Debates of June 16th, 2015

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to my response to the member's question.

The first is that this seems to be a typical approach that we see from both the NDP and the Liberal Party in this House of Commons, in this Parliament, to claim they support the intent of a piece of legislation, then propose a number of amendments that would obviously change the legislation, and then claim that they cannot support the legislation because their amendments were not accepted. Frankly, we know their intention all along was to simply not support the legislation.

It is really shameful that the NDP does not want to, for whatever the reasons might be, support the principle of protecting women and girls from the practice of the early and forced marriages, as I discussed in my speech, or other types of violent behaviours, honour killings, and these kinds of measures.

The other part I want to quickly address, in response to the member, is that one of the intentions that would occur from this piece of legislation is the idea of being able to prevent these kinds of things from happening in the first place, that preventive effect of a Criminal Code offence.

I certainly hope the NDP would have another look at this and determine that it should be trying to protect women and girls from these kinds of instances.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously not satisfied with my colleague’s answer.

It is rather disturbing to see him impugning our motives instead of being open to a dialogue to protect victims. The phenomenon exists. And yet, instead of preventing injustice, the government insists on entrenching it, which is a problem. Furthermore, and let us not kid ourselves, the bill’s approach reeks of racism, which quite frankly is very troubling.

I would like to know how the government is going to manage deporting unfortunate victims of situations that are unacceptable in our society.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member claims to have a desire to be open to ideas that would protect women and girls from these kinds of practices, things like early and forced marriages, polygamy, and so-called honour killings. If he and his party are really and truly open to ideas that would protect women and girls from these kinds of barbaric practices, then what I would suggest he do and what I would suggest his colleagues do is to stand up and support this piece of legislation because it would do exactly that. It seeks to protect women and girls from these kinds of barbaric practices and set the tone that those things are unacceptable in Canada. It would help to prevent these practices and ensure we protect women and girls in Canada from them.

I certainly hope that the member and his party would choose to have another good look at the bill and stand up in favour of protection of women and girls from these kinds of barbaric practices in this country.

Oral Questions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, reflecting on what took place earlier today in question period. I seek the advice and guidance of the Chair regarding the question that was put forward.

When we come up with a question, all members are very much aware that we have 30 seconds in which to express the question. When we pose the question, there is often a significant preamble to it.

The Speaker knew that I might have been 10 or 15 seconds into the question, so I was not sure why he was standing up. I had to sit down, and I was a bit surprised by the Speaker determining that the topic of the question might not have been the federal government's responsibility.

I can appreciate that the Speaker will be able to review the Hansard, but I thought that this information might assist him in providing a comment on the question that I posed. As I am sure the Speaker is aware, foster care is in a very serious situation. The wording that I chose to use in my preamble about it being a crisis situation is the way it is being labelled in the province of Manitoba today. We are talking about how indigenous people of first nations and aboriginal heritage make up in excess of 90% of the more than 10,000 children who are in foster care. That is then a crisis situation.

My question, which I was not afforded the opportunity to ask, was related to the importance of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development indicating to the House what the Government of Canada is doing about the crisis situation, given that we are talking about around 90% of children in foster care having a first nations or aboriginal background. That is the federal government's responsibility.

I was 10 or 15 seconds into the question, and I suspect there was quite a bit of heckling on the other side. In fairness to the Speaker, perhaps he did not hear all of the comments. I appreciate that he is looking into it, but I am looking for his guidance and some sort of indication as to what I did wrong. Had I been able to finish the question, I would have made reference to the 10,000-plus children, of which 90% have a first nations background. It is very similar to the question I asked yesterday, so I would ask the Speaker to take the point of order as notice so that he can reflect on it.

He indicated to me earlier that he would review what was said, so this is just more add-on information in the hope that we will get some sort of clarification.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will just answer that briefly. From what I heard of the question, the member was asking about the foster care system in Manitoba and then he started speaking about the incompetence of the provincial New Democratic government in Manitoba.

