Evidence of meeting #7 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was state.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
As an Individual
... but at least his death and his tragedy will have served a purpose for society.
Thank you for listening.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, and welcome, everyone.
I want to thank you in particular for being here today, Mrs. Lacasse. I know it is very difficult for you, but it is very important for us and for the entire country.
We know that your son Sébastien was beaten to death by a dozen young people in Laval, in 2004. You support our Bill C-10 and you say that at least his death will have served some purpose for society and also so that the young murderers will receive a sentence proportionate to the seriousness of their acts. You said that the family of a victim serves a life sentence.
One of the main objectives of the criminal justice system, including the youth justice system, is to protect the public. The government believes that in some cases, the public has the right to know whether a violent young offender has been released into the community.
Do you think the ban on publishing the names of young persons convicted of a violent offence has to be lifted?
9:20 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I think it is important, because if you knew the person or you saw them walking around on the street, even if they were under 18 at the time, you would at lest know that they may be dangerous.
Excuse me, I'm a little nervous.
It might help people, to know that this person has done something previously in the past. It might help them protect themselves.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
When the young persons who were being sentenced and dealt with in your son's case were before the courts, was it a worry to you about what they might do if they were released? Did that cause you additional disquiet?
9:20 a.m.
As an Individual
A lot. It worries me, right now, because exactly, one of the main accused is probably getting out soon. He is the main murderer, the one who stabbed my son. The others are all out. It is certainly worrying.
One or two years after his death, my other children—I have two other children with me—were often afraid because they ran into them all over. I can tell you that nothing could be done about that. It made my girl and my boy afraid; they were always looking behind them.
Yes, it makes me afraid and it frightens me to know that the main murderer is going to get out and he will be able to try to see us. Certainly that makes us afraid.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Would it be some reassurance to you to know that names were made public and others in the community would be able to be aware of where such persons were released? Would that have given you some small measure of reassurance?
9:25 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, it would reassure me. I talk to people a lot who ask me the names so they can know who it is. Naturally, our part of the country is small, Fabreville and Ste-Rose. Everybody knows everybody else. Knowing who committed this serious crime, there may be young people who would not go and hang out with them, hang around where they are and all that. I think that is important. I would have liked young people to know, yes.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
This Bill C-10,
our bill, targets and focuses on the 5% or so of young offenders who are violent and repeat young offenders who really do pose a threat to public safety. Do you think that prosecutors should be required to consider seeking adult sentences in certain cases?
9:25 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes. In certain cases, it is important because they are committing an adult act. I think that when someone commits a murder, commits a serious crime or a sexual crime, certainly ...
Excuse me, I lost the train of your question.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Your time is up, Mr. Woodworth. We'll have to come back to that. Thank you.
Ms. Boivin.
October 25th, 2011 / 9:25 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everyone, for being here.
I am trying to find a happy medium between protecting the public and fairness in sentencing, and so on. It is not always easy, and I don't envy the job of Crown and defence counsel and judges in these circumstances.
Professor Bala, you talk about the issue of seeking an adult sentence. I want to quote part of your brief, that you provided to us, and I would ask you to explain what you mean by the following:
If the Crown decides not to apply for an adult sentence, then Counsel must inform the youth court that it is not doing so. This provision suggests a disrespect for Crown Counsel and a mistrust that they are properly exercising their prosecutorial discretion in violent cases. This amendment may place Crown counsel in the awkward position of having to put their refusal to seek an adult sentence on the record in every case, and adds to the complexity of the youth court process.
Can you explain why you say that?
9:25 a.m.
Prof. Nicholas Bala
Yes, and I think there are clearly offences for which adult sentences are appropriate, and homicide would obviously be one of them. The act does allow for that, and it requires the crown to make a very difficult decision about whether or not to seek an adult sentence. In some cases that will clearly be appropriate. We have had other cases in which it may not be.
Sometimes the homicide, for example, involves another family member, and the crown may look at all the circumstances of the events and conclude, taking account of the age of the young person and the relationship with the victim, that it's not appropriate to ask for an adult sentence, and also that the circumstance is a first-degree murder as opposed to a manslaughter situation. In that circumstance I think we have to respect the role of crowns to say they're not asking for an adult sentence, as opposed to requiring them to explain to the court why they are not doing that.
I don't think it is an appropriate role for the justice system to be holding crowns accountable in that particular way. I think it's certainly appropriate for the crowns to be discussing the matter with the police, and indeed with the victims. In some provinces, like Ontario, legislation requires that victims are to be consulted. They're not to make the decision. Victims should have an important role, should have more support, should have more respect, but largely that's not going to come from legislation. That comes from training, resources, providing victim support workers, and that kind of thing.
