Bill C-2 (Historical)

Federal Accountability Act

An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability

Part 1 enacts the Conflict of Interest Act and makes consequential amendments in furtherance of that Act. That Act sets out substantive prohibitions governing public office holders. Compliance with the Act is a deemed term and condition of a public office holder’s appointment or employment. The Act also sets out a detailed regime of compliance measures to ensure conformity with the substantive prohibitions, certain of which apply to all public office holders and others of which apply to reporting public office holders. The Act also provides for a regime of detailed post-employment rules. Finally, the Act establishes a complaints regime, sets out the powers of investigation of the Commissioner and provides for public reporting as well as a regime of administrative monetary penalties.
Amongst other matters, the consequential amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act provide for the appointment and office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner along with his or her tenure, expenses, duties and other administrative matters.
Part 1 also amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) reduce to $1,000 the amount that an individual may contribute annually to a registered party, and create a distinct $1,000 annual limit on contributions to the registered associations, the nomination contestants and the candidates of a registered party;
(b) reduce to $1,000 the amount that an individual may contribute to an independent candidate or to a leadership contestant;
(c) reduce to $1,000 the amount that a nomination contestant, a candidate or a leadership contestant may contribute to his or her own campaign in addition to the $1,000 limit on individual contributions;
(d) totally ban contributions by corporations, trade unions and associations by repealing the exception that allows them to make an annual contribution of $1,000 to the registered associations, the candidates and the nomination contestants of a registered party and a contribution of $1,000 to an independent candidate during an election period;
(e) ban cash donations of more than $20, and reduce to $20 the amount that may be contributed before a receipt must be issued or, in the case of anonymous contributions following a general solicitation at a meeting, before certain record-keeping requirements must be met; and
(f) increase to 5 years after the day on which the Commissioner of Canada Elections became aware of the facts giving rise to a prosecution, and to 10 years following the commission of an offence, the period within which a prosecution may be instituted.
Other amendments to the Canada Elections Act prohibit candidates from accepting gifts that could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the candidate in the performance of his or her duties and functions as a member, if elected. The wilful contravention of this prohibition is considered to be a corrupt practice. A new disclosure requirement is introduced to require candidates to report to the Chief Electoral Officer any gifts received with a total value exceeding $500. Exceptions are provided for gifts received from relatives, as well as gifts of courtesy or of protocol. The amendments also prohibit registered parties and registered associations from transferring money to candidates directly from a trust fund.
The amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act rename the Act and provide for the appointment by the Governor in Council of a Commissioner of Lobbying after approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. They broaden the scope for investigations by the Commissioner, extend to 10 years the period in respect of which contraventions may be investigated and prosecuted, and increase the penalties for an offence under the Act. In addition, they empower the Commissioner to prohibit someone who has committed an offence from lobbying for a period of up to two years, prohibit the acceptance and payment of contingency fees and prohibit certain public office holders from lobbying for a period of five years after leaving office. They require lobbyists to report their lobbying activities involving certain public office holders and permit the Commissioner to request those office holders to confirm or correct the information reported by lobbyists.
Amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act prohibit members of the House of Commons from accepting benefits or income from certain trusts and require them to disclose all trusts to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The amendments also authorize the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to issue orders requiring members to terminate most trusts and prohibiting them from using the proceeds from their termination for political purposes. In cases where the trusts are not required to be terminated, the amendments authorize the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to make orders prohibiting members from using the trusts for political purposes. An offence is created for members who do not comply with such orders. The amendments also provide that, in the event of a prosecution, a committee of the House of Commons may issue an opinion that is to be provided to the judge before whom the proceedings are held.
Finally, Part 1 amends the Public Service Employment Act to remove the right of employees in ministers’ offices to be appointed without competition to positions in the public service for which the Public Service Commission considers them qualified.
Part 2 harmonizes the appointment and removal provisions relating to certain officers.
Amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act establish within the Library of Parliament a position to be known as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose mandate is to provide objective analysis to the Senate and House of Commons about the estimates of the government, the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy, to undertake research into those things when requested to do so by certain Parliamentary committees, and to provide estimates of the costs of proposals contained in Bills introduced by members of Parliament other than in their capacity as ministers of the Crown. The amendments also provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with a right of access to data that are necessary for the performance of his or her mandate.
Part 3 enacts the Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions and one or more Deputy Directors. That Act gives the Director the authority to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions on behalf of the Crown that are under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Canada. That Act also provides that the Director has the power to make binding and final decisions as to whether to prosecute, unless the Attorney General of Canada directs otherwise, and that such directives must be in writing and published in the Canada Gazette. The Director holds office for a non-renewable term of seven years during good behaviour and is the Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the purposes of carrying out the work of the office. The Director is given responsibility, in place of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, for prosecutions of offences under the Canada Elections Act.
Part 3 also amends the Access to Information Act to ensure that all parent Crown corporations, and their wholly-owned subsidiaries, within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act are encompassed by the definition “government institution” in section 3 of the Access to Information Act and to add five officers, five foundations and the Canadian Wheat Board to Schedule I of that Act. It adjusts some of the exemption provisions accordingly and includes new exemptions or exclusions relating to the added officers and the Crown corporations. It empowers the Governor in Council to prescribe criteria for adding a body or an office to Schedule I and requires Ministers to publish annual reports of all expenses incurred by their offices and paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It adds any of those same officers and foundations that are not already included in the schedule to the Privacy Act to that schedule, ensures that all of those parent Crown corporations and subsidiaries are encompassed by the definition “government institution” in section 3 of that Act, and makes other consequential amendments to that Act. It amends the Export Development Act to include a provision for the confidentiality of information. It revises certain procedures relating to the processing of requests and handling of complaints and allows for increases to the number of investigators the Information Commissioner may designate to examine records related to defence and national security.
Amendments to the Library and Archives of Canada Act provide for an obligation to send final reports on government public opinion research to the Library and Archives of Canada.
Finally, Part 3 amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to
(a) establish the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal and empower it to make remedial orders in favour of victims of reprisal and to order disciplinary action against the person or persons who took the reprisal;
(b) provide for the protection of all Canadians, not only public servants, who report government wrongdoings to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner;
(c) remove the Governor in Council’s ability to delete the name of Crown corporations and other public bodies from the schedule to the Act;
(d) require the prompt public reporting by chief executives and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of cases of wrongdoing; and
(e) permit the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to provide access to legal advice relating to the Act.
Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to create a new schedule that identifies and designates certain officials as accounting officers and, within the framework of their appropriate minister’s responsibilities and accountability to Parliament, sets out the matters for which they are accountable before the appropriate committees of Parliament. A regime for the resolution of issues related to the interpretation or application of a policy, directive or standard issued by the Treasury Board is established along with a requirement that the Treasury Board provide a copy of its decision to the Auditor General of Canada.
Part 4 also amends the Financial Administration Act and the Criminal Code to create indictable offences for fraud with respect to public money or money of a Crown corporation, and makes persons convicted of those offences ineligible to be employed by the Crown or the corporation or to otherwise contract with the Crown.
Other amendments to the Financial Administration Act clarify the authority of the Treasury Board to act on behalf of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada on matters related to internal audit in the federal public administration. They also set out the deputy head’s responsibility for ensuring that there is an internal audit capacity appropriate to the needs of the department and requires them, subject to directives of the Treasury Board, to establish an audit committee. The Financial Administration Act, the Farm Credit Canada Act and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act are amended to require Crown corporations to establish audit committees composed of members who are not officers or employees of the corporation. Other amendments to the Financial Administration Act require, subject to directions of the Treasury Board, that all grant and contribution programs be reviewed at least every five years to ensure their relevance and effectiveness.
Amendments made to the Financial Administration Act and to the constituent legislation of a number of Crown corporations provide for appointments of directors for up to four years from a current maximum of three years.
Part 4 also amends the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Act and the National Capital Act to require different individuals to perform the duties of chair of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer of the corporation.
Part 5 amends the Auditor General Act by expanding the class of recipients of grants, contributions and loans into which the Auditor General of Canada may inquire as to the use of funds, whether received from Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Crown corporation. Other amendments provide certain immunities to the Auditor General.
Amendments to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act provide for the appointment and mandate of a Procurement Auditor.
Part 5 also amends the Financial Administration Act to provide for a government commitment to fairness, openness and transparency in government contract bidding, and a regulation-making power to deem certain clauses to be set out in government contracts in relation to prohibiting the payment of contingency fees and respecting corruption and collusion in the bidding process for procurement contracts, declarations by bidders in respect of specific criminal offences, and the provision of information to the Auditor General of Canada by recipients under funding agreements.

