Justice Committee on March 27th, 2007

[Andrea Cohen]

Our understanding is that there will be a duty to report under this legislation. If youth come in to access testing and diagnostics around sexually transmitted infections and something comes back positive, they have to provide a list of their partners to public health. That's a good policy, of course, but by providing that list of partners they are therefore disclosing potential outside of law, outside of age exemption partners. We certainly fear that will prevent them from coming in to be tested, and therefore it will continue to spread.

STIs are really on the rise with our youth, and I think we should all be very concerned about that. We need to protect youth from that very important health issue.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm guessing you're not a lawyer. Have you had any legal counsel look at this? I've identified a potential amendment to the code that would address part of this problem. It's a major amendment that would be needed to the Evidence Act to provide this privilege we're looking for. From your report it would appear there may be other statutes, and I haven't caught any of those.

Has a lawyer looked at other statutes at the federal level? Of course we can't do anything for provincial legislation.

[Andrea Cohen]

That certainly makes it very complex. We've been very careful in both our brief and our comments today to focus on the areas where we feel we have some background and experience--that's in sexual health, and particularly education for youth and parents. Because there's federal legislation and provincial legislation that varies across the country, we can't recommend any specific wording to that legislation that would be helpful, but we certainly encourage your efforts to do so.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

You have not had lawyers look at it. Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Kryskow, you made reference to Bill C-331 with some favourable comments. That bill did not include a near-age defence.

Ms. Roy, Ms. Tremblay, and Ms. Kryskow, I'm not clear from your presentations if you are in favour of the near-age defence, or if you would simply raise the age to 16.

Perhaps I could have a comment on that.

[Faytene Kryskow]

Yes. My reference to Bill C-331 was a reference not to the actual legislation but to the statement that was made by Mr. Rodriguez about the importance of this to youth. I just wanted to clarify what I was actually saying there.

In terms of the near-age clause, I think the fact that we're not criminalizing sex between consenting youth is a helpful thing. I don't think I need to expound on that any more than that.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's fine. Thank you.

Madame Tremblay ou Madame Roy.

[Carole Tremblay]

It's the same thing in part. If Bill C-22 is carried as is, it is a necessary evil to allow this exemption so as not to criminalize adolescents who have sexual relations with each other. As I mentioned earlier, provided this does not cover only those rights, only the right to have sexual relations, but much more than that.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

You agree that, if the age is raised to 16, we have to add exemptions?

[Carole Tremblay]

Yes.

[Michèle Roy]

I think we share Madame's concern about the question how medical records and so on, for example, could limit access to youths. So we have to permit this near-age exemption.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Merci.

I want to play devil's advocate to both Egale and the AIDS society. Certainly I've heard this argument. I won't say I subscribe to it, but I want to hear a response.

If we accept your arguments to not raise the age to 16, it seems logical that we would either eliminate an age of consent completely or reduce it to 12, as it was in the late 1800s. What do you say to that kind of an argument? There are a few countries in the world that don't have an age of consent at all in their criminal legislation. Obviously the vast majority have one that runs from 14 or 16 to 18. But if you follow--and Ms. Downer, I think I'm pointing to you specifically because you addressed this more than anybody did--your arguments regarding the nature of the relationship and so on, why would you not reduce the age? We know from the statistics that there are a reasonable number of youth in Canada aged 12 and 13 who are in fact engaged in sexual relations.

[Kim Thomas]

The question I keep writing down to myself as we're talking about this is why should the onus be on youth to protect themselves here? That's why I keep getting this feeling that we're talking about criminalizing youth behaviour through this bill, that we're talking about telling youth what to do. It's been a few years, but I was a youth at one point--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'd forgotten that too.

[Kim Thomas]

--and I think if I remember correctly back to that, I certainly wasn't thinking about these types of discussions when I was making decisions around sexual activity. I think we need to focus on the realities that are facing youth through this.

I'm not sure if reducing it to 12 years of age is going to make a difference. I have to tell you, when I was 15, 16, or 17, I didn't know what the age of consent was. I just did what I felt like doing. It's a much more immediate thing. I think that setting and enforcing the restrictions that we already have around predatory sexual activities is really the priority that we need to address right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ko.

[Gregory Ko]

Thank you.

I think it's generally more about the difference between keeping the status quo and making a change. The age of consent has been 14 since 1890, I believe, so it's not a matter of reducing the age; it's a matter of keeping the age as it is, and a matter of the impression that youth are being given by the change in age. Changing it to 12 sends a message in itself, but what's being signalled today by this bill does something equally harmful, I think.

The age of 14 is there. It's been there since 1890. I think, in particular, that raising the age gives the impression that the security and comfort that youth have already surrounding sexuality and the seeking of counsel are threatened. That's the impression I think we're highlighting today, more than anything else. So there is a difference between maintaining the status quo and changing and signalling something to youth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Hasselriis.

[Kaj Hasselriis]

I just want to add that Egale Canada has never actively sought a reduction in the age of consent. I suppose our presence here is somewhat reactionary. We don't want the age of consent to be raised, and that is what this bill intends to do. We are here to say that we do not want that to happen.

