Evidence of meeting #8 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 women.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
What about the second part? When do you determine that a person has successfully completed treatment and is entitled not to have a minimum sentence imposed? That has to be a difficult determination vis-à-vis drug rehab.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
Some persons suffer throughout their lives and it would never change. But with the help of experts, doctors, and treatment programs, a judge would have some level of comfort that the risk is being minimized. Nothing is forever; there's always a risk. But if there's enough evidence and treatment and facilities to make judges believe that public safety can be maintained without sending this person into custody, or by sending the person to a different form of custody, then I think we've accomplished it. There's no definitive answer, but we all recognize the problem.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Good morning. My question is for Mr. Trudell.
Mr. Trudell, you expressed some reservations about making any in-depth change to the spirit of the Youth Criminal Justice Act through former Bill C-4, most of the content of which is included in Part 4 of Bill C-10. Can you tell this committee what those main reservations are?
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
I think the one main reservation is that young offenders, even though some of them commit heinous crimes, are still persons we recognize as being in need of guidance, protection, and less accountability or responsibility. We don't let them vote, and that's a recognition of there being some difference.
One of the things we're concerned about is that young people don't have discipline. They're into immediate gratification. They don't sit back and weigh the consequences, and it's hard to impose on that. We think that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is a remarkable piece of legislation that this country and all parties who contributed to it should be credited for. We're concerned that if you change the spirit of this legislation, it's going to damage what has been a remarkably successful bill.
We understand there is certain tweaking to this bill that may be necessary, from a parliamentary point of view, but there are other aspects of the bill that we were concerned about. For instance, the definition of a serious offence. I said in my submissions on the bill originally that if “knowingly” were built in—I think in proposed paragraph 167(3)(c)—so that the sentence said “knowingly endangers life”, and “knowingly” is not just direct knowledge, but can be wilful blindness or recklessness, as opposed to just the act itself, it might be an important measure.
Denunciation is obviously something that is important, but if denunciation were put into this and it changes what we've done over the last number of years, we are concerned that the legislation might then be headed in the wrong direction—while still respecting the fact there are offences committed by young persons that are horrific and attention-grabbing. But that happens with every bad case, and we don't make legislation for just the bad cases.
So we are concerned about the change in the tenor of the legislation, which, really, you should be commended for, because it has worked remarkably well throughout the country.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you.
My second question is also for Mr. Trudell.
You mentioned mental health problems. Does that concern young offenders? To what extent does Bill C-10 effectively address mental health issues among young offenders?
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
The mental health issues that young people are facing are staggering—depression, and suicide. I just think of the pressure that young people are under. And then there are people who come from broken families. And then there's the Internet and what they're exposed to. And there's the lack of discipline, the choices to make, the fractured families, and the association with gangs. We find over and over and over again, that young people, who by their very nature live in their heads—and here I would say, try to get your teenager to talk to you—are carrying around tremendous emotional burdens.
Mental health is a serious issue before the youth justice courts. So if you flag, as parliamentarians, that mental health is an issue that we must look at.... And so this section can be expanded to say that judges should be taking into consideration a mental health issue. And here I'm not talking about letting somebody just escape, but about serious health issues.
I must tell you that from some of the stories I'm hearing from people who work with youth, the mental health problems they are seeing and experiencing are staggering and frightening.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to all the witnesses. Thank you for being with us today. I particularly want to welcome Ms. Campbell and Ms. Jong. I know it is very difficult for them to talk about these matters, but it is very important for us and for our country as a whole.
As my English is better than my French, I will speak in English.
You made a statement, Madam Jong, that if some of the provisions in Bill C-10 had been in effect at the time of the terrible events that overtook you, your father might still be alive today. I would like to ask you to elaborate on that and why you think that.
As an Individual
Thank you, sir.
Of the two monsters who killed my father, one was not yet an adult and the other one had just become an adult, and their careers had started a long time before. They're not poor angels who didn't know what they were doing; they knew very well what they were doing. They had something like 50
break and enter offences
and 10
car thefts
that they had done prior. This is not a rumour; this came out at the trials.
To perpetrate their crimes, they put on gloves and they—
Pardon me, I have to say it in French. I'm too stressed.
