Bill S-210 (Historical)

An Act to amend 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 enactment amends 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 by repealing its short title.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has truly been a privilege to bring forward Bill S-210, An Act to amend 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.

I would like to first thank my colleagues for their support in this legislation, and contributions in debate. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Senator Mobina Jaffer for introducing this legislation in the Senate, and for her work in advancing this bill.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I have had the unique opportunity to bring forward two pieces of legislation. I took great care in considering what issues I wanted to advance, and I am proud to have supported Bill S-210.

I would also like to take a moment to provide comments to my colleague from the New Democratic Party for the thoughts she just offered. First of all, I would like to thank her for the pledge to support this legislation today. However, I also believe that this bill actually does have the impacts we are seeking in society. She said it does nothing for Canadians, yet I believe that reflecting inclusive language in legislation is the most important thing we as legislators can do.

As was noted, we have a remnant of the Harper Conservatives on the books that was very inflammatory, very divisive, and it used the lowest grade of politics in trying to divide Canadians. This would remove that. I think that is a great use of legislative time. I am proud to have dedicated my efforts in sponsoring Bill S-210 in the House of Commons to further this discussion.

Bill S-210 is a reflection on the importance of the language we use in crafting and drafting our legislation, and the ways in which we wish to shape our society. As our Prime Minister likes to say, “Canada is strong not in spite of our differences, but because of them.”

Through this legislation, we have the opportunity to reject phraseology, and the unnecessary and inappropriate conflation of culture with barbaric practices. Through this legislation, we have the opportunity to reject the politics of fear and division in favour of diversity and inclusion. I am hopeful that all members will join me in supporting Bill S-210 and advancing these important efforts.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, after a nice quiet weekend in my riding, I want to take this opportunity to thank all the pages and all of the parliamentary precinct security folks who looked after us during our all-night voting on Thursday night.

I also want to say a special thanks to my riding staff, because I miss them, Lauren Semple, Hilary Eastmure, and Michael Snoddon, and all the people at home who have been holding down the fort while we have been here since the end of January.

I am really grateful to everybody who is keeping the community work going, NGOs, local governments, everybody who is working hard to support the work we are doing here in Parliament.

We really hope that this is our last week, and I cannot wait to be home. Because we are close to the end, I have to say I am a little impatient about giving this speech. Bill S-210 proposes to amend the title of a Harper-era piece of legislation, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

It seems like a long time ago when that piece of legislation was passed. It was passed in what I would call a dark decade of parliamentary rule. The unveiling of that quite racist legislation was one of the low points in the Harper era. It was dog-whistle politics at its worst. It was racist and inflammatory. Ministers stood and said we need to eradicate barbaric cultural practices, when all they needed to say was that we are going to rule against female genital mutilation. We are all for that, but it does not need to be put in the frame of alienating anybody who is not white and born and raised in Canada. Canada is a diverse country. We all practice our culture in different ways. There are acts that should be criminalized, especially acts that are damaging to young girls.

The Conservatives campaigned on that Harper-framed legislation, and I like to think that was part of their downfall, because the citizens of this country said no to it.

I also want to give special thanks to This Hour Has 22 Minutes, which acted like a second official opposition alongside New Democrats in the previous Parliament. I still chuckle about the show's parody on the barbaric cultural practices act. It named things like wearing socks with sandals as a cultural barbaric practice, and kissing the cod in the wrong way. They had fun with it, but it was not funny.

Given all the damage that was done in 10 years of Conservative rule, the Liberal government received a strong mandate from the Canadian public.

However, here we are today with legislation before us which would simply amend the title of the legislation. It would do nothing else. I am going to vote in favour of Bill S-210, because who would not vote in favour of it? Language matters, but actions also matters. There is so much work to do. Here we are, two and a half years into this term, and we still are not getting it done.

Some time this week, we will be tabling a report on what the Liberal government could do to end the atrocious rate of incarceration of indigenous women in Canadian jails and how badly they are treated. The report also talks about the barriers they face in the justice system that results in them being imprisoned at a higher rate.

Another Conservative law repealed the mandatory minium sentencing. It removed judicial discretion. The Liberal Party campaigned in 2015 that it would repeal mandatory minimum sentencing, but it has not done it.

Of all the things that would make a difference in people's lives, I wish that this legislation had more oomph behind it. Of course, language matters, but attendant action is so important. Voting yes to the bill, which I will be doing, will not change anyone's life. There is still a lot of legislative damage that has yet to be undone, and I do not believe that Bill S-210 would have been at the top of anybody's list.

I also have a bit of a bad attitude about this because of my private member's bill on abandoned vessels, Bill C-352. I worked on my bill with local government partners for about eight years before coming to this place. I tabled it in February 2016, and I updated it in April 2017.

Three days after it went on the Order Paper in October of this year, the government introduced its own bill, which I had wanted to see. I had hoped the government would have plagiarized and incorporated my private member's bill into it. However, then it used a couple of almost never used parliamentary manoeuvres to prevent my bill from being heard or voted on at all.

Obviously, it was a great disappointment. It was a piece of legislation, whether one agreed with it or not, that had some substance and some heft. It would have made a difference on the ground. It would have changed legislation that would have prevented oil spills and marine plastics and pollution on our beaches in the form of fibreglass boats. That is a long-standing problem that local governments have been calling the alarm on. However, that was killed, and here we are taking the time to debate legislation that is only going to amend a legislative title.

I urge all my colleagues to hunker down and get the real work done that would actually change lives on the ground. We have tremendous privilege being in this place. We have tremendous power. We have a huge mandate, and we have a lot of work to do. Let us do the hard work that really matters and get on with the work that Canadians sent us to do here in this place.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is referring to Bill C-374, which is before the Senate right now. It is a very important bill, again going along with the theme of diversity being our strength. That particular bill references the need to have indigenous representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The Senate is currently debating the bill.

Today, we are having a debate on Bill S-210, which is another step we can take to show that Canada actually values diversity. It is an important opportunity for us to weigh in on the discussion about what kind of culture and community we want to build.

As my colleague from the New Democrats pointed out, words are so important, and Bill S-210 really challenges us as legislators to get the wording right to build an inclusive and supportive Canada. That is why I am very proud to be sponsoring Bill S-210 in the House of Commons today.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, last weekend, when I was in my riding, Cloverdale—Langley City, I had the honour, in one single day, of having a taste of the diversity represented in our community. I was able to go to a South Asian wedding at one of the gurdwaras in my riding, and from there I went to Ramadan prayers with the Muslim community. That afternoon, I joined the Buddhist community for a graduation ceremony and handed out certificates at the ceremony. To me that represents, in one single day, the diversity that we have in Canada, and how that is the strength of our community and our country.

As the Prime Minister has said, it is important to celebrate the diversity in our society, because it really is Canada's strength. It helps us with world trade, and it is a way of showing that faiths and communities from around the world can live together in one country, the one we proudly call Canada. That is why Bill S-210 is so important. We need to show that anyone is welcome in Canada and that we can make a proud and strong country.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

moved that Bill S-210, an act to amend An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill S-210, an act to amend 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. The legislation seeks to modernize Canada's statutes and remove the short title “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act” from the legislation.

Bill S-210 was introduced by Senator Mobina Jaffer in the Senate and has reached third reading here in the House of Commons. I am proud that the legislation passed unanimously, without amendment, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Language matters, and the fact that the bill has reached its final stage of the legislative process is a proud reflection of that.

The language we use in the laws we pass matters. It reflects the intentions and desired outcomes of our statutes, as well as the type of society we want to build. When phraseology like “barbaric cultural practices” is used in law-making, it becomes apparent that the intention is to divide and fearmonger. Let me be clear. The politics of fear and division have no place in Canada, and no place in Canada's statutes. That is why Bill S-210 is before us today.

