John Maloney

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Motions No. 1 and 3 would allow a province to opt out of the youth criminal justice act and continue to apply the Young Offenders Act. Although some have questioned the need for new youth justice legislation, it is apparent that most Canadians feel that the Young Offenders Act is not working effectively as a legislative base for the youth justice system in Canada. More than 16 years with experience with the Young Offenders Act backs up the perception that there are many real problems with the law.

The proposed youth criminal justice act would address key problems with the Young Offenders Act. It does not reflect the coherent youth justice philosophy. Its principles are conflicting and do not effectively guide decision makers in the youth justice system. It has resulted in the highest youth incarceration rate in the western world per capita, including that of the United States. It has resulted in overuse of the courts for minor cases that could be better dealt with outside the courts. It has resulted in disparities and unfairness in sentencing. It fails to ensure effective reintegration of a young person after being released from custody. Its process for transfer to the adult system has resulted in unfairness and delay. It fails to make a clear distinction between serious violent offences and less serious offences. It fails to recognize the concerns and interests of victims.

The proposed youth criminal justice act effectively addresses these problems in a manner that also provides considerable flexibility for the provinces to implement the legislation to reflect local needs and circumstances. However there are appropriate limits to this flexibility. The youth criminal justice act is founded on federal criminal law and criminal procedure power. There should be only one youth criminal justice law operating in Canada and fundamental legal principles would be respected.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually speaking to Motion No. 2, but I will be getting to Motions Nos. 1 and 3 subsequently.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond today to the opposition's motion to amend Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act. Motion No. 2 calls for section 125 to be amended to make disclosure of information about young persons mandatory rather than permissive.

Section 125, like the Young Offenders Act, specifically recognizes the interest of schools, professionals and other persons engaged in the supervision or care of a young person in receiving information when a young person is dealt with under the youth criminal justice system.

Section 125 allows the provincial director, the attorney general, a peace officer or any other person engaged in the provision of services to a young person to disclose identifying information with any professional or other person engaged in the supervision or care of a young person, including a representative of a school. It does so under the following circumstances: to ensure compliance for the young person with a court order; to ensure the safety of staff, students or other persons; or to facilitate the rehabilitation of the young person. This can be done without a court order.

The section expands the Young Offenders Act provision that was included in 1995 by adding the authority to disclose information to facilitate rehabilitation of a young person. It is important that privacy protections are a hallmark of the youth justice system in Canada. Any disclosure of identifying—

[Division No. 98, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite seems to believe that the Minister of Justice is ignoring the recommendations of the privacy commissioner. In September 1999 the Department of Justice received an invitation from the privacy commissioner to do an informal inquiry into both what was right and what was wrong with the firearms program from a Privacy Act compliance point of view. The object of the inquiry was to fix any outstanding issues, if any. The Department of Justice accepted the commissioner's suggestion.

The annual report from the privacy commissioner discloses that in January 2000 he began a review of the firearms registry to thoroughly assess its personal information handling practices. He notes in his report that the deputy minister of justice has welcomed the review and awaits any observations and recommendations that would help the Canadian Firearms Centre meet its requirements under the Privacy Act.

The Canadian Firearms Centre examined that report in detail and had a meeting with the privacy commissioner's office in December 2000. In January 2001 the Canadian Firearms Centre submitted a report in writing expressing a number of improvements that could be made to the draft report. As of early March no response to the firearm centre's comments and request for examples of misuse of information had been received from the privacy commissioner. These are clearly not the actions of a minister, a department or a program that, in the words of the hon. member, continues to ignore the recommendations of the privacy commissioner.

I would like to address the member's second concern, that information used to make public safety decisions when deciding on eligibility for a firearms licence exceeds the authority of the minister and the Firearms Act. The House passed Bill C-68 after a lengthy debate. Section 5 of the Firearms Act specifies that a person is not eligible to hold a firearms licence if it is desirable in the interest of the safety of that person or any other person that the applicant not possess a firearm described in the statute.

To set the framework for making this determination, the legislated statute makes specific references to offences under the criminal code, such as an offence where violence is used, threatened or attempted, and offences respecting criminal harassment. Offences respecting drugs are specifically mentioned. Persons who have been treated for a mental illness are specifically mentioned where violence, threatened, attempted or used, is a concern. Finally, a history of behaviour that includes violence, threatened or attempted, against any person is specifically mentioned. Evidence of these factors could render an applicant ineligible for a firearms licence.

