Bill S-7 (Historical)

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to specify that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of practising polygamy in Canada.
Part 2 amends the Civil Marriage Act to provide for the legal requirements for a free and enlightened consent to marriage and for any previous marriage to be dissolved or declared null before a new marriage is contracted. Those requirements are currently provided for in the Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1 only in respect of Quebec and under the common law in the other provinces. It also amends the Civil Marriage Act to provide for the requirement of a minimum age of 16 years for marriage. This requirement is currently provided for in the Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1 only in respect of Quebec.
Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to
(a) clarify that it is an offence for an officiant to knowingly solemnize a marriage in contravention of federal law;
(b) provide that it is an offence to celebrate, aid or participate in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is doing so against their will or is under the age of 16 years;
(c) provide that it is an offence to remove a child from Canada with the intention that an act be committed outside Canada that, if it were committed in Canada, would constitute the offence of celebrating, aiding or participating in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that the child is doing so against their will or is under the age of 16 years;
(d) provide that a judge may order a person to enter into a recognizance with conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the purpose of preventing the person from committing an offence relating to the marriage of a person against their will or the marriage of a person under the age of 16 years or relating to the removal of a child from Canada with the intention of committing an act that, if it were committed in Canada, would be such an offence; and
(e) provide that the defence of provocation is restricted to circumstances in which the victim engaged in conduct that would constitute an indictable offence under the Criminal Code that is punishable by five years or more in prison.
Finally, the enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, Bill S-7 is yet another example of the Conservatives' tendency to present sensationalized measures that do not actually meet the intended objectives or that have negative consequences for women and children.

Why does the Conservative government insist on criminalizing parents and spouses, when women and girls have clearly indicated many times that this is not the right way of addressing these problems and it is not what they want?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very privileged last July to attend the Girl Summit in London, England, that was put on by Prime Minister David Cameron. I was privileged to be there with our foreign minister and to listen to the many presentations by women from multiple countries around the world who want the issues of early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation brought to the table and spoken about on the agendas of world fora. They are against these practices in their own countries. They want the world to address them.

I was proud to be there, and I was proud to be a participant in those discussions and talk about what Canada is doing, first of all to protect girls and women in our own country, and second, to put these issues on the agendas of world fora so that they can be discussed. They are probably not issues that are comfortable conversation for many people, but it is important that we have these discussions because they are the things that are going to save the lives of moms, girls, and babies around the world.

That is what we want to see. That is what Canadian taxpayers' dollars are doing around the world. Why would we not want to save the lives of girls right here in our own country?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about unintended consequences. As we look at the bill, we think about the intended consequences, but I want to talk about the unintended consequences.

Intention is important. If we look at the intention of the bill, we look at the short title of the bill, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. That is offensive. I am not going to get into how offensive it is. There is the fact that it is xenophobic, that it is politicizing the issue of gender-based violence, and that it is reinforcing prejudices and stereotypes we have about certain cultural groups.

However, if we look at the intention of the bill, I would think the intention is to prohibit certain acts, such as forced marriage and polygamy. Maybe some of those are laudable goals, but then we have to open the legislation and read it and figure out if the intention would be met. It may be or may not be, but what are some of the unintended consequences, because that is equally important. We do not want to do things that we did not intend to do. There are many unintentional consequences in the bill that would actually victimize or re-victimize women, in particular, and children.

Some of the unintentional consequences are that we could criminalize the victims of polygamy. We could criminalize them, and that could lead to the deportation of children. Is that our intention? Is it our intention to criminalize victims? The bill could lead to the separation of families. It would further victimize women. I do not think those are intended consequences, but that is what the consequences of the bill would be.

Imagine being in the position of being forced into marriage. This is a woman who does not have control over her life, a woman who is a victim of family pressure, who is the victim of family control and community pressure and control. If we intend to end that practice, if we intend to help that woman, what would we do? We would think about sensible, reasonable policy responses. What is the policy response to end a practice like that? We would want to make it as easy as possible for women to come forward. We would get rid of all those barriers to prevent them from keeping it secret and to prevent these practices from going underground. We would want to make it as easy as possible for women to come forward and as easy as possible for friends or family members of that woman to come forward and go to the authorities.

If we are looking at a reasonable and sensible policy response, we would also want to reach out to certain communities to raise awareness of forced marriages, to reach out to service providers and government officials who might actually be called upon to assist in the prevention of forced marriages. That is a reasonable policy response. Let us make it easy for those government officials or those community leaders to come forward. A reasonable policy response would be to make it obvious that there are supports in place for these women if they do come forward and that we will help them. We do not want to make things worse, but we would with the bill, because it has so many unintended consequences.

