Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Jacob, do you wish to say something?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Amendment NDP-53 confirms what Quebec's youth centres have told us. The only approach that works, that works wonderfully in Quebec even, is differential intervention. It targets the use of the right measure at the right time, and the basic premise is this: the person is an individual who is still developing and who has not fully matured, and as such, that individual has different needs. Therefore, the individual or unique characteristics of each young person have to be taken into account.

It is, of course, necessary to take a rigorous approach to this type of intervention, so as to reinforce the notion of time. Parental involvement is also crucial, as are the victim and the impact. And that is why age, maturity, character, background and previous record are extremely important factors that need to be taken into account by the judge. The recourse available to judges must not be overly restrictive, because they will not be able to use differential intervention and neither will rehabilitation centres.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, sir.

Having heard the discussion, we must vote on the Liberal–35 amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

NDP–53.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

NDP–52 falls?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

It fell because it was identical to the first one.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'll call the vote on NDP–53.

(Amendment negatived)

We're on Liberal amendment 36.

(Amendment negatived)

All those in favour of NDP–54?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 183 and 184 agreed to on division)

(On clause 185)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Casey, Liberal–37.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Clause 185 is the publication ban.

Our concern with this is that it's a break from what's been the Canadian approach since 1908, in relation to the protection of confidentiality and identification of young people. It's a serious break from how we've traditionally treated youths involved in our justice system. Absolutely, positively, it heightens the risk of stigmatization and has serious implications for rehabilitation and reintegration, which we believe should be the paramount considerations in the youth criminal justice system. So that's the reason for the amendment, the reason for our concerns with respect to publication bans.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, sir.

If Liberal–37 carries, we can't address NDP–55, but go ahead.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Since we've agreed to a 10-minute discussion per clause, I'd prefer to talk about more than one of these together, sir.

I agree with what my colleague, Mr. Casey, has proposed as LIB-37, and we also have amendment NDP-55.

We also have NDP-55.1, which is an amendment to clause 185, which I will read with your concurrence, to add the following as an additional section after line 22 on page 94, as subsection (5):

(5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province may, by order, exempt the province from the application of this section or fix an age greater than 14 years for the purpose of its application.

In dealing with the whole question of publication, we agree with Mr. Casey, and we agree that lifting the ban of publication is an extremely negative proposition. I would encourage members to consider the letter the Quebec Justice Minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, sent to this committee on November 15 that says, and I'm reading the English translation of the letter:

Bill C-10 substantially amends the rule lifting the ban on publication of information that would identify a young person.

Currently, publication is limited to specific cases, for example young person liable to an adult sentence or young person having committed a presumptive offence and the Attorney general had given notice to seek adult sentence. By henceforward targeting all violent crimes, the amendments proposed by Bill C-10 could cause the identity of too many young persons to be disclosed.

“The publication ban”, as he points out, and we agree totally, “is intended to promote the reintegration of young persons at the end of the rehabilitative process. Lifting this ban would adversely affect their rehabilitation and undermine their potential for reintegration into society.” I think this is also consistent with what we've heard from other experts, criminologists, people such as Professor Bala, and others who have underscored the importance of treating young offenders in a different category.

Justice Minister Fournier goes on to say that there's a difficult situation for public prosecutors, being in an awkward situation where they have “the burden of proving the relevance of the measure in which they did not see the benefit for society”. In other words, they're required to prove why they didn't seek such a publication exposure in a particular circumstance, even though—particularly as the public prosecutors themselves would believe and that would be particularly true in Quebec, I'm assuming—this was a bad thing.

Also, the justice minister points out that the “publication of a young person's identity results in stigmatization and, as pointed out by the Supreme Court of Canada, disrupts the abilities of the family and others to provide support” that a young person would need in terms of his or her rehabilitation.

I think these are very important considerations, and we have a rational proposal from the Quebec government as to how to do that. My colleagues, Madame Boivin and Monsieur Jacob, have talked about it earlier in their interventions on an earlier provision. But this is the section where we are proposing to actually insert the Quebec suggestion into this law as an add-on to clause 185, allowing the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a particular province to make an order exempting that province from the application of the section or to fix an age greater than 14 years for the purpose of its application.

We think this is a reasonable proposal and we would ask that it be adopted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I've let you go through that, but I must tell you that amendment NDP 55.1 attempts to introduce an exemption by permitting a Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province to be exempted from the application of this section.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766: An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of an exemption is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-10; therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

The other NDP amendment, 55, is okay; it's 55.1.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We'll ask the government to adopt this amendment as part of the proper bill before we're finished, whether it's today or in third reading, report stage, or at some other stage of the bill. We would ask the government to adopt this as a reasonable proposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Go ahead.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On these motions, generally, I wish to briefly point out that the government bill in no case requires a judge to lift a publication ban. It requires only that a judge think about it. That doesn't seem too heinous to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We've heard all the discussion on the amendments. On LIB-37, all in favour?

(Amendment negatived)

We'll go to NDP-55.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 185 agreed to on division)

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Does Mr. Harris want to consider grouping some others?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes. Perhaps we could just call clause 186 first, and then look at some of the rest of them.

(On clause 186)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I singled that one out for comment. We do support that, and I am prepared to talk about all the rest of them as one group. I would just mention in passing some of the provisions.

I would like to acknowledge and recognize that while we oppose many of the provisions that are being put forth here, we are not opposed to everything in the government's bill. In fact, some of the provisions, such as clause 186, recognize and underscore the fact that young people must be treated differently and separated from adults in our penitentiary system.

I will read clause 186 for the record, which says:

Subsection 76(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) No young person who is under the age of 18 years is to serve any portion of the imprisonment in a provincial correctional facility for adults or a penitentiary.

I think that is an important principle. It's important to have it in the legislation. It's important to underscore that there is a different system of justice for young people and for adults, and we really do care about trying to ensure that while young persons are still of that age, under 18, we don't see them put in a population with adults who may be.... The term “hardened criminals” comes to mind. It would expose young people to certain individuals and circumstances that would be totally inappropriate for recognizing the situation that they find themselves in, still with the hope that the major principle of dealing with young persons, particularly those who are kept in custody, is to be treated and held separately from adults.

We want to recognize that this is contained in here and indicate our support for it, and indicate our support and interest in recognizing that not everything in this legislation is negative, that there are some positive aspects of it. We're happy to acknowledge that, while we are doing our job to vigorously object to the provisions that we have been objecting to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, very briefly, I would agree with Mr. Harris. I have had the opportunity in Alberta to go to a youth assessment centre, as well as a federal penitentiary and provincial penitentiaries.

I can assure those people who are listening today that there's a significant difference between a youth centre and one for adults. I think this clause goes to that very thing, and I congratulate the government for moving this clause.

(Clause 186 agreed to)

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If I may speak to the remainder of the provisions, with the permission of the chair and the consent of the committee, the provisions between 187 and 204 are provisions that we are not opposed to, and we're satisfied to have them voted on as a group.

Some of these are simply consequential on a certain other provision, providing notice, in some cases a French language change—which is important—or the requirement that police keep a record of any extra judicial measures that are to take place if a young person is not brought before the court. So we see that these amendments are, in general, consequential and are related amendments to things that have already been passed. We don't see any reason to debate these particular sections individually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Are we talking about clauses 187 to 204 inclusive?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Agreed.