Gathering information in respect of these criteria is central to the public safety. The requirement of section 5—

[Patent Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the question of outsourcing for some services and products to support the firearms program has become an issue before the House. This is in no way privatization of the program, as some opposition members would have us believe.

The Minister of Justice has made it clear to the House that she will remain fully accountable for the firearms program. However, if there are private sector companies that can provide off the shelf technology, then it makes sense to outsource as opposed to recreating such products.

The Canadian Firearms Centre is simply looking at ways to ensure that the program is delivered efficiently and cost effectively without compromising public safety. The centre has solicited for ideas on how the objectives of the program could be met while lowering costs and improving client services. This an exploratory exercise to determine what services and products are available that could help reduce costs and do the job effectively and efficiently, while adhering to our high public safety standards.

Outsourcing is not new to the firearms program. For example, an Ottawa firm has been providing assistance in processing licence application forms. Another firm provided expertise in developing the automated registry system. We know the private sector can be a partner in support of the program by providing cost effective and efficient services.

Public safety is paramount and it guides all changes made to the administration of the program. Public safety and the security of personal and other information remains the cornerstone of the firearms program. Security and privacy protection will remain as stringent as the current system and improved if possible.

As the Canadian firearms program evolves toward a steady state, it is important to consider all options aimed at lowering costs and increasing efficiency while maintaining the safety and security of information.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search and seizure without warrant).

The proposed amendments to the criminal code would prohibit a peace officer who was aware that a danger to public safety existed from searching for and seizing, without first having to obtain a warrant, firearms from people who pose a potential danger to themselves or to the public.

Regardless of the existence of exigent circumstances, that is, circumstances that have been examined by the courts in the past and found to be constitutional, the amendment would prohibit police from quelling an imminent danger to public safety. It is conceivable that the police would be powerless to act while life is at risk.

In many situations where time is of the essence, this could result in the loss of life. The provisions of Bill C-245 are inconsistent with the powers police need to effectively perform their duties. They are inconsistent with the principles of firearms control in Canada and inconsistent with the interest of public safety.

The proposed amendments by the hon. member for Lakeland would endanger public safety. The Minister of Justice cannot support the amendments to the criminal code put forth by the hon. member.

The existing provisions of the criminal code are a valuable part of Canada's firearms control legislation and important for ensuring public safety. The controls on the possession and use of firearms set out in the Firearms Act are justified in a free and democratic society by the need for safety and security for our society.

While it is recognized that most Canadians who own and use firearms do so prudently and responsibly, the presence of firearms under some circumstances carries with it a risk for the safety of all. In those circumstances, the police must be empowered to adequately respond to the danger present. The current provisions of the criminal code permit them to do that. Bill C-245 would not.

The current provisions of the criminal code were devised to reach a middle ground, balancing an individual's need for privacy with the public's right for safety and security. They have been refined over the years to ensure that the parameters are clearly understood. They have been in place in one form or another for over 25 years and have not been the subject of misuse.

As a rule, a peace officer requires a warrant to search for and seize firearms or firearms related items from individuals where it is not in the interest of safety that the person possess firearms.

Where public safety is at risk and exigent circumstances are present, the criminal code permits peace officers, provided that they have reasonable grounds to obtain a warrant, to search for and seize firearms and firearms related items without a warrant.

While the existing provisions of the criminal code permit searches and seizures of firearms and firearms related items in exigent circumstances, such searches are not without limits or exempt from judicial scrutiny. A peace officer who conducts a search without a warrant must nonetheless forthwith make a return to a justice indicating the items seized and the grounds on which the search was conducted. Thus, judicial scrutiny is maintained even over exceptional searches.

The proposed legislation put forward by the hon. member for Lakeland would allow a person whose property is lost or damaged as a result of entry and search to apply for restitution to the justice who issued the warrant.

The criminal code does not provide immunity from civil liability for damage to property. While peace officers are in some instances offered protection from criminal liability they remain accountable to the courts in both a criminal and civil context for their actions.

In civil courts crown liability exists by virtue of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. The liability of provincial or municipal peace officers is addressed by provincial police acts or other acts.

In the same manner as a private person, the crown is liable in tort for damages caused by its agents. Capricious or careless actions on behalf of peace officers in conducting search and seizure for firearms or firearms related items, either with or without a warrant, remain actionable.

The provisions authorizing warrantless searches do not confer untrammelled powers to peace officers. People who suffer property loss or damage as a result of a search and seizure by peace officers, either with or without a warrant, already have a means to seek redress if they have been wronged or have suffered damages.