Canada Elections Act

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that the official opposition in the House of Commons supports Bill C-16. When it was before this House earlier, we supported it wholeheartedly and spoke energetically in favour of it.

Repeatedly the House leader of the government speaks of irony. In fact, I think the walls of this extraordinary chamber are dripping with irony after his speech. However, he speaks of irony in the sense of delay, and of course the delay is on the part of the government on this unnecessary challenge of that minor amendment today.

Let me look at the other initiatives around delay. The House leader speaks of Bill C-43 and the delay there, but we started that last week. The government waited four months after tabling Bill C-43, the election through consultation of senators, to bring it forward. Why not four months ago?

He talked about Bill S-4, the bill on fixed terms for senators, and the fact that it has been held up in the Senate for over a year. This has not been held up in the Senate because of Bill S-4, because there is agreement on that. What there is not agreement on is that we should have the election of senators through consultation with the provinces, or whatever, before we redistribute the seats of the Senate fairly across this country.

How can any member of this House, and particularly of the government, support Bill S-4 without first supporting the other Senate motion to redistribute seats so there is less of the imbalance that so thoroughly disfavours Alberta and British Columbia at this time? I have colleagues in the government side from Alberta and British Columbia. It is inconceivable to me that they would think of altering in any way the status, the mandate, the credibility or the validation of the Senate without first sorting out that extremely unfair distribution for western Canada. This is where we are on that.

On Bill C-16, it is doublespeak, it is Orwellian, to hear the government House leader speak today about the Liberal side or Liberal senators delaying it. Good heavens, we could have had this passed before the Easter recess. We offered to rush it right through, get it to the Governor General and make it law before we left, but no, some bogus concept of this minor amendment as somehow frustrating the will of Parliament, the will of this House, was thrown up as a delaying tactic.

My goodness, the Conservatives refer to a referendum, as if a referendum called in some small municipality somewhere in this country would be allowed to dislodge the fixed election date. What we have to remember is that this would be with the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer, an officer of Parliament, in one of the most respected senior offices in this country and one of the offices most critical to the fair operation of our democratic process. It is nonsense to expect that this person at his or her discretion would knock off a federal date that had been set for four years in advance because of some local referendum. It is just nonsense. It would not happen and it could not happen. Therefore, that is no reason to slow this down.

The government House leader speaks of disrespect or whatever in the other place where they would dare make a minor amendment to a House bill that has gone through this process and was supported by all parties. The Senate, whatever one thinks about elected or non-elected legislative chambers at this stage in our democracy, exists as part of our democratic machinery. We all have some firm minds about that, I think, including in the Senate, in terms of having some election process for senators. However, the Senate exists as part of our democratic machinery. It has a very specific purpose, which of course is to bring second sober thought to what is thoughtfully determined in this House. When it finds some area where it feels a bill can be made better, the Senate has the perfect right and the democratic responsibility to suggest an amendment, which is what has been done in this case.

I can recall the process last fall when Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, passed through the House after several months of debate in committee and in the House. It then went to the Senate and we heard wailing and complaining from the government side that the Senate somehow was wasting everybody's time with this critical piece of legislation by not simply rubber-stamping it.

I think we all know now what happened in the Senate. There were over 100 amendments because it was a sloppy bill. There was no time as it was rushed through the process in the House. The Senate exercised its responsibilities properly by carefully looking at that massive, complex piece of legislation involving dozens of other statutes that needed to be amended as a consequence of it. The Senate came up with sensible, helpful arrangements and amendments that the House then of course accepted. That was not delay. That was the Senate doing its work in our democratic framework of institutions.

I will go back to this issue of electing, through consulting provincial bodies during provincial elections, for the appointment of senators into vacancies that happen in any one of those jurisdictions. I simply will say that this is a good piece. Let us get that moving. Why did we wait four months? Why have we waited a year without some serious consequence and a discussion of redistribution?

Let me just turn, then, to Bill C-16 itself, because this is a completely appropriate piece of legislation. It was supported in this House. Adding a final little fail-safe in case there could be a problem through a referendum process is just good sense. The Senate has suggested that, which is what we are debating here today. We are in favour of that and therefore are opposed to the government's motion.

In regard to Bill C-16 itself and fixed election dates, we know, and the House debates on Bill C-16 I think made it very clear through speeches on behalf of all parties, that this is a sensible further step in the democratic reform of Canada. It was made very clear that the overwhelming number of democracies in the world have fixed election dates and that there is a range of advantages to fixed election dates, including that it gives some predictability to government business.

Therefore, the government can put forward legislation and have the effective administration of legislation, with a timetable, knowing that it will not be dislodged short of a non-confidence vote or a national emergency. Therefore, the business of the government and the people of Canada can be done more efficiently. It can also be done more efficiently in terms of cost. Having an electoral commission and electoral office idling full time to be ready for an election that could come at any day is not an efficient use of resources.

This is also effective in terms of voter turnout, which is perhaps one of the most critical issues of fixed election dates, something with which I think all members and all parties of this House have been in agreement. For people who are first time voters, be they students, new Canadians or seniors, we can have civics classes in schools, universities and communities to ensure that people are fully engaged in the electoral discussion of the various policies being put forward in the election by various parties. That could enhance interest and voter turnout, which of course leads to a healthier democracy.

