Justice Committee on June 1st, 2010

[Dominique Trahan]

There are certainly studies, but if we are talking more specifically about a case that might be similar to that one, it is very rare, and in fact I would say it is never the case, for young people to be released if they have no address to give the court.

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

We have very little time left, Mr. Trahan.

Let's talk about the Jasmin report, which dates from some time ago now. Is it still topical, can it be used to understand the good method we apply in Quebec? Mr. Dionne could answer as well.

[Dominique Trahan]

Some things apply, certainly.

[Prof. Jacques Dionne]

There is still an ideal objective. However, with the data I have provided, I can't evaluate the system as a whole. I think that would be the subject of a whole other very complex study. As a researcher, I can fantasize about our provincial or federal governments giving us these opportunities, to do this kind of research.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Excuse me, Mr. Dionne.

[Prof. Jacques Dionne]

We have specific studies about programs.

Excuse me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Dionne, we're over time, so I'm going to have to cut you off.

We're going to move on to Ms. Leslie for seven minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for your testimony. It's very much appreciated, and I'm very much on the same page as all of you with a lot of what you said.

First, to the Barreau du Québec, I see in your submission--the electronic version has hyperlinks, and unfortunately I didn't click on the hyperlink for one of your footnotes--you talk about your Bill C-25submissions:

We note also Parliament's desire to include in section 3 of the Act the notions of denunciation and deterrence. Serious studies have shown that using sentencing as a disincentive has no effect on criminality.

Then you referred to your Bill C-25 submission from 2008.

I'm assuming there would be a detailed list of studies in that document about denunciation and deterrence not working.

[Nicole Dufour]

In fact, in our letter about Bill C-25, we referred to various studies that confirmed that the effect was completely minimal.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, we don't actually have a lot of that kind of evidence before us here.

Mr. Chair, could we get the Barreau's submissions in 2008, a letter concerning Bill C-25? Is it possible to have that made available to the committee and be part of the record?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes. Anything we ask for can form part of the record, and the Barreau can provide us with that.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Wonderful. Thanks very much.

My question is, I think, for everybody. I'm from Nova Scotia, so I'm a little hung up on the Nunn commission report. I come back to his recommendation about looking at patterns of offences versus patterns of findings of guilt. Really, all the recommendations were about persistent offenders.

Again I will say that I understand that we should not paint all young people with the same brush, that they're not all persistent offenders, but there are a large number of crimes committed by persistent offenders. I asked Mr. Dudding if this recommendation by Nunn was warranted, and he said he didn't think so, that the YCJA works as it is.

Can you tell me if you agree with that? Nunn was specifically looking at persistent offenders to prevent that case from happening again. How do we reconcile those recommendations with not wanting a blunt instrument and locking up all our young people unwarranted? I'm just trying to figure out how to bring those two together.

Maybe we can start avec le Barreau.

[Dominique Trahan]

Earlier, in response to questions from Mr. Ménard, I said that...

It is rare for a young person who has no address or place of residence, who is not living with parents or family members, or at a youth centre or a Children's Aid Society centre, to be released. At least, that is the case in Quebec, and also elsewhere, from the experiences of colleagues in other provinces I have discussed this with. That is included in some of the conditions. So regardless of the number of offences, if that condition is not met, the young person will not find themself on the street the next morning.

Something specific may happen, a particular case, that means a young person was released. Where was the mistake made? I don't know. I haven't examined the case, and I was not involved in the investigation. That kind of situation would not happen where we are.

That doesn't actually settle the matter, and what we may have been able to prevent in the past, everything that has happened.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Any others?

[Michael Spratt]

When one is looking at a pattern of behaviour, one has to be very careful. You talked about using a blunt instrument; it's equally dangerous to be over-broad in the type of conduct you're looking at. When you broaden looking at a pattern of behaviour to include such things as extrajudicial sanctions, which are a discretionary measure, to a large extent, imposed by police, or something agreed to at a very early stage in a proceeding, is that going to be helpful and relevant in determining a pattern of behaviour?

One has to recognize that with such dispositions as that, there aren't the procedural protections that would normally be available when one goes to trial or is involved in the justice system. There often isn't a defence counsel or even a crown attorney involved. You've heard submissions about how disadvantaged groups can be targeted by that sort of discretion.

Most importantly from a practical standpoint, when I have a youthful client who is offered extrajudicial sanctions, and the alternative is to engage in a lengthy trial with potentially some very serious consequences, there is a severe incentive to accept the extrajudicial sanctions. On one hand that's good—it's an acknowledgement of behaviour and provides for reparations—but one has to remember, when looking at these EJS patterns of behaviour that's going to be on a piece of paper that may determine whether you're released or not, and may determine whether you're sentenced or not, that there can be an extreme incentive to perhaps inappropriately and against one's long-term benefit accept those instead of the alternative, which is being sought to be avoided.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move onto Mr. Woodworth, for seven minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to state at the outset, for the record, that I note that there's not a single Liberal at this table. That speaks volumes about the approach of that party to this study and this evidence.

I want to also say at the outset that I've heard many things today that are simply not correct about Bill C-4. There has been no abandonment of the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration in Bill C-4. In fact, there is no new paramountcy of the public safety provision in Bill C-4 than didn't exist in the previous bill. There's certainly no requirement of mandatory adult sentences, as a previous witness suggested. The same witness suggested that there was a section 8 Juvenile Delinquents Act incorrigibility offence here; there is no such thing in this act.

I have some questions for the Barreau du Québec. I don't know for sure who is the primary speaker, so I'll just pick Mr. Trahan.

In your written brief, you describe clause 7 as applying to “section 3 of the Act”.

I'm assuming that's simply an error and that the reference should be to “section 38”. Is that correct?

[Dominique Trahan]

On page 3, you mean?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes. I'm assuming that your reference to “section 3” is simply an error and it should say “section 38”. Is that correct?

[Dominique Trahan]

It's section 3 of the law.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

No, that's not correct, because section 3 has nothing to do with denunciation and deterrence. It is section 38, is it not? That's simply an error, correct?

[Dominique Trahan]

No, no. Our brief says--I'll say it in English--that, “We note also Parliament’s desire to include in section 3 of the Act the notions of denunciation and deterrence.”

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right. Well, then, you show me where in Bill C-4 section 3 is amended to include denunciation and deterrence, sir.

I'm sure this is just a simple error on your part. Section 3 is not being amended to include denunciation and deterrence, right?

[Dominique Trahan]

When you read the text, you see that the principles are reversed. That is what I was responding to a little earlier. When the principles are reversed, some of them are given priority.