Justice Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Dr. Tim Croisdale]

Yes, I do.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

But you have no opinion about the other 95% of the young people who go through the system.

[Dr. Tim Croisdale]

Those youth are generally helped by interventions, by sanctions, by first and second arrests, and they drop out. They're not in need of what I support are the punitive sanctions that it will enable for violent and serious offenders.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You may have followed—I noticed that you kept the translation device—what was presented by the other two witnesses. From what you understand, is their approach a good one for that 95% of young people?

[Dr. Tim Croisdale]

Yes, it is.

I have a strong conviction for rehabilitation and treatment. I grew up in western Canada. I worked in CSC. I conducted research for CSC. I was a correctional officer at one of the low-medium-security federal facilities. Coming out of the academy, I was assigned to this facility because of my conviction and dedication to treatment.

In Canada, we do treatment well, or we attempt to do it very well. So yes, that approach helps a lot. But there's still a need for that serious violent small percentage who continually resist the lower-level sanctions and interventions.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Ms. Gaudreault, I think you, and maybe Ms. Goyette also, talked about people from foreign countries who come to study the Quebec way of dealing with young offenders. Can you give us more detail about that? Can you tell us what countries they come from, how often, and so on? And can you tell us a little more about that?

[Michèle Goyette]

We regularly receive delegations at the Centre jeunesse de Montréal, as do other youth centres in the province, from European countries, South America and Africa. They come to see exactly what we do in dealing with young offenders, in terms of rehabilitation.

Last March, I went to Brazil myself, where we gave training on our intervention model. There is a lot of respect and keen interest in what we are doing here, because that approach, which is valid for Quebec, can also be transposed to different countries. It is a model that is the envy of a number of countries. In fact, some countries, in the work they are doing to amend their legislation, and I am thinking of Chile and Peru, among others, come to consult people in Quebec. So we are recognized abroad for what we are doing.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Since I have no time, can I say that we are better known abroad than in the rest of Canada?

[Michèle Goyette]

We are starting to make ourselves known a little outside Quebec. I think a lot of people outside Quebec, in Canada, have the same opinions as us, particularly people who work with youth offenders. We are in contact. I have realized, through my role in the Child Welfare League of Canada, that a lot of colleagues in Canada, outside Quebec, think as I do. It is not just in Quebec that people who work with offenders every day and who work in this field think this way.

However, I think Quebec has invested a lot in treatment. The youth centres come under the ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. We do not come under correctional services. There is a lot of difference in how the services are organized and that reflects the investment that each province makes in relation to young offenders.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Ms. Gaudreault or Ms. Goyette, can you tell us about the efforts that have been made so that young people understand that they have to do something to remedy the wrong they have done to the victims?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Make it a very short answer.

[Arlène Gaudreault]

I will let Michèle speak. I am familiar with the program, but it relates more to the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, although I am aware of the pilot projects underway.

[Michèle Goyette]

In Quebec, there is a framework agreement between the youth centres and alternative justice organizations. The framework agreement provides for diversion measures. So these are sanctions imposed outside the justice system. The first measure that must be considered is victim compensation. All victims of each young person are contacted. We want to know what damages they have suffered, in physical and psychological terms, and whether they are prepared to meet with the young person and be compensated by them. Victims are contacted systematically.

I would like to note another point, relating to pre-decision reports. As the law requires that we do, all victims are contacted in order to obtain, and provide to the judge, all the information relating to the victims. I agree with Ms. Gaudreault, we could be doing more. Since I am in a youth centre, I see victims every day who don't have enough support and help. I completely agree with Ms. Gaudreault, we have to invest in helping victims.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Ms. Leslie for seven minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentations. They've been very helpful.

We heard from Ms. Goyette that she had some problems with clauses 20 and 24 concerning the publication ban. I am wondering if Madam Gaudreault and Mr. Croisdale have any comments about the publication ban.

Mr. Croisdale, when it comes to persistent offenders, would a publication ban do anything? Would it be helpful? Would it be harmful?

[Dr. Tim Croisdale]

I haven't considered that fully philosophically. I can argue it both ways, or see both points of view. I don't know.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That's fair.

