12135 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 187 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, March 23, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 23, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 187 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 187 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 187 (Version officielle) 147 187 23 03 2015 2015/03/23 11:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayers (1100) [ Translation ] Vacancy Ottawa West—Nepean The Speaker : It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely. [ English ] Mr. Baird, member for the electoral district of Ottawa West—Nepean , by resignation effective Monday, March 16, 2015. Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(

b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business [ English ] Journey to Freedom Day Act The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that Bill S-219,

An Act respecting a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-219. Second reading The Speaker : There are six minutes left for the hon. member for Thornhill to finish his remarks. Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again it is an honour to rise today and speak in strong support of the journey to freedom day act, Bill S-219 , which is an important piece of legislation that comes to us from the other place.

As we approach the 40th anniversary of the effective end of the Vietnam War, one might reflect on the broader events that took place across Indochina 40 years ago this month. At that time there was an ominous shadow falling across the entire region, and the U.S. Congress had decided after great agonizing to end funding of the governments of Cambodia and of South Vietnam and to withdraw all further remaining U.S. military support and military advisors. In March, barely 30 days before that fateful day of April 30, the Khmer Rouge forces had effectively surrounded Phnom Penh, the Cambodian capital.

The American ambassador, Ambassador Dean, had begun preparations for the final pullout of embassy staff and Americans and third-country nationals, which took place on April 12, and which led to the eventual Cambodian genocide, the brutal murder of more than two million Cambodians, and a dark five years in that Southeast Asian country. Barely three weeks later, the United States ambassador in Saigon, Ambassador Martin, decided it was time to end the American presence in that country.

The musical strains of White Christmas were heard on April 29, and on armed forces radio in Saigon a voice said it is 110 degrees in Saigon and rising. This was the signal to all Americans, to all third-country nationals, to all Vietnamese who had worked in various ways for the United States over the previous three decades, to assemble at evacuation points and to leave the country.

As a journalist who was there and had evacuated from Phnom Penh on April 12 with the American ambassador, and again left Saigon on April 30 from the U.S. embassy in Saigon, my memory is saturated with images of the vast movement of humanity. More than 7,000 people were rescued from Saigon on that final day, in addition to some 50,000 people who had been lifted by fixed-wing aircraft in the weeks ahead of them. However, the greater tragedy lay ahead.

It was not the two million-plus deaths of the Cambodian genocide, but the millions of Vietnamese who, when the country was partitioned in 1954 under the Geneva Accord, had fled the northern regime looking for a better life in the south. Many of these people had no option but to leave Vietnam.

They did not have an aircraft or helicopter support nor connections with departing Americans, so they fled by all manner of marine watercraft When Saigon did fall on April 30 and the North Vietnamese tanks burst through the gate to the presidential palace in Saigon, barely a few blocks from the American embassy, the beginning of an exodus of more than 1.5 million people began.

(1105) They set sail for the South China Sea in hopes that neighbouring countries would take them in. Many countries unfortunately turned them away, forcing them even further from their homeland to seek refuge in the United Kingdom, France, Australia, and the United States. As we know, and as we celebrate in the journey to freedom act before the House today, 60,000 made their way to Canada. I am proud to say that Canadians from all walks of life stepped up to the challenge then, offering whatever help they could to the long-suffering Vietnamese boat people.

Approximately 34,000 were sponsored by Canadian families, churches, synagogue groups, and other community organizations, while 26,000 were accepted into the country under a government sponsorship plan. In 1986, Canada was honoured with the Nansen Medal, which is the refugee equivalent of the Nobel Prize, given by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in recognition of major efforts on behalf of refugees. This was the first and the only time that the Nansen Medal has been presented to the entire population of a country.

I will conclude my remarks now in the hope that colleagues will support Bill S-219 and the journey to freedom act. [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-219 . I will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee. However, I would like to start by explaining why I am so proud to rise today. My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry and I are the only two people of Vietnamese origin to be elected members of the House of Commons, of Parliament.

For us, it is very important to remember what our parents, family members and ancestors lived through. Being able to talk about it in the House today is truly a privilege and an honour. It is a testament both to the great value we place on our origins and to Canada's openness and the fact that the Canadian people opened their arms to us by electing us and asking us to represent them. It is therefore with great pride and gratitude that I rise today. Bill S-219 is very short but has several aspects to it. I will read it because I want to talk about it. It has three clauses. The first clause concerns the

short title: 1. This Act may be cited as the Journey to Freedom Day Act. The second clause, which is the core of this bill, reads as follows: 2. Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the thirtieth day of April shall be known as “Journey to Freedom Day”. The third and final clause simply says this: 3. For greater certainty, Journey to Freedom Day is not a legal holiday or a non-juridical day. (1110) [ English ] The bill before us is a very short and simple one. As I said in French and will repeat in English, there are three clauses in the bill.

The main one says: Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the thirtieth day of April shall be known as “Journey to Freedom Day”. Then the bill specifies: For greater certainty, Journey to Freedom Day is not a legal holiday or a non-juridical day. [ Translation ] Why are we talking about April 30? Many people who had to leave their country attach considerable significance to that date. For instance, my parents were fortunate to be here in Canada on April 30, 1975. They came here, they met here and they settled here, and I was lucky to be born here. However, many people unfortunately had to leave their country.

We all know this, thanks to the films and news reports that have been made about the Vietnam War, which left its mark not only on an entire generation of Vietnamese people, but also on the entire world. Everyone is familiar with the Vietnam War. Everyone knows how much a war and the devastation it causes can affect the population and future generations. Still today, development in Vietnam lags behind because of the damage and destruction caused by the war. I think remembering April 30 is extremely important because April 30 represents a day of commemoration.

For many people in Canada and indeed around the world, April 30 is a day for people to come together. Ever since I was elected, for instance, I go to Montreal every year, which is an opportunity for me to remember my roots, my culture and the sacrifices made by many Vietnamese people. I invite Canadians to watch the very moving speech made by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry , who shared her personal experience and that of her parents. I think it is quite meaningful to many people.

To some, this day signifies the end of the Vietnam War, the end of a devastating war that had tremendous repercussions for the country. To others, this day also serves as a reminder that people had to leave their country. What is more, many commemorative events are held around April 30 in recognition of the boat people. I invite those who have yet to watch a documentary on this, to do so. This shows the direct impact that the war had on the population and the sacrifices that people had to make to leave their country in search of a better future. Today, we feel and see the results.

New generations like mine and future generations reap the benefits from the fact that people had to leave their country and learn to live in a new society that was foreign to them. Even though Vietnam was a French colony, many Vietnamese did not speak French or English. Coming to Canada meant they had to adapt and integrate. As an elected member, I am very proud to say that I am well integrated into Canadian society. The community is very proud of all the Vietnamese people who have achieved success at all levels, such as earning a living by becoming a doctor, for example. I am generalizing a bit.

We also have writers, such as Kim Thúy, who is very famous in Quebec and around the world. A great number of people have made very significant contributions. I read the bill and it is very simple. Unfortunately, it will not contribute anything new. We could have taken this opportunity to find solutions to current problems. I will come back to that later. I want to mention that there was lack of consultation and debate, and therefore transparency, in the other chamber's process. A great deal of attention was paid to what some people said, but not to what others had to say.

I hope that the House of Commons committee will be more open-minded and that we will have a more fulsome debate, because it is important to have this debate. As I mentioned, I received some 300 emails about this bill. Unfortunately, this bill is divisive at a time when we should be uniting the community. The bill has received criticism from all quarters. Some say that it does not go far enough and that it is not critical enough of the current government.

Others, especially those in the business community who are dealing with Vietnam, say that it is not necessarily beneficial to negotiations and that it would be detrimental to discussions with the Government of Vietnam. As this is a Conservative bill from the other place, it is unfortunate that the approach used is not one that brings people together, not just Canadians, but also all Vietnamese Canadians, whether they are the children of boat people or those who were forced to leave their country. Why not unite all these people? I am proud of the NDP position because we are talking about human rights.

It is time to do so. I regret that the bill does not do enough to bring people together. (1115) [ English ] I look at what the younger generation has done. A friend of mine, Glenn Hoa has created “generation legacy”. Last year thousands of dollars were raised in order to invest in the Vietnamese boat people museum in Ottawa. It was a way for the community to get together behind a project that was unifying, that looked at the heritage of Canadians of Vietnamese origin or even that of the Vietnamese people who came here. It was a way for us to get together; it was different generations coming together.

Unfortunately with the bill, we do not feel this. We feel it is divisive. As I said, I have received hundreds of emails, some supporting the bill and some denouncing the bill. There are many things that need to be done in order to help people in Vietnam. I think we could have done a better job. [ Translation ] Since it is time to negotiate with Vietnam as part of the trans-Pacific partnership, we need to advocate for human rights. Unfortunately, the government is not going in that direction.

Nevertheless, I understand that the important thing is to commemorate what happened to the people who had to leave their country. That is why I am going to support the bill at this stage. Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal critic for Canadian heritage, I would like to explain to the House why I will be supporting Bill S-219,

An Act respecting a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War , or the Journey to Freedom Day Act . I would also like to explain why I am insisting that the government allow this bill to be extensively and thoroughly reviewed by the appropriate parliamentary committee. Everyone must have an opportunity to freely express their opinions, unlike what happened in the Senate.

Bill S-219 would designate April 30 as the Journey to Freedom Day and would commemorate Vietnamese refugees and their exodus to Canada. This day would not be a legal holiday or a day off. However, it would provide an opportunity to celebrate how lucky Canada is to have such a vibrant Vietnamese community. As the Liberal leader and member for Papineau always says, Canada's diversity is what makes our country strong. Vietnamese Canadians are a good example of that. A number of my constituents of Vietnamese origin have shared a different perspective.

They see this day as an opportunity to thank Canada for welcoming them with open arms and for giving them a chance at a new life. The Vietnamese are known for their generosity and modesty. If Canada tells them that it wants to celebrate everything they have contributed, they respond that they would rather celebrate everything that Canada has given them. After all, we are looking at two sides of the same coin. Canada owes a lot to its Vietnamese community, which wants to thank Canada. Let us celebrate together. (1120) [ English ] The proposed new national day would commemorate a major historic event.

