Justice Committee on June 10th, 2010

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

Mr. Murphy is. I'll have one question at the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have a total of five minutes.

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

I'll be brief. I did ask a broad question of everyone last time, but let's dig down on some of the specifics, particularly the lift of the publication ban.

We've had some evidence that this might be a good thing because it warns the public of dangerous, repeat, serious youth offenders in communities. That is something we have to balance, as a committee. We've heard this will very much go against the idea of rehabilitation--reintegration in particular. We've even heard that it might be seen as a badge of honour and courage among youth, particularly those involved in gangs, and it might be inimical to the aims of the act.

I'd like to have each of your comments. In fairness, not to look too New Brunswick-centric,

I'll first let my colleague from Quebec respond.

[Cécile Toutant]

A number of you speak French; that's nice.

You say you've heard people talk about the positive effects of publishing names, but I admit I don't see any point in it. Instead I see the problems that can cause.

When a young person is arrested and lives near the place where he committed his offence, getting his name in the newspaper is very important. I would say it's not only valued by youths who have never had any place in their world, who have always been rejected. I'll cite the example of young people who have been rejected everywhere as a result of their characteristics—I'm not saying they're only victims. They are rejected all their lives for who they are, and, at one point, they see their names in the newspaper. For them, that's a good thing.

I only see the negative effects of publishing the names of young persons in the newspaper. One day I'd like to hear, perhaps from you, what positive aspects you've heard of. The young persons I know, when they act, don't think about what will happen afterwards. I approve of the comments by Anthony Doob, to whom you referred earlier; that's absolutely right. Most of the time, young persons are very impulsive; they act and think afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Mendes.

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

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have 2 minutes and 15 seconds.

[Miguel LeBlanc]

I'd like to raise two points.

First, you are setting up the youth who have served their sentence for failure once they get out of the institution. I was mentioning that youth do not necessarily understand the long-term consequences. If we try to rehabilitate youth to once again become productive members of society, to get employment and contribute to our local economy, etc., I can't understand the rationale that publishing their names will be helpful.

The other point is that I can't honestly comprehend how publishing the name of a young person will deter other young people from doing crime when their emotional maturity level is not the same as an adult. Unfortunately, they don't understand the long-term consequences for their actions and so forth, and they believe it may not happen to them.

I'm trying to understand the rationale. I don't believe it is in the best interests of the young person nor the community in the long term. I don't believe that their names should be published, not at 12 years old or 14 years old. We're talking about kids here.

[Kathy Vandergrift]

In addition to contravening their best interests, where there are concerns about safety and it involves young persons, surely there are other kinds of strategies that could be looked at. If there is a legitimate concern in a particular case about short-term protection, other strategies could be considered.

The work in the field is going toward what the best practices are and that balance, and that's where we'd like to see our attention.

[Bernard Richard]

In my view, none of these things--publishing the name, adding denunciation and deterrence, providing for more pre-sentence detention of youth, and most of the amendments that are proposed--will do anything to address or to change the impulsive, irrational, often reckless behaviour of teenagers. I'm not convinced, at all, that it will bring us to where we want to be as a country, with a lower crime rate.

I think we can do much better. It takes more of a long-term view, I agree, and often that's not easy. We're much better if we invest the same kinds of resources in addressing those youth who are suffering from mental illness, severe behaviour disorders, or addictions, and I would wager that accounts for a very large proportion of youth crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I will move on to Mr. Dechert for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, when I began my questions earlier I was short of time so I didn't have an opportunity just to thank you all for sharing your views with us today. So I wanted to make sure I had a chance to do that.

I'd like to ask some questions to Madame Toutant. Madame Toutant, when do you think most young people become morally responsible for their crimes, for their actions, and if they are involved in crime, for that crime? At what age would you say they become morally responsible?

[Cécile Toutant]

I don't think I can answer with an age. It depends on the work done with them. I would say they're learning to be responsible.... I'm answering in English; I didn't notice.

The purpose of the work we do with young persons is precisely to make them responsible for their behaviour. First, we try to make them realize what makes them act, what the dynamic is behind their aggressive behaviour or their lack of respect for others.

When we teach someone the reasons for his behaviour and show him how to be more responsible, I believe that, at the end of the process, that person is more responsible. Is there an age at which that's apparent? I would say we become a little more responsible every day of our lives. That's true for everyone.

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

Okay, fair enough. Our legal system draws a line at the age of 18. Do you think that's an arbitrary age? Would you say there are some 17-year-olds who are morally responsible for their actions and there are 19-year-olds who are less morally responsible because of the individual development of those persons?

[Cécile Toutant]

I believe there's something arbitrary about every decision with regard to age; that's obvious.

At one point, I believe most people who are concerned with the development of human beings have shown that 18 is the average age at which a larger number of individuals are slightly more responsible than at a younger age. You ask me whether there are any 19-year-olds who are less responsible than 17-year-olds. I would say we have to consider that on an individual basis, when we talk about needs.

That said, an age had to be established in the act. If you visited a penitentiary tomorrow, you would find adults who are still irresponsible, but they may constitute a minority.

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

Is 18 the right number at which to draw the line, in your view?

[Cécile Toutant]

I never asked myself that question, I have to tell you. I think it is. I think that at one time a lot of people decided that people are more mature usually when they're a little older, so they set the age at 18.

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

Okay. I believe you mentioned earlier that you may have dealt with one of the perpetrators in the death of Sébastien Lacasse. I know that one or two people have mentioned that perhaps because this Bill C-4 is dedicated to the memory of Sébastien Lacasse, that was inappropriate. Is that true? Did I hear you correctly? Did you deal with one of those perpetrators?

[Cécile Toutant]

Yes.

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

Okay. Do you feel that this person received the appropriate sentence?

[Cécile Toutant]

That's a very good question. I think he could have been dealt with in the juvenile system. He has been condemned under the adult law.

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

What role did that person play in the death? Do you remember?

[Cécile Toutant]

I know the role that adolescent played, but today I don't want to give out any details about his life. What I wanted to say is that the Youth Criminal Justice Act permits a 10-year placement—you're aware of that. When a murder has been committed, a 10-year sentence is possible, that's to say 6 years of custody and 4 years of follow-up.

You asked for my opinion, and I'm giving it to you. Personally, after assessing that young person, I believe the youth justice system could very well have taken charge of him because we had already started to work with him in accordance with that system, in which he had questioned some things.

Unfortunately, at a certain age, under the act, we had to transfer him to a penitentiary. I think he's doing all right. However, the danger for a young person who enters a penitentiary is always that he may resort to his tougher side, and say to himself that he doesn't want to be a victim in that environment. That's a very present danger.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I'm just advised that the report that Mr. Woodworth was referring to and was inquired about by Monsieur Lemay was sent out the beginning of June. The report was issued by the Coalition on Community Safety, Health and Well-being, and it's entitled Report on National Invitational Symposium on Youth Illicit Substance Abuse and the Justice System. It has nothing to do with the consultations that took place.

We have room for one final question. Yes, we do have time.

Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you.

I wanted to ask a question of Ms. Vandergrift.

Ms. Vandergrift, you referred to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In your view, does the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as currently drafted, comply with the requirements of the Convention on the Rights of the Child?