Justice Committee on June 15th, 2010

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm reading it that a youth court justice may order detention only if no combination of conditions of release would result in lowering the likelihood of committing further offences. Do you read it the same way?

[Else Marie Knudsen]

Yes. I don't have it in front of me, but....

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It seemed to me that this was in fact preserving the idea that detention is a last resort. Do you agree with that?

[Else Marie Knudsen]

I think the provisions that expand the definition of “serious offence” and “violent offence”, which would then expand the grounds for pretrial detention, raise some significant concern about whether pretrial detention would be ordered in what truly would be the least restrictive--

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Proposed paragraph 29(2)(b), in fact, says that no matter whether it's a serious offence or not, if there is a combination of release conditions that will mean that there is no substantial likelihood of a further serious offence, the judge cannot order detention.

[Else Marie Knudsen]

Certainly.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Wamback, I want to especially say that I agree with just about everything you had to say, and in particular I was impressed with the astute way you answered the question about publication. I think you're right that the kids and young people who are around the offence all know what went on, and the reason we want to increase the opportunity for publication is to let others know if there's a danger to their safety. So I'm grateful that you made that point.

If I have a moment more, I'd like to read to you, Mr. Wamback, a quote from the symposium that I mentioned earlier and ask if you agree with it. It reads:

The pendulum has swung from overuse of custody to an inability to use custody when circumstances suggest that it would be appropriate.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

[Joseph Wamback]

I absolutely agree, and I understand the parameters very well.

One thing I want to add about pretrial custody that I feel is very important for the members of this committee to understand is that the boys who hurt my son were not in any pretrial custody, and during that time they broke another young boy's arms and another boy's ribs. The boy who murdered Matti Baranovski was not in pretrial custody for previously beating up another young boy with a baseball bat. The boy who murdered Jack McLaughlin's son in Winnipeg as a young offender was ordered to anger management classes instead of pretrial custody for almost killing another young man, and while he was returning from his court-appointed anger management classes, he kicked young Anthony McLaughlin to death.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's very powerful evidence, and I hope all of the members present here understand and appreciate it.

Do I have any additional time?

I do want to ask Ms. Knudsen, the analyst, if she is aware of the World Health Organization's definition of violence. The World report on violence and health by the World Health Organization defines violence as:

The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Are you aware of that?

[Else Marie Knudsen]

I am now.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay.

Do you agree with it?

[Else Marie Knudsen]

I think that defining violence in the criminal justice system has a tremendous impact and that it must have a common-sense meaning when we're discussing—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The chair said I only had a brief moment.

Do you agree with the Worth Health Organization's definition of violence?

[Else Marie Knudsen]

I don't agree that it's the only definition of violence, no.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We're going to start another round. We'll keep it to four minutes, and that way we can get in a full round.

Is that all right?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay.

Ms. Zarac.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wamback, no parent would want to experience what you have. What happened to you is terrible. It is entirely to your credit that you are the chair of a foundation. It is proof that your child was lucky to have you, that you were a good parent.

However, that is not the case for everyone. There are young people who live in situations that mean that they don't do what they should do. As they say, they make a wrong turn.

Do you think those people can be rehabilitated? Do you think that if we give those people support, we can succeed in giving them the life they deserve?

[Joseph Wamback]

Thank you.

Again, I want to preface my response by suggesting that the first thing I said during this committee meeting was that my comments were for those who commit extreme violent acts and who take or destroy another human life.

I believe that everybody makes mistakes, especially when they're young. I did, and I'm sure we all did. We do silly things, and that's part of growing up. But there is a line that we, as Canadian society, have to draw for everybody who owes a responsibility and a duty as a citizen of this country to ensure that they do no harm to other human beings, to other lives. Once you cross that line, I believe it's a completely different set of circumstances.

Do they deserve the right to be rehabilitated? Absolutely, without question. But under the current system, we're not even trying to rehabilitate those individuals, by not legislating mandatory counselling once those individuals are incarcerated.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

But Mr. Wamback, the bill says that it is going to lengthen sentences.

Although Ms. Knudsen told us that the statistics tell us different, do you think that if sentences are lengthened, if we incarcerate young people for longer times, that is more valid than trying to offer them support? If you had to choose between the two...?

[Joseph Wamback]

Well, I'm going to answer your two questions.

One, I don't believe that the bill is asking for longer sentencing. I've already stated earlier that adult sentencing may actually have shorter custodial times than sentencing under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. What is important is that we as a society use the social programs, or create those programs, that we know in our hearts should be mandatory, to try to change the outlook and the perspectives of extremely violent individuals. If that is the objective, we cannot do that by providing absolutely minimal sentences or zero consequences, or zero denunciation or deterrence in Canadian society.

Our kids are extremely bright and they see what goes on when individuals steal cars and there's no consequence. They see what goes on when an individual rapes a 14-year-old girl and there is no consequence for that. We need to be able to set examples as adults, as parents, so that other children grow up in our societies with a respect for the law and a respect for human rights.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I'm going to come back to Ms. Knudsen.

You gave some statistics showing that crime had declined. I don't know whether they have been presented already, but if not, it would be worthwhile for you to provide the committee with those statistics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Right. Thank you.

If you could—

[Else Marie Knudsen]

That's from Statistics Canada's The Daily. I think when I stated that youth crime and violent crime by youth have decreased in recent years, it was from The Daily of July 21, 2009.