Debates of June 12th, 2015

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with what the member pointed out that I supposedly said. I will look at the record to make sure that it was not said.

All of the things the member is talking about are laws that now exist in society. All of the things she is talking about are issues that we have legal recourse to deal with in society. Those are not issues that stand outside of society today.

We support the intent of the bill. We are just saying that it does not work. It will not be competent in what it is going to do for society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are faced with two typical attitudes.

On the one hand, the Conservatives are saying they want to tackle crime, but they are not providing the means to have a positive impact on victims. On top of that, they allow for a committee study, but then they ignore the recommendations made by experts who work with victims and people who are very familiar with our Criminal Code and immigration act.

On the other hand, we have the Liberals' typical attitude, which is to speak out against a bill, but then turn around and vote for it anyway.

I wonder if these kinds of attitudes surprise my colleague. Personally, I am disappointed, but not all that surprised, unfortunately.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, sincerity in politics is sometimes considerably abused.

In the case of Bill C-51, the Liberals were concerned that by not supporting the bill, they might somehow be tainted in the view of some important constituencies out there, so they decided to support it. I think that is what is going on in this case as well. If the Liberals say they do not like what is in the bill, if they say they think the bill is inadequate and they do not see that it is going to provide the proper results, then, by golly, they should stand up and vote against it.

We are not here to make bad legislation. We are not here to put laws on the books simply to have laws on the books. We are here to do things for society that work. That is very important. That is why the New Democratic Party is trusted by Canadian families. It is because they know we want to do things that actually work for them.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

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

The measures contained in Bill S-7 are the culmination of the Government of Canada's commitment to improving protection and support for vulnerable individuals, primarily women and children.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, our Prime Minister acknowledged that millions of women and girls around the world continue to suffer from violence, including the disturbing practices of early and forced marriage. The Speech from the Throne underscored our government's commitment to ensuring that such barbaric cultural practices do not occur in this country. They have no place here in Canada.

In his appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights on the bill, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made it clear that any practice that involves violence directed at women is barbaric. I think if we asked most Canadians across this country, especially women, they would agree with that statement.

The measures in the bill would help vulnerable women and children in a number of ways.

First, it would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new national minimum age for marriage of 16 years old, and by codifying the existing legal requirements for free and enlightened consent for marriage and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another.

They would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practised polygamy in Canada. They would criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriage ceremonies.

It would also create a new and specific preventive court-ordered peace bond to help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages where there are grounds to fear someone would commit an offence. They would ensure that the defence of provocation would not apply in many spousal homicides and so-called honour killings.

I would like to take a few moments to focus specifically on those measures in Bill S-7 that address early and forced marriages, practices that contradict Canadian values and cause great harm to their victims.

There is currently no national minimum age for marrying in Canada. Provincial and territorial legislation set out certain ages for additional requirements, such as parental consent for those under the age of majority, or court approval for even younger children. However, they lack the constitutional jurisdiction to set the absolute minimum age below which no child can marry. Again, it is lacking.

Federal law currently sets the absolute minimum age at 16 years old, but only in Quebec. In other parts of Canada, the common law applies because there is no federal legislation. The common law minimum age causes uncertainty. It is usually interpreted as a minimum of 12 years of age for girls and 14 years of age for boys. That is 12 for girls, and 14 for boys.

Amending the Civil Marriage Act to set a national minimum age of 16 years old for marriage would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and will not be tolerated. Even though, in practice, very few marriages in Canada now involve people under the age of 16, it is important that we clarify the law.

Other significant amendments to the Civil Marriage Act proposed in Bill S-7 include codifying the requirement that those getting married must give their free and enlightened consent to marry each other. The amendments would codify the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriage as well.

Continuing on from proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act, Bill S-7 also contains measures that would amend the Criminal Code to help deter and prevent forced or underage marriage. These measures would criminalize knowingly officiating at an underage or forced marriage; actively participating in a wedding ceremony, knowing that one party is marrying another against his or her will or is under 16 years old; and removing a minor from Canada for a forced or underage marriage.

There is also a new peace bond, which would give courts 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, would otherwise occur. The ways such a peace bond could be used to prevent an underage or forced marriage include requiring the surrender of a passport and preventing a child from being taken out of Canada.

