are masters of their own proceedings and any alleged irregularities occurring in committees can be taken up in the House only following a report from the committee itself. There have been very few exceptions to this rule.
On March 13, 2012, as Speaker, I had cause to state, at page 6199 of Debates:
In the absence of a report from that committee, I do not know what the Speaker can do about what is alleged to have happened. However, if such a report does end up coming to the House then the Speaker will consider it then.
Again, on June 5, 2012, at page 8860 of Debates, I stated:
When events transpire at committee, it is up to the committee to deal with anything that may have breached protocol or the rules at the committee...if there is a report presented to the House, it will be something that the Speaker can then weigh in on.
This is not to suggest that the chair is left without any discretion to intervene in committee matters but, rather, it acknowledges that such intervention is exceedingly rare and justifiable only in highly exceptional procedural as opposed to political circumstances. For example, in a ruling delivered on June 20, 1994, Debates pages 5582 to 5584, Speaker Parent intervened in a committee matter involving two bills that had been reported to the House when the fundamental right of the House to establish the membership of a committee was not respected by a committee that had exceeded its powers.
On July 24, 1969, Speaker Lamoureux stated, at page 4183 of Debates:
What hon. members would like the Chair to do...is to substitute his judgment for the judgment of certain hon. members. Can I do this in accordance with the traditions of Canada...where the Speaker is not the master of the house...? The Speaker is a servant of the house. Hon. members may want me to be the master of the house today but tomorrow, when, perhaps in other circumstances I might claim this privilege, they might have a different opinion.... lt would make me a hero, I suppose, if I were to adopt the attitude that I could judge political situations such as this and substitute my judgment for that of certain hon. members.... But I do not believe that this is the role of a Speaker under our system....
In keeping with the overwhelming body of practice in adjudicating disputes of this kind, the Chair cannot find sufficient grounds in this case to supplant the committee’s authority by reaching into committee proceedings on this matter before the committee has seen fit to report it to the House.
Thus, until such time as the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security decides to report this matter to the House, the management of its proceedings remains within its exclusive purview.
Before concluding, I would however be remiss if I did not point out that the Standing Orders, as they exist today, provide avenues to deal with difficulties in reaching agreements between the parties in circumstances such as those brought before the House in this case.
I thank all honourable members for their attention in this matter.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Resuming debate.
The member for Rivière-du-Nord has five minutes remaining.
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are back to debating Bill S-7. After 10 years of Conservative rule, we are headed in a direction in which we do not want to go. This bill is yet another example of the government's habit of playing politics at someone's expense—this time at the expense of women who are victims of violence.
In 2012, when we opposed the conditional permanent residence measure, we claimed that it gave too much power to sponsors with respect to the responsibility and rights of their female spouses and that it forced them to remain together for two years. The real effects of that have become clear. In my riding, for example, two women experienced psychological violence and they were forced to flee their homes, under the threat of being deported by their sponsors. Their sponsors would threaten them, saying that if if the women left they would arrange to have them deported. That is too much power in the hands of the sponsor.
The government is still taking—or at least focusing on—a repressive approach, instead of adopting a supportive approach. Earlier, the Minister of State for Social Development said that women in a polygamous marriage, for example, would be protected if the polygamist in question was found guilty, since this practice would be criminalized. She said the opposite of the truth. It is very clear that this bill does not contain any provisions enabling conditional permanent residents to remain in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported.
There is an old naval rule that states “women and children first”. The government is going against that rule and actually putting people who are already vulnerable or being abused in a difficult situation.
Another example of this pertains to forced marriages. The bill criminalizes everyone involved in a forced marriage. Yes, it is an offence and a practice that is unacceptable. Criminalizing everyone involved was already introduced in Denmark. What has been the result? Since the law passed in 2008, not a single charge has been laid. Why? Because it would mean asking the young girl being forced to marry to report her family members, who then would become criminals—her uncles, aunts, parents, brothers, sisters and cousins. Imagine the burden this places on the shoulders of these children. It is unbelievable.
At the same time, the bill contains no support measures for either the victims of polygamy or for the young girls being forced to marry—and yet everyone who took part in the Senate committee debate called for such measures, to make sure that the approach adopted is not based on criminalization but rather on support and prevention. We must work proactively, ahead of the situation. We need to make sure that people integrate into our communities with a better understanding of our way of life, our ways of doing things. Young women also need to know their rights.