On January 1, 1975, some 1,500 persons of Vietnamese ancestry were living in Canada, mostly in Quebec. Following the 1979 to 1982 boat people crisis, some 59,000 Vietnamese refugees entered Canada. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, after the United States, Canada is the country that welcomed the largest number of Vietnamese refugees from 1975 to 1996. In 1986, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees awarded the Nansen Refugee Award to the people of Canada for the “major and sustained contribution of the People of Canada to the cause of refugees”.

Canadians were the first and the only people to have been honoured collectively with this award. [ Translation ] The journey to freedom day will remind us that Canada welcomed tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees and that Canada must continue to be welcoming. There were millions of victims of the Vietnam War, and unimaginable atrocities were committed on all sides. Since we did not participate, our country could have chosen to ignore these victims. If we are being honest, there were some people in Canada who did not want to get involved in the aftermath and consequences of a conflict we had no

part in. However, Canada remembered that although it was not involved in the war, it played an active role in the peace efforts. Canada remembered that every time it has shown generosity, it has become even stronger. Canada listened to its heart and welcomed refugees not only from Vietnam, but also from Cambodia and Laos, saving many lives and transforming broken dreams into renewed hope.

We must never forget the pain of the exodus, those who lost their lives, the unspeakable horrors experienced by the boat people, or the generosity of the Canadian families, communities and religious groups who took them in, clothed and housed them. Nor must we forget the foresight of the Canadian governments of the day, how hard the newcomers worked to learn, in a matter of months, French, English and new customs or how very much Canada benefited from the contributions of these newcomers, their children and the generations that came after them. That is what we must never forget.

That is what we will all be able to celebrate together in harmony, as we bear in mind both the sacrifices people made and the promises of the future, the opportunities available in a Canada that is stronger because of its Vietnamese community. That is how I, as Liberal critic for Canadian heritage, see this commemoration. That is why I support this bill. There is no other reason. The goal is to bring people together, to leave nobody out. The goal is also to strengthen the bond between Canada and Vietnam, to strengthen the trade, cultural and scientific ties between our two countries.

Canada must stand up for human rights and justice in Vietnam as it does all over the world. (1125) [ English ] In other words, the Liberal Party sees this bill as an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the great contributions of the Vietnamese Canadian people to Canada's diversity and multiculturalism, and to all the elements of Canadian life and society.

The proposed new national day would also celebrate the Canadian families, charities, religious groups and non-governmental organizations that sponsored tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees and assisted them in their resettlement and adjustment to their new country. [ Translation ] Some Vietnamese Canadians have written to us, their parliamentarians, to tell us that they do not like the date chosen for the commemoration, April 30; others do not like the title; still others are afraid this commemoration will lead to a historical

interpretation that makes them uncomfortable. To that I say that it is important for the people of the Vietnamese community to talk to each other. This commemoration must not be a divisive issue. On the contrary, it should be a symbol of unity and the wonderful symbiosis that exists between the Canadian and Vietnamese identities. That is why I think the committee that looks at this bill must take the time needed to listen to all points of view.

In the meantime, Vietnamese Canadians must continue talking to each other to reconcile their points of view. [ English ] The Liberal Party of Canada will insist that it is the government's responsibility to invite an inclusive and comprehensive list of witnesses and experts to discuss this bill at committee to ensure a thorough discussion on the title, date, content and implications of the act. [ Translation ] We, as Canadian parliamentarians, need to clearly understand and send a message that, above all, our intention with this bill is not to dictate an official, unilateral version of the history of another country.

We cannot even do that when it comes to Canada. It is not a question of siding with one side or the other after the fact, after a long and bloody war that our country consciously chose not to take

part in. No, it is simply a matter of providing an opportunity for us to celebrate the contribution made by Vietnamese Canadians to Canada's rich social fabric, to remember where we come from in order to better understand where we want to go together. [ English ] Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill S-219 , journey to freedom day bill.

I very much believe that this is a very important piece of legislation regarding a period in history that was a great tragedy for the people of Vietnam, however it also serves as a recognition of an event in which all Canadians should be proud. On April 30, 1975, when Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese Army, it set off a mass exodus of people, many of whom— [ Disturbance in gallery ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Resuming debate. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

(1130) Mr. Ted Opitz : Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 1979, when Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese army, it set off a massive exodus of people, many of whom had only one means of escape, on the water. It was the beginning of a journey that would be fraught with peril and tragedy for millions In the first few years that followed, a few thousand made their escape from the communist regime, but by 1978 to 1979, those Vietnamese refugees were fleeing from their homeland in the tens of thousands.

They arrived in a number of neighbouring countries, such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Their plight created a massive humanitarian crisis across southeast Asia, as many refugees left in overcrowded boats that were, in many cases, unfit to withstand the harsh conditions of the stormy seas. More than a quarter of a million perished. Some died from illness, some were victims of pirates and kidnappers. It was, by all accounts, a nightmare for all involved. An influx of so many refugees to those countries was more than they could handle.

The “boat people”, as they became known at the time, were sometimes turned away. If they were allowed to land, they were not allowed to integrate into those countries, which led to the creation of several squalid refugee camps. This vast humanitarian crisis required action on a global scale, and the world responded. With the aid of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, government officials in each country began the process of resettling the refugees in a number of developed countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, the United States and, of course, Canada.

Canada played a significant role in aiding tens of thousands of refugees after the fall of Saigon. During the humanitarian disaster that followed, Canadians rallied to offer whatever assistance they could. We ultimately brought more than 60,000 Vietnamese refugees here to settle and build new lives across our great country. It is estimated that 34,000 were sponsored by Canadian families, Canadian charities, religious groups and non-governmental organizations, while another 26,000 were assisted by the Canadian government.

The arrival and resettlement of the Vietnamese refugees in Canada is a shining example of how Canadians responded to a global calamity. Canada's compassionate response included families, church groups and community organizations that took the refugees into their homes, helped them find a place to live, to find employment and to get their kids into school. This exemplary moment in Canada's history of humanitarian protection was a contributing factor in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' awarding its Nansen Refugee Award to the people of Canada in 1986.

It was the first and only time that this prestigious medal was awarded to an entire nation. Canada was forever changed and enhanced by the events following the fall of Saigon and the exodus of the Vietnamese refugees, not just demographically and culturally. In addition to the development of strong and vital Vietnamese-Canadian communities thriving in many cities across Canada, the Government of Canada enshrined its private sponsorship of refugees program as a fundamental part of Canada's refugee and humanitarian resettlement program.

The community and church groups that sponsor refugees to come to Canada continue their compassionate work today, to the betterment of Canada, refugees and their families from around the world. This bill would designate April 30 as “journey to freedom day” in Canada, and it would honour our Vietnamese-Canadian population by showing our support to a community that has flourished in our country economically, culturally and socially. The Vietnamese community in Canada has demonstrated its loyalty and love of Canada.

We are building on a tradition of commemoration well established in communities of displaced Vietnamese people from across the globe. It would also be a significant day for all Canadians, many of whom united in the mid to late 1970s in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe to welcome more than 60,000 Vietnamese refugees to a new land and a place to call home. It was an inspiring time as the Government of Canada and the people of Canada exhibited their humanitarian spirit to the world.

All Canadians deserve a day to remember, to show their considerable efforts and to show the world that we are a caring and compassionate nation. Journey to freedom day would not be a legal holiday nor a judicial day, but a day that would solemnly acknowledge the events of that dark time in history with respect to the sorrows of those refugees who were lost to illness, malfeasance or the cruelty of the turbulent sea. It would also be a day with a deep sense of hope for those who became Canadian, and a strong sense of pride for those who helped make that happen.

It would also serve as a fitting way to begin Asian heritage month, which would begin the following day, on May 1.

(1135) With the passage of Bill S-219 , April 30 will be a special day of commemoration for the Vietnamese-Canadian community, followed directly by a full month of reflection and celebration of the contributions of all Canadians of Asian heritage. Canada values its relationship with the country of Vietnam. Grounded in mutual respect and partnership, we look forward to building on this very key relationship into the future. We owe it to those who have become Vietnamese-Canadians, however, to also acknowledge their true journey to freedom.

Today, there are more than 220,000 Vietnamese-Canadians who have integrated into and enhanced our country, who contribute to our growth and prosperity as vibrant members of Canadian society. The bonds that they have forged here have been deep and enduring, and Canadians are rightfully pride of our role in their journey to freedom, which began almost 40 years ago. I strongly encourage all members to join me in supporting Bill S-219 . Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, this bill was introduced in the Senate, a place that is already undemocratic, where there are no elected officials and no real accountability. The bill comes from a place where there is no accountability for the work being done and, specifically, a very biased process. I will start by giving a little background of the bill. The

short title of the bill is the journey to freedom day act. It would establish April 30 as journey to freedom day to commemorate the capture of Saigon by North Vietnamese forces on April 30, 1975, which ended the Vietnam War and began the emigration of South Vietnamese refugees to Canada. I started by speaking of what happened in the Senate. That is because people had requested to appear, to be witnesses and provide testimonials in front of the Senate committee but were refused. The ambassador for Vietnam was refused.

Anybody who wished to voice dissent and not support the bill was not allowed to speak at the Senate committee, which is a very biased, unfair and undemocratic process. The NDP proudly recognizes the important contributions of Canadians of Vietnamese heritage and their community in Canada, which includes the people who came to our country as refugees. Tens of thousands more came as economic migrants.

As a responsible official opposition, we want to ensure that any legislative attempt to recognize the contributions of Vietnamese Canadians to Canadian cultural heritage will actually unite Canadians of all backgrounds. It would unite Vietnamese Canadians in our country but also ensure that all members of the community would be included. To that extent, we will seek to include as many opinions as possible when the bill gets to committee and ensure that it is an inclusive process.

As the deputy spokesperson for the New Democrats on Canadian heritage and as a member of the heritage committee, I look forward to ensuring that all voices and opinions are heard at committee. I want to mention that when this bill was studied, there was a strong base of support for it and also voices of dissent. We need to ensure that as responsible legislators, we hear all sides of the story. There is a quote by Mr.