This is important for young women, women across this country, and for our children. It would help to prevent family members from taking them out of the country to be forcibly married, without being placed in the difficult situation of requiring individual women or girls to press criminal charges against another family member.

All of the provisions in Bill S-7, including those that address underage and forced marriage, would help to ensure that women and girls are protected from isolation and violence.

Women seeking a better life in Canada should never be subjected to fear and threat of violence or death simply for seeking better opportunities for themselves and living their lives the way they choose to.

We know that immigrant and newcomer women and girls may face additional barriers in protecting themselves and seeking assistance compared to women who are born in Canada. We want to ensure that the protection and assistance they need is available when they need it. Everyone here in Canada deserves the same protection.

All violence directed against women and girls, including the practices for early and forced marriage, have a very negative impact on families and society in general. They also seriously affect all those who are directly involved, from influencing immigration outcomes, to breaking down opportunities for integration and success and creating isolation and fear.

Bill S-7 would strengthen our laws, protecting women and girls from violent and barbaric cultural practices. I am sure we would all agree that we must stand up for all victims of violence and abuse and take the necessary actions to prevent these practices from happening in Canada.

By enacting Bill S-7, our government is sending a strong message to those in Canada, and also those who wish to come to Canada, that we will not tolerate activities in this country that deprive individuals of their human rights. We are sending a signal that we respect the freedom of choice of all individuals, regardless of gender.

That is exactly what we would do by ensuring that the bill is passed into law. I urge all of my hon. colleagues in the House who will be voting on the bill to stand up for the rights of vulnerable women and children, vulnerable women and girls, and join me in supporting the passage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the parliamentary secretary for her hard work on this issue, both in this place, this government, and in her home riding of Scarborough Centre.

Does the parliamentary secretary not agree that the NDP opposing the bill, opposing a minimum age for marriage, opposing the criminalization of facilitation of forced marriage, is absolutely unacceptable in this day and age? We heard testimony at committee of women who had their jaws broken, were forced into marriage, were raped, patterns of rape that threaten to last a lifetime?

Does she not agree that inaction on these issues, which matter for every Canadian community, every Canadian woman and girl, is absolutely inexcusable, and that the NDP are completely out of line on this front?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with everything the minister just said. The NDP members are absolutely on the wrong side of this issue.

I wrote to the majority of women in my constituency of Scarborough Centre. I outlined the aspects of the bill and I asked for their feedback. Overwhelmingly, every single response that came in agreed on these issues and supported our government's stance. Unfortunately, I did not include in that letter notice of the opposition and obstruction of the bill by both the NDP and the Liberals. It is actually very sad.

Prior to being the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, I sat on the status of women committee and the immigration and citizenship committee, and this issue is very dear to my heart.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was in Malawi three years ago with the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, and I sat in front of a group of women who were begging our association to speak out in Malawi about the issue of early and forced marriage.

I was in Dakar, with the Prime Minister, for the Summit of the Francophonie, and we were taken to a museum where our whole delegation was shown the pictures of girls who had been forced into early marriage.

I was at the Girl Summit in England last summer, with David Cameron, where the topic of early and forced marriage was the topic of the day.

Our government has put this issue on the table. Our former foreign minister took this to the United Nations and said that Canada was going to lead on this. We are leading on child protection globally. We have put maternal, newborn, and child health on the table, and we have a number of other donor countries that are helping us with this.

Early and forced marriage is one of the issues that goes against the grain of protecting children. I wonder if my colleague has any comments on why Canada should not take issue with it here at home when we are being so vocal on the world stage.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for all of the work she does in this area as well.

Canada is absolutely a leader when it comes to standing up for human rights and the protection of women, girls, and children, for people all around the world.

As I stated in my previous answer, I did sit on the committee for the status of women, and previously on the citizenship and immigration committee, and this is an issue that is extremely concerning to me. Standing up for the rights of women and the protection of our children is the absolute priority that every single Canadian across this country must take to heart and must stand united on.

It is very unfortunate that the Liberals and the NDP have voted against this bill, are poised to vote against it again at the next reading, and are trying to obstruct it. I am not sure why. It is perhaps that they are trying to win some votes in certain communities. However, I think many of those same communities that they are trying to win votes from actually support this legislation, for all the reasons that our government has brought it forward.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing in the House to speak out firmly against this bill.