Madam Gaudreault, do you have any thoughts about the publication ban?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

We are not comfortable with this measure and we do not support it. We don't believe that publishing the names of young people in the media will do anything more for victims, whether in terms of safety or in terms of feeling that the justice system is more humane or fairer to them. This measure stigmatizes young people and we do not see what use it is. It is a punitive measure that produces no results.

We had a similar position, for example, when the question was about posting the names of pedophiles in public places. Victims' rights groups as a whole, in Quebec, take a relatively nuanced and moderate position. They always keep in mind the balance between the rights of victims and offenders. These are young people and we have to think about the future and the repercussions this might have. If they were our own children, would we want them to be stigmatized for life? Would we not rather want to give them a chance to return to society as good citizens?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

As you know, we have these amendments. They came in large part from the Nunn commission--a situation in Nova Scotia that involved a young man who showed a pattern of offences. The recommendations are specifically for these persistent offenders.

This young man in Nova Scotia had several charges but no convictions, and that was one of the main problems. Nunn's recommendation 22 was that when looking at pre-trial detention, consider patterns of offences versus patterns of guilt. So that's a recognition of these persistent offenders.

Mr. Croisdale, you said in your opening that sanctions are ineffective on those persistent offenders, but evidence shows that supervision by the justice system can actually reduce the number of subsequent offences. Based on your research, do you have any thoughts on what this new clause about denunciation and deterrence would do to reduce repeat offences?

[Dr. Tim Croisdale]

They've resisted all attempts before. Labelling them or stigmatizing them won't have much of an effect either. I think considering prior arrests and not just convictions is important for these offenders, because it shows a history of offending, even if it's not violent. Numerous offences create a drain on resources and are harmful to society, so they should be included.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

My next question is for Madame Goyette, and it is about the difference between serious and violent offences. In the Youth Criminal Justice Act there's a presumption in favour of releasing a young person until sentencing, but that presumption doesn't apply in a few cases. One of those cases is if the young person is charged with a violent offence.

So with these amendments, “violent offence” would be changed to “serious offence”, and “violent offence” wouldn't include property offences. “Serious offence” would include property offences, and I think most Criminal Code offences are “serious offences”, with five or more years as a maximum sentence, and they're indictable.

In your day-to-day working with youth, if we shift it to “serious” instead of “violent”, what will the impact be?

I will also ask you to comment on whether you think there is still enough flexibility in the system. The crown has to prove on a balance of probabilities, and the judge has discretion, so with these changes, are there any red flags that we should worry about? Is there still enough flexibility?

[Michèle Goyette]

Personally, I advocate as much flexibility as possible, the greatest possible discretion for judges, and focusing on factors other than just the type of offence, regardless of whether we change it from "serious violent offence" to "serious offence". I don't think the act necessarily makes the actor, rather, it is the young person's entire situation.

I think the bill should not constrain judges in terms of what they can do. The situation that led to the Nunn Commission in Nova Scotia is a good example. Under the law as it had been written, the judge could not have the young person detained. Formerly, the Young Offenders Act struck a good balance, in my opinion, between the needs of young people and the need to protect society. Under that act, the young person could have been detained.

So the more we narrow judicial discretion, which is appropriate in a system where great attention is paid to the individual who is brought before the judge, the more we drive the system into a corner, and the less able we are to react appropriately to each particular situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. That was seven minutes.

We'll move on to Mr. Woodworth for seven minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would like to thank you all for being here today.

I would like to ask some short questions, and I would like to get short answers, because I only have five minutes.

Ms. Goyette, in proposed subparagraph 3(1)(a)(ii) of the bill there is an emphasis as follows:

(ii) promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons who have committed offences...

May I find out whether your organization supports this bill's continuing emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration, as stated in that subparagraph?

[Michèle Goyette]

My answer is this. If we create a hierarchy of principles and put proportionality on the top rung, the judge will have to look first at proportionality and then at prevention, in making decisions. I know that prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration are always included in the principles stated by the legislation. But as soon as the hierarchy is changed, the landscape in which judges are making their decisions changes.