I would like to come back to the two women who were threatened in my riding. They have rights; they have the right to be free of violence and constraints at the hands of their sponsors. No one explained those rights to them. They believed that if the sponsor mistreated them psychologically, he could have them deported to their home country with no recourse. We need answers and solutions to those issues. Unfortunately, the bill does nothing to address them.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of initiatives within Bill S-7 one could argue have some value, such as those that deal with polygamy, forced marriages, early marriage, particularly the setting of a national minimum age of 16, and issues related to domestic violence. Does the member see any value in any aspect of the legislation that the New Democratic Party could support?
Having said that, from a Liberal Party perspective, we have an issue with the title of the bill, in which the Conservatives make reference to culture. The short title is zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. We believe that at the very least, “cultural” needs to be deleted from the short title of the bill.
I wonder if the member might want to provide some comment on both aspects.
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions.
Indeed, the NDP supports the provisions of the bill on prohibiting marriage for those under 16. I too was struck by the title of this bill, considering that my research shows that a third of the world's population, in all countries combined, lives in polygamy. I get the impression that barbaric is not the right word to describe these countries.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, today I asked Conservative members and a minister a number of questions and their answers were often vague.
For example, I asked them why they wanted to include in this new legislation measures on things that are already covered by other laws and what this bill does for the spouses and children of people deported for polygamy. Their answers remain vague.
Does my colleague think that this is because the bill was put together hastily, that it is botched and that its only purpose is to please the Conservative base?
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague took the words out of my mouth.
Indeed, this is a botched bill that will likely cause more problems than it solves. Earlier, the Minister of State for Social Development answered my colleague's question about what would become of the wives and children of a person deported from Canada for polygamy, claiming that they would be protected and have recourse. However, the bill includes no such provision. I believe the minister said that just for show.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.
Is it simply an impression, or is there a modus vivendi creeping into the government's bills? In Bill C-51, for example, the government would have Canadians believe that existing police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are not equipped to fight terrorism.
In Bill S-7, it seems to be saying that potential victims, and we hope that there will never be victims, also have no recourse. The Criminal Code already contains very clear recourse for almost all these situations.
What is going on? Is this a partisan political vision or a real bill to help people who are going to need it?
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the government really wanted to help immigrant women with these issues, it would welcome them and provide them with solutions and support.
Unfortunately, this bill offers nothing in the way of prevention. My colleague is quite right: there are dozens of provisions in the Criminal Code—which I will not name—that already address the problems and provide for the prosecution of those who perpetrate such abuse.
In the Criminal Code we find section 264 concerning assaults, section 265 on sexual assaults, and sections 271 and 273 on kidnapping. I could name 50 Criminal Code sections that would apply to forced marriage or forcing young people to leave the country and be married elsewhere.
Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders
Delta—Richmond East B.C.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay ConservativeMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, regarding Canada's commitment to preventing and responding to early and forced marriage, polygamy or other types of barbaric cultural practices both at home and abroad.
Our government does not shy away from tough conversations about the importance of women's full and equal participation in all aspects of social, economic and political life. The promotion and protection of women's human rights are central to Canada's domestic, foreign and international policy. I am proud to say that our government had made ending child, early and forced marriage a domestic and international policy priority.
For example, in October 2013, our government announced $5 million in new money to address the causes and consequences of early and forced marriage around the world. These funds were used for programs in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Somalia and Zimbabwe. More recently, in July 2014, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada is contributing $20 million over two years to UNICEF, toward ending child, early and forced marriage. The UNICEF project aims to accelerate the movement to end child marriage in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Yemen and Zambia by supporting efforts in these countries to strengthen both programming and political support to end the practice.
Our government's commitment is not limited to funding. For instance, Canada has spearheaded the initiative to establish the international day of the girl and is co-leading with Zambia a United Nations General Assembly resolution on child, early and forced marriage. Additionally, Canada leads the annual resolution on violence against women at the Human Rights Council as we are a strong supporter of the six UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security.
