[Home -- Accueil]
[Main Page -- Criminal Law / Page principale -- droit pénal]

updated and corrections / mise à jour et corrections: 19 December 2009
 

- To assist researchers, please do not hesitate to suggest titles to these bibliographies.  Thank you.
- Pour le bénéfice de tous, n'hésitez pas à suggérer des ajouts aux bibliographies.  Merci.
flareau@rogers.com
 

by /par ©François Lareau, 2002-, Ottawa, Canada
First posted officially on the internet on 19 December 2002

Selected Bibliography on Criminal liability
of Children -- Minimum Age
----------------------------
Bibliographie choisie sur la responsabilité
pénale des enfants  -- âge minimum
 

"As a final anecdotal comment, the issue of age has been raised a number of times, as to whether it should be lower than 12. If you're going to enter into that discussion in any detail, perhaps the age of 12 should be questioned. I can remember back in the 1970s when I was at a forum similar to this -- in those days it was run by the Solicitor General -- and the big debate was whether it should be 14. I'm wondering why, 20 years later, we're talking about making it even younger than 12." (Gove, Hon. Justice Thomas, infra)

I- CANADIAN LAW : A-H (authors)

-----------
see also

Canadian Law: K-Z (authors)
Comparative Law: A-K (authors)
Comparative Law L-Z (authors)
--------

ABRAMOVITCH, Rona, and Meg Rohan, "Young people's understanding and assertion of their rights to silence and legal counsel", (1995) 37 Canadian Journal of Criminology 1-18; also published in Thomas Fleming, Patricia O'Reilly and Barry Clark, eds., Youth Injustice: Canadian Perspectives, 2nd ed., Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2001, xvii, 580 p., chapter 22, at pp. 465-482, ISBN: 1551301393; copy of the book at the library of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF 9779 Y59 2001;
 

ANAND, Sanjeev S., "Catalyst for Change: The History of Canadian Juvenile Justice Reform." (1999) 24 Queen’s Law Journal 515-559, see the "Doctrine of Doli Incapax" at pp. 517-521; copy at Ottawa University, KEO 180 .A13 Q43  Location, FTX Periodicals;
 

ARCHAMBAULT, Omer, "The Young Offenders Act: Philosophy and Principles", (June 1983) 7(2) Provincial Judges Journal 1-7; also published in French / aussi publié en français "Philosophie et principles [sic] de la loi sur les jeunes contrevenants" aux pp. 8-15 et 33-34;
 

ARCHIBALD, Detective Tom, Member, Scarborough Community Safety Council, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 26, 6 June 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/26_96-06-06/jula26_blk101.html  (accessed on 3 November 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Archibald, détective Tom, membre, Conseil de sécurité communautaire de Scarborough témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 26, 6 juin 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/26_96-06-06/jula26_blk201.html#0.1.JULA26.000001.AA0900.A  (visionné le 3 novembre 2002);

"Det Archibald: At the present time if a youth under the age of 12 commits a crime, there is a perception in the public that there is nothing the police can do. That is not entirely correct, because we can in fact arrest. We can arrest a 6-year-old. We can arrest a 4-year-old. That can be done. But what can we do with them after we arrest them? Nothing.

We have the Children's Law Reform Act, which can assist us as far as taking the child after the arrest is concerned. We can't put him before the court system, but we can involve the Children's Aid Society and have the child's behaviour reviewed by that group to determine whether or not the parenting skills...and that gets into all kinds of psychologists and support to the parents for the young offender under the age of 12. But there is nothing the police can do with regard to charges or taking that youth before the court.

Their mentality has changed drastically from when the act was written. They are a lot tougher now. They are a lot more streetwise. They've had to be. Some of them want to be, but a lot of them have to be because of the fear of being a victim. It's either get on-board or fall behind them and you'll be guaranteed to be a victim.  That's the biggest fear out there.

So in answer to your question, there is nothing the law can do with regard to them, but there are support groups that can assist the family and the children. How effective they are, I don't know."
 

"There are some discussions about lowering the age at which an individual would come into contact with the criminal justice system. I think this would be a horrible thing, at least from a pragmatic point of view.

It's difficult enough to try to explain the defence of self-defence, which is very complicated to an individual who is 12 or 13 or 14 who comes into your office playing with toys or toy soldiers. You're trying to explain the very complicated defence of self-defence. It would be a nightmare and I think unrealistic to consider that a child at the age of 8 or 9 would even understand what process was going on or what process they were involved in."

......

" I think bringing anybody younger than the age of 12 years into anything close to the criminal justice system is a very bad idea. I know that I've read where individuals have said that older kids are using younger kids below the young offenders' age to commit crime. I have yet to see that in existence, at least in my practice. Nor have I ever heard of it occurring other than on American television shows. Maybe it's happening in other areas of Canada that I'm not familiar with. If you lower the age to 10 years, and people were really doing that, then they would just get 8-year-olds or 6-year-olds. I don't think that's something that would require a change in the law, and I don't think kids of that age should be brought up in the criminal justice system at all."

ARTZ, Sibylle, 1949-, A community based approach for dealing with chronically violent under twelve year old children : final report, [Ottawa] : Deptartment of Justice Canada, [1999?], x, 49 p.; note: At head of title: "Department of Justice, Canada Crime Prevention Initiative", Bibliography at pp. 17-18, available at  http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/rp/doc/Paper104.PDF (accessed on 28 August 2002); also available in French / aussi publié en français: Une approche communautaire du traitement de la violence chronique chez les enfants de moins de 12 ans, voir: http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/ps/yj/rp/doc/P104.pdf (visionné le 28 août 2002);
 

ASSELIN, Denis, lawyer and legal counsel for the Montreal Urban Community Police Force and Member, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Legislation Committee, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 7, 18 April 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/07_96-04-18/jula07_blk101.html (accessed on 21 October 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Asselin, Denis, avocat et conseil juridique pour le Service de police de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal et membre de l'Association canadienne des chefs de police, Comité de la législation, témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 7, 18 avril 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/07_96-04-18/jula07_blk201.html#0.1.JULA07.000001.AA1110.A (visionné le 21 Octobre 2002);
 

"Section 38 (h) of the Quebec Youth Protection Act provides that 11-year olds who commit serious crimes definitively have significant behaviour problems, and that their behaviour is proof that their parents are not able to deal with the problem adequately. In such cases, the young persons fall under the jurisdiction of this act, because the same staff, resources and tools are used as would be used if the same offense were committed one year later, at age 12.

For us in Quebec, reducing the age is not appropriate, because the Provincial Youth Protection Act can be applied with the same measures and solutions as if the child were 12 years old. In Quebec, the provisions of the federal Young Offenders Act require the same staff and resources as the Youth Protection Act."

AUGIMERI, Leena, Kenneth Goldberg, and Christopher J. Koegl, Canadian Children Under 12 Committing Offences: Police Protocols, Deptartment of Justice Canada, [1999?], ii, 35, [10] p., available at  http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/rp/doc/Paper103.PDF (accessed on 3 September 2002); also available in French / aussi publié en français: Les enfants canadiens de moins de douze ans qui commettent des infractions: protocoles de police, disponible à http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/ps/yj/rp/doc/P103.pdf (visionné le 4 septembre 2002);
 

AUGIMERI, Ms Leena, Manager, Under 12 Outreach Project, Earlscourt Child and Family Centre, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 79, 22 November 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/79_96-11-22/jula79_blk101.html  (accessed on 20 October 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Augimeri, Mme Leena, directrice, Under 12 Outreach Project, Earlscourt Child and Family Centre, témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 79, 22 novembre 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/79_96-11-22/jula79_blk201.html (visionné le 20 Octobre 2002);

"Ms Augimeri: I'm going to really just focus on children under 12, because that's where my expertise lies.

For the last 11 years, I've worked with hundreds of children under the age of 12. As Mrs. de Villiers indicated, the thing you need to focus on is early identification.  Identifying these young children who, as early as 4 and 5 years of age, are getting into trouble is critical. We start working with the kids at age 6, but we've had a  number of children at 4 and 5 - at the kindergarten level - referred for quite aggressive acts.

I think we have to remember, as I heard Judge King and Mr. MacDonald point out, that these are children who need hope. They don't understand the judicial system  at all. We take the children to the police station for a police tour because we want to give them an opportunity to meet police officers in a non-problematic context.

When the children first are told that they're going to the police station, they're just so scared. We ask them why, we problem-solve, we talk about why they're scared  and about what's important, and we talk about why we're going to the police station. A lot of them are really nervous because the majority of their contact has been quite negative. The interesting factor, though, is that once they come out of the police station, a lot of them want to be police officers because they now see police officers in a different light.

So I believe very strongly that much could be done through the efforts of early identification, and through intervention with children at risk, towards an effective crime prevention solution.

We've heard around the table that there is no single pathway to delinquency, but we do know from the research that there are many factors, such as the early age of onset for aggression - as early as sometimes 4 and 5 years of age, and sometimes you see it as early as toddlers. We also know that poor family management practices.... We don't want to blame the families all the time in these cases, but we do know from the research that there is ineffective parenting, parental monitoring, and an inconsistency provision. There are also academic problems, particularly in reading. The majority of our children have reading difficulties. Peer rejection, parental criminality and psychopathology - there are so many other factors.

There is also a great deal that we know from working with high-risk children and their families. We know that multisystemic programs, such as those Mr. Ramsay has identified today, are effective in terms of reducing the factors that place children at risk for delinquency. As well, we know that the earlier we intervene with these children and provide them with a range of services, the greater our chances of success with these children in hopefully deterring them from getting into the court system.

We also know that services need to be timely. How many times have we heard that children are placed on waiting lists? Or, if they go through the court system, there's such a gap in time between the time they get in there and the time at which they committed the crime.

We also know that with the fact of being multisystemic.... In the under-12 outreach project, we are multisystemic. We try to target all the various areas of the child's life and the family's life. Not only do we provide self-control and problem-solving groups for the children, we also provide parent training groups for the parents, and we do crisis intervention. We do school advocacy and provide the children with reading tutors. And we also do restitution, which is the newest component that we've
added because we do feel children need to be accountable for their actions.

As also indicated, there is too little out there for children and their families, and we've also heard about the gaps in services. What we have found through the research just recently - and I would just like to share this really quickly - are factors related to effective service delivery. Programs need to be flexible, multifaceted, sustained and individualized to client needs. We need to maintain consistency in treatment strength and integrity, connect and engage the parents and child in a treatment process
as quickly as possible, and target the child's antisocial attitudes and thinking errors that maintain the belief that antisocial behaviour is acceptable. We need to teach the child effective problem-solving and self-control skills. We also need to provide the child with outlets for social and recreation activities. There are so many children who may live right across the road from a structured community centre but do not utilize it for whatever the reason.

We also need to teach effective parenting skills in either group format or individual counselling sessions, and we also need to address issues concerning sibling rivalry and academic and behavioural school problems. We also need to provide services wherever and whenever, in accordance with the client's needs and preferences.  And we need to provide opportunities for continued involvement in the program. Just having the child in a program for three months is not enough. We need to have
that open-door policy so that if the child comes back.... If a child was in my program and was to have youth court contact at a later date, I would hope he or she would be able to be referred back so that we could continue working with that child and the child's family.

Last, it's also critical that we continue to be evidenced-based and continue to incorporate empirical findings in order to provide the best possible service, while making the service available to all children and families in Ontario and throughout Canada. Early intervention is the best hope that children on a trajectory of criminal activities can be salvaged for the mutual benefit of themselves and society. And again we need to stress that these are, after all, children in need of help, not children in need of a criminal sentence.

The last point is what Mr. Henteleff was talking about with regard to cost. It costs $100,000 to keep a child in jail or a youth in justice for a year, but if we can keep one of the kids from our programs out of jail, the entire program is paid for. That's where we need to put our resources.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you, Ms Augimeri. Your program costs what per year per child?

Ms Augimeri: Per child, it's approximately $2,500."

BADALI, Kathryn Michele, Children's ability to instruct counsel: cognitive and developmental issues, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 1990, 178 p.; not entirely on point but helpful in understanding and discussing principles involved;
 

BALA, Nicholas, 1952-, Joseph P. Hornick, M.L. (Marnie) McCall and Margaret E. Clarke, State responses to youth crime : a consideration of principles, Ottawa, Ont. : Department of Justice, Research and  Statistics Directorate, 1994, xii, 135 p., bibliography: pp. 125-132 (series; Working document; Canada. Dept. of Justice. Research and Statistics Directorate; number WD1994-1e); also published in French / aussi publié en français: Réponses de l'état à la criminalité juvénile : examen des principes, Ottawa : Ministère de la justice Canada, 1994, x, 150 p. (Collection; Document de travail (Canada. Ministère de la justice. Section de la recherche; numéro WD1994-1f); copy of the English version consulted at the library of the Supreme Court of Canada, HV 9108 S72 1994;
 

BALA, Nicholas, 1952-, and D'Arcy Mahoney, Responding to Criminal Behaviour of Children Under 12 : An Analysis of Canadian Law & Practice, [Ottawa : Dept. of Justice Canada], 1994, 47, [19] leaves, contract number 19039-DR 004, Summer 1994; copy at the Library of Parliament; available on the internet at  http://qsilver.queensu.ca/law/papers/crimbeh.htm (accessed on 28 August 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français: Le comportement criminel des enfants de moins de 12 ans : une analysis du  droit et de la pratique au Canada, disponible à  http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/ps/yj/rp/doc/P103.pdf (visionné le 3 septembre 2002);
 

BALA, Nicholas, 1952-, "Brief on the Proposed New Youth Criminal Justice Act (Bill C-7) To be presented to Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee, Oct. 24, 2001", copy at  http://qsilver.queensu.ca/law/papers/ycjabrief-oct2001.htm (accessed on 28 August 2002);

"Children Under 12 Committing Serious Offences: Canada does not have an adequate legal and social response for children under 12 who commit offences, though programs like Earlscourt in Toronto are doing excellent work. Federal or provincial governments should enact appropriate legislation to allow for involuntary intervention with the relatively small group of children under 12 committing serious or persistent offences; these children are at risk of becoming serious offenders as adolescents."

___________ testimony before the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights respecting Bill C-3, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts,16 February 2000, available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev16-e.htm; also published in French / aussi publié en français: témoignage devant, Chambre des communes, Comité permanent permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne, Témoignages devant le Comité permanent permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne concernant le projet de loi C-3, Loi concernant le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents, et modifiant et abrogeant certaines lois en conséquence, 16 février 2000, disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev16-f.htm;
 

" I've written a paper that was funded by the Department of Justice, but it is my own view. Right now in this country, I have a concern about offenders, children under the age of 12: the vast majority of them should be dealt with by their parents, by their schools, by the child welfare system.  But I am concerned that some of the most serious child offenders right now are not being adequately responded to by the police and other social agencies, that there is a lack of legal accountability there. That affects both how victims perceive the system and how the police can respond. Indeed, it means that some children are not getting adequate access to the services that they need and should have.

I also worry—while I don't believe in deterrence in the sense of “longer sentences are going to result in fewer young people committing offences”—that the message going to children under the age of 12 is that they can commit crimes and there will be no accountability. Now, most children under 12 are not aware of the fact that there is no accountability; they believe that there's accountability to their parents or otherwise. But those who are committing the most serious offences get the
message from the police that there is no accountability, that there may be no accountability, so I think it sends a very bad message to those children.

I also think it sends a bad message to society to suggest that children under 12 cannot be considered accountable for their acts. I realize there is accountability, in fact, through the child welfare system and otherwise, but it is problematic. I worry that we may not get a response on this until we have the kinds of tragedies we've seen in England and the United States, in which an 11-year-old commits a homicide and then everyone says, well, what are we going to do about this? There is some response in the child welfare system, but in fact, it would be inadequate. Other people who have written about this have expressed similar kinds of concerns.

There are a variety of solutions for this. I think the parliamentary committee recommended, and I support it, a response that would keep the majority of children under the age of 10 in the child welfare system, but for the most serious offenders, there would be a way of dealing with them through the criminal justice system, through the youth justice system."

......

"Criminalizing children under 12 should be a last resort. There's no doubt that there is a level of misinformation on the part of the public and of parents and children, but there is also a reality in terms of the way legislation is written, particularly in Ontario but not only in Ontario, that a child welfare response is not always going to be appropriate.

To take an extreme case, if we have, let's say, a homicide committed by an 11-year-old, we have a child welfare response, and certainly in a very serious case like that, the child welfare authorities would respond. Child welfare legislation in every province says that the best interests of the child is the sole test. If this 11-year-old child has just committed an offence like that, focusing only on the best interests of the child is not necessarily appropriate. The protection of the public and concerns
about victims are also legitimate factors to take in account. That's at the high theoretical end.

If you want, though, at the middle range of serious offences, the reality often is, if you're running a child welfare agency in, let's say, Ontario.... But elsewhere, you say, we have child abuse cases, all these cases, and somebody phones up and says, well, I think this young person has just committed his eighth B and E. The social worker says they have kids who are being abused and somebody's phoning up about B and E...? It's not going to be a big priority for them.

So the reality in those middle range of cases is they're also not actually dealt with. In theory, they could be dealt with, but the reality is that they're just not enough of a priority, and understandably so for many social workers. So I think we have both a theoretical and a practical problem."

......

