Justice Committee on Oct. 25th, 2011

[Prof. Nicholas Bala]

Certainly, if you're talking about the court, there are some young people for whom diversion to extrajudicial sanctions is going to be the most effective way of dealing with things. But if the case is more serious, even in the case of a first-time offender, let alone someone who is a repeat offender, the court can have an important role. But judges are not magicians either, so the question is, what we are going to do with them. Do we have the community-based resources, and in appropriate cases in custody, is there access to therapeutic services to turn them around?

We do—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm sorry, the time has ended. Thank you.

Mr. Jacob.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Good morning. My questions are for Mrs. Goyette and Mr. Hamel from the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec.

Given that the Quebec model for administering the YCJA has demonstrated its effectiveness, and is even the envy of a number of countries in the world, with a crime rate among the lowest of all Canadian provinces, I would like to ask Mr. Hamel what the other provinces could learn from the Quebec model, in his opinion.

I would also like to ask Mrs. Goyette whether there was a serious consultation process before Bill C-10 was prepared, and if not, what would have allowed for that kind of process.

[Pierre Hamel]

Thank you.

As we said earlier, the Quebec model places considerable emphasis on compensation for victims. Under the extrajudicial measures system, about 5,000 young people are seen every year. We focus first on having the young person acknowledge measures to compensate the victims. At present, at the pre-decision report stage in the judicial process, we apply measures, meetings to open a dialogue—obviously only with consent—to enable victims who so desire to describe the effects, the harm and the damages they have suffered because of the young person's act, all of this also being with the goal of making the young person understand this and be accountable.

We think these measures are more constructive in terms of promoting the long-term protection of the public. The Quebec model involves more of a rehabilitation approach. It addresses the risk factors for recidivism on the part of the young person, after an exhaustive assessment of their situation, rather than based on the offence. Serious offences are sometimes committed by young people, but no matter how unspeakable the crime may be—in the case of the lady who spoke before, for example—some young people show significant chances for rehabilitation. Obviously, a majority of these do not involve serious crimes, but those chances are sometimes present even in the case of violent crimes.

We therefore think that focusing on the risk factors is more promising than focusing on the nature of the offence. Certainly, the sentence must be proportionate to the crime committed by the young person, but we think that focusing on the risk factors and the deficits present for the young person promotes long-term protection of the public in the long term. We can neutralize the offender in the short term, but if we do not tackle the factors that contribute to their criminal behaviour, we run the risk, when they come out of the youth centre, in the case of Quebec, that these issues will not have been resolved, that we will be facing the same situation.

I will let Mrs. Goyette expand on my answer.

[Michèle Goyette]

To answer your question, I will say that in fact, when the Youth Criminal Justice Act was brought into force, it was promised, in a way, that a broad study of the results would be done after five years, and based on that we would see whether changes had to be made. To our knowledge, though, that broad study was never done in Quebec. There was a very piecemeal consultation. In particular, no study was done to determine whether what was brought into force had improved the situation or made it worse, and what approach should be taken to further improve protection of the public and rehabilitation of young people.

So I am not really certain that by toughening the previous Young Offenders Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act has provided greater protection for the public. In addition, there is nothing to show that the current amendments will do that.

Mr. Bala has presented some very useful ideas about what experiences in other countries have produced. We have to base our decisions on probative data, and not just on common sense, before legislating. I think this consultation would have and should have taken place before continuing with the process of Bill C-10.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mrs. Goyette.

You talk as well about the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec in your brief. You say we have to maintain a balance between protecting the public and rehabilitating young people. You also talk about measures that it would be worth investing money in to promote prevention and victims. Tell us about that.

[Michèle Goyette]

In fact, we say that protecting the public and rehabilitating young offenders are not opposing principles. On the contrary, rehabilitating young offenders protects the public in the long term. These rehabilitation measures range from prevention to intervention for the most serious cases, and they have to be adapted to each young person's situation and needs. For example, extrajudicial sanctions were mentioned a few minutes ago. These are very effective measures. The young people who go ...

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm sorry, the time is up.

Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask a couple of question of the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec. Unfortunately, it's going to be in English, because my French is not up to what it should be.

You made a number of points, in one of which you state that denunciation should not be part of the criminal justice system. What I find interesting is that we often talk about not wanting to fetter a judge's discretion. Many people who have come here to this committee have said we should not have mandatory minimum sentences, because having them takes away a judge's discretion. From my review, adding denunciation is just giving a judge another tool to use discretion in certain cases.

With that in mind, many of us here in the greater Toronto area remember the case of Stefanie Rengel, who was murdered in a plot between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. The girlfriend was jealous of what she thought was some flirtation going on with her boyfriend. They plotted this murder, and she was stabbed to death in front of her parents' home. I don't understand how you can say that denunciation of a crime like that should not be considered by a judge.

Can you please comment on that?

[Pierre Hamel]

In fact, we are sending the wrong message with denunciation. We are sending the message that it will have an effect. Professor Bala explained this clearly, and I won't repeat his comments earlier about the impact of deterrence and denunciation. So the idea is that the belief that denunciation has effects has no basis. Imposing a harsh sentence will not deter other young people from committing offences.

We think the existing law allows the court to impose a sentence that is entirely harsh enough, and this allows for denunciation. Denunciation takes place in the exercise of determining a sentence that is proportionate to the crime and that takes into account the risk factors associated with the young person. Beyond that, it is punishment.

We think a young person is a developing individual who can change their behaviour, and we are telling you that denunciation serves no purpose. This is the wrong message to send, because it give the public the impression that they are better protected, when they are protected only by a variety of measures, ranging from prevention to the right measure applied to the right young person.