All of this goes to say that our government continues to work domestically and internationally on promoting and protecting the rights of all women and children. Equality of men and women under the law is a fundamental Canadian value that shapes Canadian policy and actions in the international and domestic arenas. Free and healthy societies require the full participation of women. Sadly, in many countries around the world, millions of women and girls continue to be prevented from full participation by violence and intimidation, including through the inhumane practices of early and forced marriage.
The strength of our country is centred on the fact that Canadians of very different origins live and work together, side by side. One of the key elements to this success, prosperity and social harmony of our country is that we are united Canadian citizens, not by our common origins, but rather by a pledge of mutual responsibility and shared commitment to values and traditions rooted in our society.
At the same time, harmful cultural practices that go against Canadian values and are in violation of Canada's international human rights commitments will never be tolerated in Canada. Our government is well aware of cases of Canadian children being taken abroad for an early or forced marriage and has concerns that girls who are from countries where the practice of female genital mutilation is common may be at risk.
Canada is committed to protecting and defending those who are vulnerable to these practices, both domestically and internationally. Our government has demonstrated its leadership in this area by introducing this bill and by continuing to work with our international partners and community members to find ways to end such harmful practices, which are tragically occurring each and every day around the world.
I would like to speak now about how Bill S-7 would protect women and girls here in Canada. The provisions in Bill S-7 would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage at 16 years, as well as codifying the existing legal requirements for a free and enlightened consent for marriage. Setting the minimum age to marry across Canada at 16 is consistent with current practices in like-minded countries, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
Provincial and territorial legislation would still impose requirements for marriages between the ages of 16 to 18 or 19, depending on the age of majority. Requirements such as parental consent or a court order provide added safeguards to permit mature minors between the ages of 16 and 18 to marry in exceptional circumstances. However, given that many forced marriages are perpetrated by parents, parental consent to the marriage of a minor may be insufficient to protect against forced marriage where it is the parents who are forcing the marriage upon an unwilling child. As a result, the Minister of Justice has engaged his provincial and territorial counterparts in a discussion to enhance provincial and territorial legislative measures that would protect young children against forced marriage by imposing judicial consent in any marriages involving a minor.
Bill S-7 also proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create the offences of knowingly celebrating, aiding or actively participating in a marriage ceremony involving a person under the age of 16 or a forced marriage. These new offences specifically address the social harm caused by the public endorsement of an unwanted or harmful legal bond within which sexual violence is expected to occur. These offences will apply to individuals who engage in conduct specifically intended to facilitate the marriage ceremony such as acting as a legal witness knowing that one of the parties is under the age of 16 or marrying against their will.
These proposed new offences would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment. The proposed amendments would also criminalize taking steps to remove a child from Canada for the purpose of an underage or forced marriage. This is done by adding the new offences in relation to underage and forced marriage to the existing offence of removing a child from Canada to commit female genital mutilation or sexual offences. This offence is punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment and Bill S-7 maintains this penalty.
Countries such as Australia and Norway have similar criminal measures, which Canada has looked to in the development of this bill. Other proposed amendments would create a new peace bond that would give courts the power to impose conditions on an individual where there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 would otherwise occur, or if they will take a child out of Canada with the intent that they be subjected to an early or forced marriage ceremony abroad. Such a peace bond would be used to prevent an underage or forced marriage by requiring an individual to surrender travel documents. These measures that would prevent someone from being taken abroad for the purposes of early or forced marriage are similar to forced marriage civil protection orders in the United Kingdom.
Additionally, the bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to address concerns that the defence of provocation has been raised in several so-called honour killing cases here in Canada. Unfortunately, we have seen these cases too often on our soil and one victim is one victim too many.
The defence of provocation currently allows a person found to have committed murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life, to seek a conviction of manslaughter instead with no minimum sentence unless a firearm is used by arguing that the victim's conduct provoked the person to lose self-control and kill. Currently, any conduct by the victim, including insults and other forms of offensive behaviour that are lawful, can potentially qualify as provocation if it is found to be sufficient to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control, the accused was not expecting it and the killing was sudden.
The proposed amendment would limit the defence of provocation so that lawful conduct by the victim that might be perceived by the accused as an insult or offend that person or their sense of family honour or reputation cannot excuse murder. Only conduct by the victim that amounts to a relatively serious criminal offence, that is an offence under the Criminal Code punishable by at least five years in prison, could be argued to be provocation for the purposes of the defence. The provocation defence has been abolished or restricted in almost every common law jurisdiction like Canada, most Australian states, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
Finally, the bill proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to increase the Government of Canada's ability to prevent polygamy from occurring in Canada. The bill would make amendments to the IRPA so that a polygamist permanent resident or foreign national who is or will be physically present in Canada with any of their spouses would be considered to be practising polygamy in Canada.
