I'd like to ask two questions.
First off, I'm quite pleased to hear your testimony and I thank you for having taken the time to meet with us.
However, I must admit I'm of a liberal bent when it comes to having an open mind. I believe that those who stand opposed to this bill have not given us very compelling arguments. Obviously, I'm not denying that young people who are 13 or 14 may show great maturity. However, when we legislate, we do so for society as a whole.
I'd like to get back to the constitutional aspect, because it is interesting.
I have a hard time with the argument according to which if we set the age of consent at 16 in a bill, with the close-in- age exemption which you are aware of, it could lead social workers, health care professionals or teachers not to provide information on sexual health, hygiene or protection.
It isn't easy for 13 or 14 year olds to talk about their sexuality. I understand there may be some taboos and some prudishness. Several members of the committee referred to sex education, and I agree with that. However, I don't think it is unreasonable that at 16, we consider that, except when it comes to teenagers exploring their own sexuality, there should be some type of a framework.
I would like you to expand a bit on what you were saying regarding this bill possibly making those who need information and those who must provide it more vulnerable.
Make sure your comments are brief and punchy, as though you were trying to impress your date, because I have a second question for the professor from the University of Ottawa.