OTTANA, KLA OPB
May 10, 1973

-ir. RA. r2eman,

City Clerk,

Tne Corporation of tue
City of Port Coquitlam,

2272 UcAllister avenue,

Port Coquitlam, B.C.

Dear lir. Freeman:

Re: Juveniles - Bievele Violation Enforcement

e

On May 2nd my Executive Assistant furnished you with an
interim reply to your letter of April 4th addressed to
the Honourable otto x, Lang, inister of Justice. I aave
enquired of slinistry officials as to what the technical
position is and I am advised that the problem which
concerns you has been recognized, but I regret to say
there does not seem to ba a Speedy and practical solution
available.

Tne difficulty arises from the definition of a "juvenile
delinguent" as contained in section 2(1) of the Juvenile
Delinquents Act which includas any child wao violates

"any by~law or ordinance of any municipality". In
Attorney-General of Britisa Coluasia v. Smith, tae Juvenile
Delinquents Act was nela ay tas Susreme Court of Canada

to b2 legislation under the criminal lay head of section 91
of the Britisn Jortia America Act. Tne result is that a
juvenile who violates a municioal by-las or ordéinanc: has
tecanically committed an offence under federal law.

In November, 1970, the then Solicitor General introduced
tae Young Of fendgars act, vaich would have revealed the
Juvenil2 Celinsuants Act. In the Young Offendars ict tae

afinition of “offenca"’ vas carefully drawn so that it
yelated only to off; creatod sy an act of tae Parliament
of Canaiza or roy 2S, regulations, @tc., mada trara-
uncar, or a crimina ontemoc 95 court. Jad this pill
bacome law, such relatively trivial macters as violation
Qf ordinancas res 2ecting tre ovaration of eleveles would x
longer rave come vitsain the anolit of tue legislation, and
enforcomant of tha municival sy-lavs or ordinances could
Nave proceedad under erovincial or municioal lav,