Justice Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Kelly Lamrock]

What we are looking at is largely recidivism, broadly defined as committing other crimes. Frankly, we have seen a decrease in youth crime across all levels, from property crimes through to violent offences, which is why I say, to us, tough on crime isn't what we do after somebody's life has been shattered and somebody has been hurt. Tough on crime means making sure we don't get to that point.

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

You mentioned Youth Options. What was the amount of money cut by the federal government, and what was the reason?

[Kelly Lamrock]

It was about $280,000 annually. It allowed us--there are other programs like it in New Brunswick--to identify a young person who was showing the indicators of being at risk, whether it was high amounts of discipline problems in school, abuse or neglect or a complicated file at home, or high absenteeism. Often it was identifying learners who don't do well in the traditional classroom. We know that often young people with a variety of needs are less likely to learn well by being told to sit still and learn in that classroom. This allowed them to get their high school equivalency through work experience, through having an individually designed education program, but also holding them accountable so that, if they don't participate, they're out of the program.

We were simply told that the federal government believes jurisdictionally that's not their problem, it's ours. And you know what? Look, we're looking at how we can fund that. If it's my problem as the minister of social services and Attorney General, okay, we'll find a way to do it. But don't then take the resources I need to run that program and spend them on something if you're not going to show me any evidence that I can keep people safer in New Brunswick by doing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard.

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

Thank you very much for coming here to discuss a subject that clearly is as important to you as it is to me.

I'm from Quebec and we have often had discussions with officials from the Maritime provinces. I recall a time back in 1998 when I met with the attorneys general from the Maritime provinces to outline Quebec's approach in this area.

Would I be wrong to say that since 1985, you have looked to Quebec's system a great deal for inspiration for your own approach?

[Kelly Lamrock]

There are indeed many similarities between the two systems, Mr. Ménard. I can't talk about the origins of this program, but we certainly do have a great deal in common.

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

Are you prepared to concede that some of the bill's provisions will make it more difficult to embrace the approach taken by Quebec and by New Brunswick?

[Kelly Lamrock]

Most certainly. If the bill passes, then in some respects, the federal government would be adopting an across-the-board approach. That would mean a province, in this case, New Brunswick, would be required to use its resources as the federal government sees fit, not based on its own experience.

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

By the way, in Quebec as well, the handling of young offenders is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Services.

You say that Mr. Nicholson consulted with you. Were you consulted separately, or did you attend a meeting with the ministers responsible for applying the legislation?

[Kelly Lamrock]

A roundtable was held with the attorneys general and justice ministers of each province and territory, and that included Mr. Nicholson. I did not meet with him personally, but as I recall, there were no one-on-one meetings. Perhaps the representatives of the other provinces met with him personally.

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

How long did this meeting last?

[Kelly Lamrock]

If memory serves me well, the roundtable that I attended in New Brunswick—there may have been others—lasted approximately six hours.

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

One day.

[Kelly Lamrock]

Yes, one day.

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

I know that by applying the provisions of the current act, you have achieved some positive results, specifically, a lower youth crime rate. So then, you are quite comfortable with this act, aside from the fact that perhaps a few amendments are needed, further to Justice Nunn's recommendations.

[Kelly Lamrock]

That's correct. The provincial attorneys general are unanimous on some points, for example, on the issue of pre-trial custody. The legal angle is clearer. The act works well with these changes. We are able to assume our provincial responsibilities for social services and youths at risk, and this helps to mitigate the risks for all New Brunswickers.

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

I want to focus on a technical issue. Currently, subsection 3(1)(a) sets out the general principle of the act. The bill would do away with this provision and substitute in its place a provision that is similar in every respect but one to the existing subsection 38(1)(c) which provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence.

Do you not think that placing this provision, which currently applies to the sentencing process, at the beginning of the act puts the whole system at a disadvantage? Wouldn't we be better off applying the best possible measure when the youth is before the justice system?

[Kelly Lamrock]

That is one of the problems. For example, it is a problem when an attorney general wants to give clear instructions to crown prosecutors.

The problem lies in the fact that the aim of the proposed legislation is not clear. Consider, for example, the fact that the aim of the act, which is to protect the public, is set out in a section that makes no mention of helping young persons to not become repeat offenders...

There is the famous case in Nova Scotia involving a young person who stole a vehicle, drove it recklessly and killed someone. Certainly he committed a serious offence, but to equate it with an act of premeditated murder, or a violent homicide, well that's a bit of a problem. All of the courts maintain... As you know, the Charter draws a distinction, from a moral standpoint, between someone who commits a pre-meditated offence, and someone who simply makes a serious mistake for which he must be held accountable.

If we truly want to change a young person's life, it's important that we have the ability, at the provincial level, to make that distinction because it dictates how that young person's case will be handled. We could lose that ability if the language used in the act is not clear, or if the distinction is lost, in the youth criminal justice legislation, between offences that are of a very different nature. This becomes an obstacle and makes the provinces' job more difficult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll go on to Mr. Comartin. You have seven minutes.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Lamrock, for being here.

I want to start off by having you take the information back to your province that Mr. Murphy never did take me up on my offer to bet on the Memorial Cup, which, wisely, was probably a good choice at the time.

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

Betting is illegal.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's his rationale in circumstances of trying to avoid responsibility.

Seriously, though, I want to deal mostly with the cost side. The $10 million to $15 million that you've indicated here is just for this legislation, and not for other bills that are coming.

[Kelly Lamrock]

No. To be clear, we based our analysis on the suite of legislation that I will generally call amendments to sentencing and crime. While I think the amounts would be roughly equal for each, I wouldn't want us to put that on the record yet.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Now you've confused me. Are you saying each bill is going to cost $10 million to $15 million?

[Kelly Lamrock]

No. Together they will.