Can Le, a former secretary general of the Vietnamese Canadian Federation, who stated: By approving this bill, Parliament will assure newcomers and future generations of their place in this country and will prove that Canada's inclusiveness is the foundation of its strength and prosperity. It is great that there were positive comments about the bill and there were many more during the Senate hearings, but there were absolutely no voices heard that spoke against this bill. From what I am learning, there are quite a few, because my office has been inundated with emails and phone calls.

I have met with members of the Vietnamese community in Toronto who do not support the bill and are very hurt that their voices are not allowed to be heard. They requested to appear before the Senate committee and were refused. They were not allowed to speak before the committee. I sent a brief to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that I was given by a member of the community in Toronto in the hope that it would be put before the committee.

The brief points out that the bill offends and marginalizes most of the people it purports to honour by assuming that they would join former Saigon military officers in commemorating the fall of Saigon on April 30. The majority of Vietnamese Canadians will never join that commemoration. I read this directly from a brief I was given, which clearly shows there is a divide in the community. As responsible legislators, we need to ensure that all voices are heard, and that did not happen in the Senate. I hope that in the committee phase we will be able to ensure that all voices are heard.

(1140) The second main point identified in the brief is that the bill exploits the boat people and the Canadians who helped them by using them to justify having a national day to commemorate the fall of the Saigon military regime, a divisive, partisan, political event that most of them will not participate in. Once again, they outline that there is a divide and that they do not want a bill that commemorates the fall of the regime or commemorates something that only part of the community here wants to be part of. It is important that we hear all voices, and that has not happened at the Senate committee.

If I seem a little repetitive, it is because I am purposely repeating the fact that the Senate was extremely biased and did not allow all voices to be heard. The third main point outlined in the brief is that the bill slights the Canadian Forces by falsely claiming that they were involved in the Vietnam War. The bill does not give credit to Canadian Forces for carrying nearly all of the refugees from Asian camps to Canada. I tend to agree with that, because Canada was not involved in the war. Canada did not have a participatory role in the war, yet Canada was a country that was a safe haven.

Our forces went in and helped people by removing them from the camps when they fled Vietnam and went to other countries. That is not being recognized in the bill. What I am hearing from members of my community is that the bill is divisive. Why can we not move forward in a way that gives us something that all Vietnamese Canadians can come together around and make sure that it is inclusive for everyone, rather than just a small group of people from Vietnam who live in Canada now, or even many Canadian-born Canadians who are not naturalized Canadians?

We are all Canadians, and they are saying they all want to be included. Further on, the brief mentions that the problem is that there were waves of migrants who came to Canada from Vietnam. The first wave were people who were working for the Saigon regime at the time and fled after the end of the war, which ended on April 30. That date is tied very closely with the war, and many people were affected by it. Whenever a war happens, many people are affected. I know from personal experience. I was born in a war zone and know the personal, lived experience of being in a war.

No matter how the idea is spun, life is impacted severely by a war. I am hearing that people do not want this day of commemoration to be about the war or the end of the war; they want it to be about showing gratitude to Canada. That date is not April 30, 1975. They would like to adopt July 27, 1979, because that was the first date that refugees were brought into Canada by the Canadian Forces. Why can we not consider that option? I wish I had more time to go further into this.

I have had petitions sent to my office, and the one I am holding has more than 222 signatures from people all across the country who say that the process was severely biased and seriously flawed because it was undemocratically put forward and there is no transparency in the bill. People suggest that another date, any time in July, be set aside as the date, because that would help the community come together and not be further divided. The community wants to stand together to commemorate and to show their gratitude for Canada.

The bill says it is about giving gratitude, but it is called the journey to freedom day bill. Which journey to freedom does the bill actually talk about? That is the real question.

(1145) Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take

part in this debate on Bill S-219 . Before I read my notes, I would like to comment on some issues that were raised by the previous speaker. I do not think that she has a full understanding of the issues surrounding that journey to freedom. I will speak on more of a personal note, because I came to Canada from a Communist country and regime. The many people who came before me were escaping or trying to escape a regime that they did not want to live under. The same thing happened with those poor boat people. They were escaping because they did not want to live in a Communist regime and face oppression.

A quarter of a million people died trying to escape from that Communist regime in unsafe boats. Does that not speak for itself? I do not know who would need an explanation. The comment that was made was that the ambassador of Vietnam was not invited. The ambassador of Vietnam represents the current Government of Vietnam. It is not a democratic government. Let us make that clear. Therefore, I would not be surprised if the ambassador of Vietnam would not be in support of this bill or of creating a day to commemorate those brave people who were trying to escape to find a safe haven here, as many others have.

After the war, Canada opened its arms to a lot of people who came from Polish territories, people who took a terrible journey. They were sent by the Russians to Siberia. Hundreds of thousands of them died. No one ever knew the real number. They joined the army and fought alongside Canadians. After the war they had no country to go back to, so many of them came to Canada. We are very grateful for this. People of our generation, in the 1980s, were able to leave Communist Poland. They were stranded in refugee camps across Europe and other countries in the world. They found a safe refuge here.

We can repeat these stories with many groups from many places in the world. Canada has always been strong in supporting those who are oppressed and denied basic human and democratic rights. That is what this bill is about. Let us not confuse anyone. This is not a bill to divide communities; we have to fully understand who is a part of the community and who is not. On April 30, Canada's Vietnamese community commemorates the end of the Vietnam War, a day that this legislation would recognize as “journey to freedom day”.

It was on this day in 1975 that the fall of Saigon led to the exodus of over 840,000 Vietnamese citizens. They were prepared to take great risks. Many were even prepared to die, rather than suffer at the hands of the Communist regime. Many of those who fled the brutal regime had to resort to extreme measures. They fled on crowded, unseaworthy boats in the hope of escaping to their freedom. Tragically, many of the Vietnamese boat people did not survive the perilous journey. More than a quarter million of them drowned, starved, or were attacked by pirates.

Miraculously, more than 60,000 Vietnamese refugees did succeed in making their way to Canada. Canadians welcomed these refugees with open arms and even invited the refugees to stay with them in their homes. More than half of the refugees were privately sponsored by generous individuals and groups of Canadians from all walks of life.

(1150) Thanks to the overwhelming generosity and support of Canadians, entire refugee families were able to resettle here and build a new and peaceful life. Resettlement of such a large number of refugees in such a short amount of time was a tremendous achievement, and Canada's humanitarian efforts and compassion were recognized internationally. In response to these efforts in 1986, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees awarded the Canadian people the Nansen Medal, which is the refugee equivalent of the Nobel Prize.

This is the only time an entire country has been recognized with this honour, and for this we should all be proud. Bill S-219 aims to designate April 30 as the journey to freedom day. Not only would it commemorate the perilous journey 40 years ago of Vietnamese refugees to Canada, but it would also pay tribute to an incredible humanitarian role played by thousands of Canadians in community and church groups, who opened up their hearts and found ways to welcome Vietnamese refugees here in our great country.

As April 30 is already recognized by our Vietnamese community, it is appropriate to designate this day as a national day of remembrance. It would serve to commemorate the lives lost and the suffering experienced by people during the exodus. It would also mark their arrival to freedom and the gratitude of the Vietnamese people to Canadians for their generosity. It is a Canadian tradition to commemorate tragic lessons in history so that they are never repeated. We believe we must not ignore the past, and this includes the shameful past of our country's history.

Indeed, perhaps it is the memory of one of our own darkest moments that contributed to such an outpouring of generosity from Canadians toward the Vietnamese refugees. It is with great shame that Canadians recall the tragic decision to turn away the MS St. Louis in 1939. The outcome of that disturbing decision should not be forgotten. After being turned away by Cuba, the United States, and finally by Canada, the ship was forced to return to Europe, where almost one-third of its passengers ultimately perished in the Holocaust. To memorize and educate Canadians about the MS St.

Louis incident, a powerful memorial is now located at Pier 21 in Halifax, where the ship should have landed. On this day we would mark a tragic period in history, but we would also commemorate a very important part of our country's proud humanitarian tradition. The outpouring of support from Canadian people during this time underscores our country's commitment to providing protection to the world's most vulnerable.

A memorial would also serve to remind all Canadians of how fortunate we are to live in one of the most free and democratic countries in the world, and that we are proud to stand up for our values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It should also be noted that this period in Canadian history is one that is not as well known among younger Canadians today. Unlike the First and Second World Wars, the Korean War, and the Cold War, the Canadian connection to the Vietnam War is often overlooked. In conclusion, I would say that the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees is a very important

part in our Canadian history. That is why so many Canadians have voiced their support for the bill and are enthusiastic about the national day of commemoration. For this reason I urge all my colleagues to support the bill. It is a great bill, and we all, as Canadians, will be proud of it.

(1155) Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to be speaking after my colleague for Mississauga East—Cooksville , who spoke from the heart of his personal experience living under the regime of a communist government and who knows of what he speaks. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, when the forces from the north invaded the south, breaking the Paris agreement negotiated in 1973, and took over South Vietnam with the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975.

We put forward this bill, which originated in the other place, and I am honoured to be the co-sponsor of it in this House. This bill would serve three purposes. First, the bill would mark April 30 as a day to commemorate the fall of Saigon, when the communist forces of the north invaded the south and took over the country. Second, it would serve as a celebration of who we are as Canadians. We took in 60,000 boat people, refugees, who under extreme circumstances, made their way to Canada. We made them Canadian citizens, and they are now proud Canadians. That is the story of Canada.

Canada is made up of people from all over the world. We are all immigrants. We are all from some other place. We come here for hope and opportunity. That is what Canada represents to so many people around the world. People come here to escape persecution and hatred. They come here for a better life for themselves, and more importantly, for their children so that they can realize all of their dreams. That is why this bill is so important. Third, this bill would serve a pedagogical purpose. Canadians, whether they are Vietnamese, Jewish, or Polish does not matter, should all know the history of each other.

