Justice Committee on April 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I hear people saying they want to adopt it as quickly as possible. I haven't even heard clearly what we're trying to address with this amendment, but if it's to create some great loophole that because someone is pregnant or living common law that somehow this is exempted, I don't think that's going to be accomplished with further discussion without completely gutting the intent of the bill.

It's our intent to draw a line, and I don't see how you can have a marriage exemption that would retroactively protect someone from a criminal charge, number one. Number two, if someone is already married, it means they're in compliance with the marriage laws. They've been legally married; they're protected. They won't be legally married otherwise. You can't just get married on your own.

I think they're taking a very complicated approach. I think people have it in their mind that there are some things they don't like, which is the scenario with the 50-year-old and the 15-year-old. We don't like that; we all agree. There are some times when it's a 21-year-old and a 15-year-old, and they're married. Maybe that's not so bad, but that can't be accomplished without bringing in all the others.

Unless you want to change the close-in-age exemption or some other thing, what Mr. Comartin is trying to accomplish cannot be done without substantially gutting the bill. The bill is designed to protect people under 16 from being preyed on by people who are more than five years older than they are. And telling them to just enter into a common-law relationship or just get married and we will retroactively protect them from a criminal charge is not the message we want to send. I just don't see how it would be accomplished otherwise.

So I don't support the amendment and I really don't support much further discussion on what would really gut the bill if we're going to steer people into common-law relationships to protect them from criminal charges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Is it your desire, Mr. Comartin, to stand this over?

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

That is my desire.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Given the level of discussion that must happen on this particular clause, I think I'll just stand the whole clause over.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I want to go back to the misrepresentation comment and apologize to Ms. Morency.

Ms. Morency and I have worked together on a number of bills, for three and a half years now. She has never done anything that amounted to any misrepresentation. I didn't intend that, but after listening to Mr. Lee, I can well appreciate how it sounded. I should have been attuned to that.

The point I was getting at was with the larger group, that 3,000. That's the number I've been operating under that this bill is going to negatively impact, not the four or five actual marriages.

Again, I apologize to her. I misused terms, and I should not have done that. Many years in the court room and being a politician should have taught me better than that, Mr. Chair. I apologize to her.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Lee.

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

I think the chair has already decided that he would be prepared to stand down this particular clause and proceed with the rest of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Move ahead, yes.

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

I'm happy to do that, but only for the purpose of seeing if we could collectively craft a subsection that would exempt persons who are legally married. That's it. That's the purpose. We may not achieve that, but that's why I'm in agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I want to be very clear to everyone that this bill does that. Ms. Morency can expand on that.

People who are married right now are not going to be negatively impacted by this bill. People who are in a common-law relationship right now are not going to be negatively impacted in this bill. The only thing we could possibly be proposing is some future amendment that would allow someone to be exempted from our age of consent laws by getting married or by entering into a common-law relationship. It's not if they're married--

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

That's what the amendment is for.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

If they're married, they are exempted in the transitional provisions. We're talking about the future. We're talking about getting married; we're not talking about if they're married. I want to be clear on what we're trying to accomplish here.

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

Future legal marriages. That's exactly what we're talking about.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I agree with Mr. Lee. I mean, I agree with Mr. Moore that we don't want to gut the bill. But I can't prejudge the amendment if I haven't see it. It may be a tiny number of people who get married in the future.

I would like to stand this down until Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Petit.

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

I would like to ask Mr. Lee a question. I have already read his books on procedure. First of all, we are only talking about an amendment, not about changing the act. Since we are all in agreement about passing the bill, and, with the exception of the amendment which will be presented in 48 hours, we could perhaps set some time aside. Some rules of order in Quebec allow the whole to be passed and the amendment to be dealt with later. If Mr. Comartin's amendment is OK, we will include it. We will all be there to vote. If it is not OK, we will have passed the bill.

Let me ask Mr. Lee, since he is an expert in the area. I have already read the book on procedure that he sent us. Mr. Chair, I would like to know what you think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We're not going to get into that debate now. We have one clause, and it has been moved that we stand it down until Thursday. We would like to get on with the rest of this bill.

I have one more speaker. Mr. Dykstra, quickly.

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

I'll be as quick as I possibly can.

I have a question, and this is more to the clerks. The difficulty I have is that there seems to be a desire from some members of the committee to move an amendment that would allow for--and I'm going to try to do this as an example--a 21- or 22-year-old to enter into a relationship with a.... Let's say the new legislation is passed. The exemption would mean a 21-year-old could have a relationship with 14-year-old because at some future point they are going to get married.

I would suggest that the amendment is contrary to the legislation. I would like a ruling from the clerks on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It is not going to be addressed now. It appears that this amendment isn't going to go much further, given the fact that there is going to be some further discussion on it and not a vote on this point. I would like to get on with the rest of the bill if we possibly could.

Ms. Smith, I know you're on the list now. Please go ahead quickly.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

I have just a brief comment. I would urge the committee not to lose sight of the purpose of this bill, and that is to protect children.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Understood. Thank you.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Just listening to the conversation today, I noticed that we're not talking about that very much today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Point taken.

Shall we stand clause 1?