Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Justice committee Yes, I'm nodding, but I'm also thinking that part of the concern we had with most of the amendments is that it is based on one report as well.
June 3rd, 2010Committee meeting
Lee Tustin
Justice committee I would say yes.
June 3rd, 2010Committee meeting
Lee Tustin
Justice committee Yes, we just mentioned article 3 in the preamble. Article 16 and article 3 are two of the major ones.
June 3rd, 2010Committee meeting
Lee Tustin
Justice committee Article 3 is that the best interest of the child is to be the primary concern in making decisions that affect youth. Putting the protection of public safety first is violating that article. Article 16 is the right to privacy, and the publication ban lifts that right to privacy.
June 3rd, 2010Committee meeting
Lee Tustin
Justice committee Yes. We didn't get an opportunity to go through the specific pieces of the bill we have concerns with--it's in the written piece--but, yes, deterrence and denunciation are two of them.
June 3rd, 2010Committee meeting
Lee Tustin
Justice committee I think I can answer that. The lifting of the publication ban is really one of the violations of the UN convention, in my view, specifically of the young person's right to privacy. It also undermines a young person's ability for rehabilitation and reintegration. In answering
June 3rd, 2010Committee meeting
Lee Tustin
Justice committee Do you mean the article from the UN?
June 3rd, 2010Committee meeting
Lee Tustin
Justice committee Yes. It's actually article 16 of the UN convention, if you happen to have a copy.
June 3rd, 2010Committee meeting
Lee Tustin
Justice committee I do agree with you. I think our position is that section 3 ought to remain the same. That change, we feel, is really making a change for a small group of individuals and ignoring the rest of the group of youth justice folks, and it really changes the philosophy. It shifts the ph
June 3rd, 2010Committee meeting
Lee Tustin