I think we all feel profound sadness in hearing what happened to Sebastien. He is not alone. There are many victims of youth crime, including youth homicide. The question is not whether there are victims but what we should do that's going to be effective to make that kind of offence less likely in the future. We all imagine how you and your family have suffered, and are suffering and will suffer, but we have to think about what will actually make society safer as opposed to what we think...oh, that sounds like a good idea. We can see that other jurisdictions have tried some of these initiatives. We can publicize the names of all young people--that sounds like a good idea; it sounds as if it would increase public protection. But we can look at the experience of other jurisdictions where they tried it. They said actually this doesn't make society safer. It actually makes society less safe.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
It's just, in your recommendation on the definition of "violent offence" that is proposed in Bill C-10, you suggest that the idea of endangerment be added, even though the conduct itself was not intended to cause and did not cause bodily harm.
Your recommendation is as follows:
The term "violent offence" should be defined to include cases of endangerment, but there should be an element of intent or recklessness, to take account of the limited foresight of youth; the words "young person knows or ought to know would endanger the life or safety etc..." should be added into sub (c) of the definition.
Can you explain what you mean by that recommendation?
9:30 a.m.
Prof. Nicholas Bala
Yes. This relates both to the Nunn inquiry and to litigation in some cases across Canada. The present definition of violent offence actually requires an intent to do harm. I support the intent of the amendment. It comes out of the Nunn inquiry, among other places, to say that if a young person, for example, has been involved in a high-speed automobile chase involving the police and doesn't actually injure anybody, that could be considered a violent offence, and in appropriate cases there would be custody or pre-trial detention. That was the issue in the case that Justice Nunn was looking at.
However, this provision, in my view, goes beyond that as it does not require the young person to actually be aware of the fact that he or she is likely endangering the public. So while I support the amendment to violent offence to include public endangerment, my submission is directed toward making sure it's an appropriate definition. It would be my concluding--
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My question is to Professor Bala with regard to restorative justice. Being involved in one of the first restorative justice programs in 1996-97, back in Sparwood, British Columbia, with Jake Bouwman and Glen Purdy, I saw the great benefits to first-time offenders being diverted from youth court into a restorative justice system.
For those who are put in front of the courts and are convicted, do you see a benefit to providing a segment of that restorative justice system so that part of the sentencing would also require the accused to go in front of the victims, in certain cases where the victims' families feel comfortable, to provide some form of explanation to the victims, even if they are convicted?
9:30 a.m.
Prof. Nicholas Bala
I think what you did in Sparwood is a national inspiration. You did tremendous work there. I think having more situations in which young people actually hear from victims and hear in some cases about the tremendous damage they have done.... I would even sometimes consider this in some property offences. I think it's very important for offenders to hear about how people whose property has been damaged feel about that.
The problem, and this goes back to deterrence, is the way in which young people's brains develop. They have full physical stature but their brain is not fully developed. They don't understand the consequences of their acts, whether those acts are starting to smoke or unsafe sex practices, and in the context of violence, they often don't appreciate what it is they're doing to the victims. Sometimes that's why their acts are incredibly callous. So I think hearing from the victims is very important.
Actually, our present legislation does allow for that. It does allow for conferencing. For example, in Alberta we have the Calgary community conferencing model. The present act does have that kind of model of restorative justice. Many victims actually feel better about that than about going to court, or in addition to going to court. The reason we don't have it is not because of legislation; it's because of provincial implementation. Here in Ontario we don't have nearly enough resources devoted toward this kind of process of conferencing and engaging victims. If the issue is that we want to see changes in the youth justice system to have a safer society, I completely agree. The question is how we're going to achieve that.
In this context, is it a problem with the federal legislation, or is it how the provinces are implementing it? I think many of the problems that we see in the youth justice system are actually issues of provincial implementation, some of which have to do with resource issues, some of which, perhaps, are philosophical, and some of which have to do with the attitudes of professionals who've been in the system for a long time. So changing the attitudes of police officers, which is one of the things that happened in Sparwood, is really important, but it takes time to develop that, to get professionals to focus on the needs of victims as well as of the justice system.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you very much.
I had an opportunity to practise criminal law in Alberta for a period of time and to work with youths. I have to say, Mr. Bala, I'm very impressed with your credentials. I've had an opportunity to review them.
And my sympathies in relation to your diagnosis with cancer as well.
Certainly, you have some excellent publications.
In the legal system for youth, I did find that once the court got hold of them, they seemed to have a much better opportunity to rehabilitate. By that I mean that often the crimes they would commit would be against other youth; first of all, violent offences--I see you're nodding your head--and also property crimes, mostly break and enters, which obviously are detestable in the view of most people.
Don't you find that once they're in the court system itself, once they have been charged or received alternative disposition of some kind, they have a better opportunity to be dealt with by the experts that can deal with them? Often I found parents saying to me, “Please put them in the court system. I can't do anything with them. They're beyond control.” I see you're nodding. Don't you find at that stage, once they're in the court system, they have a better chance at rehabilitation?