Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Sure. Oh, efficiency we like.
We'll have Mr. Casey on Liberal amendment 33 and Liberal amendment 34.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
LIB-33, you have before you. Essentially, this is directed at the fact that this bill raises the idea of protection to the public to a level of principle and relegates rehabilitation and social reintegration to the background, and our fundamental belief is that this is not the right way to go with respect to the youth criminal justice system.
The second issue we have is the neglect to incorporate the lasting protection of the public. Our feeling is that if you want to provide lasting protection to the public, you need to favour rehabilitation and social reintegration, as opposed to the focus of the bill.
The amendment that you have there, as you can see, sets forth principles that favour rehabilitation and social reintegration, as opposed to, if you will, protection of the public. That's the first one.
The second one, I would say, is a light version. It's less intrusive to the legislation that you've put forward, but it's put forward with the same directive in mind.
Thank you.
November 22nd, 2011 / 6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Oh, I'm sorry, I do want to debate, but I can wait if you wish.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
That's it, 50.1.
This amendment relates to what we've heard a lot of talk about in recent weeks. It also relates to what the Quebec Minister of Justice said to the committee when he presented three amendments on behalf of the Province of Quebec that fit very well within Bill C-10.
In his letter of November 15 that was addressed to you, Mr. Chair of the committee, the minister said the following on page 1: Bill C-10 has reworked the declaration of principle of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to remove the notion of "long-term protection". My first request for amendment concerns subparagraph 3(1)(a) of the YCJA, so as to clarify the notion of "protection" in the statute by preserving the notion of "long-term protection of the public".
This is what you will find in our amendment 50.1. It's this idea of long-term protection of the public that very nicely connects the way justice works and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It's a system that has been working very well in Quebec for decades.
The minister also recommended two other amendments. One was to replace the verb "encourager" with "favoriser". I understand the various statements made by the Minister of Justice, who feels that it is this amendment that we will finally manage to pass. I would like to say on record that of the three amendments put forward by Quebec, and that we are also putting forward, it is probably the least contentious, and that it would be almost indecent to refuse it.
The third amendment recommends adding a paragraph to section 75 of the YCJA, under which a province's Lieutenant-Governor in Council could, by order, exempt the province from its application, or even set an age older than 14 years to allow its application. We'll come back to this. My colleagues will come back to it later, especially when it comes to clause 185, or something like that.
All that to say, with respect to the idea of long-term protection of the public, I cannot believe that any intelligent person, and everyone around this table is an intelligent person, would not want to include the word "long-term" next to the words "protection of the public". If we don't want it to be long term, I don't know what kind of protection we want. We shouldn't be afraid because it comes from Quebec. We shouldn't automatically say that, if it comes from Quebec, it's not good.
But when we talk about “long-term protection of the public”, that shouldn't be worrisome for the people before us.
I encourage people to adopt at least amendment NDP-50.1 concerning the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I'll allow my colleagues to intervene in the time remaining.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Ms. Françoise Boivin. The minister came to Ottawa the first time on November 1, and he came back today, November 22. He wanted to stress the importance of the three amendments he proposed in his November 15 letter.
First, let's talk about the long-term protection of the public. It is vitally important to use that wording in section 3(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act because it will make all the difference. We need to encourage young people to rehabilitate themselves, be it in the short, medium or long term. Not only will the young person be detained in a rehabilitation centre, but they will also be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, sooner or later, in order to become a productive member of society.
That is working in Quebec because our crime rate has dropped. Young people who go through the justice system rebel at first, but slowly, they adjust and take part in the rehabilitation process. Ultimately, they leave these centres, and some even come back to talk about their positive experiences with other youth.
Now let's talk about the amendment dealing with the change in terminology that has been accepted. To some extent, changing the French wording from “encourager” to “favoriser” is a simple enough amendment. It would be accepted, if I am not mistaken, for the sake of consistency with other documents on crime. So it would strengthen the idea of rehabilitation.
The last amendment I want to address is the one that deals with the rule lifting the ban on publication of information that would identify a young person. That amendment is all-important because identifying a young person who has committed a crime will stigmatize them systemically, making it hard for them to reintegrate into society, regardless of their crime. Identifying the young person is detrimental to their rehabilitation. It is also detrimental to the victim because if the young person is not able to reintegrate into society, they will re-offend, resulting in other victims and so forth.
For all these reasons, I support the amendments put forward by Minister Jean-Marc Fournier. It is unfortunate not to see any kind of cooperation or consultation happening. Twice, the minister travelled from Quebec City to Ottawa. We hear all this talk of open federalism. The Prime Minister promises a cooperative style of open federalism, even boasts about it, but he blew it this time, because Quebec's justice minister left empty-handed and dissatisfied. And I can certainly see why.