I do not want to reflect on whether that might or might not be accurate. I would not go there, but I think that was what provoked a response from the other side here. I think that was the cue to the Speaker, in his defence, that the question that was being asked was about the provincial government, since it sounded as if the member was asking about its incompetence.

If the member wishes to ask questions about federal administration, he should be clearer about it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I thank both members for their interventions. I am sure that the Chair will take this under advisement and respond with a ruling, if necessary, in a very short period of time.

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 third time and passed.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

It is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North to express my opposition 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 have titled the bill, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

Right from the start, with the title of the bill, it is evident that the intent of the legislation is only political. I have heard the concerns of many witnesses who have told us some of the measures were useless and would actually further marginalize victims. Following advice from these expert stakeholders, it is my obligation to stand firmly against Bill S-7.

First, most of the measures in the bill do not actually achieve anything at all. They only duplicate existing laws, and the few measures that Bill S-7 does introduce could actually have negative consequences that defeat the very purpose it claims to have, which is to protect women.

Violence against women and children is unacceptable. Much work needs to be done in Canada to prevent and combat these crimes. However, we have to listen to the recommendations of experts, stakeholders, and victims, who are on the ground dealing with these situations on a daily basis and are familiar with our Criminal Code and immigration act, for an appropriate response that offers an actual solution to this very serious problem.

We listened to many witnesses express their concerns with the purpose of the bill and state that it would in fact worsen problems for women. However, Conservatives are not listening.

Lawyer Deepa Mattoo, from the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario stated:

Bill S-7 lacks the understanding of the complex issues of violence faced by women and children and does not achieve the goal that the government desires to achieve with this.

Dr. Naila Butt, from the Social Services Network also stated that:

Criminalization of forced marriage, without the much needed institutional support for victims, would only further alienate and harm those facing forced marriage and gender-based violence, with the added insult of being stigmatized that they come from barbaric cultures.

These are individuals who work at the ground level. They are familiar with what is going on in the community; they are the very stakeholders, the ones who work with the victims. Conservatives are once again ignoring the opinion of experts, stakeholders, and victims in order to benefit their political agenda.

I have said this before and I will say it again. If the Conservatives really want to tackle the issue of violence against women, how about they finally launch an inquiry into Canada's missing and murdered indigenous women? As of 2010, there have been 1,200 known cases of missing or murdered indigenous women in Canada. The statistics are absolutely shocking, yet the Prime Minister actually stated that this issue, and I quote him, “... it isn't really high on our radar...”. That is shameful.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs did not even have the decency to stand up during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. The government has literally failed to stand up for women's rights.

Conservatives like to pretend and brag they are tough on crime, but they are continuing to fail to protect Canadians by introducing political bills that offer empty solutions and are only put in place to benefit the Conservative agenda, like this bill. I know when the Conservatives pretend to be tough on crime. I know when they brag about being tough on crime.

There have been 30 shootings in my riding over the last number of months. That shows that whatever they have been doing for the last 10 years is not working in my community. We have been asking for police officers over a number of months, but the Conservatives cannot come up with concrete plans to even bring them into our city.

Violence against women remains a systematic, widespread issue in Canada. It is appalling but unfortunately not surprising that the Conservatives would want to politicize such a serious issue as gender-based violence.

We in Surrey are familiar with the current government's political tactics. The Conservatives like to sensationalize issues, but then they fail to provide any real solutions. For example, they have been saying that they will fix the crime problem in my community since they formed government. However, we have yet to see any real commitments or concrete solutions for my city. We see a lot of talk coming from these guys, but no action. It is clear that the current government is not committed to lowering crime in my community, just as it is not committed to tackling forced and underage marriages.

