Justice Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Under the existing act, no young person under the age of 18 years will be incarcerated in a prison or a penitentiary. Have I understood correctly? Right, thank you.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

One minute.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Can I give that time to Mr. Woodworth?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have the floor, Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm very happy to see that this bill is still focused and almost surgical in the things that it addresses. In particular, the provision to reverse or do away with the presumption of adult sentences requires only that an adult sentence be considered for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and aggravated sexual assault--not simple, but aggravated.

Can you tell me how that will work out in practice? What's the role of the crown and the judge in those circumstances?

[Catherine Latimer, General Counsel and Director General, Youth Justice, Strategic Initiatives and Law Reform, Department of Justice]

As you probably know, under Regina v. D.B., the Supreme Court struck down the presumption. If this bill is passed, it will require crowns to indicate whether or not they will be seeking an adult penalty when the young person is accused of having committed murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or aggravated sexual assault, so the possibility of an adult penalty will be in play if one of those serious offences has been alleged against the young person.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Will the reasons be put on the record by the crown?

[Catherine Latimer]

The bill doesn't specify that reasons must be on the record, but most of the courts are courts of record, so I would assume that they would record them.

That doesn't preclude the crowns from seeking adult penalties in other cases as well where they think it's appropriate. But this requires them to make a statement, address the court about what their proposal is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. We'll go to Ms. Mendes for five minutes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

If possible, I would just like to know what you think about common assault and sexual assault in the sense that they are going to be considered to be serious offences. What is going to be considered to be serious offences is not identified or clarified at all. Considering that adult sentences are going to be imposed, or not, based on that definition, I would like to know who is going to determine the seriousness of the crime committed and what criteria are going to be applied to this type of offence, please.

[Catherine Latimer]

The bill proposes three changes in definition. One is the “serious violent offence”. The specific offences that would constitute a serious violent offence are actually articulated in the bill. The next is an expanded definition of “violent offence”. The third is the “serious offence” definition, which has application in the pretrial detention provisions.

The definition that is being used for “serious offence” in this bill is the same as that being invoked in the Criminal Code, which is offences for which an adult could receive five years or more. That includes a great number of offences and excludes less serious offences such as theft under, administration of justice offences, and some mischief offences. Things like that would be less. There should be a chart in the back of the Criminal Code that indicates the range of sentences for various offences, and it would be those that are under five years.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

That will come under the regulations that...

[Catherine Latimer]

Five years or more would be defined as a serious offence.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Has a cost assessment in connection with implementing this provision been done? Have you established or studied what the budget impacts of this bill are?

[Catherine Latimer]

I think the minister may have spoken to that. We understand that there will be pressures. We expect that the provinces will be looking to assess what the impact of these provisions will be on their costs. There are also some offsetting provisions--for example, the pretrial detention provisions--because they only apply to serious offences. With regard to those who had previously been detained for less serious offences, there may well be some savings, because the detention numbers wouldn't include them.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

We understand that it is the provinces that are going to have to take on these costs.

[Catherine Latimer]

Yes. These are largely administration of justice and corrections costs. They are borne by the provinces. The federal government has funding arrangements with all the provinces and territories. They also contribute to the overall costs.

Those agreements are currently in place, and there are always discussions about the appropriate share of provincial and federal contributions to those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Lemay for six minutes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I'm going to try to go quickly. I want to go back to clause 21 of Bill C-4, which says: "No young person who is under the age of 18 years is to serve... ."

I'll let you read the rest. A young person aged 15 years is sentenced to serve 10 years in prison for a serious crime. We agree that it is a serious crime. Am I to understand that under this clause, the young person, aged 15 years, is going to serve the first three years of their sentence—until the age of 18 years—in a youth centre, and then they will be transferred to a penitentiary? Is that what I am to understand from the clause?

[Paula Kingston]

If it's a youth sentence, which the vast majority are, that's a sentence of 10 years at age 15. It's already clear in the YCJA that for a youth sentence, they can only serve it in a youth custody facility. The rule is generally that the young person would stay there until the age of 20.

However, at the age of 18, there can be an application to a court to ask whether that particular young person should be moved up into adult custody. The judge will look at all the circumstances and will hear from the family, the youth, the prosecution, and the corrections people. The judge will also consider what is in the best interests of the young person, but there is the possibility that the young person could be moved up at age 18.

If they're serving a sentence and still in custody at the age of 20, they can then be moved up without going to a court, but they do not have to be moved up. There is still discretion for the province to keep that young person in the youth facility. For instance, if only a few months or a short portion of the period of the sentence is left, they wouldn't move the young person up to adult custody.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Lemay, I was wrong. It's not six minutes. It's actually one minute, and I gave you two minutes.

We'll move on to Mr. Rathgeber for five minutes.

It will be the last question, unfortunately, because we have to go in camera.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Could I split my time with Ms. Glover?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That would be fine, yes, provided there is no objection.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you for your attendance here today.

I know this bill was at least in part a response to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. I assume the bill has been constitutionally scrutinized to some extent. I wonder whether either one of you could comment on that aspect of this proposed legislation.

[Catherine Latimer]

Yes, the Supreme Court of Canada decision you're referring to is Regina v. D.B.

This is also somewhat in response to your question, Ms. Leslie.

In that case, they actually determined there was a constitutionally protected fundamental principle of justice of the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness. We looked at ensuring that the provisions of this bill respected the charter, particularly in light of the new fundamental principle of justice that the Supreme Court articulated in Regina v. D.B.