updated and corrections / mise à jour et corrections: 14 August 2007
 

- 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
 

I- CANADIAN LAW : K-Z (authors)

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

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

KAPLAN, Robert, Solicitor General of Canada, testimony before the Senate, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs...on: Bill C-61, "An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act", issue number 17, of 3 June 1982; also available in French/aussi disponible en français, KAPLAN, Robert, Solliciteur général du Canada, témoignage, Sénat du Canada, Comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, Délibérations du comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles [...] concernant: Le projet de loi C-61, "Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, portant abrogation de la loi sur les jeunes délinquants", fascicule numéro du 3 juin 1982;

"Kaplan: ...Young people between the age of seven and 12 who come into conflict with the law are dealt with in a variety of ways in different provinces--under welfare acts, being made wards of the court, through children's aid societies putting them into foster homes, and so on, where they will have more direction than they may be getting in the home they are living in at the time of their offence.  I therefore expect that there will be a variety of treatment of young people under 12 years old even after this law comes into effect." (p. 17 : 25)

KEANE, Carl, Paul Maxim and Martha Dow, "Regional Variation in Sentencing of Young Offenders in Canada" in Kevin R.E. McCormick and Livy Visano, eds., Canadian Penology: Advanced Perspectives and Research, Toronto:  Canadian Scholars' Press Inc., 1992, xii, 460 p., at pp. 95-120, ISBN:  0921627939;

"Age
Table 5 shows that Quebec has a dramatically lower rate of persons charged than any of the other regions throughout all of the age categories; however, the most prominent differences occur for those persons aged 12, 13 and 14.  Quebec's notably lower rate, especially at the younger ages might be attributed to numerous factors including a policing and legal philosophy supportive of diversionary mechanisms."  (p. 107)

KILGOUR, David, 1941-, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, testimony, Progressive Conservative party, constituency of Edmonton--Strathcona, Alberta, Hansard--House of Commons Debates, 12 May 1981, debates of 2nd reading, Bill C-61; also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Kilgour, David, 1941-, Membre du Parlement, Chambre des communes, parti Progressiste-conservateur, circonscription de Edmonton -- Strathcona, Alberta, Débats de la Chambre des communes, 12 mai 1981, débats, 2e lecture du projet de loi C-61;

"Kilgour: ...The minimum age for the youth offenders act criminal liability is to be 12 years rather than seven in the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, as I think other speakers have mentioned.  Obviously the provinces are expected to enact their own legislation to deal with barred conduct by children between the ages of seven and 12, and to pay all related costs.  I was told just a few minutes ago, and I am afraid I must agree, that today there are in fact some children between the ages of seven to 12 who do commit serious crimes.  Can all the provinces with their different financial situations be expected to absorb these related costs?  Will there be a judicial checkerboard, to use that now familiar phrase, caused by this federal initiative?" (p. 9502)

"Children under 12 years who have committed acts that would, but for their age, bring them within the jurisdiction of the criminal law, would be subject to the health and/or child protection laws of the province.  These laws vary, and recommendations have been made for them to be made uniform, that provincial capacity to act where a child is clearly a risk to the safety of others be made very clear, and that concerted steps be made to educate the public and professionals of such measures in order that their confidence be earned in terms of state preparedness." (p. 197, note 12)

KOS-RABCEWICZ-ZUBKOWSKI, L., "La législation sur la délinquance juvénile au Canada aux 19e et 20e siècles", dans L'Enfant, Bruxelles : Éditions de la Librairie encyclopédique, 1977, 435 p., aux pp. 235-261 (Collection; Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l'histoire comparative des institutions; volume 38); note de recherche: les volumes 35 à 39 ont tous le titre L'Enfant; le volume 38 a pour titre complet: L'Enfant, Quatrième partie: La délinquance juvénile; copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, MRT général, CB 3 .S6 v. 38 1977;
 

LACHANCE, André, 1937-, Crimes et criminels en Nouvelle-France, Montréal : Boréal express, 1984, 184 p., voir sur la "délinquance juvénile", aux  pp. 99-104, ISBN: 2890520986; copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, MRT General, HV 6803 .L32 1984;
 

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA, The General Part - Liability and Defences, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canda, 1982, [xi], 204 p., see "Immaturity" at pp.37-41 (series; Working Paper; number 29), ISBN: 0662514297; copy of the English version of this working paper is available in pdf format at my Digital Library -- Canadian Criminal Law; also published in French version/aussi publié en fraçais: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada,  Partie générale - responsabilité et moyens de défense, Ottawa: Ministère des Approvisionnements et Services Canada, 1982, [xii], 239 p., voir la "Minorité" aux pp. 39-44;  (collection; Document de travail; numéro 29),  ISBN: 0662514297;

"Immaturity

    Very young children who have not yet learned the difference between right and wrong cannot be fairly blamed for what they do because they lack the necessary maturity to appreciate the requirements of morality and law.  Accordingly some special rule is needed to exempt from criminal liability those below the age of maturity.

    Exactly when they will attain that age varies from child to child.  To avoid a separate investigation in each case, however,we require some general rule.  Such a rule was at hand in the traditional teaching that the age of reason, as it was called, was attained at seven.  This became the age adopted by the common law, which held accordingly that children under seven could incur no criminal laibility.

    This however, did not completely solve the problem.  On the one hand some children under seven know full well the difference between right and wrong.  On the other, some children over seven do not.  In addition, some children may know the difference between right and wrong but be less able to resist temptation than can adults.

The Common Law

    For this the common-law solution was as follows.  In the interest of simplicity and efficiency, it exempted all children alike who were under seven, but in the interest of fairness, it also exempted children between seven and fourteen unless there was evidence that they knew that what they were doing was seriously wrong.

Our Present Law

    Based on common law, our present law rules on this topic are contained in Cr.C. ss. 12 and 13.  Section 12 exempts a child under seven from criminal liability absolutely.  Section 13 exempts a child between seven and fourteen conditionally: he is exempt unless he was 'comptetent to know the nature and consequences of his onduct and to appreciate that it was wrong'.

Problems with our Present Law

    Our present law presents at this point three problems: (1) what should be the minimum age of criminal responsibility, (2) what should the legal criterion be for such responsibility and, finally (3) where should the rules be found, in the Criminal Code, or in the Juvenile Delinquents Act?

    (1) The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibuility

    It is universally agreed that the current minimum age of seven years for criminal responsibility is too low and should be raised.  There is no universal agreement however on what the new minimum age should be.  Ten?  Twelve?  Fourteen?  The question has been officially put in issue for many years and now awaits Parliamentary decision.

    In terms of policy, the age of twelve seems to have attracted a wider support both in terms of research conducted and the number of persons consulted by the various agencies involved in the revision of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.  The Draft therefore sets the minimum age at twelve.

    (2) The Criterion of Responsibility

    The second problem is one of a more conceptual nature.  Under present law a child between seven and fourteen can be convicted if he was competent (a) to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and (b) to appreciate that it was wrong.  The raising of the minimum age from seven to twelve years, puts in question the need for this rule.  Alternative (1) would abolish it and leave the determination of the mental competence of any person over twelve to the rule governing mental disorder.  Alternative (2) retains a special test for determining the conditions of criminal responsibility regarding children over twelve but under fourteen years of age.  While present law provides a purely cognitive test, it is arguable that children under fourteen who know what they are doing and know that it is wrong may still be unable to resist temptation to the same degree as adults.  For this reason, the test put forward here is not only cognitive but also conative.  On this the Commission, having as yet reached no firm conclusion, would welcome responsive commentaries.

    (3) The Location of the Rules

    The third question raises a point of principle.  Although the Juvenile Delinquents Act sets out rules governing the criminal liability of children under sixteen, seventeen or eighteen years of age, as the case may be, in each Province, the Criminal Code should include basic rules of criminal liability of children for the following reasons.  The Juvenile Delinquents Act is a particular statute concerning the criminal law, the general rules of criminal law have application to such a statute, and these general rules, should be found in the General Part of the Criminal Code.

    DRAFT LEGISLATION

Immaturity -- Alternative (1)
4.  Every one under 12 years of age is exempt from criminal liability for his conduct.

Immaturity -- Alternative (2)
4. (1) Every one under 12 years of age is exempt from criminal liability for his conduct.

    (2) Every one over 12 and under 14 years of age is exempt form criminal liability for his conduct unless he appreciates the nature, consequences and moral wrongfulness of such conduct and has substantial capacity to conform to the requirements of the law.

    ANNOTATION TO DRAFT LEGISLATION

    For reasons given above, the Draft raises the age of criminal liability to twelve.  In this regard the two alternatives on this defence are identical.  They differ as regards the liability of children between twelve and fourteen.

    Draft section 4, the replaces Cr.C. s. 12.  The title given to the section, i.e. 'Immaturity', is meant to bring out the principle underlying this defence.  The words 'act or omission' are replaced by the more comprehensive term 'conduct'.

Alternative (1)

    This alternative abolishes the presumption contained in Cr.C. s. 13.  Under that section a child over seven and under fourteen incurs no liability unless he is shown to be competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong.  That presumption is abolished on the ground that a child over twelve and under fourteen is unlikely to lack that competence unless he suffers from such disease or defect of the mind as would bring him under the mental disorder rule.  On this view no special rule on the lines of that contained in Cr.C. s. 13 would be needed.

Alternative (2)

    This alternative is the counterpart of Cr.C. s. 13.  It makes special provision for children older than the age of twelve who have not attained fourteen years of age.  The test which it provides, however, differs in two respects from that provided by Cr.C. s. 13.  First, it allows exemption for the child's inability to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of  his or her act.  This is in line with case law on section 13:  R. v. B.C.  Second, it allows exemption for inability to conform to the requirement of the law.  This is done in order to harmonize this immaturity defence with the second alternative of mental disorder (see Draft section 5), to base both defences on the same moral principles, and to align the law with modern thinking which regards such principles as relating not only to the incapable person's understanding but also to his ability to control his behaviour.  This is more fully discussed under Draft section 5." (pp. 37-41; notes omitted)

__________Recodifying Criminal Law, vol. 1, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1986, [14], 117 p., see clause 3(4) -- Immaturity at p. 29,  ISBN: 0662547322 (series; Report; number 30); information on the French version/informations sur la version française, Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, Pour une nouvelle codification du droit pénal, vol. 1, Ottawa : Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1986, [14], 117 p.,  voir le paragraphe 3(4) -- Minorité à la p. 32 (Collection; Rapport; numéro 30), ISBN: 0662547322;

 
"3(4) Immaturity.  No one is liable for conduct committed when he was under twelve years of age.

Comment

    The present law is contained in section 12 of the Criminal Code which provides that no one can be convicted for an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of twelve years.  The exact age, if any, at which a child attains the age of reason, or becomes responsible, will vary from child to child.  For criminal law a general rule is needed, and common law followed Christian tradition in fixing the age at seven.  Recently, after much investigation and research, the age was raised to twelve.  The present rule is reproduced in clause 3(4)." (p. 29)

-----------

"3(4).  Minorité.  Nul n'est responsable de sa conduite s'il est âgé de moins de douze ans.

Commentaire

    La règle actuelle à cet égard se trouve à l'article 12 du Code, qui prévoit que '[n]ul 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 moins de douze ans'.  Certes, l'âge exact, s'il en est, auquel un enfant atteint 'l'âge de raison', ou devient responsable, varie d'un enfant à l'autre.  Quoi qu'il en soit, le droit pénal exige une règle générale et, s'inspirant de la tradition chrétienne, le common law a fixé cet âge à sept ans.  Récemment, toutefois, après des enquêtes et des recherches poussées, cet âge a été augmenté à douze ans.  La règle actuelle est reprise au paragraphe 3(4)." (p. 32)

__________Recodifying Criminal Law (Revised and Enlarged Edition of Report 30),  Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1987, [16], 213 p., see clause 3(4) -- Immaturity at p. 32 (series; Report; number 31), ISBN:0662547578;  copy of the English version of this report is available in pdf format at my Digital Library -- Canadian Criminal Law; Research Notes:  the Commission's recommendations in this report were modified by a subsequent document: "A New General Part for the Criminal Code: Brief from the Law Reform Commission of Canada to the Subcommittee on the General Part" 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, supra, Issue 1 of : 25, 26, 30 March 1992, at the Appendix, pp. 1A:1 - 1A:17. Note that the brief does not change clause 3(4) but other clauses.  This report 31 was tabled in the House of Commons on 19 May 1988 (see House of Commons, Debates, 19 May 1988 at 15609); information on the French / information sur la version française, Commission de réforme du droit du Canada,  Pour une nouvelle codification du droit pénal (Édition révisée et augmentée du rapport n^o 30) , Ottawa: Commission de réforme du droit du Canada, 1987, [16], 233 p., voir le paragraphe 3(4) -- Minorité à la p. 35 (Collection; Rapport; numéro 31), ISBN: 0662547578; Notes de recherche:  certaines recommandations de la Commission, mais pas le paragraphe 3(4), ont été modifiées par le document "Pour une nouvelle codification de la Partie générale du Code criminel - Mémoire présenté au sous-comité sur la Partie générale par la Commission de Réforme du droit du Canada" dans 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 généra, supra,  fasicule numéro 1 du  25, 26, 30 mars 1992, aux  pp. 1A:29 - 1A:60.  Ce rapport 31 a été déposé à la Chambre des Communes, le 19 mai 1988 (voir Chambre des Communes, Débats, 19 mai 1988 à 15609);

 
"3(4) Immaturity.  No one is liable for conduct committed when he was under twelve years of age.

