Justice Committee on April 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm looking at the amendment, and I appreciate what Mr. Comartin is trying to do, but I think we have to remember that we're all in agreement on the issue of protecting people under 16 from exploitative relationships. We've been going over this for some time now on the five-year close-in-age exemption, which is a very clear and powerful and broad exemption that protects against criminalizing teenagers and their relationships.

I think we have to remember why we're doing what we're doing. It's to prevent young people who are under the age of 16 from exploitative relationships. I and the government are not interested in creating an exemption--which I feel, incidentally, would be an unconstitutional exemption--an exemption where someone's married. We're not interested in creating an unconstitutional exemption or a loophole.

We've seen in some U.S. states where these loopholes exist, and I don't think that's the way we want to go, to say to someone, you can avoid what would otherwise be an exploitative and criminal relationship by getting married to this young person. And we've heard testimony here where a young person has left home, and the parents go to the police and ask, “What can I do? My 14-year-old is living with a 27-year-old, and they won't come home.” The police say, “There's nothing we can do.”

So around this table we've all been in agreement that that's what we wanted to address. Now we're saying that if these people are married we want an exemption to that. I'm not in favour of creating that loophole, pushing people, making a bad situation worse, probably in many cases making a bad situation worse.

We've seen what some American states have done. It's not been successful, in my view. Although I appreciate the effort that's gone into crafting this amendment, I won't be supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore. I have to share your comments, quite honestly.

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

You're supposed to be neutral, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I am, in most cases.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You don't sound like it. Would you like to have a vote on that, Chair?

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

That would be a biased vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay, let's call the vote here.

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

I call for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The question now is on the subamendment, a recorded vote.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The subamendment has been adopted.

Now to the NDP amendment, or the motion as amended.

[A voice]

Clause 1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

No, we're not on clause 1 yet; we're on the amendment.

Do you want a recorded vote here again?

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

Mr. Chair, I'll simply withdraw that. I'll withdraw the balance of the motion and let the last vote stand.

[A voice]

As amended?

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

It would have to be as amended.

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

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, it's on the amendment as amended, a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Bagnell, you had an amendment. Are you going to be dealing with that still?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

My amendment, which you should have, is L-02. I'm not sure if the wording is appropriate, but I want you to see the issue I'm trying to get at and see if anyone else has any thoughts on it.

The way the law is written now, with the grandfathering, if a couple has been happily cohabiting for 11 months, the day this law comes into effect, if they stay there another day or are involved in any sexual activity, it will be criminal. I'm not sure if that's an intended consequence of this bill and if there is any way around that. That's the intent of this. I'm not stuck on the wording.

I'm just wondering if we should try to resolve that problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Morency, could you comment on that?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On the issue of this amendment, I see what Mr. Bagnell is trying to do, but I think we've made the decision to draw the line somewhere. We are all in agreement that there is going to be some line drawn.

Mr. Bagnell's amendment would make this law virtually unenforceable, because if someone is legally engaged in a sexual relationship, that can mean anything, because a sexual relationship is not defined as sexual intercourse. It could mean they have any kind of physical relationship. And these are the types of exploitative relationships we are trying to avoid.

I hear what Mr. Bagnell is saying, but I think this amendment, as worded, goes way beyond even what he had been contemplating. So it's not an amendment we could support.

We have an amendment on the transitional period that protects established relationships, but this would go far beyond that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Questions?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'll withdraw the amendment.