I will now hand the floor over to my colleague, Ms. Charmaine Borg.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you. I have just two minutes, so I will keep it brief.
These amendments are critical, and I am asking the government to consider and support them. In Quebec, our system works, it produces good results. I don't understand why the province is being asked to fix something that isn't broken. It would be like turning back the clock 10, 20, 30 years. It makes absolutely no sense. These amendments will save Quebec and allow the province to maintain its course. Naturally, there will still be considerable costs attached, and Quebec will refuse to pay them—that is for sure. However, the amendments will, at least, make the bill not quite as bad for them.
I am asking you, begging you even, to support these amendments, especially the one that says “favorisant la réadaptation et la réinsertion sociale des adolescents ayant commis des infractions”. I feel compelled to stress the importance of the wording “favorisant la réadaptation”. The merits of that concept have been proven by numerous experts, something the minister—who came not once, but twice—mentioned repeatedly. That is how we will make our streets and communities safe. I am well aware that you may not vote in favour of these amendments, and that makes me wonder whether you truly want to make our streets safe. We have a system in Quebec that works, that does what it should, and you are telling us to turn back the clock by 20 or 30 years if you vote against these amendments.
Once again, I am asking you to stand behind long-term protection. “Long-term protection” is a two-word concept that will help make our streets and communities safe. We are looking down the road. These young people who are coming out probably had difficult childhoods—no doubt, they had problems. We need to take that into account. We need to help them, and putting them in jail is not the right solution. At the very least, it should not be the first solution. There should be other solutions that are conducive to protecting society in the long term, in other words, rehabilitation and reintegration.
I think my time is up. I thank you and I ask that you support these amendments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you, Madam Borg.
Now, we have government amendment G-4, if you'd like to move it.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
This motion seeks to replace the verb “encourager”, in French, with the verb “favoriser” in the French version of proposed subparagraph 3(1)(a)(ii) of the act.
This is one of the amendments Minister Fournier wanted to see, so we have kept it. Section 3(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act talks about protecting the public. Subparagraph 3(1)(a)(ii) reads “encourager la réadaptation et la réinsertion sociale des adolescents ayant commis des infractions”. The amendment would replace the word “encourager” with the word “favoriser”, as requested by Minister Fournier.
We are well aware that Minister Fournier was not very happy with his visit. So it is, of course, on his word, on the basis of his recommendations, that we kept this amendment. We are very happy to cooperate and work with Minister Fournier, now and in the future, as we have done with the other attorneys general and ministers. For that matter, Mr. Chair, I would say that, even before this bill was revamped, the provincial authorities gave us their recommendations, which we took into account when making the changes that were asked for. We made changes that Quebec had asked for, with respect to pre-trial detention, adult sentencing, and custody and supervision orders, among others. We are certainly not oblivious to the wishes of Quebec or Minister Fournier. We are moving one of the three proposed amendments, and we look forward to continuing to work with the minister.
Mr. Chair, I would conclude by saying that nothing in Bill C-10 prevents Quebec in any way from pursuing rehabilitation when the judicial system deems it appropriate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Okay. Having heard all of the interventions, we need to vote on these amendments one by one.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I was waiting until all of the motions were moved to make my intervention. I understood that was your direction earlier.
I want to point out, at least in this venue, that some of the comments by my colleagues opposite to the effect that protection of the public is now going to be paramount would be dispelled if they were to read the act as amended. They would see that the protection of the public is referred to only in proposed paragraph 3(1)(a), which has an equality with paragraphs 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), 3(1)(d), and the principles contained therein. Neither 3(1)(a) nor 3(1)(b) nor 3(1)(c) nor 3(1)(d) is paramount over any of the others, nor is protection of the public.
I would also ask them to consider that the removal of the modifier “long-term” from the existing act simply allows the phrase “protection of the public” to apply to both short-term and long-term considerations. It does not delete the notion of long-term considerations; it simply widens the definition to include both.
Apart from that, Mr. Chair, I support the government amendment to replace “encourager” with “favoriser”, but only because I believe that it will still be equivalent to the English “promoting”, which I would paraphrase as fostering or encouraging, and which will be nothing more or less than that.
Thank you very much.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you.
Have I cut anybody else off?
We're voting on amendment LIB-33.
(Amendment LIB-33 negatived)
(Amendment LIB-44 negatived)
(Amendment NDP-50.1 negatived)
(Amendment G-4 agreed to)
Shall clause 168 as amended carry?
