Justice Committee on March 29th, 2007
Evidence of meeting #59 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 sexual.
A recording is available from Parliament.
On the agenda
MPs speaking
Also speaking
- Paul Gillespie Consultant, As an Individual
- Lynn Barr-Telford Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
- Tamra Thomson Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association
- Margaret Gallagher Treasurer, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
- Kevin Kindred Branch Section Chair, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Conference, Canadian Bar Association
- Judy Nuttall Coordinator, Affiliated with Citizens Addressing Sexual Exploitation, White Ribbon Against Pornography
- Steve Sullivan President, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime
- Martha Mackinnon Executive Director, Justice for Children and Youth
- Karen Mihorean Assistant Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
- William Trudell Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
- Jason Gratl President, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
- Kim Pate Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
- Andrew Brett Member, Age of Consent Committee
- Nicholas Dodds Member, Age of Consent Committee
- Dave Quist Executive Director, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
- Daphne Gilbert Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
- Christina Godlewska Articled Student, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
That is—
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
If you invite me back tomorrow I might be able to answer the question. I'd have to think about it.
It's an emotive question. I think it probably--
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Fundy Royal, NB
I just want to interject one quick thing, Mr. Trudell. It's a difficult question, but this is a difficult issue. That is what we're dealing with. In Canada a 50-year-old man can have sex with a 14-year-old, and in fact they do. So I'm asking, should we as a society accept that? Is it ever acceptable?
12:55 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
Yes, it would be acceptable in certain circumstances, because we don't make laws right across the board. There have to be all kinds of factors in that example.
But let's just go back for a couple of seconds. If there are Americans coming across the border to have sex with Canadians, I think there are laws in the American jurisdiction that cover that kind of offence. So it's not just like it's open season. I didn't bring them with me, but there are American offences that cover that.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Chair, I just want to interject on that point before you leave it. We don't want to rely on the Americans to protect kids in Canada.
12:55 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
No, but you were talking about open season.
You know what? I think it's really important that you mentioned the close-in-age exemption. Five years is an arbitrary figure; it's picked. That's why I've become very attracted to the idea of the presumption that was introduced. It wasn't our idea; it was introduced by a person who was sitting here earlier this morning. That really covers what you're trying to do in the protection of this act, but it also leaves it open for a judge to decide.
It's good that there is this close-in-age exemption; that's probably why you're getting a lot of support for the bill. But because five years is arbitrary, I think that you might want to go a little bit further to cover those circumstances where there may be explanations a judge would be satisfied in dealing with.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
President, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
I'd have to say that the example is a telling one, because it's not obvious that there is anything like an epidemic or open season on relationships between 14-year-olds and 40-year-olds. People like to trot out that example as something unseemly because, I think many of us would agree, it is unseemly—perhaps not to those actually in the relationship, but many of us looking from the outside in might think it's unseemly and inappropriate.
The question is not, though, whether it's inappropriate. To my mind, the question is whether the criminal law should be brought to bear on the issue. When I think about it, I think, gee, aren't there a lot more troubling social issues out there where we actually know that there's a great deal of child exploitation, particularly in the area of abuse by persons in positions of trust, power, and authority? We know that the majority of child sexual abuse occurs within the family by somebody in a position of trust.
If attention is to be paid to this issue, why shouldn't it be paid to the area in which there actually is an epidemic, rather than this marginal issue, which seems to us to be an issue of moralizing, of concern over what kind and when children are having sex, rather than the actual predatory relationships that do exist that we know about, that we have statistics on? That's our position.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
I would certainly support the last point made.
I would invite Professor Gilbert to talk a bit about the implications again in terms of the constitutional issues of marriage, because, as many of you well know, especially in generations preceding ours, a gap of more than five years between marriage partners is not unusual. My understanding is that would still be permissible currently under many of the marriage laws. So I'll wait and let Daphne come to that.
1 p.m.
Conservative