April 30 is a significant day for the Vietnamese people. It is also a a significant day because it marks a time when freedom ended for a group of people around the world, and our young people need to know that. They need to know that living in Canada bears a certain responsibility. Because we live in such a great country, because we live in the democracy we do, we have responsibilities. We have a responsibility to remember all of the past atrocities that have occurred around the world, from the Holocaust to the Holodomor to the Armenian genocide.

These are all important facts of global history, and yes, of Canadian history. This is why it is so important that all members of this House support Bill S-219 . It is because April 30 is a significant day in global history, but more importantly, the symbolic nature of this bill stands tall so that we as Canadians remember and do not forget. That is why when the time comes to show our support in this House, we must all stand in unanimity to support the journey to freedom day act, Bill S-219 . I ask all members to join me in supporting this bill.

(1200) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: Division on motion deferred The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 25, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion that Bill S-7,

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-7. Second reading Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of purpose that I am participating today in this debate on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I am supporting this legislation because I believe that men and women are equal, and our government believes that men and women are equal.

Passing this bill is critical to ensuring that immigrant girls and women have the same chances to position themselves for success in Canada as men and boys do. Canada has opened its doors to many people who have left their home countries to come here for a better life. Many have come for the rich opportunities. Many have fled persecution in search of safety and security. We want to ensure that they can live here in safety and security. We want them to know that they can live freely, because Canada upholds the enduring principles of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Those apply equally to men and women. We cannot just talk the talk; we have to walk the walk. This bill is an example of that today. Even in this House, we can see that immigrant women are making great contributions to Canada. I think of my fellow colleagues who are immigrant women, the MPs for Vancouver South , Richmond , and Fleetwood—Port Kells , just to name a few who were born elsewhere. They have been elected to Parliament, and they work every day toward a better Canada.

As legislators, we all owe it to immigrant girls and women to ensure that they are not hampered from making great contributions to Canada by discriminatory cultural practices and barbaric cultural practices, such as early and forced marriage, polygamy, and yes, so-called honour killings, which have no place in this country. Indeed, we have zero tolerance for such practices, and this bill sends that strong message. To that end, the Government of Canada is taking concrete steps.

Already our government is providing women who are newcomers to Canada with a whole range of services and programs to help them build their skills so they can enter the workforce and get great jobs here. I have had the opportunity to participate in graduations from some of these programs. I have to say that they truly are inspiring. They have such vim and vigour and a desire to get out and make a contribution. Two great organizations in my community, among many, that are doing this work are the Calgary Immigrant Women's Association and Immigrant Services Calgary.

They do things like co-op programs for professional women, job retraining, and mentorship. However, shockingly, groups that work with many of our immigrant women and girls also report that when they have left countries where barbaric practices are common, they find themselves subjected to them here. In the most recent Speech from the Throne, our Conservative government committed to ensuring that barbaric cultural practices do not occur here on Canadian soil. The Government of Canada, the people of Canada, will not tolerate barbaric cultural practices that hold women back. That is the bottom line.

It is up to us to ensure that immigrant women and girls are not being subjugated through isolation and violence. This bill codifies that in law. It says that practices like early and forced marriage, like polygamy and honour-based violence, will not be tolerated. Women and girls seeking a better life for themselves here in Canada should never be subject to living in constant fear under threat of violence or death simply for living their lives, for choosing whom they wish to marry, and for seeking better opportunities for themselves.

These practices are antithetical to the fundamental Canadian values of freedom and gender equality in which I firmly believe. According to Justice Canada, reports from criminal court cases, the media, and refugee decisions, there were at least a dozen killings from 1999 to 2009 committed in the name of so-called honour. These were premeditated killings, killings of girls and women, murders by family members. I am haunted by a case in my own home town of Calgary in March 1991, when 20-year-old Kulvinder Dulay was gunned down with her husband and a friend in a parking lot outside the mall by a family member.

Ontario was rocked in 2009 when four strong, vivacious women, the Shafias, were murdered by their own family in Kingston. We are prosecuting such crimes under our current laws, but we know that immigrant and newcomer women and girls face additional barriers when it comes to protecting themselves and seeking assistance compared to women who are born in Canada.

(1205) There were a reported 219 cases of forced marriage from 2010 to 2012 just in Ontario, and all of those individuals reported being victims of violence. These practices have a very negative effect on families and on society at large as well as on the communities in which they occur. Bill S-7 is the latest example of this government taking strong action to protect women and girls.

Our government has also recently updated Canada's citizenship guide, called Discover Canada , and the newcomers' orientation guide, called Welcome to Canada , to clearly state for people coming to Canada and people who want to be citizens that Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to harmful cultural practices like forced marriage or gender-based family violence. This is a great step. I have talked with our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recently about expanding the scope of the distribution of these guides to all of our embassies worldwide. However, our efforts do not stop there.

Status of Women, a committee on which I am privileged to sit, has also invested $2.8 million for community-based projects that address harmful cultural practices. Justice Canada and the Status of Women co-chair an interdepartmental working group on early and forced marriage, honour-based violence, and female genital mutilation. Since 2009, Justice Canada has been busy holding workshops. It has held six sector-specific workshops with police, crowns, victims services, child protection officials, and shelter workers to build capacity among the people who deal with these issues on the front lines.

As I said, we know that more needs to be done to protect girls and women in our immigration system. That is why Bill S-7 is necessary. To ensure the effectiveness of the measures in this bill, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration consulted with immigration advocates and others in this field for many months, across the country, to formulate the policies that would stop violence and abuse. Those experts told us that barbaric practices still occur on Canadian soil and that we need to act. They gave advice and made very important recommendations that were included in this bill.

That led us to where we are today. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act would send a clear and unambiguous message to Canadians and newcomers that such practices are verboten. It would strengthen our laws to protect Canadians and newcomers from these harmful practices by ensuring, for example, that people know that it is a crime to participate in these barbaric cultural practices. We would remove the defence of provocation in the case of so-called honour killings.

We would declare that the practices of some cultures are not consistent with Canadian laws and that Canadians will not tolerate cultural practices that deprive individuals, girls, and women of their human rights. To repeat, this bill would support women and girls who have come to Canada for a better life. It would make it clear that under no circumstances do Canadians accept or allow the propagation or enactment of barbaric cultural practices that target women.

Aruna Papp, who was a victim of early and forced marriage, says this about Bill S-7 : The government's Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act recognizes the plight of these women. In presenting this bill, the government of Canada has said, in effect, “as a Canadian citizen, you, too, deserve to live a life free of violence and coercion.” For this, I am grateful. For this, I too am grateful. This bill needs to become law to prevent more young victims like Aruna Papp.

I implore the opposition members who refuse to stand up for those victims and who say that action is not needed for such a small problem to support this bill, to think of Aruna Papp, of Lee Marsh, of the four members of the Shafia family, and of all the victims of these barbaric practices. I know that members of both opposition parties say that they are in favour of women's rights. Yet both parties voted against Bill S-2 , which gave aboriginal women long-denied matrimonial property rights last year. That is a game changer for them.

I encourage all of my hon. colleagues, and especially those members of the opposition who sit with me on the Status of Women committee, to lead their colleagues and stand up for women and girls. I ask them to vote for Bill S-7 and stand up for victims of violence and abuse.

(1210) [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. In her introduction, she outlined the fundamental principle of gender equality in Canada, a principle that we obviously subscribe to. In that sense, Bill S-7 seems to contain a tremendous number of measures that deal with what happens after the fact, in other words, the way the Canadian government or the court must react once the action we wish to avoid is committed.

Can my colleague explain what measures in Bill S-7 deal with prevention, support or education to ensure that what the bill seeks to criminalize simply does not happen in the first place? [ English ] Ms. Joan Crockatt : Mr. Speaker, I take the member at his word and I hope he will show that he and his party do stand for the equality of women by supporting the bill. One of the most important aspects of the bill is prevention.

The bill sends a message to immigrant men and other people in the community at large that these barbaric cultural practices that are sometimes practised in the countries from which our immigrants come, will not be tolerated in Canada. That would be clearly defined in the Criminal Code. They would know that the defence of provocation, which is often used in other places as a way of justifying the horrific act of killing their daughters because they disagree with whom they wish to go out with or marry, is not acceptable in Canada.

That is exactly the message the Immigrant Services Calgary and the Calgary Immigrant Women's Association are telling me. These people need to hear it. They need to hear it in Canada and before they come to Canada so that they are aware that they cannot continue these practices in our country, on Canadian soil. Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 is a very important piece of legislation because it seeks to protect the most vulnerable, these young girls who in many cases have absolutely no choice.

There are children born and raised in our country who at a young age find themselves having to deal with a situation where they are being forced into a marriage in another country. Quite often during a summer break from high school their parents force them to go overseas to marry someone who has been promised from birth. Could the member tell us what she hears in her communities about the impact on these young ladies who feel powerless today to speak out so these kinds of things do not happen? Bill S-7 clearly puts measures in place that would prevent such atrocious acts from happening in families in Canada.

(1215) Ms. Joan Crockatt : Mr. Speaker, I really feel grateful that I have colleagues who will stand up for young women, like my fellow colleague who is asking me the question. It is critical that we have the support of men for these sorts of bills. In the case of forced marriages, I am sure all of us in the House actually know, or have heard of cases close to them, of someone who has been coerced or is fearful of being coerced into a forced marriage. The bill would make it a crime to take a young girl out of the country for the purpose of a forced marriage.

It would give the opportunity to have passports revoked in some instances. It would show those young girls, because their friends and other people would tell them, it is not allowed in Canada, it is illegal and that they cannot make them do that in Canada. My own niece told me of an example of someone in her university class who told her this was the situation she was being placed in. Fortunately, I do not think it happened, but it is something that is happening. There were 219 cases in Ontario alone between 2010 and 2012, and those are just the ones we know about. We must act. [ Translation ] Mr.

Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we count in days or months, but as of May 2, it will be four years that I have been sitting in this House. In four years, I have considered every opportunity to speak as a great privilege. The problem is that today, I have come to consider this not only a matter of privilege, but also a matter of chance since we will soon be approaching the 100th time allocation motion. This morning, we are having another fundamental debate in the House.