"Earlscourt is a wonderful program. They've actually written a brief and they've also suggested a legislative solution, a sort of hybrid federal-provincial legislation that would see not necessarily a youth court response but at least a better legal response. They recognize that there's a problem.

One of the problems that Earlscourt has is that.... For most parents whose children under the age of 12 are committing offences and get referred to Earlscourt, they take up their service and say, this is great, thank you for helping us, we know our child has a problem, and you have a good program. But there's a range of children whose parents say they don't care. Many of these parents themselves have criminal records or whatever. They're exactly the kids for which you'd say that this
voluntary intervention is not going to work, that we need to have a legal mechanism for getting at these kids. That's where a model based on youth court could be appropriate.

I realize that the committee recommended a narrow range of going to 12. I can understand that government policy at this point seems to be to go to 12. It's not a perfect solution. It is an issue that is likely, in my mind, to come back at some time. Canada, by international standards, has one of the higher levels. Twelve is very high. There are some Scandinavian countries that have even higher levels. England's, for example, where they of course had the terrible tragedy, is at 10. A number of
American states have it at at 7. I don't favour going that low."

___________testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 16, 9 May 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at    http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/16_96-05-09/jula16_blk101.html (accessed on 23 October 2002); important contribution as professor Bala deals extensively with the matter; also available in French/aussi disponible en français: témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 16, 9 mai 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à   http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/16_96-05-09/jula16_blk201.html#0.1.JULA16.000001.AA0938.A (visionné le 23 octobre 2002);

"On the issue of minimum age - I've written a paper for the Department of Justice on this subject that I mentioned in my letter, and I believe it has been made available to you - 12 is certainly a defensible age. For most children on average, it's really the beginning of puberty, the beginning of a physical, psychological and sexual stage of development.

I'm not sure that serious consideration shouldn't be given to lowering the age to 10. We know that 10- and 11-year-olds are committing a significant number of offences, certainly fewer than older adolescents, but a significant number, nonetheless.

In most countries, the minimum age is not as high as 12. The age of 12 is relatively high; 6 to 10 years is a much more common range.

In theory, in Canada now we are dealing with those who are under the age of 12 through the child welfare system, and certainly for some children this is an appropriate and effective response. In many places it's not working very well, and understandably police and victims are becoming very frustrated with the system.

We've been very fortunate that we haven't yet had a 10- or 11-year-old commit an extremely serious offence - I'm talking about murder or manslaughter - in this country. I'm saying, not yet, not recently.

If we do, we will find that our child welfare system and legislation in no province deals with that kind of situation adequately, and people come back to you and scream, and not surprisingly so.

The vast majority of 10-year-olds have a moral sense of what is right and wrong. To the extent they get any involvement with the justice system, there's no consequence. The message going out there is, until they are 12, they can't be controlled. There was quite a sensational, but nevertheless revealing, CBC show some of you might have seen last year that raised that issue, and quite appropriately.

If the age is lowered to 10, it's important that most children of that age be diverted from any formal response. There should still be an emphasis on child welfare responses and certainly an effort, in almost all cases, to use the legal system as a lever to get the child and parents needed help."

___________Young Offenders Law, Concord (Ontario): Irwin Law, 1997, xvi, 344 p., see "The Minimum Age of Twelve: History and Policy", at pp. 81-85, "Offenders under Twelve: Child-Welfare Responses" at pp. 85-88, "The Possibility of a Mental-Health Response for Under-Twelves" at pp. 89-91, and "Offending Behaviour by Under-Twelves: Is Law Reform Desirable?" at pp. 92-94, ISBN: 1552210251; copy at the library of the Supreme Court of Canada, KF 9780 ZA2 B35 1997; important contribution to the subject;
 

___________Youth Criminal Justice Law, Toronto : Irwin Law, c2003 (actually published in 2002),  xx, 613 p., see Age Jurisdiction" at pp. 162-183 (series; Essentials of Criminal Law), ISBN: 155221057X; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, KF 9780 ZA2 B352 2003; there is now a 2nd ed., at Irwin Law, 2009, xx, 757 p., written with Sanjeev Anand;
 

BARNHORST, Dick, Special Advisor, Youth Justice, Department of Justice Canada, testimony before the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights respecting Bill C-3, An Act in respect of criminal justice for
young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, 30 November 1999 available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev05-e.htm; also published in French / aussi publié en français: Barnhorst, Dick, conseiller spécial, Justice applicable aux jeunes, Ministère de la Justice Canada, témoignage devant, Chambre des communes, Comité permanent permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne, Témoignages devant le Comité permanent permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne concernant le projet de loi C-3, Loi concernant le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents, et modifiant et abrogeant certaines lois en conséquence, 30 novembre 1999, disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev05-f.htm;

 
"One thing I'll say before we talk about the strategy is that I think it's interesting that when this authority was available to the court under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, where we were dealing with 10- and 11-year-olds, by and large the courts used services that were available in the social welfare and mental health systems. So although a criminal justice avenue was available, the judges tended to use social services and mental health services.

As stated in the government's policy document of May 1998 entitled “Renewing Youth Justice”, it was felt that when young people commit very serious offences, which are very, very rare, I might emphasize, there probably are significant mental health or child welfare problems at stake that need to be addressed.

The question is, how can we address them? The criminal justice system is one way, but another way is to use and improve upon what's available in the child welfare and mental health systems.

About eight weeks ago a national conference was held here that brought together experts on this specific issue to help in the development of a national strategy for dealing with the person under the age of 12 who commits what would be an offence if he or she were older. First of all, I think it's fair to say it was unanimous that these young people should not be criminalized and that there were ways to deal with them through existing child welfare and mental health systems but that they needed to be improved.

One of the things that has apparently proven to be a good step forward is the use of protocols that ensure kids don't fall through the cracks, that at the local level you have ways of ensuring that when a child under the age of 12 is involved in what would be considered an offence, the appropriate services are connected.

The model that was put forth at the conference, which you may see replicated across the country to some extent, is one that was started in Metro Toronto in February of this year. It was headed up in a sense by the Metro Toronto Police, and I know Chief David Boothby supported this. What this does is bring together through a protocol and a hot line all of the relevant children's agencies in a community to make sure that kids don't fall through the cracks when they get into trouble.

The other thing that could be part of a strategy would be to look at the adequacy or the appropriateness of provincial child welfare legislation. As you may know, it varies from province to province across the country. Generally speaking, there is the capacity to deal effectively with kids under the child welfare legislation, but there are different wordings. One recommendation being looked at is the idea of working with the provinces on developing model statutes so that we can ensure we have
that legislative authority at the provincial level to deal effectively with these young people.

Also, a number of innovative interventions are being developed partly through the National Crime Prevention Centre, and a number of demonstration sites are being set up specifically to look at the best ways of dealing with the under-12 offender, so to speak.

So I think there are a number of things that can be done."

BASTIEN, Normand, Director, Centre communautaire de l'Aide juridique de Montréal (Youth Division), individual presentation, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 40, 23 September 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/40_96-09-23/jula40_blk101.html (accessed on 3 November 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Bastien, Normand, directeur, Centre communautaire de l'Aide juridique de Montréal (Division jeunesse), témoigne à titre personnel témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 40, 23 septembre 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à   http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/40_96-09-23/jula40_blk201.html#0.1.JULA40.000001.AA0912.A (visionné le 3 novembre 2002);

"[Translation] There's another element that always surprises me in relation to prevention. In the past few years, we've had many different ways of identifying predictive factors. In 1990, we've made available a study conducted by a research group on childhood psychosocial maladjustment by the Faculté des Arts et des Sciences of the University of Montreal, more particularly by Professor Tremblay. They came to the conclusion that as early as kindergarten, it is possible to identify with a relatively high degree of accuracy certain factors that lead the individuals identified to behavioral problems associated with pre-delinquency. It's very easy. There have not been any large scale studies about this, but teachers often make these observations at the kindergarten level. These factors are aggression, hyperactivity, short attention span and anxiety.

I'm summarizing this. There is no doubt that this study shows that there is a link between these factors. It is possible to make predictions quite accurately. But from the moment when you identify these people, you have to do something and intervene. However, for many different reasons that are probably quite justified, at least from an economic standpoint, we are seeing an enormous level of disengagement in terms of intervention with these individuals.

In order to intervene, the crisis has to be a major one. Thee are no major crises at seven, eight, six or five years of age, except if a child is the victim of sexual or physical abuse or is simply abandoned. But a child of 4, 5 or 6 years of age never has the kind of serious behaviour or difficulties that usually lead to intervention. Therefore, we wait until 10, 11 or 12 years of age before we intervene. And when we do so, it has to be a massive intervention and we don't even have the means to do that. All we have left is a rehabilitation centre, which is extraordinarily expensive.

Right now, we have the impression, or I should say I have the impression, that certain major players who do not have the means to intervene hope that individuals commit a crime early, around 12 or 13, so that they can intervene quickly without having to make all the necessary assessments which are expensive to carry out.  When you intervene in prevention, you have to do it with parents. You have to go and seek out the parents, conduct assessments, go to see the school whereas it's very simple to intervene when a youngster has committed his first break and enter. You have a nice police report and then you intervene.

But by proceeding this way, we are discrediting the Young Offenders Act because like it or not, the legislation will treat this first offence as a first offence.  The Young Offenders Act is not a protection act. It is no longer a protection act as was the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The Young Offenders Act is legislation intended to punish. This means that the action that will be permitted regarding the act committed will be a reaction that is relatively proportional to that act.  Hoping that we will intervene for 18 months with a 13 year-old because he has committed one break and enter in dreaming in technicolour. And hoping that we will  intervene in the long-term for a first offence is to discredit the Young Offenders Act and raise false hopes. Youth Protection Acts are better suited for that.

All these kinds of problems the Young Offenders Act deals with will be dealt with only half way for the simple reason that the legislation does not extend to the parents. We cannot, under the Young Offenders Act, order parents to correct the situation they've created. We only involve one person who will have to respect  certain conditions and submit to all kinds of examinations. That's the youngster himself. The parents are left alone.

The youngster is withdrawn for a certain period and put back on the right track, but he is sent back to his original environment which will not have improved and then we're surprised to see that an enormous amount of recidivism occurs.

Youth protection legislation allows us to intervene for a duration that is not linked to the act committed, but is related to a problem that has been determined. Certain laws allow us to intervene both with parents and children. I don't think we should wait until an offence occurs before intervening if we are able to obtain the necessary assessment. Goodness knows that studies are produced very quickly.  I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you that we have noticed an increasing disengagement by the schools. For all kinds of reasons, when the Youth Protection Act was first implemented in the early 80's, school were doing an awful lot of reporting, but we've noted that they no longer do so unless they're really fed up.

Relatively simple cases of parents who move, parents who do not come to pick up their young children, parents who forget their children in school, are no longer  reporter to Children's Aid Authorities because the process is longer. You have to wait one, two or three months before the authorities look into the problem, and schools don't have that kind of time.

Therefore, if we want prevention to be meaningful, we have to do what Professor Trépanier called "investing in primary and secondary prevention". The Young Offenders Act enables us to intervene in a preventive manner at the tertiary level, by ensuring that an individual who has been caught will not become a repeat offender."

BELL, Sandra Jean, 1943-, Young Offenders and Juvenile Justice: A Century After the Fact, Toronto: ITP Nelson, 1999, xvii, 358 p., see "Youth Under 12" at p. 76, ISBN:  0176049312; copy at Ottawa University, HV 9108 .B44 1999 MRT; copy at the Library of Parliament, HV 9108 B45; there is also a second edition which I have not consulted yet: 2nd ed., Toronto : Nelson Thomson Learning, 2002, ISBN: 0176169938;

BELLEMARE, Nicolas, "Principaux changements au droit en matière de témoignage d'enfants", dans Service de la formation continue du Barreau du Québec 2006, sous la direction de, Développements récents en droit criminel,  Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, 2007, ix, 168 p., (Collection; formation continue; volume 264), ISBN: 2896350896; cette recherche peut s'avérer utile pour les anologies;
 

BILODEAU, Claude,  Director General, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 41, 23 September 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/41_96-09-23/jula41_blk101.html#0.1.JULA41.000001.AA1359.A  (accessed on 3 November 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Bilodeau, Claude, directeur général, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 41, 23 septembre 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/41_96-09-23/jula41_blk201.html#0.1.JULA41.000001.AA1359.A (visionné le 3 novembre 2002);
 

"Mr. Ramsay [Member of the Committee]: Thank you. On page 9 of the English translation of your earlier brief you state the following:

Currently set at 12 and 18, these ages are perfectly justified and in our view should not be changed....

Professor Bala appeared before our committee and recommended that the reduction to ten years occur within the act. His rationale was that with the way things are going, we're eventually going to see 10- and 11-year-olds committing murder. This was supported by the official who briefed us. I think it was at the Syl Apps institute in Ontario. She said eventually, the way things are going, younger and younger people will be getting involved. When I asked her if she thought that one day we would see 10- and 11-year-olds committing murder, she said yes.

So why would you support provisions of an act that grants immunity from prosecution to someone who commits murder?

[Translation]  Mr. Bilodeau [Director General, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec]: Murders have been committed in society by young persons under the age of 12 years, but very infrequently.   In our brief, we say that we simply must intervene with young people who commit these offences, but we do not think, particularly in Quebec, that we must intervene  under the YOA. Under the Youth Protection Act, we have all the tools we need - and more comprehensive tools - for rehabilitation, detention and intervention.

We think that any society has the power and the duty to intervene in situations where young persons commit offences of this type or any other, but not necessarily  under the YOA.

We know that recently in Ontario some 10-year-olds told the judge, ''Ha, ha! You can't do anything to us.'' That would not have been possible in Quebec, because  under the Youth Protection Act we have the mandate to provide protection for young persons - meaning young persons who are a danger to themselves or to  others. That gives us a much broader scope for intervention than does the YOA, under which the rules of the game are different.

We absolutely must give ourselves the means to intervene amongst young people 12 years and younger, but not necessarily by using the Young Offenders Act, even  in the case of a homicide.

Mr. Ramsay: Would you tell the committee the process that would be involved if someone under the age of 12 committed a murder in Quebec? What would happen?

[Translation]  Mr. Bilodeau: First of all, this situation would be brought to the attention of the Director of Youth Protection. Obviously, a murder is an extraordinary situation that  must by definition be brought to the attention of the Youth Protection Director, who would then automatically remove the young person from his or her environment  and put them into a rehabilitation centre, under secure custody if necessary, so that an assessment could be undertaken.

What is happening in this young person's life? What brought about the event? What does it tell us about his needs? What is the best solution? Throughout this period,  young people are detained, but on youth protection terms. The term used isn't placed in custody, but rather placed in a home or centre.

They're often put in rehabilitation centres so that they can be protected, others can be protected, and so that the necessary assessment can be carried out and a long-and medium -term plan be drawn up in order to meet the young people's needs given their specific problem.

Intervention is immediate. Young people are withdrawn from society and placed in a home or centre. The intervention is about the same, but it is carried out under the Youth Protection Act which has different rules from the Young Offenders Act.

Under the Youth Protection Act, society has better tools at its disposal to meet these people's fundamental needs than under the Young Offenders Act.

Mr. Ramsay: For how long could you keep the young offender?

[Translation]  Mr. Bilodeau: Up until 18 years old. [English] If he's 10.

[Translation]   We can keep them for as long as they need rehabilitation. That could last until 18 years old, at the most. They're young people who can stay in rehab centres, not  necessarily because they have committed offences, but because of their needs...

There are, in social terms, what are known as young chronic cases. This exists from a social viewpoint as well as from a physical health viewpoint. Young persons may benefit from using these protection services and centres until they have reached their majority.
.....
Mr. Maloney [Member of the Committee]: Before I get into a new line of questioning, what would happen to that child at 18 who murdered at 10 and still needed assistance, help, rehabilitation?

[Translation]  Mr. Bilodeau: To date, we have not had frequent cases of young people who were put in centres at the age of 10 years old and who at the age of 18 years old still  needed help or were still considered to be dangerous to society. In principle, once they have reached 18 years old, the legislation no longer applies and the process is  over. There are cases where we may go before the court to present an argument. It has happened that extensions have been granted. We have rarely had a young  person who after 7, 8 or 9 years still had major problems and was still dangerous. It is possible that they still require help or that they are encountering certain  problems. We have not often seen young people who came into our centres at 10 years old because intervention was necessary and who were still dangerous at 18  years old. That would be the exception.

Ms. Delorme [(co-ordinator for young offenders, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec]: If psychiatric help or supervision were required, other laws in Quebec, for example the Mental Patients Protection Act, would apply. We would then  use rules that apply to the public as a whole and we would ask the court to order a closed treatment for a young person or an adult who needed psychiatric help.

I would just like to add to Mr. Bilodeau's answer that we feel that access to psychiatric services and centres is easier outside the ambit of the Young Offenders Act  than within it. It seems to me that when an assessment is made and when a young offender is given a psychiatric diagnosis, under that law, access to psychiatric  services within the centre are lost.

Mr. Maloney: In dealing with adult criminals the Minister of Justice has a new initiative - long-term offender - for individuals who perhaps need assistance; they're  still deemed to be a danger to either the public or to themselves or whatever. Do you see a similar application under the Young Offenders Act?

[Translation]  Mr. Bilodeau: Society must be able to use the means it needs to intervene in situations where people are a threat to themselves or to others and it must also be able  to use the necessary means to ensure their protection or society's protection, other than sentences for offences. Yes, those measures would be applied if there were no other choice.