The bill makes no provision to allow women who are conditional permanent residents to remain in Canada if their polygamist partner is deported, so why would they come forward? Why would they come forward, knowing they that they will be deported? UNICEF has talked about the fact that the bill would impose criminal sanctions against minors who attend or celebrate or help organize a forced marriage. It is incredible to think that they would be impacted with that kind of criminal record.

Because some of these penalties include criminalization, some women and children are not going to want to come forward. Why would they come forward when they would be at risk of seeing their parents end up with a criminal record, or their spouse, or other family members, people from their community? How do they come forward knowing that someone is going to be charged? They should be able to come forward to get out of a situation if that is what they need to do. However, this bill does not have any of those supports we are talking about. All it would do is drive these practices underground.

Imagine a women in a forced marriage. She is under the control of her family or her husband, and she is without a voice. She wants to leave, but if she does, she may be deported. I cannot imagine having to make that choice. Would I live with the violence and continue to live in that situation?

The parliamentary secretary spoke earlier about having travelled around the world and seeing terrible conditions in other countries, terrible situations for women. Is that what we are doing here, risking these women being sent back to those conditions? That is the risk they are going to take if they come forward. They could see their parents end up with a criminal record. What woman is going to come forward?

If we are looking at sensible, reasonable policy responses to this problem, I think it makes sense to look at what other countries are doing. Denmark, as members have probably heard, actually tried something along these lines. We should learn from their record and learn about what is happening.

In 2008, Denmark actually made it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry, but six years later, no one has been charged under this law. That is relevant.

Even more relevant, we have heard from the head of the National Organization for Women's Shelters. She thinks that not only has the law not had any impact on protecting young women from being forced into marriage but that it may have backfired and is actually driving the problem underground.

A reasonable policy response is to make it clear to women that we will be there to help them and we will support them, not that there will be criminal charges, not that there will be deportation.

We can look at other countries as well. I know that some of my colleagues have talked about the situation in the United Kingdom. If we are making legal changes, if we are looking to enact legal changes, we have to have those supports in place as well.

We have had testimony. We have had experts come forward to say that any legal challenge has to go hand in hand with more funding for women's organizations, which are really on the front lines providing services to isolated and stigmatized victims to help them navigate the criminal justice system and the civil justice system and to help them access safe housing and welfare support. All of those things are needed if we are going to enact legal changes.

Unfortunately, this bill is another example of a pattern of the Conservatives. They want desperately to have their tough-on-crime buttons they can wear: “We are tough on crime and we stand up for victims”. They love this narrative. They love the narrative so much that they do not actually care if they make it tougher for victims.

What is the pattern I am talking about? In 2012, we had new measures introduced to crack down on marriage fraud, including the requirement for a sponsored spouse to live with the sponsor for two years or face deportation and possible criminal charges. I remember that debate. I remember the fact that the NDP talked about this leaving women vulnerable to abuse. Why would women come forward when the law says that they have to stay with that person for two years or lose permanent residency? Why would they come forward?

We have seen private member's bills that talk about fact sponsorship or proxy sponsorship for marriages, but that is not about forced marriages. The people using that form of transmission are really refugees, by and large. By cutting off that access, we are limiting family reunification. That is an unintended consequence. We need to think long and hard about what these kinds of bills will do and the fact that they re-victimize victims.

I will finish up with the fact that I heard our Minister of National Defence, the former minister of citizenship, and multiculturalism, saying that sometimes we need to act with legislation.

Maybe during the question and answer period I will have the opportunity to list some of the legislation, because we have the legislation in place we need. The Criminal Code is fulsome. It does not have the unintended consequences we are talking about here. It gets to the root of the problem.

There is no way I can support this bill in good conscience.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked several members a question regarding the value of the legislation. The last person I asked was the member for Ottawa Centre, and he seemed to take exception and questioned the Liberal Party's principles. I would ask the member to reflect on her colleague's answer.

The New Democratic Party, on numerous occasions, has actually voted in favour of legislation going to committee, ultimately to be amended. The New Democratic Party often moves amendments at committee, even though they all get defeated, but ultimately it goes to third reading, and it still votes in favour of the legislation.

The only party that has actually been consistent with regard to its approach to legislation, at least on the opposition side, is the Liberal Party. The questionable behaviour might be coming from the New Democratic Party.

Could the member explain why it is that the member for Ottawa Centre believes that the NDP has never voted for something its members did not support going to committee or second reading, or could she answer the question I have posed to other colleagues? Does she see any value whatsoever in the content of the legislation, not the name?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between voting for a park and trying to get amendments at committee and human rights. There is a difference between Sable Island and the fundamental rights and revictimization of women.

