Justice Committee on May 8th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting to order. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us for our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number 73.

We have half an hour until the bell. So hopefully we can move forward.

There are a couple of things to deal with, from an operational perspective. I heard from some of my colleagues on the committee that they wish that, if other members of Parliament are here to talk to a private member's bill, they are able to participate in the debate. Also they wish, if the members in question are not members of a recognized party in the House and have not been subbed in as that, that the committee have the right to vote on whether those individuals be able to sit at the table and ask questions of the officials as we're going through clause-by-clause. I said that would be fine.

Yes.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I agree with what you're saying, but it's not our wish. It's what the procedure provides for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I have double-checked on that.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Me too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I even checked with the clerk. I'm not going to get into a debate on it. My position is that we will put it to a vote. In this case the member is not here but may show up, because of timing. My request is to ask the members whether the mover of this motion, Madame Mourani, is able to sit at the table during the discussion of clause-by-clause.

I'll take a vote on that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Sure.

All those in favour of that?

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Here's the question. The question was to sit or to intervene. My position is this. If there are amendments to their bill and they have questions to ask, either of the officials or of the mover of the amendment, I think it's fair that they can ask a question. I would not allow a filibuster. I'm not recognizing them as members of the committee, in the sense that they don't get a vote and they don't get to.... They can ask their question and get their answer. If they don't like the answer.... I won't recognize them in the speaking order, in terms of filibustering.

I think it's only appropriate with a private member's bill that they have that opportunity. It's so rare that an individual, an independent member gets a private member's bill to come this far, but it does happen. It is happening. I think it's the first time since I've been here, in seven years.

Inadvertently, I guess, I did that without the committee's support. I'd like that decision to be made by the committee from here on in, and I can be consistent with that.

Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'd just like clarification. You were making a motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No. I'll ask somebody.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Further to that, it's a hypothetical situation. If individuals aren't here to present themselves to join in with the committee, for whatever reason, I don't think we should be wasting another iota on this. You've made your position very clear. There's no need for a vote because the situation doesn't warrant it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay. That's fine.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That's a good point, but I still want to talk about it, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Let me go to the next point, which I think I did make an error on. Or, at least the rules allow for, if the time that is allocated on our orders of the day.... We were in the middle of a clause, so I wanted to finish up that clause before we quit.

What I will do from now on is, at the time allotted in the orders of the day, I will ask the committee members whether they would like to continue or not. It's only a majority vote for that; it's not a unanimous procedure. I will make sure I do that from here on in. I apologize for that confusion, but I wanted to finish clause 3. I should have asked the committee, and I will do that from here on in.

Is there any other comment on this, before we go to—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

What I understand is that, if ever the situation arises, you will ask or somebody will ask, we will vote, and that's it.

[Voices]

Yes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Excellent. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay. Thank you.

We are now on to clause-by-clause.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I have a motion, Mr. Speaker. It has been discussed with Madam Boivin, I believe, and the Liberal Party, perhaps not Mrs. Sgro.

We voted previously on clause 1. I seek unanimous consent to reopen the discussion on clause 1. Actually, Madam Boivin picked up on this during earlier discussions, and it has to do with the Bedford case, which is before the Supreme Court of Canada.

You'll recall that we voted in favour of clause 1. This bill would impose a mandatory consecutive sentence in cases where a person has been convicted under section 212 of the Criminal Code, the procuring provision, and any other offence arising out of the same events or series of events. You'll also recall that we addressed clause 1 in the context of Liberal amendment 1, but we did not discuss the substance of the clause.

As I say, there's the issue of the Bedford case before the Supreme Court of Canada. I know you're aware of this, and it's expected to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in June. The court will be considering the constitutionality of several of the Criminal Code's provisions regarding prostitution, including one of the procuring provisions, the procuring offence under paragraph 212(1)(j), living off the avails of prostitution, which this squarely deals with in clause 1.

In my view, this committee should carefully consider this matter and seek further input from the Department of Justice on the matter. For this reason, I would move a unanimous consent to reopen the discussion on clause 1 of Bill C-452 for further consideration by the committee. It may be appropriate to consult the expert here on this, Mr. Chair, if we do get the unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

The motion you're moving, Mr. Goguen, is a motion that needs unanimous consent to rescind the approval of clause—

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Correct, to reopen the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

To reopen that.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Do we need to debate that? Just discuss it? It's not debatable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

It's not debatable, I'm sorry.

I'm receiving a motion to rescind what we've done and we need unanimous consent for clause 1. All those in favour?