The issue of restitution for lost or damaged property is complex. The hon. member for Lakeland proposes that matters of civil liability be dealt with in criminal courts by justices who are trained to deal with criminal matters. Justices who hear applications for warrants to search and seize are not experienced in issues of civil liability. Those matters are best left to the civil courts.

Civil courts are in a better position to adequately deal with issues of liability, value and quantum of damages. They have the expertise and experience and they deal with such issues day to day.

The current provisions of the criminal code strike the proper balance between an individual's need for privacy and the public's right to safety. They establish proper limits and judicial safeguards while empowering police to adequately respond to situations that endanger public safety. The provisions are responsive and fair.

An individual's right to compensation for lost or damaged property is protected by the civil courts and there is no need to change the present provisions of the criminal code.

For these reasons the Minister of Justice does not support these amendments to the criminal code.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-250 which would amend part 9 of the criminal code dealing with offences against property. The proposal calls for the creation of a new offence: theft of a motor vehicle with a value of more than $5,000. It then provides for a minimum sentence of four years if convicted a second time for theft of a vehicle over $5,000.

I assume that the purpose of the legislation is to combat the very serious problem of car theft. Unfortunately the bill ignores two basic realities. First, all theft over $5,000 is already an indictable offence under section 322 and 334 of the criminal code. It is already effectively dealt with under the existing sentencing provisions of the code. More important, the legislation would do little to combat the problem of auto theft, a problem that the government is fighting on many fronts in partnership with Canadians from every province and territory.

The proposed amendment to the criminal code sweeps aside the fundamental principles of sentencing currently in place and establishes a very specific regime for an individual facing a second or subsequent auto theft. The theory is that if we catch all the repeat offenders and throw away the key for four years the war against auto theft would be won. I recognize that some convicted criminals reoffend, but imposing a mandatory four year sentence for a second offence does not make sense in light of all that we know about this offence.

Here is what we do know. The vast majority of car thefts are joyriders or individuals who use the stolen vehicle in the commission of another offence. We know this because according to the Insurance Council of Canada the rate of recovery of stolen vehicles is very high, about 70% to 80% in recent years. Further, young offenders commit almost half the reported auto thefts. How does the proposal address these aspects of the problem? We know that hard time in a penitentiary itself does little to rehabilitate offenders, so how do we address this serious problem?

That brings me to the second reality the proposed legislation fails to recognize. While auto theft has been and continues to be a serious problem, it is actively and aggressively being addressed. The problem is being attacked not only by the sanctions available in the criminal code but by every level of government, policing agency, private company, association and by individual Canadians. The existing sanctions within the criminal code and case law effectively achieve the objectives of criminal sentencing for both first time and repeat offenders.

Auto theft falls under the class of offences in the criminal code relating to thefts of property. Section 334 of the criminal code provides that the theft of property exceeding $5,000 is an indictable offence for which the individual is liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years. This provision reflects parliament's recognition that theft over $5,000 is a serious offence and it includes auto theft.

Further, joyriding is a specific offence under the criminal code to take into account the very unique nature of this crime. In addition, if an offender has prior convictions the sentencing judge, under current procedures, is bound to treat this as an aggravating factor that would result in a harsher sentence than would otherwise be imposed. A sentencing court does not stop there, however, nor should it.

The principles of sentencing in Canada require a judge to look at all the circumstances of the crime, including those of the offender and of the victim, the good and the bad, the mitigating and the aggravating. Those circumstances must be weighed in light of the fundamental principles of sentencing. The first and paramount principle of sentencing is that the sentence must be in proportion to the crime or crimes committed, and to the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Put simply, shoplifting by an 18 year old teenager versus the robbing of a convenience store by a professional criminal may both be prosecuted as theft under section 334 of the criminal code. However, to sentence both to six months in jail would not make any sense. The entire sentencing structure of the criminal justice system is built around this basic principle of proportionality. That is why, for example, there is no minimum mandatory sentence for a section 334.

The sentencing court must also consider the remaining well established objectives of sentencing: the protection of society; reparations to and acknowledgements of victims; deterrence to others; denunciation of the crime; and the rehabilitation of the offender. Unfortunately, Bill C-250 would, in too many cases, force the sentencing court to throw away these long established and useful sentencing principles.

The government clearly supports the notion that those who habitually re-offend ought to be punished to a greater extent than the first time offender. However, our current system, recently revamped in 1996 by Bill C-41, the Sentencing Reform Act, provides the necessary flexibility to accomplish this objective.

