With all due respect for my two colleagues, I cannot agree with them. You will not be surprised if I tell you that I agree more with Mr. Harris and Ms. Boivin.
We should leave discretion with judges. We should not lose the benefit of experience on the ground, which is invaluable. Certainly if the party concerned is not satisfied they can always go before the appropriate appellate court. That is the first thing I have to say.
The following appears in an independent report by the Department of Justice:
From a utilitarian point of view, incarcerating occasional, non-violent offenders, for substantial periods, constitutes a colossal waste of justice system resources.
Mandatory Sentences for Drug Offences. Harsh MMS and the “drug war” approach in general show little effect in relation to drug offences. MMS do not appear to influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way. MMS are blunt instruments that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers. From a utilitarian perspective, the federal system appears to be incarcerating the wrong people; individuals who are easily replaced in the illicit market.
For all these reasons, I think that mandatory minimum sentences will mean, according to several experts who have testified before the committee, that there will be an increase in incarceration, and prison is not a cure-all. Nor are super prisons the solution to crime for the victims, since the crime rate will rise in the long term. They are also not the solution for inmates, since there will be an increase in the number of cases, overpopulation and a lack of privacy, and this will cause tension. There is going to be less access to rehabilitation and reintegration programs. There will be no pardons, since that concept is going to disappear. Prison personnel will not be assured of safety.
Moving on to the budgets of the provinces affected, how are they going to manage this whole system, which is going to be increasingly onerous?
So we should leave discretion with judges. I think the system works quite well.
I would like to come back to the YCJA in particular.
[Translation] A single, mathematical approach to measures that are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender does not provide for adopting individualized intervention strategies based on factors relating to the offence ... but also to the unique characteristics of each [offender]. On this point, the Quebec model is characterized by differentiated intervention aimed at the right measure at the right time, based on the following assumptions:
A young person is a person who is developing ... who has different needs ... the intervention must be appropriate to that status.
We have to [Translation] "offer the right service at the right time", and so we have to hire "a team of professionals who have the necessary skills".
The intervention must be speedy, a [Translation] "concept that has a different meaning to a young person", since at that stage of development, things move very quickly.
The parents' participation is [Translation] "sought, valued and supported throughout the intervention".
[Translation] We also have to be concerned about victims and consider the impact the offence has had on them; [the offender will be] made aware of the wrongs and harms they have caused them, and where appropriate a reparation process [will be] proposed.
I adopt all of these recommendations.
I adopt all of these recommendations. They are all made by the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec and they all relate to Bill C-10.
The first recommendation is to keep [Translation] "the objectives of rehabilitation and reintegration of [offenders] at the top of the list, to protect the public in the long term".
Second, the Association recommends that [Translation] "the principles of denunciation and deterrence continue to be excluded from the [principle] of sentencing, as decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2006".
Third, it recommends that [Translation] "the ban on publishing the identity [of a young offender] who is the subject of measures under the YCJA be maintained".
Fourth, it recommends that [Translation] "the current sentencing rules, as laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada, which place the burden on the prosecutor of showing that it is necessary and appropriate to sentence [the offender] as an adult, be maintained ...".
I also concur in the conclusion: [Translation] "The loss of protection for the identity of young persons, exemplary sentences based on denunciation and deterrence and above all proportionate to the offence, are the opposite of what we have built as the model for intervention with young offenders ...". That is in fact what we have built in Quebec. It works and it results in a significant reduction in crime. The statistics show that we have one of the lowest crime rates in all 10 provinces.
For all these reasons, I would also reiterate that the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec and the provincial directors have always advocated balance. We are also advocating balance between protection of the public and rehabilitation of young persons. I believe this is the only way to manage this. We believe that investing in social services, in concrete action to reduce poverty, in programs to help young people find jobs and to expand access to social housing, would have more impact in the long term on young people in our society than focusing on enforcement by having tougher laws.