Bill S-210 amends Bill S-7 from the previous Parliament by removing its short title. It does not in any way affect the measures put in place by the bill. While Bill S-7 was aimed at strengthening protections for women and girls, the reference to “barbaric cultural practices” in the title creates divisions, promotes harmful stereotypes, and fuels intolerance by targeting specific communities. It is being perceived as offensive by certain communities and stakeholder groups that serve immigrants, as it targets a cultural group as whole, rather than the individuals who commit specific acts.

As Senator Jaffer put it at the justice committee:

I have objected to pairing the words “barbaric” and “cultural”. That's not a Canadian value. When we put the two ideas together, we take responsibility for horrific actions away from the person who committed them. It's not a community that commits those acts; it's a person. Instead, we associate the crime with a culture and a community, and we imply that such horrible practices are part of a culture or a community.

Hate crimes against certain minority populations are on the rise in Canada. When we falsely equate barbaric practices with cultures, we open the door to racist and intolerant attitudes that often drown out constructive dialogue on promoting diversity and inclusion. By recognizing the impacts that our words have on the tone and tenor of public discourse, policy-making, and law-making, we can be more deliberate and thoughtful in the words we choose. We abandon the dog whistle politics of barbaric cultural practices and commit ourselves to advancing values beyond mere tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion.

The Prime Minister captured the importance of these values and those of diversity in his address to New York University. He said:

Whether it's race, gender, language, sexual orientation, or religious or ethnic origin, or our beliefs and values themselves, diversity doesn't have to be a weakness. It can be our greatest strength.

Now often people talk about striving for tolerance. Now don't get me wrong. There are places in this world where a little more tolerance would go a long way. But if we're being honest, right here, right now, I think we can aim a little higher than mere tolerance. Think about it. Saying, “I tolerate you” actually means something like, “okay, I grudgingly admit that you have a right to exist, just don't get in my face about it....

There is not a religion in the world that asks you to “tolerate thy neighbour”. So let's try for something a little more like acceptance, respect, friendship, and yes, even love.

And why does this matter? Because in our aspiration to relevance, in our love for our families, in our desire to contribute to make this world a better place, despite our differences, we are all the same.

Words are important, and so are the values we put forward. Equally important, if not more so, are the actions we take in defence of those values. That is why our government has taken meaningful action to further embrace multiculturalism and promote diversity.

We have a Prime Minister who proudly represents Canada on the world stage as an open and welcoming nation. Indeed, Canada is a nation built in no small part through the contributions of immigrants.

Our government understands this. That is why we promote safe and accessible immigration. We have prioritized family reunification by bringing families together more quickly. We doubled the number of parent and grandparent sponsorship applications accepted per year, from 5,000 to 10,000. We know that when families are reunited and offered the opportunity to succeed, all of Canada succeeds.

Our government is committed to an immigration system that strengthens Canada's middle class, helps grow our economy, supports diversity, brings families together, and helps build vibrant, dynamic, and inclusive communities.

The story of Canadian immigration is inseparable from the story of Canada itself, as we are committed to aiding and accepting people from all cultural backgrounds. Success stories abound when newcomers are offered the opportunity to succeed.

Let us take Peace by Chocolate as an example. The company, based in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, was founded by the Hadhad family. The Hadhads ran a successful chocolate factory in Syria, but they were forced to flee the civil war violence. After three years in a Lebanese refugee camp, they were offered the chance to immigrate to Canada. They started Peace by Chocolate, working to rebuild the business they had lost in war-torn Syria. Their story of success is a proud example of the opportunity that Canada offers to those who immigrate here, regardless of nationality.

The policies we are putting in place will allow more immigrants to find a home in Canada, contributing to our growing economy. These newcomers will drive innovation and help employers meet labour market needs. Supporting companies that bring high-skilled workers improves business opportunities for all Canadians. These are just a few examples of measures that our government has taken to further promote multiculturalism and ensure that our immigration system is efficient and accessible.

Our actions to promote diversity do not stop there. The Minister of Canadian Heritage recently unveiled the new federal action plan for official languages. This plan will invest nearly $500 million over five years and focus on strengthening our communities, strengthening access to service, and promoting a bilingual Canada.

Through targets that aim to restore and maintain the proportion of francophones living in linguistic minority communities at 4% of the general population by 2036, provinces such as British Columbia will receive the support they need to continue promoting our linguistic diversity and bilingualism.

In support of multiculturalism, we are investing $23 million over two years through budget 2018 in the federal multiculturalism program. Budget 2018 states:

This funding would support cross-country consultations on a new national anti-racism approach, would bring together experts, community organizations, citizens and interfaith leaders to find new ways to collaborate and combat discrimination, and would dedicate increased funds to address racism and discrimination targeted against Indigenous Peoples and women and girls.

In our pursuit of a more caring and inclusive country, we must also commit to doing better in the journey of reconciliation. As a multicultural country, Canada grapples not only with the intersections of a broad range of newcomer cultures, but with multiple generations of Canadians and indigenous peoples. Reconciliation must be part of the conversation as we discuss diversity and inclusion in a 21st century Canada. Recognizing and making reparations for the historical abuse and mistreatment of indigenous peoples is a fundamental part of building a more inclusive society and promoting the diversity of Canada.

As members in this place, we have the privilege of introducing bills or motions that will affect and hopefully benefit our constituents, and all Canadians. I have had the privilege of sponsoring two private member's bills: Bill S-210, which is before us here today, and Bill C-374, which is now before the Senate.

If passed by the Senate, Bill C-374 would seek to advance reconciliation by adding much-needed indigenous representation to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, implementing call to action 79(i) of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. The legislation would provide first nations, Métis, and Inuit representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Without indigenous representation, the board conducts its affairs without a fulsome understanding of Canadian heritage and history. The inclusion of indigenous perspectives on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada would allow us to more fully commemorate Canada's historical peoples, places, and events, and offer a more authentic perspective on our heritage.

Canada is a pluralistic society, and our approach to fostering a more inclusive society is multi-faceted. It requires diligence and thoughtfulness on the part of legislators. By advancing legislation such as Bill S-210, we commit to recognizing the implications of the words we use, with the understanding that action is equally important. Abandoning terms such as “barbaric cultural practices” is an important step in modernizing our statutes and reflecting back on the type of society we want to build as Canadians.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their participation in this debate today. I am hopeful that members will join me today in supporting Bill S-210.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:14 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill S-210 under private members' business.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of Bill S-210, An Act to amend 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

moved that Bill S-210, 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 concurred in.

The House resumed consideration of Bill S-210, An Act to amend 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table.

I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to pre-sentence reports. The committee has considered the bill and agreed to report it to the House with amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill S-210, an act to amend 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Mobina S.B. Jaffer]

I want to start by thanking Mr. Aldag for being the sponsor in the House and for being very supportive of this bill.

I want to thank Mr. Housefather, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I also want to thank my friend Mr. Nicholson; we miss you. We haven't worked with you in a while, and now I'm back here working with you. Vice-Chair Murray Rankin has asked me to speak to Bill S-210, an act to amend 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.

The purpose of this bill is very simple, and the bill contains just one clause. The bill would just repeal the short title, “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act”. That act covers four areas: polygamy, national age of marriage, forced marriage, and provocation. The content of the act and the way the act will be interpreted would remain the same.

Since the passage of Bill S-7 back in 2014, I have objected to pairing the words “barbaric” and “cultural”. That's not a Canadian value. When we put the two ideas together, we take responsibility for horrific actions away from the person who committed them. It's not a community that commits those acts; it's a person. Instead, we associate the crime with a culture and a community, and we imply that such horrible practices are part of a culture or a community.

