Evidence of meeting #48 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Sorry, I thought we were on clause 16. I agree with clause 15.
(Clause 15 agreed to)
(On clause 16)
Conservative
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't debate this at length, but I simply want to say that I oppose clause 16 for the reasons mentioned earlier. A number of witnesses told us that clause 16 might have unexpected and undesired consequences. So I will oppose this clause.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Is there debate on clause 16?
(Clause 16 agreed to)
(On clause 1—Short Title)
We are on to the short title.
We have a Liberal amendment first.
Do you have a point of order?
NDP
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you could turn to LIB-1 in your package, Mr. McCallum is proposing an amendment to the short title.
Mr. McCallum, you have the floor.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Chair, our proposal is to change the short title to “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Practices Act”. We want to remove the word “cultural”. As we've explained before, whatever the government's intent may be—it may be perfectly benign—certain communities have taken this as an attack upon them, even though these practices are common to all cultures. We do not think the inclusion of this word adds anything of substance to the bill. It is perceived as an attack on many communities, who have acknowledged this point. We think it certainly does more harm than good, and we should therefore remove the word “cultural” from the short title.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. McCallum, I'm going to rule the proposed amendment out of order. It seeks to make an amendment to the short title. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 770 to 771, “The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.” It is my opinion as chairman that no amendment has been made to the bill which would necessitate a change to the short title. We therefore rule the proposed amendment of Mr. McCallum inadmissible.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're moving along, Mr. McCallum. I'd like you to hold back your comments for another time.
We're going to move to NDP-1. Please turn to NDP-1 in your package, which is a further proposed amendment to the short title.
Madam Blanchette-Lamothe, you have the floor.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand your decision concerning the previous amendment and the fact that my amendment will probably be out of order. However, I think it's important to present it anyway.
We have heard a great deal of testimony in this committee from Canadians who opposed the title of this bill. Some people are offended by the legislative proposal, while others are not. It's important to mention that. However, even if a small portion of the population is offended, that is too much. We must work with everyone to fight against forced marriages. But in the context of this fight, a title like this might unfortunately end up turning stakeholders in various communities against the government. The victims must absolutely not feel marginalized because they are associated with a barbaric culture or be afraid of reporting the fact that they are victims of a forced marriage, especially because their own culture and that of the people they love is seen as barbaric.
There have been many testimonies, and the message is very clear. Once again, if your purpose is to fight against forced marriage, why would you put up an obstacle to that purpose? Why would we not simply remove the word “cultural” if it would help us make new allies in fighting against forced marriage?
Mr. Chair, keeping the word “cultural” is obstination, and it goes against the main purpose of the bill, which is to fight against forced marriage. We need to do everything we can to find new allies in the fight on the ground against forced marriage. This means finding a title that clearly denounces unacceptable practices, here in Canada. We can describe them as barbaric, although I don't particularly like that word, since it has a range of other connotations, but it is not a problem for me.
In my amendment, I propose the following title:
“Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Practices Against Women and Children”.
It would make it possible to name the practices and condemn them in the title of the bill. However, if the title ends up alienating a part of the population that we need as partners to fight against forced marriage, we consider that unacceptable.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.
Unfortunately, I have to rule your proposed amendment out of order. I will not give the same rationale that I read out, but it's the same rationale that I gave Mr. McCallum on his proposed amendment LIB-1.
That proposed amendment is deemed to be out of order, and we now move to a vote on whether the short title will carry.
Shall the short title carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
A recorded vote is requested by Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.
(Bill agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall the chair report the bill to the House?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The chair will report the bill to the House, probably tomorrow.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
To the staff members who are here this morning, thank you as well.
It seemed like a fairly non-controversial bill, but it wasn't. It was controversial, and I want to thank all of you for participating in a very civil manner. Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank the clerks and the analysts for all their help as well. Thank you very much.
This meeting is adjourned.