Justice Committee on March 21st, 2007

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

They have determined that it's at least 16 in some cases.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

What do you say to those who maintain that legally, a 14-year old can be responsible? For example, under the Criminal Code, a 14-year can give consent to receive treatment. I agree that this matter warrants a debate. However, you say that there is a consensus of opinion. That may be the case, but how did you determine that the age of consent was 16 years? Did your department conduct any studies? Did the department do some studies based on the charges? It's not obvious to me that such a strong consensus exists. How do you reconcile the fact that a person can be held legally responsible at 14 years of age and yet, that consenting to have sexual relations before the age of 16 could, under those circumstances set out in the act, constitute an offence? How do you reconcile the two?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Ménard, actually going back to your initial question about difficulties in determining sexual exploitation, I think this bill actually brings clarity to that. It makes it very clear that we don't get into the question anymore for 14-year-old and 15-year-old children as to whether there is “consent”. We believe that other than the exceptions that are provided for teenagers engaging in consensual sexual activity, we make it very clear that we're having a prohibition, and ultimately it's a judgment call. You may disagree with that and say it's 14 or it's 13 or once upon a time it was 12, but a decision was made in this country to move it from 12 to 14, and I think that was consistent with views in this country, and we are making that judgment call as well, that 16 is a more defensible age in trying to protect.

I indicated to you that according to the information we have from Cybertip.ca about the sexual exploitation of 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds, very often they are the ones who are victimized at that particular age. They are a particular target for people who are sexual predators.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Which components—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Brown.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Perhaps we'll get back to it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Sure.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson, for being here today. You've certainly been a frequent visitor to the justice committee, and we certainly appreciate the information you provide to us.

I've had numerous visits in my riding office from groups that have had a keen interest in seeing the age of consent raised. Judy Nuttall, who is the chair of the white ribbon campaign against child pornography and exploitation, has been sending ribbons to MPs for the last 11 years, and collecting petitions and sending them to Ottawa. I've had numerous church groups, police officers, and parents come and express their aspirations to see some action. So it gives me great pleasure to see a Minister of Justice pushing this important legislation, and I certainly applaud you for it.

I have two questions for you, and would ask you to share the answers with our committee.

First of all, do you have any examples we can look at of the age of consent in other countries? Also, could you shed some light on why it's taking so long for us to get to this point? With so many Canadians clamouring for this change, why did this not happen 10 or 12 years ago?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You've raised a couple of good questions.

It's interesting, but when you look at other jurisdictions, it's sometimes very difficult to compare the same thing. For instance, in the United Kingdom the age of consent is 16, but they don't provide what we are providing, the close-in-age exception. And we could debate whether theirs is a better law than ours; I think this is a better way to proceed. In the United States, because their criminal code is at a state level, many of the states have it at 16, but I have to tell you that many others have it at a higher age. Most of the Australian states seem to have a similar age to our own, but across Europe there's a fairly wide range.

Ultimately, this is a decision that we as Canadians have to take. I can tell you that legislation in this area is a tricky business. It's not easy. Even on those items where you'd think that you would have complete consensus, or that there would be unanimity, you find resistance.

For instance, in the spring of 1993, I was quite involved with the first bill that made it a crime to possess child pornography. If you were working in my office with me, you would know and remember that we were deluged with literature and people trying to make representations to us—many times people from south of the border who were wondering why we were getting into this area. Children participating in sex acts and being recorded did not receive universal disapproval. There was this organization called NAMBLA—something about men and boys loving each other—contacting my office and sending material. I mean, it was astounding to the people working with me that anybody out there opposed making the possession of child pornography a crime, but in fact they did.

So something as clear as that can present a challenge to those of us who are legislators. I think that underlies how difficult some of these are.

Again, I think this is an idea whose time has come. I made the point that perhaps it should have been done years ago, but that's the challenge we have.

It's also the challenge that you have, as a committee, with respect to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code that is before us today was instituted and adopted in 1890, and we're continuously updating it. We have to update it. We have to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. We have to make sure the Criminal Code is responsive to today's concerns, and believe me, I'm very much of the opinion that this is a great step forward in protecting children and updating our Criminal Code.

I hope that answers your question.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

It does very much, sir. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Ms. Jennings.

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

Thank you so much for being here today, Minister, and thank you for your presentation.

As you know from the speeches the Liberals made at second reading of this bill, Bill C-22, and from our Liberal justice strategy, which we announced in October 2006, Bill C-22 is in fact one of the bills the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus supports. And back in 2006 we offered to fast-track it for the government, to work with the government to see that it was fast-tracked.

I'm pleased to hear in your response to my colleague Brian Murphy that you're delighted that the Liberals are supporting C-22 and that you want to see it come into effect and be enacted as quickly as possible.

So you have obviously been made cognizant of the Liberal opposition day motion, which will be debated tomorrow as part of the supply day for opposition, which makes an offer, for the third time, to this Conservative government that we are prepared to work with the government to have Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification; Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act—on which you're appearing before us right now—Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments); and Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences) deemed to have been considered by the House of Commons at all stages.

Should the government agree to vote in that way, this bill, C-22, Bill C-18, Bill C-23, and Bill C-35 will have been deemed to have gone through the House of Commons at all stages.

So I would hope that, given your delight in hearing that we're prepared to support Bill C-22.... You're not learning of this for the first time, because that was announced back in October 2006. The offer was made back then. Unfortunately, the government only took us up on three bills: C-9, conditional sentencing; Bill C-19, street racing; and Bill C-26, payday loans. But Bills C-18, C-22, and C-23 were part of that offer. You and your government, in its wisdom, decided not to take us up on it in October. The offer was again made when we came back after the Christmas break. The government decided not to take us up on it.

We're now making it for a third time, this time in writing, as part of an actual motion on which you and your colleagues will be called on to vote. I'm hopeful, and I'm asking if you will be prepared to recommend to your Prime Minister, to your colleagues, that they vote in favour of the Liberal opposition day motion, which would deem Bills C-18, DNA identification; C-22, age of protection; C-23, criminal procedures; and C-35, reverse onus for bail hearings, to have been considered by the House at all stages and adopted.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

From the wording of your motion, would it pass all those bills within an opposition day tomorrow?

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

Yes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Oh, is that right? Would that be a precedent, then? I'm just asking. I don't know. If it passed on a majority, therefore, presumably, on future opposition days I suppose you could bundle together private member's bills. I'm just asking for some clarification. And then that would be used as a rationale and a precedent to pass private member's bills that'll be gathered together in one vote.

Is that the way it would work?

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

Minister, as you know very well, what you're suggesting is not out of order. If the member who has proposed a private member's bill agrees, then any motion—it could be the government that presents the motion—that would have a private member's bill deemed to have gone through all stages—And as you very well know, that has happened. There's been unanimous consent in the House—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Do you have unanimous consent for this? Are the Bloc and the NDP—?

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

I'm asking you, sir, if you, as Minister of Justice—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, I remember that some of these offers we've had from the Liberals before—

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

You're avoiding the question.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

--have needed the unanimous consent of the House, and then if all four parties don't agree, even though we agree with these, then we don't get it. So in the end, if the agenda of the Liberal Party is not to move forward, in a sense you've accomplished that, because you know that unanimous consent is impossible to get.

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

This is an opposition day motion, sir.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Nonetheless, I welcome, Madam Jennings, any attempt to get these things through. This committee, as you know, had Bill C-10, the mandatory minimum sentences. And you'll know that in the last election we were promised the doubling of mandatory minimums for firearms, and I would have liked to see it. I would still like to see it, and I certainly welcome any support on this.

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

You're not answering the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Jennings, your time is up.