We're also concerned when people like the first presenter suggest that maybe if we raise it to 16, there will be people who might want it to be 18, or even higher. They wonder when it will end. If we raise it from 14 to 16, what's next? Raising the age higher? Saying that people can have consensual sexual activities only when they're married, for instance?

We are here to say that the changes in this bill should not happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Hasselriis.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you to all of the witnesses today. It's certainly been very interesting testimony.

I want to speak a bit about what Ms. Thomas just mentioned, about the onus being on youth. I think it's interesting that a lot of the discussion today has been around youth, when at our last meeting the discussion revolved around the adult. This is very much about putting the onus onto the adult. So I do appreciate your comment.

You mentioned you didn't know the age of consent. Probably most people don't know the age of consent. I think, Ms. Kryskow, you also mentioned that Canadians are shocked when they hear that the age of consent is 14. That's in some of the testimony we've already received from, for example, the police, who deal with this on an ongoing basis.

I'll read from the testimony we heard from the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. They say that in their experience, many Canadians believe that 14- and 15-year-olds are already protected by the law: “They are of the mistaken belief that young teens are protected from anyone who is more than five years their senior. Our experience is Canadians believe it is illegal for a 50-year-old male to have a sexual relationship with a 14- or 15-year-old teen.”

So on one hand you have young people who often may not know the intricacies of the law. On the other hand you have Canadians who think that this activity is already prohibited by law, when it's not. But we heard about another group, and that is those who do actively seek out young people in Canada for sex. That's a third group. You have the general public, you have kids, and then you have...and they, above anyone else, know our laws inside out.

We heard testimony that in the online forums and chat rooms, Canada's laws are in some cases celebrated, that people know our age of consent; they know how our age of consent and our law and our system of punishment for adult predators compare to their own. Many of you may have watched the W-FIVE investigation recently, where people were coming to a house to have sex with a 12- or 13-year-old girl. I had the privilege of meeting with one of the police officers in my riding who mentioned that if he goes online posing as a 12-year-old girl or a 13-year-old boy, within minutes he's being approached by an adult about sex.

So I do want to talk about that. We already discussed whether any minimum is appropriate. I think for Canadians there's a consensus that there should be a minimum at some point. There seems to be one around the table.

Ms. Thomas, you mentioned another thing, about the dropout age, that I thought was interesting. The age to drop out is 16. So we've set that age. We've also set an age of 16 to drive. We've set an age to vote. We've set an age to do all these things. Canadians feel that these people--adults who are 40- or 50-year-olds who want to have sex, specifically in Canada, with 14- and 15-year-olds--should be prevented from doing so, putting the onus on them. They're aware of the law. Our law currently states that a 14-year-old is fair game, when in the United States or other countries where these people may be coming from, the law says you have to be 16.

So could I get some comments, from anyone really, talking more about the person who wants to seek out a 14- or 15-year-old for sex?

That's open to anybody. Just go ahead.

[Faytene Kryskow]

I'd like to respond to that, Mr. Moore.

This is what we've been hearing over and over as we were doing the surveys and reading the e-mails that have been coming into our office like a flood in the last eight days: youth want to be protected. This is the implicit underlying common denominator.

The statistics were overwhelming, even to us. We weren't expecting to have statistics that high: 92% of young people said they would not have the confidence to resist somebody who was more than five years older and who was pressuring them to have sex, even against their will. This is coming from the mouths of the youth. Really, that is our concern.

What about these young ones who are between the ages of 14 and 16? We know from word on the street--and we've heard the testimony of the RCMP and I believe it was the Ontario police board that was here--that this is the age range where young people--children, according to the UN definition--are being targeted. We absolutely must do something to create a safe Canada for these young ones and at the same time help educate them to make the right decisions.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Does anyone care to comment from the perspective of the message this may send, not to youth--we've talked a lot about that--but to someone who wants to come to Canada to have sex with a child who's 14 or 15?

[Gregory Ko]

I'd like to make a point here. I think Canada already has quite strong legislation that dictates that exploitative sex is unacceptable with youth below the age of 18. It's quite clearly written in the Criminal Code. I think that message is being sent, and I think that needs to be reinforced.

Raising the age to 16 seems to affect youth more than potential predators. Predators should know already--and I think we should make it quite clear--that those under 18 are already protected in Canada.

[Kaj Hasselriis]

Yes. I want to reiterate that Canada has very strong laws against sexual exploitation, against child prostitution, against child pornography, and against Internet luring. All the activities you're describing are very much against the law.

You asked about having an age of consent of 16 because 16 is the age at which we allow young people the right to drive, for instance. As Nichole pointed out in her presentation, and according to one of the biggest youth sex surveys ever done in Canada--by the Council of Ministers of Education--the fact is that the average age at which young people are first having sex is 14. That's the average age. That means there are quite a number of young people who are first having sex when they're 12 or 13.

The fact is that young people are having sex at that young age. What we should be doing is giving them all the information they can get to make healthy decisions about who they want to have consensual sex with, because that's what we're talking about here: consensual sex.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Roy.