It is obvious that its intentions are not to combat gender-based violence. It will not even listen to the experts when it comes to something as effortless as changing the short title of this bill. The title of this bill, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, was of major concern to many of the witnesses we heard from at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, since it invokes racist stereotypes and further marginalizes minority groups. The title insinuates that all cultural practices are barbaric and reinforces prejudice against certain cultural groups by targeting racial minorities for practices that are in fact found in Canadian society at large and not only in these communities.

We put forth amendments to change not only the short title but also other aspects of the bill. However, all of our proposed amendments were rejected by the Conservative majority. A shock factor name will not help combat violence against women. Instead it sensationalizes the issue, and, as some witnesses suggested, it could force perpetrators to further isolate potential victims from resources.

As we were told at committee, this bill could also have serious unintended consequences that should not be ignored. For example, UNICEF expressed concerns that the bill would impose criminal sanctions against minors who attend, celebrate, or help organize a forced marriage, effectively impacting their future with a criminal record. This bill would re-victimize women and children who are at risk of violence by imposing criminal sanctions on them rather than protecting them from predators. The penalties would include criminalization and deportation, so some women and children would not want to come forward to report forced marriages.

If the Conservatives really have the interests of victims at heart, they would listen to the experts, the stakeholders, and the victims. They would conduct proper consultations before adopting measures that might harm the very people they are claiming to protect.

Canada needs a national plan to end violence against women and to protect women within our immigration system. However, the intention of this bill is only political. Its intent is not to protect women. Bill S-7 is yet another example of the current government's abuse of power to make useless pieces of legislation that only sensationalize an issue and discriminate against a part of the population in order to further its political agenda.

When will the government start listening to Canadians and come out with legislation that actually addresses Canadian issues? I will answer that question. The Conservatives will not have time to do that. They have had 10 years, and Canadians have had enough. They are tired.

We will have a new government on October 19 of this year. The NDP government will clean up a lot of the messes that the current government has made over the last 10 years. We will ensure that we come up with plans to protect our women and children. The Conservatives have failed to do that over the past 10 years, and it is time for them to go.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments made by the member. He mentioned the issue of the title of the bill. Liberals have talked a great deal about that title, which we suspect came right from the Prime Minister's Office.

The question I have for the member is fairly specific. There are aspects of the legislation, for example, that say there will be a minimum national age now for young women to be able to get married. Is there any aspect of the legislation that the NDP actually supports, or does the NDP believe all aspects of the legislation are wrong?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the Liberals. They will say one thing and do another. On Bill C-51, they said they were for it although they were against it, but they were actually going to vote against it. It is the same thing with this bill. They were against it although they were for some of the things in it, but they are going to vote with the government. That party cannot take a stand.

Now that they are trailing in the polls, Liberals are trying to adopt some of the very policies that the NDP has offered over the last four or five years. Canadians realize that this is too little, too late for the little party over in the corner.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, because I think he really set the record straight.

If we are serious about wanting to tackle violence against women, we need to be wiser in our approach. The bill tackles some types of violence against women in ways that are not at all wise.

Many of the practices that have been denounced are already covered by the Criminal Code. In reality, this bill is meant to target and divide Canadians on an extremely serious issue: violence against women.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, violence against women and children is a very serious issue that we need to address nationally. We need to address it in discussions with the provinces, the cities, and the communities. It is not something we can ignore.

There are 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women. We have been calling on the government to have an inquiry to find out what happened, yet it has refused to do that.

Twelve hundred women have gone missing or been murdered, but it is clear that the government has no agenda when it comes to protecting women and children. It is more interested in partisan politics and trying to score some cheap points to get re-elected. That is not going to happen. I can assure everyone that Canadians have seen the Conservatives work over the past years. They have failed to deliver. Men, women, and children have been victimized over and over, yet the government has failed to protect those very same individuals.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, an actual victim of early and forced marriage had this to say about the bill:

Forced into an abusive marriage at 17 and unable to leave it for 18 years, I can attest to the fact that a forced marriage is effectively a life of slavery. I congratulate the Canadian government for taking a bold step on behalf of women who have nowhere to turn for help.