Comment

    The present law is contained in section 12 of the Criminal Code which provides that no one can be convicted for an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of twelve years.  The exact age, if any, at which a child attains the age of reason, or becomes responsible, will vary from person to person.  For criminal law a general rule is needed, and common law followed Chritian tradition in fixing the age at seven.  Recently, after much investigation and research, the age was raised to twelve.  The present rule is reproduced in clause 3(4)." (p. 32)

-----------

"3(4).  Minorité.  Nul n'est responsable de sa conduite s'il est âgé de moins de douze ans.

Commentaire

    La règle actuelle à cet égard se trouve à l'article 12 du Code criminel, qui prévoit que '[n]ul 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 moins de douze ans'.  Certes, l'âge exact, s'il en est, auquel un enfant atteint 'l'âge de raison', ou devient responsable, varie d'une personne à l'autre.  Quoi qu'il en soit, le droit pénal exige une règle générale et, s'inspirant de la tradition chrétienne, le common law a fixé cet âge à sept ans.  Récemment, toutefois, après des enquêtes et des recherches poussées, cet âge a été augmenté à douze ans.  La règle actuelle est reprise au paragraphe 3(4)." (p. 35)

LEES, Charlotte Elizabeth, The Age of Criminal Responsibility -- Which Direction?  A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and Canada, LL.M. thesis,  McGill University, Institute of Comparative Law, 2000, vi, 103, vi p.; title noted in my research but thesis not consulted yet;

"[Abstract]

The setting of an 'age of criminal responsibility' by States across the international spectrum is a formal recognition that children do not possess the same mental capacity to comprehend the extent of the criminality of their actions, and their implications, as adults. Any such legal threshold which abruptly deems a child 'criminally responsible' upon the dawning of a birthday is inherently arbitrary, yet a necessary legal fiction. The central conundrum addressed by this discussion is "'which direction?'"--at what age should policy-makers draw the line. Should legislators be advocating low ages of criminal responsibility, or should they be championing higher ages? An examination of the juvenile justice regimes of the UK and Canada provides an informative backdrop against which to base a sound conclusion: higher ages of criminal responsibility should be adopted in order to counteract and safeguard against the current climate of 'zero tolerance' and retributive 'just deserts' currently motivating youth justice policy." (source: AMICUS catalogue entry)

LEON, Jeffrey S., "Recent Developments in Legal Representation of Children: A Growing Concern with the Concept of Capacity", (1978) 1 Canadian Journal of Family Law 375-434; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa;
 

"[Abstract]   This paper reviews recent legislation, judicial decisions and law reform commission proposals relating to the provision of independent legal representation for children in contested child custody, child welfare and delinquency proceedings.  Emphasis is placed on the existing and potential confusion confronting lawyers in their efforts to assume an appropriate role, as 'advocate', 'guardian' or 'amicus curiae', in representing children.  It is suggested that possible clarification may be found in the creation of a system that structures lawyers' discretion by requiring them to attend to the actual capacity of the child to instruct legal counsel as the basis for assuming a particular representational stance.  In this sense, actual capacity involves both the child's ability to communicate and the child's ability to formulate a competent decision on the matters in issue.  An examination of empirical, clinical and speculative studies in the area of child development reveals a need for further study in order to facilitate translation of this knowledge into specific legal policies.  On this basis, a tentative proposal is made to structure a system of legal representation for children in terms of rebuttable presumption regarding a child's capacity to instruct counsel." (p. 375);

LESCHIELD, Alan D. and Susan Kaye Wilson, "Criminal Liability of Children Under Twelve: A Problem for Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice or Both?", (1988) 30 Canadian Journal of Criminology 17-29;

"[Abstract]  Recent reforms in juvenile justice have emphasized legal due process.  The justice movement began in the United States in the latter 1960's and moved to Canada by 1984, at which time Canadian reform in juvenile justice legislation was formalized in the Young Offender's Act.  Among the amendments in this new legislation was the raising of the age of criminal responsibility from seven to twelve years of age.  This reform has been met with considerable debate.  Data are presented in this study on a group of seven to eleven year olds who were assessed by the Family Court Clinic which reflects the profiles of this group and their involvement in offending behaviour.  Discussion provides several perspectives on whether the problems of this offending age group are better dealt with by child welfare or juvenile justice authorities." (p. 17)

LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA, Opportunity for all : the Liberal plan for the future of Canada, [Ottawa : Liberal Party of Canada, c2000]. 30 p.;

"We will work with the provinces on approaches outside the criminal justice system to deal with children under 12 who commit crimes."

LILLES, Hon. Justice Heino, Yukon Territorial Court Judge, 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: Lilles, Heino, juge de la Cour territoriale du Yukon, 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);

"We had some discussion about under-12s. With great respect I want to have a minor disagreement with my former colleague and co-author, Professor Bala. I'm concerned about reducing the age to below 12, incorporating 10s and 11s in the young offender system. The superficial reason - the simplistic question to ask is, if the Young Offenders Act does so poorly for 12s to 18s, why you would ever want to expand it to 10s and 11s?

Now, the more practical problem, however, and the more expensive concern would be that you'd probably find yourself in the position of having to generate another level of institutions for 10- and 11-year-olds. You would not want, and I don't think society would accept, placing 10-year-olds in with 16- and 17-year-olds. You'd also have to develop a separate level of programming for those kids. So it's nice to talk about 10- and 11-year-olds. Recognize that it probably comes with a fairly substantial price tag attached to it. Are you prepared to pay it?

I have a substantial concern as well. I'm not satisfied the provinces and territories have exhausted their jurisdiction under civil rights, mental health and social services in dealing with the under-12s. I fully appreciate that the provinces are very anxious to transfer responsibility for 10- and 11-year-olds to the feds. I think it's largely an attempt to transfer costs to the federal government away from the provincial government.

I see it happening now where strapped child welfare agencies are dumping their wards into the young offender system for relatively minor offences that a normal parent in a normal home would look after within the home without involving the police. So I'm suspicious of that initiative, and I would ask the committee to look at that very carefully before they succumb to that recommendation.

In the Yukon we spent a number of years putting together a program of family conferencing for under-12s. I believe this program is about ready to start. I would recommend other jurisdictions to consider that possibility, because this kind of approach of bringing the family together has the potential to expand into school issues, educational issues, nutrition issues, and public health issues at a very early stage. I think it's potentially a very powerful vehicle that can be expanded."

MANITOBA, MacFARLANE,  Bruce A., Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General, Province of Manitoba, 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, 23 February 2000, available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev21-e.htm; also published in French / aussi publié en français: MacFarlane, Bruce A., sous-ministre de la Justice et sous-procureur général, province du Manitoba, 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, 23 février 2000, disponible à   http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev21-f.htm;

"The next area deals with offenders under the age of 12. We would like to say the following in connection with that class of offender. First of all, serious criminal conduct by those under 12 is often a symptom of a serious situation that needs to be dealt with, and we say needs to be dealt with in the criminal justice system—nipping it in the bud, so to speak. That's the first concern we have.

The second is that in the case of very serious offences, accusations will be made publicly against youths that they were involved in crimes, and they will have no ability through a normal process to demonstrate their innocence.

For both of those reasons, we feel that in exceptional circumstances, where the crimes are serious, there is a need to bring a youth into the criminal justice system. It ought to be judicially screened, and on application by either the defence or the crown, the test being the nature of the offence, the maturity of the offender, and whether it's in the long-term interests of the offender."

......

"On the question of children under 12 and the issue of international agreements or United Nations instruments, we do certainly respect the situation under international law, but as is always the case when it comes to legal issues, balance is so important. Developing the right balance is critically important.

With respect to under-12s, our belief is that if you confine the ability to draw a young person into very serious offences, in egregious circumstances—so there's an offence-based test and an offender-based test—with the judicial screening—and obviously a very small number will come into this category—then that does strike the right balance between respecting principles that are broader than simply our criminal law and protecting the public at the same time. So we believe all those factors do strike the right balance."

___________MacKINTOSH, Gord, The Honourable, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba, testimony before Senate, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Fourth, fifth and sixth meetings on: Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, see issue 14, evidence of 30 October 2001, available at   http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/lega-e/14eva-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=11 (accessed on 19 October 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français MacKINTOSH, L'honorable Gord, ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Manitoba, témoignage devant Sénat, Comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, Délibérations du comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, Quatrième, cinquième et sixième réunions 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, voir le fascicule 14, témoignage du 30 octobre 2001, disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-f/lega-f/14eva-f.htm?Language=F&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=11;

 
"I will deal now with offenders under the age of 12, an issue with which Manitoba has been very concerned. We are getting a better understanding in Manitoba of the number of criminal offences committed by children under 12, and it is not a relatively great number.

When there is such an occurrence, a referral to parents or child welfare authorities may deal with the problem. However, where a child under 12 is repeatedly involved in criminal offences or commits a serious offence, the public is frustrated to learn that the youth court system is powerless to do anything. The options available by way of court supervision are not in the criminal justice system.

A second concern is that a person less than 12 years of age who is accused of committing a serious offence has no mechanism to allow a full hearing of circumstances, to allow responsibility for the behaviour to be determined or for clearing of the name of the young person. The law, through due process, ought to grant young people and children the same due process safeguards as adults in this regard. I fear the day when a Canadian child under the age of 12 is accused of a murder, for example. The wrath of the nation will be significant. If that young person denies the crime, what mechanism is there to test that? What balances will be available?

It is not just a matter of consequences; it is also a matter of due process. We think that the proposed act should be amended to permit the prosecution of offenders under age 12, in exceptional circumstances, on an individual application basis by the Crown. The test of whether a charge could proceed would perhaps involve consideration of several factors. We propose that the nature of the offence or offences would be at the very high end of consideration. Other items that should be considered include the circumstances of the offender, including the history and maturity of the individual, whether it is in the long-term interests of the offender to have the matter dealt with through the courts, with due process in the interests of the accused, the truth of the matter and the interests of the accused."

___________VODREY, Honourable Rosemary, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba,  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 51, October 10, 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), availableat  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/51_96-10-10/jula51_blk101.html (accessed on 18 December 2002); also available in French / aussi disponible en français: Vodrey, L'honorable Rosemary, ministre de la Justice et procureure générale du Manitoba,  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 51, 10 Octobre 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/51_96-10-10/jula51_blk201.html (visionné le 18 décembre 2002);

"The second area is age. I, with many of my colleagues across Canada, encouraged and supported amendments to the Young Offenders Act that made transfers to adult court presumptive for certain serious offences. I believe, however, the time has come to look at the minimum age. Our approach is not to change or to lower the minimum age, but our government continues to strongly believe we need a vehicle or a mechanism to reach down and bring into the justice system, in appropriate circumstances, those under the age of 12 who commit criminal acts.

I've heard from police about their frustration with having no effective remedy for children under the age of 12 who commit crimes. I've heard from victims who feel forgotten in a youth justice system that appears to ignore their plight when the offender is under 12 years of age. These people tell us we need a larger menu of options. Our government believes they are right. We must accept that there are children for whom no other system can provide an adequate remedy. We must remember that when a 10-year-old steals a car, not only the car owner is victimized; there is always a danger someone, including the 10-year-old, will be killed or seriously injured.

We must remember purse-snatching can have a devastating affect on the victim, particularly if this victim is elderly. In the interest of public safety, if the family and the child welfare system are unable to deal with certain children, then the youth justice system must be able to step in and provide a remedy.

Our government requests that your committee consider the development of a mechanism to bring children under the age of 12 into the justice system. Our government would be pleased to work with you on defining the parameters.

......

When we speak about children under the age of 12, our concern is that there be a mechanism. You will notice we didn't set a floor; we didn't set a specific age. But we know, because police tell us, that there are young offenders out there for whom the other systems of child welfare have proven unable to deal with these young people.

They have received some supports. Those supports outside of the justice system have not provided the event that has turned lives around. We believe there needs to  be a mechanism to bring them into the justice system.

......

I can tell you that the Government of Manitoba would absolutely not support raising the age above 12. We want a mechanism to deal with those children under 12 years of age who commit criminal acts and leave victims behind, and we're prepared to work with you in the development of that mechanism.

......