That is why we say that focusing on serious crimes and situations is the wrong track, because the seriousness of the offence is not necessarily a predictor of the risk of the young person re-offending. These beliefs have no basis. In our experience on the ground, we know that this has no impact on young people who commit crimes on impulse, who give in to the magical thinking that they will not get caught. That is what a lot of adults do too, you will say. But it is more the case for young people.

All these measures will never produce the expected results. Rather, targeted, individualized intervention with the young person, based on the factors that characterize their situation, will protect the public in the long term, rather than considering the offence they have committed. We can neutralize the offender for a period of time. But beyond short-term neutralization, our aim is to ensure that they will not commit more crimes when they get out. That has to be done by imposing a sentence, not that denounces, but that genuinely targets the risk factors associated with that young person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm sorry, but the time has elapsed for the panel. One hour was scheduled. We've gone a little bit over. We started a little bit late.

I want to thank the panel for being here today and for giving us your views.

We'll take a two-minute break and reconstitute another panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We'll call the meeting back to order for the second hour.

I will tell the panel that each group has an opportunity to make a presentation of five minutes in length. I will let you know at the four-minute mark that you have one minute left. The question and answer sessions are five minutes each, and I know most of you were here and saw that five minutes goes by fairly quickly.

In addition to the panel that's here, we're joined by Mr. Comras, via teleconference from Florida. He appears on the monitors on each side of the room.

Welcome, Mr. Comras.

We'll start with the panel that's here. If you wish to make an opening address, go ahead. I will cut you off at the five minutes, but the members of the panel here can ask you to complete it during their time.

Ms. Basnicki.

[Maureen Basnicki, Founder Director, Canadian Coalition Against Terror]

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.

My name is Maureen Basnicki and I am a co-founder of C-CAT, the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, which represents terror victims from across Canada.

About six weeks ago I marked the 10th anniversary of the murder of my husband Ken. Ken had been on the 106th floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11. On that morning, I watched the tower and my life as I had known it collapse on TV while sitting in a hotel room in Mainz. I was there on a layover in my capacity as a flight attendant for Air Canada, and it was on that terrible morning that my long journey to this committee hearing began.

I would like to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to be here today and to express my support for the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, recently introduced as part of Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act. It has now been seven years since C-CAT initiated the campaign for the passage of this type of legislation. During this time, no fewer than 10 such bills were introduced in the House of Commons and the Senate, with Bill C-10 being the most recent iteration. C-CAT looks forward to the passage of the eleventh and final version of this bill within 100 sitting days, as promised by the government.

I am testifying today on behalf of Canadians who are victims of terror and on behalf of Canadians who are not yet victims of terror. I am here because it is a fundamental right of every Canadian, of every person, not to be a victim of a terrorist attack. JVTA speaks precisely to this right. If this bill is effective even once in deterring a terrorist attack, it will have served its role in safeguarding that right. It will have been worth the thousands of hours of effort invested by Canadian terror victims in getting this measure passed.

But while C-CAT believes that this legislation has great potential, we are also of the opinion that certain provisions in the JVTA must be amended to ensure that the bill meets its stated objectives of providing justice for victims and accountability for those who victimize them. While C-CAT has consistently advocated for a more comprehensive list of changes, the document we will be distributing to the committee lists only four proposed amendments. We believe these changes are the minimum required to enable the legislation to be effective in deterring terrorism and most applicable to the greatest number of Canadian terror victims. These proposed amendments are based on Senator Tkachuk's private member's bill, which was the precursor to the government's current version of the legislation. The senator's version of this bill has broad support and was endorsed by many experts who testified before the Senate in its favour.

While it's difficult for me as a non-lawyer to describe the amendments, I am summarizing them because our advisors have said they are vitally important.

Number 1, cases against foreign states brought under the new bill will primarily involve acts outside of Canada, and the only connection to Canada in these cases will be the Canadian citizenship or permanent residency of the victim. However, due to recent court rulings, our lawyers have concluded that it's likely that citizenship or permanent residency will not be sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection to Canada, which the bill states is necessary for a case to go forward. It is entirely possible, then, that the vast majority of actions will be stopped on jurisdictional grounds, completely undermining the most basic intent of the bill. It is therefore essential that the legislation ensure that a person's Canadian citizenship or permanent residency status be enough to establish a real and substantial connection to a Canadian jurisdiction.

Number 2(a), the government bill presently allows civil suits only against foreign states that have sponsored a listed terrorist entity but not for directly committing a terrorist act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

One minute.

[Maureen Basnicki]

This would mean that in a case like Lockerbie, where Libya used its intelligence services to blow up the plane, Libya could not be sued, but if Gadhafi had decided to use one of his terrorist proxies, Libya could be sued. It's somewhat nonsensical. C-CAT proposes that the bill be amended to allow suits in a Lockerbie type of case, but only if the country is listed as a terror-sponsoring state and there's been a judicial determination that the state in question should have its immunity lifted for sponsoring a listed terrorist entity.

Number 2(b), the government bill currently allows for a foreign state to be sued only if it provides support to a listed terrorist entity. C-CAT therefore seeks to amend the government bill to allow foreign states to be sued for providing support to a terrorist group that is not a listed entity, provided that the unlisted entity is acting at the direction of or in association with a listed entity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you. The time has gone.

[Maureen Basnicki]

The time has gone?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Yes.

[Maureen Basnicki]

Okay.

I would just like to thank everybody and include three more things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We'll have to come back. Sorry.

[Maureen Basnicki]

Okay. I will when I come back, then, because these are legal matters that must be attended to.

As a Canadian terror victim representing others who have suffered similar tragedies, I ask that you support this bill and our proposed amendments. It is a very Canadian response to a brutal threat that has yet to claim its last victim.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We have to end there.

[Maureen Basnicki]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You may get an opportunity to finish. Just mark your spot.

[Maureen Basnicki]

Thank you very much.