Evidence of meeting #42 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 judge.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
December 9th, 2010 / 3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Minister, for the short title of this Act, you chose the name Sébastien.
Young Sébastien Lacasse, a resident of my riding, was very viciously attacked by several youths, only one of whom was under the age of 18, but he was the one who struck the fatal blows that killed young Sébastien. That young man appeared in Youth Court, but he was sentenced as an adult.
Clause 18 of your bill amends section 72 of the Act so that judges may not impose an adult sentence unless there is no reasonable doubt. So you are taking a case that shows that the law works, since the young person was sentenced as an adult. However, a number of people to whom I have spoken who are very familiar with the case in question have told me that under the proposed bill it would be more difficult, if not impossible, for the judge to impose an adult sentence.
What is the idea behind amending a law that is working well and naming it after Sébastien?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Monsieur Ménard, we have to reflect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R.v. D.B., as you're aware.
Again, if you think we can toughen up any of these sections, any input you have would be quite refreshing. We drafted this very carefully, looking at what the Supreme Court of Canada has to say. As you are aware, we have to respect what the courts say in this country. We had to redraft the section with respect to adult sentences keeping that in mind.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Minister, it wasn't the Supreme Court that suggested you name the law after Sébastien.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I'm sorry. You asked two questions. I thought you were referring to section 72 and the provisions within section 72. Again, these are responses, as the bill is, for a number of reasons, but that's one of the reasons we are drafting it. It is in response to the Supreme Court Canada. It was a decision of the government to call it Sébastian's Law in recognition of this young victim.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
In any event, you also have the report. I am going to read you a few passages, at page 2:
Little support for changes to the YCJA at this time: Legislation cannot prevent crime, reduce crime or protect the public. Changing legislation will not change behaviour. The YCJA should not be changed just for the sake of change. There was an overwhelming consensus that the perceived flaws are not in the legislation; the flaws are in the system. The development of the YCJA was described as a long and thoughtful process that came from evidence based research. A sensible and defensible Act based on intelligent principles. Any changes should be evidence-based and made following the same thoughtful process.
It was noted that the YCJA is only five years old and it needs “time to take root”. The effectiveness has to be communicated to the public, who, to this point, have not been very well informed. In recognizing that the YCJA is complex legislation that deals with complex issues, the message was clear it should not be amended based on individual cases or stories.
Is that a good summary, in the introduction, of the complaints made to you during your ministerial consultations?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I don't think that's complete, Mr. Ménard. If you went on, you would see that the report says that there was much discussion, for instance, regarding repeat and violent offenders, which leads some to think that the YCJA needed to be amended to strengthen the notion of public safety. I heard in British Columbia that “British Columbia expressed frustration with chronic property offenders and finding a better way of delineating between young people...” and that “All agreed that prolific offenders are a small percentage but the Province needs to have a strategy to deal with them.”
In Saskatchewan, there was “concern expressed regarding the practice of gangs using and recruiting young people for more serious crime.” I heard, for instance, that “Many talk about having to stop that 'out of control' young person and detention was sometimes the only way to protect the public.” I heard a wide range of comments.
Again, as I said in my opening remarks, for the most part the law works well, but for a small number of out-of-control--and, many times, violent--youth, some changes had to be made. A number of these were highlighted, as you know, in the Nunn report out of Nova Scotia.
Again, we are required to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. All of these came together, and you have the legislation that is before you today.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I was actually expecting you to refer to the comments you received from various quarters, in a province that is probably isolated. However, when I look at the entire document and the summary done by the people who accompanied you in the ministerial consultations, I get a different picture. At page 3, for example, they say:
The restorative justice approach is seen as a very positive element along with extrajudicial measures. Despite the fact that the legislation is considered very complex, it was referred to as being “as good as it is going to get”; “a damn good piece of legislation.”
Jurisdictions agreed there could be some minor “tweaking” of the YCJA, but the flaws are in the system, not the legislation. The YCJA itself is not the challenge; it is the dialogue that happens in the public. The public perception of public safety, whether real or perceived, will not change with amendments to the YCJA. Changing the YCJA will not change behaviour. If changes must be made to the YCJA, they should only be made slowly and as a result of a more comprehensive review.
I could continue reading pages as they have been submitted to us here. You are justifying this bill based on the consultations you conducted on the street, where people told you how bad the law is. But the report specifically states that it is misunderstood because the public is poorly informed.
What are you doing to better inform the public? Why aren't you moving slowly...
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Well, you referred to page 3 of that, and from page 3 there was much discussion regarding repeat and violent offenders, which leaves some to think that the YCJA needed to be amended to strengthen the notion of public safety.
Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, the responsibility falls on those who are in government and who have a look at this to demonstrate leadership. There's not always a complete consensus on all of these, and while I indicated when I introduced this bill to Parliament that for the most part the system works well and that there are many wonderful parts in the youth criminal justice system in this country, changes needed to be made, and we're prepared to bring them forward. The cross-country tour I took consulting with people on the Youth Criminal Justice Act was one part of it.
Of course, there are people who made submissions to me, to the department, to my colleagues, and, I'm sure, to you, suggesting changes that they wanted or offering comments, criticism, or compliments with respect to the existing system. We have the Nunn report, which is one of the seminal studies in this particular area, and as I indicated to you earlier, when sections are struck down or there are comments by the Supreme Court of Canada, we are under an obligation to respond.
They all come together, but ultimately it comes down to leadership and moving forward and improving the criminal justice system of this country.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister and Mr. Piragoff, for being here.
I'm having the same frustration as Mr. Ménard, Mr. Minister. The report is 19 pages long. Any objective reading of this report is summarized in the first heading on page 1: “Little support for changes to the YCJA at this time”.
I've read it all—a couple of times, actually. Other than some comments by the police.... Quite frankly, their concern was addressed by the proposed amendments from the three prosecutors we heard from, which aren't in the bill. Justice Nunn's recommendations, generally, are also not in the bill, including the key one about dealing with that hard core, that 1% to 3% or maybe, at a maximum, 5% of really difficult youth offenders. We had the three prosecutors proposing amendments in three specific areas, for part of which Justice Nunn was supportive. You don't have these in the bill, and I'm not hearing anything from the government suggesting that you're prepared to move amendments in that regard.
Let me just finish. I actually have a question; those were more in the way of comments.
Who actually wrote this report?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Did they have the opportunity to review whatever written briefs you got at that time?
4 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
This person would have applied, I'm assuming, an objective analysis of all of the information they received from the experts in the field.
4 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Okay.
I think I will make it a question: I just don't know how you could have come up with this bill after getting this report.
4 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Let me deal specifically with the issue of specific deterrence. As far as I can see, it's not even in here at any point. They certainly were very negative on any general deterrence, but there are no comments on specific deterrence. How did it end up in the bill?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
This isn't the only.... I've been trying to make it clear to you that this is a result of those discussions. We have other input into legislation, so I'm again going to tell you that I don't want you to get the impression that those meetings I had from May through August 2008 completely comprise the four corners of this bill. They don't. I have to take into consideration what the Supreme Court of Canada is saying; I have to say what the Nunn report says; I have to take into account the representations that are made directly to the department. As well, I had a federal-provincial meeting with provincial and territorial justice ministers to get their comments.
That said, I'm looking forward to whatever report you make in this committee. I'm looking forward to seeing any suggestions you have with respect to this bill. I know you have other witnesses you're going to hear after me, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say and any comments that you make in your report.