We are attempting to provide a most reasonable mechanism but we have recognized - police and victims have told us - that there are a lot of young people, particularly ages 10 and 11 and some younger, who are committing criminal acts and whose repetitive behaviour indicates that the justice system is best equipped to deal with them."

McDONALD, Robert M., Deputy Minister, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Government of Ontario, in Senate of Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs...on: Bill C-61, "An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act", issue number 20, 17 June 1982; also available in French/aussi disponible en français, McDonald, Robert M., témoignage devant le Sénat du Canada, Comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, Délibérations du comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles [...] concernant: Le projet de loi C-61, "Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, portant abrogation de la loi sur les jeunes délinquants", fascicule numéro 20, 17 juin 1982;

    "Mr. McDonald: [Robert M. McDonald, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Government of Ontario]  Mr. Chairman, the spending of large sums of money for younger childrens' health and education prior to the age of 12 will be more of a preventive measure in helping younger children not to become offenders in the long run.  It is a matter of where you really put the money and at what stage and at what age.  We feel that more money should be spent on under 12 down to pre-school age in the childrens' mental health and education scheme than in sprucing up the system at 16 or 17 which has, in philosophy, reasonable aspirations but t is very costly.  This is particularly the case in the province of Ontario with the large numbers of offenders that we have at that age.  That is not to say that there are not offenders aged 16 or 17 who cannot be rehabilitated, but it is a priority of where one spends the money, based on the resources that we have in a constrained environment." (p. 20: 12)

McGILLIVRAY, Anne, "Better Living Through Legislation? Parens Patriae" in  Law Reform Commission of Canada, ed., Perspectives on Legislation : essays from the 1999 Legal  Dimensions Initiative, [Ottawa] : Law Commission of Canada, [2000], 256 p. at pp. 75-124, ISBN:  0662286782; also published in French / aussi publié en français dans Commission du droit du Canada, sous la direction de, La législation en question: mémoires du concours  Perspectives juridiques 1999, [Ottawa] : Commission du droit du Canada, [2000], 278 p.;  ISBN:  0662844432;
 

McLEOD, Jill L., "Doli Incapax: The Forgotten Presumption in Juvenile Court Trials", (1980) 3 Canadian Journal of Family Law 251-279;

"[Abstract]  Since 1892, the so-called 'infancy defence' has been codified in Canadian law as part of the Criminal Code.  At no time, however, has Canada's special juvenile legislation -- the Juvenile Delinquents Act, first passed in 1908 and revised and amended several times since then -- made reference to the infancy or 'doli incapax' presumptions and their availability to proceedings under that Act.  This 'defence' has been virtually ignored by prosecutors, defence counsel and Judges.  Why the doli incapax rules have been 'forgotten' and how defence counsel can utilise them on behalf of an infant client are the principle focus of this paper."  (p. 251)
---------
"[Sommaire]  Depuis 1892, la dénommée 'défense des mineurs' est codifiée dans la loi canadienne comme partie du Code criminel.  Jamais, toutefois la législation canadienne consacrée spécialement aux jeunes contrevenants -- la Loi sur les jeunes délinquants, votée originellement en 1908, puis revisée et amendée plusieurs fois depuis -- n'a fait référence aux présomptions d'incapacité en tant que mineur ou doli incapax et de leur validité dans les procédures engagées en vertu de cette loi.  Cette 'défense' a été en pratique complètement ignorée par les procureurs, les avocats chargés de la défense et les juges.  Les raisons pour lesquelles les règles du doli incapax ont été 'oubliées' et la façon dont les avocats de la défense peuvent s'en prévaloir pour le compte d'un client mineur sont au centre de ce dossier."

McLELLAN, Hon. Anne, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib., 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, March 28, 2001; voir  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Minutes/JUSTmn3%287422%29-E.htm et  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev03-e.htm (accessed on 17 October 2002);  also available in French/aussi disponible en français: McLELLAN, L'hon. Anne, ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada, Lib., 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 28 mars 2001; voir http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Minutes/JUSTmn3%287422%29-F.htm et  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev03-f.htm; (visionné le 17 octobre 2002);

"We have heard that the child welfare system is not equipped to deal with children under 12 who exhibit criminal conduct. First, I must emphasize that only a very small number of children under the age of 12 commit crimes. The causes of such behaviour in very young children are extremely complex and, in our view, are better dealt with by health and social agencies that have the necessary expertise and experience. Having said that, I do recognize that there is a role for the Department of
Justice to play. In fact, one of the major issues discussed during the development of this law was how to deal with young children who commit offences. The department has been working with a wide variety of professionals from different disciplines, as well as the provinces and territories, to develop a national initiative for under 12 years.

Let me assure you that although these children represent a very small proportion of children and youth who commit crime, we are working towards a solution that takes into account their lack of maturity and meets their complex needs. That solution, I believe, and this government believes, is best employed outside the formal criminal justice system." (p. 5 of 34)

......

"Let me say that this is an aspect of the administration of criminal justice in this country. Youth justice legislation is criminal justice legislation. The provinces enforce and administer youth criminal justice legislation, as they do the Criminal Code, which applies to adults. I think this is a shared obligation, and one in which we in the federal government do acknowledge our responsibility. And as I say, we're in the process of rebuilding that cost-sharing relationship.

Mr. Toews, the reason we are not lowering the age to include those between the ages of 10 and 12 is that, philosophically, this government does not believe those children under the age of 12 should be subject to the formal criminal justice system. The formal criminal justice system is the single most serious system we have in terms of intervention with people in society. When you enter the formal criminal justice system, it sends a powerful signal in terms of accountability, in terms of one's ability to understand the nature and quality of one's act. The stigma attached to entering into the formal criminal justice system is such....

Our criminal justice system is there to prohibit and to deter, as well as to rehabilitate and to reintegrate into our adult system. In our youth justice system, we are there obviously with an emphasis on preventing youth crime in the first place, and on rehabilitating and reintegrating those who are in fact found to have caused harm to others. But we do not believe that system, with everything it entails formally and societally, is the right place for children under the age of 12.

There are effective child welfare systems and there are effective mental health systems in which these young people can in fact be dealt with. However, Mr. Chair, because we understand that there may be those who fall through the cracks, there may be work the federal, provincial, and territorial governments can do better together with others who work in these systems. That is why we're working hard on an under-12 project: to ensure that those children who do commit crimes and harm others get the help, that families get the help they need, and that it is done in an effective way.

We have a multitude of programs that work with families, communities, the police, and others in this country, and with the provinces and the territories, to ensure we are identifying young people at the earliest age who may be at risk, identifying their families, and getting them the help and support they need. That, Mr. Chair, is how you truly create a safe and secure society." (pp. 9 of 34 to 10 of 34)

MOLLARD, Murray, Policy Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association,  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 65, October 31, 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/65_96-10-31/jula65_blk101.html (accessed on 16 December 2002); also available in French / aussi disponible en français: MOLLARD, Murray, directeur des politiques, "British Columbia Civil Liberties Association", 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 65, 31 octobre1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible ; disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/65_96-10-31/jula65_blk201.html#0.1.JULA65.000001.AA1926.A (visionné le 16 décembre 2002);
 

"Mr. Ramsay [member of the Standing Committee] The question I want to ask you deals with the minimum age. Should we or should we not lower the age below 12? What has motivated my question and my concern in this area is the testimony of Professor Bala before the committee, and he comes with some pretty heavy credentials. He recommended that the age be lowered to 10. He says this about the lower age - and I'm quoting from his testimony here:

I don't think that a child welfare response is totally adequate, and in fact in some provinces the way the provinces have written their legislation, if a 10-year-old committed a murder or a manslaughter offence and the parents say it's okay, we can deal adequately with this situation, we just hired a very good psychiatrist and we're sending our child to the United States to be in a treatment facility we've chosen, or, for that matter, any other place, there is no basis for legal intervention.

So the question I'd like to address to you - and you can comment on the other points I've made - is whether or not the child welfare legislation in this province would withstand a legal challenge from a parent who says what Professor Bala has suggested might be said. Would a challenge to the B.C. welfare legislation or the B.C. child welfare act be successful, as suggested here by Professor Bala? That's exactly what he's suggesting. A parent could say his or her child doesn't have a problem that he or she cannot look after, that he or she has a treatment program and qualified people for the child. Would that challenge be successful in any attempt by the officials of this government to take custody of that child or intervene with that child by way of the provincial legislation?

Mr. Mollard: Would it be successful now, given the way the laws are written?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes. In your opinion, would it be successful?

Mr. Mollard: I think you've raised a completely legitimate and very important point. I have to admit that I think B.C.'s child welfare legislation right now has some gaps when it comes to dealing with those exceptional cases of the child under 12. But the point in my urging for you, as a committee, is to not take the simple and easy response, which is to create.... Don't just make the Young Offenders Act apply to all 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds. Rather, work with your colleagues.

I saw that Justice Gove was here. I wondered if you had the opportunity to speak with the new child commissioner in British Columbia, Cynthia Morton, about ensuring that there are adequate provisions in the child welfare regime in each province before you use the criminal justice system. I'm sure you've heard evidence and testimony that projecting individuals into the criminal justice system often counteracts the goal you want to achieve, and that is to prevent a person from committing more crime.

So my response is yes. I think I agree with you if you're suggesting B.C.'s laws aren't adequate right now. I took a quick look at them and I think there are some gaps, which means we have some work to do in this province. I also think that in speaking very candidly with the people responsible for child welfare in this province, you have some work to do to deal with these rather exceptional cases as a committee.

We're not talking about a lot. It comes down to a philosophy, however, and I think that's really important here. For the child under 12 who commits either the relatively petty offence or the very serious and heinous offence, how do you want to treat him? Do you want to treat him as someone who should be injected into a criminal justice system that will likely perpetuate that? Or do you want to have responses at the child welfare level that can deal with legitimate concerns about protection of society - for example, secure facilities? That's a real issue in British Columbia, but in the example of Quebec we see child welfare laws that can respond to that concern.

So what I'm urging you to do is to look at that option first - I don't think it has been looked at - rather than taking the quick, easy out by amending the Young Offenders Act to apply it to 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds. And down the line, if you aren't able to work with your colleagues provincially to make sure those provisions exist, maybe that's an option in which the protection of society requires a 10-year-old or 11-year-old to be dealt with in extreme cases.

In preparing for my submissions here, I read the remarks by the attorneys general of Manitoba and Ontario. Both of them recommended to you to lower the minimum age in the Young Offenders Act. What I didn't here from them was whether or not they had bothered to take the time to look at their own child welfare laws to see whether or not those laws could be changed in order to deal with some of the societal protection interests, custody treatment, etc., to ensure that there are those societal responses and that they are adequate. I think the example of Quebec shows that there are. I'm therefore urging you to look at that option as a committee before you go chasing after 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds."

MOYER, Sharon, 1943-, Faigie Kopelman and  Peter J. Carrington, The relationships between the age of the accused young person and other personal and case characteristics, [Ottawa] : Solicitor General Canada, Ministry Secretariat, [1985], vi, 112 p. (series; User report / Programs Branch ; no. 1985-43); copy at the National Library of Canada, Ottawa; title noted in my research but document not consulted yet (16 September 2002);
 

MOYER, Sharon, 1943-, A description of Legislation, Procedures and Services Relating to Children Under 12 Years Involved in Criminal Activity in Six Jurisdictions: An Overview, Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 1990; research done for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Steering Committee of Senior Officials Responsible for Juvenile Justice, supra;  title noted in my research but document not consulted yet; no copy of this document found in Canadian libraries; should be available under an Access to Information Act request;
 

___________Summary Report of Survey of Legislation, Procedures and Services in Six Jurisdictions, Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1990; research done for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Steering Committee of Senior Officials Responsible for Juvenile Justice, supra;  title noted in my research but document not consulted yet; no copy of this document found in Canadian libraries; should be available under an Access to Information Act request;
 

NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION CENTRE, "Policy Framework for Addressing Crime Prevention  and Children Ages 0 to 12 -- National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention", June 2000, as modified on 30 April 2001, available at http://www.crime-prevention.org/english/publications/children/0-12/index.html; (accessed on 26 August 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français:  Centre national de prévention du crime, "Cadre stratégique pour la prévention du crime chez les enfants âgés de 0 à 12 ans :  Stratégie nationale sur la .psécurité communautaire et la prévention du crime", juin 2000, avec mise à jour au 22 mai 2001, disponible à  http://www.crime-prevention.org/francais/publications/children/0-12/index.html (visionné le 26 août 2002);
 

___________"Policy Framework for Addressing Crime Prevention  and Children Ages 0 to 12 -- National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention -- Executive Summary", June 2000, available at  http://www.crime-prevention.org/english/publications/children/0-12/execsum.html; (accessed on 26 August 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français:  Centre national de prévention du crime, "Cadre stratégique pour la prévention du crime chez les enfants âgés de 0 à 12 ans : Stratégie nationale sur la sécurité communautaire et la prévention du crime -- Sommaire", juin 2000, disponible à http://www.crime-prevention.org/francais/publications/children/0-12/execsum.html (visionné le 26 août 2002);
 

