Justice Committee on June 3rd, 2010

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

Is it a facility for youth?

[Simon Fournel-Laberge]

Yes, it is a detention centre for youth.

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

It is for youth. This is where you went the last time and where you really got on the right path?

[Simon Fournel-Laberge]

Yes, I was there from 16 to 18 years old.

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

When you established your rehabilitation plan, did you work on it with the professionals around you?

[Simon Fournel-Laberge]

Yes, absolutely; that's part of the process. There I learned to know myself, to know what I wanted to do, what I liked, and they gave me all the opportunities.

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

How many people were there, usually, to support you?

[Simon Fournel-Laberge]

Are you talking about educators, psychoeducators?

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

Educators, psychoeducators, and so on.

[Simon Fournel-Laberge]

I had one main educator, but I worked with several others at the same time.

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

Did you meet your educator every day?

[Simon Fournel-Laberge]

We met at least once a week, but as that person was on the same floor, we were constantly working together.

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

So, that very personalized approach was the reason for your success, in your opinion?

[Simon Fournel-Laberge]

Yes. I have spoken in favour of longer sentences, but it must be accompanied by rehabilitation. This is from my personal experience. I needed several episodes of incarceration to understand, but I personally know people who understood right away. They did their three months sentence and never went back. As I was out of control, it took me several trips there before I understood. I got a six month closed custody sentence, but the reintegration began after the third of the time. At least it was the case when I was there. And I don't know if it's still like that today. So I started gradually to go back to school, to work and to visit my parents on weekends and when I had a relapse, I was sent back in for a month because I had to understand a few more things. This occurred until I was finally released, and it had positive results for me.

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

But you were always very well supported.

[Simon Fournel-Laberge]

Yes, I was always very well supported.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard, for two minutes.

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

I want to talk to the people who have legal training. The philosophy of the Act is set out in the beginning, in section 3 of the law. Currently, in 3(1)(a), it says:

(a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person's offending behaviour, (rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society, and ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence in order to promote the long-term protection of the public;

You will agree with me that this is the fundamental philosophy of the law and that it has an effect on the decisions made by judges.

The bill before us intends to take that out and to replace it with the following:

(a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by

(i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person, [...]

Do you agree with me that this is a radical change in the philosophy of the law? And as lawyers, do you agree that this will have an effect on the sentences that will be handed down by judges?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll go to Mr. Bergman first.

[Scott Bergman]

I agree that there's a radical change, but I don't think the radical change, from our perspective, is in the proportionality situation. That's already built in. The change comes in adding the protection of the public right at the top, so that it's emphasized for a judge right off the bat, and also in the removal of “long-term”, and that's what I referred to back in my submission. Now what we'll be doing is wanting to protect the public in the short term, and the way to do that is to incarcerate more youth, because in the short term that's what to do.

We currently have it as the “long-term protection of the public”, and that's what all of these concepts and the ideas in paragraph 3(1)(a) are based on. Items (i), (ii), and (iii) of paragraph 3(1)(a) and paragraph 3(1)(b) are all there “in order to promote the long-term protection of the public”. So there's been an inversion and a removal of “long-term”, and that's of concern.

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

I have another question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We will move to Mr. Woodworth, for two minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to address a question to Mr. Bergman, if I may, in relation to clause 2 and the definition of “violent offence” and the question of adding in the “substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm”.

I have looked, and the only place in which I can see that the characterization of a violent offence makes a difference is that in paragraph 39(1)(a) it gives a judge the discretion to impose a custodial sentence. Am I right that this is the only place in which the definition change of “violent offence” will matter?

[Scott Bergman]

Is it paragraph 39(1)(a)? I'm just taking a look at the section.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I scanned the act. I can't see any other place where a violent offence in itself has any relevance.