I am not going to stand here in this House and support a bill that is about revictimizing women. We need to stand up for these women. We need to provide support for these women. We do not need to vote for this at second reading and hope that we get an amendment later.

The bill is fundamentally flawed, and there is no way we can compare it to the other pieces of legislation we have supported to get them to committee.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague from Halifax.

She mentioned the specific case of Denmark, and I thank her for that. Criminal provisions that are too broad generally have the opposite effect to what was intended and, as a result, it is no longer possible to enforce a decision or a law.

Under the Conservatives, we have become accustomed to this sort of thing, whether it was with Bill C-10, which criminalizes the possession of more than six marijuana plants, or with Bill C-36, which criminalizes the purchase of sexual services. The consequence is that the tougher the criminal sentences we impose through these laws, the less viable it becomes to implement them, and therefore the police are much less likely to enforce them.

Can my colleague elaborate on the fact that further criminalizing something we condemn, in this case forced marriage, will only serve to ensure that women will not try to escape that situation because the consequences would be too severe?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The Denmark example is a very good one, because in six years, we have not seen a charge.

We have a Criminal Code here in Canada. We have sections under the Criminal Code under which we have seen charges for uttering threats, assault causing bodily harm, and sexual assault. We have seen charges laid under those provisions. These provisions exist already. They work already.

If we actually want to stop these kinds of acts, like forced marriage, which 100% the NDP would like to stop, then let us look at what works. What works is making sure that women can come forward, making sure that they are safe, and making sure that they are not criminalized, revictimized, or deported because they came forward. I mean, a person would have to have no heart to think that this is actually going to solve the problem of forced marriages in Canada.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in August 2013 the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario released a report on forced marriages. It reported that 219 cases of forced marriage happened between 2010 and 2012 in the province of Ontario alone. All of these individuals experienced a form of violence. Most were young and from a variety of cultures and religions. Furthermore, the majority of victims were unaware of their rights in a situation of forced marriage. These victims were often forced into marriage by a family member, in most cases by their own parents.

I am the father of a 14-year-old daughter, whom you know, and these statistics explain why I speak today in favour of the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill is consistent with a variety of actions by our Conservative government to help the victims of these horrible situations.

This bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Criminal Code, and the Civil Marriage Act to provide additional protections for Canadians against certain practices involving violence against women and girls. I will be supporting this bill and I would urge my colleagues to do so. This government is taking steps to strengthen our laws to help ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of early or forced marriage.

In addition to a having a career in international law, I am a dedicated advocate for human rights and have spoken in this House, in my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, and abroad to urge action against oppression. I have also had the privilege of serving communities across Canada through my former role as chair of Food for the Hungry International Federation. I also joined with others to create the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which to this day advocates for the constitutional rights of Canadians. In my role as MP, I have defended the rights of Canadians incarcerated overseas. This past October, I stood with the member for Mount Royal publicly to call on the Iranian government to spare the lives of three Iranian prisoners on death row. I have also travelled to Pakistan and Iraq with One Free World International on human rights missions.

Whether as lawyers, MPs, or fellow human beings, we who have a voice and a platform have a responsibility to speak on behalf of those who cannot do so themselves. We must stand up for the victims of barbaric practices such as the ones targeted by this bill. My constituents stand for human rights, and I stand together with them.

Today I address a key misconception that has arisen during debate on the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. Critics of this bill say Canada does not need a new law imposing a minimum age for marriage. However, the bill would raise the lowest age at which anyone can marry in Canada to age 16, with no exceptions. Currently, federal law sets age 16 as the lowest age for marriage, but only in the province of Quebec. As difficult as this may be to believe, elsewhere in Canada there is no federal legislation, and the old pre-Confederation common law applies. This means that girls can marry at age 12 and boys at age 14. Raising the lowest age that anyone can marry to age 16 for all those who live in Canada would create a long-overdue new national standard that would increase protections for children, as no marriages could occur below that age.

During the debate, some asked why the Government of Canada is proposing to lower the minimum age of marriage to 16. They believe that provincial law already sets a minimum age higher than 16, such as 18 or 19.

This is a serious misunderstanding of the law, understandably caused by confusion, because constitutional jurisdiction over marriage is shared in Canada. Both the federal and the provincial legislatures have jurisdiction over complementary but different aspects of marriage.

Under the Constitution, only the federal Parliament can set the lowest age for anyone to marry across the country. The provincial legislatures can determine the age at which a child becomes an adult, and adults can consent to marriage for themselves with no additional requirements. The age of adulthood, or majority, is currently set at either age 18 or 19, depending on the province. For young people between the lowest age for marriage and the age of majority, provincial law requires the consent of the child's parents to any marriage. In the case of younger children who are closer to the lowest age for marriage, the provincial law may also require the approval of a court or restrict such marriages to situations in which the young couple is expecting a child.

