Evidence of meeting #62 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 marriage.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice
They set the minimum age at 15, and a court can issue the licence to someone under the age of 15 in the circumstances that she's pregnant. Yukon doesn't allow an exception at all to under the age of 16.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
I would like this amendment to be split in two: the first part would be on marriage and the second part would be on common-law relationships.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
You can actually move a subamendment to remove part (c) of Mr. Comartin's amendment. Change the wording: “the accused is married to the complainant; and...”. Then it would go down to point (d).
Mr. Moore.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
On that issue, I think Ms. Morency has already raised.... I think everyone around this table has been around long enough to know that we probably can't get away--and it's odd that I'm the one raising this--from the charter. But to me it's glaring that we can't have a special exemption just in that one category and exclude the other. On its face, I think it would be a violation. And it sounds funny to hear myself say that, but it makes sense that that would in fact be the case.
Just generally speaking, I don't see why it's in the public interest that we create an exemption to what would otherwise be a criminal defence because someone either rushes to the altar or gets pregnant. I think we've taken in the transitional interest, but there is a reason why we are in agreement on raising the age of consent to 16: it is to prevent that type of exploitative relationship. I do think that would raise serious charter concerns.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
To keep things moving along here, we can take this amendment or this motion and deal with it all in one fell swoop and get rid of it, if that's the desire of the committee, or we can place a subamendment in and vote on it and still get rid of it. I guess that's what it's going to amount to.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
If she wants to introduce a subamendment, the matter is still going to be one of challenge. So what is your purpose?
10:10 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
No, Mr. Chairman, it would not be challengeable. We will see but there would be an argument for it not to be challengeable. There are already some provinces granting exemptions. When it is a matter of marriage and the woman is pregnant, she can get married with the approval of her parents, but it does not apply to [Editor's Note: inaudible] common-law.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Mr. Ménard, we're getting back into a discussion again. I cut the list short. There have been people here who wanted to speak, yet this continues to go around in circles. I'm going to let Mr. Dykstra make one comment.
You have a point of order, Mr. Comartin.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Yes. I am not clear whether Ms. Freeman has moved a subamendment. Is that what's on the floor?
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
That's where it's heading. It was a point she brought up, and she wants to move a subamendment to this motion. It's not on the floor yet.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I realize that Mr. Comartin withdrew his motion from our previous meeting and that he has put this motion in as a replacement. I would like clarification, whether it comes from this side of the table or from our clerks: if we interject this into the bill, then it's actually contrary to the bill itself.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
This is certainly a point of debate that we have entered into over the last couple of days. I made note that on the one hand, as members have pointed out, it could be that the amendment creates an opportunity for individuals to get around the provisions of the bill and that this could be seen as going against the principle. On the other hand, as other members have argued, it would want to be mindful of unintended consequences and avoid criminalizing behaviour that the bill does not intend to capture. These are the two arguments that we're covering right now.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Yes, in a way it is. What does an amendment do procedurally...or if it's a legal issue?
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Exactly. And aside from everything else, do you create legislation to set yourself up for a charter challenge? No. Regardless of your position on any piece of legislation, it is enacted in order to be consistent with the charter.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
That is the very thing we are discussing. That is the legal issue. As far as the procedural thing on Mr. Comartin's amendment, his motion would be inadmissible.
