Bill C-4 (Historical)

Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders)

An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the sentencing and general principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as its provisions relating to judicial interim release, adult and youth sentences, publication bans, and placement in youth custody facilities. It defines the terms “violent offence” and “serious offence”, amends the definition “serious violent offence” and repeals the definition “presumptive offence”. It also requires police forces to keep records of extrajudicial measures used to deal with young persons.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's right, and that's my point. When we talk about evidence-based decision-making, it sometimes comes down to a question of what evidence we want to accept and what evidence we don't want to accept. But as a legislator, I can't simply ignore the evidence of the 47 witnesses whom Justice Nunn heard when he came to his recommendations, nor can I ignore the evidence of Canadians across the country who see repeated problems in the implementation of our youth criminal justice system. Therefore, when we come to what are focused and targeted procedural improvements proposed in Bill C-4, I need to rely on that evidence. That's simply the point I wanted to make in our conversation, and I appreciate your letting me make it.

Do I have any more time?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

What that means to me as a legislator is that this is an urgent problem that can't wait and that we need to take action. Something like Bill C-4, which is targeted at violent repeat offenders, is a highly necessary step, even if it's not the whole way.

If I may, Ms. Reid, I'd like to address some questions to you. You may surmise from my comments that I probably don't find myself in agreement with everything you've said. I hope you won't mind if I'm a bit probing, because I'd like to understand the extent of your knowledge on this.

Were you aware that in 2009 there were 47,271 Canadian youth accused of violent crime?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses. In a system like ours it isn't necessary that we agree on everything, but it is necessary that we listen to each other, and I'm grateful that all of you are here to give your evidence.

I want to begin by saying, Mr. Wamback, that you apologized for being a bit emotional, and of course that's a totally unnecessary apology. In fact, I take the emotion that you feel after 11 years of what I imagine must be a bit of a frustrating observation of this problem to be proof of the urgency, proof of the need to do something different, and we need to do something different immediately. So not only do I not require an apology, but I thank you for that.

I also want to say that I believe you are completely right in saying that the focus ought to be on violent repeat offenders. Indeed, that's what this Bill C-4 is intended to deal with--violent repeat offenders. It's very targeted and focused on that.

I want to reassure you that whatever the faults of the statistics are--and I don't want to try to disagree with you about your concerns regarding the statistics--the statistic I have is that in 2009, and this is from the enhanced universal crime report survey--47,271 youth were accused of violent crime. Whether that's going up or down is completely irrelevant to me. That number is too high, and it's further evidence of the need to act immediately.

I'm guessing, but I'll just ask you to confirm something for me. Am I right in saying that your 11 years of experience and observation on this probably suggest to you that things are getting worse, not better?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I think I can say for everybody here that we all agree that's really the motive. It's just that Bill C-4 doesn't do it.

Professor Reid, I have just a quick question. The whole issue of record-keeping is bothering me. I've had mixed responses to...sorry, for extrajudicial processes. I didn't understand the point you made about your discussions with police officers. Are they saying they can do it, or are they saying it's going to be even more difficult for them to be able to do that?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Bill C-4 limits, both in terms of placing people...even when there hasn't been a murder. We're not talking about moving them into the adult sentencing category. But with a violent offender, it's going to be more limited if this bill goes through than it is now. Use of adult sentences is going to be more limited than under current legislation. That's the effect of Bill C-4, and that's what those prosecutors told us. They're the ones who work in the field. I know this area fairly well, but they are the experts. They're the ones who do it on a daily basis. That's what they're telling us. So Bill C-4 is going to make their jobs tougher in those two areas, as well as in pre-trial custody.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

--and Justice Nunn's comments about the need for us to deal with that specific group of the violent offenders, and particularly the repeat violent offenders. This legislation, as far as I can see, really doesn't advance that. I'll make that as an opening comment.

Here is what I would like to ask you. You were talking about the prosecutors and the police who were frustrated with the system. We had three senior prosecutors come before us, from Alberta, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia. These are people who are specifically responsible for prosecuting young offenders. They said there are three areas in this legislation that in fact are going to make it more difficult for them as prosecutors.