My intention was to discuss it through two lenses. The first is the lens of unintended consequences, because when we present legislation, we need to think about what the consequences will be. Sometimes there are unintended consequences, and there are a lot in this bill. The second lens I want to apply is what we would do if we actually wanted to stop forced marriages. What kind of legislation or policy could we bring forward if we were really serious about putting an end to underage marriages in Canada? I will talk about those two things, because the NDP is very serious about bringing forward legislation and policy that can put an end to underage marriage and put an end to forced marriages.

First though, I want to tackle the issue of the title. We heard a little bit of a back and forth between my colleague from Northwest Territories and the parliamentary secretary about the title.

The title of this bill is the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I have a big problem with this title. The parliamentary secretary stood here, wrung her hands, implored us to think of the children, and asked if this was not a barbaric cultural practice. We all agree that these are terrible practices. However, when we have this kind of provocative title it is not about working together to eliminate this kind of behaviour or these practices. What this title does is fuel racist stereotypes. It creates xenophobia toward very particular groups in Canada. We are targeting particular groups with this title.

I think about the other barbaric cultural practices happening in this country. Why are the Conservatives not standing up against other barbaric cultural practices? I happen to think it is a barbaric cultural practice that a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant is forced to carry that baby to term because she cannot access abortion services in this country. I happen to think it is a barbaric cultural practice, yet I do not see the Conservatives standing up and fighting for that.

I happen to think it is a barbaric cultural practice to force a woman to bring a baby to term if she does not want to have that baby, but we do not see the Conservatives crusading to change the fact that only 16% of hospitals in Canada offer abortion services. They are not champions on the lack of access to abortion services in Canada.

I think it is a barbaric cultural act that we have created a culture that puts such shame on women. It shames them to the point that they will do anything to terminate a pregnancy without having to tell someone, like throwing themselves down the stairs, taking drugs to self-abort, and using coat hangers. I happen to think this is a barbaric cultural practice, yet I hear silence in the House about putting an end to that.

In Prince Edward Island, a woman took medication to induce an abortion and had a complication. She went to the ER. She was bleeding. She did not know if she was bleeding to death. She had no idea. She waited for five hours in the ER. When someone actually came in to talk to her about what was going on, the attending health care provider told her that he was not comfortable treating her and that she should go to Halifax. Halifax is not down the street. Halifax is 300 kilometres away. I happen to think it is a barbaric cultural practice to have left that woman in that ER for five hours, not knowing about the health or the state of her fetus, not knowing about her own health, and not knowing if she was going to bleed to death and then having the doctor say that he was not comfortable treating her.

I happen to think that was a barbaric cultural practice, yet I do not see the Conservatives standing up to enforce the Canada Health Act to ensure that we have equal access to health services across this country. Come to think of it, I do not see any of the Liberals standing up to talk about this either. It is a Liberal government in P.E.I. There are three Liberal MPs here in the House of Commons, and we have a whole lot of silence when it comes to standing up for women's rights and their ability to access abortion services.

Moving on, let us get back to unintended consequences.

If we are serious about putting an end to these practices, then let us look at how we do it. Let us draft some legislation and think about what the consequences are, both intended and unintended. Unfortunately, there are a lot of unintended consequences here.

We have heard several of my colleagues talk about these unintended consequences. I think they are really serious. I think they are so serious that we cannot support the bill.

There is something as simple as the definition of polygamy. There is no real definition of polygamy here. We might think we all know what polygamy is, so what is the big deal? Well, it is a big deal. We are playing with people's lives here. We need a definition.

We heard testimony at committee about what would happen if there was a legally sanctioned marriage and one that was not legally sanctioned. For example, a person is married, the partners split up, and the person gets into a common-law relationship. If that first relationship has not been legally terminated and that person is in a new common-law relationship, is that polygamy? We do not know. What may be perceived as a small detail could have serious consequences for all kinds of people in Canada who might not know that they are in a polygamous relationship.

However, this is a small detail that I can maybe even wrap my head around, but there are other unintended consequences that are beyond the pale.

If we are trying to help marginalized and disadvantaged women, then we cannot put them in situations where they are so fearful that they cannot come forward. We heard tons of expert testimony about this. It is actually shocking when we look at the transcripts from committee how passionate some of these witnesses were about the fact that this legislation would drive those women deeper underground. If we want to help these women and children, we cannot have them be fearful that they will be deported.

