Evidence of meeting #12 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
No, you can't.
What do you want to do? Do you want to vote on that? I can suspend, confer with the clerk and get back to you on that or we can continue while Mr. Housefather—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Let's suspend and confer with the clerk.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
I have conferred with the clerk. Both the motion and the amendment do in fact deal in principle with the protection of children, so the amendment is receivable.
We can resume debate on the amendment.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I challenge your ruling that the Liberal amendment is in order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Then, barring any discussion on it, we will proceed to a vote.
All those in favour of—
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Is there no debate on the point as to whether or not it's within scope? Are we just voting on the fact that—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
I ruled it within scope.
He's challenging the ruling.
The formal challenge is: Shall the chair's ruling be sustained for purposes of this vote?
Mr. Maloney, since he's back, will vote, and Mr. Housefather will not.
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
We will resume debate on the amendment.
Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is an area where I think we would have a lot of agreement.
All committee members would agree on this point.
I think we can all agree that the two offenders who were appellants in this case committed very bad crimes and that they should have very strict sentences. In fact, the Supreme Court is willing to change the sentence of these two offenders. I would argue that they were too lax, at least one of them.
I think that we would be able to agree that the minority ruling in this case, or the minority judgment of the four judges that said that the majority should have deferred more to Parliament, were correct, but I think we can disagree with the Supreme Court's majority judgment without attacking the Supreme Court as an institution or attacking individual judges on the court and making claims about political motivation being involved in the judgment.
What I do think we can work on together is sentencing guidelines. That is something the justice committee could focus on. Are the sentencing guidelines incorrect? We could talk about the use of hypotheticals, as Mr. Brock raised, and whether or not Parliament should be clear about what hypotheticals should be or not be used in the context of such a case.
We certainly could go back, and I think we should go back and legislate to deal with the court's ruling to require mandatory minimums in the case of these child sexual offences that deal with hypotheticals. All we need to do is create a class that excludes the hypothetical of the teen sex that even Mr. Brock agreed he wouldn't have prosecuted.
I think it's a willy-nilly leap to go to the notwithstanding clause, which is something that Parliament has not done since the charter first came into force. It sounds like some of the people here would use the notwithstanding clause over and over again. I don't think that's the work that Parliament should do. Parliament should do the work.... If we don't agree with the majority ruling of the court, we go back, we look at the judgment and we legislate properly to ensure the strongest possible sentences. We take into account that this class was perhaps too wide, and we narrow the class slightly to remove this hypothetical.
I agree with Ms. Lattanzio's position that we don't need to use the notwithstanding clause. We need to legislate and properly address the court's judgment.
Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Our motion had a very specific direction for a statement that this committee would send to the House—ideally something the House would concur with and the government would concur with, and that was that we “call on the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to reinstate...mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual exploitation....”
The amendment that we are debating now from Ms. Lattanzio of the Liberals is an amendment that changes the call to action quite significantly so that we would “call on the government to table legislation to address child sexual exploitation....” The reason that is fundamentally different is that, with all due respect to Ms. Lattanzio, it is not specific in terms of what we are calling for that will directly respond to and address the Supreme Court ruling that prompted this discussion.
I go back to the comments that I made in my initial intervention on Mr. Brock's motion, which is that the reason mandatory minimum exists is, as in the cases that led to the Supreme Court decision, the trial judges give the bare minimum and even then find ways to go below that for these heinous offenders who had hundreds of images and videos of young children being abused in unspeakable ways. This amendment cannot be supported because the amendment allows the government to do something—to table some legislation—that skirts around the edges of this issue without dealing with the crux of it. What we are trying to actually have an answer for is how we ensure that judges do not have the ability to let people who have engaged in these horrific crimes slide and go without due sentencing.
This is not something where I believe we can afford to be imprecise in what we're seeking to do, so I will be voting against this amendment. The amendment neutralizes and neuters the very essence of what we're trying to do, which is to make a very strong, deliberate and specific call to action from the government.
I still reiterate my hope that our original motion can be passed with all-party support at this committee, because this is something where the health and lives of children can be materially improved by sending a strong message to child abusers, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I'll be very brief.
In response to Ms. Lattanzio, this is not a political reaction that you're watching on this side; this is the responsible reaction.
I would like to add that under the circumstances and given the intent of the notwithstanding clause, if it is not to be used to uphold a mandatory minimum sentence against possession of child pornography, then there's no conceivable scenario that I could imagine where it would be appropriate for the Liberal government or, in fact, anyone else to use the notwithstanding clause. This is precisely, as I said in my initial remarks, the type of scenario that the founders and the framers who agreed on the charter have contemplated. I ask again that we don't just think about the kids abused by Senneville and nod. I ask that we create enough deterrence to prevent and save future kids and to kill this disgusting industry.
I will be voting against the Liberal motion to amend.
Conservative
Amarjeet Gill Conservative Brampton West, ON
First of all, I would like to say we agree that we want to stop child abusers no matter where they exist. We want our kids to be safe and our children to be safe.
By the same token, I would like to say Ms. Lattanzio's amendment will not send a strong specific message to these predators. These child abusers should realize that we are on the side of the children and not on the side of the abusers. We have to protect our children from these abusers. I will always stand wherever I find a place where we can save our children. That is the right thing to do. This is what we need to do.
The amendment that was brought forward is not going to address the issue that we are talking about today, so I will be voting against this one.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you, Chair.
At this time, I'm moving a subamendment to the Liberal amendment. It is not in both official languages, but I would like to read it out. It's that the amendment be amended by adding the words...“allows” with the following: provided that the government table its legislative response to this Supreme Court ruling before the end of 2025, and that this be reported to the House.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to move the subamendment to this. Do I need to read it again?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
The subamendment is that the amendment be amended by adding, after the word “allows”, the following: provided that the government table its legislative response to this Supreme Court ruling before the end of 2025, and that this be reported to the House.