I would like to take this opportunity to quote two witnesses who appeared before the human rights committee to speak to this bill during the last Parliament, to emphasize just how pairing the words “barbaric” and “cultural' marginalizes communities instead of the people guilty of these horrifying acts.

Professor Sharryn Aiken from Queen's University said:

I am not in a camp of being an apologist for violence—not at all. Let's not make any mistake about that. It's rather the pairing of “barbaric” and “cultural” that is the problem, because it seems to imply that the people who are perpetrating harmful practices and/or the victims of harmful practices are somehow relegated to some select cultural communities. As we know, that is a patent falsehood. We know that family violence, domestic violence, wife assault, and other forms of abuse are endemic across Canadian society.

It affects newcomers, long-time residents, indigenous Canadians, and Canadians of many generations. It affects Canadians of all social levels in our country.

That is the problem with the short title. It suggests that we have to be wary of certain specific communities, rather than focusing on eradicating violence everywhere.

Many of you here will know Avvy Yao-Yao Go of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. She is a very prominent person in Toronto. She said:

at the end of the day, if we go back to the drawing board, some of the provisions might well be kept, but then you need to change the conversation as a whole because, right now, the conversation is not just about whether the families are engaged in criminal acts but whether they are doing so out of their barbaric culture.

To give you an idea of the picture that is being painted when certain cultures are called barbaric, I would like to read the definition of the word from the Oxford dictionary: “savagely cruel”, “primitive; unsophisticated”, “uncivilized and uncultured”. That is how we describe cultures when we associate them with barbaric practices. We paint entire groups as cruel and uncivilized. We live in a country that prides itself on its diversity. By calling other cultures barbaric, we are going against the very value that lets Canada stand out among other countries around the world.

That is not what Canadian parliamentarians do. Rather than marginalizing cultures and cutting them out of Canadian society, we should be sewing our different cultures together and promoting unity.

During her speech on this bill, Senator Ataullahjan, who is a Conservative senator, said:

We achieve this with the passage of Bill S-7, but we achieve even more if we take steps to better position and, in this instance, to better communicate the intent of our laws, especially when they're of such importance and consequence to new Canadians.

In discussion with members of the community over the past months, many have expressed their support for Bill S-7 and the important issues that it addresses. However, at the same time, they also expressed serious concerns with regard to its short title....

I support ... Senator Jaffer in this regard, and I would urge you to support the removal of the short title of this bill.

When I was a little girl, I grew up in a colonial English setting, and we were called “barbaric” many times. When I came to this country, I was very much included in the fabric of this country. When this bill came before us and it called it “barbaric cultural practices”, it really was a knife in my heart. I thought I had left that word in the colonial past.

I come to you today to say that this is not what we are about. Nothing will change; it is just a repeal of the title. It will not go anywhere, because, as you know, being accustomed to all this, there are four bills that have been amended, so they are all separate. However, what it will say to Canadians is that we don't talk that way; our Parliament does not go to that level. That is why I'm asking you today to right a wrong and stop calling a culture “barbaric”.

Thank you very much.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Great, thank you. I'm going to go first.

I thank the committee for the time to appear before you today to talk about Bill S-210, which I am sponsoring.

In brief, the legislation is very simple. It repeals from legislation the short title about “barbaric cultural practices”, as was mentioned.

During the last election campaign, many of the constituents I now represent were quite concerned about this. They were seeing the politics of division in the public discourse. When I got to the House and saw the bill that Senator Jaffer had taken through the Senate, I was very honoured to be able to sponsor it to bring it before the House, because in the House of Commons, in Parliament, the words we use are very important.

We've seen that hate crimes aimed at particular communities are on the increase, and I feel that words like “barbaric cultural practices” have not helped that narrative. As Canadians, we are about multiculturalism and inclusiveness. I think that the bill, in its very simple form, is removing very divisive words. That is why I brought it to the House. It has now passed second reading and is before the committee for your consideration and whatever comments you'd like to offer.

Those are my comments, in brief, and why we're here today. I would invite my Senate colleague to speak about some of the other reasons she had for introducing the bill, why she also believes it is very important, and why it has already cleared the Senate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That's perfect. Thank you, everybody, for your co-operation in moving to that.

Now we will move to the next part of our meeting. I'll invite Senator Jaffer and MP John Aldag to come forward, unless they want us to suspend. We haven't been going long enough to be exhausted. I think we can keep going. The fortitude that we have, I think, is there.

In one of those rare moments, we get to consider two bills in one day.

Pursuant to an act of reference of Wednesday, April 18, 2018, we are now considering Bill S-210, an act to amend 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. It was originally introduced in the Senate and adopted by the Senate, and now sent to the House for our committee to consider.

We have the Senate sponsor of the bill, Senator Jaffer. Welcome.

The House resumed from April 17 consideration of the motion that Bill S-210, an act to amend 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.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to close the second hour of debate at second reading on Bill S-210, an act to amend 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.

The purpose of Bill S-210 is simple and straightforward. It would repeal the short title of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which was passed into law in the previous Parliament.

As I stated in the first hour of debate, there is no place for this language in legislation. It is inappropriate to associate culture with barbaric practices. This was reflected in testimony on Bill S-7 at committee, where numerous stakeholder groups objected to the inclusion of the word “culture” in the bill's short title. Senator Mobina Jaffer brought forward Bill S-210 to fix this.

The former minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship, the hon. John McCallum, who was the Liberal immigration critic in the previous Parliament, also raised our party's objections to the inclusion of the word “culture”. Senator Salma Ataullahjan, the original sponsor of Bill S-7, has also indicated her support for the removal of the short title.

In her remarks on Bill S-210, my colleague from Vancouver East put the importance of this legislation in clear terms: words matter. The words we use, especially in this place and in the laws we pass, have consequences. Words reflect the values and ideas we present to the country and to the world. Suggesting that barbaric practices are associated with particular cultures only serves to divide Canadians and fails to communicate constructively to an open and tolerant society.

Canada prides itself on being a multicultural, inclusive society. Diversity is our strength. We know that Canada has succeeded culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity, not in spite of it. It is important that we exercise care and thoughtfulness in the legislation we put forward. The short title of Bill S-7 is a blatant example of the previous government's attempts to divide Canadians, while doing nothing to advance the substance of the legislation.

I have been fortunate enough to sponsor two private member's bills, Bill C-374 and Bill S-210, which is before us today. I took great care in deciding what pieces of legislation I wanted to advance and sincerely believe in the importance of this legislation.

Language matters, and it is incumbent upon us as legislators to take the utmost care in the words we use. During Bill S-210's first hour of debate, I was disappointed to hear the member for Edmonton West refer to this bill as a waste of time. I find it unfortunate that Conservatives fail to understand this. They continue to demonstrate that they are out of touch with Canadians and would rather divide than unite.

I have the honour to represent a diverse riding that is home to Christians and Sikhs, Buddhists and Muslims, first nations and newcomers. This weekend I will have the pleasure of participating in the city of Surrey's Vaisakhi Day Parade, which is the largest of its kind in Canada. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to participate in this year's festival, an important celebration of Sikhs in our communities. The Vaisakhi Day Parade is a proud display of our region's rich cultural tapestry and a demonstration of the diversity we celebrate as Canadians.

Unnecessarily conflating abhorrent and illegal practices with particular cultures is not a productive way in which to recognize and promote Canadian diversity. We do a disservice to our multicultural communities when we grossly misuse language, as was the case with Bill S-7's short title. Bill S-210 presents an opportunity for us to correct this flaw, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise and speak in support of Bill S-210.

Bill S-210 proposes to repeal the short title of Bill S-7, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which received royal assent on June 18, 2015. The short title found in section 1 of Bill S-7, is the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. It must be noted that it is this title, not the substance of that piece of legislation, that is the subject of the bill we are currently debating.