Imagine if this deportation happened. It would not be just for the big bad guy we are always talking about, the one who is forcing a little girl into marriage. I heard the minister talk about forced rape for the rest of her life. If that little girl does not know she can get protection from our government, why would she come forward? If there are laws that say that everyone involved in a polygamous marriage will be deported, that will include that little girl. How does it help that little girl to send her to another country where there are no protections, where there probably are not even opportunities for her to go to school?

How about we put an end to that kind of barbaric cultural practice? Imagine sending a little girl out of the country when all she wants is protection. That is an unintended consequence I cannot get past. The legislation before us is full of these unintended consequences.

I will skip to how we can work together. We had some really good testimony at committee about how we need to have institutional support for these victims. We can have that kind of support without alienating and harming the women who are involved in forced marriage and gender-based violence. We need to have those institutional supports for them.

UNICEF talks a lot about the fact that if we are going to protect children from human trafficking, we have to recognize the failures in the system that allow those women and children to be trafficked. We have to recognize that they often come from low-income families without access to community support, without access to settlement services, and without access to people in the community they can turn to about their situation to ask for help.

If we were serious, we could get together, sit down, scrap Bill S-7, and start over. We would come to the table and talk about what would help these women and children and what kinds of supports we could give them. I do not think deporting them is exactly what we had in mind when we thought we wanted to put an end polygamy, underage marriage, and forced marriage in this country. I do not think that is the right solution. I think if we took our partisan hats off for a minute, many of us would come to that conclusion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it must have been very painful for the member opposite to make that speech, because she clearly understands that women are facing violence in our country and are facing barbaric practices, yet she just spent 10 minutes telling the House and all Canadians why there is no need to take action with legislation to protect women and girls.

The member said that settlement services are needed and that funding and programs are needed to protect women and girls who are victims of forced marriage, polygamy, sexual violence, or honour-based violence. Yet she will not, and the NDP will not, afford these same women and girls the protection of the law, of Canadian statute, of the Criminal Code.

Why does the member not accept that there should be a minimum age for marriage in our country? Why does the member not understand that there is a definition of polygamy in this law and in this country, and it is marriage to multiple people? Why does she not understand those basic facts? Why is she not willing to take action to protect women and girls today?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it was not painful for me to give that speech at all. It might have been painful for the minister to hear it, because I was speaking the truth, and that probably hurt a little.

The NDP is really clear. It supports a minimum age for marriage. Full stop, period.

I know I cannot ask him a question back, but if he gets another chance to stand, I would ask him to answer this question. How does deporting a woman or a girl who is in a forced marriage protect her? It is beyond any kind of comprehension to think that this is what would help women. If we were going to help women, we would have an opportunity for them to exit that marriage, not for us to kick them out of the country. I would love for him to answer that.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Halifax for the speech she just delivered to the House.

During the debate on this bill, we have been talking a lot about trying to help women. Women are generally marginalized enough already. Is marginalizing them even more with Bill S-7 really a step in the right direction?

I would just like to hear what my colleague from Halifax thinks about the Conservatives' chronic hypocrisy when it comes to the status of women in general in Canada. The first thing that comes to mind is the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women. The Conservatives refuse to take any action on that or follow the recommendations made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Could my colleague comment on the Conservatives' double-talk and hypocrisy regarding the marginalization of women in Canada?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for her question. She underscored the double-talk aspect.

What we have here in the House is legislation that proposes to put an end to barbaric practices. What about the fact that if someone is an aboriginal women, she is more likely to be murdered than someone who looks like me. I do not think that is justice. I do not think that is the kind of Canada we intended to create. However, we are there. Why are we not taking action? There was a truth and reconciliation commission. The report said clearly that it was cultural genocide that was attempted in residential schools. How is it that we do not see any action? There were 94 recommendations, and we have not heard a peep.

If we want to talk about hypocrisy, it is pretty easy. Just come into the House and listen to what the Conservatives have to say about some groups but not others. They are certainly leaving the first nations communities out in the cold.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

Our government is committed to protecting young women and girls from early and forced marriage and other barbaric practices. During my speech, I would like to highlight the provisions of the bill that are designed to protect Canadian children from early and forced marriage.