This was said by Aruna Papp, a woman I had the great honour of meeting. She was a victim of this barbaric practice of forced marriage and commends this government for taking action. I am wondering if the hon. member opposite has a comment to make on Aruna Papp's statement.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we should always support victims of such heinous crimes as forced marriages.

The problem is that the bill does not address the very issues my hon. colleagues have talked about. The bill does not address very the issues that need to be addressed. Witnesses came forward, expert witnesses and stakeholders, who are part of the community and worked in the community, yet the Conservatives failed to accept even one amendment to this bill. Even the Canadian Bar Association called this bill basically useless.

We need some concrete plans to address situations like those my hon. colleague talked about. Conservatives have failed to deliver for people who are forced into marriages, and this bill is not the solution.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great indignation that I rise today to debate 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, which, I would remind the House, came from the Senate.

I refuse to use the short title the Conservatives gave this bill, which they have used repeatedly at multiple press conferences, as well as in quotations from many cabinet ministers, because, frankly, the short title is racist and discriminatory.

Ms. Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, in testimony to the status of women committee, stated:

lt is dehumanizing and degrading to label certain forms of violence as barbaric when all of it is so. Why are some politicians labelling some practices as barbaric and linking it with immigrants only?

Let us look at the intentions of Bill S-7: it makes polygamy grounds for inadmissibility to Canada; it sets the minimum age for marriage at 16; it restricts the defence of provocation to indictable offences; and it creates new offences and a recognizance to keep the peace related to forced or underage marriage.

I will show not only that Bill S-7 is largely unnecessary, but also that some of its provisions will have negative consequences for victims.

First, polygamy is prohibited under the Criminal Code and has been illegal in Canada since 1890. Polygamy is not a recognized form of marriage for people wishing to immigrate to Canada.

According to the Library of Parliament's legislative summary, there appear to be no statistics as to how often immigration—despite these prohibitions—is used to facilitate the reunion of polygamous families in Canada.

What is more, there is no empirical evidence on the extent to which immigrants from countries where polygamy is legal or culturally accepted have formed polygamous families in Canada.

Professor Rupaleem Bhuyan, from the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto, adds that Bill S-7 could have negative consequences for the victims of polygamy and their family. He said:

I am most concerned with how this bill increases discretionary powers among immigration officers to deem inadmissible anyone who is perceived to be practising polygamy. The low burden of proof may lead to racist discrimination against immigrants from particular regions of the world who are considered undesirable. This provision would also put women who are spouses of polygamous men at risk of being deported or being separated from their children.

We need to recognize from the outset that forced marriage is a form of violence and that these types of marriages are wrong. The requirements of free and informed consent are already included in the Quebec Civil Code and common law.

The Canadian Criminal Code already provides adequate recourse in cases of forced marriage before and after the marriage, as well as in cases of travelling with a minor with the intention of forcing that minor to marry.

Bill S-7 adds nothing but provisions that could create many undesirable consequences, such as increased social pressure on the victims and added danger for the victims by isolating them and removing their ability to speak out for fear of reprisal.

Naila Butt, of the Social Services Network, summarized the situation this way, and I quote:

Criminalization of forced marriage, without the much needed institutional support for victims, would only further alienate and harm those facing forced marriage and gender-based violence, with the added insult of being stigmatized that they come from barbaric cultures.

Members of a responsible government must base their laws on evidence, which is not the case with this bill. They must first consult stakeholders, civil society, victims and victim advocacy groups. It is their duty to consult on the best way to approach a problem in order to find the right solution that will achieve the intended result. That is obviously not what happened here.

A bill must absolutely be useful and not have a negative impact on the victims, in other words, it must not make them more vulnerable and must not further victimize them, which is unfortunately not the case here. Bill S-7 is ill conceived and remarkably does not meet any of the criteria for good evidence-based legislation and the search for appropriate solutions to a problem. It speaks only to the Conservative government's ideology.

