The definition as it stands in this bill is very broad. It includes threats, it includes substantial likelihood of harm and concepts such as that.
When we look from the prosecution side, there will be some discretion vesting in whomever the crown attorney is prosecuting to decide from their perspective if that definition is met, and ultimately a judicial officer will make that determination.
Part of the problem is that when we're looking at detention of youth prior to that judicial determination, do they get bail or not? Quite often a justice of the peace determines whether one should be released or not, and at that very early stage, this bill casts the net too wide, especially in the definition of serious offences.
You had asked earlier if what we have now works. We've heard from people much more expert than I am about how rehabilitation works. I see that every day in the clients whom I work with; many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are charged with property offences or schoolyard offences. I see how the rehabilitation works, and part of the reason I see how it works is that I never see the client again after I'm done with him.
My firm specifically has represented youth who were charged with very serious offences. We represented a youth in Ottawa charged with a very high-profile homicide. I can tell you that youth was detained, he was tried, he was sentenced as an adult. So when we're speaking about rehabilitation, it works currently, and when we're speaking about serious offences, the ability to detain and the practicalities, are these youths detained? In the vast majority of cases, they are.