CIMM Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration met at 8:46 a.m. this day, in Room 253-D, Centre Block, the Chair, David Tilson, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

On Clause 2,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, November 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-7, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 1 with the following:

“consistent with subparagraph 293(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code and shall not be interpreted so as to include a person who is in any kind of conjugal union with another person that is in any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“(3) The Minister shall provide any foreign national sponsored under this Act by her spouse or common-law partner with all relevant information, in that foreign national's own language, on the rights of and the resources available to women in Canada.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Part of Bill S-7 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by adding a definition of polygamy. The amendment seeks to amend the same act by proposing that the Minister provide specific information to certain categories of people, which is not envisioned in the Bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair this amendment brings a new concept that is beyond the scope of the Bill as adopted by the House at Second Reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Clause 2 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 3 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 4,

“2.2 (1) No person who is under the age of 18 years may contract marriage.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the Governor in Council may, by regulation, at the request of the lieutenant governor in council of a province, prescribe, in respect of the province, that the minimum age to contract marriage is 16 or 17, as the case may be, if the province has legislative measures providing for a judicial process by which a person who is 16 or 17, as the case may be, may seek an order to declare that he or she has the capacity to contract marriage.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of John McCallum and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, November 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-7, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 6 and 7 on page 2.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.

Clause 4 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

Clause 5 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 6 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 7,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, November 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-7, in Clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 19 on page 3.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

(a) by replacing lines 12 to 14 on page 3 with the following:

“stitute an indictable offence under this Act or discrimination on a prohibited ground of discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act and that is of such a nature as”

(b) by adding after line 19 on page 3 the following:

“(2.1) For greater certainty, the conduct of the victim, in a case where the accused believes that it has brought shame or dishonour to his family, does not constitute discrimination on a prohibited ground of discrimination that would amount to provocation under subsection (2).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of John McCallum and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 7 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

Clause 8 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 9,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, November 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-7, in Clause 9, be amended

(a) by replacing line 1 on page 4 with the following:

“293.1 Any person 18 years of age or more who celebrates, aids or”

(b) by replacing line 7 on page 4 with the following:

“293.2 Any person 18 years of age or more who celebrates, aids or”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 9 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Jay Aspin, Jim Eglinski, Chungsen Leung, John McCallum, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 6; NAYS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, Irene Mathyssen, Jasbir Sandhu — 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 10 to 15 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.

After debate, Clause 16 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 1, Short Title,

“Tolerance for Barbaric Practices Act.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to make an amendment to the short title.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 770-771:

“The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate an amendment.”

In the opinion of the Chair, no amendment has been made to the bill which would necessitate a change to the short title. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

“Tolerance for Barbaric Practices Towards Women and Children Act.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to make an amendment to the short title.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 770-771:

“The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate an amendment.”

In the opinion of the Chair, no amendment has been made to the bill which would necessitate a change to the short title. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

The Bill carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Jay Aspin, Jim Eglinski, Chungsen Leung, John McCallum, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 6; NAYS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, Irene Mathyssen, Jasbir Sandhu — 3.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill to the House.

At 9:47 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.