Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was adult.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
Actually, it's Calgary. Sorry.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
In Edmonton, the last time we had a break week around the long weekend in May, there were three murders, and all three were alleged to have been committed by youth. I don't know if you're familiar with any of those. I'm sure you've heard of them in the newspaper or otherwise.
Does Alberta support denunciation and deterrence as appropriate sentencing principles when it comes to youth?
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
Yes, we do. There have been a number of comments in the testimony and from the committee on the addition of those factors. We see them as additions to a very long list of sentencing factors. It's not as though they displace what is already there. It's as though you're conducting an orchestra: we've added two new instruments to the orchestra, but we haven't changed the band.
So that gives the judge, in the appropriate circumstance, the ability to resort to those instruments if needed, but it doesn't change the whole nature of the act. It gives us that additional tool to deal with those circumstances where we have to get at that issue.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I thank you all for your excellent testimony this morning.
Conservative
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
It's great to see you, Mr. Justice Nunn. I think our party really appreciates all your recommendations and would like to implement most if not all of them. Custodial, pre-trial, etc., for dangerous offenders, we agree with all of you on that.
I was on the justice committee last year, and we saw a disturbing trend. Witness after witness suggested there was a lack of consultation, suggesting a serious problem in policy development. I wasn't surprised when you said in your brief, “It should also be noted that there was no consultation with the provinces”--and I hope you meant provinces and territories--“on any of these specific issues prior to the introduction of the Bill. ...there have been no consultations with provincial officials and prosecutors regarding the proposals advanced in this Bill. We suggest this type of consultation is particularly useful given the fact that provinces have both the practical expertise in this area, and bear the operational and other costs associated with the implementation of this legislation.”
I'm assuming if they didn't consult you, their closest partners, they probably didn't consult any other experts in the justice system in your province, or people who would have...
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
I know there were the round tables in 2008, but my understanding was that those were pitched at a very high level in terms of conceptual... Certainly there haven't been any discussions with anybody at my level or anybody who deals operationally with the act from the prosecution side. That gives rise to the kinds of difficulties we've highlighted in the paper, when you get things drafted that will have the opposite of the intended effect.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
On pre-trial detention, of course we agree we have to fix that up for the serious people, no problem. I think one of the things inhibiting that, though, and also related to the two for one, the reason that we had two for one and three for one was the lack of ability for rehabilitation, anger management, addiction, education, and everything in that pre-trial period, when, as Mr. MacDonald said, rehabilitation is very important. That's almost a negative factor. If that could be improved, maybe there'd be more support for pre-trial.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
I wonder if I could respond very briefly before my colleague.
We saw that in the testimony of some of the witnesses. In fact, at least in Alberta, there is the same accessibility to treatment for someone in remand as a youth as there is for someone serving a youth sentence, so there is no difference in terms of what treatment and programming are available.
Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia
That's the same in Nova Scotia. The treatment program, which is excellent for youth in Nova Scotia, is the same at the youth detention facility, whether you're on detention or not. Granted, if you're only there for a few weeks it doesn't get as much of a chance to get going, but programming is available.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Are we surprised with the emphasis on deterrence? All the experts before committee have said that no youth is going to read these changes in the act, and they're not going to know the difference, so it's really not going to have a deterrence effect. The deterrence effect is from people's belief that they'll be caught. So it's not really a huge issue. I'm glad Mr. Hawkes said it was just adding one to the menu, so that's fine.
Retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, As an Individual
I'm not so sure it's a good idea. This is where I depart from my friend. I never thought it was a great thing, other than to try to put some pressure on the judge, even on the adult side.
If you rob a bank and you get convicted and you're sent to prison for eight years or whatever the term might be, and I think I might rob a bank too, I'm not being deterred by the fact that you're there. I can say to myself, I'm smarter, I'm not going to get caught.
So I don't think that deterrence, in a general public sense, is very much. Personally, for the offender, deterrence might have some effect, but the very fact that he's being dealt with is enough deterrence. I don't think you need it.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
That was my point.
My last point is on the conditional sentences and the fact that there is more ability here. I applaud the minister for this, because of the vastly improved recidivism reduction and rehabilitation, which Mr. MacDonald said was an objective. Conditional sentences, leaving that option open to the judges, where in those particular cases society is still protected, would actually make society safer.
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
The difficulty is that we're not simply leaving it open. We're dramatically opening the gateway to that. We're opening it to a whole new range of offences where it's not currently available. The comparison between the youth and the adult sentences is difficult, because the duration of a youth deferred custody sentence is so short that really you can't get much meaningful treatment or rehabilitation in during that six-month window. It's really a short, sharp shock. That's what it's designed for. It's not really designed for the kinds of offences it could now be applied to.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to commend all the witnesses for being here today. It's really very refreshing to hear from people who have front-line experience and legal reasoning. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to listen to witness after witness come and make suggestions about what's in the bill, which are totally without foundation. I've appreciated what you have all had to say. You've made a good case for the fact that the pre-trial detention provisions of Bill C-4 don't go as far as you would like, and the adult sentencing provisions actually make it more difficult to give a young offender an adult sentence. In fact, the deferred sentencing provisions make it easier to give young offenders a deferred or conditional sentence. So thank you for all of that.
I'd like to ask Mr. Hawkes a question. If I'm not mistaken, he has a copy of the existing act in front of him. No?
Director of Policy, Appeals, Education and Policy Branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Alberta
I have bits and pieces of the existing act.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Actually, I'll ask Mr. MacDonald, since he's got it in his hands. Am I right that paragraph 3.(1)(a) of the existing act has in fact reference to protection of the public?
Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia
As a long-term goal, that's correct.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Right.
And am I right that in this existing act, that reference to protection of the public is a controlling factor or an interpretive factor over items (i), (ii), and (iii) in paragraph 3.(1)(a)?
Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia
Yes, items (i), (ii), and (iii) are supposed to be interpreted with the idea of long-term protection of the public in mind.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Would I be correct to say that the only thing that Bill C-4 does in that respect is to refer to just simply protection of the public, rather than long-term protection, and maybe move that up a couple of lines in the paragraph?
Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia
It would appear to suggest, with the current bill, that the three items must be interpreted in terms of protection of the public--short-term, long-term, medium, all sorts of goals.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Just to be clear, though, the previous act also indicated that those three items were to be interpreted with a view to promoting the protection of the public, only it was long-term. Correct?