As we can see, provincial and federal laws work together, with federal law setting the lowest age for anyone to marry and provincial laws adding requirements for marriages above that age until the child becomes an adult and can consent for himself or herself.

Because the constitutional powers are complementary, it is not possible for provincial laws to set the lowest age for anyone to marry. The bill would raise the current lowest age for anyone to marry up to age 16 for all those living in Canada. Provinces and territories would continue setting additional requirements for mature young people who wish to marry between that federal minimum age of 16 and the age of majority as established by the province or territory of residence.

Under private international law rules, the lowest age for anyone living in Canada to marry would apply wherever in the world that marriage is conducted and registered. In other words, the bill would also extend protections to Canadian children under the age of 16 who are taken out of the country to marry or who are married through telephone or proxy marriages overseas while they remain physically present in Canada.

The provisions of the bill would protect children and should be fully supported by the House.

We must not forget the powerful, positive, egalitarian aspects that accompany our citizens' general respect for various cultures. Canada is focused on accepting and accommodating people from all different backgrounds, religions, races, and ethnicities. Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to the belief that all citizens are equal. It ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, take pride in their ancestry, and have a sense of belonging. I continue to believe that acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures.

The Canadian experience has shown that multiculturalism encourages cross-cultural understanding. However, this acceptance and understanding does not extend to harmful cultural practices that victimize people. Our Conservative government is taking a strong stance against the harmful practices of early and forced marriage. We are leading international efforts to address these practices as a violation of fundamental human rights.

I hope all my colleagues will support this important piece of legislation.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. He focused mainly on underage marriages and the forced marriage of people who are too young.

He pointed out that the only place where provincial legislation sets out an age of consent for marriage is Quebec. None of the other provinces have anything like that because they use the common law system.

Given that common law is part of the British tradition, can my colleague explain why the short title of this bill is the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act to end barbaric practices?

Is he telling us that the British common law tradition is a barbaric practice? It sure looks that way to us. What is the intent behind the use of the words “barbaric practices” for a legislative measure in the British common law tradition?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the question the member for Saint-Jean asked is very sincere and interesting. His question puts the debate in a historical and cultural context.

Still, things have changed a lot. In our modern culture, it really is barbaric to force a young woman to marry someone. Most of the people here agree on that, and that is why my colleagues and I hope that the New Democrats will support this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, within the content of the legislation there are a number of issues that deal with polygamy, forced marriages, early marriages, and domestic violence, to a certain degree. As I have indicated before, it is a very modest step forward. We see it as that, and the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill going to committee.

However, there has been a great deal of concern expressed in regard to the title. One member of the Conservative caucus seemed to imply that it is meant to be provocative because it wants to be educational. Does the hon. member believe that government should be using provocative titles that might take away from the content of the legislation, that it is okay to use the short title because it could be used as an educational tool? What are his thoughts in that regard?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is what we are doing to advance the rights of individuals whose rights are being ignored and violated. There are young people who are being forced to marry. They are people as young my daughter and the children of people in this chamber. That is truly a barbaric practice.

It is important for us to convey what we are doing through the titles of our legislation. It is certainly critical for us to make sure that we are standing up and giving a voice to voiceless people. That is what we as parliamentarians ought to do, and that is what this bill proposes to do. That is why I am glad the Liberal caucus will be supporting it.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and pride to rise today in my place to speak in support of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I have been a member of Parliament now for almost four years for the great riding of York Centre. I was born and raised in the riding of York Centre, and now I am raising my family there. It is probably one of the most ethnocultural ridings in Canada.

We have the largest number of Russian-speaking people of any riding in the country. We have one of the largest populations of Filipino people, one of the largest populations of Vietnamese people, one of the largest populations of Hispanic people and one of the largest populations of Jewish people. Plus, we have ethnic representation from virtually every other imaginable ethnicity of which we can dream. That is a wonderful thing, and that is what makes Canada such a great country. York Centre is merely a microcosm of our great country of Canada.

We are a nation of immigrants. We are all from somewhere else, and we come here because Canada represents this great country of hope and opportunity, yes for ourselves but, more important, for our kids. People come here because they want to escape racism and persecution. They want a better life for themselves and, more particularly, for their kids so they can achieve all the hopes, dreams and aspirations possible for a human being.