___________ "Policy Framework for Addressing Crime Prevention  and Youth Ages 12 to 18 -- National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention", June 2000, as modified on 18 May 2001, available at http://www.crime-prevention.org/english/publications/youth/12-18/index.html; (accessed on 26 August 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français: Centre national de prévention du crime, "Cadre stratégique pour la prévention du crime chez les adolescents âgés de 12  à 18 ans, Stratégie nationale sur la sécurité communautaire et la prévention du crime", juin 2000, avec mise à jour au 29 mai 2001, disponible à   http://www.crime-prevention.org/francais/publications/youth/12-18/index.html (visionné le 26 août 2002);
 

___________ "Policy Framework for Addressing Crime Prevention  and Youth Ages 12 to 18 -- National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention -- Executive Summary", June 2000, as modified on 18 May 2001, available at ; (accessed on 26 August 2002); also published in French / aussi publié en français:Centre national de prévention du crime, "Cadre stratégique pour la prévention du crime chez les adolescents âgés de 12  à 18 ans,  Stratégie nationale sur la sécurité communautaire et la prévention du crime -- Sommaire", juin 2000, avec mise à jour au 29 mai 2001, disponible à  http://www.crime-prevention.org/francais/publications/youth/12-18/execsum.html (visionné le 26 août 2002);
 

NIELSON, Erik, 1924-, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, testimony, Progressive Conservative party, Constituency of Yukon, Yukon, Hansard--House of Commons Debates, 29 May 1981, debates of 2nd reading, Bill C-61; also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Nielson, Erik, 1924-, parti Progressiste-conservateur, circonscription de Yukon, Yukon, Débats de la Chambre des communes, 29 mai 1981, débats à la 2e lecture, Projet de loi C-61;

"Nielson: ...One of the major criticisms of the bill concerns the age limitation.  The minimum age of criminal responsibility under the Criminal Code is seven years.  Under clause 2(1) of the bill, the minimum age age is raised to 12 years.  In the 1975 report which was entitled 'Young Persons in  Conflict with the Law', the minimum age suggested was 14, but subsequently it was lowered to 12 by the proposals of the solicitor general in 1977.  The age of 12 was also favoured by our government during its short term in office.

    Although there are unavoidable difficulties in establishing a minimum age, a higher minimum age could well be argued so as to emphasize the contribution which welfare and educational technique could make in dealing with children, as well as the importance of avoiding the stigma attached to a judicial hearing.  The effect of raising the minimum age is that young people between the ages of seven and 12 will now be subject to provincial and territorial laws.  This raises the question of provincial and territorial responsibilities to these young people.

    Thus far the government has not said whether there will be any increased funding for the expansion of child welfare services which will inevitably occur.  It is not clear how the provinces and the territories will respond to the jurisdictional void which will occur, but it is relatively certain that there will be a wide variation in approaches, which according to my prediction will also lead to inequities in the dispensation of the effects of this legislation.

    Hopefully, when the minister closes the debate he will address the subject of the financial aspect of implementing the proposed new minimum age limit.  Consideration must also be given to the manner in which provincial and territorial offenders will be processed.  The bill before us is absolutely silent as to this aspect of the matter." (p. 10073)

O'MAHONY, David, The use of chronological age in the development of legislation affecting young people in Canada, 1799-1985, M.A. Thesis, University of Ottawa, 1987, iii, 165 p.; available at University of Ottawa, MRT Microfiche, KE 9445 .O426 1987A;
 

ONTARIO, Inter-Ministry Project on Young Offenders Act Implementation, Implementing Bill C-61 : the Young Offenders Act : an Ontario consultation paper, Toronto: Children's Policy Development, Ministry of Community and Social Services, 1981, 63 p., see "Children Under Twelve Years" at pp. 29-33, copy at Ottawa University, FTX General, HV 9080 .O5;

"Available statistics indicate that at present under the Juvenile Delinquents Act some 90% of police contacts with children under twelve who are also suspected of committing an offence are handled by warnings and calling the parents, suggesting help from community agencies, etc.

Statistics Canada reports 1,328 charges of delinquency in Ontario in 1980 brought against 770 children under twelve years of age.  This represents about 10% of all police contacts with this age group (and only 10% of all charges under the Juvenile Delinquents Act for that year).  Of these charges, 30% were for 'break and enter', 30% for 'theft under $200', and 13% for 'mischief', which together accounted for 72% of all charges.  The remainder included charges for assault (34 charges); arson (31); possession of stolen goods (129); theft over $200 (66); and offensive weapons (7). (See V. Statistics, Table 1)

For the 1,328 charges in Ontario in 1980, there was no finding of delinquency in 40% of the cases which either were adjourned indefinitely (sine die), no action taken or otherwise adjudicated. (see V Statistics, Table 3).  Where the charges resulted in a finding of delinquency (60%), some 39% of the cases were either adjourned indefinitely, suspended, reprimanded or otherwise disposed.  Of the remainder, 41% were placed on probation, 15% were referred to the care of the children's aid society and 4% were fined.  1% were sent to juvenile institutions." (p. 29)

___________HARNICK, Hon. Charles, Attorney General of Ontario, testimony 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 22, 3 June 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/22_96-06-03/jula22_blk101.html (accessed on 28 October 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Harnick, L'honorable Charles, procureur général de l'Ontario, 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 22, 3 juin 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/22_96-06-03/jula22_blk201.html (visionné le 28 Octobre 2002);

"In speaking about a clear and consistent standard - a standard expected and even demanded by the public - we suggest that this committee also give thought to allowing prosecution in extraordinary cases where a young person under the age of 12 is alleged to have committed a serious crime, such as murder.

There have been incidents in other jurisdictions where children as young as nine and ten have knowingly committed heinous crimes. At the very least, we should consider a criminal law response in such situations to supplement the social service response that presently takes place when a child commits a heinous act, such as murder."

___________RUNCIMAN, Hon. Robert W., Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, testimony 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 22, 3 June 996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/22_96-06-03/jula22_blk101.html (accessed on 28 October 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Runciman, L'honorable Robert W., solliciteur général et ministre des Services correctionnels, gouvernement de l'Ontario, 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 22, 3 juin 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/22_96-06-03/jula22_blk201.html (visionné le 28 Octobre 2002);

"Mr. Runciman: I'm not going to suggest a yardstick today with respect to what would justify a charge for someone who is 11 years of age. I don't think we are suggesting that either. But we think the courts should have the flexibility when dealing with a particularly heinous crime to have the opportunity available to at least consider charges being laid against someone under the age of 12. All we're really proposing here is to provide the latitude for the courts to make this kind of decision."

.........

"Mr. Gallaway [member of the Committee]:  Mr. Runciman, what is Ontario doing to correct the myth, perhaps, that nothing can happen to those under 12 who commit serious crimes at this point?

Mr. Runciman: What are we doing? I don't think it's a myth in terms of what the public view as being the real response. I don't want to get into specific cases, but if someone is involved in a very violent act and they are being perhaps made a ward of the Children's Aid Society and provided with counselling treatments and so on, and they scoff at the justice system and its inability to deal with those kinds of individuals, I don't think that by and large you are going to get much acceptance from the public that that is an appropriate response to a violent criminal act. Certainly that's the feedback we're getting: that the mechanisms currently available for a particularly heinous crime are not sufficient to address public concerns.

Mr. Gallaway: I'm referring to people under the age of 12.

Mr. Runciman: So am I.

Mr. Gallaway: Do you believe that the Ontario child welfare legislation, then, is adequate to deal with someone under 12 who commits crimes of violence?

Mr. Runciman: Again I'm not an expert in the field. I know cases that have been brought to our attention, certainly recent cases as well, but there is generally a feeling that this is indeed inadequate in terms of how we can respond. That's why we have proposed that some latitude be afforded the court, so that there is at least a possibility that particularly difficult crimes can quite possibly be handled through the justice system as well.

Mr. Gallaway: That being the case, if the court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction with respect to those under the age of 12, what will Ontario do to provide secure facilities for these people who you otherwise would suggest are criminals?

Mr. Harnick: That's why we are looking to this committee, after you hear the public across the country, to deliberate and hopefully come up with some mechanisms to begin to deal with a problem that people have identified, where there is a hole in the system and where other areas of our social services are asking for the justice system to be part of that process and to facilitate and work together with the social safety net that we have in order to be able to deal with this abhorrent behaviour in a better way and a way that is more complementary with other parts of the system."

OUIMET, Marc et Étienne Blais, "L'impact de la démographie sur les tendances de la criminalité au Québec", (2002) 35(1) Criminologie 5-23;

"Résumé.  L'âge est une véritable centrale pour l'analyse et la compréhension du phénomène criminel.  Au plan individuel, de nombreuses études montrent que la délinquance apparaît dès le début de l'adolescence, culmine vers 17 ans et diminue par la suite.  Si le crime est fortement associé à l'âge, des changements dans la structure démographique de la population devraient avoir une incidence sur l'évolution de la démographie québécoise et l'évolution de la criminalité de 1962 à 1999.  Les résultats de la présente étude sont surprenants.  D'une part, la courbe âge et crime au Québec, en 1999, ne correspond pas à ce qu'on retrouve habituellement dans la littérature scientifique.  Les courbes d'arrestations pour voies de fait, agressions sexuelles et vols qualifiés montrent des suspects particulièrement âgés.  D'autre part, les modèles ARMA-AREG indiquent que ce sont les variations dans le nombre d'adultes, plus particulièrement les 30-39 ans qui influencent le plus l'évolution de la criminalité.  Des pistes de réflexion découlant de la théorie des opportunités criminelles sont proposées." (p. 5)

PAPROSKI, Steve Eugene, 1928-1993,  Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Progressive Conservative Party, constituency of Edmonton Centre, Alberta, testimony, Hansard--House of Commons Debates, 29 May 1981, debates of 2nd reading, Bill C-61; also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Paproski, Steve Eugene, parti Progressiste-conservateur, circonscription de Edmonton Centre, Alberta, Débats de la Chambre des communes, 29 mai 1981, débats à la 2e lecture, Projet de loi C-61;

"Paproski: ...I shall now deal with the provision on the age of applicability, in other words the minimum age.  Under the proposed new legislation, the age of criminal responsibility would be raised from 7 to 12 years.  It was universally agreed that under the current Juvenile Delinquents Act the age of 7 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 12 years.  Furthermore, statistics indicate that a significant number of youths aged 12 and 13 are in conflict with the law." (p. 10086)

PARENT, Hugues, 1970-, "L'imputabilité pénale.  Mort d'un mythe, naissance d'une réalité", (2001) 35 (1 et 2) Revue juridique Thémis 191-239;
 

___________Traité de droit criminel, Tome 1. L'acte volontaire et les  moyens de défense, Montréal : Éditions Thémis, 2003, xxviii, 587 p., voir "La Minorité" at pp. 51-62, ISBN: 2894001703;

___________Traité de droit criminel, Tome Premier:  L'imputabilité, 2^e édition, Montréal : Éditions Thémis, 2005, xxxii, 1023 p., voir le Chapitre premier, "La Minorité" aux pp. 53-85, ISBN: 2894001703; copie à la Bibliothèque de la Cour suprême du Canada, KF 9220 ZA2 P39 2005, t. 1, c. 01;
 

PETERSON, Michele, "Children's Understanding of the Juvenile Justice System: A Cogntive-Developmental Perspective", (1988) 30 Canadian Journal of Criminology 381-395;
 

PETERSON-BADALI, Michele and Rona Abramovitch, "Children's Knowledge of the Legal System: Are They Competent to Instruct Legal Counsel?", (1992) 34 Canadian Journal of Criminology 139-160; also published in James H. Creechan, 1945-, and Robert A. Silverman, 1943-, eds., Canadian Delinquency, Scarborough, Ont. : Prentice-Hall Canada, c1995, xv, 530 p., ISBN: 0133115569; copy at Ottawa University, HV 9108 .C74 1995 MRT; copy at the Library of Parliament, HV 9108 C74;

"[Abstract]  The development of children's understanding of crime, and of the justice considerations embodied in law, has been little studied until recently.  This is, however, an important topic for investigation, first because the concept of 'crime' presumes understanding and intent, and second, because in order for juvenile justice legislation to be most effective, children should have some basic knowledge of how it affects them.  The present study attempted a preliminary exploration of these issues, with the Young Offenders Act (YOA) as its focus.  144 children from Grades 5 through 8 were interviewed and their knowledge assessed, both by questioning them on specific critical aspects of the YOA, and indirectly, through the presentation of hypothetical crime scenarios in which a child of varying age and gender committed a crime, either 'petty' or serious.  The results indicated that although all the children possessed a basic knowledge of what constitutes a crime, they showed a progressively more sophisticatyed understanding with age in a number of areas related to criminal behaviour.  Their overall knowledge of the YOA areas questioned was quite poor, however.  Recommendation was made for a program designed to educate children on some of the most important aspects of the law, with the suggestion that if children have a better understanding of the consequences of criminal behaviour, they may be less likely to participate."  (pp. 381-382)