I'm talking about Bill C-4 that's before this committee right now. They said that it's going to make it more difficult for them to be able to prosecute young offenders, including maintaining them in pre-trial custody, what they do in terms of holding them after sentencing, and also in applying adult sentences to them. In all three of those areas, this legislation is actually going to make it more difficult for them to use this against that 5% to 10% of all the young offenders.

So my question is, have you looked at it? Do you have any impression about...? I'm sorry, I should finish. They were before us on two different occasions. In between, they actually sent this proposed amendment. To this point, the government has refused to even talk to them. I shouldn't say “refused”, but simply “not talked to them”. It appears that they're not going to move these amendments to this legislation, in spite of the fact that it's so clear that this would be the one major step forward in terms of dealing with that 5% to 10% of those violent offenders.

So, number one, do you know about the amendments, and two, if you do, do you have any comments?

[Joseph Wamback, Co-founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's my honour to be here. My objective today is to be brief.

My concerns are the same as all Canadian families: healthy, safe communities where we can grow and prosper without intimidation and fear and where we provide early identification and support for those who are predisposed to violent behaviour, and also where we can protect the most treasured of Canadian values, our birthright, our most basic human right, which is the right to life. Today's debate is not about kids who are making dumb mistakes, and any attempt to suggest that today's debate is so masks the truth. This is not about the great majority of young Canadians who find themselves before a court.

Modifications, as anticipated by Bill C-4, should not be confused with social problems or social policy. I believe these are mandatory changes to a criminal law measure that is probably the most understood legislation in the history of Canada. The debate is about the most serious violent young offenders in Canada, who represent a small minority of all those who become involved with the justice system, a small minority that has created a storm of discussion, fear, and debate, which has confused most Canadians. This debate should not be limited to the sanitized world of academics, and it must include all Canadians, especially those who have lived with violent crime by young offenders, who have witnessed the body bags, and who have lived with the aftermath and consequences of murder, community intimidation, and the life-altering effects of gang culture and violence.

This debate is about trust.

Over the last 11 years I have met with police officers, crowns, and judges who are really the quarterbacks of our judicial system. They have expressed their frustration at the limitations of the current legislation that has no provision for dealing with the worst of the worst.

This debate is about trust, by providing our judiciary the tools and latitude necessary to make the right decisions for the safety of all young Canadians while maintaining our values and principles of judicial independence.

This debate is about trust in our judiciary to provide protection for our children, while at the same time providing future opportunities for both the offender as well as the victims. My expert advisors tell me it takes a minimum of three years of intensive clinical intervention to give hope for success in the treatment and habilitation of violent young people. Longer sentences allow social engineers and psychologists the time necessary to provide the clinical intervention to assist in the successful rehabilitation and reintroduction of the violent young offender back into society, while at the same time reducing recidivism and keeping violent repeat offenders off the streets.This does not happen in the existing system where sentences for extreme violence are discounted and plea bargained away and, most importantly, where counselling is not mandatory within this system.

Currently, we're doing nothing more than babysitting, and we're not doing a very good job at that. The existing IRCS program—intensive rehabilitative custodial sentence—that provides $100,000 per year for violent young murderers is a massive waste of money and a failure, because nothing is mandatory for warrant expiry. There are numerous examples that I can tell you, which we have been personally involved with, where somebody who has graduated from the IRCS program, within two weeks of release, has murdered another child.

On the statistics debate, I ask you not to rely on the current StatsCan statistics in your decision-making process. I ask you please to take the time to read the Macdonald Laurier Institute report, an excerpt of which I have provided both in English and in French for everybody on this committee. I encourage you to read the full report and to continue this debate about the revisions before you without the distraction of misleading statistics. The question we've all been asking is whether the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in its current form, is an effective tool for reducing crime. We did have, statistically, the highest incarceration rate in the world. But in so many cases, one individual was counted four times in that statistical database.

The average length of sentence in Canada was 30 days, compared with the average length in the United States, which was measured in years. Again, that's a statistical anomaly that has been used by many proponents trying to make the YCJA or the YOA different from what it was, to justify their reasons.

The simple answer to that question is breaches, which were separate indictable offences under the Young Offenders Act. Forty-seven percent of the statistical database under the YOA were breaches: breach of recognizance, breach of bail, breach of probation. When the Youth Criminal Justice Act eliminated breaches as an indictable offence, why did the crime rate not drop by 40% to 50%? It didn't. It dropped by about 32% to 35%. That's telling me that youth crime was going up, not down.

