Justice Committee on June 8th, 2010

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

That's 30 seconds for each. Great.

[Prof. Nicholas Bala]

Well, I--

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

Sorry, Mr. Bala, but I'd like to hear from the three community groups.

[Mel Kennah]

I don't see any benefit to publishing a young person's name in the newspaper. Sometimes labels are difficult things to shed, I think. As was mentioned, sometimes this can even be used as a badge of honour. I don't see it creating a safer community; I see much more of a downside than an upside to publishing names.

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

Do you think the judges would use the discretion appropriately, because that's what they're doing here?

[Mel Kennah]

I suppose they would use it appropriately. I don't know that there's going to be an advantage, though, of them actually making a decision to include this at any given point in time. I'm just not seeing where there would be any possible advantage, so I would prefer to see it not at their discretion.

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

The foster group?

[Wendy Galpin, Secretary, New Brunswick Foster Families Association]

I see two sides to this point. If we give the judge the discretion...as long as he's willing to listen to the people around the table who are working with this young person, because I live with these young people who go to jail quite often and it is a badge of honour for them. They do align themselves with gangs inside the system, and that's how they keep themselves safe in there. I'm speaking from experience, so they would see that as a plus, to have their name in the paper.

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

Madame Godin.

[Sylvie Godin]

Thank you.

Clearly, we take the opposite position. That is to say that we are against any removal of limitations on publication, and feel there should be discretion in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Weighill, unfortunately, we did not receive your brief ahead of time. It was not translated, and you read it rather quickly. I would like to check something with you as it seems quite important to me in what you had to say. You talked about an awful evening where a young person, together with someone who was a little over 18, committed several crimes. They shot someone, it seems to me; some of the details escaped me. There is something I did not understand. Was this young person referred to an adult court?

[Chief Clive Weighill]

No, the person hasn't been sent to an adult court yet.

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

Did you say “yet”?

[Chief Clive Weighill]

Yet--it's still being decided by a prosecutor.

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

So it was decided?

[Chief Clive Weighill]

No, that's why I'm careful. This is all alleged, and it's still before the courts, this case I'm talking about.

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

As horrible stories go, what you related seems even more serious—because this is another one—than what happened to the young Sébastien Lacasse. The killer in that case was a juvenile, and the other participants in the assault were over 18. The heaviest sentences were four years, and the young person who killed him was sent to an adult prison and was condemned to life in prison.

With regard to the young people you were talking about, would you normally expect that this is what would happen, that is to say that they would be referred to an adult court?

[Chief Clive Weighill]

I would expect that it would get raised to adult court. One was 17 and one was 18, so they're very close. One is an adult; one would probably be raised.

I think, and I may be speaking out of line, our society is so desensitized to what goes on with violence; you hear about stuff in the paper every day and it goes in one ear and out the other. We seem to forget about the victims. Yes, I strongly believe in social justice and giving everybody the chance they need, but there are some people who, for the good of society, must be stopped from what they're doing. Somebody has to say stop, because people aren't safe. We see this day in and day out on our streets in Canada. I believe in social justice, and I believe in giving everybody a chance, but some days you have to say stop.

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

Thank you, Mr. Weighill.

Mrs. Godin, did Canada sign the convention you were referring to? The Convention on the Rights of the Child?

[Sylvie Godin]

Yes. The Convention on the Rights of the child was adopted 20 years ago. Canada was one of its major promoters and one of the first signatories. Currently out of all countries, only the United States and Somalia have not signed it, but Canada was one of the first signatories. The reports I was referring to are implementation reports that were occasionally prepared by Canada. They concern the implementation of the principles recognized by the convention.

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

In the remarkable brief you submitted, Mr. Bala, which was translated—unfortunately I received the translation very late and only read half of it—you convinced me that you are indeed one of the most knowledgeable people in Canada when it comes to how to deal with juvenile delinquency.

You say that you are often consulted by the federal government. Were you consulted in the preparation of the bill that is before us?

[Prof. Nicholas Bala]

Thank you for your kind words.

The federal government had a series of consultations across Canada with different groups and individuals, and I participated in a couple of them, but I think it's fair to say that the consultations that I attended are not fully reflected, and there are some very significant points of divergence between not only what I said but what others said and what is in this bill. I would suggest that some parts of it seem inconsistent not only with the research that I have summarized and others have written about, and the consultations, but also with research in other countries as well. So there are some problematic parts.

I certainly agree there are some young people who do need to be in custody--there's no question about that--but we have to think closely about who we're sending there, why we're sending them there, how long they're there for, and what we are going to do to make sure that when they get out they're less likely to commit offences.

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

You don't say so in your report, but I imagine that you are familiar with the Quebec philosophy which the chief justice summarized in these words: the right measure at the right time for the right person.

Do you think that the amendment that is proposed in clause 3 will allow Quebec to pursue that particular philosophy, which I am sure you yourself would acknowledge—in fact you provide statistics—gives remarkable results with regard to young offenders? Do you think this will force Quebec to amend that philosophy?

[Prof. Nicholas Bala]

I completely agree that Quebec and actually some other provinces—British Columbia, and to a lesser extent Alberta—have programs that really focus on trying to rehabilitate young people, trying to keep them out of the courts. And the role of provincial implementation is very important.

I think that each province will continue to have a somewhat different philosophy and set of programs, but when you change the federal law, it will also have an impact on the system. So while I would see the variation continuing, I would expect that given what has happened with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, when we had that act, in every province rates of custody went down. Similarly, if you start some of these amendments, in every province you will tend to push up rates of custody, but with a different impact in different provinces, taking into account differences both in crime level but also in the philosophy of provincial governments.