If, after hearing expert witnesses and expertise, we believe that there is a 95% chance that the person will commit a major offence when they are reintroduced into  society, then we must be able as a society to take the necessary measures, while respecting the rights and freedoms contained within the Charter. Yes, we must be able to take the necessary measures that will guarantee to this person and to society that they will not re-offend.

What other solution is there? It would depend on whether we were talking about young 18-year-olds or 25-year-olds. It would also depend on the measures that we  have chosen. We have heard certain proposals recently. We would not necessarily chose them, but I believe that a society should be able to give itself the tools it  needs."

BOIES, Claude, Lawyer, Quebec Bar, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 41, 23 September1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/41_96-09-23/jula41_blk101.html (accessed on 3 November 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Boies, Claude, avocat, témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 41, 23 septembre1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/41_96-09-23/jula41_blk201.html#0.1.JULA41.000001.AA1359.A (visionné le 3 novembre 2002);

"[Translation]  The second point that I would like to discuss deals with the validity of the minimum and maximum age limits established for criminal liability.

Our position is in line with the traditional position taken by the Quebec Bar, I would even say the traditional position taken by Quebec, though not necessarily by all of the stakeholders. In summary, I could simply tell you: Do not, above anything else, change the age limitations for the Young Offenders Act.

Our position does not arise from stubborness; rather we are basing it on what is known about human development and on the practical aspects of enforcing criminal law when dealing with children.

In Quebec, the age limit was 14 before the adoption of the Young Offenders Act. Under the Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, the Youth Protection Act, the provincial legislator had established that criminal responsibility began at the age of 14.

With the adoption of the Young Offenders Act in 1984, we were forced, despite the grumblings from stakeholders in Quebec, to make certain changes. More particularly, we had to re-evaluate the age limits and conclude that, in accordance with the implementation of the Young Offenders Act and knowledge of the various stages of child development, it would perhaps be appropriate to drop the age to 12. We made some changes to the resources that we provided to children and we adjusted to these amendments that lowered the age limit.

Today, once again, you want to lower the minimum age limit for enforcing the Young Offenders Act. In our opinion, to do so would be to disregard a certain number of factors that we feel are extremely important.

Just as a toddler cannot be taught to ride a bicycle because in fact he is physically unable to do so - any pediatrician will explain why a child cannot pedal before he is at least three years old - the child who is under the age of twelve is not able to grasp what the judicial system is about or to understand the legal concepts that may be at issue in his case. This parallel is easy to draw. We could try to get a child under the age of 12 to grasp these nuances and all of these concepts, but this objective will be impossible to achieve. At least this is what the Quebec Bar thinks.

Studies have shown that the understanding of the legal system increases with age, which means that there are different distinctions between the steps... For example, at 14 years of age, a remand motion can be filed concerning a young offender.

Naturally, lowering the age to 10 will not settle any future cases of a child of eight years of age who commits a murder. Sooner or later, strange as it may seem, we may face a situation where an eight- or nine-year-old child commits a murder. We're not solving the problem by lowering the age to ten.

For the purpose of discussion, let us suppose a 10- or 11- year-old commits an offence in Quebec. That child won't be cast aside in terms of interventions to make him a more responsible person or re-educate him simply because the Young Offenders Act sets the minimum age at 12.

This child and his family can receive social services and the child's situation could eventually be submitted to the Chambre de la jeunesse of the Court of Quebec if it is deemed necessary to intervene because the child's development or safety may be in peril.

The Youth Protection Act allows for more adequate interventions of this type for a child this age than the Young Offenders Act. For instance, interventions are regularly subjected to an ongoing reassessment process and the child is provided with adequate care until the age of 18. This is therefore a complementary piece of legislation.

To convince you of its complementarity, I can tell you that the provincial director, under the Young Offenders Act, and the director of Youth Protection, under the Youth Protection Act, both important players in the application of these two laws in Quebec, are one and the same person. The same person plays the roles of these two key players in applying these two pieces of legislation.

Therefore, this is not a mixed clientele. We don't place child victims with child aggressors. We move from one law to another, in accordance with the developmental difficulties of an individual child with problems. In Quebec, the situation of 12- and 13-year-olds has remained quite particular, despite the lowering of the age to 12 in 1984. For example, within the framework of our alternative solutions program, the Attorney General is strongly encouraged to consult the provincial director before putting a case into the official legal system.

With regard to the current maximum age, we already made what I would call a chink in the wall in the last series of amendments by proclaiming what I would call automatic remand of 16- and 17- year-olds accused of certain serious offences to normally competent jurisdictions, placing on them the onus of demonstrating that they should be remanded to a court for adolescents. We disagreed with that the last time we presented a brief to your committee.

We continue to believe that this is not a fair response to youth crime. Indeed, the absence of adequate resources for the re-education of 16- and 17-year-olds is undoubtedly the prime consequence of this. We continue to believe that in the vast majority of cases, it is in the interest of society in the short, medium and longterm that the adolescent be allowed to benefit from measures that meet his needs in order to make him a positive and productive citizen.

Once again, the development of the individual, according to well-known studies, does not support lowering the age. Moreover, in terms of having some coherence, this would bring about significant changes to many other aspects. Indeed, how can it be accepted that an individual is considered of legal age when he or she commits a crime, but is considered a child when it comes time to vote, to drive a car, to go out in discos and to have a firearms permit?

In closing, I will not reiterate the statistics that Mr. Masse quoted earlier. Suffice it to read the last issue of Juristat on youth crime to realize the importance of amending this legislation. Either the crime rate stays at the same level, or it is reduced, or it is so slightly increased that it cannot be quoted in support of an amendment to legislation that seems to be bearing fruit in many different ways.

I will close by saying that while we still have to develop means of making the current system more efficient, we must not give in to blackmail and to a trend toward greater repression. Moreover, regardless of the repression exerted against our youth, we can never completely eliminate extreme and odious cases. On the other hand, nor can we hijack many youngsters who would probably find their way in the current system. Thank you."

BOLTON, Janet, Jane Caskey, Suzanne Costom, Richard Fowler, Sivan Fox, Kirsten Hillman, Matthew Taylor, Rhonda Yarin, "The Young Offenders Act: Principles and Policy -- The First Decade in Review", (1993) 38 McGill Law Journal 939-1052, on the debate on age, pp. 955-957;
 

BOULAIS, Jean-François avec la collaboration de Francine Campeau, Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, texte annoté, 3^e édition, Montréal: Société québécoise d'information juridique, [v], 613 p., ISBN: 2890328260;  il y a aussi une 4e édition que je n'ai pas encore consultée: [Montréal] : Société québécoise d'information juridique, c1999, 647 p., ISBN: 2764201281; maintenant une 5e édition, 2003, que je n'ai pas encore consulté: :

"[sur le paragraphe 38h) de la loi provinciale]  Les agirs délinquants peuvent être des manifestations de troubles de comportement sérieux.  Ils sont considérés comme tels, sans plus, parce que,  lors d'une demande de protection, le tribunal doit connaître les faits et les circonstances qui justifient la demande.  Néanmoins, la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse ne peut servir de moyen pour établir la culpabilité et sanctionner des infractions.  cela aurait pour effet de priver l'enfant des droits fondamentaux que lui confère le droit pénal^38/165.
----
38/165  Pour une discussion de ces questions, voir: Protection de la jeunesse -- 680, C.Q. Montréal 500-03-000452-931, le 19 janvier 1994 (J.E. 94-691); Protection de la jeunesse -- 105, T.J. Montréal (Laval) 540-41-000025-832, le 31 août 1983 (J.E. 83-962); T.J. (Laval) 540-03-000275-82 à 540-03-000301-82 et 540-03-000303-82, le 17 février 1983, juge Michèle Rivet; T.J. Montréal 500-41-000115-793, le 31 mai 1979, juge André Fauteux." (pp. 182-183, une note d'omise)

CANADA/PROVINCES, Report of the Working Group on Chapter 3 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada Report 30, Vol. 1,  "Recodifying Criminal Law", [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], December 1987, vii, 80 p., see pp. 28-29 on clause 3(4) -- Immaturity; Research Note: this report of the working group is cited in the Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1988-1989 - 18th Annual Report, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1989 at p. 37, ISBN: 0662573013.  Chapter 3 of the Commission's report 30  is entitled "Defences".  This report of the working group was submitted to the Federal-Provincial Coordination Committee of Senior Justice Officials.  Members of the Working Group were from: the Department of Justice Canada, and the following provincial Attorney General Departments or Ministries/Departments of Justice: Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and  British Columbia. This report is available from the Department of Justice Canada.  It was obtained by François Lareau in 1998 under an Access to Information Act request number A98-00185; also published in French / aussi publié en français : CANADA/PROVINCES, Rapport du Groupe de travail chargé de l'étude du chapitre 3 du Rapport no 30 de la Commission de réforme du droit du Canada "Pour une nouvelle codification du droit pénal" (Volume I), [Ottawa]: [Ministère de la Justice Canada],  décembre 1987, vii, 88 p., voir les pp. 30-31 sur le paragraphe 3(4) -- Minorité; Notes de recherche :  ce rapport du groupe de travail est mentionné dans Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1988-1989, Dix-huitième Rapport annuel,  Ottawa : Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1989,  à la p. 40, ISBN: 0662573013.  Le chapitre 3 du rapport 30 de la Commission a pour titre «Les moyens de défense».  Ce rapport du groupe de travail a été soumis au Comité fédéral-provincial de coordination composé de fonctionnaires de niveau supérieur de la justice.  Les membres du groupe de travail proviennent du Ministère de la Justice Canada et des ministères des procureurs généraux /ministères provinciaux de la justice de: l'Ontario, Québec, Nouvelle-Écosse, Saskatchewan, Alberta et Columbie-Britannique.  Ce rapport est disponible auprès du  Ministère de la Justice Canada.  Il a été obtenu par François Lareau en 1998 suite à une demande en vertu de la Loi d'accès à l'information, numéro de demande : A-98-00185;

"3.  Comments on Proposals

    a. Position and Points in Issue

    All members agree the particular age limit chosen is a matter of policy; none has any objection to the choice of twelve.

    Some members feel the provision really involves a question of the application of the Code, rather than a defence.  They therefore feel it should be an element of chapter 1 (the application section) of the LRC draft code, rather than part of the section on defences.

    Some members feel that the Code should contain a specific provision that it applies in other respects, such as arrest or search and seizure, to persons under twelve; even though children may not be subject to conviction for an offence, they should feel bound by the criminal law.

    b. Codification

    All members agree the provision should be codified.  Members have identified various drafting concerns with clause (4) and prefer the present s. 12 of the Criminal Code.

    c.  Recommendations

1.  The present s. 12 of the Criminal Code should be retained (unanimous).

2.  Further consideration should be given to the question of which part of the Code the provision belongs in (unanimous)." (p. 29)

-------------------

"3.  Commentaires sur les propositions

    a. Position et questions en litige

    Les membres conviennent tous que l'âge limite choisi est une question de nature politique et personne ne s'oppose au choix de douze ans.

    Certains membres estiment que la disposition constitue davantage une question d'application du Code qu'un moyen de défense.  En conséquence, ils sont d'avis que cette disposition devrait être intégrée au chapitre 1 (la partie relative à l'application) du projet de code de la C.R.D., plutôt qu' à la partie concernant les moyens de défense.

    Certains membres estiment que le Code devrait renfermer une disposition spécifique prévoyant qu'il s'applique dans d'autres cas, notamment en cas d'arrestations, de fouilles, de perquisitions ou de saisies, aux personnes de moins de douze ans;  même si les enfants ne peuvent être déclarés coupables d'une infraction, ils devraient néanmoins se sentir liés par les règles du droit pénal.

    b. Codification

    Les membres conviennent tous que la disposition devrait être codifiée.  Les membres ont énoncé diverses péoccupations quant à la rédaction du paragraphe 3(4) et préfèrent la version actuelle de l'article 12 du Code criminel.

    c. Recommendations

1. La version actuelle de l'article 12 du Code criminel devrait être maintenue (à l'unanimité).

2.  La question de savoir de quelle partie du Code relève cette disposition devrait être examinée davantage (à l'unanimité)." (p. 31)
 

"Section 13: Immaturity

    The experience of the police is that children are frequently very mature by the age of 12 years.  The manner in which the 'age of maturity' is progressing in contemporary society invites the conclusion that this arbitrary choice is in need of review and must be reduced.  It is therefore submitted that the Minister should re-assess the age of criminal maturity, or demonstrate that the present rule is still justified.  In the alternative, it is submitted that criminal maturity may be properly a matter for subjective assessment in each case.

    This Association has, on previous occasions, expressed dissatisfaction with the arbitrary designation of age 12 as the minimum age for criminal liability.  It is suggested that this artificial limit is inappropriate and of little public benefit.  Common experience and good sense reinforces the observation that the concept of 'tender years' has been, in practice, largely diminished by contemporary society. It is therefore suggested that the public interest is equally served by protection from astute and 'street-wise' offenders who only happen to be young in age." (p. 22)

___________"Submission and Brief by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General concerning The Framework Document on the Proposed New General Part of the Criminal Code",  May 1991, published in Canada, House of Commons, Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, [Ottawa]: Queen's Printer for Canada, issue number 10, of 8 December 1992, pp. 10A: 1 to 10A: 12, and see "Immaturity" at p. 10A: 8; also published also in French /aussi publié en français, "Présentation et mémoire de l'Association canadienne des chefs de police au Comité permanent de la Chambre des Communes de la Justice et du Solliciteur général au sujet du document cadre sur la nouvelle Partie générale du Code criminel", dans CANADA, Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général, Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général,  [Ottawa]: I'Imprimeur de la Reine pour le Canada, 1991, fasicule numéro 10, du 8 décembre 1992 aux pp. 10A : 24 à 10A :38, voir "Minorité" aux pp. 10A : 32 - 10A : 33;

"7.  Immaturity

    The experience of members of the Association is that children are frequently 'criminally mature' before the age of 12 years.  Indeed, it is not uncommon for advantage to be taken of this immunity.  It is therefore very strongly suggested that the establishment of this threshold (12 years of age) for criminal responsibility be reviewed, and lowered.  In the alternative, it is suggested that 'immaturity' could instead become a qualified defence that could be displaced where there is culpable liability for criminal conduct." (p. 10A: 8)

___________ testimony of Superintendent Ferne Alexander, Staff Support Services, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs respecting: Bill C-61, An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act (Chairman: Jean-Guy Dublois), issue number 64 of 25 February 1982 beginning at p. 64 : 6; also available in French /aussi disponible en français:  témoignage de Mlle Ferne Alexander, surintendante, Services de soutien, Association canadienne des Chefs de police, in Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la Justice et des questions juridiques, Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Comité permanent de la Justice et des questions juridiques concernant: Bill C-61, Loi sur les jeunes delinquents, portant abrogation de la Loi sur les jeunes delinquents, fascicule numéro 64 du 24 février 1982, débutant à la page 64 : 6;

"Superintendent Ferne Alexander (Staff Support Services, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police) ...

    First of all, the CACP is opposed to raising the age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 12 years.  Admittedly, the court is not used as an option for young children with great frequency but, we suggest, it is required often enough to warrant preserving the option.  The alternative is greater use of child welfare agencies to provide the controls of these youngsters, which is a totally inappropriate use of their meagre resources.  In any case, it seems to us that the Criminal Code provides sufficient protection for young children to make establishing a lower age limit unnecessary.

    We are not asking that the court be made available for all offenders under 12.  What we are asking is that the legislation permit sufficient flexibility for its use when all other options have been exhausted.  For these reasons, we submit that Sections 12 and 13 of the Criminal Code should be retained in their present form." (p. 64 : 7)

-----------

Mlle Ferne Alexander (surintendante, Services de soutien, Association canadienne des Chefs de police)

    Pour commencer, l'Association canadienne des chefs de police s'oppose à ce qu'on porte l'âge de la responsibilité criminelle de 7 à 12 ans.  Nous reconnaissons que les tribunaux n'utilisent pas très fréquemment cette option destinée aux jeunes enfants, mais nous estimons qu'ils le font suffisamment souvent pour qu'on conserve cette option.  La seule autre solution serait de faire appel aux organismes sociaux chargés de l'enfance pour s'occuper de ces jeunes, ce qui n'a pas de sens étant donné le peu de ressources dont ils disposent.  De toute façon, le Code criminel offre déjà suffisamment de protection aux jeunes enfants et il est donc inutile de fixer une limite d'âge inférieure.

    Nous ne demandons pas que tous les délinquants de moins de 12 ans soient traduits devant les tribunaux; ce que nous voulons, c'est que la législation permette de le faire lorsque toutes les autres possibilités ont échoué.  Nous recommandons donc de conserver les articles 12 et 13 du Code criminel sous la forme actuelle." (p. 64 : 7)
 

"Mr. Knutson [member of the Committee]: Let me deal with the issue of age. You mentioned Ontario a couple of times. I'm familiar with, at least on a superficial level, the Ontario child protection law. My Children's Aid people in my local community tell me that when someone 10 or 11 years old commits a crime - let's say they burn down a house - if that child is  not in need of protection - in other words, they're not being abused - there's nothing they can do.

That's the message that goes out to the community. That infuriates the community. It's the recommendation of my local director of Children's Aid that we should lower the age. Maybe we can get your views on that.

