Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much to all the witnesses.
I have two questions. My first question is for Professor Bala, but if the other witnesses wish to answer it and there's enough time remaining, I invite them to do so.
Professor Bala, in clause 4 of Bill C-4, the one that would completely replace subsection 29(2) of the YCJA, my understanding is that you are in favour of the Bill C-4 amendment. And I do know that the Quebec Bar Association is also in favour of this. This is where the youth justice court or justice may order that a young person be detained in custody only if the young person has been charged with a serious offence and the judge or justice is satisfied on a balance of probability that there is substantial likelihood.... Do you have an idea as to how the “substantial likelihood” term might be determined? Is there any case law on what constitutes a substantial likelihood? That's my first question.
My second question is on how Bill C-4 would include, in the determination of sentencing, the extrajudicial sanctions in paragraph 39(1)(c) of the YCJA. I have your brief before me here, Professor Bala, and you state:
Judges already have a discretion to use the fact of prior youth participation in extrajudicial sanctions as a factor in youth sentencing [see s. 40(2)(d) (iv)]. Amending s. 39(1)(c) to make further specific reference to extrajudicial sanctions seems contrary to the intent of these programs, which is to give youth a “second chance,” and may be inappropriate since youth usually agree to participate in these programs without an opportunity for having legal advice.
For the benefit of the members sitting around the table and any Canadian who is watching these proceedings, would you explain how extrajudicial sanctions actually come about? Just give us a hypothetical case so that people would understand what you're talking about when you say that it happens before a youth may have access to legal advice, for instance.