___________"Children's Understanding of the Juvenile Justice System: A Cognitive Developmental Model" (1988), 30(4) Canadian Journal of Criminology 381-395, at 382-83;
 

____________"Grade Related Changes in Young People's Reasoning About Plea Decisions", (1993) 17 Law and Human Behaviour 537-552;

"[Abstract]  The present study examined the development of young people's ability to reason about legal issues involved in a plea decision in a criminal matter.  Forty-eight subjects in each of grades 5, 7, and 9, and 48 young adults participated in a semistructured interview containing four vignettes, each depicting a young person who had committed a criminal offence, was charged, and retained a lawyer.  Subjects received information regarding the charge and the prosecution's evidence (weak in half of the vignettes and strong in the other half).  Subjects were asked to decide what they would plead if they were in the defendant's shoes, and to justify their choices.  Contrary to prediction, a majority of even the Grade 5 subjects based their plea on legal rather than moral criteria.  Nonetheless, there were significant grade-related changes both in legal reasoning scores and in the use of guilt-based plea justifications.  In addition, according to a panel of lawyers, subjects' plea choices were rated as more reasonable when the evidence against the story character was strong (and thus congruent with 'moral' guilt) than when it was weak.  This difference diminished with grade as subjects became better able to separate moral from legal issues in their decision making." (p. 537)

PETERSON-BADALI, Michele and Christopher J. Koegl, "Young people's knowledge of the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system", (1998) 40 Canadian Journal of Criminology 127-152; see abstract at http://home.istar.ca/~ccja/angl/cjc40a2.html#one (accessed on 1 September 2002); 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 19, at pp. 395-421, ISBN: 1551301393; copy of the book at at the library of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF 9779 Y59 2001;
 

PLATT, Priscilla, Young Offenders Law in Canada, 2nd ed., Marham (Ontario): Butterworths, 1995, lvii, 616 p., see Chapter 5, "Age" at pp. 97-111, ISBN: 0433391626; copy at the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, KF 9779 P52 1995;
 

QUÉBEC, Comité de la protection de la jeunesse, "L'âge minimal de la responsabilité pénale", [Comité]: comité de la protection de la jeunesse, 1981, 2, 14 feuilles, exemplaire à l'Assemblée nationale - Publications gouvernementales, A11X1 P77 1982a 056; titre noté dans ma recherche mais document non consulté encore;
 

___________Commission d'enquête sur l'administration de la justice en matière criminelle et pénale au Québec, La société face au crime, volume 4, tome 1, La cour de bien-être social, [Québec]: Éditeur officiel du Québec, Roch Lefebvre, 1968-, (Président, Yves Prévost, 1908-), copie à la Bibliothèque de la Cour suprême du Canada, KF 9220 Q42 vol. 4, t. 1;

"RECOMMANDATION No 1

14.  La Commission recommande dans l'immédiat que l'administration québécoise de la justice interprète l'article 13 du Code criminel d'une façon toujours plus large et cesse par conséquent de présumer la responsabilité pénale des jeunes de 7 à 14 ans.

RECOMMANDATION No 2

15.  Que le gouvernement du Québec entreprenne les plus tôt possible avec le gouvernement fédéral des négociations afin de relever l'âge de la responsabilité pénale et l'âge minimum où commence la juriction de la Cour du Bien-Être social.

RECOMMENDATION No 3

16.  Que le gouvernement du Québec, dans le cadre des démarches prévues par la recommandation précédente, tente de faire porter à 15 ans au moins l'âge minimum de la responsabilité pénale." (pp. 106-107)

"Favoriser le développement de la recherche sur l'application des mesures de protection

Il faut le reconnaître: les ressources en recherche sont rares au Québec dans le domaine de la protection de la jeunesse.  Il existe peu de recherches-action, de recherches sur les opérations, de recherches portant sur l'intervention et sur ses résultats.  Il faut donc favoriser, dans le réseau, la planification, la coordination et la diffusion de la recherche sur l'intervention en protection de la jeunesse." (p. 20)

___________Groupe de travail sur l'évaluation de la loi sur la protection de la jeunes, La protection de la jeunesse: Plus qu'une loi -- Rapport du groupe de travail sur l'évaluation de la loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, [Québec] : Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux; Ministère de la justice, 1992, xvii, 191 p., ISBN: 2550228189 (Président du groupe de travail : Michel Jasmin, juge en chef à la Chambre de la jeunesse de la Cour du Québec); copie à la bibliothèque de droit, FTX général, KEQ 723 .A74 A15 1992;

    "Les situations d'enfants qui manifestent des troubles de comportement sérieux

    Analyse de la situation

    L'article 38 h) [de la loi provinciale, Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse] concernant les enfants qui manifestent des troubles de comportement crée une grande confusion, tant à propos de sa compréhension que de son application.

    On constate que l'alinéa h) de l'article 38 est le seul où le jeune est lui-même la cause de sa situation de compromission.  En efet, dans les autres alinéas de l'article 38, il s'agit toujours d'un adulte qui a mal assumé ses obligations à l'endroit d'un enfant.  Or, les troubles de comportement observés chez un jeune sont souvent accompagnés de problèmes chez son ou ses parents.  En effet, dans la majorité de ces situations, on constate que des parents ont été déficients dans l'exercice de leurs obligations envers leurs enfants : difficultés à exercer leur autorité auprès de leur enfant, absence d'un des deux parents, permissivité trop grande ou manque de cohésion dans les directives à l'enfant, etc.

    Malgré ce constat, les intervenants des systèmes tant social que judiciaire ont tendance à considérer que c'est le jeune qui est le seul responsable de sa situation de compromission.  L'approche semble davantage axée sur la faute ou la responsabilité de l'enfant que sur sa situation qu'il vit, donc sur l'effet plutôt que sur la cause.  On fait alors porter à l'enfant tout le fardeau de la situation de compromission.  Cela ouvre la porte à une intervention plus coercitive qu'aidante.  Par surcroît, cette approche incite fortement les intervenants à analyser la situation de compromission et à orienter leur intervention presque exclusivement par rapport à l'enfant, aux dépens d'une analyse globale de cette situation qui tienne compte de la capacité parentale et de la volonté des parents d'assumer leurs responsabilités.

    Nous sommes d'avis qu'il faut se donner une façon de rejoindre les parents eux-mêmes et éviter de leur laisser croire qu'ils ne sont pas concernés par l'émergence de la situation de compromission.

    Le rapport intitulé La protection sur mesure, un projet collectif [ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Québec, 1991 (Rapport Harvey II)] propose à son annexe III un ' Guide d'intervention psychosociale auprès des enfants présentant des troubles de comportement sérieux '.  Ce guide attire l'attention sur le fait que dans cette problématique particulière, si certains signalements sont faits par les jeunes eux-mêmes, ce sont surtout leurs parents qui les signalent.  Le guide conclut que l'enfant et les parents sont les deux cibles majeures d'intervention en protection de la jeunesse, en plus de la famille comme système, qui devient parfois aussi une cible d'intervention.

    Le guide propose également des objectifs et de nombreux moyens concrets d'intervention.  Nous estimons qu'il peut constituer un outil précieux pour ceux qui interviennent dans cette problématique spécifique.

    Il faut aussi se demander pourquoi l'État intervient dans les situations d'enfants présentant des troubles de comportement.  En 1984, le législateur a clarifié que ce n'était pas parce qu'un enfant présente des troubles de comportement, même sérieux, que l'État intervient, mais bien lorsque ses parents ne prennent pas les moyens nécessaires pour corriger la situation.  Pourtant, l'article 38 h) maintient une certaine ambiguïté en se rapportant à l'éventualité que l'État doit intervenir si 'les parents ne parviennent pas à corriger la situation'.  Notre groupe de travail est d'avis que l'État ne doit intervenir que lorsque les parents ne prennent pas les moyens nécessaires pour mettre fin à la situation de compromission de leur enfant.  C'est l'incapacité des parents d'apporter une réponse adéquate au moment opportun qui place leur enfant dans une situation de troubles de comportement sérieux au sens de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse.

    Bien sûr, l'État a aussi la responsabilité de s'assurer que les parents qui veulent aider leur enfant puissent avoir accès à des services adéquats.  C'est pourquoi, nous estimons que l'intervention doit, en premier lieu, se réaliser dans le cadre de la Loi sur les services de santé et les services sociaux et s'appuyer sur l'apport des organisations du milieu.  Cela exige la mise en place des services adéquats qui puissent répondre aux besoins de ces jeunes.

    Nous croyons qu'il ne faut pas pour autant délester la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse de certaines situations qui ne seraient pas automatiquement couvertes par la Loi sur les services de santé et les services sociaux.  Notre groupe de travail recommande donc de maintenir ces situations dans la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, afin d'éviter que les jeunes et les parents ne se retrouvent dans la situation où ils ne peuvent obtenir des services.  Par ailleurs, il demeure hautement souhaitable que l'on puisse répondre aux demandes de parents et aux besoins des jeunes, avant que ces situations ne soient signalées au directeur de la protection de la jeunesse.  Il faudrait également offrir des services aux parents et à l'enfant, lorsque le signalement de sa situation n'a pas été retenu par le directeur de la protection de la jeunesse, ou encore lorsque la sécurité ou le développement de l'enfant n'a pas été considéré comme compromis.  Dans toutes ces situations, il faut fournir aux personnes concernées des informations susceptibles de les aider et de les orienter vers ces services.

La Loi sur les services de la santé et les services sociaux (1991, chap. 42) prévoit d'ailleurs la mise en place de moyens qui peuvent mieux aider l'enfant et les parents.  À titre indicatif, mentionnons :

• les plans d'organisation de services que la régie régionale doit élaborer et mettre en oeuvre, en collaboration avec les établissements et les organismes communautaires de sa région ainsi qu'avec les intervenants des secteurs d'activités ayant un impact sur la santé et les services sociaux;

• le droit d'une personne d'être informée de l'existence des services et des ressources disponibles dans son milieu en matière de santé et de services sociaux ainsi que des modalités d'accès à des services et ressources;

• le droit d'un usager d'être accompagné et assisté d'une personne de son choix lorsqu'il désire obtenir des informations ou entreprendre une démarche relativement à un service dispensé par un établissement.

En conséquence, notre groupe de travail recommande:

R- 17 -- Que le ministre de la Santé et des Services sociaux, en collaboration avec les établissements concernés, voit à la mise en oeuvre, à l'application et au suivi du 'Guide d'intervention psychosociale auprès des enfants représentant des troubles de comportement sérieux'.

R-18 -- Que les nouvelles régies régionales considèrent les besoins des jeunes ayant des troubles de comportement, ainsi que les besoins de leurs parents, lors de l'élaboration et la mise en oeuvre des plans d'organisation de services, afin qu'on puisse répondre aux demandes des enfants et des parents, sans qu'ils doivent recourir à la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse.

R-19 -- Que les établissements concernés s'assurent que les enfants et leurs parents soient dirigés vers les services aptes à leur venir en aide et leur facilitent, le cas échéant, le contact avec ces ressources, notamment en faisant appel à des organismes d'aide et d'accompagnement." (pp. 54-56)
 

    "Le Québec était prêt à faire face aux changements qu'apportait la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants en 1984.   Après avoir fait l'objet d'expériences-pilotes à la fin des années 1970, le recours à des mesures de rechange (alors régies par la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse) avait été généralisé à l'ensemble du Québec en 1979.  La protection des droits des jeunes avait déjà acquis ses lettres de noblesse, notamment sous l'impulsion de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse.  Grâce au régime d'aide juridique, l'accessibilité à des avocats de la défense expérimentés était déjà un fait pour la quasi-totalité des adolescents.  Il faut aussi souligner que l'âge de la majorité pénale avait été fixé à dix-huit ans plus de quarante ans auparavant, ce qui avait permis le développement de services de réadaptation répondant aux besoins posés par les adolescents de seize et dix-sept ans.  Ces quelques indices font voir que c'est sans bouleversements que la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants pouvait être mise en vigueur au Québec." (p. 5)

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

    "Le degré de responsabilité qu'un adolescent peut assumer dépend forcément de sa maturité laquelle est en lien avec son âge.  Pour plusieurs, le jeune âge constitue une excuse au regard de laquelle il faudrait limiter au plus strict minimum les interventions touchant les jeunes de 12 ou 13 ans qui sont coupables d'infractions.  À nos yeux, la reconnaissance d'une responsabilité moindre ne doit pas constituer un message d'impunité à l'endroit des plus jeunes : ceux-ci doivent être touchés par des mesures comme les autres adolescents, quitte à ce que le choix des mesures soit approprié à leur âge.