Of course in a country such as Canada it is also immensely important to have a fixed date that avoids inclement weather. The last election in this country was held in winter. Sadly, we saw a continued reduction in voter turnout and of course, unless one has the very good fortune to live in Vancouver as I do, winter weather can be very disruptive to voter turnout. That is very important. We also want to avoid the summer holiday breaks, which we can by having a fixed election date in the early fall or late spring, in order to increase voter turnout.

For all of these reasons, it is good sound public policy and we all support it, so good heavens, let us get on with it. Let us not delay this any further. The concept of a referendum in a small community is so inconceivable as to be insignificant. It should not slow down the passage of this legislation. With the support of members of the House today, and with the vote tomorrow, I believe, or whenever we are going to vote on this, we could have this as the law of Canada and as real democratic reform and we could have it immediately.

I just suggest that it is a test to the sincerity of every member of the House in terms of the need for this reform, that we not be distracted by a small amendment. It is the result of the Senate doing its job of carefully looking to see if it could possibly be improved, which to the credit of the House, could only be improved by a tiny amendment of really no consequence at all.

I speak in opposition to rejecting this amendment and in full support of moving ahead quickly in the House right now, so that it can go on to the Governor General and become law as soon as possible.

[William Corbett]

It might very well be, but at the time dismissal wasn't available to the CEO. It was a matter for the Governor in Council. You've heard Mr. Kingsley say he wasn't getting anywhere with recommendations to the Governor in Council regarding returning officers.

There's a procedure for dismissal set out in the act, and it's pretty strict. Now something could be done that may not have been available before as a result of Bill C-2.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You have indicated that our questions should be on the estimates. As I have always been a bit difficult, I am declaring that my questions are not on the estimates. However old I get, I have always acted a bit like a teenager, and my father grouses about it to this day.

So in the same spirit of being difficult, Mr. Meyrand, I was almost thinking that your new job had made you forget your knowledge of French, given the length of your presentation in English compared to the one in French. Witnesses have the right to speak the language of their choice, but your predecessor's presentations were mostly 50% English and 50% French. I kept track: you spoke in English for 16 minutes and in French for 8 minutes. I suspect that my colleague Ms. Picard could say the same. I don't want to speak for my francophone colleagues from the Liberal Party, Mr. Proulx and Ms. Robillard. But I am sure that we were happy to see that you kept your French. Ms. Davidson will tell you how miserable I can get. She knows.

Back to your presentation. You say that since December 12, 2006, you have appointed 308 returning officers. Since this is a public document, would it be possible to provide the clerk with a table containing the 308 names? In fact, there are 305, since three positions are vacant. I would like to know which returning officers were already appointed, and which were appointed under the new regime. The Bloc Québecois is very pleased that Bill C-2guarantees an open and transparent process in this area. Could you send us the information as soon as possible?

[Carole Morency]

Two years ago, in the context of proceedings under a former bill, Bill C-2, the Department of Justice had furnished some information to the committee that talked about what we knew about 15-year-old youths in relationships, either legally married or common law, and the age of their partners.

I believe Mr. Comartin referred to this chart previously, and I know others have looked at it. I can table a copy, if its publicly available information, in English and French, with the clerk.

The information shows that for the 2001 census data, for 15-year-old youths who had reported being in a married or common-law relationship, the majority of their partners were over the close-in-age age group and were more than five years older. We don't have any data to explain how or why that is.

There's no question that we have limited data, but there is some data to show and confirm to the committee that some relationships will be affected. Bill C-22 contemplates that. Beyond that point, further relationships will be affected. The object of the bill is to prevent a 25-year-old adult from moving in or engaging in any kind of sexual activity with a 14-year-old or 15-year-old youth.

One last point I will remind the committee of is that the definition of sexual activity within the criminal law context is not only sexual intercourse. That's what many people have in mind when they think about these types of relationships. It's all sexual activity, ranging from touching through to and including sexual intercourse. It may be that a couple hasn't perhaps consummated a relationship, but they may still be involved in a sexual relationship.

The intent of addressing this through Bill C-22 is to provide comprehensive protection for 12-year-old or 13-year-old youths and in fact all Canadians. If it's non-consensual and it's a whole range of sexual activity, it would apply and would be caught by Bill C-22.

[Carole Morency, Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice]

Yes, I do. I think this also will help to clarify some of the information that we had before the committee on Tuesday.

Reference was just made to the number of couples; it was 3,000, or something in that range. Between the last committee hearing and today I did follow up with my colleagues at the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the two witnesses who appeared before this committee, Karen Mihorean and Lynn Barr-Telford. We discussed the numbers that had been provided to the committee, which were that 0.07% of 15-year-olds were estimated to be involved in married or common-law relationships, and she had said as well that translated into 72 per 100,000. That's not for the total population of Canada, but for the estimated population of 15-year-olds.

On that point, to clarify, we don't have these data yet from the 2006 census on age and sex. What StatsCan does is work with the data that are available from the last census, 2001, and then project what the estimated population will be of that age group for the year in question. If you follow that through, what they've projected is that the 0.07% gives 316 as the number of 15-year-olds estimated to be involved in a legally married relationship or in a common-law relationship for 2006. That breaks down to 108 15-year-old boys and 208 15-year-old girls.

It's correct, as has been noted this morning, that we don't have the breakdown of what percentage of those relationships would fall within the five-year close-in-age exception as proposed by Bill C-22, or how many would now be caught because the partner is more than five years older. Bill C-22 contemplates those relationships that would exceed the five-year close-in-age exception and provides a transitional defence for those existing couples who meet that definition. Of the 316, based again on Statistics Canada's projected estimates of how many were legally married at age 15, the number I provided on Tuesday to this committee was five in total for Canada for the year 2005. Obviously it is not necessarily an exact science. If we take the 316 married or common-law projected for 2006 and take off that number of perhaps five--a handful--it leaves almost the entire group of 15-year-olds involved in a common-law relationship.

In the time I had available to me before today, I can't confirm to you with certainty that there are no 14-year-olds at all in those relationships, or that StatsCan doesn't collect the data for 14-year-olds who may be married. Prior to this it was my understanding that they don't collect the data on 14-year-olds, but I can't confirm it. The best information I can provide to the committee is that perhaps in the neighbourhood of 300 common-law relationships currently exist, and a handful of legally married.

From there, in terms of trying to understand if there will be a conflict between Bill C-22 and the age of consent and how provinces deal with age under their solemnization legislation, I have said in providing an overview to this committee that under the provinces' and territories' solemnization legislation--that is, who can obtain a licence to marry--three provinces do not allow anyone under the age of 16 to marry or to obtain a licence. Those are Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon Territory--so in three out of the 13 jurisdictions, it's never.