In the last 11 years, I've travelled across Canada and I've spoken to thousands of victims, as well as victimizers, and their families. Without exception, everybody wanted change—positive change—to protect their families. In 1999, I created a petition, which you have before you in both English and French, while my son lay comatose in the hospital from a violent attack by 14 young people. At the time, in 1999, there was nothing Machiavellian or hidden in its content, nor is there today. Items one to nine you have before you. That petition has been signed by 1,300,000 Canadians. I believe it has the distinction of being one of the largest petitions in the history of this country.

The issues today are as valid as they were 12 years ago. As a matter of fact, I believe they almost parallel what is in Bill C-4, with the exception of things that I believe we need in addition, which are mandatory counselling, mandatory intervention at an early age, to try to help our young people.

I hear so much about identification of serious violent offenders and pre-trial custody and bail. The people who hurt my son had 56 prior charges. The young man who killed, stabbed, Joey Tanner had 29 previous convictions for violent offences. Joshua Hunt, Nicholas Chow--and the names could go on and on. These crimes, these murders, were committed by individuals with a violent history, and the system is not doing anything to help them and it is not doing anything to protect innocent kids. It deals with the length of sentence. It deals with the ability of our institutions to be able to provide effective rehabilitation efforts, if that is possible, and it deals with the requirement to protect innocent children from those who are extremely violent.

Most of the victims of young offenders are themselves young people. I believe the number is around 90%. Lozanne and I have spoken directly to over 30,000 teenagers in the last few years. The message they give us is consistent from large cities to small communities: Why won't anybody help us? Why is it okay to hurt another person? Why do bullies and victimizers get all the help? Why does no one listen? I don't have answers for them. I'm hoping this government, or whatever government follows, will have those answers.

Ninety percent of youth crime today is unreported and, according to expert advisers on my board of directors, results in massive psychological trauma. The cost to Canada and our society is immeasurable—dropping out of school, family breakdown, unresolved anger and frustration, and ultimately revenge and becoming involved in the judicial process.

We support the clauses in Bill C-4. I hope and I'm prepared to answer any of your questions, as is my wife.

I promised you today to be brief, and I do apologize for becoming emotional.

It's been 11 years, and we see today—just last week—that what happened to our son has happened time and time again in our country. It has happened, not because of a stupid mistake, not because of a minor crime, but because we as a society are unable to deal with violent and repeat offenders.

I'm hoping that everybody in this committee looks at this for what it really is. It is not a partisan political issue; it is about protecting the rights of Canadians and our families.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 55 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, March 23, 2011. I would note that this meeting is being televised.

You have before you the agenda for today. We are continuing our review of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. Today we have two panels of three witnesses each.

On our first panel we have the following witnesses. We have, first of all, as an individual, Susan Reid, professor of criminology and criminal justice, and also director of the centre for research on youth at risk at St. Thomas University. Welcome to you.

We also have the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation, represented by, first of all, Joseph Wamback, who is the co-founder and chair, as well as Lozanne Wamback, who is a co-founder and director of that organization.

Finally, we have from Burnaby by video conference, as an individual, Gordon Penner. It's nice to see you again. It has been a while.

Someone indicated that you don't have copies of the agenda. Is that correct?

I'll get my clerk to provide you with copies of the agenda.

In any event, I think you've been advised of the process. Each of you has 10 minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions from each of you.

Why don't we start with Ms. Reid.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 54 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Monday, March 21, 2011.

Before we get into our agenda, there has been a request that we add one item to the agenda, which is consideration of committee business. Is there is any objection to adding 15 minutes to the end of our meeting? That would be 15 minutes before the end of the meeting, after we've considered the draft report on organized crime.

There are no objections? Okay. We'll tack on 15 minutes at the end for that.

If you look at your agenda, you'll see that we're continuing our review of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

Just as a note, during the second hour we will go in camera to continue our drafting of the organized crime report.

We have with us two witnesses on Bill C-4. First of all, coming all the way from Saskatchewan and the Rural Municipality of Beaver River, we have its reeve, Murray Rausch. Welcome.