    Nombre d'études ont confirmé que la précocité d'un agir délinquant significatif constitue un indice de la délinquance à venir; à ce titre, le très jeune âge d'un contrevenant devrait être vu comme un facteur de risque plutôt que comme une excuse lorsqu'il coexiste avec d'autres facteurs, comme un contrôle parental déficient ou des troubles de comportement à l'école, qui lui confèrent précisément cette coloration de risque.  Lorsque le jeune manifeste des troubles de comportement sérieux qui font croire qu'une mesure graduée en fonction de la gravité de l'infraction serait clairement insuffisante pour faire face au problème ou encore lorsque le jeune n'a pas atteint l'âge de 12 ans, une intervention en vertu de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse devrait être envisagée." (p. 20)

___________Groupe de travail sur la révision du Manuel de référence sur la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, Manuel de référence sur la protection de la jeunesse, Québec: Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, 1998, 245 p., ISBN: 2550325923; copie à la Bibliothèque du Parlement, Ottawa, KEQ 723 M35;
 

"L'exercice des responsabilités [...]

La 'responsabilité pénale' de la personne évolue avec l'âge.  Le droit pénal a pour finalité d'assurer la protection des personnes, de leurs biens et de l'ordre public.  Il détermine principalement, sur un territoire donné, l'âge de la responsabilité pénale, les infractions et les règles de procédure applicables.  Il y a lieu de distinguer le droit pénal fédéral ou canadien et le droit pénal provincial ou québécois.

En effet, l'âge de la responsabilité a été fixé à 12 ans en ce qui a trait aux infractions qui dérivent des lois du Canada.  La Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants fixe les règles générales d'application du droit pénal fédéral aux adolescents (personne âgée d'au moins 12 ans et de moins de 18 ans au moment où elle commet une infraction).  Cette loi institue un régime particulier qui vise à la fois la protection de la société et la réinsertion sociale des jeunes contrevenants.

Par ailleurs, l'âge de la responsabilité pénale a été fixé en ce qui a trait aux infractions qui dérivent des lois du Québec.  Le Code de procédure pénale du Québec détermine les règles générales d'application du droit pénal au Québec pour toutes les personnes âgée de 14 ans et plus.  Des dispositions particulières du Code de procédure pénale du Québec visent les personnes mineures [...]" (p. 50)

............................................

"Pour intervenir auprès de certains délinquants

 
La plus grande rigueur s'impose aussi dans les situations de délinquance juvénile.  En effet il ne faut pas confondre, d'une part, les notions de 'délinquance' et de troubles de comportement' et, d'autre part, les régimes légaux à utiliser selon les cas et les situations.

La délinquance se situe dans le domaine du droit pénal; ce sujet a été traité dans la première section de la Partie I du Manuel au titre des devoirs et responsabilités des personnes mineures [pp.48-50, "L'acquisition de l'exercice des droits et des responsabilités"].

En somme, l'intervention de l'État, en matière pénale, n'est justifiée que par la commission d'une infraction et a pour finalité ultime la protection de la société.  Deux situations peuvent se présenter, au Québec, dans le cas d'une personne mineure:
^. la commission d'une infraction à une loi fédérale, par une personne mineure âgée de 12 ans ou plus, peut donner ouverture à l'application de la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants;
^. la commission d'une infraction à une loi québécoise, par une personne mineure âgée de 14 ans ou plus, peut donner ouverture à l'application du Code de procédure pénale.

Le recours à ces deux législations est stritement balisé.  La LPJ ne doit jamais être utilisée de manière détournée lorsqu'il n'est pas possible d'appliquer la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants ou le Code de procédure pénale notamment à cause de l'âge de la personne mineure ou de l'incapacité de prouver sa culpabilité.  La LPJ ne doit pas, en outre, être utilisée pour obtenir l'application de mesures autres que celles prévues par les lois pénales.

Chaque loi a son propre champ d'application, ses objectifs et ses règles particulières; chacune doit être utilisée à bon escient.  Au besoin, ces diverses législations devront trouver application simultanément.  Ce sujet est traité de manière approfondie dans le Manuel de référence sur la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants²⁹.
----
29. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Manuel de référence sur la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, 1993, p. 229-243". (pp. 160-163)

.........

"L'avocat de l'enfant et des parents [...]

En plus de demander conseil à un avocat, une personne  peut lui confier un mandat:

. le mandat spécifique donné par l'adulte et par l'enfant doué de discernement;
. le mandat légal d'un enfant qui n'est pas doué de 'raison', terme introduit dans le CCQ en remplacement du terme 'discernement'.

 [ ...]

Dans le mandat légal, l'avocat, ne pouvant compter sur de véritables instructions de la part de son client, doit:
.  s'assurer que les règles de procédure sont respectées;
.  s'assuer que le tribunal dispose de tous les éléments pertinents pour prendre ses décisions dans l'intérêt de l'enfant et le respect de ses droits.

À cette fin, il peut demander toute information pertinente sur l'enfant et sa situation à toutes les personnes, organismes et établissements en mesure de l'éclairer.  À partir de ces données, il élabore un mandat légal qui correspond à l'opinion qu'il se fait de l'intérêt de l'enfant et du respect de ses droits.  Il fait ensuite valoir son point de vue devant les tribunaux." (pp. 219-220)
 

___________Ministère de la santé et des Services sociaux, Manuel de référence sur la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, [Québec] : Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux, Direction des communications, 1989, 201 p., ISBN: 2550194713; copie à la Bibliothèque du Parlemement, Ottawa, HV 745.5 Q4 A48 (bibliothèque Br.B);
 

___________Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Manuel de référence sur la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, 1993; titre noté dans ma recherche; je n'ai pas localisé ce livre dans les bibliothèques canadiennes; il semble important; si un lecteur connaît une localisation, svp me le dire;
 

___________ Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse  et   /Youth Protection Act
 

RAMSAY, F.J. (JACK), 1937-, member of the House of Commons, Reform party, and former RCMP constable, 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 10, 25 April 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at   http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/10_96-04-25/jula10_blk101.html (accessed on 23 October 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: Ramsay, F.J. (Jack), 1937-, député de la Chambre des communes, parti réformiste, ancien constable de la GRC, 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 10, 25 avril 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/10_96-04-25/jula10_blk201.html#0.1.JULA10.000001.AA1205.A (visionné le 23 Octobre 2002);

Mr. Ramsay: ...
Under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, the police and the court system had authority to deal with the criminal behaviour of any child as young as seven or eight. Of course, that was changed in 1984.

I was a police officer for 14 years, and we - myself and my colleagues - used to keep more of the young people out of the system. We did because we knew that it wouldn't do them any good, but we had the tools to be very effective, I thought. First of all, we had the authority to pick up the young person who was under 12 who was joyriding in a stolen car. We had the clout of the system to make them an offer they couldn't refuse. We would say, look, we'll have to talk to your parents and you'll have to repair the damage, or you'll have to satisfy the victim. If we could settle it between the offender and the victim, and the offender's family and the victim's family, then what's the purpose of taking it to court?

We used to resolve those kinds of problems in an informal way. We can't do that any more, and I think, Mr. Cole, when you talk about the families having more authority, the families and parents were always brought into it. Even if it went into juvenile court, the parents had to appear, the guardian had to appear. Always, in my experience, if the judge could leave the matter in the hands of the parents, if the judge was convinced the parents were responsible - and yes, some person did something that was wrong - he would leave it in the hands of the parents.

So when we advocate the lowering of the age - and I advocate only to 10 - that's what we're talking about, not taking the 10-year-olds into court, no. But what do we do when the 10-year-old is joyriding? The police stop him doing 100 miles an hour. After a wild chase they stop him. What do they do? How do they protect society? By what legislative authority do we protect society in those cases? Now, they're rare but they're there.

This is what I'd ask you about that. I'd ask you what would be wrong with not going right back to that system completely but lowering the age where the police would have authority to take that young person, take him back to his parents, perhaps refer him to an alternative measures program? What would be wrong with that, in your eyes?

Ms Barnes [Member, Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Prince Edward Island]: Don't the police have the mandate now to refer that child to the social services department?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but under the Young Offenders Act, do they even have the right to pick him up and take him home?

Ms Barnes: That's my understanding. I was under the impression they would refer him to the social services department, which would then have some sort of deterrent mechanism built into that.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course, I wasn't around when the Young Offenders Act came in, but the front-line police officers I've talked to are very concerned about the rights of the child now. If they pick a child up, they have to be very careful they don't violate the rights. So that limits the options they have to act in the best interests of the child.

I think there are some offences that maybe should be handled formally. But for the vast majority of those young kids, if the system would allow the informal handling, it would be done that way. Alternative measures open the door to that kind of thing."

READ, A.F., Minors' ability to participate in the adjudication process: a look at their understanding of court proceedings and legal rights, 1987, Master's (MA) thesis, University of Toronto; title noted in my research but thesis not consulted; I searched the University of catalogue but did not find that title (19 December 2002);
 

RECCHI, Roberta, "The Legal Regulation of the Relationship Between Age and Imputability", (1950) 50(3/4) Revue internationale de droit pénal 728-732;  copy at Ottawa University, K 5012 .R47, Location: FTX Periodicals; note: the Supreme Court of Canada library, Ottawa is missing this particular year;
 

"Remarks by Ministers at the Conclusion of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice Meeting December 4-5, 1997, Montréal, Québec", available at  http://www.sgc.gc.ca/releases/e19971205.htm (accessed on 21 September 2002);

"This summary reflects the views of all governments except Quebec, which will express its own positions in a separate press release.
...
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
...
Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island tabled for consideration a list of proposals to amend youth justice legislation. Some provinces wished time to consider these proposals while other provinces expressed opposition or varying degrees of support for the proposed amendments. These proposals along with the work of the Task Force will serve as a basis for discussion between jurisdictions and will be considered in preparation for the government response to the Standing Committee report.
...
BRIEFING NOTE
ALBERTA, MANITOBA, P.E.I., and ONTARIO PROPOSAL
SUBJECT: YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT AMENDMENTS AGREED TO AT P.E.I. CONFERENCE

ISSUE:
Amendments to the youth justice legislation agreed to by the four ministers at the P.E.I. conference.

BACKGROUND:
The following amendments to youth justice legislation were agreed to at the P.E.I. conference:

reduce the age of criminal accountability in selected cases (at Crown discretion) to address serious offences committed by children under the age of 12 years and for those in this group who exhibit a pattern of offending ... ."

ROACH, Kent, 1961-, "Crime Victims and Substantive Criminal Law" in Don Stuart, 1943-,  R.J. Delisle and Allan Manson, eds., Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law: A Criminal Reports Forum, Scarborough (Ontario): Carswell, Thomson Professional Publishing, 1999, v, 574 p., pp. 219-230, see p. 226, "(g) Age Incapacity", ISBN: 045927077X; note: comments on Professor Don Stuart's draft General Part found at  pp. 95-145;

"Age Incapacity
There may be a case to returning to the law as it existed before 1983.  In some ways, the pre-1983 law was less arbitrary because it was premised on an examination of the individual child's capacity.  The defensibility of this approach, however, would depend on whether sentencing options could recognize that the predominant societal interest was the child' rehabilitation and reintegration with society.  The present approach should be retained if children under 12 could only be treated in a punitive fashion if convicted of an offence." (p. 227)

ROBERTS, Julian V. for the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police. Training Task Force, Police Training and Young Persons in Conflict with the Law : Report of a National Survey, [Ottawa] : Department of Justice Canada, 1999, [37 p.];
 

ROBINSON, Bernard, Deputy Minister, Attorney General's Department, Commissioner of Corrections, the Government of British Columbia, testimony of, in Senate of Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs...on: Bill C-61, "An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act", issue number 21, 22 June 1982; also available in French/aussi disponible en français, Robinson, Bernard, témoignage devant le Sénat du Canada, Comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, Délibérations du comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles [...] concernant: Le projet de loi C-61, "Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, portant abrogation de la loi sur les jeunes délinquants", fascicule numéro 21, 22 juin 1982;

"Mr. Robinson: [Bernard, Deputy Minister, Attorney General's Department, Commissioner of Corrections, the Government of British Columbia] ... With respect to the lower age of 12 years, we agree that there are very few children below this age who are presently coming into serious conflict with the law.  Nevertheless, to exclude this population absolutely from possible intervention by the justice system will, we believe, in very short time, result in greater exploitation of children by predatory criminals, both juvenile and adult, than already exists today.  This situation will be one which the public will simply not tolerate and, in due course, we anticipate that there will be pressure from the public to lower the age.  We suggest that this problem be solved immediately by amending the Young Offenders Act in such a way to allow for some flexibility to deal with those exceptional cases when the formal prosecution of a child under the age of 12 is clearly in the public interest." (p. 21 : 9)

---------

"We do not want the age lowered.  We would like to see a provision similar to the raising provision for those under age 12.  So, if a particularly difficult case came to light, that case could, in fact, be handled in a youth court upon special application being made.  So we would like to see the age remain at 12, but with provision that would allow the handling of someone under the age of 12, if indeed the court acknowledged that that particular case represented the kind of case that needed to be dealt with in the youth court."  (p. 21: 22)

---------

"In our system we have had no cases under the age of 12 in recent memory who have ended up in our youth containment facilities, but we have had children under the age of 12 who have required the support and supervision of a probation officer, in addition to the interventions of a child welfare official, in order to provide the set of resources that child required.  Under the proposed legislation, that would not be a possibility" [p. 21 : 23]

ROLLASON, Kevin, "Welcome awaits trio who killed frien, 6", The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday, 14 August 2007, p. A3;

"The age limits stipulated in the YOA have become controversial. Some police forces, in particular, contend that they are virtually powerless to deal with criminal acts by children under 12 and over 7. The federal government maintains that the provinces have the power to treat such children pursuant to their jurisdiction over child welfare. Some provinces were slow to accommodate themselves to the new upper age limit of 18."

