I'd like to address this issue by taking off my lawyer hat and putting on my taxpayer hat. Every time a young person goes to court, there's a judge, a prosecutor, a defence lawyer, a clerk, a social worker, and a probation officer--and they don't come for free. We have to pay for them
One of the goals of the YCJA--and I think it's a commendable goal--was to get these cases out of the regular court system. I continue to be mystified when I go to court and see a young person charged with stealing a can of pop and a bag of chips. The case goes on for over two weeks so they can consider EJS, and then it goes over another week because the consideration isn't finished yet. Then it goes on for four months so the case can be completed, and so on. If anything, we should be strengthening and enhancing the diversion process. We should encourage people in every possible way to divert more cases out of the regular court process.
I see this, first of all, as a subtle way of making it look more important. I can tell you that in Alberta--and I'm sure it's the same in just about every province--we have a kind of two-bite rule. Extrajudicial sanctions are reserved for non-violent offences for a first offender and a second offender. The cases that go to EJS are like the one I just described, and I don't think they belong in court in the first place.
There's a tremendous potential there for saving money. I see this section as kind of superficial or superfluous. If a judge is considering whether to transfer a young person to adult court--or I should say, to impose an adult sentence, which is how we talk about it now--would it make any difference that this young person stole a bag of chips and a can of pop at the beginning of their criminal history? I don't think so. I think that consideration should be focused on serious convictions, including cases that have been referred to extrajudicial sanctions.
Those are some of the reasons why we're opposed to this proposed amendment.