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.
12:50 p.m.
Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia
I think you're right; our concern is that the wording doesn't capture the intent.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Okay.
I'm going to be very quick, because Mr. Woodworth has a couple more questions.
I'm going to make a request of you. My request is that to assist this committee, would you, either individually or collectively, provide the clerk with your suggested wording or suggested amendments to this? You could give it to the clerk for perhaps our researchers to look at.
That would really assist me and, I think, this committee. You agreed that the policy and the intent that the minister gave was...you agreed with it, but it was the wording. Could you please attempt to give us some direction on perhaps wording or amendments that we could do?
That would go through the clerk, of course. She will ensure that it's in both official languages.
12:50 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
Speaking only for myself--with the two heads nodding beside me--none of us are legislative drafters. We're practitioners who do this on the front line. I'd certainly be happy to give you my views on behalf of the department, but I'm not a legislative drafter; I'm a practitioner. With that caveat, I'm happy to give it a shot.
12:50 p.m.
Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia
We'll give it a whirl.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Policy Development and Analysis, Department of Justice, Government of Manitoba
My only comment is on timing. There will be a meeting of deputy ministers responsible for justice next week. Some direction may come out of that. Perhaps the timing could be flexible to allow us to give some thought to a possible response.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We're still hearing quite a number of witnesses on the bill, so my guess is we won't be moving to clause-by-clause until some time in October at least.
We'll move on to Mr. Woodworth for one last question. Now you may enter the debate.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you. I only meant to ensure that the witnesses were not mistreated by being asked unfair questions. I think I've made that point.
To Mr. Hawkes, I have possession of a letter dated May 12, 2010, from the Attorneys General of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, setting out their position on this act. Are you familiar with that letter?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
I am.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I understand that the attorneys general for those provinces, as the democratically elected representatives, on behalf of the people of those provinces, fully support the notion of moving public safety to the forefront of the act's principles, if we did that. Is that correct?
You have to say yes or no, I guess.
12:55 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
Yes.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I understand that those attorneys general, on behalf of the peoples of those four provinces, also fully support expanding the definition of “violent offence” to include offences endangering the lives or safety of others. Is that correct?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
That is correct.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I understand that those four attorneys general, on behalf of the peoples of those four provinces, also support adding specific deterrence and denunciation as sentencing objectives. Is that correct?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
That is correct.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Those four attorneys general also support simplifying the bail process by separating it from considerations based on whether a custody or adult sentence might result from conviction. Is that correct?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
That is correct.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
But I do understand from your submission that you think Bill C-4 does not go far enough in giving judges the option to keep people in pre-trial custody. Is that correct?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
That's one of the main concerns, yes.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Your province also does not believe that Bill C-4 goes far enough in allowing judges to employ adult sentences where no other sentence is appropriate. Is that correct?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
It's not a question of it not going far enough, sir. It's a question of it going backwards in a dramatic way and reversing well-established legal principles.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you very much.
Before you go, I have one quick question. Three of you have raised the issue of denunciation and deterrence. You support including those principles in the bill, correct? I don't know if Justice Nunn opined on that. I don't recall that he did.