I rise today and speak about the various ethnicities and ethnocultural representation we have in our great country of Canada. We are this country of diasporas. When I am in my riding of York Centre, I am privileged to go to a different event almost every night that is ethnocultural based. Sometimes I go to two, three or four events in a night.

All these ethnic groups are different. They all celebrate something different, representing their own culture. However, what they are doing is the most Canadian thing we can ever imagine. They are celebrating where they come from, but what they are most proud of and what unites them all, notwithstanding where they originally come from, is that they are proud Canadians. They are proud of our Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. They take great pride in that. Whenever I mention the word “Canada”, bar none, we get a standing ovation because everybody wants to celebrate being Canadian. They know the value of what it is to live in our great country of Canada, and they know what they left behind. Yes, they can celebrate their culture and their differences, but they know at the end of the day they are most proud of being Canadian.

That is why it is so important we pass Bill S-7. As a country, it is inconsistent with our values, and we will not tolerate allowing people into it who will practise barbaric acts. People say that the title of the bill is provocative. Yes, it is intentionally so because we want to label these acts as barbaric.

That is unlike the leader of the Liberal Party who, a few years ago, had a problem with the word “barbaric”. When Citizenship and Immigration Canada put out a guide for new Canadians, it used the word “barbaric“ in the guide, and it referred to certain acts like female genital mutilation and forced marriages for young women. These acts were declared barbaric, and the Liberal leader went to his Twitter page stated his objection to the use of the word “barbaric”. He said that it did not take into account cultural sensitivities. He said that there were different cultures out there that were inconsistent with the values that we had in Canada, but that we nevertheless must respect those values, and such barbarism must be respected. He took umbrage with that word. However, when the Liberal leader was confronted by many Canadians who objected to his objection of the word “barbaric”, he said, “Perhaps I got tangled in semantic weeds”.

He said, and this is the best, that the government should use the words that make “an attempt at responsible neutrality”. We are not in the neutrality business. We are in the business of promoting the values of Canadians, what Canadians take pride in. As I said earlier, we take pride in our Canadian values and stand up for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law because we are proud of our country and we will not accept people who come to our country and want to practise barbaric acts.

The opposition says that the bill would put it underground. It is underground right now. A woman cannot go to a hospital and ask to have her genitals mutilated. We as a country are taking a stand. We as a government are saying this is wrong. Yes, the legislation serves an educational purpose and a pedagogical purpose because we need to send a strong message to those people who would dare think that in our great country of Canada these barbaric practices are acceptable, because they absolutely are not.

I would hope the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party would not engage in their moral relativism and think that there is nothing right and there is nothing wrong, that everybody needs to debate and everything is a gray area. No, there are certain rights, imperatives and things that are right and wrong, and barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriages and honour killings are wrong. We take a stand against that as do Canadians. We know where Canada stands.

The Canadian people sent us here to do a job. We take that job very seriously. We are honoured to have that responsibility. We have a responsibility to the Canadian people to ensure our country is protected.

We are sending our armed forces to northern Iraq to fight against ISIS. What is ISIS doing? We have seen it burn human beings alive. We know it takes little girls from their towns and use them as sex slaves and sells them into slavery. It cuts off the heads of women, children and men. We have sent our armed forces there, along with a coalition, to fight against this objectionable behaviour, to fight against these thugs and barbarians. We do not want this in Canada.

The Canadian people have spoken. The Canadian people have made it clear that we will never—we have not in the past, we will not now, and we will not in the future—accept these barbaric acts. We will never do it, and we stand firm in that. Our government is representing the views and beliefs of the Canadian people by introducing this legislation.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding in my colleague's remarks, including what he said about the Canadian army's actions in Iraq. Unfortunately, he failed to mention the situation and the chaos created in Iraq by American intervention. Nor did he mention the fact that intervention in Libya, for instance, destabilized that country even further, and as a result, the situation in Libya is now completely out of control. Iraq is also a country out of control.

Before explaining that a simple intervention can restore peace and order in a country, he should look at the history and the background that led to the situation. This speaks to his lack of understanding of the problems of the Middle East. I, on the other hand, being an immigrant myself, know a little more about what he is talking about.

I would like him to explain how further criminalizing the aspects that we want to limit will achieve this objective in practical terms. In fact, as we have seen, the opposite always happens.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the epitome of ignorance to stand and cast aspersions on and call another member of Parliament names. I take great umbrage with that. I thought he was a better person than that, but evidently he is not.

In answer to his question, clearly the member could not even follow the line of debate. He does not know we are talking about Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. He went off on some tangent about something in the Middle East.

What I think would be acceptable to the NDP, which seems to engage in this form of relativism, is if we named Bill S-7, the tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. I am sure that would make those members happy.