Although we lack national statistics on the incidence of early and forced marriage among children in Canada because these practices are kept hidden, there are indications that children in Canada are in fact subjected to the barbaric practices of early and forced marriage. According to the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario's study on forced marriages, in Ontario between 2010 and 2012, 10% of the 219 victims identified were between the ages of 12 and 15 and 25% were between the ages of 16 and 18.

International studies have shown that girls are predominantly the victims of a child marriage, increasing their risk of being exposed to violence and complications in childbirth and creating a significant barrier to achieving gender equality, as they are regularly forced to disrupt or abandon their education.

A number of witnesses testified during the committee's hearings about the very disturbing cases of girls in Canada who had been forced to marry or who had been taken abroad to get married, despite their young age or lack of consent. In some instances, young girls are tricked into leaving the country, supposedly to attend a wedding ceremony of a relative, only to discover that the wedding is their own.

While there are currently some legislative tools available in Canada to prevent and respond to underage and forced marriages of children, there are some significant gaps in the law that Bill S-7 aims to fill.

First, there is currently no national minimum age below which children are not legally capable of consenting to marriage. In Canada, the free age of marriage—the age at which children become adults and can give consent to marry on their own, with no additional requirements—is 18 or 19 years of age, depending on the province or territory where the marriage takes place.

All provincial and territorial marriage acts set out additional requirements for minors to marry, such as parental consent, a court order, or proof of pregnancy. Under the Constitution, setting the absolute minimum age for marriage is a matter of federal jurisdiction. However, apart from federal legislation that sets the minimum age of 16 years for marriages in Quebec, the minimum age elsewhere in Canada is set out in the common law, or court decisions. This old common law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls. There is no clear minimum age across the country setting the absolute minimum age.

Bill S-7 would enact changes to the Civil Marriage Act that would effectively prevent marriage of any person under the age of 16 from occurring anywhere in Canada. This will close the current legislative gap and set a national minimum age for marriage across Canada that would be consistent with countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Further, by making all children under age 16 legally incapable of consenting to marriage, Bill S-7 would also ensure that if a child is taken out of Canada and married in a country where such child marriages are legal, upon the child's return to Canada, the underage marriage would be voidable because the child lacked the legal capacity to marry.

Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code to provide criminal protections against underage and forced marriages. The new provisions are directed to the public sanctioning of an underage and forced marriage ceremony, which creates an unwanted and harmful legal bond within which sexual offences are expected to occur.

The two new offences would criminalize conduct related to knowingly officiating or knowingly and actively participating in a marriage ceremony in which one or both of the spouses is either under the age of 16 or marrying against their will. While a person will not be prosecuted for just being a guest at the wedding, those who conduct the marriage ceremony and those, including family members, who actively engage in conduct directed at facilitating the underage or forced marriage ceremony with full knowledge that one party is underage or marrying against his or her will may be criminally liable.

In keeping with the objective of the criminal law to deter people from committing crimes, these new provisions send a clear and important message about the need for all Canadians to reject the misguided belief that any underage or forced marriage can be in a child's best interest.

As well, the bill would make it an offence to remove a child from Canada for the purposes of a forced or underage marriage ceremony outside of Canada. It would build upon an existing provision in the Criminal Code that makes it an offence to remove a child for the purposes of committing certain crimes, such as child sexual offences and female genital mutilation.

Bill S-7 would add the new offences related to officiating or actively participating in an underage or forced marriage ceremony to the list of offences in the existing provision. This would effectively punish those who attempt to, or who do, remove a child from Canada for the purposes of an underage or forced marriage ceremony abroad. It should also serve to prevent these removals from taking place at all because it would allow officials to intervene before the child left the country.

Without this amendment, the current law requires authorities to have evidence that a sexual offence is intended to be committed abroad following the marriage. With the amendment, evidence of an intended forced or early marriage will enable preventive measures to be taken.

I want to take this opportunity to respond to comments that I have heard many times about how child 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.

The Criminal Code amendments in Bill S-7 that I have just noted would provide the foundation for a very important prevention measure. Bill S-7 would provide for specific forced or underage marriage peace bonds, which would provide courts with the power to impose conditions on an individual when there were reasonable grounds to fear that a forced or underage marriage would otherwise occur.