Chief Ford: Lower the age from 12 to -

Mr. Knutson: Yes, as a way of giving authority some leverage to intervene. People in the community think Children's Aid should intervene, and Children's Aid can only intervene when there's a child in need of protection.

Chief Ford: We've had some concerns about that process. We feel there are cracks in provincial legislation vis-à-vis young offenders issues, etc., that need to be beefed  up and shored up. I know our provincial counterparts in legislative amendment committees across the country are looking at beefing up that.

As to lowering the age, the position is no, we don't see it necessary to lower the age. The number of incidents involving young people under the age of 12 committing  those types of offences is not that significant.

C/Supt Boniface: I'll add to that.

In the previous submission we made there was some suggestion that the committee may wish to look at whether there should be a mechanism to pull children who are in extremely serious circumstances... At the time we appeared before this committee the Bulger case was going on in England, and I think we made some suggestion then that if you created a mechanism that allowed, in those very exceptional cases, pulling them into the broader system, that may be a way of dealing with the very serious ones.

I think Chief Ford's assessment is that maybe, as opposed to looking at broadening it, we need to look at what the provincial legislation does in relation to the child welfare cases."

CANADIAN CRIMINOLOGY AND CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION, Comments on young persons in conflict with the law : a report on the Solicitor General's Committee on Proposals for new legislation to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act, Ottawa : The Association, 1976, 33 p.; also published in French / aussi publié en français: Commentaires sur Loi sur les jeunes qui ont des démêlés avec la justice (dans le même livre que la version anglaise); copy at Ottawa University, FTX General, KE 9445 .S622 1976;

"We believe the lower age should be 12.  The age of 12 seems to mark the beginning of a new stage for the child.  It is the age when puberty begins.  It is the age when the child enters high school.  It is the age when the number of children charged with an offence increases suddenly.  Only about twelve per cent of delinquents convicted in Canada are under 12.  Those between 12 and 13 constitute another twelve per cent.  Also, some children under 14 can present real security problems." (p. 12)

CANADIAN RESOURCE CENTRE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, "Brief to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs -- Youth Criminal Justice Act", 3 October 2001; available at  http://www.crcvc.ca/Downloads/billC7.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2003);
 

___________"Brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Regarding  Bill C-3 - Youth Criminal Justice Act", 3 December 1999; available at  http://www.crcvc.ca/Downloads/billC3.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2003);
 

CANADIAN TEACHERS' FEDERATION, see Solomon, Damian, infra;
 

CANADIAN POLICE ASSOCIATION, Mr. Grant Obst, President, testimony before the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights respecting Bill C-3, An Act in respect of criminal justice for
young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, 1 December 1999 available at   http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev06-e.htm; also published in French / aussi publié en français: Association canadienne des policiers, M. Grant Obst, Président, témoignage devant, Chambre des communes, Comité permanent permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne, Témoignages devant le Comité permanent permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne concernant le projet de loi C-3, Loi concernant le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents, et modifiant et abrogeant certaines lois en conséquence, 1 décembre 1999, disponible à   http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev06-f.htm;
 

"Measures are required to provide intervention with offenders below the minimum age of 12 in extraordinary circumstances. I'm not talking about the norm. I think there needs to be an early intervention mechanism for children aged 10 and 11 to perhaps be brought in to the justice system when it has been demonstrated that other things aren't working. I'm not saying that the first thing we're going to do is to arrest that 10- or 11-year-old. That's not my point—obviously we're talking about children here. We think there needs to be a mechanism to introduce them into the system in extraordinary circumstances. "

CAPUTO, T.C., "The Young Offenders Act: Children's Rights, Children's Wrongs", (1987) 13 Canadian Public Policy 125-143;

"The Young Offenders Act has received some criticism from proponents of the justice model who have also raised a number of concerns about the implementation of the Act.  Some of their more important criticims centre on a perceived leniency in the Act in spite of the evidence reviewed above which shows an increase in the incarceration of young people under the YOA.  For example, establishing 12 as the minimum age for prosecution under the YOA has caused a great deal of concern.  A number of reports have pointed out the potential problem this raises for police who are having a difficult time dealing with 'street smart' 10 and 11 years olds to whom the Act does not apply.  In his comments in the House of Commons, Alan Redway M.P. (York East) reported that the Chief of Police of Metropolitan Toronto had informed him that 'his forces hands are tied in dealing with some 300 cases involving arson, theft, assault, and sexual assault, because the suspects are under 12 years of age' (Canada.  House of Commons Debates, 1985.  Vol. 3:4143).  (p. 137)

CARRINGTON, Peter J., Age and Youth Crime in Canada, Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, Research, Statistics and Evaluation Directorate, Policy Sector, 1995, xiv, 166 p. (series;  Technical report ; TR1996-2e); copy at Solicitor General Canada, Ministry Library and Reference Centre/Solliciteur général Canada, Bibliothèque ministérielle et centre de référence, HV 9108 C37 1995; copy also at the Library of Parliament, Br. B., HV 9108, A355; important research and contribution;

"Police-reported crime by 10- and 11-year-olds was found to be radically different from that of older youth.  It is relatively infrequent and relatively minor, being dominated by minor property crimes, such as shoplifting and vandalism.  There may be some downward bias in estimates of the amount, due to police under reporting, but any bias in the relative seriousness should be upward, since police would probably underreport minor, rather than major offences.  Therrefore, the finding that crime by 10- and 11-years-olds is minor is probably conservative.  Police-reported crime by 12-year-olds is also infrequent and minor, having a similar profile to that of 10- and 11-year-olds." (p. 4, Executive Summary)

------------

"Very little crime, mostly very minor, was reported by police for 10- to 12-year-old accused; this suggests that the aggregate age of onset of known crime in the general population is 13 years.  This finding does not support the lowering of the minimum age of jurisdiction of the YOA; rather, it implies raising it to 13 years." (p. 7, Executive Summary)
 

   "The jurisdiction of the youth court depends on the age of the person who appears before it.  Since the federal Young Offenders Act came into effect, the minimum limit has been established at twelve years of age.  Consequently, sections 12 and 13 of the Criminal Code have been repealed.

    In the Province of Quebec, before Bill 60 came into effect, the lower age limit was fourteen years.  Since the bill came into force, however, the Youth Protection Act has become essentially a law of protection and all federal offences must be treated in accordance with the Young Offenders Act.  Many reasons persuaded the legislator to lower the minimum age from fourteen to twelve years of age, but it seems that the most convincing was a decline of the age of juvenile criminality.

   Finally, the Young Offenders Act establishes the maximum age limit at eighteen years of age and standardizes that age across Canada from April 1, 1985.  Reasons of uniformity, equity and constitutionality have influenced the legislator in setting the upper age limit at eighteen years of age." (p. 465)

CHURCH, Leslie Church, Member, City of Edmonton Youth Council, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 80, 22 November 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/80_96-11-22/jula80_blk101.html (accessed on 20 October 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français:  Church, Leslie, membre du Conseil de la jeunesse de la ville d'Edmonton, témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 80, 22 novembre 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/80_96-11-22/jula80_blk201.html (visionné le 20 Octobre 2002);

"As for the lower limit of age 12, I would like to think the Young Offenders Act could be flexible enough or could be made to be flexible enough to include provisions to include children who are younger than this in the youth justice system for serious and violent crimes. I think kids would then know there is a consequence to their actions even at this early age.

Right now, and not only for the sake of children who are under the age of 12, there are two reasons why we should do this. First, just for the sake of these children, I think they need to know there is a consequence if they choose to engage in any criminal activity, that they're just not going to get off freely. The other reason is to deter a number of older people who are tending to abuse young children for the sake that they are untouchable in the justice system at the moment."

CLARK, Barry M. and Thomas O'Reilly-Fleming, "Out of the carceral straightjacket: Under twelves and the law, (1994) 36 Canadian Journal of Criminology 305-327; also published in Thomas Fleming, Patricia O'Reilly and Barry Clark, eds., Youth Injustice: Canadian Perspectives, 2nd ed., Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2001, xvii, 580 p., chapter 17, at pp. 345- 370, ISBN: 1551301393; copy of the book at the library of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF 9779 Y59 2001;

CLEROUX, Richard, The Hill, "Tories all about crime and punishment", (6 November 2006) 17(35) Law Times 7;

COCKBURN, A.E., "Copy ‘of Letter from the Lord Chief Justice of England dated the 12th day of June 1879, containing Comments and Suggestions in relation to the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill’”, Sessional Papers (Parliamentary Papers), (1878-79), vol. 59, pp. 233-252, paper number 232, 20 p; to situate Cockburn's letter, see François Lareau, "Notes on the English Draft Code (1878-1883)", [Ottawa], August 1990, 11 p.;

CORRADO, Raymond R. and Alan Markwart, "The Evolution and Implementation of a New Era of Juvenile Justice In Canada" in Raymond R. Corrado, Nicholas Bala, Rick Linden and Marc Le Blanc, eds., Juvenile Justice in Canada: A Theoretical and Analytical Assessment, Toronto & Vancouver: Butterworths, 1992, x, 391 p., at pp. 137-1227, see at p. 185, ISBN: 0409888869; copy at Ottawa University, KE 9445 .J92 1992 MRT; copy at the library of the Supreme Court of Canada, KF 9779 J88 1992;
 

CÔTÉ-HARPER, Gisèle, 1942-, Pierre Rainville, 1964-, et  Jean Turgeon, 1951-,  Traité de droit  pénal canadien, 4^e édition refondue et augmentée, Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, 1998, lv, 1458 p., voir "La minorité pénale" aux pp. 877-882, ISBN: 2894512589; note de recherche: la première édition porte le tite: Principes de droit pénal général, 1981;  la deuxième édition en 1984 et la troisième édition en 1989 avec le supplément de 1994 portent le tite Droit pénal canadien;
 

CÔTÉ-HARPER, Gisèle, "Age Delinquent Responsibility and Moral Judgment", (1970) 11 Cahiers de droit 489-509;
 

___________"Le processus pénal juvénile: son évolution et ses perspectives d'avenir" in Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice Conference on Criminal Justice (1981 : Halifax, N.S.), Criminal justice : papers prepared for presentation at the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice Conference on Criminal Justice held at Halifax, October 28, 29 and 30, 1981 / edited by Sandra Oxner, Toronto, Ont. : Carswell, 1982, [x], 282 p., ISBN: 0459349708, at  pp. 219-251;

"L'arbitraire est bien illustré par les modifications proposées dans les rapports et projets de loi antérieur au Bill C-61.  En effet, le Rapport du ministère de la Justice en 1965 recommendait de hausser l'âge minimal à dix ans, sans exclure une hausse à 12 ans.  Le critère adopté alors était relié à l'efficacité du droit pénal à contrôler le comportement déviant des individus appartenant à ces groupes.  Le projet de loi C-192 proposait en conséquence de limiter la responsabilité pénale à dix ans.  Il faut rappeler que cette hausse de sept à dix ans était comptable avec le maintien de la philosophie de prévention, de protection et de réhabilitation.  Le mouvement vers la hausse continua dans le Rapport du ministère du Solliciteur général en 1975 et fut maintenu dans l'Avant-projet de 1977 et de 1979.  La hausse de l'âge minimal à 14 ans allait de pair avec la restriction de la juridiction du tribunal aux infractions pénales.  Le Bill C-61 détermine enfin que la responsabilité pénale ne s'applique qu'aux adolescents de 12 ans, à l'exclusion des enfants de moins de 12 ans." (p. 228; note omise)

Criminal Code -- Annotated codes used by practioners/ Code criminel --codes annotés utilisés par les practiciens

    in English (published every year) /en anglais:

GOLD, Allan D., The Practioner's Criminal Code, Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis Canada, 2008;

GREENSPAN, Edward L. and Marc Rosenberg, annotations by, Martin's Annual Criminal Code 2008, Aurora: Canada Law Book Inc.;

WATT, David and Michelle Fuerst, annotations by, The 2008 Annotated Tremeear's Criminal Code, Toronto: Carswell, A Thomson Company;

COURNOYER, Guy et Gilles Ouimet, Code criminel annoté 2008, Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, une société Thomson; note: législation bilingue/bilingual legislation;

DALBY, J. Thomas, "Criminal Liability in Children", (1985) 27 Canadian Journal of Criminology 137-145; also published in Thomas O'Reilly-Fleming and  Barry Clark, eds., Youth injustice : Canadian perspectives, 1st ed., Toronto : Canadian Scholars' Press, 1993, xv, 437 p., at pp. 297-308 (Chapter 18), ISBN: 551300095;

"[Sommaire]  La détermination de l'âge minimum de responsabilité criminelle constitue depuis longtemps un problème juridique.  Les récentes modifications apportées à la loi fédérale canadienne élèvent cet âge de sept à douze ans.  Ce choix arbitraire d'un âge va à l'encontre des données scientifiques relatives du développement du comportement chez l'enfant.  D'après ce qu'il en est du développement d'ordre cognitif, moral et volitif, la plupart des enfants répondent à sept ans, aux critères minimums de la responsibilité criminelle.  L'auteur soutient que la plupart des enfants, après cet âge, ne devraient pas être considérés comme présentant une responsabilité juridique réduite, mais qu'il faut à cause de leur faible statut dans la société, les mettre à l'abri des formes du châtiment des adultes.  La séparation de responsabilité des actes illégaux et des conséquences de ces actes peut aider à l'administration pratique de la justice en ce qui concerne les enfants." (p. 137)

DANDURAND, Yvon, Counsellor, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy:, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 64, October 31, 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/64_96-10-31/jula64_blk101.html (accessed on 16 December 2002); important contribution; also available in French / aussi disponible en français: Dandurand, Yvon, conseiller, «International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy»,  témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 64, 31 octobre1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/64_96-10-31/jula64_blk201.html (visionné le 16 décembre 2002); importante contribution;
 

Mr. Dandurand: When you look at the experience of all countries, age is a very problematic factor. You will see that countries have struggled with the problem in one way or another. They've all come up with their own response, but basically age provides a very rough criterion in terms of dictating or helping us determine what kind of response to crime we ought to give as a society.

This is true of the minimum age, and this is why there was no consensus. There still is no consensus within the international community in terms of minimum age.

It is also true of the maximum age. In terms of the maximum age, of course, the convention provides that 18 is the age under which a person is a child, for the purpose of the convention, but you will find that in terms of criminal justice systems around the world, the maximum age also varies considerably.

This is the case even within a country. We have a copy of a survey that was done by, of all groups, the National Rifle Association, although the document provides a very useful compendium of waiver statutes in 50 states and the District of Columbia. This is something, too, that we can leave with you. What you see there is a very confused country in terms of the maximum age. When you look from state to state, I guess what you would find, certainly in my opinion, is that each state legislature has been struggling with the issues.

Now, if age is such a problematic criterion, and Daniel alluded to the fact that many states now are going for a hybrid kind of system where age is a criterion, but only if it is qualified for certain offences after a certain test, and so on. If age is a qualified criterion, what should we use?

Well, you will find a lot of people increasingly suggesting that we should use the seriousness of the offence, and this is something we're borrowing from the adult system. If it is a serious crime, treat it one way; if it is not, treat it another way. That also flows from the logic that says the system is there to respond to the incident, not to the individual. You can see in whether or not one applies the criterion of seriousness as opposed to the criterion of age that one is basically wavering between an incident-centred versus an individual-centred approach.

Now, there is something that has to be said, and it is beginning to emerge in various research and reports to which we have access. That is that although it might provide some kind of reassurance to the public, the seriousness of the offence is a very dangerous kind of criterion to use when it comes to young offenders.

Why is that so? Well, when you're dealing with young offenders, one of the single most important determining factors of future recidivism is what you do in the first instances - whether it was serious or not, how you react to the first incident. Any parent knows that. It is not the first time the child takes away some coins from his mother's purse. It's not whether it was 50¢ or $50, really; it's the fact that it was the first time, and the child's future behaviour will be largely guided by the initial response.

So to suggest that the seriousness of the offence will provide the most important criterion for determining what we ought to do basically flies in the face of what we know about child behaviour, education and teaching responsibility to children.

......

Mr. St-Laurent:[member of the Standing Committee] What is your opinion on the minimum age? You no doubt have some data on that. At present, it is 12 years of age. Should we go lower or is that sufficient?

Mr. Dandurand: Between 10 and 14, the problem is not so much the barrier you're going to put between the two but rather a problem of coordination between the child protection services and the youth justice services.

It is possible, in both cases, to respond to the youth's conduct in a completely adequate way. In my opinion, the Act is adequate at this point.

The issue is whether in some cases, such as murder, the Act should include a red flag to signify to those involved that this is a question that requires greater attention than the more usual criminal conduct.

I start with the premise that committing minor crimes is normal conduct among most children. This is not a perspective that everyone shares, but if you look at the international statistics on reported crime, you realize that it is normal, in a given population, to find that 30%, 40% or 50% of the young people have been involved at least once in conduct that the society defines as serious criminal conduct.

If we start from that premise, we take this into account when developing our response. The issue is whether we respond adequately when such normal conduct occurs. Very often, unfortunately, we don't respond in the right way because we tend to think that the initial conduct is not important or that it is not important if the crime is not considered too serious. In terms of education, the first manifestation of the conduct is absolutely crucial. The first response is crucial.

