Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We'll call the meeting to order.

I would like to advise all members of the committee that the meeting today is public.

Today we are considering the report from the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business on the matter of Bill C-291. As you know, the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business has recommended in its first report that the private member's bill in question be deemed non-votable. The purpose of the meeting today is to consider whether this committee concurs.

Pursuant to our Standing Orders, we have this morning Mr. Leon Benoit, member of Parliament for Vegreville—Wainwright. Mr. Benoit has brought some guests, some speakers, to assist him. Mr. Benoit wishes, pursuant to our rules, to testify and to make his case, as it were, before the committee, sort of an appeal to our committee, on this matter of the first report.

I would ask you, Mr. Benoit, to proceed with any statement you wish to make. I'm going to grant you as much time as you need. If you want to introduce your guests, this would be an appropriate time to do that.

Following Mr. Benoit's statement, we will open to our standard round of questioning--eight minutes on the first round, then five minutes, and so on. Hopefully we can keep questions and answers very brief so that we can get as much information as we can.

I will tell the committee that we are instructed to make a decision on this issue today. We are responsible for that. There are no provisions for a delay or adjournment on this issue. We need to make a decision today.

Mr. Proulx, a comment?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Is it the intent of this committee to reserve the meeting today, the entire two hours, to this particular matter?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Indeed, it was my intention to offer the entire committee meeting to Mr. Benoit, given that this is an urgent matter and it's the fifth day. We are required to deal with this within five days of the subcommittee's first report. So that is the case.

If things wrap up very early, I would suggest that we proceed with other business. However, depending on when things wrap up, I will look to the committee's recommendation to simply adjourn or move to other business for today. But today's meeting was dedicated to Mr. Benoit.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

In essence, you would be ready to consider two hours on this particular matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I would be willing to consider whatever is necessary for the committee to make a decision, whether it's two hours or one.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Benoit.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of you for giving me this opportunity to present my case on my private members' bill, Bill C-291.

I do have a presentation. My guess is that it will take probably 20 minutes. I look forward to your questions following my presentation.

I will also be introducing to you Mary Talbot, who's sitting behind me today. She's here because in fact it was her situation that really brought this issue to my attention. I think what she says is important in the consideration of this private member's bill.

I was somewhat surprised, I have to admit, when I was told by the subcommittee that my private member's bill had been deemed--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes, Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think I missed something to start with.

I have no objection that Mr. Benoit, as a member of Parliament, be in front of this committee to plead his appeal, if I can put it that way. But would you please refer me to where in the Standing Orders it says that he can have independent witnesses with him to plead his case?

My understanding--and correct me if I'm wrong, sir--is that a member of Parliament can come and testify in front of a committee and debate his rights. But from that to bringing one or two witnesses...and it doesn't matter how many; it could only be one.

I just don't recall seeing that in the Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

My understanding is that you cannot testify unless the committee agrees.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

You would need the unanimous consent of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Correct. That is my understanding.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you; I apologize--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Benoit, please continue.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I had started to say, I was somewhat surprised when I heard from the committee that my bill was not votable. I guess I wasn't really aware enough, possibly, of the procedure, but I was quite shocked to find out that because the subcommittee meeting had been held in camera, I in no way would get the information that would allow me to know why my bill had been deemed unvotable--other than the one thing, that it was due to number two of the four criteria that are laid out for making items of private members' business non-votable. That number two says the following: “Bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

So I'm here before you today, making my case, not knowing what part of my bill may have, in the opinion of the subcommittee, violated the Constitution. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, but I'll carry forward by guessing--addressing issues that I think may cause some concern for the committee. That's about the only way I can proceed, really. I'm kind of in the dark as to what in effect the charges are against me, and yet I'm here to defend myself. I'll do the best I can from that point of view.

I'll start by going through my bill. It's very short. I just want to make sure that everyone knows what my bill does say. I know the general committee hasn't probably dealt with it yet, so I'll do that.

Bill C-291 amends the Criminal Code as follows, regarding injuring or killing an unborn child while committing an offence, in proposed subsection 238.1(1):Every one who injures or causes the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother who is pregnant with the child is guilty of the offence of which the person would have been guilty had the injury or death occurred to the mother, and is liable to the punishment prescribed for that offence.

The second section is exclusion of defence. This short section of the Criminal Code would be added if my bill were to become votable and pass. Proposed subsection 238.1(2) says:It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that(a) the child is not a human being;(b) the accused did not know that the person was pregnant; or(c) the accused did not mean to injure or cause the death of the child.

Then it mentions separate offences in proposed subsection 238.1(3):The offence of injuring or causing the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother who is pregnant with the child is not included in any offence committed against the mother.

These last two proposed subsections are in there to make it more difficult for someone charged with the offence to get off the hook, for reasons that are obvious, I think.

I want to make it clear that the intent of this bill is to make it so that.... Under current federal criminal law, an unborn child is not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes. This gap in federal law gives rise to grave injustices, I believe.

In November of 2005, Olivia Talbot of Edmonton, who was 27 weeks pregnant with her son, Lane Jr., was shot three times in the abdomen and twice in the head. Because we offer no legal protection for unborn children today, no charge could be laid in the death of baby Lane. Another pregnant woman in Edmonton, Liana White, was slain by her husband in the summer of 2005. Again, no charges could be laid in her baby's death.

Many Canadians are shocked to learn that when an attacker kills a woman's pre-born child, no charge is laid in the death of that child, even when the attacker purposely intended to kill the child. Clearly there are two victims in such cases, and the public recognizes this. A Robbins SCE Research poll conducted in December of 2005 found that 78% of Canadians support a separate homicide charge in the death of the unborn child in such cases. A Calgary Herald poll conducted on November 30 of 2005 showed 82% support.

The grieving families who have lost their loved ones in this type of a crime only too tragically recognize that there are two victims. Just ask Mary Talbot--who is in fact here today, witnessing the proceedings--how many victims there were when her daughter Olivia and her grandson baby Lane died that day.

If the committee would agree, I would like to allow Mary Talbot two to three minutes to let you know what this means to her. I'd like to do that at this time, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Before making a decision on the pertinence of hearing the witness, may we know this witness' expertise, or what her line of testimony would be all about? Is she a charter expert? Is she a medical expert? Is she a law expert? Why are we considering listening to this witness?

With all due respect, I would like to know why we would listen to a witness in this particular case, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Benoit, do you have any answers to those questions?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly she provides none of the expertise the member has asked about. What she does provide is obvious first-hand expertise on the importance of changing the law to protect the pregnant mother and the unborn child.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, did you have a comment?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Not a comment, but I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to allow her to go on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's just continue for one second.

Yes, please.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I have a point of order on this.

My understanding is that the reasons for an issue to be considered or not considered are technical; it's whether they fall under one of those four points. I take Mr. Proulx' point, that the argument before us today is whether or not something meets within those four criteria. That's what we are here to hear from the witness and to discuss.

So I would argue that unless there's something within those four points, it's irrelevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Even more simplistically than that, we are simply to concur or not concur on the report of the subcommittee, whose decision has been made already with respect to those four technical criteria.

Mr. Reid, would you like to make a motion?