In the rest of the jurisdictions, four will grant an exception under the age that they set--meaning someone under the age of 16, or 15 in the two other territories--provided the female is pregnant. That means Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut—in those two territories the age is 15 for solemnization of marriage—and also Prince Edward Island; it's 16 there and 16 in Alberta. In those four jurisdictions the decision is made by a judge, and again, it's on the basis that the female in question is pregnant.

If I translate that to how this plays out with Bill C-22, that means the person seeking approval to marry has already been the victim of a sexual assault under Bill C-22.

In the remaining provinces the criteria change a bit for one that's similar to what I've just described--a female is pregnant. In Manitoba, basically the court has the discretion to issue the licence, where the young person is under the age of 16. In 1970 the legislation used to be that if the girl was pregnant, it was an automatic right. They changed the legislation. So it's no longer an automatic entitlement; the judge has to consider the circumstances in the case.

In New Brunswick, for example, the marriage has to be shown to be proper. In Nova Scotia, it's expedient and in the interests of the parties. In Ontario, the circumstances justify the issue of the licence. In Saskatchewan, a court judge can do so retrospectively, if the parties have already consummated the relationship or have lived together by the time they apply for the licence.

To sum up the state of the marriage laws in the provinces, the majority either do not allow or only allow under the age of 16 where the girl is pregnant. The others look at the circumstances of the case.

I'm not sure if this would help you, but I can give you an example of how a court goes through the considerations of a marriage licence application.

There is a decision by the name of Al-Smadi, father and extra friend, from 1994, Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba in Winnipeg. In this reported case, there was a 15-year-old girl seeking to marry her 27-year-old boyfriend. She was living with her father. The father was consenting to the application. The question before the court was whether it was appropriate in the circumstances to issue the licence to this 15-year-old girl in that relationship.

In the first application there was no evidence before the court that she was pregnant. The court, in that case, decided against approving the marriage. It wasn't in the interest of the child in that set of circumstances.

Either she knew she was pregnant and had not disclosed it or she subsequently became pregnant and the matter returned to the court. Recognizing again that the court had the jurisdiction to grant the exception, to issue the licence, the court in those circumstances did allow the marriage to proceed because she was pregnant at that point.

I have not been able to identify a lot of reported cases. I don't mean this to be cited as an example that they're all like this, but it's an example that the committee may find helpful in their deliberations.

Yes, there are some couples who would be affected right now if Bill C-22 were to come into force. Bill C-22 contemplates that and provides an exception.

I believe a question on Tuesday was this. If you don't meet the definition, for example, of common-law relationship--the couple hasn't been residing together for one year or more or they haven't been residing together for a shorter period of time and they aren't having a child or haven't had a child together already in that relationship--what happens?

Obviously, when Bill C-22 was being developed, the considerations were that if you were going to propose a change in the law, there was going to have to be a line drawn, and how would you justify where the line was drawn?

There is a varying treatment of what constitutes a common-law relationship across the country and the provinces for the purposes of family law. The Criminal Code already provided a definition of a “common-law partner”, which was a conjugal relationship of one year or more. So Bill C-22 says that there is an established definition, an established understood context, but recognizes, again, that you could have a shorter period of time and you could have a child born of that relationship or expected, which is not inconsistent with what the provinces do in terms of how they establish common law for provincial purposes.

So Bill C-22 will affect some existing relationships. It does provide exceptions for those limited, established relationships. It will prevent or criminalize new relationships formed after Bill C-22 comes into effect, on the basis that Bill C-22 would say if you're more than five years older than a 14-year-old or 15-year-old youth, it's against the law. That would be the intention or the objective of Bill C-22.

Two years ago I had spoken to this committee on the former bill, Bill C-2, on the protection of children. We had some information provided to the committee that looked at what we knew about the age of the partners of these 15-year-old youths. The information had been provided to this committee in a chart form that had been prepared by Statistics Canada, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. It generally showed that most of the partners who were identified through the 2001 census data were over the five-year close-in-age exception. We can't explain the nature of that.

[Peter Harrison, Senior Associate Deputy Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Deputy Head, Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee,

l am pleased to appear before you to answer any questions you may have concerning the report entitled “Governor in Council Appointments Process—Immigration and Refugee Board”. This report was prepared by the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

I would like to begin my comments by providing committee members with some contextual remarks. The Public Appointments Commission Secretariat was created by order in council on April 21, 2006 and I was appointed Executive Director and Deputy Head of the Secretariat on the same day. Orders in council were also published allowing for the appointment of commissioners.

At that point in time, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, made reference to the Public Appointments Commission by proposing a change to the Salaries Act. The draft bill was later amended in committee to include the mandate of the commission. This mandate includes a provision in clause 227 “to perform any other function specified by the Governor in Council.”

The Secretariat was asked to undertake a review of the appointment process for members of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Following discussions with the Privy Council Office, the Secretariat prepared terms of reference for this review. These were approved by the minister and made public on November 3, 2006. Please see annex 1 of the report.

Immigration and Refugee Board members are appointed by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the minister. The overall selection process was amended considerably in March 2004, as announced by the then-minister—see annex 4 of the report—and the objective of the review we were asked to do was to assess

How effective is this new approach in meeting the objective of merit-based appointments while respecting the prerogative of the GiC, and what if any are the options for updating it?

The Secretariat worked closely with IRB officials in acquiring and reviewing relevant information. Discussions were also held with members of the IRB, IRB leadership, and with members of the chairperson's advisory panel. Secretariat officials also attended hearings of the IRB in order to understand the complex nature of members' tasks. These are reviewed in the section of the report entitled "The Work Context". A third party, Sussex Circle, was engaged to review the exam which is employed as a selection tool by the IRB and to recommend possible changes which could lead to greater efficiencies.

The report contains, Mr. Chairman, nine recommendations dealing with the timeliness of recruitment campaigns; the need for targeted advertising; implementation of the exam pass mark; consideration of merging the advisory panel and chairperson's selection board; ministerial involvement in determining membership of selection boards, as was intended in 2004; maintenance of the practice of providing the Governor in Council several names for each vacancy; keeping candidates for appointment and reappointment apprised of their situation; making initial appointments for three years; and making reappointments for five and two years respectively.

The report was submitted to the minister in early 2007. Since January 21, 2007, I have been appointed by the Governor in Council to other duties.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I trust this provides you with helpful information, and I will try to answer any questions you may have.

[Carole Morency]

I can't comment specifically on each jurisdiction. In fact, this is an issue that's been longstanding. As members around the table will know, over the years the Department of Justice has consulted with members of the public and officials in the provinces and territories on issues involving child sexual exploitation, including the age of consent. There typically is a general consensus of support for measures that will better protect children and youth against sexual abuse and exploitation.

On the specific issue of the age of consent, there has been a divergence of opinion in prior consultations or discussions with FPT officials in terms of how and when this would be effected. The former Bill C-2 in the previous Parliament had addressed some of those concerns. Bill C-22 addresses concerns that continue to remain and are shared by provincial counterparts.

