Evidence of meeting #113 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Green
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I note her always strong support for LGBTQ issues.
(On clause 57)
Liberal
Green
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It's related to it, but....
I'll wait for you guys to figure it out.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It relates to repealing subsection 173(2). Does it do anything more?
I thought it was just removing the subsection, but if I'm wrong....
Unfortunately, with 173 remaining, this is one of the ones that becomes out of order. Sorry about that.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Just to make sure that I'm on the right page, I believe that this will apply to everything.
Actually, I feel it applies to amendments PV-4, PV-5, PV-6, PV-7, PV-8, PV-9, PV-10, PV-11, PV-12, PV-13 and PV-14, which all deal with the same subject.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I think you are right. They are all the ones that propose abolishing section 173.
Green
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Yes, we are.
With that being said, there are no amendments that are receivable on clause 57.
(Clause 57 agreed to)
(Clause 58 agreed to)
(On clause 59)
Next we move to clause 59 and CPC-30.
Mr. Clement.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
I don't have any comments. We can proceed to the vote, if you'd like.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
No.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 59 agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
With clause 60, we have the same issue as with PV-5. It's not receivable. It's the same with X-35. There are no receivable amendments on clause 60, given the vote on section 173.
(Clause 60 agreed to)
(On clause 61)
Now we're at CPC-31, the one about obstructing the clergyman.
Mr. Clement.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
Mr. Chair, we did hear evidence before this committee about why it was not a good idea to hybridize this offence, and how it would lead to greater disruption of faith services. I would encourage my colleagues to treat this offence as being as serious as it is and ensure that it remains a purely indictable offence.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I think we should have a recorded vote on this.
I would add, Mr. Chair, that the government tried to remove this particular section from the Criminal Code altogether, and it was only after considerable backlash that they had to re-evaluate. Their attitude is clearly consistent with what was initially in Bill C-51, which is that they don't seem to take this very seriously, despite the outcry from the faith community. They don't take it seriously is evidenced by the fact that they want to water down the sentence for this serious offence. It's really an insult.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I remember well this one coming to committee. It was my amendment that was voted upon in order to preserve this as a criminal offence. With great respect to Mr. Cooper, I think he isn't telling the whole story with regard to how this came forward. It was put forward in a suite of offences that were considered redundant or perhaps obsolete or otherwise no longer applicable. After listening to witnesses who came before this committee, which is the appropriate job for this committee to do, the committee voted in favour of my amendment in order to retain that criminal offence.
With regard to the hybridization issue, I refer to my comments at the beginning of the meeting indicating why this offence, and many others in this bill, should be the subject of hybrid offences, allowing the Crown to have that flexibility when needed.
I just wanted to highlight the fuller context of how that issue came to light earlier for the people listening.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
To complete the context, it wasn't until the Conservative opposition highlighted it that the government then...and an outcry from the faith community, with considerable resistance on the part of the government to do something about it. Instead of the government's dealing with it immediately, it took an outcry. It took petitions. It took thousands of Canadians to be mobilized before this government finally listened. They did listen. They get some credit for that, but really very little.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
It was amended at committee at the first opportunity to amend it.
It was amended at committee with the support of all parties.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Not only the Liberals, but also the NDP and the Green.... Everybody supported it, so for one party to take credit for it, again, is negating the work of the committee, which I don't think is what you intended to do.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay, fair enough. You want a recorded vote on this one. If there are no other comments, we'll do a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will move to—