Justice Committee on April 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'd like to call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order on Tuesday, April 17, 2007. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 30, 2006, Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code on age of protection and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, is before the committee. We are now into clause-by-clause consideration.

We have, from the Department of Justice, Ms. Carole Morency, acting general counsel, and of course the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Rob Moore.

Just before we go into clause-by-clause, I know there have been a number of groups and individuals who wanted to appear before the committee in reference to Bill C-22: CASE, Beyond Borders, REAL Women of Canada, Ms. Dawn Stefanowicz, other concerned citizens--and I know there were other submissions as well. Unfortunately, we couldn't get to all of them. I know we set a timetable, but I would like to thank those individuals for submitting briefs in spite of the fact that they couldn't come to testify personally.

To begin with, on the bill itself, I trust everyone has the information before them, including copies of the amendments.

First we should deal with NDP-1. Mr. Comartin.

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

I don't have that amendment in front of me, Mr. Chair.

Could this stand down? I need to review this. I think I'm going to be withdrawing this particular amendment.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

You have the second one as well. We don't understand it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Do you mean NDP-1 and NDP-2?

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

Probably we should do both. The second one I do want to proceed with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay, what is your appeal then? Do you want to stand them both down for the time being?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We'll stand clause 1 down and deal with your amendments immediately after.

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

Mr. Chair, perhaps before we do that, I don't know if there is a position here with regard to whether these are admissible at this point. If there is, I would want that ruling at this stage before we proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Well, we need the motions to be moved before any ruling can be submitted.

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

All right, let's let them stand down for a minute, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Is it agreed that clause 1 be stood down for the time being?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

Okay, we have a new clause noted here, Liberal motion 1, on page 3.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise a point of procedure in order to make sure I understand correctly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'm sorry, Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Would it be possible to stand clause 1 and continue our work, or does clause 1 impart meaning and consistency to all of the other clauses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, we can proceed with the rest of the bill.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I move the amendment.

The members of the committee heard witnesses discuss several decisions handed down by provincial appeal courts stipulating that section 159 was invalid. This section states that persons under 18 years of age who engage in anal sex are committing a criminal act. Certain witnesses recommended that this section be repealed in its entirety.

As the objective of Bill C-22 is to change the age of consent for all sexual activities, repealing section 159 would have the effect of harmonizing the age of consent for all sexual activities of whatever nature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I don't know if there is anyone else who would like to make a submission in reference to section 159, and in particular to Liberal motion number 1, but I will make a ruling if there is no further discussion.

Mr. Petit.

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

Section 159 is not included in the substance of the bill we have before us. Whether we are talking about various sexual activities, the age of consent or anything else, this is not included in this bill. With all due respect for the opposite opinion, the amendment labelled LIB-1 which is similar to NDP-3, should not be debated because our committee does not intend to repeal provisions in an act. I understand the position of the other party very well, but I think that from a technical and substantive perspective, we could not touch it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Ms. Jennings, am I ruling?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

May I just respond before you rule?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'll give you that opportunity.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

In light of the fact that the basic objective of Bill C-22 is to prevent young people of less than 16 years of age from consenting to sexual activities, since the current legal age of consent is 14, it does not make sense that a particular sexual activity should continue to be illegal. In that case, setting the legal age of consent at 14, as does the current Criminal Code provision, or at 16 if Bill C-22 is passed, is nonsensical. The objective of the bill is to set a legal age of consent, an age of protection. But we would be excluding a particular sexual activity from that protection threshold. I think that this falls, as we say in English,

within the scope of Bill C-22, and I would hope the chair would rule to that effect.