Thank you.
Thank you, Minister.
I am glad that in some ways you're implementing Justice Nunn's provisions with respect to what arose out of the McEvoy incident in Nova Scotia, particularly in terms of interim release provisions. I don't think that's a controversial matter, and it's good on the housekeeping end. It's a pity we hadn't sat through these things, but there were some bumps along the road, and prorogation.
The other thing on which I think I could join with you is the idea of making the act less complex for judges and prosecutors to amble through. That seems reasonable.
I also think I could go halfway with you on some of the publication concerns, particularly when you said in your remarks that the discretion of judges, after taking into consideration concerns of public safety, would be uppermost in the amendments. I think it's an encouraging sign, after the four years and some months that this government's been in office, that homage to judicial discretion is now coming from a minister of justice. I notice you defend judges now in the House of Commons with respect to some persistent questions on the naming of judges, so I think we could all rejoice that this government has finally come around to realizing what we have realized for a long time: that judicial discretion is incredibly important.
I want to dig down into some broader issues. As I say, some of the amendments are good--they're housekeeping, and they're long overdue--but the core of what the changes are about here, the pith, is philosophical.
I don't want to quibble about a lot of the other aspects. I do have some questions about this kaleidoscope of standards at 14, 15, 16 years of age that are related to the onus on the crown to insist on a more onerous sentence. I wonder why.
My first question might be a very simple one. Why are you leaving it to the provinces to decide that? What happened to the Canadian Minister of Justice ideal that laws should be the same everywhere in Canada? That's maybe a short snapper.
The bigger question is whether you need, Minister, to put denunciation and deterrence, which are in section 718 of the adult Criminal Code, into the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
As you know, Minister, the act already has words to the effect that the youth shall be made to know the consequences of his or her actions. There's a preamble to the bill that is right in line with why you have a YCGA in the first place. I speak of the United Nations conventions and so on.
The philosophical question, I think, is this: if you import denunciation and deterrence, just as in section 718, is there really a need for a Youth Criminal Justice Act? Aren't you just matching it to the Criminal Code in total?
There's a larger question, then, and a short one on provincial standards.