Lawmakers and law enforcers believed Bill C-22 would send a strong message to sex offenders, especially to internet predators from the U.S. The federal government passed Bill C-22 based on two key rationales: that younger adolescents are at greater risk of exploitation than older adolescents, especially when it comes to internet predators, and that younger adolescents lack the maturity needed to handle the responsibility of becoming sexually active, including making safe sexual health decisions ( MacKay & Bédard, 2007). Note: Shaded areas show the ages in which older partners would be outside the range for “close in age” exemption i.e., illegal. In addition, neither partner can be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, as this impairs judgement and affects an individual’s ability to consent to sexual activity.Īge of sexual consent in Canada as outlined in Bill C-22. Bill C-22 outlined a “close in age” exception for younger adolescents, permitting 14-and 15-years-olds to be able to consent to non-exploitative sexual activity with individuals not more than 5 years older, and 12- and 13-year-olds to consent to non-exploitative sexual activity with adolescents not more than 2 years older (see Figure 1). Eighteen remains the age of consent for anal intercourse and exploitative sexual activity, which includes prostitution, pornography, and situations where one individual is in a position of authority over the other individual. In 2006, Bill C-22 was put forward in Parliament, to take effect January 1, 2008, which raised the legal age of consent for non-exploitative sexual activity to 16. Consent in this context is the capacity to understand and agree to engage in partnered sexual activity ( Sexuality Information and Education Council of Canada, 2010). This paper provides an evidence-based policy analysis of the 2008 change in Canada’s age of sexual consent law, using the federal government’s rationale to frame the evaluation.The New Age of Sexual Consentįor more than 100 years, from 1892 to 2008, the legal age of sexual consent in Canada was 14.
The effectiveness of a law or policy can be measured by the health outcomes of the population.
Evidence-based policy analysis has been used over the years to evaluate a variety of health-related laws, including graduated driver licensing ( Fohr, Layde & Guse, 2005 Wiggins, 2006), firearm restrictions, ( Niederkrotenthaler et al, 2009 Shah, Hoffman, Wake & Marine, 2000), tobacco control ( Luke, Stamatakis & Brownson, 2000), helmet laws ( Robinson, 2006 Rodgers, 2002), and sexual health policy ( Joyce, Kaestner & Colman, 2006). Although ideally this takes place before laws or policies are enacted, it is not always possible however, it is just as important to evaluate existing policy based on the best available information. It is important that public policy be grounded in empirical evidence. This study demonstrates the feasibility of evaluating policy using population health data and shows that better strategies are needed to protect children 13 and under from sexual abuse. In their first year of intercourse, 14- and 15-year-olds were slightly more likely to report forced sex and 3 or more partners than older teens, but otherwise made similarly healthy decisions. In contrast, among 12- and 13-year-olds (a group unaffected by the law’s change) between 25% and 50% had first intercourse partners who were not within the ‘close in age’ exemptions, and almost 40% of teens who first had sex before age 12 reported a first partner age 20 years or more. Results showed very few 14- and 15-year-olds had first intercourse partners who were not within the ‘close in age’ exemptions based on age (boys: <2%, girls: 3–5%). Comparisons included: forced sex, sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs, multiple partners, condom use, effective contraception use, self-reported sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy involvement. Using data from sexually experienced adolescents in the 2008 British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey (BC AHS, N=6,262 age range 12 – 19 52% female), analyses documented the scope of first intercourse partners who were not within the ‘close in age’ exemptions, then compared sexual behaviours of younger teens (14 and 15 years) with older teens (16 and 17) navigating their first year of sexual activity. Government rationales for the increase asserted younger adolescents were more likely to experience sexual exploitation and engage in risky sexual behaviour than adolescents 16 and older. This study evaluated the implications of the 2008 increase in age for sexual consent in Canada using a population health survey of Canadian adolescents.