For example, an order under the new peace bond provision could prevent a victim from being taken out of Canada or require the surrender of a passport. These peace bonds are available to victims who want protection but do not want their parents or other relatives prosecuted. People subjected to peace bonds are not charged with a criminal offence unless they breach the conditions of the order.

It is important to point out that a third party, such as a social worker, a police officer or a relative, can intervene to request the peace bond on the child's behalf.

It is important that everyone know and understand that this conduct is illegal because it is the most vulnerable in our society, our children, who suffer serious harm when forced, usually by their family members, to marry underage or against their will. How can we not do everything possible to stop this?

Our government is taking steps to strengthen the laws to help to ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of early or forced marriage, polygamy, so-called honour-based violence or any other form of harmful cultural practices.

I am proud to support the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and I agree with a number of things she said.

Firstly, I agree on the intention of the bill. It is important to act swiftly and forcefully to address inexcusable and cruel crimes like the ones she mentioned. Secondly, I agree with the hon. member when she says that this type of violence against women and children is completely unacceptable, even barbaric, if that is truly the word they want to use. We all agree on that.

The thing we disagree on is the most effective way of fighting this type of crime. The debate we are having is not unreasonable, considering that so many experts who work with victims and who have expertise in the Criminal Code and immigration law raised some legitimate concerns. It is disappointing to see that despite all these interventions by experts in committee, the government did not accept any amendments and did not even question what it is proposing.

Can my colleague tell me whether she knew about the warnings issued by people who are saying, for example, that the victims will shy away from asking for help—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The parliamentary secretary.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, no government has done more to protect women and girls than this government with a number of the legislation we have put forward. I have read carefully the testimony that was presented at committee. I would remind the member that the provisions in the bill would allow women and girls to be protected through this legislation.

For example, currently there is no clear minimum age across the country. Setting the absolute minimum age for marriage falls under federal jurisdiction. The measures in the act would go very far in protecting all women and girls.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about the national minimum age. Quite frankly, I was surprised to learn that there was no national minimum age.

She also spoke about some international focus on this topic. Could the member talk about some of the other countries that have set a national minimum age, and what is Canada doing in light of those decisions other countries have made?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway and the U.K. have 16 as the minimum wage below which no one can marry, even with parental consent. This is consistent with the approach in the bill that we are debating here today.

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

Setting a national minimum age of 16 years for marriage is consistent with the current federal legislation that applies only with regard to the province of Quebec. It is also consistent with what happens now in Canada, where very few provinces have set that. It does fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government to set this minimum age.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Alfred-Pellan in Laval, whom I have been fortunate to represent for the past four years.

Today, I am speaking to 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, or as the Conservatives like to call it, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

In the speeches that were made today, I heard many references to equal opportunities for women and the marginalization of women. I would really like to talk about that aspect in particular. However, first, I would like to mention a few little things that are directly related to the Conservative government's proposal and the work that my colleagues on this side of the House have done on Bill S-7.

To begin, I would like to thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, our immigration critic, who did an incredible job examining Bill S-7. I saw the work that she did in committee and the amendments that she wants to propose. She has my full support for the amendments she wants to make to improve Bill S-7, as it now stands.

First of all, I have to say that I support the intent of the bill, which seeks to combat polygamy and forced and underage marriage. I also recognize that any violence against women and children is completely unacceptable and that there is still a lot of work to be done to prevent and crack down on these crimes.

However, I remain convinced that this bill does not adequately respond to such serious problems. In fact, Bill S-7 could make existing problems worse. It is important to mention that no woman should be subjected to gender-based violence, and that includes forced and underage marriage. This bill could inadvertently have very serious consequences for women and children by putting more social pressure on the victims of forced marriage and deporting victims of polygamy, for example.

If, as they often say, the Conservatives really care about the victims, they will heed the warnings of the different experts who appeared before the committee and conduct more detailed studies before adopting measures such as the ones proposed here. Instead of focusing on such a sensationalistic bill, with the short title proposed by the Conservatives, a bill that does not address the root of the problem, I sincerely believe that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should conduct serious, large-scale consultations with community groups and experts to fix the real problem of sexual violence.