Mr. St-Laurent: You spoke of the coordination of services as an attractive alternative, because basically you mean there is a lack of such coordination.

Mr. Dandurand: A huge lack, and that has already been brought to the attention of this committee, through a comparison with what is possible in that area in Quebec and in British Columbia.

There have been some interesting indications in British Columbia since the establishment, a few weeks ago, of a new child and family ministry which, we are told, will develop an integrated approach. For the time being, it is a promise since the ministry was created only a few weeks ago.

In my opinion, it is a very promising indication, provided the provincial government proceeds with a second stage in the implementation of that legislation, with the integration of the services not only in Victoria but at the level of the communities as well.

The second stage of implementation would be decentralization, and I tend to think that the Quebec approach can serve as a model to a number of other provinces."

DAVIS-BARRON, Sherri, Canadian Youth and the Criminal Law -- One Hundred Years of Youth Justice Legislation In Canada, Markham (Ontario): Lexis-Nexis Canada, 2009, xlii, 530 p., and see the “Age of Criminal Responsibility”, at pp. 106-125, ISBN: 9780433452003;

Chapter 1: From the Early Legal Codes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act: The Development of a Separate Criminal Justice System for Youth

Chapter 2: Jurisdiction and the Age of Criminal Responsibility

Chapter 3: The Preamble and the Declaration of Principle: The Philosophical Roadmap to the YCJA

Chapter 4: Procedures and Process Under the YCJA

Chapter 5: The Expansion of Diversion Under the YCJA

Chapter 6: Young Persons and the Charter

Chapter 7: Young Persons and Enhanced Procedural Protections Under the YCJA

Chapter 8: Sentencing Under the YCJA: The Pendulum Shifts

Chapter 9: Young Persons, Privacy, the Public and the Press: A Collision of Values

DAY, David M., "Risk for court contact and predictors of an early age for a first court contact among a sample of high risk youths: A survival analysis approach", (1998) 40 Canadian Journal of Criminology 421-446;

"[Abstract]  This study examined, over a 4 to 11 year period, the rate of court contact and predictors of an early age for a first court contact for a sample of 203 youth who were seen at a children's mental health center, between the ages of 6 to 12 years, for conduct problem behaviours. Survival analyses revealed that the probabilities for a male and female to have court contact by age 18 were 65.9% and 32.9%, respectively. The clinician's rating of the child's likeability was a significant predictor of an early age for first court contact for males and a history of abuse was a significant predictor for females. The implications of these findings for early identification of high risk youth are discussed." (source: http://home.istar.ca/~ccja/angl/cjc40a4.html#four )
------------
"[Sommaire] La présente étude porte sur un échantillon de 203 jeunes personnes de 6 à 12 ans qui ont été admis pour évaluation de leurs problèmes  de comportement par un centre de santé mentale pour enfants. Les chercheurs s'intéressaient au taux de contact avec le tribunal et aux éléments prédicteurs de ce premier contact. Les analyses révèlent que les probabilités de contact avec le tribunal avant l'âge de 18 ans est de 65.9% pour les garçons et de 32.9% pour les filles. Selon les évaluations du clinicien, le caractère agréable-désagréable des garçons est un facteur important de prédiction d'un premier contact avec un tribunal alors que, pour les filles, le facteur important est les mauvais traitements subis dans le passé. Les auteurs font alors ressortir l'importance de ces résultats pour une identification précoce des jeunes en danger." (source:  http://home.istar.ca/~ccja/franc/rcc40r4.html#quatre )

DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE, Aboriginal Peoples’ and Human Rights Programs Directorate, Convention on the Rights of the Child : second report of  Canada covering the period Jan. 1993 to Dec. 1997, [Ottawa : Canadian Heritage, c2001], 328 p., at pp. 84-85,  ISBN: 0662305094; also published in French / aussi publié en français:  Patrimoine Canada, Direction des programmes des autochtones et des droits de la personne, Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant : deuxième  rapport du Canada couvrant la période de janv. 1993 à  déc. 1997, [Ottawa : Patrimoine canadien, c2001], 363 p., ISBN:  0662858379;
 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA (members of the) and THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA (members of),  Toward a New General Part for the Criminal Code of Canada: A Framework Document on the Proposed New General Part of the Criminal Code for the Consideration of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], [1990], 137 p., see "Immaturity" at pp. 61-62; available at my Digital Library, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html; also published in French/aussi publié en français: MINISTÈRE DE LA JUSTICE CANADA (fonctionnaires du) et COMMISSION DE RÉFORME DU DROIT DU CANADA (membres de la), Pour une nouvelle codification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Canada : document cadre sur la nouvelle partie générale proposée du Code criminel présenté pour examen au comité permanent de la justice et du solliciteur général, [Ottawa]: [Ministère de la Justice], [1990], 144 p., voir la "Minorité" aux pp. 63-64; disponible à ma bibliothèque digitale, http://www.lareau-law.ca/DigitalLibrary.html;
 

___________Fact sheet, Children Under the Age Of Criminal Responsibility, March 1999, available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1999/yoafact2.html (accessed on 26 August 2002); also published in French version/aussi publié en français: MINISTÈRE DE LA JUSTICE CANADA, Fiche documentaire, Enfants n'ayant pas atteint l'âge de la responsabilité pénale, Mars 1999, disponible à  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/nr/1999/yoafact2.html (visionné le 26 août 2002);
 

___________Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, Juvenile Delinquency in Canada -- The Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1965, xi, 377 p., see in particular: "Minimum Age Jurisdiction" at pp. 40-53  (paragraphs 90-116), "The Doli Incapax Rule" at pp. 53-54 (paragraphs 117-119) and at p. 168 (paragraph 288), and the "Summary of Recommendations", in particular number 7 and 8 at p. 284 (Chairman: A.J. MacLeod, Department of Justice Canada); important contribution to the subject; also published in French version/aussi publié en français: Comité sur la délinquance juvénile, Délinquance juvénile au Canada: rapport du comité du ministère de la justice sur la délinquance juvénile, Ottawa, Imprimeur de la Reine, 1965, 411 p.;

    "110.  The main argument in the submissions to us against raising the minimum age [being 7 in 1965] relates, as we have said, to the problem of facilities and services [for the provinces].  We recognize that raising the minimum age will have some effect upon existing arrangements in regard to child welfare services, an effect that will probably vary from province to province depending upon the structure, role and comprehensiveness of child welfare services and upon whatever new minimum age may be established.  Nevertheless, we are unable to give to this argument a weight sufficient for it to overbear the contrary view.  For the argument is not one of principle." (p. 49, paragraph 110)

--------------------

    "118.  We suspect that many juvenile court judges are not familiar with the doli incapax rule.  The rule is, in any event, difficult to apply.  In England the Ingleby Committee noted that the rule has led to inconsistency in the administration of the law.  Many juvenile court judges, it seems, ignore the rule altogether, while others differ in the degree of proof of guilt that is required.  Canadian experience seems to have been much the same.  There is evidence, moreover, that the rule has been interpreted so as to justify practices that have a dubious standing at law.  Background information, which is not properly before the judge until after a finding of deliquency is made, is sometimes reviewed at the adjudication stage for the purpose of making the determination required by the rule.  The similarity in wording between section 13 of the Criminal Code and the operative test for insanity has apparently caused some confusion, leading at least one juvenile court judge to order a psychiatric examination to determine what position to take in regard to the presumption.

    119.  While we do not accept the view that the need of a child for 'treatment' should of itself be sufficient to sustain an assertion of jurisdiction by the juvenile court we think that the doli incapax rule can be safely abolished.  The rule was formulated at a time when there were no juvenile courts and when the penalities of the criminal law were extremely harsh.  Having regard to the difficulty in interpreting and applying the rule, and to the modest sanctions available under the present law, we doubt that there is any real advantage in retaining the rule.  It is important to note also that the presumption weakens with the advance of the child's years towards fourteen.  Its principal value is in connection with proceedings against offenders who are very young. Our proposal for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility would further diminish the need for the rule.  Finally, we think that the basic objective that the doli incapax rule is designed to serve can be accomplished more effectively through flexible disposition provisions.  Our recommendations in that regard are discussed later in the Report." (pp. 53-54, notes omitted)

______________

"Summary of Recommendations...

7.  The minimum age of criminal responsibility under Canadian law -- and the minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction under the Act -- should be raised.  This age should be set at 10 years, or, at most, 12.  A uniform minimum age throughout Canada is preferred, but the possibility of a flexible or variable minimum age is not excluded.  The minimum age to be selected should be the subject of discussions between the federal government and the provincial authorities before a final decision is made (paras. 11, 114-116).

8.  The rule of law requires the prosecution, in the case of a child between the ages of 7 and 14, to rebut a presumption that the child is incapable of committing a crime by showing that the child had sufficient discretion and understanding to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act, should now be abolished (para. 119)." (p. 284)

"6. Minimum Age

The Committee recommended that, in exceptional circumstances, 10- and 11-year-olds suspected of committing extremely violent offences should be subject to the criminal regime for youth.  Any discussion of lowering the minimum age must consider a number of factors, including concern for public safety; the capacity of the young person to form a criminal intent; the ability of the child to instruct counsel and participate in criminal proceedings; and the possibility that the child could be handled more effectively through the child welfare or mental health system.

Very few offenders under the age of 12 are involved in serious, violent offences. If they were included, recent experience suggests that fewer than three or four a year across Canada would be charged with one of the presumptive offences.  Police statistics from 1992-93 indicate that only 1.1 percent of those arrested for criminal offences were under 12. Over 85 percent of these children were arrested for non-violent offences, mostly minor theft and other property offences such as mischief.  The vast majority of those arrested for violent offences were involved in less-serious common assaults.

Most of these children can be dealt with more effectively by parents and the community without involving the state.  When a more formal approach is required, child welfare or mental health systems are usually the preferred approach. These systems have access to a wider array of services that are more age-appropriate, family-oriented and therapeutic than those available through the criminal justice system.

While very violent or repeat offending by young children is uncommon, society clearly has an interest in ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to intervene, control and rehabilitate these children. The National Crime Prevention Council was particularly concerned about the development issues associated with anti-social behaviour, and recom-mended targeted crime prevention efforts.

 The Committee's recommendation was presumably based on the need for a safety valve, given concerns that the approaches and resources of child welfare/mental health systems were not capable of dealing appropriately with these children. The Committee recommended that any decision to make the youth justice system apply to children under 12 would need to be limited to violent and repeat offenders in exceptional circumstances and should require the consent of the provincial Attorney General. The Committee also recommended that the court's discretion to apply the youth justice regime to children under 12 would be limited to those who are at least 10 years of age and to those youth charged with a specified, narrow group of violent offences. The court's authority would include the possibility of placing the child in the care of the child welfare authorities as explained by the Standing Committee in its recommendation.

The Committee's recommendation has been seriously considered, but the preferred approach at this time is to seek to work with the provinces to identify and respond to the child welfare and mental health needs of this small number of children. The commission of serious violence by very young children indicates significant developmental, emotional or psychiatric issues that can best be addressed through provincial child welfare and mental health programs. The federal government will work collaboratively with the provinces in an effort to develop approaches to ensure that the public is appropriately protected while these children receive the treatment they need." (pp. 28-30)

----------------

"6. L'âge minimum

Le Comité a recommandé que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, les jeunes de 10 et 11 ans soupçonnés de crimes extrêmement violents devraient être soumis au régime pénal pour les jeunes. Toute décision sur l'abaissement de l'âge minimum doit prendre en compte plusieurs facteurs, dont la préoccupation visant la sécurité publique; la capacité de former une intention criminelle; la capacité de donner des directives à son avocat et de prendre valablement part à l'instance criminelle; la possibilité que l’enfant soit traité de façon plus efficacement par les organismes de protection de la jeunesse ou de la santé mentale.

Très peu de contrevenants de moins de 12 ans commettent des infractions graves accompagnées de violence. S’ils étaient inclus, l’expérience récente montre que moins de trois ou quatre personnes par an dans tout le Canada seraient accusées d’une présomption d’infraction. Les statistiques de la police pour l'année 1992-1993 indiquent que seulement 1,1 % des personnes arrêtées pour des infractions criminelles étaient âgées de moins de 12 ans. Plus de 85 % de ces enfants ont été arrêtés pour des infractions commises sans violence, principalement des vols mineurs et d'autres infractions contre les biens, comme le méfait. La grande majorité des enfants arrêtés pour des infractions violentes avaient commis des voies de fait simples de moindre gravité.

Dans la plupart des cas, les parents et la collectivité sont les mieux placés pour régler les problèmes, et l'État n'a pas à intervenir. Lorsque cette  intervention est nécessaire, toutefois, c'est par le truchement des organismes de protection de la jeunesse ou de la santé mentale qu'il vaut mieux procéder.  Ces organismes ont accès à un plus vaste éventail de services mieux adaptés que le système de justice pénale à l'âge des bénéficiaires visés, plus axés sur la famille et plus thérapeutiques que ceux qu’offre le système de justice pénale.

Bien qu'il arrive rarement que des jeunes enfants commettent des crimes graves ou qu’ils récidivent, la société a clairement intérêt à ce que des mesures appropriées soient prises pour intervenir, refréner les comportements délinquants et rééduquer les enfants. Le Conseil national de prévention du crime a étudié les problèmes de développement associés aux comportements antisociaux dans la petite enfance et a recommandé d’insister sur la prévention du crime.

La recommandation du Comité était présumément fondée sur le besoin d’une soupape de sécurité, vu que l’on s’inquiète de voir que les approches et les ressources des systèmes de protection de l’enfance et de santé mentale ne peuvent pas traiter les enfants de façon appropriée. Le Comité a aussi  recommandé que toute décision de faire appliquer le système de la justice pour les jeunes aux enfants de moins de douze ans soit limitée aux récidivistes violents dans des cas exceptionnels et exige le consentement du procureur général de la province. Le pouvoir discrétionnaire du tribunal d’appliquer le régime de justice des jeunes aux enfants de moins de douze ans serait limité à ceux qui sont au moins âgés de dix ans et aux jeunes accusés d’infractions violentes d’une catégorie très restreinte. Le pouvoir du tribunal inclurait la possibilité de placer l’enfant entre les mains des services de protection de l’enfance comme l’a expliqué le Comité permanent dans sa recommandation.

La recommandation du Comité a fait l’objet d’un examen sérieux, mais la solution à l’heure actuelle consisterait à travailler avec les provinces pour déterminer les besoins de bien-être et de santé mentale de ce nombre restreint d’enfants et d’y répondre. La commission d’actes de violence graves par de très jeunes enfants montre qu’il existe des problèmes très importants dans leur comportement et d’ordre émotif ou psychiatrique qui peuvent être le mieux traités grâce à des programmes provinciaux de protection de la jeunesse et de santé mentale. Le gouvernement fédéral collaborera avec les provinces pour élaborer des solutions qui assurent la protection du public tout en garantissant les soins pour ces enfants." (pp. 35-36)

___________Toward safer communities : violent and repeat offending by young people, [Ottawa : The Deptartment of Justice Canada, 1993], 24 p., see "Lowering the Minimum Age" at pp. 10-11 / also published in French version/aussi publié en français: Objectif: Sécurité communautaire -- Lutte contre la violence et la récidive des jeunes, [Ottawa: Ministère de la Justice Canada, 1993], 28 p., voir "Abaissement de l'âge minimal" aux pp. 11-13;

"LOWERING THE MINIMUM AGE

The Young Offenders Act places the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 12 years.  The age of 12 was chosen because most children under 12 lack the necessary knowledge and experience to understand the consequences of their actions.  This is known as 'legal capacity'.  Children under 12 would also not be able to fully participate in proceedings against them.  Legal capacity and the ability to participate are basic to fair criminal prosecutions.

Children under 12 whose behaviour poses a danger to the public are dealt with under provincial welfare and mental health legislation.

Some people believe we should lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility.  The age most commonly put forward is 10 years.

Others propose lowering the age of criminal responsibility only in particular cases.  The age could be lowered when a child under 12 commits a serious crime if it could be shown that the child had the necessary legal capacity for criminal conduct and that it was in the public's interest to proceed in youth court.

Those who want to lower the minimum age argue that:

• Excluding children from the criminal system of law contributes to their lack of respect for the law.

• Children could get support from the youth justice system that they cannot otherwise get.  In some parts of the country, child protection systems are overburdened, and in others the systems lack the facilities that some children need (such as secure custody).

• The public would be better protected from the serious anti-social behaviour of some children if these children were included under the Act.

Those who want to keep the current minimum age of 12 argue that:

• Research suggests that younger children do not understand legal concepts like their right to give instructions to their lawyer.

• Sometimes children are referred to the youth justice system because child protection agencies lack the resources to deal with them.  This problem would get worse if the minimum age was lowered.  We should strengthen the child protection systems, rather than labelling children's behaviour 'criminal'.

• Including children in the youth justice system would be costly.