I have discussed some of the very important aspects of the bill to highlight that Canada is taking concrete action in ensuring that early and forced marriage and similar barbaric cultural practices never occur in Canada as was promised in the October 2013 throne speech. The bill also sends a strong message that Canada condemns such practices, not only domestically, but internationally. I hope that the government will get the support of all hon. members in protecting victims, specifically women and girls.
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
The Conservatives have a knack for fixing problems that do not exist. My colleague talked about the defence of provocation, among other things.
It is laudable to prohibit honour killings, but all of the courts that have addressed this concept of defence have found that a culturally oriented concept of honour does not constitute a defence of provocation under the Criminal Code.
Apart from the marketing and propaganda angles in advance of the upcoming federal election, what is the point of introducing an amendment just for this given that the courts have already ruled that it is not a defence of provocation?
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is such an important issue. It is one that we are taking a stand on as a government. Part of taking a stand is making sure that our laws are in line with the values that we hold dear here in Canada and to protect those most vulnerable. In this case, we are dealing specifically with women and girls.
With respect to the provocation, we are increasing the threshold, because it should no longer be a subjective matter. It should not be one that can even be argued as a defence in a court of law when such a case is brought before it, and that is the point of this legislation.
Our government would ensure that wearing a short skirt or dating someone who one's family does not agree with is not, even in the mind of the perpetrator, considered justifiable because provocation is not specifically limited, as we intend to do with this bill.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the Liberal Party is comfortable supporting certain values within the legislation before us. We recognize that there are particular issues that would deal with polygamy, forced marriage and the whole of idea of early marriage, with 16 being a national minimum that the government would set. It also deals with other issues in a small but important fashion, such as domestic violence.
The issue that we have taken up with the government, and for which I understand we will move an amendment on, is in regards to the short title. It is the short title that many people feel somewhat offended by, zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. We would take nothing away from the legislation by deleting the word “cultural”, yet it is quite offensive for many people who share the same values that we all have inside this chamber towards the attitudes that the member has talked about.
Would the member not agree that dropping the word “cultural” from the short title would do nothing to minimize the effectiveness of the legislation that the government is putting forward and, in fact, would then make it that much better in terms of legislation?
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Speaker, as far as the title is concerned, it is very important that we take a stand here as Canadians, to stand up for Canadian values. I think it also very important that we make very clear what it is that we are standing up against. Hence, we will not tolerate cultural traditions in Canada that deprive individuals of their human rights. The reason for that term in the title is because there are countries where some of these practices are not illegal or where they are illegal, those laws are not enforced.
Therefore, we want to make it very clear where Canada stands on these issues for the protection of women and girls who are very vulnerable with respect to these issues. We want to make it clear to new Canadians coming here that in Canada this is not what we expect or accept, and that is why those words are in the title.
Our government believes that subjugating a woman is wrong, period.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill. I was on the citizenship and immigration committee when it completed the report detailing how to better protect women in our immigration system. Frankly, I hate saying the short title of Bill S-7, which was created after that study, but I will. It is called the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It would not do anything to actually protect women from violence, as it claims to do.
It was interesting to hear in the minister's speech that she thought it would potentially protect women when it really would not. Most of the practices that the bill hopes to curb, including polygamy and honour killings, are already illegal in this country, so Bill S-7 would not do anything new, other than focusing on criminalizing other behaviour.
When the citizenship and immigration committee was hearing testimony for its report, experts agreed that women who are experiencing violence need supports, like housing, counselling, and assistance in navigating the complex family, criminal, immigration, and legal systems. The experts also agreed that women coming into this country should be provided with information about our systems before they even come here, or at the borders when they arrive, in languages they can understand, to ensure that women are protected, educated, and made aware of the support systems available in Canada.
