Justice Committee on May 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 18 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Tuesday, May 25, 2010.

You have before you the agenda for today. Today we're continuing with our review of Bill C-4--Sébastien's Law--an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

Members of the committee, let me offer a note about this study. As of the deadline of May 14, a total of 44 witnesses had been submitted by members of the committee. A week later, a week after the deadline, we received another list from the Bloc. There are a number of issues we have to address. One is how we manage the witnesses we have; secondly, what happens with the Bloc's witness list; and thirdly, establishing a date for a steering committee. Those are all issues that are important, because we're trying to manage this and move the bill forward.

Given that we haven't been able to have a steering committee meeting because of conflicts in scheduling, I am proposing that we schedule eight witnesses per meeting—in each two-hour meeting we would have eight witnesses—and try to move them forward quickly. Also, I hope to complete clause-by-clause by June 15. That would give us seven more meetings for some 40 witnesses plus clause-by-clause.

I don't know what the will of the committee is. I want to manage this in a way that is effective, that is efficient, that doesn't shortchange anybody, but that at the same time doesn't drag it out unnecessarily.

What's your feeling?

Monsieur Ménard.

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

As I see it, it all depends on the witnesses. Some cannot be fitted into such a tight schedule. If we hear from eight witnesses in a span of two hours, that's 15 minutes per witness. I don't think that we could finish up on the 15th, under the circumstances. In my view, this isn't something we can decide this morning. We have witnesses who are waiting to testify. They are important witnesses and I think this matter should be discussed during a regular meeting of the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to say that I think we should move forward as quickly as we can. I think we have an obligation to the people we represent to move forward on this bill. We have a deadline of the end of June coming up. The parliamentary session will break for the summer, and we won't be back until late September. Many other committees that I've sat on have sat extra hours if necessary, especially at this time of the year. I'd be prepared to do that, if other people would agree.

We have many witnesses, I think, who are going to say similar things. For example, this Thursday, May 27, we have three organizations, one called Defence for Children International-Canada, another Child Welfare League of Canada, and Justice for Children and Youth. By their very names, Mr. Chair, I would suggest they are probably going to have very similar things to say. That's fine; I think we should hear from them all. But given that they're likely going to say similar things, I assume we could have more per meeting. They'll each have their opportunity to speak, and we can do the people's business as expeditiously as possible.

I would support your proposition for eight witnesses per meeting and trying to move this thing forward before the end of June.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Practically speaking, because we meet from 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock and with all the committee stuff we're not going to find another slot, what about extending, if needed, to 1:30 p.m.? We have that other thing that happens at 2 o'clock most days.

That would give us how many meetings times a half hour...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There are seven meetings between now and June 15.

[An hon. member]

Is that three half-hours?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I would suggest that you could call around. If you think you need the extra half hour for that panel, fine, because it is a bit of a shortchange to have eight people. Let's assume that everybody has something substantive to say. I agree that if they're all rowing in the same direction, maybe you're right that we can do it two hours.

Add the half hour or have it in your satchel to use as a tool, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's a good idea.

Yes, Ms. Mendes.

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

Do we know if the 44 witnesses are available to come?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, we don't. We've just started scheduling them right now, but if they are all available....

We haven't even dealt with the Bloc's additional witnesses. That could bring it to more than 50. We're trying to manage them all in a way that's effective.

The other thing I would suggest is that we could provide each witness five minutes to present rather than a normal 10 minutes, but if there is a witness who really needs 10 minutes, or if there's a member of a committee who says, “l'd like to hear for 10 minutes rather than five”, we could do that. Again, we would make it more efficient; we'd leave more room for questions from the committee members.

If you want to leave that up to me, I'll certainly use my discretion to act fairly in that respect.

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I just want to add that I'm amenable to Mr. Murphy's suggestion. I think it's a good suggestion to extend for half an hour, as is your suggestion to be flexible as to the time for presentation per witness.

I think by doing all of these things, we can accommodate everybody and move within a reasonable period of time in getting these things accomplished for the people of Canada.

Thanks. I appreciate that suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay.

Assuming this works, I'll move forward on that basis, and we can certainly adapt as things go along.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I would also like to highly recommend that the steering committee get together, take the list of the witnesses submitted by the deadline that we agreed to, and see whether there is any area of overlap and whether the list might be pruned down a bit.

