Justice Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I believe Mr. Hutchinson wanted to reply to your comment as well, if that's all right with you.

[Don Hutchinson]

Ms. Freeman, I'm imagining that you, like me and many in this room, are a lifelong learner. As a father, as an ordained minister, as a certified counsellor, and as a lawyer, I encounter a number of people who are dealing with the educational aspects of this information.

Children receive the information in high school, and sometimes in earlier grades, that it's legal for them to engage in sexual activity with an adult at the age of 14 years. It's taught in their sex education courses in the province of Ontario as part of their curriculum. It's also taught in the introduction to Canadian law course in the province of Ontario. They also are taught that as young as 12 at this point in time, they can engage in sexual relationships based on current close-age exceptions. The education component is being handled, at least in Ontario, through the provincial curriculum.

I think if this Parliament raises the age of protection to 16, that, too, will be taught in the curriculum, and it will grant a greater measure of protection to our children, who are now in a position to come home and tell their parents they have nothing to say about their getting involved with a 24- or 25-year-old, who has more money than they, at 14, could imagine to spend on wining and dining them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

That's interesting. I know that probably brings a lot of other questions to mind, but I do have other people who need to get on this list to speak.

Mr. Petit, you're next.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you for appearing before us this morning. I am also a new MP. I have been serving for barely one year as an elected official. I come from the region around Quebec City, and I am a Conservative.

I admire Ms. Scanlan for her testimony. You come from Toronto, which is made up of 22 ridings represented by 19 Liberals, 3 New-Democrats, and no Conservatives. You live in a region where it is very difficult to express your ideas because some people say that we are idealists. Protecting children is not an ideology, it is our duty as parents.

Mr. Cannavino, you probably come from Montreal. Montreal is dominated by the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois. There are no Conservatives. You also live in an area where it is very difficult to work.

Ms. Kohan, I don't know where you come from, but something very important you said intrigues me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

A point of order.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I'm wondering if Mr. Petit is not in the midst of delivering a political speech on the Conservative and PQ trends in Quebec. That isn't very relevant to this discussion. This bill is very serious.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Exactly, it is very serious. My question is a follow-up to the one asked by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

What's your question for the witnesses?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Earlier, we asked you what you thought of a government that did not do this or that. What do you think of Bills C-9 and C-10? C-10 included minimum sentences, particularly in cases involving luring. The piece of legislation was castrated, as Mr. Ménard said on the CPAC television channel.

What do you think of Bill C-9 and conditional sentences? Bill C-9 that has been completely gutted. We have two major pieces of legislation. How can you expect, even with Bill C-22—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

There is another point of order.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Those aren't the bills we're discussing now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I know they're not, but the member's time is as he feels fit to use it. If it's not on topic....

Pardon?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm sorry, I interrupted.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

You used to say we have a relevance rule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes.

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

And where is the relevance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Petit, put your question. Your time is almost up.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Ms. Kohan, you stressed that you did not entirely agree, because even with Bill C-22, conditional sentences are not imposed on those cases. The sentences are too light. You gave us many examples.

Ever since I started sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as soon as the United States is cited as an example, we are told that we should not do what the Americans are doing. But what are we doing? Are our children any different from American children?

I would like to know your thoughts on this. You gave us several examples, and I would like you to elaborate on this subject.

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

I have a point of order, Chair. I believe Monsieur Petit has made an incorrect statement that every time a bill that might be based on an American model comes here, members of this committee say no, we can't use the American model.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Well, maybe it's his opinion, Ms. Jennings.

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

It appears that Bill C-22, which would raise the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years.... There has been testimony that many states in the United States have 16 as the age of consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I don't see that as a point of order.

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

We're in favour of Bill C-22; therefore we're not rejecting an American model.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It's not a point of order, Ms. Jennings.

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

Oh, I apologize then.