Yes.
Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was adult.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was adult.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia
Yes.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I tried to make that point around this table, and it's good to have some legal confirmation. Further to that, am I correct that even in the Bill C-4 formulation, that issue of protection of the public is not going to supersede the nine factors referred to in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of subclause 3.(1)?
12:35 p.m.
Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia
No, they remain.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
That's right. And protection of the public has no paramountcy over them, does it?
12:35 p.m.
Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia
No.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I'd like to ask you a little bit about the issue of adult sentencing. As I understand it, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. D.B. indicated that the reverse onus presumption for adult custody was in fact unconstitutional. Correct?
12:35 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
That is correct.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
At this point I just need the yes or no on that.
12:35 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
Yes.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm going to pursue it with you, because my time is so short.
Am I correct that in fact the Supreme Court of Canada held that this reverse onus was unconstitutional because it violated the fundamental principle of justice that aggravating factors on sentencing should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
12:35 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
Aggravating facts relating to the offence or the offender...yes.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Okay.
I'd like you to be as clear as you can when you explain how it is that you don't agree with making the overall test provable beyond a reasonable doubt when the Supreme Court of Canada is saying that aggravating facts need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
12:35 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
Certainly.
First of all, it's not just me who says that, it's the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the Quebec Court of Appeal.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
If I could just challenge you on that, were those decisions not prior to D.B.?
12:35 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
Well, the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal was.
The decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal straddled D.B. So the Court of Appeal in Quebec decided prior to D.B. There was, however, a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada after D.B., and the Supreme Court refused leave. So if the Supreme Court had thought that the Quebec Court of Appeal got it wrong with respect to the test, that was the perfect opportunity to tell them so, and they didn't.
12:35 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
And the Alberta Court of Appeal was after.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Yes, you are.
I'm going to go to Monsieur Lemay. I skipped him, and either he's exceedingly generous or he just missed it.
Monsieur Lemay, you have five minutes.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I understood that this is our last day, Mr. Chair, and that you wanted to make my colleagues happy. Mr. Woodworth asked good questions. Having said that, I knew that I would get my turn.
Gentlemen, Mr. Justice, I congratulate you. Thank you for the report. It is going to be very useful to us. Gentlemen, you may tell your respective employers that not only was your presence useful, it was in fact necessary to our understanding of Bill C-4.
I am going to ask you a question while attempting to be very precise. I also worked on the front lines for many years. I am going to give you a practical example and...
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Just hear me out for a second.
The translation had you saying it was “useless”. In fact what you wanted to say was “useful”, correct?