We were sad to hear testimony about how conditional permanent residence status had contributed to people being trapped in abusive relationships. Why? It is because the immigration status of the woman is tied to her partner. If she were to report violence in her relationship or to leave that relationship, she would fail her conditional permanent residence status and be deported from this country. That means she could be sent back to a country or situation that is not ideal or safe, or where she could be persecuted or stigmatized for leaving a conjugal relationship or marriage. There are many countries around the world where women are stigmatized, including Canada, for seeking a divorce or leaving an abusive relationship.
In its report about Bill S-7, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario asserted the following:
This Bill appears to extend a trend in this government’s track record to strip permanent residence and deport more and more racialized people from Canada, regardless of how long they have been here.
SALCO'S report continued to assert this:
In the preparation of this legislative and procedural change, they have failed to consult experts in this field about what creates further barriers to accessing safety for women experiencing violence.
The fact is that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration compiled expert testimony on protecting women in our immigration system, and the report did not include all of the good recommendations that came from experts. The committee spent days and weeks studying this topic, and the recommendations in the report are still not addressed in this bill that the government has brought forward through the other chamber.
Let us talk about what Bill S-7 would actually do. It would make being in a polygamous relationship grounds for finding a permanent resident inadmissible in this country. Polygamy has been illegal in Canada since 1892, so what would it really accomplish? Nothing new. Immigration law and policy already contain provisions addressing polygamous unions, so nothing new is being introduced here.
I know the government has asserted that there are hundreds of polygamists already living in Canada today. If that is a fact, then why is the government not enforcing the existing laws? If it wants to get rid of polygamy in this country, why is it not ensuring that the laws that have existed since 1892 are actually enforced?
Moving on to the topic of honour killings, murder is murder is murder, and it is illegal in this country. This bill would preclude a defendant in a murder trial from arguing that an insult to family honour provoked his or her actions.
Canada's courts are sufficiently equipped to sentence somebody for murder, and that is what we have seen happen in this country when somebody has tried to claim an honour killing. We have seen our courts uphold our laws, sentence the perpetrators of these murders, treat them as murderers, and sentence them to jail time. Therefore, I do not understand why the government is pretending that it is creating a new law here when once again nothing is really changing.
Citing data from the South Asian Legal Clinic's study on forced marriage, the bill also criminalizes forced marriages. However, Bill S-7 ignores SALCO's recommendation, which is to protect families and provide adequate support to vulnerable women. Its experts specifically warned against criminalization, as this would be more destructive than helpful.
I am 100% against anybody being forced into a marriage. However, we have to ensure that we are protecting the women who are already in forced situations. We need to ensure they are given the support to leave in a safe way, and ensure that they are safe and secure in the community they are living in.
I want to read a couple of quotes from the Schlifer Clinic in a report that it issued. It states:
If passed, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, introduced on November 5, 2014, will serve as another example of institutional barriers to marginalized communities reporting violence and having access to support. It will serve as another example of how our government is failing to listen to survivors and targeting racialized communities for exclusion and deportation from Canada.
It continues to state the following:
The Schlifer Clinic has grave concerns about the Act, which would result in the exclusion, deportation and criminalization of families (or of women themselves), which only serves to further harm women experiencing violence.
Therefore, we see from experts on the ground that this bill is not helping women and it is not protecting or supporting them; rather, it would end up doing the opposite.
I said earlier that the first time I read the short title I did not want to say it and that I did not like it. That is because it is xenophobic and reinforces prejudice against certain cultural groups by targeting racial minorities for practices that are found in Canadian society at large today.
I keep coming back to the experts because they are the ones who are doing the research on the ground. Here is a quote from Avvy Yao-Yao Go, who is the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. She states:
From the very naming of this bill to the various legislative amendments it seeks to amend, Bill S-7 invokes racist stereotypes and fuels xenophobia towards certain racialized communities.
Deepa Mattoo, the staff lawyer and acting executive director of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, stated:
Giving it a shock factor name will not eliminate the issue. Instead it will force perpetrators to take this underground, ensuring the victims and potential victims are isolated from any resources. This causes a greater risk to their safety, not to mention their emotional and mental well-being.
That is another example of another expert telling us how the short title of this bill is xenophobic and that the bill as a whole would be more harmful for women in our country.
While I agree that no woman, regardless of her race, citizenship, status, or religion, should be subject to gender-based violence, including the practices of forced marriage or underage marriage, I do not support making women more vulnerable.