• A federal-provincial-territorial committee studied the minimum age issue in 1990 and recommended keeping the age of 12, but strengthening provincial legislation where required." (pp. 10-11)
 

DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, An act respecting children and young persons: first discussion draft, Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General, 1967, 2, 230, xiv, [23] leaves; copy at the Solicitor General Canada, Ministry Library and Reference Centre/Solliciteur, général Canada, Bibliothèque ministérielle et centre de référenceKE 9445.A73 C33a 1967; also publlished in French / aussi publié en français: Loi concernant les enfants et les adolescents, Ottawa : Ministère du Solliciteur général, 1967, 2, 273, xv, [23] feuillets, copie à Solicitor General Canada, Ministry Library and Reference Centre/Solliciteur, général Canada, Bibliothèque ministérielle et centre de référence, KE 9445.A73 C33a 1967F;  research note: see HANSEN, infra, for relevancy, of this consultation document;
 

___________Committee on Legislation on Young Persons in Conflict with the Law, Young persons in conflict wih the law.  A report of the Solicitor General's Committee on proposals for new legislation to replace the Juvenile Delinquents act, [Ottawa, s.n. 1975], 104 p.,  see "Jurisdiction of Youth Court (Ages of Applicability)" at pp. 18-20 (Chair: Roger Tassé); also available in French / aussi disponible en français: Ministère du solliciteur général, Comité sur les propositions formulées en remplacement de la Loi sur les jeunes délinquants, Loi sur les Jeunes qui ont des démêlées avec la justice : rapport du Comité du Ministère du Solliciteur général sur les propositions formulées en remplacement de la Loi sur les jeunes délinquants, Ottawa: Solliciteur général du Canada, 1975, 105 p., voir "Juridiction du Tribunal des jeunes quant à l'âge" aux pp. 19-21; copy at the Library of te Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF9802 C36 Y68;

    "In determining the most appropriate minimum age at which a young person should be held responsible before the law for conduct that constitutes an offence under the Criminal Code and other federal laws, the Committee considered factors relating to the physiological, emotional and intellectual development of children and the most effective legislative means of dealing with the behaviour of children that constitutes a criminal offence for adults.  This is a very difficult matter to resolve and does not lend itself to a purely objective analysis of an empirical nature.  Children develop at varying rates, and there is no single point in a child's life when that child automatically becomes capable of shaping his conduct in terms of what society determines to be acceptable bahaviour.  Nevertheless, as a practical matter, it is necessary to set a specific age in the legislation in order to provide a means by which the law can be applied in a uniform manner.  This is the age when it can be assumed that most children have matured sufficiently to be responsible for their conduct and to held accountable for that conduct which contravenes provisions of the Criminal Code and other federal laws.  The law would stipulate the age at which a young person can be adjudged to be accountable for behaviour of a criminal nature in a formal law process.  In this context, we are agreed that the minimum age of 7 years now contained in the Criminal Code is much too young an age at which to attribute responsibility, particularly criminal responsibility.

    The Committee considered several options.  These included raising the minimum age to 12 or to 13 or to 14.  Another option considered was to raise the minimum age to 12 years, with the provision that only serious cases involving 12 and 13 years-olds be dealt with under the new legislation.  Criteria would have to be developed to determine the capacity of the child to appreciate his behaviour, as well as the circumstances of the conduct itself.  One of the problems with this option is that it is discriminatory and decreases the prospect of having the law applied in a consistent and uniform manner.

    After having carefully considered these various options, the Committee proposes that the age of criminal responsibility be set at age 14 and that an amendment to the Criminal Code be made accordingly.  We recognize that this would require the provinces to examine their legislation, as amendments might be necessary to enable that legislation to deal with persons under age 14 who would previously have been dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.  Nevertheless, we believe that children under age 14 should not be subject to the criminal law and would be better looked after under the provisions of provincial child welfare, youth protection or juvenile correctional legislation.

    WE RECOMMEND

6. that the minimum age of criminal responsibility under the new legislation and in the Criminal Code be set at 14 years of age." (pp. 19-20)

---------

    "En déterminant l'âge minimum le plus approprié auquel un jeune doit être tenu responsable devant la loi d'une conduite qui constitue une infraction en vertu du Code criminel ou d'autres lois fédérales, le Comité a considéré les facteurs de développement physiologique, émotionnel et intellectuel des enfants, ainsi que les moyens législatifs les plus efficaces pour traiter un tel comportement.  C'est là une question très difficile à résoudre, et qui ne se prête pas à une analyse purement objective de nature empirique.  Les enfants se développent à des rythmes différents; il n'y a pas de moment précis dans la vie d'un enfant où ce dernier devient automatiquement capable de régler sa conduite selon les normes que la société considère acceptables.  Néanmoins, en pratique, il est nécessaire de fixer un âge spécifique dans la loi afin qu'elle puisse être appliquée uniformément.  Il s'agit de l'âge auquel on peut croire que la plupart des enfants sont suffisamment mûrs pour être responsable de leur conduite et pour avoir à rendre compte de cette conduite lorsqu'elle contrevient aux dispositions du Code criminel ou d'autres lois fédérales.  La loi doit prévoir l'âge auquel un jeune doit être considéré apte à répondre d'un comportement de nature criminelle devant les instances de droit criminel.  Dans ce contexte, nous avons convenu que l'âge minimum de 7 ans prévu actuellement au Code criminel est beaucoup trop jeune lorsqu'il s'agit d'imputer une responsabilité, particulièrement une responsabilité criminelle.  Le Comité a considéré plusieurs options parmi lesquelles celles de relever l'âge minimum à 12, 13 ou 14 ans.  Une autre option considérée était de relever l'âge minimum à 12 ans, avec une restriction à l'effet que seuls les cas graves impliquant des enfants de 12 et 13 ans soient l'objet de mesures sous le régime de la nouvelle loi.  Il faudra alors établir des critères permettant de déterminer la capacité de l'enfant d'apprécier son comportement, de même que les circonstances entourant cett conduite.  Un des problèmes de cette option est qu'elle est discriminatoire et diminue les chances de voir la loi s'appliquer de façon consistante et uniforme.

    Après avoir soigneusement considéré ces diverses options, le Comité propose que l'âge de la responsabilité criminelle soit fixé à 14 ans et que le Code criminel soit amendé en conséquence.  Nous reconnaissons que cela requerra des provinces de réviser leurs législations afin d'y faire les modifications nécessaires pour traiter les personnes âgées de moins de 14 ans qui auparavant été traitées en vertu de la Loi sur les jeunes délinquants.  Néanmoins, nous croyons que les enfants âgés de moins de 14 ans ne doivent pas être assujettis au droit criminel et qu'ils sont mieux servis par les dispositions de la législation provinciale sur l'aide à l'enfance, la protection de la jeunesse ou les services correctionnels pour enfants.

    NOUS RECOMMANDONS

6.  que l'âge minimum de la responsabilité criminelle en vertu de la nouvelle loi et dans le Code criminel soit fixé à 14 ans." (pp. 20-21)
 

"Ages of Applicability
...
Under the proposed Young Offenders Act the minimum age of criminal responsibility would be twelve years.  In setting this age, consideration has been given to the stage of development of the child in physiological, mental and emotional terms, particularly as these factors apply to the formulation of a criminal intent.  The setting of a precise age is necessarily arbitrary as children vary greatly in their rate of development but it is assumed that deviant behaviour by children under the age of twelve is better and more effectively dealt with under provincial legislation pertaining to child welfare or youth protection." (p. 5)

-------

"Âges d'applicabilité
[...]
La loi sur les jeunes contrevenants fixerait à 12 ans l'âge minimum de la responsabilité pénale.  Pour déterminer cet âge, on a pris en considération le stade de développement de l'enfant dans les domaines physiologique, émotionnel et intellectuel et, en partuculier, l'influence de ces éléments sur l'élaboration d'une intention criminelle.  La détermination d'un âge précis est nécessairement arbitraire car le degré de développement des enfants n'est pas toujours égal, mais on présume que le comportement  réfractaire des enfants de moins de 12 ans relève plus des dispositions législatives provinciales sur la protection de l'enfance ou la protection de la jeunesse." (p. 5)

___________Legislative proposals to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act, [Ottawa] : Solicitor General Canada, [1979], 16 p., see "Minimum Age" at p. 5; also available in French / aussi disponible en français: Propositions relatives à l'adoption d'une loi pour remplacer la Loi sur les jeunes délinquants, Ottawa: Solliciteur général, 1979, 20 p., voir "Âge minimal" à la p. 6; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, KF9802 C36 L43; note: tabled in the House of Commons on 26 October 1979 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Sollicitor General;

"Minimum Age
Under the proposed new legislation the age of criminal responsibility would be raised from seven to twelve years.  It was universally agreed that under the current Juvenile Delinquents Act the age of seven years was too young for criminal proceedings.  Fourteen years of age was suggested by two provinces, the remaining provinces and the majority of other persons consulted favoured twelve years.  Furthermore statistics indicate that a significant number of youth aged twelve and thirteen are in conflict with the law." (p. 5)

------

"Âge minimal
Aux termes de la nouvelle loi qui est proposée, l'âge de la responsabilité pénale serait porté de sept à douze ans.  De l'avis de tous, l'âge minimal actuel reconnu par la Loi sur les jeunes délinquants est trop bas.  En effet, un enfant de 7 ans est beaucoup trop jeune pour être poursuivi au criminel.  Bien que les représentants de deux provinces aient proposé de fixer l'âge minimal à 14 ans, les représentants des autres provinces et la majorité des personnes consultées voulaient le fixer à 12 ans.  De plus, les statistiques révèlent qu'un nombre important de jeunes de 12 et 13 ans ont des démêlés avec la justice." (p. 6)

DICKENS, Bernard M., "Legal Representation and Due Process in Delinquency Proceedings", (1978) 8 Revue de droit, Université de Sherbrooke 201-232; copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, KEQ 196 .R47  Location, FTX Periodicals;
 

DION, Tina L., Aboriginal Children and Offending Behaviour: A literature review, Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 1999, 21 p., prepared for the Department of Justice, Ottawa, Under 12’s Roundtable and Conference Proceedings, Hull, Quebec, September 27-29, 1999; available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/rp/doc/P101.pdf (accessed 26 August 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français: DION, Tina L., Les enfants autochtones et le comportement délinquant, étude documentaire, étude préparée pour le Ministère de la Justice Canada, 18 p., Compte-rendu de la conférence et de la table ronde sur les enfants de moins de douze ans, du 27 au 29 septembre 1999 à Hull, Québec, disponible à http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/ps/yj/rp/doc/P101.pdf (visionné le 26 août 2002);
 

DOOB, Anthony N., Voula Marinos and Kimberly N. Varma, Youth Crime and the Youth Justice System in Canada: A Research Perspective, Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1995, x, 168 p., see "What kinds of offences are committed by the very young?" at pp. 27-35, ISBN: 0919584802; copy at Ottawa University, MRT General, HV 9108 .D66 1995;

"The issue of the minimum age of criminal responsibility arises from time to time.  No arbitrary minimum age could ever satisfy all criteria for assuming criminal responsibility in all cases." (p. 27)

DURKIN, Maybelle, Executive Director, Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 190, 21 November 1995, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees/jula/evidence/190_95-11-21/jula190_blk101.html (accessed on 21 October 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Durkin, Maybelle, directrice exécutive, Fédération canadienne des associations foyer-école et parents-maîtres), témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 190, 21 novembre 1995 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees/jula/evidence/190_95-11-21/jula190_blk201.html#0.1.JULA190.000001.AA0940.A  (visionné le 21 Octobre 2002);

"We would also like to comment on provincial disparity. Legislation for dealing with young offenders under the age of 12 varies greatly from province to province. There is currently a lack of clear, concise information, both in the Young Offenders Act and provincial legislation, for dealing with young people under the age of 12.

The federal government, in cooperation with provincial, local and municipal governments and school boards, should undertake the development of a resource book that clearly identifies the current provisions of provincial legislation, which ensures that young persons are held responsible for their actions. This information should be targeted at police departments, various social service agencies and school boards.

We would therefore recommend the federal government, in cooperation with the provincial governments, develop a clear and concise resource book on the existing provincial legislative provisions for dealing with young persons under the age of 12 who commit offences. Once the information is available on exactly what current provincial legislation allows with regard to the treatment of young persons under the age 12, recommendations for amendment need to be developed to ensure consistent
treatment and identification of individuals who commit offences."

DU WORS, Richard,  Report on the Involvement of Children under Twelve in Criminal Behaviour: 1991, Ottawa: Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada, 1992, 12 p., uncatalogued report; copy at Statistics Canada, Library/Statistique Canada, Bibliothèque;
 

EARLSCOURT Child and Family Centre at  http://www.earlscourt.on.ca/ (accessed on 29 August 2002);

"Editorial -- Our Views.  Child protection: The new United Nations study on violence against children is astonishing for two reasons: the scale of the abuse itself, and the fact the UN is speaking so firmly about it". The Ottawa Citizen, Monday, 16 October 2006, p. A10;

FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL TASK FORCE ON UNIFORM RULES OF EVIDENCE, Report of the Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence / prepared for the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Toronto: Carswell, 1982, xxxiv, 615 p., and see chapter 18, "Competency of Children", at pp. 241-246 and chapter 19, "Mental Incapacity", at pp. 247-249, ISBN: 0459349309; research note: these references may be useful to researchers who may use the analogy track; also published in French/aussi publié en français;

"At common law, there was no minimum age which excluded children as witnesses.¹  Children under the age of 14 years were presumed prima facie to be incompetent,² above that age children were presumed prima facie to be competent witnesses.³  Children were capable of swearing an oath if they understood the 'nature and consequences of an oath'.⁴  Another aspect of children's capacity to testify was their general intelligence as shown by their abilities to understand and answer questions on a voir dire into their competency." ....
------
1.  Compare R. v. Brasier (1779), 1 Leach C.C. 199, 168 E.R. 202 (which said a child under 7 years could be sworn) with R. v. Travers (1726), 2 Stra. 700, 93 E.R. 793, (which set a minimum age of 9 years).  In Strachan v. McGinn, (1936), 50 B.C.R. 394, [1936] 1 W.W.R. 412 (B.C.S.C.), a child, 5 years and 9 months old was held competent to take the oath.
2.  R. v. Antrobus (1946), 87 C.C.C. 118, (1946), 3 C.R. 357, [1947] 2 D.L.R. 55, [1947] 1 W.W.R. 157 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Nicholson (1950), 98 C.C.C. 291, 10 C.R. 137, [1950] 2 W.W.R. 308 (B.C.S.C.).
3.  R. v. Armstrong (1959) 125 C.C.C. 57 (B.C.C.A.).
4. R. v. Brasier, supra, footnote 1.

Youth Criminal Justice Act
Provincial and Territorial Ministers were unanimous, with the exception of Quebec, in expressing their concern about the cost and time frame of implementation of the Act and urged that certain provisions relating to conferencing and child welfare assessments be deferred.  The federal Minister of Justice indicated that five-year funding arrangements for implementation have been concluded with almost all governments.  While the federal Minister stated these arrangements represent an increase over previous funding levels, Provincial and Territorial Ministers expressed concerns about the level of federal contribution to youth justice funding.

Provincial and Territorial Ministers requested a return to the 50/50 arrangements for cost sharable youth justice programs in place prior to 1989 and for future implementation costs.

The federal Minister of Justice advised his provincial and territorial counterparts that the federal government will continue with a targeted approach, funding specific programs and services that support priorities for youth justice shared by all governments.

In view of the fact that it is contesting the constitutionality of the federal law in court, Quebec indicated it does not wish to be associated with the position of the other provinces and territories on this issue." (available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2002/doc_30710.html, accessed on 12 November 2002; also available in French / aussi disponible en français à  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/nr/2002/doc_30710.html)

FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL STEERING COMMITTEE  OF SENIOR OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE, Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility - Project Steering Committee Discussion Paper, 1990, 64 p.; copy asked for under Access to Informataion Act request of 19 February 2002, Department of Justice file: A-2002-0302/mb;  I was refused access to the document in the following reply:

"We have conducted a search of our records and identified 64 pages relevant to your request.  After consultation with several provinces as well as within the department of Justice, we have determined that all documents are exempt from release by virtue of sections 13(1)(c) [information obtained in confidence from the government of a province] and 14(a) [federal-provincial consultations or deliberations] of the Access to Information Act." (letter dated May 23, 2002)

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL-TERRITORIAL TASK FORCE ON YOUTH JUSTICE, A review of the Young Offenders Act and the Youth Justice System in Canada: Report of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on Youth Justice, August 1996, v, 651 p., see "Minimum Age" at pp. 97-116 (Chairs: Glenn Rivard and Alan Markwart); also published in French / aussi publié en français: Groupe de travail fédéral-provincial-territorial sur la justice applicable aux jeunes (Canada), Examen de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants et du système de justice applicable aux jeunes au Canada: rapport / du Groupe de travail  féderal-provincial-territorial sur la justice applicable aux jeunes, [Ottawa] : Le Groupe de travail, 1996, 637 p.; important contribution; Research note: see also the testimony of the two chairmen, Glenn Rivard and Alan Markwart, before the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 77, 21 November 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at   http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/77_96-11-21/jula77_blk101.html (accessed on 20 October 2002);

"...the Task Force recommends that:
 There should not be a general lowering of the age of criminal responsibility which would allow for the prosecution of children under twelve for all criminal offences.  A substantial majority of representatives also recommend that there should not be amendments which would allow for the prosecution of exceptional cases of serious or persistent offending by children under twelve.  Instead, these cases should be addressed by alternative social interventions which can be strengthened, if required." (Report, p. 113)

FEDERAL STATUTES/BILLS -- LOIS FÉDÉRALES ET PROJETS DE LOI

___________Bill C-192, An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, first reading 16 November 1970; second reading 6 April 1971; dies on the order paper; also published in French /aussi publié en français : Bill C-192, Loi concernant les jeunes délinquants et abrogeant l'ancienne Loi sur les jeunes délinquants, première lecture, le 16 novembre 1970, deuxième lecture le 6 avril 1971; copy at Carleton University;
 

    "78.  [1953-54, c. 51]  Sections 12 and 13 of the Criminal Code are repealed and the following substituted therefor:

    '12. [Child under ten]   No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of ten years.