The determination of sentences therefore requires the consideration of a number of sentencing principles and objectives. In the absence of the proposal contained in Bill C-250, the existing regime enables courts to impose sentences for auto theft that are just and fair to the victim, to society and even to the offender. Many sentencing options are available which can and should be fully considered to tailor the sentence to the specific circumstances of the crime.

While the problem of motor vehicle theft is international in scope, the recent international crime victimization survey conducted in 1996 revealed that Canada's rate of vehicle theft ranked as one of the lowest among industrialized countries.

In 1995, 18 out of every 1,000 Canadian vehicle owners experienced a motor vehicle theft, compared to, for example, a rate of 33 per 1,000 owners in England, and since then we have made considerable progress. We have seen a steady decline in the rate of vehicle thefts every year to 5.3 thefts per 1,000 vehicles in 1999 according to statistics from Statistics Canada.

Recent amendments to the criminal code introduced by the Minister of Justice would make it easier to investigate and prosecute organized crime rings which would put a further dent in vehicle theft. The government is currently co-ordinating a multijurisdictional analysis of the role of organized crime in auto theft as part of our national agenda to combat organized crime.

In addition, a number of non-statutory measures have been employed over recent years to prevent motor vehicle theft in Canada, a measure that the government either initiated or partnered with other governments, agencies, organizations and individuals.

For example, we are actively involved with the provinces and numerous police agencies in the establishment of the national stolen and wrecked vehicle monitoring program designed as a comprehensive database available to the police from coast to coast. This would make it tougher to steal a car at one end of the country and sell it at the other end.

Another initiative involves car manufacturers working in conjunction with the police and insurance companies to design more effective security features for their motor vehicles. The government recently initiated the business action program on crime prevention in partnership with police and insurance companies across Canada to educate Canadians as to what they as individuals can do to fight auto theft.

All these measures are designed to reduce car theft and together with the existing criminal code provisions provide a comprehensive scheme for addressing this serious problem. While the imposition of a four year minimum sentence for a second or subsequent offence may look appealing to a few hardliners, it is simply not a realistic alternative to what already exists. It does not give the police, the prosecutors or the courts any additional tools to combat the problem. As a result, the Minister of Justice cannot support the bill.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 2nd, 2001]

(a) NWEST will provide training to local law enforcement in all jurisdictions. It will work in a support role with local law enforcement to assist in anti-trafficking and anti-smuggling efforts. The team will also help the police community in dealing with issues of violence with firearms. NWEST will not take a lead law enforcement role in enforcing firearms related laws.

(b) Consultations are known currently underway with the policing community across Canada and once these consultations are completed and the results know, an overall budget for NWEST will be established.

(c) As a result of consultations that took place over a two year period, the overwhelming recommendation from the policing community was to establish the unit initially with those directly responsible for the administration of the Canadian firearms program. Discussions with the RCMP are ongoing. NWEST provides training support to all police agencies across Canada. The RCMP provides lead investigative services and lead investigative support services for all police services.

(d) NWEST will actually augment and provide expertise and training to local law enforcement officials in all jurisdictions. NWEST will support frontline police agencies in the gathering of evidence in order to assist them in successfully prosecuting persons involved in the illegal movement and criminal use of firearms.

(e) No member of NWEST has been sent to the United States to be trained by the BATF. The purpose of NWEST is to support front- line police agencies in the gathering of evidence in order to assist them in successfully prosecuting persons involved in the illegal movement and criminal use of firearms.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the criminal code with respect to breaking and entering, which has been introduced by the hon. member for Calgary East.

The safety and security of Canadians within their own homes is a key priority for the Government of Canada. The government has responded to concerns about home invasions by including section 23 in Bill C-15, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, introduced on March 14, 2001.

Proposed amendments to the criminal code would indicate that where the offender's conduct was in the nature of a home invasion, the court must consider this to be an aggravating factor when determining the sentence to be imposed.

Bill C-290 would amend subsection 348(1)(d) of the criminal code by providing, in the case of a first offence, for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and in the case of second or subsequent offence, a maximum life sentence and a minimum sentence of two years imprisonment.