As hon. members are probably aware, the act we are proposing to amend sought to strengthen measures that prevent things like early and forced marriage, and to better protect women and girls in Canada. However, I wish to note that during the process Parliament took to review Bill S-7, there was considerable criticism of the bill's short title from stakeholders, senators, members of Parliament, committee witnesses, and the media. These groups opposed the title, emphasizing it had the potential to build divisions in Canadian society by targeting certain communities.

In the view of the government, the use of the word “barbaric” in the short title of Bill S-7 is inflammatory and potentially divisive. It has the potential to breed fear of certain groups of immigrants, and in doing so, it distracts from the key goal of the legislation, which is to help protect women of all cultural backgrounds. Stakeholders have also noted that the title of the bill needs to be more neutral and that it should reflect the content of the bill rather than using such emotionally charged terms like “barbaric”. It is particularly harmful to deliberately link the terms “barbaric” and “cultural”.

Let me be clear. Violence against women takes many different forms and affects millions of women and girls in Canada and around the world regardless of religion, nationality, or culture. In her presentation to parliamentarians, Avvy Go, the director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, argued that the title could invoke racist stereotypes. She added that it could detract from Canadians having a real and honest discussion about domestic violence and from seeing domestic violence for what it really is, namely, an issue of gender inequality and not an issue of cultural identity.

Allow me to note some other comments. Lawyer Chantal Desloges stated that the short title deters citizens from engaging in meaningful discussion of the bill's actual content. Dr. Rupaleem Bhuyan, a professor in the University of Toronto's faculty of social work, told committee members that the title was misleading from the serious issues that this bill seeks to address.

Finally, representatives from the Canadian Bar Association and the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants raised concerns about the divisiveness of the short title.

As we see from these examples, this title has prompted considerable concern from many individuals and organizations. This is partly why the government supports Bill S-210 to repeal the short title of Bill S-7. Repealing this title is a symbolic step, but one that carries real meaning and consequence because, as we all know, language matters.

I would propose to hon. members that for one culture to consider itself morally superior over another serves only to divide our world. It fosters sentiments of xenophobia and is destructive, especially in our increasingly globalized world. Our responsibility as elected members is not to perpetuate misguided ideas or divisive language that could shape Canadian society.

The government's support for Bill S-210 demonstrates our commitment to openness, acceptance, and generosity in the Canadian immigration process. It reflects our commitment to accuracy and to avoiding language that is misleading, inflammatory, and divisive. Finally, it reflects our commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals in Canada, especially women and children.

Diversity is at the heart of our success as a nation and of what we offer the world. We are deeply committed to promoting inclusion and acceptance, which are some of the key pillars of Canadian society. The success of the diverse newcomers who migrate to Canada supports our success as a strong and united country.

We must ensure that our words, especially the words we use to describe our laws, reflect the openness that is the cornerstone of Canada's place in the world. This bill, if passed by Parliament, would remove the short title of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, that was adopted during the last parliamentary session. This is the bill's only provision and does not propose to make any other changes adopted through the passage of Bill S-7.

In summary, the government's support for Bill S-210 would remove the short title of the current legislation, a title that can promote division and intolerance and that can also be seen as targeting specific communities. On that basis, the government supports Bill S-210. I would encourage my honourable colleagues to support this bill to foster an open, tolerant, and inclusive Canada. Diversity is our strength. We know that Canada has succeeded culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity, not in spite of it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-210.

First of all, as the members of the House already know, the NDP will be supporting this bill. We want to thank the senator who raised this matter in the other place, as well as the member who raised it in this House.

The reason we are supporting this bill is very simple. We do not believe, nor have we ever believed, that the government should play with words when it comes to legislation. We thought it was important to have fair titles. We thought it was important that the government be reasonable, that it not seek to divide Canadians. Instead, the government should be promoting consensus on legislation.

The first reason we are supporting this bill is that we have always opposed the former Conservative government under Mr. Harper in his intent to try to deform legislation, to add titles that are absolutely inappropriate. We fought this through the years of the Harper government. There were many times that we raised the fact that the government was imposing titles that made no sense and were designed for political purposes, rather to properly reflect the content of the legislation before the House of Commons.

The issue raised by the title of one government bill, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, was very problematic, as were a number of other titles. A government should be looking for consensus in this country, not searching for division and imposing on acts and bills and legislation titles that are designed for political purposes.

Certainly the Conservative government had the opportunity to campaign, but that was not appropriate for legislation that comes before the House and is considered by all of the members of Parliament who are elected to represent their districts. The use by the former Harper Conservatives of these kinds of titles never should have happened. We certainly agree with eliminating the title in this case.

I raised earlier this week the very many practices that the Harper Conservatives brought in that the current Liberal government is continuing. It includes omnibus legislation, the most bloated omnibus legislation in Canada's history. There are 556 pages in the budget implementation act that we just suspended debate on, and there are so many other cases where we see the lack of transparency and the lack of respect for democratic institutions under the Harper government transformed into the new Liberal government. It is completely contrary to what Liberals committed to.

In this case at least, we are seeing the initiative of one member of Parliament in speaking out against a Harper Conservative practice. At least one Liberal is speaking out against the current government continuing this practice, at least in this case, so we thank him for that.

At the same time, since I represent my riding, I need to talk about respect for diversity in this country and the fact that the Harper Conservatives, in introducing that divisive title, were not showing respect for the diversity of this land that we all call home.

In the riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, there is more diversity within a few square kilometres of that riding than exists anywhere else in Canada and, we believe, anywhere else on the planet. Within a few square kilometres of the city of New Westminster, south Burnaby, east Burnaby, and Cariboo Hill, in the Burnaby-Edmonds area, over 150 languages are spoken. All major centres of faith are found in the riding of New Westminster—Burnaby. I am so honoured to represent that area. Through the course of a day, sometimes I will be able to use fragments of 14 or 15 different languages with the various groups that are so active in the cultural diversity that is New Westminster—Burnaby.

It is an exciting place. There are so many festivals. What we have is Canadians of so many different origins, from the four corners of this planet, coming together in consensus and making sure that they work together and bring the best of their countries of origin.

My grandfather and grandmother on my mother's side did the same when they came from Norway, as did my grandfather and grandmother on my father's side when they came from Ireland and England. They brought to New Westminster—Burnaby a lot of diversity and traditions that were important, and all in keeping with those fundamental values of human rights and equality that Canadians believe in. In New Westminster—Burnaby we find that writ large, 150 times over. People from all corners of the earth come together in harmony.

I can recall one incident that exhibits the kind of acceptance and the kind of tolerance of each other that really underscores Canadian values. I go to the Chariot Festival every year at the Tamil-speaking Hindu temple on Edmonds Street in Burnaby. It is a loud, boisterous, and celebratory festival. People go through the streets of the community around Edmonds. There is loud music, which is wonderful. It is vibrant. There is dancing.

The first time I accompanied the marchers through the neighbourhood, I went up to some burly guys who were sitting at the side of their fence drinking a cold beer. It was a hot summer day. I asked them how they felt about all this. I was not sure what the reaction of the gentlemen would be, but one of them said to me that he loved it, because he did not have to travel around the world to see the traditions in Tamil-speaking India, because India comes to his door.

That type of acceptance and admiration of the diversity and multiculturalism that exists in New Westminster—Burnaby is something I believe all Canadians share. That is the hallmark of Canadian multiculturalism, and I see it each and every day in my riding. I see an acceptance and a willingness to look at what is best that has been brought from the four corners of the earth and woven into the tapestry that is the multicultural nation we call home, with the various origins, including, of course, first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples.