    13. [Person between ten and fourteen]  No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was ten years of age or more, but under the age of fourteen years, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong.'"

------------

    "78. [1953-54, c. 51]  Les articles 12 et 13 du Code criminel sont abrogés et remplacés par ce qui suit:

    '12.  [Enfant de moins de dix ans]  Nul ne doit être coupable d'une infraction à l'égard d'un acte ou d'une omission de sa part lorsqu'il était âgé de moins de dix ans.

    13. [Personne âgée de dix à quatorze ans] Nul ne doit être déclaré coupable d'une infraction à l'égard d'un acte ou d'une omission de sa part lorsqu'il était âgé de dix ans ou plus, mais de moins de quatorze ans, à moins qu'il ne fût en état de comprendre la nature et les conséquences de sa conduite et de juger qu'il agissait mal.' "
 

___________Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, Reprinted as amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as a working copy for the use of the House of Commons at Report Stage and as reported to the House on October 30, 2003, see clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill dealing with persons under and over 14 years of age and the capacity to testify, available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-20_2.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2004); also published in French /aussi publié en français : Projet de loi C-20, Loi modifiant le Code criminel (protection des enfants et d’autres personnes vulnérables) et la Loi sur la preuve au Canada, Réimprimé tel que modifié par le Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne comme document de travail à l'usage de la Chambre des communes à l'étape du rapport et présenté à la Chambre le 30 octobre 2003, voir les articles 25 et 26 sur la capacité mentale des personnes de moins ou de plus de 14 ans de témoigner, disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-20_2.pdf (visionné le 29 janvier 2004);
 
 

___________Canada Evidence Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, section 16, available at   http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-5/15540.html (accessed on 29 January 2004); also published in French /aussi publié en français: Loi sur la preuve au Canada, L.R. 1985, ch. C-5, article 16, disponible à  http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/C-5/index.html (visionné le 29 janvier 2004);

[Witness whose capacity is in question ]
16. (1) Where a proposed witness is a person under fourteen years of age or a person whose mental capacity is challenged, the court shall, before permitting the person to give evidence, conduct an inquiry to determine

(a) whether the person understands the nature of an oath or a solemn affirmation; and
(b) whether the person is able to communicate the evidence.

[Testimony under oath or solemn affirmation]
(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) who understands the nature of an oath or a solemn affirmation and is able to communicate the evidence shall testify under oath or solemn affirmation.

[Testimony on promise to tell truth]
(3) A person referred to in subsection (1) who does not understand the nature of an oath or a solemn affirmation but is able to communicate the evidence may, notwithstanding any provision of any Act requiring an oath or a solemn affirmation, testify on promising to tell the truth.

[Inability to testify]
(4) A person referred to in subsection (1) who neither understands the nature of an oath or a solemn affirmation nor is able to communicate the evidence shall  not testify.

[Burden as to capacityof witness]
(5) A party who challenges the mental capacity of a proposed witness of fourteen years of age or more has the burden of satisfying the court that there is an issue as to the capacity of the proposed witness to testify under an oath or a solemn affirmation.

---------------------

[Témoin dont la capacité est mise en question]
16. (1) Avant de permettre le témoignage d'une personne âgée de moins de quatorze ans ou dont la capacité mentale est mise en question, le tribunal procède à une enquête visant à déterminer si :

a) d'une part, celle-ci comprend la nature du serment ou de l'affirmation solennelle;
b) d'autre part, celle-ci est capable de communiquer les faits dans son témoignage.

[Témoignage sous serment]
(2) La personne visée au paragraphe (1) qui comprend la nature du serment ou de l'affirmation solennelle et qui est capable de communiquer les faits dans son témoignage témoigne sous serment ou sous affirmation solennelle.

[Témoignage sur promesse de dire la vérité]
(3) La personne visée au paragraphe (1) qui, sans comprendre la nature du serment ou de l'affirmation solennelle, est capable de communiquer les faits dans son témoignage peut, malgré qu'une disposition d'une loi exige le serment ou l'affirmation, témoigner en promettant de dire la vérité.

[Inaptitude à témoigner]
(4) La personne visée au paragraphe (1) qui ne comprend pas la nature du serment ou de l'affirmation solennelle et qui n'est pas capable de communiquer les faits dans son témoignage ne peut témoigner.

[Charge de la preuve]
(5) La partie qui met en question la capacité mentale d'un éventuel témoin âgé d'au moins quatorze ans doit convaincre le tribunal qu'il existe des motifs de douter de la capacité de ce témoin de comprendre la nature du serment ou de l'affirmation solennelle.

___________okCriminal Code, sections 12 and 13 as it read before April 2, 1984; also published in French /aussi publié en français : articles 12 et 13 du Code criminel, tels qu'il se lisaient avant le 2 avril 1984:
 

"12. [Child under seven]   No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.

13. [Person between seven and fourteen]  No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of fourteen years, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong."

------------

"12.  [Enfant de moins de sept ans]  Nul ne doit être coupable d'une infraction à l'égard d'un acte ou d'une omission de sa part lorsqu'il était âgé de moins de sept ans.

13. [Personne âgée de sept à quatorze ans] Nul ne doit être déclaré coupable d'une infraction à l'égard d'un acte ou d'une omission de sa part lorsqu'il était âgé de sept ans ou plus, mais de moins de quatorze ans, à moins qu'il ne fût en état de comprendre la nature et les conséquences de sa conduite et de juger qu'il agissait mal."
 

"13. [Child under twelve]  No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while that person was under the age of twelve years."

-------

"13.  [Enfants de moins de douze ans]  Nul ne peut être déclaré coupable d'une infraction à l'égard d'un acte ou d'une omission de sa part lorsqu'il était âgé de moins de douze ans."
 

Young Offenders Act, R.S. 1985, c. Y-1 /  Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, L.R. 1985, ch. Y-1  (first enacted by: Bill C-61);
 

___________Youth Offenders Act, Statutes of Canada, 2002, chapter 1 (in force April 1, 2003)
   - http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/prog-e.htm
  -  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_27747.html
  -  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_26923.html
  -  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_25946.html
  -  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_25948.html
  -  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_25950.html
  -  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2002/doc_29883.html
 

FINLAYSON, Rob. A., Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Prosecutions Division, Ministry of the Attorney General, Manitoba, testimony before House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, Wednesday, April 25, 2001; see  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Minutes/JUSTmn7%285634%29-E.htm and  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev07-e.htm  (accessed on 18 October 2002);  also available in French/aussi disponible en français: FINLAYSON, Rob. A., sous-procureur général adjoint, Division des poursuites judiciaires, Manitoba, témoignage devant le Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne, Procès-verbaux du Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne,  concernant  le projet de loi C-7, Loi concernant le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents et modifiant et abrogeant certaines lois en conséquence, mercredi le 25 avril 2001; voir http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Minutes/JUSTmn7%285634%29-F.htm et  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev07-f.htm (visionnés le 18 octobre 2002);

"I would say a brief word about offenders under the age of twelve. Manitoba appeared before the committee considering the last YCJA and submitted that there should be a principle allowing the prosecution of offenders under twelve in exceptional circumstances. We submit that again for your consideration. The youth justice court, on application, should be able to make a determination as to whether a charge is permitted to proceed for those individuals under the age of twelve where the
offence is particularly egregious. A test of whether a charge can proceed would involve a consideration of the following factors: the nature of the offence or offences; the circumstances of the offender, including the history and maturity of the offender; and whether it is in the long-term interests of the offender to have the matter dealt with in the courts."

FORTIN, Jacques et Louise Viau, Traité de droit pénal général, Montréal: Éditions Thémis, 1982, xi, 457 p., voir "La minorité pénale en tant qu'incapacité" aux pp. 169-173 (paragraphes 146-148);
 

FREY, Beverly, President, Citizens against Violence, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 52, October 11, 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at   http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/52_96-10-11/jula52_blk101.html (accessed on 17 December 2002); also available in French / aussi disponible en français: Frey, Berverley, présidente, "Citizens against violence", témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 7, 18 avril 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/52_96-10-11/jula52_blk201.html (visionné le 17 décembre 2002);

"Seven, provisions ought to be placed in the Young Offenders Act for children under 12 who commit such serious offences as arson, stealing, rape or sexual assault. It is obvious a child under 12 who has done these terrible crimes needs immediate psychological help.

We believe:

i) for youths under 12 the first step or misdeed should be a warning to the parents in front of them;

ii) the second offence should be a fine for the parents, with perhaps a need for an ombudsman for parents who have been unable to find help to take care of immediate needs;

iii) these penalties should be advertised in the media a full year before the law is put in place;

iv) for violent theft involving attacking a person, first offence, a warning to parents - second offence, immediately to reform school;

v) no bail or leave should be granted unless a qualified professional recommends it; and

vi) lower the age to ten when an indictable offence can be laid.

I phoned the University of Manitoba's Dr. Schludermann, a doctor of psychology. I asked him at what age children can be held accountable for what they have done.  He suggested age ten.

Finally, we also believe that when a young offender is sentenced to two years at the Manitoba Youth Centre he should be doing his time for two years in the Manitoba Youth Centre. "

GARRETT, Hugh D., "Criminal Responsibility of Infants", (1966) 5 Western Law Review 97-108; copy at Ottawa University, KEO 180 .W38  Location: FTX Periodicals;
 

GERVAIS, Mario, Lawyer, Longueuil Area, Commission des services juridiques, testimony before the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights respecting Bill C-3, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, 17 February 2000, available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev17-e.htm; also published in French / aussi publié en français: GERVAIS, Mario, avocat, région de Longueuil, Commission des services juridiques, témoignage devant, Chambre des communes, Comité permanent permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne, Témoignages devant le Comité permanent permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne concernant le projet de loi C-3, Loi concernant le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents, et modifiant et abrogeant certaines lois en conséquence, 17 février 2000, disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev17-f.htm;

" In Canada, the age of responsibility is set at 12 years. Canadian society is based on the principle that the level of teenagers' development is high enough so that their understanding of good and evil can allow them to distinguish between behaviour that constitutes an offence and behaviour that doesn't.  Although the Criminal Code is a very bulky book that has all kinds of offences listed in it, the adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” also applies to young persons.

Now let's take the case of the police officer dealing with clause 145 where you have clear rules saying he must address himself to a young person in terms appropriate to that young person's level of understanding: advise him he has the right to consult his father, his mother, some appropriate adult or a lawyer; advise him he has the right to be in the presence of the person being consulted during his interrogation.

Those are clear rules. Why would the 12-year-old be told that ignorance of the law is no excuse, whereas the police officer not having respected a very clearly expressed formality set out in clause 145 could plead good faith before the court? Good faith is not the secure possession of ignorance. How can the police officer's omission be tolerated while the 12-year-old will never be able to say that he didn't know or that he was in ignorance of the law?

As jurists, we know that, in the field, there are cases where criminal responsibility is hard to establish. There's a very thin line indeed drawn between simply being present when an offence is being committed and being an accomplice to it. Let's not forget that a 12-year-old will never be able to claim ignorance of the law."

GOETZ, David, "Bill C-7: The Youth Criminal Justice Act", Ottawa: Law and Government Division, Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of parliament, 12 February 2001, revised 14 December 2001, available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c7&source=library_prb&Parl=37&Ses=1 (accessed on 28 August 2002); also published in French version/aussi publié en français: "Projet de loi C-7: Loi sur le système de justice pénale", Ottawa: Division du droit et du gouvernement, Direction de la recherche parlementaire, Bibliothèque du Parlement, 12 février 2001, révisé le 14 décembre 2001, disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_ls.asp?lang=F&ls=c7&source=library_prb&Parl=37&Ses=1 (visionné le 28 août 2002);
 

GOLD, Alan D., "Criminal Law and Incapacity -- There is us and there is them: Those that the Law Views as Different, Not Fully Autonomous, Less than Fully Responsible Adults" in Douglas E. Finkbeiner, Douglas D. Yard, Law Society of Manitoba, Manitoba Bar Association, University of Manitoba. Faculty of Law, Competence & capacity : new directions / co-chairs, Douglas D. Yard, Douglas E. Finkbeiner, [Winnipeg : Law Society of Manitoba, 2000], xvi, 139 p. at pp. 121-130 (series; Isaac Pitblado lectures; 2000), itle:  Isaac Pitblado lectures 2000; notes: "Sponsored by: The Law Society of Manitoba, The Manitoba Bar Association and the University of Manitoba, Faculty of Law", ISBN:  1552139220; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF 209 I84 2000;
 

GOLDBERG, Kenneth, Leena K. Augimeri, Christopher J. Koegl and Christopher D. Webster, Canadian children under 12 committing offences : legal and treatment approaches, [Ottawa] : Department of Justice Canada, 1999, ii, 91 p., bibliographical references at pp. 80-91, available at http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/rp/doc/Paper102.PDF (accessed on 28 August 2002); also published in French version/aussi publié en français: Les enfants canadiens âgés de moins de 12 ans qui commettent des infractions : approches en matière de législation et de traitement, [Ottawa]: Ministère de la Justice Canada, 1999,  disponible à  http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/ps/yj/rp/index.html#102 (visionné le 28 août 2002);
 

GOVE, Hon. Justice Thomas, Provincial Court of British Columbia,  testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 80, 22 November 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/80_96-11-22/jula80_blk101.html (accessed on 20 October 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Gove, L'hon. juge Thomas, Cour provinciale de la Colombie- Britannique, témoignage devant Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 80, 22 novembre 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/80_96-11-22/jula80_blk201.html (visionné le 20 Octobre 2002);

"As a final anecdotal comment, the issue of age has been raised a number of times, as to whether it should be lower than 12. If you're going to enter into that discussion in any detail, perhaps the age of 12 should be questioned. I can remember back in the 1970s when I was at a forum similar to this - in those days it was run by the Solicitor General - and the big debate was whether it should be 14. I'm wondering why, 20 years later, we're talking about making it even younger than 12.  Thank you."

HANSEN, Inger, evidence as witness, in House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Respecting Bill C-192, An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal; the Juvenile Delinquents Act, Ottawa (Chairman: Donald Tolmie), issue number 44, of 9 December 1971; also published in French/aussi publié en français: Hansen, Inger, témoignage dans Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la Justice et des questions juridiques, Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Comité permanent de la justice et des questions juridiques Concernant: Bill C-192, Loi concernant les jeunes délinquants et abrogeant l'ancienne Loi sur les jeunes délinquants, Ottawa (Président: Donald Tolmie), fascicule nuéro 44, 9 décembre 1971; research note/note de recherche: see DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, An act respecting children and young persons: first discussion draft, supra, for the document mentioned in her testimony and mailed to 108 individuals;
 

“Miss Inger Hansen (Legal Officer, Department of the Solicitor General)

…As you know, the Juvenile Delinquency Act has been in substantially the same form since 1929.  In November, 1961, the Justice Department appointed a committee to examine the question of juvenile delinquency in Canada and to make recommendations to the federal government.

    That committee received briefs from agencies involved in correctional services: from churches, judges, police departments et cetera; it also went across Canada, visiting juvenile courts and detention centres, and it studied foreign law on the subject.  In 1966, its report was tabled in the House of Commons and the Solicitor General was made responsible for the consideration and implementation of the report.

   The committee made 100 recommendations of which approximately two-thirds were more or less within the jurisdiction of the federal government.  The recommendations required a complete revision of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and they were to the effect that proceedings in juvenile court were to move away from the social agency concept in so far as the fact-finding process was concerned; but it was also recommended that the treatment aspect be maintained as soon as the fact was found, so that the treatment aspect and social approach would only be taken in terms of treatment.

   The committee recommended that the substantive offence of being in a condition of delinquency be abolished and that the act should not be concerned with children whose conduct was merely antisocial but noncriminal.  The recommendations were to the effect that the rules of procedure should be clarified.  Informality, while desirable in dealing with children, should not be at the expense of their procedural rights.

  It was also recommended that some practices already in effect should be expressly sanctioned by legislation.  I could learn, by way of example, that the judges rather than adjourning a cause sine die, should have the power to dismiss a case outright if it were considered that a court appearance was all that would be necessary: this is even if an offence has been found.

   On the basis of the recommendations, a discussion draft was prepared in the Department of the Solicitor General.  This discussion draft, which has been referred to in this Committee, was exactly that: a discussion draft.  It was not legislative drafting but a document of ideas and explanatory notes, even alternative suggestions.

   In order that the department might obtain the assistance of those involved in working with children, copies of the discussion draft were mailed to 108 individuals, associations and to the provincial governments, with a covering letter which stated that it was designed simply to bring together for the purpose of discussion the various recommendations of the Department of Justice on juvenile delinquency, supplemented by other ideas gathered from other sources.  The recipients were invited to make comments on the discussion draft, and a total of 37 briefs were received and studied in the department.