I'd be very reluctant to go and add witnesses beyond those whose names were submitted by the deadline that we agreed to.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Agreed, Mr. Woodworth, and I'm going to do my very best to schedule a steering committee for the coming week. We tried it for last week. We tried a number of dates, and none of them suited all of the members of that committee. We'll work on it this coming week.

In any event, we have two witnesses from the Department of Justice back. We again have Catherine Latimer, general counsel and director general, as well as Paula Kingston, senior counsel with the Department of Justice for youth justice, strategic initiatives, and law reform.

Because you don't have an opening statement, we'll go straight to questions.

Members of the committee, here's what I'm proposing. It's my understanding that there's more interest in having a seven-minute question time for the next witness, so we'll start this round off with five minutes each and go as far as we can. Then we'll move to one seven-minute round when we hear from the next witness, who is the Attorney General for New Brunswick.

Mr. Murphy, are you starting?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I could.

Good morning. I want to ask you about your role in advising or drafting any part of this bill.

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

I think we play the same role as public servants do, which is to offer analysis and advice. Then decisions are made, and we loyally implement the decisions that are taken.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That's a good answer.

Clause 3 of the bill, which also coincidentally deals with section 3 of the YCJA, is pretty important. In my view, if one reads it, it changes the intent of.... Well, I'm putting the question to you: does it change the intention of what the YCJA is all about?

The existing law says that the YCJA is intended to “prevent crime”, “rehabilitate young persons”, “ensure that a young person” knows the consequences of their actions. The new proposal is that the YCJA “is intended to protect the public by” employing some of these measures. I want to know what was the genesis, the origin, of that thought process, that change.

I'll couple it with the other phrase in section 3 of the act as it exists, which introduces a concept of diminished moral blameworthiness. We on this side, looking at the preamble of the act and looking at the United Nations' youth criminal justice issues, tend to think that this is an act that was put in place, as its predecessors were, to be specific about children. We have introduced in paragraph 3(1)(b) this term that the system “must be separate from that of adults”, and that is remaining, but “must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness”.

Where did that come from? What does it mean? How will it be applied?

[Catherine Latimer]

The difference between the existing provision and the proposed section 3 is that there is a highlighting of protection of the public, and it is flagged and given prominence in the new definition for section 3, but how protection to the public is delivered remains consistent with the previous objectives. It's done through holding young people accountable for wrongdoing in a proportionate and fair way, supporting the rehabilitation of the young person and trying to prevent crime in the first place.

Your second question deals with the “diminished moral blameworthiness”. The genesis of that is the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Regina v. D.B., in which the Supreme Court determined that there was a principle of fundamental justice that's applicable to young people, and that is that young people are entitled to the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness and culpability. What this provision does is simply incorporate stated law that was set by the Supreme Court. That's now a constitutionally protected principle under section 7 of the charter, so it is simply an articulation of the existing law.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I take you briefly to section 38 of the existing law and clause 7 of this bill. It introduces the concepts of denunciation and deterrence, which previously were in the adult Criminal Code, if you like, under section 718 alone. It was felt necessary to put them in here in subsection 38(2) as proposed in this bill. Where did that idea come from, and how will it makes the situation very different from the Criminal Code in terms of sentencing?

[Catherine Latimer]

Deterrence and denunciation were also included, as you may recall, in the government's Bill C-25, which was introduced a session ago. It is part of the notion that it is important that young people be held accountable.

You're correct, in that deterrence and denunciation have previously been sentencing principles that are found in the Criminal Code, and now they are also going to be in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The way it is intended to work is that in assessing what a fair and proportionate penalty or sentence is for the young person, based on the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person, the court is entitled to look at deterrence and denunciation as sentencing principles in that context.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Let's say deterrence and denunciation are necessary. Are you saying that judges weren't giving enough weight to what is already in section 38—words such as that the sentence must “promote a sense of responsibility in the young person”? That's already in the act. The youth court judges I know read these things carefully and put them into effect. They want to make sure the youth has a sense of responsibility for his actions. What will this add to that?

[Catherine Latimer]

Perhaps I can clarify a bit my previous answer.

The difference between deterrence and denunciation that was in Bill C-25 and what is in this provision is that the notion of general deterrence is not part of this set of provisions; instead, it is just specific deterrence. The intention is that providing a fair and proportionate penalty for the young person will help the young person understand that they ought not to be committing such offences in the future. So it's intended to serve as a marker and a specific deterrent for that young person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard, you have five minutes.