Justice committee  I think it does. I think there are still some concerns about the circumstance where a person has committed a minor offence, for example, and doesn't appear in court. I think these are very difficult issues. I think if you go through the proposed change to subsection 29(2), it could be improved in the sense of making it clear when a person should be detained or can be detained and when a person can't.

Justice committee  Whether it's premature, I'm not sure. My simple answer to that is that there are sections that I think should be changed and should be changed relatively soon. Let me give two examples of that. Section 29, which has to do with pre-trial release, is important, and it has obviously been a controversial topic.

Justice committee  Certainly I have. My colleague has spoken about this as well. The message that's given by this section in terms of what the Youth Criminal Justice Act is about is not a message we should be proud of.

Justice committee  Thank you.

Justice committee  We have data on this, and this is not something, in a sense, on which I have to take a moral stand. I can look at it in terms of data. What we know for a substantial group of people—particularly those being sent to prison for their first time—is that sending people to prison for the first time, which is in effect saying we're going to put this person in usually for a relatively short period of time, increases the likelihood of subsequent offending.

Justice committee  I was at one of those round tables in Toronto. In answer to your question, it seems to me that the original section 3 is preferable. I didn't talk about the changes to section 3 because I had 10 minutes and I was focusing on other things. I think the issue here is that the focus on protecting the public is a narrow focus that is very difficult to accomplish.

Justice committee  Thank you very much for inviting me. Because of time concerns, I will address only a limited number of the proposed changes. In subsection 2(1), regarding the definition of “violent offence”, it would undoubtedly be useful for Parliament to define what's meant by a violent offence.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  I have confidence in judges, and I believe that it's Parliament's role to give appropriate guidance.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  That's not correct.

Justice committee  Yes. In the current circumstances, yes, that's correct. I think the difficulty is that I would like there to be more guidance to judges on what appropriate sentences should be.

Justice committee  I was against the bill because the credit given for a day of pre-sentence custody under the current bill is presumptively less than the credit given for a person serving a sentence.

Justice committee  No, my starting point on that was that the judge should be able to set the credit for pre-sentence custody, which, as a starting point, would be the same as if that person were serving that time as a sentence. Given that a 60-day sentence does not mean 60 days in prison, 60 days in pre-sentence custody should be given the same kind of credit a sentenced person would get.

Justice committee  My starting point on the sentences for murder is that there's no discretion on the part of judges. The reason there's no discretion is that it's a sentence of murder, and murder means life in prison. The person is serving a sentence for the rest of his or her life. The issue about this bill, it seems to me, is that it raises a set of questions.