Bill S-7 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act
An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 4, 2014
- Debated in principleNov. 26, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 15, 2014
- Passed the second chamberJune 16, 2015
- Became lawJune 17, 2015
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 5 November 2014, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced 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 (Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act) in the Senate and it was given first reading. Part 1 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to specify that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of practising polygamy in Canada. Part 2 amends the Civil Marriage Act to provide for the legal requirements for a free and enlightened consent to marriage and for any previous marriage to be dissolved or declared null before a new marriage is contracted. Those requirements are currently provided for in the Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1 only in respect of Quebec and under the common law in the other pr…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
62% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,292 words introduced, 2,438 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core measures on polygamy inadmissibility, marriage consent rules, minimum marriage age, and new Criminal Code offences for forced or underage marriage remained intact from introduction to royal assent. Parliament added consequential amendments to other statutes and explicit coming-into-force clauses that were absent or incomplete in the introduced text.
- Added consequential amendment to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
After: “Youth Criminal Justice Act 2002, c. 1”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses fixed ages, maximum prison terms, and objective knowledge requirements to define new marriage-related offences and recognizance powers. Some judicial discretion remains in consent language and condition-setting.
Open to argument
“free and enlightened consent”
Subjective standard that invites argument over what counts as enlightened.“in the interests of the defendant's safety or that of any other person”
Subjective test allowing variable judicial assessments of risk.
Clear-cut
“under the age of 16 years”
Numeric threshold that can be verified without interpretation.“liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years”
Fixed maximum penalty leaves no room for regulatory adjustment.“less than five years older than the complainant”
Exact age-difference test that produces a clear yes-or-no result.
Discretion. Judges decide conditions and duration of recognizances up to 12 or 24 months; several parts come into force only by Governor-in-Council order.
Challenging the law itself. Section 7 Charter claims could target the breadth of recognizance conditions and the undefined phrase free and enlightened consent as potentially vague or overbroad.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused can readily dispute the knowledge element or exact age but face harder arguments once those facts are proven.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.