More often than not, we get that balance right. We still have so much to do to make sure that every Canadian feels accepted and welcome. We still have a lot of work to do in that respect. My colleagues in the NDP raise this every day in the House of Commons. Generally, most Canadian communities get it right, and most Canadian communities believe in that acceptance of each other. That is a good start for Canada.

That is why, getting back to Bill S-210, the idea of carving off what was an extraordinarily divisive title, used for political purposes, is an important but small step in what we want to achieve as a country.

We should all believe, as the 150 different languages spoken in my riding attest, that Canadians do best when we all work together and accept the best of each one of us. As a country, we do best when we are willing to listen to each other and learn from each other and build that into the immense multicultural tapestry we call Canada.

New Westminster—Burnaby perhaps is a bit of a hallmark for the rest of the country, with 150 languages and all major religions found within it. I would like to think that is how we all want to see Canada. I would like to think that we all believe in the acceptance of each other and that we all believe in not promoting division but rather in promoting unity and working together, regardless of our diverse countries of origin and creed. On behalf of my party, I would like to say that we support this legislation as a small step in that direction.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill S-210, An Act to amend 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.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

[Member spoke in Cree]

[Translation]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate Bill S-210 in the House this evening.

This bill would repeal the title of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. We need to go back in time to 2014 and 2015, when former minister Chris Alexander decided that he wanted to do wedge politics and divide Canadians, to push people to the side and create a society where we focus on only a small number of our fellow citizens. It was divide and conquer. That is not the type of politics we need in our country. We need to bring people together to work with communities.

This bill is extremely important, because it would correct egregious harm that has been done to many cultural communities in our country. It was introduced in December 2015, shortly after our government came to power. It was introduced by Senator Mobina Jaffer. In a speech introducing her bill, which would do nothing more than remove the title of the law, Senator Jaffer said that the use of the term barbaric is an insult to cultures in Canada. She said:

Can we reasonably call terrorists barbaric? Yes. Are certain acts against humanity barbaric? Yes. Would any reasonable person agree with these points? Yes. Do I agree with those points? Yes.

The issue here, frankly, is the pairing of the words “barbaric” and “cultural.” By pairing these two words, we are instead removing the agency from the individual committing an action that is clearly wrong and associating it instead with the cultural group at large.

We are implying that these practices are part of cultures and that these cultures are barbaric. We have heard this all too often in our country before. Think of “the savage” and “the uncivilized”, where we demonize the other. Instead of looking for ways we can build a common understanding and look at other viewpoints, we demonize the other and push them to the side, push them to the edge of our country, push them to the edge of Canada.

An National Post article said:

...there is some cross-partisan consensus on the law's title. Conservative Sen. Salma Attaullahjan agrees with Senator Jaffer that “barbaric” is a problematic word. The short title “in my view, is incendiary and deeply harmful as it targets a cultural group as a whole rather than individuals who commit specific acts,” Attaullahjan said [in a] Monday evening [debate] in the Senate.

“Through conversations with my community, I heard from most that they felt the short title was directed solely at them and that from their perspective it served only to further stigmatize and alienate them from the community at large.”

I have also spoken to members of my community in Winnipeg Centre. There are many cultural groups that feel stigmatized by the use of this title, which they believe is a use of wedge politics that pushes people to the edge. This obviously is not right, and this is not who we are and should be as Canadians. We must be better.

I am very proud of the government, which is committed to addressing gender-based violence and protecting the most vulnerable. Our government has taken deliberate and tangible action toward this goal, as in our budget 2018, with pay equity and ensuring that we have gender-based analysis. I also believe that our government is deeply committed to promoting inclusion and acceptance, which are some of the key pillars of Canadian society.

While Bill S-7 was aimed at strengthening protection for women and girls, the reference to barbaric cultural practices in the title creates divisions, promotes harmful stereotypes, and fuels intolerance by targeting specific cultural communities. It has been perceived as offensive and incendiary by certain communities and stakeholder groups that serve immigrants, as it targets cultural groups as a whole rather than individuals who commit specific illegal acts.

When I was in the army, I had the opportunity of attending a junior leadership course, which is now named the practical leadership course, back in 2000. In this course, we learned about the principles of leadership. We learned how to be a better leader. One of the things we talked about was to never punish the entire group for the actions of one individual, but to correct the actions of that individual and to make sure to build morale in the group, for when we attack the entire group for no apparent reason, it becomes arbitrary and it does destroy the morale of the unit that we are in. People in the army, most if not all, believe in a better Canada and are representative of Canadian society. These rules can apply equally to what we do in government.

This inflammatory language, in my opinion, detracts from the substance of the bill and takes the focus away from the discussion of real problems and looking for real solutions. Let us be clear about this. Violence against women takes many different forms and affects millions of women and girls in Canada and around the world, regardless of religion, nationality, or culture. Repealing this title is a symbolic step but one that carries real meaning and consequence. Language matters.

This change is in line with what our government is attempting to do, building on openness, diversity, and inclusion. In the last election, Canadians rejected the Conservatives' dog-whistle politics, their divisive tactics, their stigmatizing of different communities, and their ill-fated ideas like the barbaric cultural practices hotline, with 1-800-barbaric-cultures or 1-800-barbaric-peoples. Diversity is our strength. We know that Canada has succeeded culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity, not in spite of it.

I support Bill S-210, as do the people of my community of Winnipeg Centre. We support Bill S-210. This is important.

I would like to reiterate what Bill S-7 was about, which was passed under the previous government. It was passed in 2015 and sought to address such issues as early and forced marriage, polygamy, and domestic violence. The act amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act, and the Criminal Code to strengthen existing inadmissibility provisions by adding new inadmissibility for practising polygamy in Canada, codify existing requirements for consent and monogamy in marriage, set a new minimum standard national age for marriage, and strengthen the Criminal Code offences related to early and forced marriage and so-called honour-based violence.

The Liberals supported Bill S-7 but argued against the terminology in the bill of “barbaric cultural practices” and noted that the bill targeted practices that were already against the law. However, the government of the day missed the opportunity with Bill S-7 to address these issues in a more tangible manner. At the committee stage, the opposition critic at the time, the good John McCallum, my good friend, proposed an amendment that we remove the word “cultural” from the title, noting that if the title were perceived as an attack on many communities and it did more harm than good, then perhaps we should look at a different title. The amendment was defeated, unfortunately.

Numerous stakeholders have expressed strong concerns about the use of the words “barbaric cultural practices”, arguing that they stigmatize communities and create divisions while doing nothing to help address real issues. Stakeholders who have commented in opposition to the bill's title include the Canadian Bar Association, the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children, and the Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, among others.

Let us fight for inclusiveness. Let us build bridges. Let us build understanding. Let us fight for all Canadians, not just those who we believe are our friends but truly all Canadians, for we are all in this together.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening in support of Bill S-210, which seeks to repeal the short title of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

The purpose of the bill that we are proposing to amend is to prevent early and forced marriage. It also seeks to better protect and support vulnerable Canadians, especially immigrant women and girls.

However, the short title of Bill S-7 has been harshly criticized by stakeholders, senators, members of the House of Commons, witnesses called to appear before committee, and the media. These groups argue that the short title could divide Canadian society by targeting certain communities. At issue is the use of the adjective “barbaric” in the short title of Bill S-7.

Our government believes that it is an inflammatory word that could be quite divisive. Its use could instill fear of certain immigrant groups and divert attention from the main purpose of the bill, which is to protect all women, regardless of their cultural origins.

As a result, people in Canada who defend the rights of victims of forced marriage are calling for this amendment. They believe that the bill should have a more neutral title that reflects the bill's content, rather than one that is emotionally charged.

Some people have pointed out that the title could prevent Canadians from having a truly honest discussion on family violence. Others have criticized the title because it prevents meaningful discussion on the actual content of the bill. Major concerns about the title have been raised by many individuals and organizations.