RUGGE, Tanya A., An Investigation of Risk and protective Factors Associated with Criminal Activity in Children under the Age of Twelve,  thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfiliment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychoiogy, Carleton University, 1998, ix, 107 p.; available at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0004/MQ32377.pdf  (accessed on 16 May 2006);

RUNCIMAN, Hon. Robert W., Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, see Ontario, Runciman, supra;
 

SENATE OF CANADA, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs...on: Bill C-61, "An Act respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act"; also available in French/aussi disponible en français, Sénat du Canada, Comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, Délibérations du comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles [...] concernant: Le projet de loi C-61, "Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants, portant abrogation de la loi sur les jeunes délinquants";  issues/fascicules: number 17, 3 June 1982; 18, ?June; 19, 10 June; 20, 17 June, 21, 22 June; and 22, 29 June 1982;
 

___________Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Fourth, fifth and sixth meetings on: Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, 27 September 2001 to 7 November 2001, available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenProceed.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=11 (accessed on 19 October 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français SÉNAT, Comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, Délibérations du comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, 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, 27 septembre au 7 novembre 2001, disponible à
 http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenProceed.asp?Language=F&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=11;
 

SHAW, Margaret and Frederick Jané,  Family Group Conference with Children under Twelve: A Discussion Paper, [Ottawa]: Department of Justice Canada, 1999, xi, 29 p., available at  http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/rp/doc/Paper107.PDF (accessed on 28 August 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français Conférence des familles pour les enfants de moins de 12 ans, [Ottawa]: Ministère de la justice Canada, 1999, 44 p., disponible à  http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/ps/yj/rp/doc/Paper107.pdf (visionné le 26 août 2002);
 

SOLOMON, Damian, Acting Director of Professional Services, Canadian Teachers' Federation, testimony before Senate, Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Fourth, fifth and sixth meetings on: Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, see issue 12, evidence of 17 October 2001, available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/lega-e/12evb-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=11 (accessed on 19 October 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français SOLOMON, Damian, directeur adjoint des services professionnels, Fédération canadienne des enseignants et des enseignantes, témoignage devant Sénat, Comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, Délibérations du comité sénatorial permanent des Affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, Quatrième, cinquième et sixième réunions 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, voir le fascicule 12, témoignages du 17 octobre 2001, disponible à
 http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-f/lega-f/12evb-f.htm?Language=F&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=11

" I believe that the Canadian school boards, our organization and the other partners represented by this brief, all share the belief that early prevention and intervention are key. It is one of the thrusts the proposed legislation speaks to. We believe it is important to have an integrated approach, or it will not be effective.

One of the things we recognize is that there are some stumbling blocks with respect to, for example, treating kids under the age of 12. I have participated in round tables, coordinated by the Department of Justice, that bring together people from different child agencies to discuss what can be done to prevent such children who offend from becoming part of a legal process. Perhaps we can head them off before that happens, so they do not become part of the legal justice system.

One of the problems, and one of the issues to be addressed, is the inconsistent provisions and applications of provincial legislation dealing with young persons under the age of 12. This is a role for the federal government to address, working in partnership with the provinces and territories. Legislation dealing with young offenders under the age of 12 varies from province to province. There is a lack of clear, concise information in both the YOA and provincial legislation on this whole issue.

We are proposing, in recognition of this issue and this concern, that we support the development of a resource book on existing provincial-territorial regulations, so that various personnel involved with these children are aware of the options available to them. Again, it speaks to the issue of coordination and partnership. We will not make progress on this issue if there is no partnership."

SPRINGBOARD,  Margaret Stanowski, Executive Director, testimony 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 25, 5 June 996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/25_96-06-05/jula25_blk101.html (accessed on 28 October 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: SPRINGBOARD, Margaret Stanowski, directrice générale, 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 25, 5 juin 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/25_96-06-05/jula25_blk201.html#0.1.JULA25.000001.AA1307.A  (visionné le 28 Octobre 2002);

"Well, I believe there the authority would be provincially based under child welfare legislation. Again, each province is then entrusted to respond to issues for those under the age of 12. There has certainly been much discussion on this topic. If you are at a social gathering and you raise this topic you won't get out alive, particularly if you support the retention of the existing age limits for the Young Offenders Act.

I guess the issue really comes back to some of the fundamental principles of the Young Offenders Act in terms of a correctional responsibility for youth under the age of 12. Child welfare legislation is deemed appropriate to provide intervention on "a non-correctional basis".  Again, it comes back to this. I think we're talking about allocation of those resources for child welfare organizations such as Children's Aid to responsibly address this."

SPROTT, Jane B. and Anthony N. Doob, Who Are The Most Violent Ten and Eleven Year Olds?  An Introduction To Future Delinquency?, [Hull]: Human Resources Development Canada; Applied Research Branch, 1998, vii, 30 p.  (series Working papers; number W-98-29E); copy at Ottawa University; available at  http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/sp-ps/arb-dgra/publications/research/abw-98-29e.shtml (accessed on 14 September 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français: Qui sont les enfants de 10 et 11 ans les plus violents? Prélude à la délinquance future (Collection; document de travail; numéro W-98-29F) disponible à http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/sp-ps/arb-dgra/publications/research/abw-98-29f.shtml (visionné le 14 septembre 2002);
 

STUART, Don, 1943-,  Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise, 4th ed., Scarborough: Carswell, 2001, liv, 733 p., see "Immaturity" at pp. 365-370. ISBN: 0459261703 (bound) and 0459261118 (pbk.); there is now a 5th ed.: Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2007, xix, 815 p., ISBN: 978 0779812950;
 

___________"A Case for A General Part" in Don Stuart, 1943-,  R.J. Delisle and Allan Manson, eds., Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law: A Criminal Reports Forum, Scarborough (Ontario): Carswell, Thomson Professional Publishing, 1999, v, 574 p., at pp. 95-145, see "Age Incapacity" at p. 122, ISBN: 045927077X;

"Age Incapacity
20. No person is criminally responsible for conduct committed while under the age of 12 years.
[Criminal Code, s. 13]

Setting the age for responsibility is arbitrary and political.  Parliament arrived at the age of 12 as recently as 1983." (p. 122)
 

"One of the most contentious points about this debate has been how to deal with young people who are under the age of 12. We recommended to the committee back in 1995 or 1996 that a special mechanism be created for that really small number of young people who are 10 and 11, who have come to the attention of the police for repeated or serious offences. This committee actually, as I recall, in recommendation 9, made the recommendation to the government that there be a process by which 10- and 11-year-olds are included in the process.

Obviously the minister felt that recommendation wasn't appropriate and that it's better to deal with them in the provincial system, and we agree. In a perfect world we would deal with it in the provincial system. But at that same conference I was at in Hull, I heard about a study done by the Earlscourt Child and Family Centre, which I'm sure this committee can get a copy of, and it was revealed that almost 70% of directors of child welfare services say that children under 12 committing offences definitely fall between the cracks. He described, looking at all the provinces, a model of non-intervention. Of course it's a broad statement. He didn't give us a breakdown, province by province. He also said that only six provinces mention serious offending and that the roles of police vary considerably with respect to reporting, detaining, and apprehending.

I think what's clear is that simply relying on the provinces for these kids isn't working. So we would recommend a special mechanism: it's not to throw kids in jail, it's not to saddle them with a criminal record, but it's a special mechanism to get them some kind of help. And of course it would involve whether they've been through the child welfare system. It doesn't make any sense to just throw up our hands and wait until they're 12 years old so the police can charge them."

___________ 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 3, 16 April 1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/03_96-04-16/jula03_blk101.html (accessed on 21 October 2002); 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 3, 16 avril 1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/03_96-04-16/jula03_blk201.html#0.1.JULA03.000001.AA0934.A  (visionné le 21 Octobre 2002);

"Our support for the lowering of the ages for young people is conditional. The only rationale we see for lowering the age of the YOA from 12 to 11 or 10 is the lack of other options for dealing with children that age who do break the law, and there are some. We understand that the solution here lies in provincial child welfare legislation, not in the YOA, but short of meaningful intervention to deal with these young people perhaps the YOA is better than the status quo. This is an area the committee may want to consider."

Supreme Court of Canada / Cour suprême du Canada
. R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303, available at http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1990/vol3/html/1990scr3_1303.html (accessed on 28 August 2002);

    "It is helpful to note, however, that s. 16(1) is worded in a very similar fashion to s. 13, which provides:

13. 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.

    This is a variation on the common law, which provided that a child under the age of seven was presumed irrebuttably to be incapable of possessing criminal intent and that a child between the ages of seven and fourteen was likewise presumed incapable unless there was clear proof of "precocity" so as to establish a real appreciation of the wrong done (see Perkins and Boyce, Criminal Law (3rd ed. 1982), c. 8). Once an accused reached the age of fourteen, the common law presumption of criminal incapacity disappeared and was replaced by a rebuttable presumption of capacity for criminal intent. This accords with the presumption of sanity which existed at common law (enunciated via the M'Naghten Rules), was adopted into Canadian criminal law in the first criminal code (see The Criminal Code, 1892, S.C. 1892, c. 29, s. 11, and accompanying commentary by Taschereau J. (The Criminal Code (1893, at pp. 8-9)), and continues in the current s. 16(4).

    In other words, the nature of the insanity defence is revealed if one views the changing presumptions regarding criminal capacity as a continuum. At common law, this continuum began with an irrebuttable presumption that a child under the age of seven could not have the capacity for criminal intent. Our current Code s. 13 provides for an irrebuttable presumption that a child under the age of twelve has no criminal capacity. At common law, the continuum provided for a rebuttable presumption of incapacity for children between the ages of seven and fourteen. Perkins and Boyce state "[t]his presumption is extremely strong at the age of seven and diminishes gradually until it disappears entirely at the age of fourteen" (p. 936). The current Criminal Code cuts off the presumption at age twelve; after a person reaches the age of twelve the presumption of sanity in s. 16(4) comes into play. Thus, at this end of the continuum, individuals are presumed to have criminal capacity until such presumption is rebutted on a balance of probabilities (of course, the Young Offenders Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. Y-1, which incorporates a concept of diminished responsibility, applies to young people between the ages of twelve and eighteen).

    While the state of insanity and the state of childhood cannot be equated, the connection between these two situations for the purpose of criminal law is apparent. What these two situations have in common is that they both indicate that the individual in question does not accord with some basic assumptions of our criminal law model: that the accused is a rational autonomous being who is capable of appreciating the nature and quality of an act and of knowing right from wrong. With respect to the state of childhood, these basic assumptions are brought into question because of the immaturity of the individual -- he or she has not yet developed the basic capacity which justice and fairness require be present in a person who is being measured against the standards of criminal law." (Chief Justice Lamer, pp. 1319-1320)

TIBBETTS, Janice, "Take 10-year-olds to court: minister.  Canada should consider jailing children to deter crime, Toews says", The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at pp. A1 and A2; title at p. A2 is "Criminal: 12 is often too late, Toews argues"; annnual Canadian Bar Association meeting on 14 August 2006;

TOEWS, Mr. Vic, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Letter to The Ottawa Citizen, "Re: Take 10 year-olds to court: minister, Aug. 15", The Ottawa Citizen, 17 August 2006, p. A11;

___________member of the House of Commons, Provencher, Camadian Alliance,  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, March 28, 2001; see  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Minutes/JUSTmn3%287422%29-E.htm et  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev03-e.htm (accessed on 17 October 2002);  also available in French/aussi disponible en français: TOEWS, M. Vic, Chambre des communes, député de Provencher, 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 28 mars 2001; voir http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Minutes/JUSTmn3%287422%29-F.htmet http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev03-f.htm; (visionné le 17 octobre 2002);

"The minister has refused to financially partner with the provinces on a 50-50 basis. When asked why, she has said that the federal government doesn't have the money. Remember, this is a federal program, a federal initiative, and yet she expects the provinces to pick up in effect 75% of the cost of her program.