In the context of the current FPT discussions, I can say that the age of consent issue was raised with me. After Bill C-22 was raised, there were some questions from FPT officials, on the family law side, about how this would operate. And we had a similar exchange of information to what we've just had with this committee: a discussion of what the division of powers is right now; how provinces do or do not allow young people under the age of 16 to marry, and in what circumstances; and what would be the interplay between Bill C-22 and those powers.

That's as far as I can speak personally. For sure, there have been attorneys general who have spoken publicly in support of Bill C-22. I believe Alberta and Manitoba have. Over the years there's been a range of views generally supportive of the direction of Bill C-22, which is to better protect against adult predation.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I just want to point out two firms that receive the most money from government. Since 2001, one has received $96 million from the federal government for temporary services. Another, which is an adjunct of this company, has received $23 million since 2005.

It seems to me we almost have these satellite public services that exist outside of the formal public service. When we look at the dilemma here and how to retain people, value for money is something as well. Hopefully the budgetary officer, who as part of Bill C-2 will overlook spending--not after it's spent, which is the Auditor General's job, but before--will take a look at this. The value-for-money argument is one that I don't think has been addressed.

Before the Christmas holidays I had three town halls on foreign credentials and the labour market with members who are newcomers to our country. There were engineers, doctors, people from right across the professional gambit, and they all want to work. They're all qualified, but they can't get into the public service. I submit to this committee that when 35,200 college and university graduates applied for jobs last year--as was submitted by Ms. Barrados--and only 550 were hired, and half of them were for term positions, I think it's pretty obvious what the problem is. There's no room at the inn.

There are plenty of qualified people. Granted, we have a crisis down the road if you look at ages, but we are dealing with the here and now. The here and now for me is that we need to hire people, commit to people, and commit to people who are newcomers, because we know that's 100% where we'll get our new employees from. When I hear from the public sector unions that they're having problems in terms of retention, we only have to look as far as the budgets and the amount of money we're spending on temporary hires. What kind of commitment is that? I think that's sending a message to people that “We want you, but only for a week. See you later.”

My last question is on protection of your pensions. I know there's some court action with others to make sure the moneys that are there for your pensions in the long term will be vested, and people can be assured that when they retire their pensions will be there for them. You mention your concern that many professionals cannot fully benefit because of mid-career entry or late starting age into the public service. I know that in other professions in other sectors that's a problem. Do you have some ideas on how that can be addressed?

Quarantine Act

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the home for over 50 years of Canada's Emergency Preparedness College, I am pleased to participate in this debate about modernizing the Quarantine Act.

The Quarantine Act is one of Canada's oldest pieces of legislation. The original act was first adopted in Parliament in 1872. It is the only federal statute concerned with preventing and controlling the introduction and spread of communicable disease. The new Quarantine Act received royal assent in 2005 and is now in force. This legislative renewal initiative was a direct outcome of our Canadian experience with SARS.

As a member of the 37th Parliament, I had the privilege of representing the Ontario riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke during the SARS crisis. What I remember most about the debates in the House of Commons surrounding the SARS crisis, was the almost total lack of accountability from the Ontario Liberal MPs during that crisis and from the administration and the minister they were defending.

While I have certainly been pleasantly surprised by the concerns raised by Liberal MPs who are now in opposition, my question is, where were they during the 2003 SARS crisis? The purpose of a quarantine act is to be prepared for an emergency. This is the same reason we have anti-terrorism legislation, to be prepared. Canada witnessed what happens when government is not prepared. This was evident during the SARS crisis. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Our government is getting the job done.

The official opposition was irresponsible when it made the decision to go soft on terrorism. Canadians can only hope that lives will not be lost as a consequence. The bottom line in this discussion is saving lives, protecting the health of Canadians. It was the inability of the former minister for emergency preparedness in the old government who had the statutory authority but lacked a grasp of the importance of the portfolio that led to the travel advisory being issued against Toronto during the SARS episode.

Information was not communicated to the World Health Organization in a timely fashion. The leadership role that the minister in the old government was intended to assume never materialized. The minister responsible for emergency preparedness claimed it was the minister of health's responsibility to call the World Health Organization. The minister of health figured that in an emergency the minister for emergency preparedness was in charge. In the inevitable passing of the buck, Ottawa twiddled its thumbs as Canadians became ill.

It is shocking to hear MPs who are members of the old government now admit just how unprepared Canada was and how disorganized the government was to communicate accurate information to an alarmed populace for an epidemic of any kind, let alone SARS.

I listened carefully as alarmed Canadians were told to turn to no less than 17 sites on the Internet for information on SARS. This information was incomplete and the sites conflicted with one another. Given this kind of experience with a crisis, it is incredible that opposition members would want Canadians to be unprepared for a terrorism act when they voted down their own terrorism legislation. It is all about being prepared.

Canadians listening to this debate will know that it is partisan posturing to suggest that amendments to the Quarantine Act should have been our new Conservative government's first order of business when in fact Bill C-2, our new government's showcase anti-corruption legislation had to be the first order of business.

The people of my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and more specifically the people of Arnprior know firsthand the actions of a corrupt government when the Emergency Preparedness College, which had been located in Arnprior for over 50 years, was shut down. It was wrong to close the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior and, as events turned out, it was not only the people of Arnprior who suffered because of that bad decision.

In the case of SARS, the cost to the tourism industry in Toronto and the rest of the province of Ontario was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The SARS fiasco was the culmination of a whole series of missteps by the old regime that began with the political decision to discard over 50 years of tradition and teaching excellence when the politically motivated decision was made to close down the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior.

With the college in turmoil, the people who were supposed to be advising the government were ill-equipped to react even if the legislation tools such as we are discussing here today were in place. What is truly unfortunate about that wrong headed decision by the scandal ridden old government to close the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior was the price Canadians had to pay when it came time to act during the SARS crisis.

While taxpayers' dollars were made available to large urban centres like Toronto to deal with the drop in tourism as a result of the travel advisory issued against Toronto, the effect of that travel advisory warning by the World Health Organization rippled throughout the province of Ontario. Many businesses, including small businesses involved in the tourism industry located in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke were adversely affected.

The old administration refused to take responsibility for the situation with SARS and it is to the credit of the former member of the House, long forgotten by his own party and frustrated by inaction, that a concert was organized to let the world know that it was safe to be in Toronto and a safe travel destination as well. It is with this background that I participate in the debate regarding Bill C-42.

The modernization of the quarantine legislation was a first step in a series of legislative initiatives, along with the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and the appointment of the new Chief Public Health Officer to help strengthen Canada's public health system. Bill C-42 is a minor amendment to the new Quarantine Act. It proposes new wording to section 34.

This amendment to the Quarantine Act is a minor and technical one. It does not change the policy objective but corrects the current language used in section 34. Section 34 is a provision that supports advance notification of very important health information to federal officials. It requires conveyance operators to report in advance before arrival in Canada if there is an illness, a public health concern or death on board a conveyance.

