Hon. Martin Cauchon
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear M. Cauchon:

Re: transcription error omitting “that some think”
Bill C-20

Thank-you for your letter dated December 11, 2003 regarding your statement on the age of consent/protection incorrectly transcribed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and subsequently published in our fall 2003 newsletter I read your letter to our board of directors and it was agreed that our next newsletter will indicate that you stated, “Mr. Chairman, it is true that some think that the best way to protect young persons against sexual exploitation is to raise the general age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years.” Would you agree with me, however, that it might have been more accurate for you to not use “some” but say “every victim’s advocate and every police officer and police organization in Canada”?

Regarding Bill C-20, Beyond Borders remains totally opposed. In your letter you state that this law “focuses on the exploitive conduct of the offender and not on the apparent consent of the young person”. Aside from lacking any prevention strategy by not making Canadians aware of what is illegal sexual activity with kids and what is not (unlike every other developed country in the world), this legislation makes convictions of adults preying on 14 -16 year old children dependent on the ability of child witnesses to withstand often very aggressive cross examination and prove that they were abused. For the vast majority of Canadian children, changing the age of consent/protection will make no difference in their lives as they are good critical thinkers who have had excellent parenting and training on how to avoid potentially dangerous situations. It is unfortunately vulnerable children who often make the poorest witnesses that this law fails to protect. Children who are naive, abused at home,slow developers(emotionally and physically), children from marginalized communities, children in group homes - those are the children the Department of Justice in not relenting and raising the age of consent/protection to16 is ignoring. Those, of course, are the children predators often target. Those are the children who become the commercially sexually exploited victims in Canada.

The disturbing cases of the Quebec City gang that preyed on the 14-17 years old girls from disadvantaged circumstances and then turned them out into prostituted children is a perfect example. How would Bill C-20 have helped law enforcement when these men were in the recruiting stage pretending to be their boy-friends, a tactic known and used by every pimp? Marc Delisle, a defence counsel for one of accused pimps during a preliminary said of the child complainants, “I’m going to shake them up so much that we’ll know if they are telling the truth or not.”

In a recent Saskatchewan case, a 12 year old First Nations runaway was portrayed as a consenting, drunk, sexual aggressor in a sexual assault case involving three adult men. In what way would your Bill C- 20 change anything for these or all other child witnesses? Do the policy people who write these laws like C-20 ever go to the courtroom? Do they understand the adversarial system? Not likely!

Unlike every other country that enacted sex tourism legislation, it took Canada 6 years, a failed test case, a damaged teenager and a very lucky exploiter to get the law amended and not in the best interest of sexual abusers. It will no doubt be the same with Bill C-20. That’s what happens when laws are passed that are full of loopholes. Too bad.

Sincerely,

Rosalind Prober

President, Beyond Borders Inc.

cc: The Honourable Irwin Cotler
The Honourable Paul Martin
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

- up -