We are debating a bill from the Senate instead of from the House of Commons and we are doing so under a time allocation motion. I therefore have just 10 minutes to speak to an issue as important as the one we are addressing this morning. I am well aware that in taking a minute of introduction to talk about what I call procedural irregularities, I am cutting into my speaking time. However, since I do not have enough time anyway, I think it is important to convey a clear message.

The place for debate is in the House of Commons, and every member of Parliament should have not only the opportunity to speak to issues that are important to them, but also the time to get their point across, which is less and less the case these days. Let us get to the crux of the matter. Before advancing some well-founded criticisms of Bill S-7 , I would like to stress that we are totally opposed to the practices of polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage. I remain firmly convinced that these practices are completely inconsistent with the common values we share, both in Quebec and in Canada.

The NDP strongly condemns these types of violence endured by women, but refuses to associate these practices with specific cultural groups. By associating these crimes and these types of violence with cultural practices, the

short title of Bill S-7 , the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act , which I have read for the benefit of everyone following our debate, reminds us of the Conservatives' mediocrity and their ignorance of the realities of cultural communities. By claiming that cultural groups have a monopoly on these types of violence, the Conservatives are engaging in their usual practices of witch hunts, divisiveness and stigmatization.

In addition to playing on racial prejudices, Bill S-7 , at best, duplicates provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada and, at worst, has negative effects that exacerbate the exclusion of women and children who are the victims of violence. I will give a few examples of the negative effects of Bill S-7 . This government has a long history of flawed legislation, for example, the measures introduced in March 2012 to supposedly crack down on marriage fraud. Under these measures, sponsored individuals are required to live with their sponsor for two years.

If the sponsored person does not meet that requirement, then he or she could face criminal charges and deportation from Canada. Fear of deportation leads these sponsored individuals to remain silent in the face of domestic violence and other types of discrimination. As a result, sponsored women who are abused become withdrawn, which only serves to further exclude them from society. In the same vein, Motion No. 505, which was moved by a Conservative member, sought to combat forced marriages by banning distance marriages.

Once again, the Conservatives completely missed the mark, since it is mainly refugees who make use of distance marriages. In an attempt to do away with the harmful practice of forced marriage, the Conservatives instead limited family reunification for refugees. Bill S-7 confirms the Conservatives' reputation as bad legislators.

(1220) Bill S-7 deprives women who are conditional permanent residents of provisions that protect them from deportation if their spouse proves to be a polygamist. What is more, the bill imposes criminal sanctions on minors who participate in a forced marriage, which can seriously harm their future since they would have a criminal record for the rest of their lives. These negative effects show that the Conservatives' repressive approach is quickly reaching its limits and is counterproductive.

Rather than dealing with problems at their source, the Conservatives are focusing their efforts on a bill with a sensationalized title that is designed to win votes. Rather than just trying to score points with its voter base, this government should set up a consultation process with stakeholders to truly address the problem of gender-based violence. Although experts and groups made recommendations as part of the study by the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, the minister chose to ignore their advice and warnings about the negative effects of Bill S-7 .

The minister chose to base the provisions of his bill on social prejudices and the stigmatization of certain cultural groups. In short, the minister is playing politics by deliberately associating harmful practices with cultural groups. The Conservatives deliberately ignored the opinions of experts and community groups, and their superficial approach in the provisions of this bill is bewildering. For example, the bill would amend the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent legal requirements for marriage.

However, these provisions are already part of the Quebec Civil Code and common law provisions in the other provinces. The bill does not add a single new measure. It is nothing but smoke and mirrors. This legislative inflation is compounded by the flaws in this bill. Sponsors are often more familiar with the workings of the immigration and legal systems than the immigrant women they sponsor.

This bill denies sponsored immigrant women access to a process that would inform them of the basic immigration rules, which means that these individuals are on their own and are at an increased risk of social and economic exclusion. Once again, education, awareness and support services are being set aside in favour of a largely repressive and election-minded approach. The NDP's approach to the matter is much clearer. As I mentioned, the minister's approach is simplistic and focuses above all on the punitive component.

To address the problems this bill deals with, the NDP has developed an approach based on awareness and prevention and on providing services to help newcomers integrate more effectively. First of all, we want to amend the bill to ensure that victims of forced or early marriage are exempt from the requirements of conditional permanent residence. This exemption would protect vulnerable women against violence and abuse at the hands of their sponsors. The conditional permanent residence status requires that the person being sponsored live under the same roof as the spouse who is sponsoring them for two years.

If the sponsor is being violent or abusing the person being sponsored, that requirement for two years of cohabitation must be removed. We are also calling on the government to introduce a provision in the bill that guarantees the delivery of prevention and support services for victims of forced or early marriage. I will close by saying that for all of these reasons and others that I unfortunately did not have time to go over, I will be opposing this bill at second reading. However, I would like to reiterate that we unequivocally condemn forced marriage, polygamy and early marriage.

However, the fact remains that this bill creates more problems than it solves. The Conservatives have managed to fail on three counts in this area. There is the legislative failure, since Bill S-7 has many adverse effects that increase the exclusion of immigrant women and children. They also failed when it comes to consultation, as they have done for almost every other bill, too. Lastly, the Conservatives have failed in terms of their approach when it comes to violence against women by refusing to implement our national action plan to end violence against women in Canada.

I will stop there and I look forward to questions from the members.

(1225) [ English ] Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I noticed a fairly glaring omission in the member opposite's speech today, in that he neglected to mention honour killings. He said he was opposed to polygamy, forced marriage, and underage marriage, even though he is voting against them, which is unconscionable, but makes no mention of being against honour killings. This is an extremely serious issue, with girls and women being killed by family members under the guise of them having been dishonoured when the girls and women want to date or marry someone.

Does the member believe he should be denying support for women and girls who are facing these kinds of barbaric practices under the guise that he does not like them being called “cultural practices”, which I should point out is what the United Nations calls them? [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It gives me an opportunity to talk about some issues I did not have time to address because of the lack of time. We are under time allocation, so I had to keep my speech to 10 minutes.

It goes without saying that I cannot condone honour killing, but the way I am defending our position shows that the Conservatives' Bill S-7 , like so many of this government's bills, is an attempt to create a tough-on-crime image. Still, what else are we saying? We are saying that after the crime is committed, we will react vigorously.

What I would also like to see in the bill, and what we have proposed pretty much every time in connection with this new law, are measures to prevent these crimes from being committed and to give the people who are victims of these crimes the financial resources, knowledge and support to become full Canadian citizens, people who are aware of all of the measures available to them, as quickly as possible. Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if I understood my colleague's speech correctly, this is a punitive bill. It is not in any way preventive.

There is no help for the people affected by this bill. It covers things that other laws already cover, and it could produce consequences such as the deportation of people who have done nothing wrong. Given all of that, what is the purpose of this bill?

(1230) Mr. Robert Aubin : Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague reads the bill exactly the same way I do. The goal, if we can call it that, is patently clear. This is electioneering based on fear, to shore up support from the Conservative base and, provided people buy this type of speech, to try to broaden that base. However, I do not see anything in Bill S-7 that deals with prevention and support. We ask our friends across the way the same question every time and the answers are consistent with the bill every time.

In other words, the government does not see the problem and does not seem open to amendments that would help improve this bill. Every time, we get rhetoric that is black or white, positive or negative, for or against, when in reality the world we live in is much more nuanced than that and there are many shades of grey that almost never appear in the Conservatives' bills. [ English ] Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the second reading debate of Bill S-7 , the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that all people in Canada have the right to be free from violence and to reach their full potential. It is a sad reality, however, that there are people in Canada, principally women and girls, who are subjected to forced or early marriage. Prior to or within these marriages, the victims experience various forms of violence, and because of these marriages they are hindered in their ability to fully and successfully participate in our free and democratic society.

I would like to take this opportunity to focus my remarks today on the specific issues of early and forced marriage. An early marriage is a marriage that takes place before one or both individuals involved have reached the minimum legal age of marriage. International studies have shown that a girl married at an early age can face domestic servitude, as well as sexual and domestic violence. Girls are predominately the victims of child marriage, increasing the risk of violence and creating a significant barrier to achieving gender equality, as they are regularly forced to disrupt or abandon their education.

A forced marriage is considered to be a marriage that takes place without the free and enlightened consent of one or both individuals involved. As with early marriages, forced marriages are predominately perpetrated by the victim's own family members. The consequences of a forced marriage are numerous, including repeated sexual violence and possible physical assault and domestic servitude.

We have seen tragic cases in Canada and around the world where individuals who have refused to enter into a marriage against their will, or who have left their forced marriage, have been brutally assaulted and even murdered by their family members. Our government takes the safety and well-being of Canadians, particularly children, very seriously. It is firmly committed to protecting vulnerable Canadians from all types of violence and to holding perpetrators accountable for their acts.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act proposes important legislative measures to better prevent Canadians from being victimized by early or forced marriage. Changes to the Civil Marriage Act would set a new national minimum age for marriage at 16 years. It would formally entrench in federal law the existing requirements that each party to a marriage enter into it with their free and enlightened consent, and that any previous marriage must be officially dissolved before a new marriage is entered into. There is currently no national minimum age below which a marriage is legally invalid.

Under the Constitution, setting an absolute minimum age for marriage is a matter of federal jurisdiction, yet, apart from federal legislation that sets a 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. Remarkably, this old common law sets the minimum age at 14 years for boys and 12 for girls. It is time that we modernize and set in legislation an absolute national minimum age of 16 years for marriages in Canada. Many have questioned why this bill proposes an absolute minimum age of 16 years as opposed to 18 years.

The short answer is that there are exceptional circumstances where a mature minor wishes to marry and has already engaged in a significant commitment with their partner, for instance, where they have a child in common. This approach is also consistent with the majority of like-minded countries that also have 16 years as an absolute minimum age for marriage, and 18 as the free age for marriage without any additional requirements for consent.

Between the age of 16 years and the age of majority, either 18 or 19, depending on the jurisdiction, the provincial and territorial marriage acts provide additional safeguards to help protect young people from marriages that are not in their best interest. Bill S-7 proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code so that it would be a criminal offence for anyone to solemnize a marriage, whether they have legal authority to do so or not, who does so knowing that one of the parties being married is under the age of 16 years or is marrying against their will.