This provision enables quarantine officers, nurses and medical practitioners designated by the minister to coordinate an efficient response and to mobilize other key health and emergency responders.

In the event of a large scale outbreak and if necessary, this provision would allow the Minister of Health to better assess whether to order the diversion of a carrier to an alternate landing site in Canada to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

In its current form, section 34 would not satisfy its intended purpose. The problem was discovered when attempting to draft a supporting regulation which was necessary to make section 34 functionally proper.

Unfortunately, this issue created a barrier for bringing the new Quarantine Act into force swiftly and a newly worded section 34 is necessary from a technical point of view.

Today, I stand before members with this bill to be forwarded to the appropriate committee for review.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by mentioning the beautiful light that shines on this side of the House. This is not a coincidence. The sky is blue and God is a sovereignist. We are going to take advantage of this light to enlighten our colleagues, the members opposite, who form the government. I hope they will be wise enough to listen.

I could not help but smile when I saw that this legislation was coming back here to be amended. Let us not forget that, at the beginning of this session, a bill was rammed through the House, namely Bill C-2. We felt that this issue had not been debated long enough to ensure that this legislation would provide measures that could be implemented, and that it would be responsible and meaningful for our fellow citizens, whom we represent here.

Today, I see that we have to go back to Bill C-12, which was passed in 2005, when I was still a new member in this House. In fact, this bill was my first experience with the legislation here. I had to learn how to debate it in the Standing Committee on Health, along with my colleague, the member for Hochelaga, who was then our party critic on health issues. Even at that time we had serious reservations about the provisions that the government wanted to include in the bill, because we often felt that they were too intrusive or not logical enough to allow for concrete, easy and effective implementation.

We have to be very cautious and serious when we talk about infectious and communicable diseases, about viruses and bacteria that proliferate. We have to take our role seriously. At the time, we deplored the fact that people would be accountable to an authority designated by the Minister of Health, because we felt that this was a somewhat complex process that would prevent the bill from being an effective piece of legislation.

When I saw the bill and saw that there was a move to amend this section, that is, section 34, I thought to myself, “Two years later, people are finally seeing that, once again, the Bloc Québécois was right.” Naturally, it was members of the Bloc Québécois who were the first to oppose that part of the legislation, which called for an authority designated by the minister. We did so because we believed that the bill encroached too much on provincial jurisdictions, especially in the area of health.

In Quebec, our department of public health is very effective and takes great care to protect us against all communicable and infectious diseases. I know that this is not necessarily the case everywhere. A hospital in Vegreville had to close its doors this week. Also, in Loyds, hundreds of patients had to be informed that they had probably contracted HIV or hepatitis, because the doctor had not reported, as one must, these diseases to public health authorities.

It is not enough to simply enact legislation. That legislation must be respected, obeyed and enforced, and we must be able to use that legislation effectively to protect ourselves against what we could call barbarian invasions. Any mention of tuberculosis, west Nile virus or SARS is sure to arouse fear. I would remind the House that the original Quarantine Act was drafted around 1872, if I understood my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska correctly.

We know that diseases crossed borders with the influx of pioneers who came here to start a life for themselves and become proud citizens of what was then Lower Canada and Upper Canada, in other words, the Quebec and Canada of today.

Infectious diseases did not stop crossing our borders just because we passed this legislation in 1872. In the early 1900s, around 1910 or 1918, right here in Hull, on the other side of the river, a very serious Spanish influenza outbreak killed many people. It decimated entire families. We still see traces of those families today in the names of the hon. members sitting in this House and the people nearby, who live in Hull, in Gatineau. These people probably have in their lineage, among their ancestors, people who died from the Spanish flu. At the time, even though the legislation existed, we did not have the means to enforce or apply it.

As far as such epidemics are concerned, we have to think about all these soldiers we send abroad. Often we pay more attention to what is going on over there in terms of equipment, tools and armament, and not pay much attention to what they might be bringing back with them when they come home. This can be very dangerous for them. These days, a number of women take part in these missions. Many of them come back and can also spread infectious diseases to their families and children because they did not receive the necessary care when they were abroad on a peacekeeping mission or, unfortunately, at war.

It is not enough to have laws, we also need the political will to apply them. We have to start resolving the problems in our own backyard. We currently have tuberculosis epidemics in a number of our first nations communities. It is unthinkable that in 2007 there are still people suffering from tuberculosis. That is the direct responsibility of the federal government. It is a responsibility that it neglects far too often and which it has not respected because the epidemic is spreading, not stopping.

In Kashechewan, people may be forced to leave their homes and to be relocated because their water is not potable. However, they cannot do it today because there is no money. If we have billions of dollars to invest in arms, we should at least have a few million to invest in providing safe, healthy housing where individuals can live with dignity and respect. At present, this is not the case. It is much easier to adopt a laissez-faire attitude. Hundreds, even thousands of individuals will suffer from these illnesses, including tuberculosis and other diseases. They will contract them because of unhealthy living conditions. Nothing is being done about that.

The previous government ratified the Kelowna accord. We all voted in this House to honour that accord. However, the government decided otherwise and is not making any further commitments. That is most unfortunate.

First nations communities, Inuit communities, all these communities find it difficult to carve out a place for themselves in our society. It is difficult for them to have access to adequate health care, appropriate education, and affordable, healthy, safe housing. It is difficult for them, but they have been abandoned even though it is our first responsibility to help them. We abandon them, we do not invest in these societies. Why? Why is there constant encroachment, to the tune of millions of dollars, on provincial responsibilities and jurisdictions when we do not even take care of our own responsibilities?

I do not understand. And yet, some small countries who have very little do much more for their citizens. I regularly visit Cuba, because I love the island and the people. Someone will say to me that they do not have a great deal of freedom, but I sometimes wonder which one of us has more freedom. I know that they have first class health care. All Cubans can study as much and as long as they wish. Education is free. Later, the government assigns the doctors it has trained to various countries to work for humanitarian causes. These doctors are very well trained.

Whenever I go to Cuba, I am never afraid of getting sick. I know I will be taken care of. When we went to Taiwan last fall, my travelling companion got a toothache on Taiwan's national holiday. The person I was with had a toothache. We had to go to a hospital because there are no dental clinics. At the hospital, two doctors took care of us. In under 10 minutes, my companion was in a chair and personnel had administered a sedative and something to take away the pain, and all of this happened on Taiwan's national holiday. Of course, thousands of people live there and their hospitals do not have all the equipment we have here. But their government chooses to invest in human resources to provide a standard of care and services that we rarely find here.

That service standard is rare here largely because of our provincial governments. Why do our respective governments not have enough money? Because previous federal governments cut transfer payments. Beginning in 1994, cuts to provincial transfer payments, including payments to Quebec, resulted in the sorry state of our health care systems today compared to those of some small countries that have much less than we do, but that care about their citizens' health.