Even after it was studied in committee, Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration immediately declared that he would not consider any amendments to the bill. Even though the vast majority of witnesses expressed serious concerns about this legislation, no amendments were retained. One witness who appeared before this committee said that Bill S-7 was the wrong way to address these problems. I completely agree, and that is why I am vehemently opposed to this bill. I do, however, support the NDP's motion, which shows how a responsible New Democrat government would address violence against women. This motion also reflects the wishes of many agencies that work tirelessly to combat violence against women with very little support from the current government. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, forced marriages are a crime that constitutes violence against women and consequently, the government should: (a) strongly condemn the practice; (b) increase funding to organizations working with potential or actual victims; (c) consult with women, communities, organizations, and experts to form a true picture of the issue and to identify the best ways to address it; (d) allow women with conditional permanent resident status to remain in Canada if their partners are deported due to polygamy or forced marriage; (e) invest in information programs tailored to immigrant women; (f) develop culturally appropriate training programs for service providers dealing with immigrant women such as the police and social workers, as well as officers of the Canada Border Service Agency and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; (g) restore funding to Status of Women Canada; and (h) implement the NDP's national plan for a strategy to address violence against women.

That is how an NDP government would tackle the problem of violence against women. We will finally implement well-thought-out, long-term solutions in concert with the organizations that are working to eliminate this scourge.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that strikes me. I have children, teenaged girls, and I think it is a terrible thing to force a girl to marry. That is often done because of a different culture and different vision of marriage. The victims then choose not to report their forced marriage, out of fear that their parents will be deported for facilitating it.

There is therefore a problem in this bill. We have to help these girls, but how can we educate the parents and change their way of thinking so that this kind of thing no longer happens? In Denmark, a similar bill was enacted and no crimes were reported. That means that the girls feel so guilty about accusing their parents that they do not report anything and they continue to live with the abuse.

Something was not done right there. I would like my colleague to talk about this in more detail. Yes, we have to put an end to forced marriages, but how can we help girls to speak up without being afraid that their families will be deported?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

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

In fact, we do not need to keep reinventing the wheel. There are front-line workers who work with the groups in question and have already started to look for solutions. However, legislators are not listening to those groups. There has been no consultation.

As my colleague demonstrated so well, violence against women is often committed by intimate partners or family members. It is therefore very difficult to report them. There needs to be a support group in order to prevent this type of violence. We have to encourage intervention and prevention and designate a safe place where these people can take refuge and explain their situations, so that together, we can find well-thought-out solutions.

However, we have to invest in these organizations in order to help them. They are already working very closely with people who might become victims. We have to do prevention work in a conciliatory manner.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous question, when my colleague from the NDP asked if we would be forcing parents to be deported, et cetera. I want to clarify something on that.

There is a measure in this bill that where there are reasonable grounds to believe a person will specifically aid or participate in the forced or early marriage ceremony involving someone else, for example, a child, or will take a young person out of Canada for the purpose of a forced or early marriage ceremony abroad, that individual could be brought to the court and ordered to enter into a peace bond. That provision is there.

Therefore, to fearmonger, saying that the parents will be deported, is not the right approach.

Coming back to that, my colleague talked about some representation from Muslims Facing Tomorrow appearing before the status of women committee. Let me this share with her. On May 5, Raheel Raza from Muslims Facing Tomorrow said, in our immigration committee, of which I am a member:

The fact that the bill uses the word “barbaric” is extremely important because the abuse that is perpetuated against women under the banner of honour-based violence is nothing less than barbaric. Therefore, my organization totally supports the bill in its intent to eradicate barbaric practices.

I would like to hear from my colleague on that.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the quotation says is that all violence against women is serious and barbaric. Nowhere does it say that we must target particular communities in the short title of a bill. That is totally racist and discriminatory.