Our government's support for Bill S-210 demonstrates our commitment to the values of openness, tolerance, and generosity in the Canadian immigration system. It demonstrates our commitment to accuracy and to avoiding terminology that could be seen as misleading, inflammatory, or divisive. Finally, it demonstrates our commitment to protecting vulnerable people in Canada, particularly women and children.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship often say that Canada values diversity and has succeeded culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity, not in spite of it. This diversity is key to our success and to what we offer to the world.

The short title of Bill S-7 refers to practices that are already illegal in Canada and tries to present them in a new way that implies that one culture in particular promotes those practices and is therefore barbaric. That is inappropriate.

The adjective “barbaric” conjures up images from the colonial era, when the word “barbarian” was used in a negative way to describe some people from other cultures who were seen as strange and uncivilized.

When one culture feels a sense of moral superiority over another, it only serves to divide our society. That feeling fuels xenophobia and is destructive, particularly in this era of growing globalization.

Barbaric acts are not restricted to any one culture, race, ethnicity, or gender. Violence is not perpetrated solely on women who belong to particular cultures, which is why such actions are already illegal in Canada. The bill's short title should be amended because it presents violent acts in a way that suggests certain specific cultures promote them and that those cultures are therefore barbaric.

Keeping the short title affects how Canadians' attitudes and our work as legislators are perceived. This kind of title suggests once again that we should focus only on certain communities rather than fight violence wherever it may be.

I would like to see members of Parliament excise such insinuations from the wording of our laws. As elected representatives, it is our duty not to perpetuate misguided notions and hostile language that can influence Canadian society.

The success of newcomers from diverse backgrounds who settle in Canada contributes to our success as a strong, united country. However, we must take care that the language we use, especially the language we use to describe our laws, reflects the openness for which Canada is known the world over.

In closing, our government supports Bill S-210 to repeal the short title of the act, which may be perceived as promoting divison and intolerance by targeting certain communities. That is why our government supports Bill S-210.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to support it too.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-210. This bill has quite a long, full title, but seeks to do just one small thing, an important thing, which is to repeal the short title of former Bill S-7.

My New Democrat colleagues and I wholeheartedly support this initiative. Words matter, and when crafting legislation in this place, they matter even more. The words members of this place use, and the words used to craft the laws of a country, set a tone and an example for Canadians. We must always keep that responsibility in mind, and we must always take it very seriously.

I was glad to see Senator Jaffer take on this initiative, encouraged by the broad support it received in the Senate, and happy that the member for Cloverdale—Langley City sponsored this bill in the House of Commons.

Choosing to title Bill S-7 the “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act” was just that, an intentional choice. This choice was one New Democrats saw at the time as irresponsible at best and dangerous dog-whistle politics at worst. The NDP attempted to change this title during Bill S-7's committee study, but the former Conservative government's minister of immigration had already announced that he would not consider any amendments to the bill.

It is with great privilege that I have held the role as NDP critic for immigration, refugees, and citizenship, as well as multiculturalism, and it is through my time in these roles that I have had the opportunity to understand just how important small initiatives like repealing this inappropriate short title are.

Today, we are faced with a global migration crisis. The United Nations estimates there are over 65 million people forcibly displaced, a level not seen since World War II. Not only are the humanitarian actions we, as Canadians, take to address these global challenges important, but so too are the words we use when discussing it. At the height of the Syrian refugee crisis, many European nations were closing their doors to asylum seekers fleeing a brutal civil war. Anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, and anti-Muslim rhetoric had truly taken hold in some places. This was pushed in many corners by far-right nationalist political movements. They discredited the idea of the Syrians fleeing this war, one where we have seen intentional targeting of civilians with barrel bombs and chemical weapons, as economic migrants trying to jump the queue. The rhetoric was effective.

As I have said in the House before, I was shocked to read the quote from our own Prime Minister on November 23 when he took that rhetoric regarding the irregular bordering crossing situation, stating that would-be Canadians needed more than just a desire for a better economic future if they expected to be granted refugee status in this country. Words matter.

Given the rise globally in anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric, as Canadians and especially as parliamentarians, we must do more than just rest on our humanitarian laurels to prevent these ideas from taking hold here. Canada has thus far gone against the trend and we need to work hard to keep it that way. This is important because not only does it shape how we respond to those outside our borders, but how we treat members of our own communities.

I was troubled to see that police-reported hate crimes in Canada continued to rise from 2015 to 2016. In 2016, there were over 1,400 hate crimes reported to police, and 48% of those were motived by hatred of a race or ethnicity. The short title of Bill S-7 shamefully attempted to reframe crimes committed by individuals as normal practices of so-called barbaric cultures. At the time Bill S-7 was tabled, many Canadians saw this as being targeted towards Muslim Canadians.

In my opinion, it was also clear during the Canadian heritage committee's study of systemic racism and religious discrimination that there is a clear segment of our society that is continuing the push to denigrate the culture and heritage of Muslim Canadians. I believe this can unfortunately be seen in our hate crime statistics too.

In 2016, Arab or west Asian Canadians were the target of 112 hate crimes and Muslim Canadians were the target of 139 hate crimes. Combined, this represents 18% of all police reported hate crimes.

While I and my colleagues support Bill S-210, we believe there is much more to be done. Words matter but so do actions.

Coming out of the heritage committee study, New Democrats supported the report tabled in the House and its recommendations for taking action against systemic racism and religious discrimination, including lslamophobia. However, we believed still more could be done. As the NDP representative, I tabled a supplementary report, containing an additional 29 recommendations aimed toward making Canada a more just, fair, and inclusive place.

I was pleased to see in the budget tabled yesterday, a commitment and a recognition for a new national anti-racism plan and a plan to deal with religious discrimination. However, I was disappointed that once again the government was merely committing to consultation.

Words matter but so do actions.

The heritage committee met 22 times over the course of that study, hearing from 78 witnesses, receiving countless written submissions, tabling a 130-page report. The report's first four recommendations outlined how to get moving on a renewed national action plan with a timeline, resources, and measurable outcomes. I hope this consultation process is not going to be a long drawn out one. I hope at the end of the process it will yield a concrete plan that is resourced.

We have seen time and again a pattern of behaviour from the government. It likes to consult but the follow up, not so much.

We have seen that movie played out with electoral reform, which Canadians overwhelming have said they wanted a system where every vote counts. The government decided to ignore all that good advice and the Prime Minister made a unilateral decision to break his own promise to Canadians that the 2015 election would be the last first past the post election.

Worst still, the Prime Minister thumbed his nose at Canadians who participated in the many town halls that many MPs held in their communities and the extensive consultation process on which an all-party committee embarked. Members will excuse me if I am just a little skeptical whenever the government says that it will consult.

We heard loud and clear during the study about the rise of hate crime incidents in Canada. Witnesses said that immediate action should be taken to provide improved training and education to Canada's law enforcement agencies to better understand and recognize when hate was a motivating factor in the commission of a crime. We need to ensure that provinces and territories are resourced with proper hate crime units. The government could do this now. Action matters.

We also heard about under-reporting of hate crime incidents to authorities, often out of fear by victims that they would not be taken seriously. Under-reporting of hate crime incidents is a known fact. The government needs to ensure barriers are removed for victims to come forward. Resourcing a hotline in collaboration with community groups would have done just that. However, that was not part of budget 2018.

Canadians do not want to see victims of hate crime and systemic discrimination to continue to suffer silently. Action matters.

What we also know is that hate is a learned behaviour. We must do more as a society to counter those who teach and promote hate and division.