Section 348 of the code makes it an offence to enter a place with intent to commit an indictable offence, to actually commit an indictable offence, or to have broken out of a place after having committed or intending to commit an indictable offence. The current maximum penalty for committing any of these acts in a dwelling place is life imprisonment. I would add that the offence of robbery also carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

I suspect most Canadians would be surprised that these offences attract such a severe maximum penalty. In fact, surveys conducted by the Canadian Sentencing Commission in the mid-1980s showed that the public has very little knowledge of either maximum or minimum penalties generally and that many were taken aback by the severity of the existing maxima.

The current maximum penalties for breaking and entering and robbery demonstrate that the government recognizes this conduct is of serious nature which may have significant impacts upon its victims. The sanctity of an individual's home as a place of safety and one free from intrusion has been recognized at common law for hundreds of years. It is, in part, for this reason that the criminal code offences of robbery and break and enter of a dwelling house are subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The criminal code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

The objectives of sentencing in the criminal code include denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring those who would commit offences and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders in acknowledging the harm they have done to victims and to the community.

The government shares the concerns of Canadians with regard to the relatively new phenomenon of home invasion robberies which occur while the home is occupied. To protect the right of individuals to feel secure in their own homes and to address the need for denunciation and deterrence, courts across Canada have been imposing stiff sentences for this crime.

The proposed amendment signals that home invasions are a serious crime that should be met with significant penalties. In addition to the maximum life imprisonment already in the criminal code for breaking and entering into a dwelling house, Bill C-290 would provide a mandatory minimum of two years' imprisonment for a second or subsequent offence.

Canada has historically utilized mandatory minimum sentences with restraint and allowed courts the discretion to fashion sentences proportionate to the gravity of the offence and conduct of the offender. Judges, who have the benefit of knowing all the facts and evidence regarding the offence and the offender, are well placed to determine the appropriate sentence in individual cases. Such circumstances must be weighed in light of the sentencing principles I have outlined.

There is no clearly demonstrated need for a minimum penalty for second or subsequent convictions for breaking and entering into a dwelling house given the high maximum penalty already in the code. Courts also take into account whether an offender has previous convictions for the same or related offences. A prior criminal record is an aggravating factor and the greatest predictor of a longer sentence.

With respect to home invasion, the creation of an aggravating sentencing provision in Bill C-15 would encourage judges to use the tough penalties already available. As noted, courts throughout Canada are already doing so in recognition of the seriousness of this offence and its devastating impact upon victims.

I recognize the concerns of the hon. member for Calgary East with respect to breaking and entering. However I believe the existing penalty of life imprisonment for this offence and clause 23 of Bill C-15 clearly demonstrate our commitment to providing safe homes for all Canadians.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill C-278, an act to amend the criminal code respecting prohibited sexual acts, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

Bill C-278 proposes to amend in isolation several sections of the criminal code where the general minimum age of consent is part of the definition of sexual offences involving a child victim. The current age of consent to most forms of sexual activity is 14, but there is an important exception for consensual sexual activity between young people within 2 years of age and under 16.

Bill C-278 proposes to increase the general age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16. The age would also be raised to 16 in the existing exception. The proposed bill would also raise the age to 16 in connection with the powers of the courts to make prohibition orders against offenders who are convicted or who are discharged on conditions in a prohibition order of certain sexual offences against a person under 14.

Bill C-278 reflects valid concerns about whether the current protection provided to young people in the criminal code is sufficient. There appears to be general agreement that the current minimum age consent for sexual activity, which has been in the code for more than 100 years, should be reviewed. At the same time care must be taken that any changes provide comprehensive protection and do not accidentally create an inconsistency in the code or criminalize the consensual sexual activity of young people.

Permit me to raise three distinct points. First, as we know, in November 1999 the Department of Justice released a consultation document entitled “Child Victims and the Criminal Justice System”. The document examines a wide range of possible changes to both the criminal code and the Canada Evidence Act to improve public safety for children. Although the major responsibility for child protection lies with the provinces, there is a key role for the criminal justice system in supporting provincial and territorial efforts in this area.

The consultation paper is a collection of suggestions for change put forward by provincial and territorial officials and others working with children. Three main areas are under consideration: the creation of further child specific offences, including the age of consent issue; sentencing to protect children from those who might reoffend; and additional means to facilitate children's testimony.

The release of the consultation paper invited comments from all Canadians. The public consultation phase is now complete and efforts are being made to complete the provincial and territorial consultation with their co-operation as quickly as possible.

It has been argued that the general present age of consent, which is 14, is too low to provide effective protection from sexual exploitation by adults. The relatively low age allows pimps, for example, to seduce young girls, with the intention of luring them into prostitution without fear of prosecution.