All violence against women must be excluded from our modern societies; that is not the issue. It is the use of a title that targets communities and divides Canada that is problematic. We must absolutely address the issue of violence against women, whatever it may be.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. Before I do that, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

The amendments contained in Bill S-7 would improve protection and support for individuals at risk, especially women and girls, including in the following ways: establishing a new national minimum age for marriage at 16 years; codifying the existing legal requirement for free and enlightened consent for marriage; codifying the requirement of ending an existing marriage prior to entering a new one; criminalizing certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing the child from Canada for the purpose of such marriage ceremonies; creating specific preventive court ordered peace bond when there are grounds to fear that someone is at risk of underage or forced marriage; and ensuring that the defence of provocation would not apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

In my speech today I would like to focus on the measures in Bill S-7, which would require a minimum age for marriage, free and informed consent to marry and dissolution of prior marriages before new marriages.

I will start by highlighting the fact that there is currently no national minimum age for marriage in Canada. We therefore need to modernize and clarify marriage legislation applicable across Canada.

This area of law is very confusing to many people because they assume that a minimum age for marriage already exists.

Setting the absolute minimum age for marriage is a matter of federal jurisdiction, however, there is currently only one piece of federal legislation with a minimum marriage age and it only applies in Quebec. The Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, which reconciles Quebec's unique civil law at the provincial level with common law at the federal level, sets age 16 as the minimum age for marriage in Quebec.

For the other common law provinces, the case law is extremely old in this regard, which causes some confusion. In general, the common law is interpreted as age 14 for boys and age 12 for girls.

Setting a national minimum age of 16 years old for marriage would establish a consistent standard across the country and would make it clear that Canada would not permit underage marriage.

I would also like to clarify that the national absolute minimum age for marriage is a separate legal concept from the provincial jurisdiction to legislate on minimum age pertaining to the conditions of celebration of a marriage. Existing territorial and provincial marriage law will continue to contain protections for children between the new minimum age for marriage and the age of majority, usually set by the province or territory at age 18 or 19.

In the exceptional circumstances in which a child under the age of majority is mature enough to marry, these provincial and territorial laws currently require parental consent, and in some instances also the consent of a judge, to ensure that the child fully understands the legal consequences of marriage.

Bill S-7 also proposes to amend the Civil Marriage Act to codify the requirement of free and enlightened consent to marry and codifying the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriage.

At the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we had the opportunity to hear from numerous witnesses. Lawyer Kathryn Marshall explained why it was important that we codify the national minimum age. She told the committee that the common law was very open to interpretation and that our government was taking an important step by codifying the legal requirements. We also heard from a lot of witnesses.

The committee had the opportunity to listen to victims of such marriages, victims like Aruna Papp, whose name has already been mentioned in previous comments and speeches. She said:

I commend the government for its leadership in taking a stand on a very difficult issue and for defending the human rights of vulnerable women who are unable to speak for themselves. I'm thrilled to support this bill.

There are numerous others. We talked with lawyer Kathryn Marshall on April 23. She said:

With the passage of this bill, Canada will be joining other nations that have taken a strong stance against forced and child marriage by making it illegal. It is important this law include criminal consequences for people who organize, participate in, pressure, and facilitate child marriage and marriage without consent. It is often the pressure from family and community that is forcing these young women and girls to engage in these marriages.

I have been a member of the committee for some time. I mentioned the peace bond in my previous comment to a question asked by my colleague from the NDP. The legal requirement that any previous marriage must be dissolved prior to a new marriage would now apply nationally to all Canadian residents. Also, family members and others would be subject to prosecution where they actively and knowingly participate in a forced or early marriage ceremony by transporting unwilling or underage daughters to the ceremony or acting as a legal witness. A person who knowingly performs a forced marriage or early marriage ceremony, would also be subject to prosecution.