The provinces aren't satisfied. They're very concerned about this lack of commitment. Yes, there's some initial funding over the first number of years, but then the funding becomes discretionary. That's where the devil is. They can hold up funding. There aren't guarantees of funding. Those are in fact the concerns.

I think this points also, Mr. Chair, to the real reason the minister has refused to extend the rehabilitative powers of the youth court to children under 12. I'm not talking about the punitive powers of the court. I'm talking about the rehabilitative powers of the court to deal with children under 12. The reason is not that the punitive provisions are too harsh for children. But let's assume they're not suitable, and let's just deal with the issue of the rehabilitative powers. The real reason is that the minister simply does not want to put up federal money to support the federal program. It costs money to assist the provinces. It costs money to extend the rehabilitative powers of the youth court to children under 12.

Everyone knows—it's no secret—that the child welfare system is simply not appropriate and effective to deal with these very problematic children. The minister has said here today “There are not many children”. Well, if there aren't that many children, why doesn't she extend the rehabilitative powers? The child welfare system simply isn't as efficient in dealing with getting children before the court and directing child-caring authorities to do that. That used to happen under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, when I prosecuted under that act. The courts had the power to say to the child-caring agencies “Come and explain why we have your 11-year-old ward on the street”.

I want to know why the minister will not support financially this partnership to the extent of 50% so that the provinces can carry out these federal responsibilities and also help children under the age of 12. If there is a solution, it certainly isn't in this legislation."  (pp. 8-9)
 

___________École de criminologie, Université de Montréal, 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 42, 25 September1996, (Chair: Shaughnessy Cohen), available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/42_96-09-25/jula42_blk101.html (accessed on 4 November 2002); also available in French/aussi disponible en français: École de criminologie, Université de Montréal, 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, numéro de séance 42, 25 septembre1996 (Présidente: Shaughnessy Cohen), disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/jula/evidence/42_96-09-25/jula42_blk201.html#0.1.JULA42.000001.AA0807.A (visionné le 3 novembre 2002);

"Mr. Ramsay [Member of the Committee] : I'm sorry, but, with respect, that wasn't my question. My question is: In your view, what is wrong with the government re-exerting its authority for children under 12 in the area of criminal law?

[Translation]  Prof. Trépanier: If you are asking me the question, ``What is wrong?'', I would say that other means would perhaps be preferable. There are certain situations involving serious behaviours in which youths of 10 or 11 are involved where it is very important to be able to intervene. That seems to be essential.

A few months ago, for example, a number of youths were arrested for sexual assault in Toronto, I believe, and the case was very widely reported in the media  because one youth apparently told the police officer: ``I'm still only 12; you can't do anything to me.''

If that youth had been arrested in Montréal, the officer would have been able to answer: ``You're completely wrong because the Youth Protection Act allows us to  intervene. I'm going to make a report to the Director of Youth Protection.'' The provincial Youth Protection Act makes it possible to intervene in cases where a youth  displays serious behavioural problems, and all the necessary measures may be taken.

In essence, in the case of the youngest youths, serious youth protection measures may often be preferable. We perhaps tend to imagine that every reaction to an  offence must necessarily be a reaction involving prison. However, I don't think every reaction must necessarily be of a penal nature in order to be appropriate. What is necessary, however, is to be able to intervene.

Mr. Ramsay: If I could just add to that, a legal system is also an educational system. Every one of the young offenders who we saw in the institutions that we visited yesterday was at one time 10,11 years old. They didn't suddenly just cross that line and become young offenders. When the federal government changed or abandoned - and I use the word ``abandoned'' knowingly - the children under 12 in 1984, they also abandoned society. That's the feeling, that's the impression we keep getting.

In Quebec you have the Youth Protection Act, but that act is not instituted and authorized under the criminal law head. So, inasmuch as the federal government has abandoned the former responsibility that it had under the Juvenile Delinquents Act that dealt with children well under the age of 12, what it has done is it has left parents without that educational system that is part of the legal system, the one in which we say to our children, from the time they become rational - from seven or eight years of age - that this is the law and this is how it affects them. We have denied parents that right.
.....
I'll just finish off by saying that there is only one province that has done what Quebec has done. What we're hearing is that the provinces are waiting for the federal government to establish a standard across the country that will fill the gap that the Youth Protection Act in Quebec has filled, at least in part.

Perhaps you could comment on that.

[Translation]  Prof. Trépanier: I believe we all agree that intervention is necessary in cases such as this. The question is whether it is necessary that this intervention be of a penal nature or whether intervention more centred on child protection may be adequate, as is the  case in Quebec.

Here in Quebec, there has to date been clear satisfaction with the way in which we have proceeded. This could also be done in other provinces. When we intervene  in youth protection, we know how to tell the youth that, if he has behaviour problems, behavioural difficulties, one of the symptoms of those problems is the fact that he's breaking the law. The fact that the federal statute applies starting at age 12 does not exempt youths under 12 from complying with the Criminal Code. We are sending this clear message to youths.

Mr. Ramsay: And that applies to Quebec only.

[Translation]  Prof. Trépanier: Yes, that is correct."
 

TRÉPANIER, Jean et Françoise Tulkens, Délinquance & protection de la jeunesse : aux sources des lois belge et canadienne sur l'enfance, Montréal : Presses universitaires de Montréal, 1995, 139 p. (Collection; Perspectives criminologiques), ISBN: 2760616592; note: Publié en collaboration avec: les Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa (ISBN: 2760303969) et De Boeck Université (ISBN: 2804120449); copie à l'Université d'Ottawa, MRT General, KE 9445 .T74 1995;

"La période 1857-1887
Les mineurs délinquants sont, jusqu'en 1857, soumis au même régime juridique que les adultes.  Avec l'intention 'd'accélérer les procès des jeunes délinquants et de leur éviter les malheurs d'un long emprisonnement avant procès', le parlement de la Province du Canada adopte en 1857 une première loi conférant un statut juridique particulier aux mineurs de 16 ans. [...]  Après la mise en place de la fédération canadienne en 1867, une nouvelle loi [en 1869] reprend pour l'essentiel les mêmes dispositions, mais dans une forme différente, en étendant surtout leur portée aux nouvelles provinces de la fédération qui vient d'être crée." (p. 20, notes omises)

UNITED NATIONS, Convention on the Rights of the Child, New York,  20 November 1989, subsection 40(3);  also published in French / aussi publié en français Nations Unies, Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant, voir le paragraphe 40(3);

"Article 40
3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular:

(a) The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law;

(b) Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected."

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

"Article 40
3. Les Etats parties s'efforcent de promouvoir l'adoption de lois, de  procédures, la mise en place d'autorités et d'institutions spécialement conçues pour les enfants suspectés, accusés ou convaincus d'infraction à la loi pénale, et en particulier :

a) D'établir un âge minimum au-dessous duquel les enfants seront présumés n'avoir pas la capacité d'enfreindre la loi pénale ;

b) De prendre des mesures, chaque fois que cela est possible et souhaitable, pour traiter ces enfants sans recourir à la procédure judiciaire, étant cependant entendu que les droits de l'homme et les garanties légales doivent être pleinement respectés."

___________United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/113of 14 December 1990, available at  http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp37.htm (accessed on 8 September 2002); also published in French / aussi publié en français : Règles des Nations Unies pour la protection des mineurs privés de liberté, Adoptées par l'Assemblée générale dans sa résolution 45/113 du 14 décembre 1990, disponible à  http://www.unhchr.ch/french/html/menu3/b/h_comp37_fr.htm, (visionné le 8 septembre 2002);
 

___________United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Bejing Rules), Adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/33of 29 November 1985, available at  http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp48.htm (accessed on 8 September 2002);  also published in French / aussi publié en français : Ensemble de règles minima des Nations Unies concernant l'administration de la justice pour mineurs (Règles de Beijing), Adopté par l'Assemblée générale dans sa résolution 40/33 du 29 novembre 1985, disponible àhttp://www.unhchr.ch/french/html/menu3/b/h_comp48_fr.htm (visionné le 8 septembre 2002);

"4. Age of criminal responsibility

4.1 In those legal systems recognizing the concept of the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity.

Commentary

The minimum age of criminal responsibility differs widely owing to history and culture. The modern approach would be to consider whether a child can live up to the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility; that is, whether a child, by virtue of her or his individual discernment and understanding, can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behaviour. If the age of criminal responsibility is fixed too low or if there is no lower age limit at all, the notion of responsibility would become meaningless. In general, there is a close relationship between the notion of responsibility for delinquent or criminal behaviour and other social rights and responsibilities (such as marital status, civil majority, etc.).

----------

"4. Age de la responsabilité pénale

4.1 Dans les systèmes juridiques qui reconnaissent la notion de seuil de responsabilité  pénale, celui-ci ne doit pas être fixé trop bas eu égard aux problèmes de maturité affective, psychologique et intellectuelle.

Commentaire :

Le seuil de responsabilité pénale varie largement selon les époques et les cultures. L'attitude  moderne serait de se demander si un enfant peut supporter les conséquences morales et  psychologiques de la responsabilité pénale, c'est-à-dire si un enfant, compte tenu de sa capacité de discernement et de compréhension, peut être tenu responsable d'un comportement essentiellement antisocial. Si l'âge de la responsabilité pénale est fixé trop  bas ou s'il n'y a pas d'âge limite du tout, la notion n'a plus de sens. En général, il existe une relation étroite entre la notion de responsabilité pour un comportement délictueux ou criminel et les autres droits et responsabilités sociales (par exemple la situation matrimoniale, la  majorité civile, etc.)."

VANDERVORT, Lucinda, "To Codify or Not Codify the Principles of Criminal Responsibility: A Question of Fundamental Justice and Equality" in Don Stuart, 1943-,  R.J. Delisle and Allan Manson, eds., Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law: A Criminal Reports Forum, Scarborough (Ontario): Carswell, Thomson Professional Publishing, 1999, v, 574 p., see "(g) Section 20 - Age Incapacity", at pp. 239-240, ISBN: 045927077X; note: comments on Professor Don Stuart's draft General Part found at  pp. 95-145; important contribution;

"As a minimum interim measure Parliament should amend the current statutory provision to provide that the presumption that persons 12 years of age or more have the functional cognitive and volitional capacity to be held accountable for failure to conform their conduct to law applies only in those cases in which there is no evidence to the contrary, with capacity to be determined on a case-by-case basis in all other cases.  In the absence of an appropriate Parliamentary initiative to deal with these issues, the present statutory provision appears vulnerable to challenge under ss. 7, 9, 12 and 15 of the Charter." (p. 240)

VERMEULEN, Sandra C. A. (Sandra Charlene Alice), 1959-, Legal knowledge and decision-making in adolescents : plea decisions and competency to waive Charter cautions, Thesis (Ph.D.), Simon Fraser University, 1997, xi, 78 leaves; copy at the National Library of Canada; title noted in my research but not consulted yet (31 January 2003);
 

WESTWICK, Vincent, Vice-Chair, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, 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, 24 February 2000, available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev24-e.htm; also published in French / aussi publié en français: Westwick, Vincent, vice-président, Comité des modifications aux lois, Association canadienne des chefs de police, 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, 24 février 2000, disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev24-f.htm;

"The gap in the legislative framework is that we accept and understand that child welfare is a provincial responsibility. We also understand that statistically there is not a large number of serious crimes being committed by persons under the age of 12. Currently, however, there are situations where it arises, and we believe it should be dealt with. An opportunity exists for the federal Minister of Justice to demonstrate leadership to address the legislative gap, and I understand from discussions I've had with the Department of Justice that to some extent those efforts are underway."

......

"One of the mechanisms, which we have in fact suggested before this committee before, is what we would call a transfer up provision. In exceptional circumstances, it would allow a younger person, under 12, to be brought into the young offender system if it were appropriate. Part of the difficulty with it is that there are very few of those circumstances occurring across the country, and we're fortunate in that regard. I think it could leave a community in an awkward situation if you had a very serious crime committed and no mechanism to deal with it except the child welfare provisions.

We would not be opposed to that kind of mechanism to do it, much like the transfer provisions that are in the current YOA."
 

"The replacement of the Juvenile Delinquents Act by the Young Offenders Act in 1984 was intented to provide a more uniform youth justice system across Canada.  Whereas under the old law the age limits for 'juvenile delinquents' varied from province to province, the new Act sets a national minimum age of 12 and a maximum age of 18 for 'young offenders'.  In addition, it outlines a number of special procedures to be used in the criminal procedure of youths.  The new regime has not been received without criticism, however, and some of the provinces have been relunctant to fully comply.  This article examines whether the new Act has really succeded in eliminating intra-provincial variations in the treatment of young offenders." (p. 303)

Canadian Law: A-H (authors)

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