This is a pretty strong deterrent, and it would send a clear message that solemnizing this marriage is not only illegal under civil law but it is also a crime.

(1235) To complement the underage marriage offences, Bill S-7 also amends the provisions in the Criminal Code that set out the minimum age for sexual activity. As members will recall, in 2008 this government increased the minimum age of consent to sexual activities from 14 years to 16 years, with exceptions for those who are close in age and where the parties were married. Because there was no national minimum age of marriage at the time, the exception for married couples was retained. I am proud to say that Bill S-7 will change that.

Once this legislation is in force, it will be illegal to marry a person under the age of 16, which corresponds to the age of consent for sexual activity. There will no longer be a need for an exception where the victim is below the age of 16 and married to the accused. The bill would also amend the Criminal Code to make clear that anyone who actively participates in a marriage ceremony with full knowledge that one or both of the participants is under the age of 16 or is marrying against their will may be criminally liable.

This will not apply to a person who is merely present at the ceremony, even if they know that a party to the marriage does not consent. In order to trigger the criminal offence, the individual must play an active role in ensuring that the ceremony takes place while knowing that it involves a child under the age of 16 or a person who is being forced to marry against their will. Moreover, there have been cases of Canadian children being taken abroad to be married at an early age and forced into a marriage. This is simply unacceptable.

The bill would make it a crime for anyone to remove a child who is ordinarily resident in Canada from the country with the intent that the child be subjected to an underage or forced marriage abroad. Finally, the bill would introduce a new peace bond in the Criminal Code, which would be available where there are reasonable grounds to fear that an underage or forced marriage will occur.

The new peace bond would permit a court to impose conditions precluding the defendant from making arrangements related to the marriage of a potential victim, requiring him or her to surrender travel documents, and preventing him or her from leaving the country with a potential victim. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration travelled across Canada, conducting round tables with various cultural communities, and participants told him that early and forced marriage is still a harsh reality in this country.

While the opposition refuse to support this legislation, our government is taking a stand and making it clear: forced marriage, honour-based violence, or any other form of harmful cultural practices are unacceptable and will not be tolerated in Canada. In closing, the bill would provide individuals, communities, and criminal justice system authorities with the tools that are needed to tackle these issues. I encourage all members of the House to support Bill S-7 . [ Translation ] Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and it goes without saying that we share his concerns about violence against women and girls. Another concern is the title of this bill. We are not saying that these practices are acceptable, but we are very concerned about the language used. This concern was also expressed when this bill was being examined in the Senate, and a number of MPs have spoken about this issue in the House. Obviously, we want to do everything we can as legislators to protect women and girls and put an end to this violence.

However, does my colleague not think that using words like “barbaric” in the title of the bill is putting us on a slippery slope and is a way of distorting the debate rather than getting to the heart of such an important issue? (1240) [ English ] Mr. Corneliu Chisu : Mr. Speaker, we are not hiding behind words. I want to reiterate that the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act demonstrates that Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to early and forced marriage, polygamy, or other types of barbaric cultural practices.

Canada will not tolerate any type of violence against women nor girls, including spousal abuse, violence in the name of so-called honour, or other, mostly gender-based violence. Those who are guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal law. Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Pickering—Scarborough East for focusing his speech on forced marriages.

I also thank the member for his support of my private member's bill which disallowed forms of forced marriages, those being telephone, fax, Internet and proxy marriages, for the purposes of immigration, and which asked the government to change those regulations so newcomers to Canada and new Canadians would understand clearly that these kinds of practices would not be tolerated. The Liberal leader stated that the use of the term “barbaric”, in particular, was not warranted when talking about some of these practices.

I would like to know what the member for Pickering—Scarborough East thinks about that and, specifically, the government's efforts to acknowledge that these are, in fact, barbaric practices. Should we be doing this and why is it so important for the government to do so? Mr. Corneliu Chisu : Mr. Speaker, we are in a great country, a democratic country, and enjoy our freedoms and liberties. Unfortunately, some actions by people who live in our beautiful country are not in line with our history, our country and our democracy.

It is very important not to hide behind the words of barbarians, and there are barbarians in our country. We should look forward, develop legislation to replace outdate legislation, and implement it so we can evolve in the future and not go back to the past. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak 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 . This Conservative government calls this Senate bill the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act . Before I talk about the substance of the bill, I would like to make a few comments about its title, which, when studied in the Senate, was severely criticized by stakeholders, the people who work on the ground and community groups that help women in precarious situations. We find that the

short title of the bill is xenophobic because of the use of the term “barbaric”, and that it reinforces existing prejudice against certain cultural groups by targeting racial minorities for certain practices that are in fact found in Canadian society. We know that violence against women occurs throughout Canadian society and that we must address this serious problem. However, as several witnesses and stakeholders pointed out, targeting minority groups and using language that instils fear and reinforces prejudice against cultural groups does absolutely nothing to improve the situation.

This is a very serious issue. Polygamy, forced marriage and underage marriage are practices that we must tackle. We must find solutions that help women who find themselves in such situations in Canada. Yes, this does exist and does happen here in Canada. However, we are convinced that this bill is not an appropriate response to the serious problem of gender-based violence, which, I repeat, is not a cultural problem.

In fact, we have seen that Bill S-7 could further aggravate the problems that exist in Canadian society with respect to forced marriage and could also jeopardize the safety and autonomy of women in forced marriages. The Conservatives are fearmongering by introducing this bill, which does nothing to solve the problems faced by women in forced marriages. We have studied Bill S-7 and we believe that it could have some serious consequences. For example, victims of polygamy could be criminalized, children could be deported and families could be separated.

The Conservative government claims to want to help women, but it is doing nothing to ensure that women have access to the services they truly need. Groups across Canada that work to help these women are vastly underfunded. I have visited a few of them in Montreal, including the South Asian Women's Community Centre. This group is one of dozens of others across the country that help these women and these families. They work very hard with very few resources. What do these groups want, so that they can help these women and families, who are often living in precarious situations?

They are calling for safe, affordable housing to provide more security for these families and these women. They are also calling for resources to provide psychological help to these families and these women, since, as members will understand, the situations these women are in can sometimes be traumatic. It is important to provide this assistance as well. Groups working on the ground are also calling for assistance for the families, which are often traumatized by having to go through the complicated legal and immigration systems.

(1245) Organizations on the ground are also asking for help for families that have, in many cases, been traumatized by complicated processes in the justice and immigration systems. This bill offers none of the much-needed resources to help these families and these women. This bill will also have some deeply damaging consequences. The Conservative government is used to pushing its bills through without consulting the community or the people who work directly with these women.

On that note, I would like to talk about some of the laws the Conservative government has passed that have had unintended consequences for immigrants to Canada. In March 2012, the Conservatives introduced new measures to crack down on marriage fraud, including a requirement for a sponsored spouse to live with their sponsor for two years or face deportation and possible criminal charges. Again, witnesses who came to Parliament to offer recommendations criticized this bill because of its negative consequences.

It leaves women vulnerable to abuse because they are reluctant to report abuse for fear of losing permanent residency. What is more, the Conservative member for Mississauga South , who is in the House today, moved Motion No. 505 in April 2014. This motion purported to attack forced marriages by banning marriages by proxy, telephone or fax from qualifying for spousal sponsorship. Perhaps her intention was good since more measures are needed to address the issue of forced marriage.

However, this measure does not help vulnerable individuals, immigrants and refugees, who are often the ones who make use of distance marriages. This measure served to limit family reunification rather than forced marriage. The measures that I just mentioned thus have a number of negative consequences that put victims of forced marriage, primarily women, at an even greater risk. I would like to speak about what we would have liked to see in this bill in order to provide real support for women who are victims of forced marriage and abuse.

First of all, we would have liked that the bill allow victims of forced or underage marriages to be exempt from the requirements of conditional permanent residence. This was also recommended by the experts who appeared before the committee. It has become apparent that conditional permanent residence is revoked in such cases. This measure was introduced in October 2012 and applies to spouses, common-law or conjugal partners in a relationship of two years or less with their sponsor and who have no children in common with the sponsor at the time of the sponsorship application.

These sponsored spouses or partners have a condition attached to their permanent residence status for a period of two years from the day they receive their conditional permanent resident status in Canada. Once again, this is the measure that was presented by my colleague. We are proposing that the spouses and children of a person who is deported for having lied to the authorities about their marital status be allowed to remain in Canada where they have settled. Our approach is focused on protecting victims.

(1250) I think that any bill must take into consideration the realities facing victims and help and encourage them to report the abuse. However, that is not what this bill does. Instead, this is a punitive bill, and that is why we are opposed to Bill S-7 .

(1255) Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She mentioned one issue in particular. I tried to ask a member across the aisle a question about this earlier, but unfortunately, he avoided the question and repeated the government's talking points about zero tolerance for such acts, and so on. As my colleague put it so well, of course we all oppose violence against women and want to get at the root of the problem. I want to come back to that point, which is one that the Conservative members appear incapable of addressing.

Should we not be concerned about the terms used in the bill's title? Rather than getting at the root of the problem and addressing it properly, the Conservatives chose words that fuel fear and could lead to stereotypes about certain cultural communities by painting everybody with the same brush, when we all know very well that the acts listed in the bill are relatively rare. Indeed, this calls for zero tolerance. However, does my colleague not find the government's approach problematic in that regard? Ms. Laurin Liu : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Indeed, the very title of this bill is an indication that the government wants to use it to play politics and spread fear of cultural minorities. We know that violence against women is committed throughout Canadian society, not just within cultural communities. We also know that the Conservatives have no credibility when it comes to violence against women. They refused to launch a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women, and they refuse to take other acts of violence against women elsewhere in Canada seriously.

By rejecting our amendments to this private member's bill, the government is refusing to truly take into account the realities that women are facing. [ English ] Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak during the debate on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. To begin, I would like to offer a bit of context. Five years ago, the Government of Canada introduced a new citizenship guide called Discover Canada, which is used by prospective new Canadians to learn about Canadian citizenship and to prepare for their mandatory citizenship test.

