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.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I guess you're ruling that it is admissible rather than inadmissible.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I have been letting it go to this point to see what's going to wash out in the end. Thus far I would have to say it's admissible, but the vote is going to be cast and we'll see where it takes us.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Okay, thank you.
The other question or concern I arrive at is this. Originally I thought Mr. Comartin was trying to address an issue that was retroactive. It's clear to me now that the amendment actually moves forward. If it were retroactive and we were trying to address issues that because new legislation is enacted someone who may have fallen under the existing legislation would need to be grandfathered or whatever the case may be, to make the exception based on retroactivity.... I don't know how we could support both of these pieces as an amendment, because it actually creates a loophole moving forward. That's where it is inconsistent with the bill and probably why we shouldn't be dealing with it.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Again, it's the legal side of the debate that's going on here. Procedurally it's another matter.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
If you'll permit, Chair, I have a question for Madame Morency.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
You raised the point that should the defence of marriage to the complainant be allowed, it would be open to court challenges. I expect there would be challenges. You have 15-year-olds in certain provinces or territories who can become legally married. It is recognized by the state, yet because they are greater than five years older one of the spouses is charged criminally. I would assume that person would file a charter challenge. “The state recognizes my marriage and yet you're telling me I've committed illegal acts.” Either way we're in a quandary, are we not? Either scenario would allow for a substantive charter challenge.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Ms. Morency, would you reply to that?
I'm going to move things along here at a much faster pace.
10:15 a.m.
Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice
The charter risks are not at all the same for the two scenarios described.
If you provide a permanent defence to a married couple, but not to a common-law couple, the charter risk is very high. The charter risk in the other situation is in fact what Bill C-22 proposes, and we do not have the same risks.
Could somebody bring a challenge? It's always possible someone could bring a challenge, but the evidence is there to mount a very significant, meaningful defence against that challenge.
You would be in a different situation. That's our assessment.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Okay. That's what I wanted to hear.
Thank you.
April 19th, 2007 / 10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I find the discussion interesting to a great degree, and I appreciate Mr. Comartin's experiences as a lawyer in family court, dealing with these kinds of issues.
I hope he, in turn, will appreciate the things that I experienced as a school principal, which involved the 40,000 or 50,000 or 60,000 that were mentioned, who live in these relationships without the permission of the parents. The parents want their kids out of these situations.
So this bill fulfills that. That's the main purpose of this. I appreciate all the discussions, but I think we're getting into a little bit of nitpicking--and that may not be a fair word--about what we're trying to accomplish with this bill.
I do think Mr. Moore pointed out that the bill was constructed in a way that will take into consideration those kinds of relationships that we don't really want to criminalize. But we have to start thinking of the 40,000 to 50,000 to 60,000 kids who are living in these relationships because they think they're old enough to make these wise decisions and the parents are insisting they can't, yet the parents have no avenue.
Let's help the situation by moving forward with this bill. I call for the question, Mr. Chair.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
She doesn't have the floor, actually, at the moment.
The discussion, if you will take heed, Ms. Jennings, is that I suggested what could be done, but it was never moved by Ms. Freeman.
Ms. Freeman, you have the floor.
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
I took the floor to tell Mr. Comartin that we approved the first part of his amendment, relating to marriage, but not necessarily the second part. I also asked...
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
I wanted a sub-amendment in order to split the amendment. Therefore, I move a sub-amendment to spit the amendment in two parts.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Ms. Freeman, you have to move a subamendment that will remove proposed new paragraph 150.1(2.1)(c) of Mr. Comartin's amendment. Is that what you're seeking?