We support the principle underlying this bill. We are not against it. Obviously, we cannot be against what is right, but today, as we study this bill, we must ask ourselves a question. Will this bill provide enough money to train quarantine officers? Will enough money be invested in training customs agents and all of the front-line staff who meet people at the border?

That was one of the concerns expressed by the Standing Committee on Health in 2004-05. We were not certain that all steps would be taken in order to enforce Bill C-12. After two years, we see that enforcing it is very difficult indeed, and that it was not really being enforced because there were flaws in the bill. In the years to come, we will likely find other flaws in the bill, given that the Standing Committee on Health had considerable reservations about approving the bill, which was adopted on division.

If we all minded our own business, there would likely be fewer bills of this kind to review. For example, despite what the government thinks, Bill C-2 was adopted very quickly, and a number of its sections are still not in force.

Why are we asked to debate bills that seem so important to the government, only to then have it dismiss everything we determined, everything we decided, everything we wanted to be able to give to our citizens as members of Parliament here in this House? We wonder why.

I do not know. I only hope that, in the future, we will be more careful. If it is true that Bill C-42 is crucial to the proper enforcement of Bill C-12, through the amendment of section 34, it is also true that there are several other sections of the bill that should be reviewed. In enforcing—

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

Madame Chair, I can reply as I have that the role of the secretariat was to move forward the staff work in order to put in place what had been determined first by the government through order in council and secondly by Parliament through Bill C-2.

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

Madame Chair, I do not know what will happen in terms of the next executive director. I have been at the deputy minister level since December 1985, and for the last nearly nine years at deputy minister level two. Deputy ministers are appointed by the Governor in Council, and this position to which I was appointed was deemed to be a Governor in Council and order in council position. Since it is not mentioned in specific legislation other than now in terms of Bill C-2, the Public Service Commission of Canada provided an exclusion order that I remain a full-time public servant.

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

Thank you, Madame Chair.

If I may, I think that's an intriguing question. The order in council that created the secretariat and the commission in the first instance, as I pointed out in my opening comments, was related to the fact that in Bill C-2 at that point the reference to the creation of the commission was through a change to the Salaries Act. I am no legal expert, and I'm not an expert in machinery of government, so I do not have the ability to explain why it was done that way.

As you point out, Madame, Bill C-2 itself was amended, and effectively the principles, as I read it, of the order in council were included in the legislation. However, and I have not done a total analysis in recent time, the role of the commission would have been increased or is increased because of the fact that the bill is passed. By adding a number of functions, including audit, so the commission would be in the position of looking at what had taken place, the legislation still includes a very key instrument, and that is a report by the chair of the commission to the Prime Minister for tabling through the clerk in both houses of Parliament, which is maintained in the bill.

The bill also requires the development of a code of practice, which the order in council talked about in terms of guidelines. There are those who would argue that guidelines are different from code of practice. My reading of that is that an instrument needs to be developed so that ministers would be able to respond to that, so effectively, the work of the secretariat continued the way it had been, but with the role of the commission enlarged somewhat.

That's the best answer I can give you.

[Dr. Peter Harrison, former Executive Director, Public Appointments Commission Secretariat, Privy Council, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.

Thank you for inviting me to report to your committee on the operations of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat of which I was the Executive Director and Deputy Head from April 21, 2006, until January 21, 2007.

I'd like to begin my comments by providing committee members with some context.

The Public Appointments Commission Secretariat was creating by order in council on April 21, 2006, and I was appointed by order in council on the same day. Orders in council were also published allowing for the appointment of commissioners. I should add, Madam Chair, which is not in my comments, that in effect, this made the commission secretariat a department within the Prime Minister's portfolio.

At that point in time Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, made reference to the Public Appointments Commission by proposing a change to the Salaries Act. The draft bill was later amended in committee to include the mandate of the Commission.

Pursuant to section 1.1 in clause 227 of the Federal Accountability Act, the functions of the committee are:

(a) to oversee, monitor, review and report on the selection process for appointments and reappointments by the Governor in Council to agencies, boards, commissions, and Crown corporations, and to ensure that every such process is widely made public and conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner and that the appointments are based on merit; (b) to evaluate and approve the selection processes proposed by ministers to fill vacancies and determine reappointments within their portfolios, monitor and review those processes, and ensure that they are implemented as approved, giving special attention to any instances in which ministers make appointments that are inconsistent with the recommendations of appointment panels;

(c) to develop and establish a code of practice for appointments by the governor in council and ministers that sets out the steps that are necessary for a fair, open and transparent appointment process, including requirements for appointments and criteria for appointments to be made fully public; (d) to audit appointment policies and practices in order to determine whether the code of practice is being observed;

(e) to report publicly on compliance with the code of practice, in particular by providing an annual report to the Prime Minister to be transmitted to the Speaker of each House of Parliament for tabling and referral to the appropriate committee of that House for study; (f) to provide public education and training of public servants involved in appointment and reappointment processes regarding the code of practice; (g) to perform any other function specified by the Governor in Council.

As you can see, Madam Chair, the commission and the secretariat created by order in council, now enshrined in Bill C-2, are mandated to focus on the process related to Governor in Council appointments. I think it's important to underline that neither the commission nor the secretariat have any role to play in the individual appointments themselves. It remains the responsibility of ministers to manage selection processes and to bring forward names for consideration by the Governor in Council.

It is also important to note that the commission's oversight role applies only to the governor-in-council appointments to agencies, boards, commissions and crown corporations. It does not include other GIC appointments such as public servants or deputy ministers, the judiciary or ambassadorial postings.

The secretariat was created to support the commission in meeting its objectives. While the commission itself is in abeyance, the secretariat was asked to continue the staff work necessary to meet these objectives.

I reported regularly to the Clerk of the Privy Council on the secretariat's activities and progress, and on December 8, 2006, I provided a full report to the Treasury Board portfolio advisory committee.

In these reports, I reviewed the broad consultations we undertook with heads of agencies, boards, and crown corporations and their representatives who are responsible for the appointments process; “learnings” we had gleaned from other jurisdictions that have implemented similar reforms to their public appointments process;

early principles to underlie the development of a “code of practice” provided in the bill; and the creation of the secretariat through a Treasury Board submission to access the annual allotment of $1.175 million which had been set aside for the secretariat and commission activities, and relevant staffing activities.

The secretariat was also asked to review the Immigration and Refugee Board selection and appointment process with a view to enhancing its effectiveness, and to begin an analysis of the relationship between the appointment of board members and governance challenges in institutions with a dominant shareholder--in other words, similar to crown corporations.

Madam Chair, it was a privilege for me to have been asked by the governor in council to be involved in the creation of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat. I was supported by a small and dedicated group of people comprising the deputy executive director, who was at the EX-3 level; a senior officer on loan from Service Canada, who was at the ES-6 level; my assistant who is also the office manager (AS-6); and one clerical support person hired on a casual basis.

Madam Chair, I trust that this provides you with helpful information. I will try to answer any questions you have.

