Justice Committee on June 10th, 2010

[Bernard Richard]

I think that the act, as it currently stands, would be more effective if there were screening services. First, it would be necessary to target the youths who have these specific needs. Then there would have to be effective ways of intervening in terms of treatment for those youths.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

However, you're aware that the Young Offenders Act currently allows the court to say that, if a youth is suffering from mental illness, he may be placed in a psychiatric asylum. You're telling me that judges don't do that, but that they send them to prison instead.

[Bernard Richard]

In fact, judges often don't have a lot of options because, in certain regions of Canada and in certain provinces, the services simply do not exist. The act obviously allows considerable flexibility. I think that's the entire advantage of this act. It provides very significant benefits.

If you adopt these amendments, my concern is that we'll be investing more in infrastructure, in prisons, rather than in the services that are currently lacking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have one minute left, Mr. Dechert.

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

Very quickly, Mr. Richard, you mentioned Ashley Smith, and I think we all have sympathy for what happened to that young woman and sympathy for her family. Was she what you would describe as a serious or violent repeat offender?

[Bernard Richard]

I wouldn't describe her as that. She was a very, very troubled youth--

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

But not a violent offender.

[Bernard Richard]

Most of her violent behaviour was inside the prison.

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

Right, okay. So would any of the provisions of Bill C-4 that we're reviewing in this study have applied, in your opinion, to Ashley Smith?

[Bernard Richard]

If we don't address the real problems, the lack of mental health and--

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

I understand. I take your point on that. That's fair. But would any of the provisions being suggested by this bill have applied in her case, in your opinion?

[Bernard Richard]

I don't....

Would you say...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Could we make sure that if the question is directed to one witness to let him answer?

[Bernard Richard]

It's hard for me to answer that, but certainly--

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

Can you give us a yes or no?

[Bernard Richard]

I can't say yes or no.

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

Okay, you couldn't take us through any of those provisions and say how one might apply to her.

[Bernard Richard]

Not the specific provisions--

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

You didn't look at that. You didn't look at her case and compare it to any of the changes that have been suggested in the current bill.

[Bernard Richard]

The problem with Ashley's case is that there was an absence of mental health services, and I think that--

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

I understand that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. We're out of time.

We'll start the second round of five minutes.

Mr. Murphy.

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

There are a lot of technical aspects to this bill, and we're going to work our way through them, but we had in camera—not to get into it—testimony from a judge who deals with this. One of the concerns I was left with after listening to him was that judges are going to have a key role in whatever amendments are made to this bill.

You might as well start with the declaration. I have what I hope is a simple question, with a brief preamble, on section 3, which is the declaration of principle, the overall road map for the act.

It seems to me that the act as is states some principles that probably most of the panellists agree with. Justice Nunn has suggested that the government should add a clause indicating that protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act. The government went right into third gear and said it's the overriding principle of the act.

I want to ask each of the witnesses what they think of this. If we moved from section 3 as it exists--which says that the purpose of the act is to prevent crime, rehabilitate young persons, and ensure that young persons are subject to meaningful consequences “in order to promote the long-term protection of the public”--into making protection of the public one of the primary goals along with the three that I just mentioned, could you live with it? Secondly, do you think the government has gilded the lily and gone a little too far in trying to make it the overwhelming, overarching principle of the act?

We'll start with Mr. Richard.

[Bernard Richard]

I think it's contradictory with the existing legislation; it's a totally different approach. I think we're going backwards, back to the “young offenders” approach, which allowed us to have an extremely high incarceration rate of youth as compared with other advanced, civilized, developed nations.

There is a contradiction in terms there. Unfortunately, it takes us in the wrong direction. In my view, it will lead to the expenditure of more resources, infrastructure, and incarceration, without providing us the results we're looking for—we're all looking for the same results—less crime.

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

But could you live with the minor ratcheting up that Justice Nunn suggested by moving it from “in order to promote” to “one of the principles”, along with prevent, rehabilitate, and “subject to meaningful consequence”? Could you live with that?