Given the current climate and the increase in hateful and anti-immigrant rhetoric across the developed world, Canada cannot rest on its laurels when it comes to diversity and inclusion. To ensure that Canada continues to go against those trends, investments must be made in our newcomer communities to ensure they can integrate successfully and thrive. We need to build on the hard work of community groups by investing and supporting organizations that work to strengthen community involvement, civic inclusion, and to develop community leaders. Action matters.

Let us get on with it, with love and courage.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-210, an act to amend 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.

The bill we are debating today does nothing but change the short title of the bill that was passed in Parliament a year ago. Let us think about that for a moment. We are debating a bill which its entire purpose is to delete a short title.

When I went door-knocking in 2015, not a single person said that they hoped I could go to Ottawa so I could spend my time debating the changing of a title of a bill. Anyone listening to this debate will probably wonder why Parliament has chosen to spend debate time, committee study time, and so many other aspects of its resources on a bill that does so little.

I could spend my time arguing that this is becoming a hallmark of the Liberal government. It spends far more time, effort, and Canadian taxpayers on gestures rather than taking concrete actions to address challenges facing Canadians. Yesterday's budget is a perfect example of that.

Instead, I will set the context for the reason why Bill S-7 in the last Parliament was necessary and then review the concrete measures that the bill enacted to protect Canadians.

The bill was put forward by our former Conservative government to take action to prevent forced marriage and the so-called honour killings. A British website describes forced marriage as taking place when the bride, groom, or both do not want to get married but are forced by others, usually their families. People forced into marriage may be tricked into going abroad, physically threatened, and/or emotionally blackmailed to do so. Forced marriage is wrong and cannot be justified on any religious or cultural basis. It is a form of violence and/or child abuse and it is a violation of human rights.

Forced marriage also often involves children and young girls. Child marriage often compromises a girl's development by resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation, interrupting her schooling, limiting her opportunities for career and vocational advancement, and placing her at increased risk of domestic violence.

In June 2017, a Canadian woman named Samra Zafar gave her account to CTV news on why it was so important for us to take action to prevent forced marriage in Canada. I am going to share her story from the article.

She said she was just 16 years old when her mother told her she would be marrying a 28-year-old man in Canada. Think about that, 16 years old and being forced into marriage with a 28-year-old. Against her wishes, Zafar left her Pakistani family's home in the United Arab Emirates and started a new life with her husband in Mississauga.

Over the next decade, she said she endured abuse of all kinds as she raised two daughters and tried desperately to obtain a university degree so she could get out of her marriage. She eventually succeeded and is now speaking out about other child brides and forced marriage, a problem she says is prevalent, even in Canada.

Zafar said, “It’s actually shocking how much it happens here...Since I have started speaking up about it, I get approached by women and girls all the time.”

Forcing very young girls into marriage is a serious global problem. In Canada, marriage laws vary among provinces and territories, with the legal age of marriage generally set at 18. However, in many provinces, a person with consent from both parents can be married at age 16 or 17.

Saadya Hamdani of Plan Canada said, “Those exceptions can lead to forced marriage because the bride’s consent is not explicitly sought...The cultural value that is attached to marriage is a very big problem.”

It is estimated that each year 15 million girls around the world are married before the age of 18. In September 2013, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario released a report that counted 219 confirmed or suspected cases of forced marriage in Ontario and Quebec in just two years. In 57% of the cases, people were taken out of Canada to get married.

As Canadians, we are moving toward a space of true equality of persons. This means freedom of choice for individuals. It means protecting the vulnerable. It means working toward a Canada where men and women are not forced into situations that result in a lifetime of harm and devastation.

Our former Conservative government knew that Canada was not immune to this issue and took concrete action to help prevent this from happening with Bill S-7. It was created to protect vulnerable men and women from the cultural practices of forced marriage, to protect them from the many consequences such as mental health issues, sexual assault, verbal and emotional abuse, and many others.

To give an overview of the original Bill S-7, I want to highlight a few of the key components.

We amended the existing offence for a legally authorized officiant who knowingly solemnized a marriage contrary to provincial law. To clarify that. this also includes a marriage that was contrary to federal law, including a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16.

We created a new offence prohibiting the active and knowing participation in a forced marriage ceremony by any person, including parents or other family members of the person being forced to marry, or the performance of a forced marriage ceremony, whether or not the person is legally authorized to solemnize a marriage.

We created a new offence prohibiting the active and knowing participation in a marriage ceremony involving a person under the age of 16 by any person, including parents or other family members of the person who is underage, or the performance of an underage marriage ceremony, whether or not the person is legally authorized to solemnize a wedding.

We also extended the existing offence of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of having certain offences committed abroad to include the removal of a child for the purpose of a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 outside of Canada.

We introduced a new peace bond that gives the court power to impose conditions on a person when there are reasonable grounds to fear that a forced marriage or a marriage under the age of 16 will otherwise occur.

Bill S-7 also amended the Criminal Code to address concerns that the defence of provocation has been raised in several so-called honour killings in Canada. These cases involved accused persons who killed their wife, sister, or sister's fiancé and alleged that the killing was motivated by their perception that the victims had brought dishonour to their family through their conduct or choices, taking into account their cultural views about appropriate gender roles and behaviour.

Prior to Bill S-7, the defence of provocation allowed persons to commit first-degree murder but seek the more lenient charge of manslaughter by arguing that the victim's conduct provoked them to lose self-control and commit the murder. Prior to Bill S-7, any conduct by the victim, including insults and other forms of offensive behaviour that are lawful, could potentially qualify as provocation if it was found to be sufficient to cause an ordinary person to lose control, if the accused was not expecting it, and if the killing was sudden. Bill S-7 limited the defence of provocation so that the lawful conduct by victims that might be perceived by the accused as an insult, or offend that person or that person's sense of family honour or reputation, could not be used to reduce murder to manslaughter.

From an immigration point of view, the original bill ensures that all who are vulnerable to forced marriage will be protected, from those who are newest to our country to those who are born in Canada.

The fact that the Liberals just want to change the name of the bill but not change any form or substance of the bill affirms that they agree with our previous Conservative government's approach to Bill S-7.

All these changes are common sense and have the potential to save lives, which is what the Liberal government should be spending its time doing. However, the bill we are debating today is another example of the government wasting time while trying to appear progressive through the amendment of a bill made by the Conservatives.

The bill before us today, Bill S-210, does nothing to help solve serious societal problems created by forced marriages and so-called honour killings. Instead, it could be argued that it seeks to distort public understanding of the severity of the impact of issues such as forced marriage and so-called honour killings, by arguing over how harshly we should denounce these practices.

These are typical Liberal tactics, placing before the rights of victims the feelings of those who hold the abhorrent attitude that practices such as these are tolerable. That is why our previous Conservative government put in place Bill S-7 to protect vulnerable Canadians, yet here is the priority of the Liberal government, standing here arguing semantics instead of discussing real change to prevent crimes like forced marriage from happening. How reprehensible. How very Liberal.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that the investments in multiculturalism our government made in the budget this week are a continued reflection of the importance that Canada's diversity offers. It is the strength of our country. Investing in this and celebrating it would help us find inclusiveness, not the divisiveness we saw through previous legislation that we are attempting to amend and fix through Bill S-210.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her work during the last Parliament in trying to bring some reason to the debate that was happening at that time. I know many Canadians were horrified by the actions and words put forward. It really was divisive. As a Canadian who was outside politics at the time, I was horrified with the kind of conversation that was being advanced through the House of Commons.

We have an opportunity to do it right. Bill S-210 is the first step. It would remove the short title, which really is inflammatory and serves no purpose.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

moved that Bill S-210, An Act to amend 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.

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on Bill S-210.

Bill S-210 is a straightforward piece of legislation. It proposes to repeal the short title found in section 1 of 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. The only thing that is affected through Bill S-210 is the removal of the short title.