    The discussion draft was also a working paper for a federal-provincial conference of the highest official level.  This was held in Ottawa in January 1969.  During that conference the discussion draft was carefully studied by the delegates and their opinions were reported and later analysed.  The provinces were not in agreement on all subjects, but where they were, either completely or by a majority, those ideas were incorporated into the bill that is now before you.  One example of unanimous agreement was that provincial offences should be removed from the federal sphere.” (pp. 44: 5 to 44: 6);

HARNICK, Hon. Charles, Attorney General of Ontario, see Ontario, Harnick, infra;
 

HELGASSON, Wayne, Director, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, testimony, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, respecting the Comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), in particular, issues relating to youth crime, the youth justice system and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act, meeting number 53, October 11, 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/53_96-10-11/jula53_blk101.html (accessed on 17 December 2002); also available in French / aussi disponible en français: Helgasson, Wayne, directeur, «Social Planning Council of Winnipeg», Témoignages, Comité permanent de la justice et questions juridiques, concernant Révision globale de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants (Étape II), notamment les questions touchant la criminalité chez les jeunes, le système judiciaire pour la jeunesse et l'effet et la mise en application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, séance numéro 53, 11 octobre 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/53_96-10-11/jula53_blk201.html (visionné le 17 décembre 2002);

"Mr. Helgasson: ...

I was a child welfare worker when this legislation was introduced and the JDA was replaced and there was no longer any contributing. It has caused issues and difficulties. It's very well known that at an earlier age you can be.... You see it in action where there is no status in the system for a 10- or 11-year-old who is engaged in serious illegal activity. There is a system interplay where as a result of that there seems to be an insistence that child welfare should pick it up, at least in this province. Child welfare has simply not ever seen itself as being overly concerned with addressing that kind of activity.

Is the child in need of protection? Well, perhaps not. Perhaps others are, but that hasn't been something that the child welfare system in this province has been willing to address.

I would not agree with incarceration, but if under the justice system there can be some creative solutions recommended and implemented for people younger than 12 who are obviously engaged in criminally oriented behaviour, if it can be addressed at that age, I would be on that side. I would suggest that the justice system in its hopefully renewed and creative capacity could attend to some of those young people, again using the community resources, of which there are some."

___________Bill C-256, An Act to amend the Young Offenders Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence, First reading, February 9, 2001, available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-256/C-256_1/C-256_cover-E.html (accessed on 30 October 2002), Bill introduced by member of the House, Mr. MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, Nova Scotia); also available in French /aussi disponible en français:  Chambre des communes, Projet de loi C-256, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants et d'autres lois en conséquence, Première lecture le 9 février 2001, disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-256/C-256_1/C-256_cover-F.html (visionné le 30 octobre 2002); projet de loi présenté par M. MacKay, député ((Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, Nova Scotia);
 

___________Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Respecting Bill C-192, An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal; the Juvenile Delinquents Act, Ottawa (Chairman: Donald Tolmie); also published in French/aussi publié en français: CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES, Comité permanent de la Justice et des questions juridiques, Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Comité permanent de la justice et des questions juridiques Concernant: Bill C-192, Loi concernant les jeunes délinquants et abrogeant l'ancienne Loi sur les jeunes délinquants, Ottawa (Président: Donald Tolmie); Issues/Fascicules: number/numéro 19, May 4, 1971; 24, June 1, 1971; 25, June 3, 1971; 26, June 15, 1971; 28, June 17, 1971; 30, September 14, 1971; 31, September 16, 1971; 32, September 21 1971; 33, September 23, 1971; 34, September 30, 1971; 35, October 7, 1971; 36, October 14, 1971; 37, October 28, 1971; 39, November 18, 1971; 41, November 25, 1971; 44, December 9, 1971;
 

___________Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs respecting: Bill C-61, An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act (Chairman: Jean-Guy Dublois); also available in French /aussi disponible en français:  Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la Justice et des questions juridiques, Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Comité permanent de la Justice et des questions juridiques concernant: Bill C-61, Loi sur les jeunes delinquents, portant abrogation de la Loi sur les jeunes delinquents;  Issues/fascicules: number 61, 9 Feb. 1982; 62, 16 Feb; 63, 23 Feb; 64, 24 Feb; 65, 25 Feb 1982; 66, 2 March 1982; 67, 23 March 1982; 68, 24 March; 69, 25 March; 70, 30 March; 71, 31 March; 72, 1 April 1982; 73, 6 April; 74, 7 April; 75, 8 April; and 76, 20 April 1982;
 

___________Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Renewing Youth Justice -- Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Ottawa, April 1997 (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen, M.P.), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/reports/13_1997-04/jula-13-cov-e.html (accessed on 27 August 2002) and see in particular  Chapter 7 - Amending the Young Offenders Act, section Minimum Age; also published in French / aussi publié en français: CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES, Comité permanent de la justice et des questions juridiques, Le renouvellement du système de justice pour les jeunes -- Treizième rapport du Comité permanent de la justice et des questions juridiques, Ottawa, avril 1997 (Présidente: Shaughnessy, députée), disponible à   http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/reports/13_1997-04/jula-13-cov-f.html (visionné le 27 août 2002) et voir en particulier le Chapitre 7 -- Modifier la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, la section sur L'âge minimum;

"RECOMMENDATION 9

The Committee recommends that Section 13 of the Criminal Code (which establishes 12 as the minimum age of criminal liability) and the Young Offenders Act be amended so as to provide the Youth Court with jurisdiction to deal with 10 and 11 year old young persons alleged to have committed criminal offences causing death or serious harm. Such an amendment should require the Attorney General, after consultation with the appropriate child protection/child welfare, mental health, education and other authorities, to personally consent to prosecuting such young persons before Youth Court. Any such amendment should further require the Youth Court judge to review the seriousness and circumstances of the alleged offence, the character and background of the young person, and the availability of appropriate child protection/child welfare, mental health, education, or other services or programs before deciding if the young person should be dealt with in the Youth Justice System. Under this amendment, if the Youth Court judge decides to refer the young person to services and programs outside of the Youth Justice System, the criminal charges would be held in abeyance while the young person is being dealt with by these other services and programs. If, under this amendment, these services and programs deal effectively with the young person's offending behaviour, the criminal charges held in abeyance could be dismissed by the Youth Court judge.

The Committee further recommends that the amendment providing the Youth Court with jurisdiction to deal with 10 and 11 year old young persons alleged to have committed criminal offences causing death or serious harm be evaluated by the Department of Justice within three years and that the findings and recommendations of the review be reported back to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs." (Chapter 7)

--------------------

"RECOMMANDATION 9

Le Comité recommande de modifier l'article 13 du code criminel (qui établit à 12 ans l'âge minimum de la responsabilité criminelle) ainsi que la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants de façon à donner au tribunal pour adolescents juridiction à l'égard des jeunes de 10 et 11 ans accusés d'infractions criminelles causant la mort ou un tort considérable. Une telle modification exigerait que le procureur général, après avoir consulté les services compétents en matière de protection de la jeunesse/aide à l'enfance, de santé mentale, d'éducation et autres, consente personnellement à la poursuite de ces jeunes devant le tribunal pour adolescents. Elle nécessiterait également que le juge du tribunal pour adolescents, avant de décider si l'enfant doit être pris en charge par le système de justice pour les jeunes, examine la gravité du cas et les circonstances de l'infraction présumée, le caractère et les antécédents du jeune ainsi que l'accès aux services ou programmes appropriés de protection de la jeunesse/aide à l'enfance, de santé mentale, d'éducation et autres. Si le juge décide de renvoyer l'enfant à des services et programmes extérieurs au système de justice pour les jeunes, les accusations criminelles resteraient en suspens la durée du traitement à ce niveau. Si les services et programmes réussissent à modifier la conduite répréhensible de l'enfant, les infractions criminelles en suspens pourraient être rejetées par le juge du tribunal pour adolescents.

Le Comité recommande également que la modification qui donne juridiction au tribunal pour adolescents à l'égard des jeunes de 10 et 11 ans accusés d'infractions criminelles causant la mort ou un tort considérable soit évaluée par le ministère de la Justice d'ici trois ans et que les résultats et recommandations de cette évaluation fassent l'objet d'un rapport présenté au Comité permanent de la justice et des questions juridiques." (Chapitre 7)
 

___________Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General House of Commons,  First Principles: Recodifying the General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada: Report of the Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Sollicitor General, in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, [Ottawa]: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1992-93,  issue number 11, of 10 December 1992 and  2, 4, and 16 February 1993 contains the report; in the report, see "Immaturity" at p. 63 (Chairperson: Blaine Thacker, M.P., Q.C.); also published in French/aussi publié en français: Chambre des Communes, Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général, Principes de base: recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Canada.  Rapport du Sous-comité sur la recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Canada du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général in Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Sous-comité sur la Recodification de la Partie générale du Code criminel du Comité permanent de la justice et du Solliciteur général,  [Ottawa]: I'Imprimeur de la Reine pour le Canada, 1992-1993, voir le fasicule numéro  11 du 10 décembre 1992 et 2,4,16 février 1993 contenant le rapport; dans le rapport, voir "La minorité" à la p. 67 (Président: Blaine Thacker, député, c.r.);

"Immaturity
     The Law Reform Commission recommended in Report 31 that no one should be liable for conduct committed when under age 12.  This recommendation is in keeping with the current Criminal Code as amended by the Young Offenders Act.

    The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated in their brief to the Sub-Committee that it was in favour of lowering the age of criminal liability or, in the alternative, providing a qualified defence of immaturity that would give a court a discretion to determine whether the accused had sufficient maturity to possess criminal intent.

    The Sub-Committee is aware of the controversy that has surrounded the threshold age for criminal liability in Canada over recent years.  The position of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is well known.  However, the Sub-Committee is relunctant to deal with this issue in the context of the recodification of the General part of the Criminal Code.  Any amendment to s. 13 of the Code should come about, if at all, as a result of a review of the proper ambit of the Young Offenders Act.  For present purposes, the Sub-Committee would prefer to preserve the rule in s. 13 of the Code that no one should be criminally liable for conduct carried out when under the age of twelve years." (p. 63)

HNATSHYN, Ray (Raymond), Member of Parliament, House of Commons, testimony, Hansard--House of Commons Debates, 15 April 1981, debates at 2nd reading; also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Hnatshyn, Ray (Raymond), Débats de la Chambre des communes, 15 avril 1981, débats, 2e lecture du projet de loi C-61;

"Mr. Hnatyshyn: ...As the minister has pointed out, the legislation which this bill [Bill C-61] is replacing, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, was adopted in 1908.  It was passed as a result of a concerted campaign by several child care workers and magistrates who were inspired by the youth court movement in the United States and the social reform ideas in vogue at that time.

    In 1929, the act was consolidated with amendments which revised it somewhat.  That was as a result of a federal-provincial conference on the revision of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.  Despite minor amendments made by Parliament in 1932, 1935, 1936, 1947, 1949, 1951, 1972 and 1979, the act is to all intents and purposes the same legislation as that which existed in 1929.

    I want to draw to the attention of the House some of the main features of the legislation.  The philosophy of the present Juvenile Delinquents Act is a parents patriae social welfare type of approach wherein juveniles are seen as not being responsible for their actions.  Juvenile courts are given complete jurisdiction over a child who has committed a delinquency, which might consist of a violation of the Criminal Code, a federal-provincial statute, a bylaw or an ordinance of a municipality, performance of immoral acts of some description or definition.

    Under the present legislation, no formal diversion procedure exists whereby a young person is sent to a social agency rather than being processed by the court.  Under the present legislation, if a young person has committed a delinquency, a judge can impose sanctions alone or in combination with such things as a fine of up to $25, placement or probation or placement in a foster home.  There is provision for committal to the care of the Children's Aid Society or committal to a training school as well as the possibility of imposition of other conditions, such as restitution or the performance of a community service.

    It may be important for us to understand what has led up to this particular legislation.  There has been a considerable amount of consultation and study.  A number of publications and reports have been prepared and issued on the problem of juvenile delinquents.  In 1961, the then minister of justice established a five-man departmental committee on juvenile delinquents.  In 1966, the standing committee in this House reported on the juvenile delinquency and the report was tabled in the House.  In 1968, a federal-provincial conference of justice ministers was held.  They discussed the justice committee report and the reform of the juvenile justice system.  In 1970, legislation was introduced through Bill C-192 in that year; it was called the young offenders act.  It received first reading but was allowed to die because of some severe criticism levelled at the legislation during the course of the year.

    In 1973, a federal-provincial conference of corrections ministers was held.  They established a federal-provincial review group on the juvenile justice system.  Also in that year, the solicitor general at the time set up an interdepartmental committee on young persons in conflict with the law.  In 1975, that committee submitted its report.  Between 1975 and 1977, the solicitor general's department initiated a consultative process on the 1975 committee report.  In 1977, the solicitor general tabled a document called 'Highlights of the Proposed New Legislation for Young Offenders'.  In June 1977, a federal-provincial conference of attorneys general and ministers of corrections discussed the highlights of the proposals.  In 1979, the parliamentary secretary to the then solicitor general tabled the document entitled 'Legislative Proposals to Replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act'.

    The present state of affairs in Canada is simply this.  The juvenile justice problem is a significant one.  In 1978, there were close to 91,000 delinquencies processed under the existing act.  It is widely recognized that the law as it presently stands is outmoded and ineffective.  It is badly in need of modernization.  The preceding administration of the Progressive Conservative government had undertaken to make significant changes in the law, as evidenced in the document tabled in the fall of 1979 to which I have referred." (pp. 9311-9312)
 

"However, there are several recommendations which are in direct contrast to the overall flavour of the report. These exceptions appear to be instances in which the Standing Committee fell prey to public pressures based on the very misconceptions the Committee observes in its report. The most glaring example is the Standing Committee's recommendation that the youth court be granted jurisdiction to deal with 10- and 11-year-old children alleged to have committed offences causing death or serious harm. The Standing Committee made this recommendation in concert with a lack of support for a general lowering of the minimum age of the Young Offenders Act, suggesting that a concession to public pressure was made for political reasons. The John Howard Society of Alberta believes that the nature of an offence committed by a child under 12 years of age is not an indication of the child's sophistication. Rather, it is an indication of the child's need for assistance. Therefore, we believe the most appropriate response to criminal cases involving children under the age of 12 is to handle them through child welfare and children's mental health services."

___________"Response to the Young Offenders Act Provincial Review", 1994, available at  http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C13.htm#2 (accessed on 8 September 2002);

"Minimum Age

The minimum age of criminal responsibility has been discussed many times. In the last years of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, several authors suggested that an age lower than 12 or 14 would be  unacceptable (John Howard Society of Ontario, 1994). The 1975 government document, Young Persons in Conflict with the Law, recommended that the minimum age jurisdiction of youth court be raised from 7 to 14. In 1981, Solicitor General Robert Kaplan argued that children under the age of 12 could be better dealt with under welfare and neglect legislation than under criminal law (John Howard Society of Ontario, 1994).

Most children under the age of 12 lack the necessary knowledge and experience to fully understand the consequences of their actions. Further, children under 12 do not have the cognitive ability to fully participate in proceedings against them. This is a basic requirement of a humane criminal justice system. Early developmental psychologist Jean Piaget found that at roughly 12  years of age a person's thinking and reasoning patterns move from concrete to more abstract or formal (Peterson, 1988). This type of reasoning is crucial to grasping the workings of the law, making this age appropriate for the assumption of some criminal responsibility. Peterson (1988) found that younger children (10 or 11 years old) had a less realistic understanding of the intricacies of the criminal  justice system than children who were slightly older (13 or 14 years old). Several other studies have come to similar conclusions (Peterson-Badali & Abramovitch, 1992; Abramovitch, Higgins-Biss, & Biss, 1993; Abramovitch, Peterson-Badali, & Rohan, in press). Generally speaking, lowering the age of criminal responsibility would ignore the significance of development which occurs during the pre-adolescent stages.

Lowering the minimum age of the Young Offenders Act would be purposeless. We need to ask ourselves what could possibly be gained by dealing with children under the age of 12 in the criminal justice system. Treating children like criminals will not address the problems which are causing their misbehaviour. It will, however, stigmatize these children and may lead to further criminal actions and a lack of respect for the law. The most appropriate response to criminal cases involving children under the age of 12 is to handle them through child welfare and children's mental health services.

Recommendation 6:  The criminal behaviour of children under 12 years of age should continue to be dealt with by child welfare and children's mental health services. These services should be examined to ensure that children are receiving the level of services they require.
 

There is no evidence that crime committed by children under the age of 12 is a serious problem.  Indeed, a study of offences committed by children under 12 from 1988-92 found that children under 12 commit 2% of offences in Canada (Clark & O'Reilly-Fleming, 1994). Of the offences committed by children under 12, 42% are mischief offences (Clark & O'Reilly-Fleming, 1994).   The reality of criminal activity amongst young children is not considered in emotionally charged
discussions of the age parameters of the Young Offenders Act. Rather, most discussions about lowering the age of criminal responsibility stem from anecdotal references and political speculation. Respect for the law can be best instilled in children, not by reducing the minimum age of criminal responsibility, but by living in healthy communities that provide guidance through the tough decisions that face young people growing up. For example, elementary school programs which address issues such as shoplifting and vandalism, would help children make responsible choices (Clark & O'Reilly-Fleming, 1994).

Recommendation 7: The minimum age jurisdiction of the Young Offenders Act should not be lowered, even in specific cases."

[Home -- Accueil]
[Main Page -- Criminal Law / Page principale -- droit pénal]