Justice Committee on April 17th, 2007

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

If you don't agree with the bill, you can vote against the bill, but to try to move an amendment that gets at the substance of what the legislation is trying to do is contrary to what the legislation is.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's where we disagree in terms of what we're trying to do here.

Going back, as Mr. Albrecht said, he doesn't want to change the name; this is about protection. It is about protection, that's really what we're talking about. And we're talking about protecting the stereotype we all have, the 50-year-old man and the 14-year-old girl.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I'm not talking about that. I'm hitting right at the exemptions you're trying to make, because I don't think you or I or anyone in this room has a difficulty with the scenario you just put forward, the scenario saying that we as a government happen to believe that 16 years of age is the correct age to begin having this discussion.

You keep trying to find an exemption that actually doesn't exist, because, for lack of a better term, they'll be grandfathered under the current legislation. So I fail to see how anyone can say, as Mr. Murphy's suggested, that all of these relationships will have to break up within the context of the legislation--that's absolutely not the case. Some of us may wish that they would, but that's not, in terms of legislation, what is actually going to happen.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

The existing relationships do not have to break up, because what's in the act now, what's in the bill now, would protect them. But logically, if you say you're going to do that with existing relationships, if those relationships form in the future--not of an exploitative nature, not of a nature that we would say is damaging--they simply form. And those relationships, Mr. Dykstra, are going to continue to form.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's why the legislation's being introduced. Now you're speaking to the actual heart and the guts of what this legislation is going to address.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

No. Again, I disagree with you. The heart and the guts of this legislation is that stereotype, that's what we're going after. We're going after that 50-year-old and the 14-year-old.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

What you want to do is what you can do with every piece--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

What we're not going after is a relationship that's a viable relationship that's in existence at the time, and that's what we're criminalizing if we don't put this amendment in prospectively.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

No, we're not. We've already grandfathered those.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Retroactively. I'm talking prospectively. Those relationships are going to continue to form. You're living in an unreal world if you believe those relationships aren't going to form again.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Those relationships can continue to form, but under Bill C-22 those relationships are not going to be legal.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

You criminalize them. That's not what's intended by this legislation. This legislation is to protect young people who are being exploited, who are being taken advantage of. Those relationships, by their very definitions, are not exploitative, and they're going to continue to form and we're going to criminalize them.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's a matter of opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Ménard, on a point of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Point of order.

Mr. Chair, before voting on this amendment, could we adjourn for five minutes so that our party can discuss it? We would like to check some things with our leader.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

There are two amendments.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We are talking about the NDP's amendments. We would like to check some things before we vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The vote will certainly be coming shortly.

Is there consensus that we suspend for five minutes for further party deliberations?

Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Whatever discussion is left, we are probably very near the end of it now anyway. We can't adjourn every time we want to deliberate clause-by-clause on an amendment. If Mr. Ménard has some special circumstances--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We could have a vote pour l'ajournement.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I would prefer to continue the debate. If there are some deliberations in the Bloc Québécois on this, they should be doing them right now as we speak. If Mr. Ménard wants me to speak a little longer so he has more time to deliberate, that's good.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We are talking about adjournment. Whether you agree or not, we are voting on a five-minute adjournment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Whatever the committee may feel here....

Pardon?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

A five-minute adjournment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It's not an adjournment here.