Since its introduction, the guide has proven to be popular not only with newcomers to Canada but also with many Canadians interested in learning about the rights and responsibilities that come with being a citizen of our great country. One of the important points made explicit to all readers of Discover Canada is that men and women are equal under Canadian law. The guide states that: Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation...or other gender-based violence.

Although the equality of men and women is not only the law but a fundamental Canadian value, unfortunately violence against women and girls continues to affect tens of thousands of Canadians each year. Barbaric cultural practices still exist as a reality for many Canadian women. The effects on victims are devastating and far-reaching, and they impact our children, homes, and communities. In the most recent Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister unambiguously committed to taking concrete steps to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls in Canada.

Bill S-7 is exactly such a step, and its passage will meet the throne speech commitment by helping to ensure that barbaric cultural practices, including underage and forced marriage, do not occur on Canadian soil. If and when implemented, the measures in this bill would improve protection and support for vulnerable immigrants, especially women and girls, and indeed all Canadians in a number of different ways. They would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible for practising polygamy in Canada.

They 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 criminalize certain conduct related to underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriages.

They would help protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new specific court-ordered peace bond if there are grounds to fear someone would commit an offence in this area. They would ensure that the defence of provocation would not apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides. All of these proposed amendments are practical and effective measures that would strengthen the protection of vulnerable individuals in Canada and help address the problems stemming from harmful cultural practices. In my remaining time, I would like to elaborate on some of these measures.

I will start with those that address the practice of polygamy. While it is against the law in Canada to practise polygamy or to enter into a polygamous union and while that ban has been upheld as constitutional, such is not the case everywhere in the world. Indeed, some newcomers to Canada come from countries where polygamy is legal and culturally acceptable. To complement existing criminal law and prevent polygamy on Canadian soil within the immigration context, Bill S-7 would create a new inadmissibility in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for anyone practising polygamy in Canada.

This would enhance existing immigration tools to render both temporary and permanent residents inadmissible for practising polygamy in Canada, regardless of whether there is a criminal conviction or misrepresentation. I will now turn my attention to measures in Bill S-7 that would address the problem of early and forced marriage by amending the Civil Marriage Act.

(1300) It may surprise some to know that Canada has no national minimum age for marriage. It is only in federal law, applicable in Quebec, that the minimum age is set at 16 years old. In other parts of Canada common law applies, and as such, the minimum age is 14 for boys and 12 for girls, although historically it went as low as age seven. Bill S-7 would set a national minimum age of 16 years old for marriage, which would make it clear that underage marriage is unacceptable in Canada and will not be tolerated.

Other amendments to the Civil Marriage Act proposed in Bill S-7 would codify the requirement that those getting married give their free and enlightened consent to the marriage and would codify the requirement for the dissolution of any previous marriage.

Bill S-7 would also help prevent forced or underage marriage by amending the Criminal Code to criminalize actions that are deliberately taken for the purpose of helping such marriages occur and would create a new peace bond that would give courts the power to impose specific conditions on an individual when there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age 16 would otherwise occur.

Finally, measures in Bill S-7 would also amend the Criminal Code to address honour killings as well as other spousal homicides so that lawful conduct by a victim can no longer be legally considered as a provocation that reduces the seriousness of the murder. This would not only prevent the defence of provocation from being raised in cases of honour killings but would also bring our criminal law in line with Canadian values, which hold people responsible for their murderous rage even where they were verbally insulted or otherwise had their feelings hurt by some lawful conduct of the victim before the killing.

The opposition to this bill is unfounded. The NDP member for Parkdale—High Park suggested that the government give more resources to front-line agencies. Is the member opposite even aware that since 2006, under this government, settlement funding has been tripled from below $200 million to almost $600 million? In fact, in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we heard settlement organizations ask us to give them more tools to help with so-called honour-based violence.

It is clear that while the NDP refuses to take any action, our government is taking steps to ensure that so-called honour-based violence does not continue on Canadian soil. The Liberal Party refuses to even admit that these practices are barbaric. The leader of the Liberal Party believes that the title is too harsh. Here is another example of the Liberal Party not standing up for what is right. As usual, it refuses to stand up for victims.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act is an important piece of legislation that would send a clear message to individuals coming to this country that harmful and violent traditions are unacceptable in Canada. I hope all hon. members will support this bill at second reading. (1305) [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this bill could cause some women and children to be sent back to their country of origin. If they are happy in Canada, I imagine they will not really feel like returning with their spouse or their father to their country of origin.

Would the hon. member be prepared to make amendments to the bill in order to protect these people and ensure that no victims are deported? [ English ] Mr. Devinder Shory : Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the NDP refuses to take any action. Since we formed government, some 30 or so bills have been passed. I wonder if the member supported any of those bills, such as the bills that addressed issues to deal with criminals and give victims the rights they deserve.

On the other hand, we are very clear on this side that we will not tolerate any spousal abuse, so-called honour killing, or other gender-based violence in Canadian society. It is also very clear that polygamy is not allowed and must not be allowed on Canadian soil. This is what the bill is all about, whether it be polygamy, honour killing, or spousal abuse. We on this side strongly believe that spousal abuse should not be allowed and that there should be consequences. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : Mr. Speaker, first, that does not answer my question at all.

Second, does he not think that this legislation will be for naught if women in polygamous marriages dare not speak out against the criminal actions of their husband for fear of being sent back to their country of origin? [ English ] Mr. Devinder Shory : Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is referring to those spouses who are sponsored and are still under the conditional permanent resident status. Our government has taken action to protect vulnerable Canadians, particularly women and girls, from early and forced marriages and other harmful cultural practices.

I would remind the member that through the information for sponsored spouses and partners, we advise immigrant women that those who are subject to conditional permanent residency and who are victims of abuse or neglect do not have to remain in abusive situations. A brochure, created by CIC, also informs them how to contact CIC and others and where they can find help. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, could the member comment on issues that the department is ultimately responsible for? One of the big issues I have found consistently is the issue of the processing time of marriages.

When we talk about different types of arranged marriages, it is important that we recognize that to a certain degree there are arranged marriages that do occur today that are in fact quite acceptable by modern standards. I wonder if he might want to provide some comment on that.

(1310) Mr. Devinder Shory : Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this bill has to do with arranged and other marriages. The Liberal Party does not want to talk about protecting women and girls who are forced to be married under age or are forced to live in polygamous relations. On this side it is very different. The Liberal Party leader refuses to admit that these practices are barbaric. He believes the term is too harsh. It is another example that the Liberal Party does not stand for what is right, and as usual, refuses to stand up for victims. Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, in preparing for this brief speech I was not exactly sure how I wanted to begin. However, after reading my background notes I am left to wonder why this piece of legislation has even been introduced. It is becoming evident to me that the current Conservative government really is not interested in making Canada a better place in which to live. In fact, sometimes I think it is the opposite. We have seen a number of pieces of legislation introduced with sensational titles such as this one, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, that play to the emotions but often lack substance.

We have seen this with various so-called tough-on-crime bills introduced in the past years in spite of the fact that our crime rate is falling. In the U.S., which has an alarmingly high rate of incarceration, there are discussions to reject this punitive and primitive approach that is not working and determine which other measures are needed to ensure that those found guilty can return safely and become productive members of society. In other words, that is the approach we have always had in this country, at least until very recently.

A lot of what is presented by the government I would say is meant to increase fear amongst Canadians with respect to problems that may not even really exist. Let us look at Bill C-51 , which gives sweeping powers to the government to infringe upon our rights and freedoms. Thousands of Canadians took to the streets last Saturday to protest against the draconian measures of this bill. The sad truth is that we already have adequate measures to protect us from terrorist threats under existing legislation. I believe and will venture to say that a lot of these bills are just a simple waste of time.

Rather than concentrating on crime and fear, perhaps we could realistically tackle issues that are facing us, such as climate change, poverty, the lack of affordable housing, the erosion of our health care system, and the thousands of working poor we have in this country. [ Translation ] Experts who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights explained that criminalization will not solve the problem and instead will exacerbate it. In fact, several Criminal Code provisions already provide legal recourse with regard to the offences targeted by the bill.

Instead of politicizing the issue of gender-based violence, the government could strengthen the legislative measures already in place. It must also commit to implementing a national action plan to combat violence against women and invest more in the organizations that provide services to women in forced or underage marriages. Naturally, we agree that no woman should be subject to gender-based violence, including the practices of forced marriage and underage marriage.

The bill could have serious unintended consequences, including the criminalization of the victims of polygamy, criminalization and deportation of children, and separation of families. (1315) [ English ] As an aside, I sometimes get the impression that a lot of the bills that are presented here are not really thought out. A bill is presented and then we get an opinion back from the legal profession saying that it may not stand up to court challenges or that it is not well written and thought out.

I think this bill falls into that category. [ Translation ] Instead of a sensationalized bill that does not get at the root of the problem, the minister should commit to widespread and meaningful consultations with community groups and experts so that the real issue of gender-based violence is addressed in an effective manner.

The government should also increase investments in organizations that provide services such as safe and affordable housing, counselling and help for families that are often traumatized by the fact that they must navigate complicated legal and immigration systems. [ English ] The thing is that what is happening with this bill, what I have learned in going through some background information, is that the information here often duplicates our existing laws.

For example, the bill would change the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent legal requirements for marriage, but these requirements are already part of the civil code of Quebec and common law in other provinces. The bill would limit the defence of provocation, ostensibly to exclude honour killings, but courts have already ruled that the concept of honour and the culturally driven sense of what is an appropriate response do not count as provocation under the Criminal Code.

Canadian criminal law already provides recourse relevant in most cases involving forced marriage, prior to and after the marriage, as well as in cases of travelling with a minor with the intent to force her or him to marry. I am just going to list what it includes because it is important for my colleagues here to understand that we have adequate measures in our current legislation for a lot of this information that we are discussing and we are voting on. For example, it includes uttering threats,

section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. It includes assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, abduction of a young person, procuring feigned marriage, removal of a child from Canada, extortion, sexual offences against children and youth, failure to provide necessities of life and abandoning children, abduction of a young person and, moreover, spousal abuse, abuse of a child and abuse of a position of trust and so on. We have to ask ourselves this. If in fact we have provisions in our current legislation to address these issues, why are we taking time to do another bill?

