Evidence of meeting #60 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Ms. Jennings.
Mr. Petit, your comments have been noted.
Mr. Comartin.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you.
On the same point, I want to support the amendment, obviously because it's the same as mine, but also on the same argument that we've heard from Ms. Jennings. It is clearly within the scope of this legislation.
We're dealing with legislation that is going to alter the age of consent in this country, and in a significant way, quite frankly. This section of the code is simply another section that deals with the age of consent with regard to a specific sexual activity, and it is in contradiction—and I think that's the important point—to what we are doing in the balance of this bill.
If anything, by passing this bill, we re-emphasize section 159 as being out of keeping with what we're doing in the balance of the bill. From that perspective, the amendment is within the focus of the bill.
I think it's our responsibility, as legislators, to not pass laws that are going to produce this kind of very extreme contradiction, where we're raising the age on one side and retaining an even older age on another issue.
I want to support the amendment as being in order, and then deal with it subsequently.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
We support Ms. Jennings and Mr. Comartin. We share their point of view. Indeed, we can't exclude this sexual activity in section 159, which governs all other sexual activities.
I thus support Ms. Jennings' amendment.
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, I think that Ms. Jennings and Mr. Comartin were well-advised in introducing this amendment. I'm going to give you an example that you will surely like, as a former police officer. This is a little like the legal plain view tenet. We are legislators and it is incumbent upon us to correct injustice that is drawn to our attention, insofar as we respect the purpose of the bill.
It is as though we obtained a detailed search warrant from the court and saw certain objects that had been illegally acquired in a room and did not seize them in our search.
The plain view concept exists both in common law and civil law. You have surely resorted to it when you were a police officer. This is a little like legislative plain view. A provision of the law which is archaic and discriminatory has been brought to our attention. I think you have to assess the admissibility of this motion in a liberal manner. I am using the word “liberal” in the 19th century philosophical sense, let me make that clear. We have to have a generous vision of that which is admissible.
If this amendment could survive until the bill reaches the reading stage in the House of Commons, I am sure that we could respectfully convince our leaders and the Speaker of the House that it is in keeping with the objective of the bill.
I thus invite you to consider it with generosity. I'm convinced, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to correct a discriminatory situation that has no real justification.
April 17th, 2007 / 9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I appreciate your analogy, sir, because I too have executed a number of warrants, including drug warrants. I knew that even though there was something in plain view, I had to go back and get another warrant to seize any other items. That has certainly been substantiated in the court of law.
I don't know if there's any other comment, but Bill C-22 amends certain sections of the Criminal Code. This amendment actually proposes to change another section of the Criminal Code, section 159. Given the fact that it is dealing with another section, then according to Marleau and Montpetit, on page 654,
For a bill referred to committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.
I must therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.
Ms. Jennings.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
The question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
NDP
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Yes. I want to go to NDP-4, which is on the same section, but a different point.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I guess I'm asking, Mr. Chair, because we're going to be faced, obviously, with—
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chairman, to be logical, and for your decision to be in keeping with amendment NDP-3, Mr. Comartin first has to introduce it, and then you should make your decision. Otherwise, his amendment is still pending, because he has not presented it.
A decision was made concerning a Liberal Party amendment introduced by Ms. Jennings. According to the Standing Orders, Mr. Comartin must now present his amendment, and then you will render a decision. Otherwise, how can we abide by your decisions? I submit these comments in all humility; the decision is up to you.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
As long as Mr. Comartin has decided not to move his amendment NDP-3, it's not up to anyone on this committee to attempt to force him to move it. He has decided not to move it.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
We are now dealing with NDP-4. He has to move it, if he so wishes, and then he will speak to it. If other members wish to speak to it at that time, they may, and then the chair—