There are a number of things that the government could do to help women who are marginalized. Despite the fact that the number of women MPs in the House of Commons has reached a record high, women have a long way to go to achieve equal representation. However, I hope we will steadily approach that target as more women stand for office. Nonetheless, there are different measures that the government could adopt to help women throughout the world take an interest in politics—whether municipal, provincial or federal—and in changing laws to meet their needs. We know that when more women hold power, the laws and approaches are very different. Problems are solved by women for women. It has been shown that it is very positive to have a parliament composed of 50% or more women. This leads to changes in the bills that are introduced.

This is an extremely sensationalistic bill, and I deplore that. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House will take the time to examine the amendments put forward by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, who simply wants to bring some common sense to this bill. Once again, I still believe in and have a lot of faith in this Parliament, and that will not stop. I sincerely believe that we can work together.

The House of Commons has committees to study bills with various experts, such as community leaders and experts in general law, civil law or immigration.

These experts did not have harsh words, but they did share some concerns. On this side of the House I would say that we did some worthwhile work with the proposals made by the experts and others invited to the committee. We took their ideas to try to improve this bill, because what we have been trying to propose all along is common sense. However, the concrete measures set out in Bill S-7 will unfortunately not have the desired impact.

I am making a heartfelt plea to the Minister of Immigration today. I ask him to consider these amendments, eliminate the sensationalistic and partisan aspects of this bill, and bring some common sense to this bill. A real consultation on Bill S-7 is needed.

From what I read of the testimony, there was a lack of consultation. I would like to quote a statement by Action Canada for Sexual Rights and Health:

The bill reflects a lack of consultation (closed-door meetings and invitation-only consultations), and a lack of transparency, participation and public debate. The proposed amendments are not based on the experiences of women and girls who have survived acts of violence, such as forced marriage.

That is pretty serious testimony about the lack of consultation. I sincerely believe that if a bill purports to help women and children across Canada in terms of forced marriage and violence against women, it should include real solutions to help them.

All members of the House are very familiar with the organizations in their ridings and the incredible work they do. In Laval, many organizations work to help women in various ways. They might be active in politics, encouraging women to run for office and participate actively in elections. Organizations also help women who are often in need. One that comes to mind is the Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House also have Afeas in their ridings. I see my colleague from Laval—Les Îles nodding. That organization is very visible in my riding; I am speaking for both of us. Afeas is very visible in Laval. Its goal is to help women, help them escape marginalization and misery, and ensure that women have the same rights as men across the country. So much needs to be done.

I see that my time is almost up, but I would like to comment briefly on what could be done to help women across the country. It is not necessarily just what is being put forward in Bill S-7. There are a lot of things we could do to help women in different communities.

When I asked my colleague from Halifax a question, I mentioned the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which recently submitted its report and 94 recommendations. I think the federal government has a role to play in about a good third of the recommendations. It could do something about the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women all across Canada. It should have done something about that issue a long time ago. I truly believe that if the government really wanted to help murdered and missing indigenous women and their families, it would do something.

A number of other subjects could have been addressed to end the marginalization of women. Two examples that come to mind are pay equity and women's leadership on corporate boards, whether public or private. Something really meaningful could have been done.

Regarding Bill S-7, I have to point out again that we could make it better. It is not too late. The NDP has proposed some amendments. I still hope that the Conservatives will agree to compromise a little, ensure that these amendments are incorporated into the bill and put an end to all the smoke and mirrors. In the end, that is all that Bill S-7 really is.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one way to evaluate the quality of a bill is to look at how it could change things in very real situations, instead of listening to the wild speculation coming from across the aisle. For instance, in the case of the Shafia family, how would this legislation have changed things for the women in that family? They would have most likely been deported back to Afghanistan, where they could have been quietly killed, away from prying eyes. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his questions and his interest in Bill S-7.

As I said, a number of things could be done differently when it comes to Bill S-7. It is up to the Conservatives to make the necessary concrete changes to the bill.

We are proposing some extremely worthwhile improvements to the bill. For example, the government could commit to consulting stakeholders, such as front-line workers and experts, on the programs and measures that would most effectively prevent and combat gender-based violence and the best ways to put these practices in place in Canada.

We are also proposing that the government recognize the need to provide more prevention services and support to the victims of forced and underage marriages and female victims of any type of violence.

These very sensible suggestions were made by a host of witnesses and experts. These are concrete ideas. It is a matter of putting in place prevention and education measures. To me it makes sense.

I sincerely hope that the government will support the amendments proposed by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Mr. Speaker, It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Tuesday, June 9, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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