Bill S-210 was introduced by Senator Mobina Jaffer and having passed third reading in the other place is now before this House for consideration and debate.

Bill S-7 received royal assent on June 18, 2015, with the short title of “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act”. It is this short title that the bill before us today proposes to repeal.

As my colleagues may be aware, the act that we are proposing to amend today strengthened efforts to prevent early and forced marriage and to better protect and support vulnerable Canadians, particularly immigrant women and girls. Bill S-7 also inappropriately and unnecessarily paired the words “barbaric” and “cultural” so as to suggest that practices such as forced marriages and polygamy were rooted in cultures external to Canada. In reality, Canada is faced with many of the issues which Bill S-7 sought to address irrespective of any particular culture. Ultimately, the use of the phrase “barbaric cultural practices” was used by the previous Conservative government as a tool of division, and we are presented with an opportunity, and I might say even a duty to fix this.

As Senator Jaffer stated, “What this title implies is simply the recompartmentalizing of things that are already illegal in Canada to attempt to reframe it as though a specific culture promotes these practices and, therefore, to claim that the culture is barbaric.”

During the parliamentary review process, stakeholders, senators, members of Parliament, committee witnesses, and the media criticized the short title. Stakeholders as diverse as the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children and the Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic opposed the short title stating that it would create divisions within Canadian society by targeting certain communities.

Avvy Go, the director of the Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, stated during her testimony to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that the title “invokes racist stereotypes and fuels xenophobia toward certain racialized communities”. She further went on to say that it “detracts from Canadians having a real and honest discussion about domestic violence and from seeing domestic violence for what it really is, namely, an issue of gender inequality and not an issue of cultural identity”.

Further, representatives from the Canadian Bar Association and the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants raised similar concerns about the divisiveness of the short title. Noted immigration lawyer Chantal Desloges also stated that the short title “deters citizens from engaging in meaningful discussion of the bill’s actual content”. Dr. Rupaleem Bhuyan, a professor at the University of Toronto’s faculty of social work, also pointed out at committee hearings that the title is “misleading from the serious issues that this bill seeks to address”, and recommended instead attention on promoting gender equality, which is something this government has high on our issues of importance.

Former minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship, the Hon. John McCallum, who was the Liberal immigration critic during debate on Bill S-7, spoke to the bill's short title in the previous Parliament. On the use of the word “cultural” he said:

That word is both offensive and unnecessary. We on this side of the House agree that these practices are barbaric, so we do not object at all to the use of that word. When one inserts the word “cultural”, it carries the implication that there are certain cultures, certain communities that are being targeted. Whether that is in the minds of the Conservatives is something we can debate, but it certainly carries that implication across the country. There is no reason to force that implication to be carried, because as has been pointed out, in terms of polygamy and other barbaric practices, they are certainly not limited to any one community.

He further went on to express:

I do not think the word “cultural” adds anything. It certainly does not add anything to the content of this bill, and it is misleading in that it carries the implication in the minds of some Canadians that this bill is targeting their particular culture or community.

These are just a few examples of voices that spoke out about the short title. As you can see, many individuals and organizations share similar sentiments.

In fact, Mr. McCallum had proposed an amendment to the bill at committee stage that would have seen the word “cultural” removed from its title. The amendment was rejected.

Even Senator Salma Ataullahjan, the original sponsor of Bill S-7, supports removal of the short title. As she put it during debate at third reading:

When I spoke to Bill S-210 at second reading, I affirmed my strong support of Bill S-7 and its intent. However, I also fervently expressed my opposition to its short title, which, in my view, is incendiary and deeply harmful, as it targets a cultural group as a whole rather than individuals who commit the specific acts.

The inappropriate pairing of “barbaric” and “cultural” in order to fuel racist and xenophobic attitudes is not who we are as Canadians. Quite frankly, these attitudes and the impressions that this short title perpetuates have no place in Canadian society.

The phrase “barbaric cultural practices” was used by the former Conservative government to divide Canadians. As were many Canadians, I too was disgusted when the Conservatives announced their so-called barbaric cultural practices hotline, which was a thinly veiled attempt to appeal to the worst in Canadians, an attempt to sow fear of others that would have had Canadians snitching on one another.

This is not who we are as Canadians. We have heard that clearly from Canadians. Such practices are not healthy for democracy. They result in divisiveness and mistrust, and perpetuate discrimination and intolerance.

Today, we have an opportunity to fix an expression of these attitudes in the form of Bill S-7's short title. I am hopeful that all members in this place will join me in supporting the repeal of the short title. Bill S-210 reflects our commitment to openness, acceptance, and generosity in Canada's immigration policies. It reflects our commitment to common sense, and a Canada that does not purposely use inaccurate and inflammatory language to divide us. Of course, it also reflects our commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals in Canada, particularly women and children.

As the Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions, diversity is our strength. Canadians understand this. We know that Canada has succeeded, culturally, politically, and economically, because of our diversity, not in spite of it. Diversity has been, and will continue to be at the heart of our success and of what we offer the world.

The success of immigrants is our success as a strong and united country. As the member of Parliament for Cloverdale—Langley City, I am proud to represent a diverse and inclusive population. Our communities are home to Christians and Sikhs, Buddhists and Muslims, first nations and newcomers.

Canada is a modern nation rooted in principles of multiculturalism and diversity. At our core we understand that our different backgrounds, beliefs, and heritage truly make us stronger. They contribute to a cultural tapestry that enhances our collective identity and signals to the world that Canada is an open and welcoming nation.

Canada is a nation of newcomers, and we know that when newcomers succeed, Canada succeeds. I am proud to be a member of a government which welcomed over 40,000 Syrian newcomers during one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time. In this act, we demonstrated leadership on the world stage as a progressive, inclusive nation. Resettling refugees is a proud and important part of Canada's humanitarian tradition. It reflects our commitment to Canadians and demonstrates to the world that we have a shared responsibility to help people who are displaced and persecuted.

To play different religious, ethnic, or cultural groups off of one another is simply wrong. It is reflective of a style of politics that Canadians soundly rejected in the last election. Conflating abhorrent practices like polygamy with particular cultures does a disservice to the inclusive and welcoming attitudes that we as Canadians work hard to foster. It inaccurately suggests that these practices are ascribed to particular cultures.

As Senator Jaffer has said, “We can call terrorists barbaric, we can call violence barbaric, but we cannot call cultures barbaric.”

Our words matter, and in this place, they have consequences with implications resonating across our country. The words we use reflect our intentions and the type of nation we want to build as Canadians, as well as a reflection of what we offer to the world.

The strength of our new Canadians is what makes us stronger, and we must be vigilant that our actions and words reflect the openness that our country is known for.

Bill S-210 is straightforward. It would remove a short title that was seen as promoting division and intolerance, and as targeting specific communities. There are no substantive changes to any of the legislation. It is simply the removal of the short title.

I truly encourage all my hon. colleagues to support the bill and to work together to foster an open, generous, tolerant, and inclusive Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Filomena Tassi]

We'll call to order this meeting of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We have two Senate bills before us: Bill S-218 and Bill S-210.

David, did you want to give any input with respect to these?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-210, An Act to amend 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill S-210, an act to amend 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.

Senator Jaffer tabled this bill in the Senate because the use of the words “barbaric” and “cultural” together, in a short title, reframes the discussion of crimes such as forced marriage, polygamy, and female genital mutilation. Putting the words “barbaric” and “cultural” together in the same phrase is socially irresponsible, morally reprehensible, and frankly, repugnant. This phrasing removes responsibility for horrific actions from an individual and instead associates the crime with a culture or a community.

There is no place for phraseology such as “barbaric cultural practices” in today's society. The bill would remove this archaic and misplaced terminology from being referenced in Canada's statutes.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)