[Nichole Downer, Programs Consultant, Canadian AIDS Society]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to present to you today.

We recognize that a lot of our points have been presented. Being the last group, we would like to take the opportunity to reinforce several themes that are evident in the presentations today.

The Canadian AIDS Society is a national coalition of over 125 community-based AIDS service organizations across Canada. We are dedicated to strengthening the response to HIV/AIDS across all sectors of society and to enriching the lives of people in communities living with HIV/AIDS.

As an organization dedicated to decreasing HIV/AIDS infection rates, we are concerned about the pending legislation to increase the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age. Furthermore, the proposed amendments do not address an existing law prohibiting anal intercourse for individuals under the age of 18.

The Canadian AIDS Society believes the law should not discriminate by type of sexual activity. First, there are already protections in place under Bill C-2, protection of children and other vulnerable persons. Passed by Parliament in July 2005, Bill C-2 created new protections for youths under 18 years of age against exploitative sexual activity. The Canadian AIDS Society supports this bill. Bill C-2 takes into account the nature and circumstance of the relationship, including the age of the young person, the difference in age between the youth and the other person, how the relationship evolves, and the degree of control or influence exercised over a youth under 18.

Second, increasing the age of consent could result in youths being more secretive. The Canadian AIDS Society is concerned that increasing the age of consent could result in youths being more secretive about their sexual practices and in youths not seeking out the information they need. This will place youths at an increased risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Almost one-quarter of students in grade 9 feel embarrassed about seeing a physician or a nurse if they suspect they may have an STI. Raising the age of consent could have the negative impact of further decreasing the number of youths accessing the information from health providers if they are under the age of 16. This is problematic, as research in Canada has shown that the average age of first sexual intercourse is 14.1 for boys and 14.5 for girls.

A study in Britain showed that youths are unlikely to seek information about contraception and sex if they are under the age of consent, because of worries about law and confidentiality. The studies show that youths under the legal age of consent in Britain were six times more likely than those over the legal age of consent to give the fear of being too young as the reason they did not seek out sexual health information.

Regardless of the age of consent, youths will continue to have sex, and we need to make sure they have the information they need. As we know the average age of first sexual intercourse is under 16 in Canada, raising the age of consent could result in many youths engaging in their first sexual intercourse while being fearful of accessing the information they need.

Not enough research has been done in this area to alleviate the fears that raising the age of consent could have detrimental effects on the sexual health practices of youth. Therefore, it would be irresponsible to raise the age of consent without knowing the full effects of this action. The Canadian AIDS Society supports more research being done in this area.

Third, the close-in-age exemption is not a solution. The close-in-age exemption has been used as a solution to fears that Bill C-22 will criminalize youth sexual behaviour. We do not believe this is an adequate solution.

While we understand the rationale behind the creation of a close-in-age exemption and that this exemption would be increased to five years under Bill C-22, the bill places unnecessary restrictions on youth, while not addressing the reality of sexual abuse. Given that all exploitative activity is currently illegal involving people under 18, this law makes the situation for youths unnecessarily complex.

Most youths, and even adults, do not have the legal expertise to know about the criteria and exemption, or to be able to determine if their relationship meets them. It is very likely that this exemption will be misunderstood or forgotten, and the age of consent will generally be understood to be 16 years of age. Many young people would assume their relationships are illegal and not seek the information and help they need.

Using age as a factor to determine sexual exploitation does not address the reality of sexual abuse. In cases of sexual coercion, a person is no less abused if the perpetrator falls within a five-year peer group. This legislation is focusing on the wrong group of people. Criminalizing the sexual behaviour of youths will do nothing to stop exploitative activity. As all exploitation of persons under the age of 18 is currently illegal under Bill C-2, more resources need to be devoted to pursuing cases involving sexual exploitation and abuse.

Fourth, the focus should be on comprehensive HIV/AIDS and sexual health education. School was reported as the main source of information about HIV/AIDS by 67% of males and 58% of females in grade 11. However, 27% of grade 7 and 14% of grade 9 and grade 11 students had not received any instructions on HIV/AIDS education over the past two years.

The Canadian AIDS Society is concerned that if the age of consent is raised from 14 to 16 years of age, prevention and education in schools will not be available for youths under the age of 16, decreasing further the amount of information provided to them. Research evidence has shown that in the long term, prevention messages are more effective when they're delivered early, and they are effective at reducing risky sexual behaviour. We also know there were 212,000 high school dropouts in Canada in 2004-05. The legal minimum school leaving age is 16 in most provinces in Canada. Therefore, not delivering sexual health education in schools before the age of 16 would mean that many youths are not receiving critical prevention messages.

The Canadian AIDS Society believes the government should be focusing its efforts on promoting consistent, comprehensive HIV/AIDS and sexual health education across Canada. The best way to protect and support youths is to ensure that educational services are available to inform them about their rights and options, and about the risks and benefits of engaging in sexual activity. Educating youths to make informed choices that are right for them is better addressed through parental guidance and comprehensive sexual health education than it is by using the Criminal Code.

Fifth, the age of consent should be universal and not discriminate by type of sexual activity. According to the Criminal Code, the age of consent for anal sex is 18, while the age of consent for vaginal intercourse is currently 14. Section 159 of Canada's Criminal Code states that people who engage in anal intercourse are guilty of either an indictable offence, risking being given a prison term of ten years or being found guilty of a summary offence.

The unequal treatment of anal sex has been found unconstitutional in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Court of Appeal of Quebec, the B.C. Court of Appeal, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, and the Federal Court of Canada, yet the federal government refuses to recognize its unequal treatment and change the law. The Court of Appeal for Ontario recognized the potential for harm when the age of consent is higher by striking down the age of consent of 18 for anal intercourse.

In the ruling, the judge stated:

Health risks ought to be dealt with by the health care system. Ironically, one of the bizarre effects of a provision criminalizing consensual anal intercourse for adolescents is that the health education they should be receiving to protect them from avoidable harm may be curtailed, since it may be interpreted as counselling young people about a form of sexual conduct the law prohibits them from participating in. Hence, the Criminal Code provision ostensibly crafted to prevent adolescents from harm may itself, by inhibiting education about health risks associated with that behaviour, contribute to the harm it seeks to reduce.

The Canadian AIDS Society hopes you will reconsider increasing the age of consent based on the issues raised above. The solution to protecting youths from sexual exploitation is not found by placing restrictions on them. Bill C-22 has the potential to affect the health and well-being of youths. It is irresponsible to enact Bill C-22 without solid evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, our recommendations are that more resources be devoted to pursuing cases of sexual exploitation and abuse; that more research be conducted into the impact the age of consent has on providing sexual health education and youth confidence in accessing health professionals; that section 159 of the Criminal Code be removed and the law regarding anal sex be made consistent with the law on vaginal intercourse. Should Bill C-22 be passed, plain-language information on the new law and what it means needs to be communicated to youths, particularly around the close-in-age exemption.

Thank you.