More selective jurisdiction

Vic Toews tries to explain how extending the criminal law process to 10-year-olds won't necessarily result in children that young being sent to criminal training. But in doing so, he seems rather happy to use the criminal law as a response to perceived failings on areas which should plainly be the responsibility of the provinces:

When young people fall victim to the criminal element before they reach 12 years of age, it represents a failure of the justice system and the social services that governments provide...

In some cases, young people have had extensive police and social service interaction before age 12. For these youth, the justice system has no mechanism to ensure that they get the treatment they need. To prevent them from falling through the cracks, we need to discuss whether the courts should have some legal recourse to intervene in a positive fashion.

In other words, Toews tries to justify getting the criminal law involved earlier because of a view that social services aren't currently addressing the needs of such youths. But apparently it would be too easy to deal with such a deficiency by talking with the provinces to try to ensure that appropriate resources exist to provide the needed services. Instead, Toews' solution is not only to raise the spectre of criminal prosecutions for the youths involved, but also to impose his vision of social services on the provinces (and without any additional funding to help provinces meet that obligation).

Once again, the Cons apparently have no interest in respecting either side of the actual constitutional division of powers except where it fits their ideological purposes. Sometimes that means imposing massive burdens on the provinces without any support; others it means claiming helplessness when a federal program causes direct harm to workers. But either way, it's not a situation that either provinces or Canadians generally should be willing to abide.

(Edit: fixed link.)