Conservative
As an Individual
They eliminate the evidence. In the case of my father's murder, they washed away traces of blood and burned their clothing and anything that might constitute evidence. The other crimes they had previously committed, the 50 break and enter offences and 10 car thefts, were premeditated. However, there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute them, even though authorities knew they had committed those crimes. Furthermore, in the case of the car thefts, they had already found customers before they stole the cars.
That shows that young people today are very well organized. They think; they know the consequences of their actions. If they steal a car, they know where to take it, the Montreal address where they have to go. They know in advance how much they will get for the car.
I don't find them pitiable at all.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Do you know whether the young person who was convicted of murdering your father had any previous convictions in court before that?
As an Individual
No. That's what I want to stress. They had no previous convictions, which does not mean they hadn't committed previous crimes.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
All right.
You have also spoken a little bit about the importance of disclosing the identity of young offenders. Can you elaborate on that? Why do you think that is important?
As an Individual
It's a very important fact because the criminals were renting a place that my father owned. If he had known beforehand what type of people they were, he would not have rented to them. The Sûreté du Québec and other officials could not let my father know. Even if he had made a background check, it would not have come out.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I'm trying to recall your comments about the cost of victimization. Could you give us some idea of how you assess the costs, not just the financial costs but also the intangible costs to you, of the crime that was committed against you and your father?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I'm sorry. Your time is up, Mr. Woodworth. Someone else can perhaps explore that.
Ms. Boivin.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What you're telling us is terrible, Ms. Jong. To go back to Mr. Woodworth's question, in my opinion, we can't attribute a monetary value to it. We can't associate a cost with the consequences for you or for the victims. There's no price for that. I exhaust myself telling people not to try to associate a dollar sign with this. That's not at all what is at issue in the case of Bill C-10. A life is priceless. The victims will suffer all their lives.
When I look at the two witnesses, Ms. Jong and Mr. Trudell, I see the entire issue of Bill C-10: how to reconcile two extremely important concepts? I can't say whether one is more important than the other.
We talk with people in the communities about youth in trouble and mental health problems. I talk about it with the people of Gatineau, whom I represent. I hosted a radio phone-in show on which mental health problems in the region were the topic of the day. The statistics on the subject are quite awful. At the same time, certain criminal trials were being conducted, such as the Turcotte case, which everybody in Quebec followed. We still wonder today what happened, how a father was able to kill his children and not be sentenced. This annoys us. When we hear these kinds of stories, we almost feel like having these people hanged. However, that's not what we want.
So how can we reconcile these concepts?
Some people get away with murder, with your suggestion on taking mental health into consideration. What would your answer be to the public that is so worried or claims sentences are not strong enough?
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
We are at a very interesting time in terms of collaboration in the criminal justice system.
For instance, there are talk shows. People are talking. There's Bell Canada's “Let's Talk” campaign. People are talking about the issues and mental health.
We don't do a very good job at communicating how the criminal justice system works. People get certain ideas that people are getting away with crimes and judges are too soft. If everyone tried to collaborate and work together to explain where we're coming from and what some of the issues are, I think we'd begin to understand some of the tragic circumstances that victims go through, and we'd start talking about this.
I have to tell you that the level of cooperation and collaboration among the police, the defence bar, the courts, crown counsel, and victim groups has grown significantly in the last two years. As we understand one another's points of view and start communicating what we do, I think we're going to see changes so that we won't have so many tragic stories.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you.
Madam Campbell, you said a pedophile can be rehabilitated.
President, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
I said “can't”.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
That's what I meant to say.
You say they can't be rehabilitated. I seriously tend to think as you do on this subject. That doesn't come from me personally.
On the program I hosted at the time, we talked about a case that had occurred in the community. The issue of castration had been raised. I don't want to address that subject; that's a completely different matter. To put it briefly, a pedophile called in during the show. That's something I will never forget. You're discussing pedophilia, and an individual calls and says he's a pedophile. He told us that, regardless of what might happen, it was something in him. It's something you may not be able to control.
I think pedophilia is one of the most terrible and abject crimes in society. People hurt children and they can't respond. I have one concern regarding pedophilia-related offences. How do we solve this problem in a system of sentencing? How can a minimum sentence have the desired effect?
If we say the individual cannot be rehabilitated, I believe the case requires more than a sentence. It requires something else. Coming back to the individual who called in to the radio show, he wondered what he would be able to do when he got out of prison. He said he had literally been removed from society, that he had been sent in a place where he was in contact with no one. He had voluntarily withdrawn from society.
What do we do?
Conservative