Our government is taking strong steps to ensure no young woman or girl is a victim of early or forced marriage. I heard a couple of previous speakers from the NDP. There was a lot of misinformation. I honestly wish that on sensitive issues like this, we would all work together, instead of making out that government bills are all part of the Conservative agenda, but even if it is part of the Conservative agenda, what is wrong with getting a good agenda out and helping Canadians?

I urge all my colleagues from all parties to please support the bill. Let us protect those who need protection.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech. I also want to clarify that, in fact, I support establishing the minimum age for marriage at 16, as well as criminal sanctions against those who perform a marriage ceremony in the case of early forced marriages.

To illustrate the problem I have with what the Conservative member just said, I will use the example of a 14-year-old girl who is the victim of a forced marriage. Under the Conservative bill, she would have to report her family, her father, her mother, her brothers and sisters. How can a 14-year-old girl be expected to do that, knowing that her entire family will be convicted? It makes no sense. That young girl would not be able to do that. What will happen, then? Forced marriages will happen in secret. If we are saying that forced marriages are illegal, let us make sure that those who perform those marriages are punished.

I would like to hear my colleague comment on the unfortunate consequences this bill will have for victims.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government's intention is to make sure that young people and children, women and girls in this case, are educated about there being clear laws and protections. There is no intention to separate the parents and the children here.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act would send a very clear message to those coming to Canada that forced marriages, honour-based violence, or any other form of harm through cultural practices are unacceptable in Canada.

Let me share what another victim said at committee. Lee Marsh was a victim of underage forced marriage, so she has experience with this. I commend her bravery for coming out in public to share what she went through. On April 23, she said:

If I had known that what my mother was doing was against the law, I might have felt more able to say no. It would have given me an out to say, “But you can't do this. It's against the law.”

That is why it is very important that a law is in place, so that young people are aware of it and they can stand up and tell their own parents or other relatives that it is against the law and they should not do it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are quite supportive of some things in the legislation. The member made reference to establishing the national minimum age at 16. However, here we are, 10 years later, and now the government has brought forward a piece of legislation to deal with this. I cannot help but reflect on other aspects that it would have been nice to see the government put a priority on. If this was such a priority, I am sure it could have been a priority four, five, or six years ago. It is only today that we are seeing the legislation being brought forward and the government is trying to push it through by using time allocation.

Would the member not agree that there are many other issues within immigration? Especially if we want to relate it to marriages, imagine a federal government that continues to keep families apart because of its ever growing delays overseas when it comes to immigration.

I wonder if the member might want to provide some comment with regard to that as a priority versus this.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start. The 13 dark lost years of the Liberal regime created a mess in immigration. There were backlogs.

Of course, there is plenty of legislation that is very important. We have to deal with all of it, and we are still dealing with it, and we intend to deal with a lot more.

In those 13 years, as I said, immigration was made so messy that there was a backlog of more than 800,000 people.

When my colleague talks about family reunification, I would ask him to do some research. This is the government that broke the record of the last 50 years to bring the maximum number of immigrants in one year. This is the government that introduced the super visa for parents and grandparents. This visa is issued for 10 years to parents and grandparents and they can stay here for longer periods. They can come and go back, and come and go back.

That is what the government has done. I agree with the member that there is a lot of work to be done, and a lot more will be done.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

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

In October 2013, our government committed to ensuring that early and forced marriage does not take place on Canadian soil. Bill S-7 delivers on that promise. This bill proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code in order to enhance the existing protections against harmful and violent practices that are perpetrated primarily against women and girls. I would like to take this opportunity to situate this bill in the context of the many substantive measures that this government has taken to address violence against women and girls in Canada.

As Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explained before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, all violent acts committed against women and girls are unacceptable in our democratic Canada. Our government has taken and continues to take action to address various forms of violence against women and girls. Bill S-7 supplements Canada's robust responses to violence against women and girls by addressing some areas where gaps have been identified, such as the response to early and forced marriage, and strengthens the legislative tools in relation to other forms of gender-based violence, such as polygamy and so-called honour killings, as well as spousal homicides. This bill addresses certain forms of violence against women and girls that reflect antiquated notions of women as property or as mere vessels of family honour and reputation. These notions are clearly inconsistent with fundamental Canadian values of equality between men and women.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act introduces important legislative measures that would protect potential and actual victims of early and forced marriage. Bill S-7 proposes to set the absolute minimum age of marriage at 16 in the Civil Marriage Act, and to codify in that same act the requirements that a marriage involve free and enlightened consent and that all previous marriages be dissolved prior to entering into a new marriage. This bill also introduces changes to the Criminal Code to criminalize active participation in an underage or forced marriage and to criminalize removing a child from Canada for these same harmful purposes.

Moreover, Bill S-7 expands the peace bond regime in the Criminal Code to provide for a new court order designed to prevent an underage or forced marriage from taking place in Canada, or to prevent a child from being taken out of the country to be forced into a marriage. In addition, Bill S-7 proposes to limit the defence of provocation, as we have heard a number of times this afternoon, in the Criminal Code so it could not be raised in cases involving so-called honour killings and in many spousal homicides where the alleged provocation often consists of verbal or offensive but otherwise lawful behaviour.

Finally, this bill puts forward important changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would specify that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible if he or she practises polygamy in Canada.

I would like to take a few moments to point out how the proposed amendments in this bill would align Canada with many like-minded countries around the world.

First, in relation to early marriage, Bill S-7 introduces a minimum age of 16 below which marriages could no longer be legally conducted in Canada even with parental or court consent. There has been some misunderstanding about this provision of the bill, so let me be perfectly clear. The free age of marriage in Canada, or the age at which a child becomes an adult and can give consent to marry on his or her own with no additional requirements, is 18 or 19 years of age, depending on the province or territory where the marriage takes place. Bill S-7 does not change this. Instead, Bill S-7 proposes to legislate in relation to the absolute minimum age of legal capacity for marriage, which is a matter of federal jurisdiction under the Constitution. Currently, federal law sets age 16 as the lowest age for marriage only in the province of Quebec. Elsewhere in Canada, as there is no federal legislation, the old pre-Confederation common law applies. This bill proposes to close that loophole and set a national floor at 16, below which marriages may not be legally conducted.

If we compare Canada with similarly situated countries, we see that many have set the lowest age for anyone to marry at age 16, including the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Norway. This is what Bill S-7 proposes to do.

Several other like-minded countries have set 18 as the age at which a person can marry without the requirement for consent from their parents or the courts. These countries have no absolute minimum age of marriage: Belgium, France, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and most of the United States. This is similar to the current law in Canada.

It is important to point out that many countries cited as setting the minimum age for marriage at age 18 actually have a similar legal structure to that of Canada. They set age 18 as the free age, or the age of majority, meaning that a person can marry without any other person's consent.

This is subject to a number of exceptions where a person below the age of 18 can marry with some form of additional consent or approval, and so it does not represent the absolute minimum age. In fact, very few countries have set their lowest age for anyone to marry at age 18. Switzerland is the only similarly situated country that we are aware of to have done so.

Bill S-7 addresses certain gaps in the range of existing measures to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls in Canada. Our Conservative government is taking steps to strengthen our laws and to help ensure that no young woman or girl in Canada becomes a victim of early or forced marriage, polygamy, so-called honour-based violence, or any other form of harmful cultural practice.

I would be pleased to take any questions about any of these other important aspects of the bill as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and align Canada with like-minded countries that are grappling with similar forms of violence against women and girls.

As a former member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am just so proud to be able to support this very important bill. It would affect many hundreds of young girls going forward. These girls live in Canada and perhaps might have backgrounds different from my daughter's and her experiences growing up, but I think we have a responsibility to protect them from violence and barbaric cultural practices.