Social workers are concerned that many young people in care may be vulnerable to be targeted by pimps. Canada's age of consent is lower than that of many other countries that use 15 or 16 as the minimum age. However the bill put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is premised on the belief that the issue is a straightforward one and that all that is involved in addressing the complex issue of age of consent is simply to change the age. With respect that is not the case.

Protecting our children goes beyond a simple and arbitrary increase of the age of consent to sexual activity. It means addressing the broader issues of the safety and well-being of our children. Our objective is to develop and maintain effective, comprehensive measures to support provincial and territorial measures to improve public safety for children and to protect children from serious injury and even death at the hands of adults.

The achievement of this objective rests in a collaborative effort by the provinces, the territories and the Government of Canada. While the provision of services to children who are in need of protection is the responsibility of the provinces and territories, the assurance that appropriate offences and penalties are available for serious harm done to children remains the responsibility of the Government of Canada. By targeting extreme forms of harm through the criminal code, the Government of Canada would provide strong support for provincial and territorial initiatives to protect children.

However Bill C-278 does not maintain a comprehensive approach. It leaves a reference to age 14 in several provisions, for example section 281 dealing with the abduction of a person under age 14, and even more critically perhaps in section 810.1 which allows a court to issue a prohibition order if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual will commit a sexual offence against a child.

The provision in section 810.1 has proven to be an effective tool by some police forces and high risk offender teams in providing community monitoring and control of pedophiles. It is unfortunate that these two sections have been left out of the bill. It is also unfortunate that the only remaining child testimony provision that refers to age 14, section 486 which allows child witnesses to have available to them a support person while they are testifying in court, should also have been left out of the bill.

Second, the bill does not address the criminal code consequences of raising the general age at which sexual activity with young people would be criminalized. With respect, by not addressing this issue, Bill C-278 proposes an amendment that is inconsistent with the other relevant sections of the criminal code.

For example, even though the complainant's age would be raised to 16, there is no consequential change to the age of the accused in the exception that prevents criminalizing consensual sexual activity between young people close in age and under 16. The result is that a teenager over the age of 16 who has consensual sex with a person under 16 but who is close in age would be considered to be engaging in criminal conduct. At the same time a younger teenager would be able to consent to sexual activity with a person close in age. This outcome would appear to be not only discriminatory but also contrary to common sense.

The consultations undertaken by the Department of Justice have generally indicated that if the age of consent is raised the close in age exception for these older children must be broadened, perhaps to include within the exception consensual sexual activity between children who are three or even four years apart.

That would allow a child who is just before his or her 16th birthday to engage in consensual sexual activity with a young person who is approaching his or her 18th or even 19th birthday. Otherwise that behaviour, which may be considered inadvisable but certainly not criminal by most Canadians, would be subject to prosecution under the criminal code. Bill C-278 does not address the issue but rather could create confusion and criminalize the behaviour of all children over 16 years of age even where the behaviour was consensual.

Third, the bill does not address the broader implications that arise from the amendment to the general age of consent. Since legislative changes do not take place in a vacuum, we must be aware that a change in the age of consent may have an impact on other legislation.

For example, such changes may impact on the age 14 for providing assistance to child witnesses, as I mentioned a minute ago, for competency to testify in the criminal code and the Canada Evidence Act, and even for marriage legislation in the few provinces that still allow children under 16 to marry.

The question is: Would an amendment to the age of consent to sexual activity require amendments to other age related provisions of the criminal code and other statutes? Furthermore, any arbitrary changes in the criminal code would be inconsistent with the government's commitment to consult with the provinces and territories before introducing amendments intended to support its efforts to protect children from abuse, neglect and exploitation.

During the consultations several jurisdictions voiced concerns about proceeding too quickly on this question and accidentally criminalizing the behaviour of young people.

The Minister of Justice cannot support Bill C-278 for three reasons.

In conclusion, the issue of age of consent is a real concern. Children deserve to live in a safe society and be protected from all forms of exploitation by adults. At the same time, to be effective, people in the community and at every level of government must work together because we all have an important role to play.

We believe all Canadians should be given an opportunity to express their views on the issue. We also believe changes to the age of consent must be practical and carefully considered to ensure they achieve their goal without unintended negative effects. To do so they should be dealt with in a comprehensive package within the broader context of other age related issues in the criminal code. That is why the Department of Justice issued its consultation paper. The results of that consultation process should be used to ensure that the best options are put forward and carefully considered so that children can be given the comprehensive protection they deserve.