I would like to end my remarks by saying that this bill has not had adequate consultation.
As members will notice, I have many more sheets to go in my prepared remarks. However, I will go back to the experts. There is a media release that was sent out by 13 expert organization groups, and I do not have time to name them all. I want to read a small blurb from its introduction.
It states:
The announcements in the tabled Bill perpetuate myths about practices of polygamy and forced marriages while misguiding Canadians to believe that violence against women is a “cultural” issue and happens in only certain communities. The government has blatantly targeted marginalized and racialized communities through the racist framework used in the intent, wording and announcement of this Bill. This inflammatory language and the perpetuation of racist myths is itself an obstacle to understanding the harmful effects of these proposed legislative amendments. As organizations dedicated to advancing the rights of all women, we are painfully aware of the challenges faced by all women in Canada from all walks of life and backgrounds to find a safe and secure home. In that regard, immigrant and racialized women face additional challenges because of their race and/or their precarious immigration status. Contrary to what the government has stated, the proposed legislative changes will not result in greater protection for women victims of domestic violence, but will have the opposite effect.
Joe Daniel Conservative Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, last time this bill was debated, the members of the official opposition kept saying that the bill would marginalize victims. The truth is that actual victims of these barbaric practices support the bill.
How does the opposition stick to the rhetoric when actual victims are coming up in support of this bill?
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, growing up in Canada, I was a victim of domestic violence. I am a survivor of domestic violence, and this barbaric practice happened in Canada by Canadians, not by any foreigner. Therefore, on this barbaric practice, there are many people who are survivors of violence perpetuated against women, everywhere, and not just domestic violence, but violence towards women all across this country. It is a root problem.
It is a systemic problem for women, who continue to face racism, sexism, and all types of discrimination and violence, and that needs to stop. It is the systemic barriers that the current government continues to support that are the problem, and those are the problems that need to go away.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, every society has some form of gender violence. It is very real and tangible.
However, when we take a look at Bill S-7, I listened to the member's comments regarding the number of stakeholders who have taken offence to it.
The Liberal Party has been fairly clear regarding the use of the word “culture”. One would think that the Prime Minister's Office has a special group of individuals who sit around a table creating these names, and they throw in these adjectives. Here we have “zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices”. There is no doubt that it is exceptionally offensive to many people that the word “cultural” would be incorporated into the legislation in terms of the short title.
It seems to me in listening to the member that this is more offensive than anything else. However, it seems that there might be some value in certain parts of the legislation.
My question to the member is, if the government were to amend the word “cultural” out of the legislation, would she see any value whatsoever in supporting it?
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would support the entire short title being deleted completely. I think that is the best way to fix the title.
Even within the Conservative team, this is what Senator Andreychuk said in a media article about the title:
“...if you wanted barbaric cultural practices, which probably wasn’t going to be my choice, but if you wanted that, I wished you had added something like violence in there...”
I laud Senator Andreychuk for realizing that the root problem here is violence against women and it is prevalent in all societies.
I have worked with Senator Andreychuk on many issues with respect to sexual and reproductive health rights, and I thank her for the work she is doing. The rest of the Conservative team should listen. It is fine if they do not want to listen to experts, but let them at least listen to members in their own caucus and team.
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my hon. colleague talk about this important issue, I was wondering if she agrees with me that what we really need are human and financial resources.
One thing is for sure: we need to make sure that we can do things properly when it comes to this issue. I know that her riding must be like mine. We can have an impact on society by investing in resources for organizations, police forces and various front-line actors. That is how we can enable them to tackle the problems we do not really know how to address. The first step is talking to the community and making investments where they are needed. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Québec is exactly right. Instead of a sensationalized bill that does not actually get to the root of the problem, the minister should commit to widespread and meaningful consultations with community groups and experts so that the real issue of gender-based violence is addressed in a meaningful and effective manner.
The government should actually increase its investment in organizations that provide services such as safe and affordable housing, counselling, and support in navigating our very complex systems and services. Immigrating to a new country can be very traumatizing for a young women if this is the first time she has ever left her home country. Ensuring that she has every support she needs in a manner she can comprehend and digest is very important.
I really wish, from the bottom of my heart, that the government would actually take some interest in investing in resources and the agencies that are providing these much-needed services, mostly with volunteers and with very weak budgets.