I would like to submit that perhaps we are doing this because the Conservatives want to sensationalize certain aspects of our society and play to the base, to the fear factor that I talked about before. Witnesses at the Senate committee hearings pointed out that immigrant women often have significantly less information about the Canadian immigration and legal systems than their sponsoring partners, which allows their sponsors to threaten and manipulate them. However, this bill would make no provision for providing women with basic information about immigration rules or with adequate integration services.

Families who have suffered from violence and harmful practices need adequate supports and programs, especially since the challenges faced by survivors of forced marriages are unique. However, this bill makes no reference to support services. That is an interesting point. We have seen, for example, the sensationalism about Bill C-51 , this anti-terrorism bill, and all the provisions that are going into the bill. However, there is really very little about resources to people in the field, to our police and to others who keep our society safe or, in this case, resources that are provided for the safety of women.

It is no secret that under the current government, women's centres have lost funding, that the organizations that support and work with women who are undergoing violence and spousal abuse do not have the resources that they had a decade ago. At the same time, we see a bill that supposedly would address the situation, but there is nothing on the ground to help those people when they approach a centre, if in fact the centre is still allowed to exist.

According to UNICEF, if Canada wants to ensure the protection of children from human trafficking, it must recognize that Canadian children who become victims of trafficking largely end up that way as a result of a series of failures in the protective system.

(1320) Many children live in low-income families without adequate access to community support services that could prevent the risk of exploitation. Many need educational support and mental health services, but do not receive them. In 2008, Denmark's parliament unanimously passed a law making it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry. However, six years after the law was enacted, the police have not yet charged a single person and the courts have not convicted anyone under the act. Why?

Susanne Fabricius of the national organisation of women's shelters in Denmark said that she did not think this had any impact on protecting women and, in fact, might have backfired and driven the problem underground. I rest my case with that. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the long list of barbaric practices the member wished to focus the government's attention on, homelessness being one of them, the tragedy that is challenging and terrifying indigenous and aboriginal women in our country.

There is the barbaric practice of tolerating poverty and thinking that tax cuts will present new housing or jobs to people when, in fact, our youth unemployment, in particular, is unbelievably cruel, yet we see no action. Also, do we think if we make other practices illegal two or three times, they might be eliminated? In other words, if we make murder illegal three times, as polygamy has now been made illegal twice, and impose national and provincial standards that are already in place, therefore reinforcing the law by making a redundant law even more debated, are there any areas where redundancy is effective?

Mr. Alex Atamanenko : Mr. Speaker, I agree with intent of the question. The fact is that we have existing laws and if we add a third or fourth law, it does not mean the problem will go away. I would like to share with the member an experience I had last week. I was driving in my riding and saw a hitchhiker with a big knapsack on his back, rings in his nose and tattoos, and decided to give this guy a ride. I told him I was stopping to have some lunch and asked if he would like to have lunch. He said sure. I asked him where he was going and he said to Summerland, which I thought was interesting.

He did not talk much, but as we were having lunch, he opened up. He said that he had been on the road for 10 years and was a homeless person. He said that there were hundreds of homeless people around the country who were angry at what was going on with the system, a system they could not access. He said that there were people in power who had no idea what is going on. To me, that illustrates in a small way what is happening in our country today. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

In the case of homelessness or all of these horrific acts that women face and fear much worse, I would like to know whether he found any clauses in Bill S-7 that set out what resources would be allocated to the organizations that work on the front lines and are there when these people are looking for a helping hand or for assistance to get out of a difficult situation.

(1325) Mr. Alex Atamanenko : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The answer is no. As I said in my speech, we have seen the same thing with a number of bills. The government wants to change the policy but does not allocate the necessary resources. It wants to send our soldiers to war, but there are no resources to give them the help they need when they return. It wants to help women, but it does not even want to create a commission of inquiry concerning aboriginal women we have spoken about in the House.

In my opinion, the best way to help these people is to look at what already exists and what resources are already out there. If there are not enough, we can add some. That would be a logical response to existing problems. [ English ] Mrs. Pat Perkins (Whitby—Oshawa, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate in the debate on Bill S-7 , the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. It reflects the high priority our government places on supporting the ability of women and girls to live violence-free lives.

As a standing member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am proud of the many actions the government has taken to address violence against women and girls. The bill is another important example of these efforts. Allow me to provide a little context. One of the most important actions we have taken is to increase the funding for the women's program at Status of Women Canada to record levels. We have invested over $153 million in more than 750 projects since 2007. This includes over $70 million for projects to end all forms of violence against women and girls.

In fact, through Status of Women Canada, close to $3 million has been provided in support of projects to eliminate harmful cultural practices using community-based approaches. These projects are building partnerships with cultural community organizations, settlement, legal and law enforcement agencies and school boards. This has resulted in the development of comprehensive, collaborative strategies that address violence against women and girls committed in the name of so-called honour.

For example, a project in Montreal, led by Shield of Athena Family Services, is providing training to liaison workers from cultural communities in order to identify at-risk situations and identify sources of assistance for the victims. We also partnered with the Indo-Canadian Women's Association in Edmonton, Alberta in a project that mobilized the South Asian and Middle Eastern communities, service providers, faith organizations, teachers and students to help develop strategies to end this form of gender-based violence.

The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act would represent another very important step we could take as a country to end gender-based violence. It would help ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada would become a victim or early or forced marriage, polygamy, violence committed in the name of so-called honour or any other form of barbaric cultural practice. In the most recent Speech from the Throne, our government highlighted the fact that millions of women and girls worldwide continued to be brutalized by violence, including through the inhumane practices of early and forced marriage.

That is why Canada is leading international efforts to address these cultural practices as violations of basic human rights. In fact, the elimination of child early forced marriage remains a key priority for Canada. At the most recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York this March, it was raised again. We are committed to ensuring this cultural practice does not occur on Canadian soil.

The measures in the bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code to provide more protection and support for vulnerable individuals, primarily women and girls. They would do it in a number of difference ways. They would render permanent and temporary residents inadmissible if they practised polygamy in Canada.

They would strengthen Canadian marriage laws by establishing a new minimum age for marriage at 16 and by codifying the existing legal requirements for free and enlightened consent for marriage, and for ending an existing marriage prior to entering another.

(1330) They measures would also criminalize certain conduct related to knowing participation in underage and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriage ceremonies. They would help to protect potential victims of underage or forced marriages by creating a new and specific preventative court ordered peace bond where there were grounds to fear that someone would commit an offence in this area. Finally, they would ensure that the defence of provocation would not apply in so-called honour killings and many spousal homicides.

The bill would send a clear message to anyone coming to Canada and to those who would already a part of Canadian society that these practices would be incompatible with Canadian values. Like all other forms of violence against women and girls, they will not be tolerated here. However, it is abundantly important to note that all Canadians need to be part of the solution. No single government, or person or community organization acting alone can achieve these goals.

We must rededicate ourselves as a society to changing attitudes and changing the conversation by underlining the fact that violence of any kind, including violence against women and girls, is never acceptable or normal behaviour. We need to continue to empower girls and women to speak out. We must keep working together to increase the responsiveness of our system to address the needs of victims and survivors. We must keep taking actions like the measures contained in this bill. As I said earlier, these practices simply will not be tolerated on Canadian soil. The opposition refuses to take action.

It wants more studies and more analysis. However, the time to take action is now. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration spent his summer going from coast to coast to coast, talking to Canadians. It is the victims of these barbaric practices who are asking him to take action. It is the actual victims who are supporting the legislation. The zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act represents another important step that we can take as a country to help women and girls live violence-free lives.

That is why I am proud to say that I will support the bill, and I urge all hon. members of the House to do the same. (1335) [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, free and enlightened consent is already a legal requirement in the Civil Code and in common law, in Quebec and in the other provinces. The courts have already established that the culturally defined concept of honour does not represent a valid defence under the Criminal Code. Furthermore, there is sufficient means of recourse in our laws for most cases of forced marriage.

Why would the government reproduce these measures in a new bill, when it could simply enforce the existing laws? [ English ] Mrs. Pat Perkins : Mr. Speaker, this is being brought forward simply because it needs to be addressed. We are being asked to address it by the communities that are most affected and by the people who are most adversely affected by these situations. Honour killings, polygamy and taking underage children overseas to their parents' home country to have them married to someone and brought back here are all things that do exist and happen.

If we have proper legislation and laws to to address these things, it will allow us to have a society that can protect these young girls and women in a situation that the existing laws just do not provide. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to appreciate, in any way, the government's lack of attention in dealing with violence against women and girls.

When we hear what provinces, municipalities, first nations leaders, and many different stakeholders are saying about the 1,200-plus murdered and missing first nations aboriginal women and girls, it seems the Government of Canada, this Conservative government, is the only body in Canada to believe that a public inquiry is not necessary. Having said that, recognizing that polygamy, forced marriages, early marriages, and domestic violence are all actions that Canadians do not support, there are some mild steps within the legislation.

My question is specifically in regard to the Prime Minister 's Office and his determination to label legislation. Why is it necessary to label culture as part of the act, when we know that all societies have different forms of gender violence? Why incorporate culture? If the government wants to amend and make it better legislation, at least it should change the title that the Prime Minister's Office is suggesting and delete the word “culture”. Would the member not agree that it is inappropriate to put the word “culture” in the title? Mrs. Pat Perkins : Mr. Speaker, the word is actually “cultural”, not “culture”.

It is “cultural practices”, and the specific items within the bill do deal with specific cultural practices that are abhorrent to women and girls. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. In a previous response, my colleague said that the government felt obliged to act in response to pressure from communities. However, our Criminal Code contains answers to all of their questions.

Is that not a clear indication that what communities need is support on the ground so that they can get the education, support and information they need to handle a situation already covered in the Criminal Code? [ English ] Mrs. Pat Perkins : Mr. Sp