We also have with us, as an individual, Ms. Thérèse McCuaig. Welcome to you as well.

I think you've been told that each of you has 10 minutes for your presentation. Then we'll open the floor to questions from our members.

Reeve, why don't you start?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Nicholson, forgive me for interrupting, but as you know, I have only seven minutes.

You said you knew what the two bills would cost the federal government, but I did not see those figures in the document. You also said you were waiting for estimates from the provinces. I find that a bit strange. You said you consulted with the provinces, so surely, you must have some cost estimates from them. I do not know whether Quebec gave you its support on Bill C-4 or whether it told you how much of a financial burden it would have to bear as a result of the bill. That financial burden will end up falling on the shoulders of Quebec taxpayers.

Ministers, you were asked several times by parliamentarians in the House about the costs associated with your law and order agenda. But not once did you give a clear or accurate answer. A motion was necessary in order to debate the matter in the House. And on February 17, you tabled a basic outline with a few details. It was inadequate, and it took a ruling by the Speaker to compel you to come here today with that binder full of documents, which, from where we sit, fails to meet the requirements of Mr. Brison's motion.

Let's take Bill C-52, for example. You said that the binder contained a few more details than the outline. How is it that the only information you gave us on February 17 was a one-line explanation on Bill C-52? And now, because of the Speaker's ruling, here you are, giving us further details on the bill.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ministers.

We went through the massive pile of documentation last night, and we realized that, overall, the documents and the total amounts were pretty much identical, give or take a few things. There were a few extra details, but a number of questions remained unanswered. Among other things, I had a good look at Bill C-4, which you called Sébastien's Law.

In your document, you said that the bill would likely lead to increased costs for Quebec, the territories and the provinces, but you could not say how much more, because young offenders are usually incarcerated in provincial and territorial institutions.

You are introducing a bill you want us to support, but you have no idea what it will cost. You do not say how much it will cost Quebec. You also say you are going to negotiate an agreement and that if the other governments need funding, you will look into that and perhaps give them some.

What's more, you have absolutely no idea what will be required of your department or the government, especially in terms of how much money the federal government will have to hand over to the provinces. That doesn't look very good, Mr. Minister. You are telling us we have all the documents we need, even though we do not have any of that information for one bill in particular. We do not know what it will cost because, according to you, you do not have that data since it is an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

Frankly, I think that shows contempt. It shows contempt for me, as a parliamentarian, when you ask me to put my confidence in you and you cannot even provide us with a single figure for Bill C-4.

And that comment stands for Bill C-16 as well. There again, you are telling us that the provinces will have to incur increased costs once the bill is passed, but you say you are not responsible for providing an estimate of those costs because it is an area of provincial and territorial responsibility.

It is pretty shocking that you can make legislative changes that have financial repercussions for the provinces and territories, yet you do not provide any information on what those figures will be.

How do you explain that, Mr. Minister? How can we possibly take you seriously? You say that we have everything we need to answer our questions and to make good decisions and that you have complied with the Speaker's ruling, when you are not providing us with any information on what these two bills will end up costing the provinces.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So are we.

I'm going to raise with you right now a piece of paper that was distributed today on estimated provincial costs on one bill, Bill C-4. The government now says they're going to ask provinces to eat $2.467 billion in costs over the next five years. That's the cost to the provinces in five years to implement youth justice.

The costing requires consultation and judgment, right? Are provinces stakeholders? Shouldn't provinces know that this is coming down the line? Shouldn't we as parliamentarians know, on behalf of Canadians, whether or not provinces can afford $2.467 billion on one bill over five years before giving this government the authority to spend more money on Bill C-4 at the federal level?

How is it possible that we could be expected to do that unless we exercise our responsibilities and ask where the provincial money is going to come from?”

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Then, really, for Bill C-4--as I said, they've said here that because it's the provinces, they cannot give us the costs--you're saying that we should have the costs.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, but again, look what it says with regard to Bill C-4:

No detailed costs estimates are available because any impact of the amendments would be on the provincial and territorial corrections costs. The Bill should not result in cost impacts for Correctional Service of Canada because young persons are rarely held in these facilities.

That means a young person goes into a provincial jail instead of a federal one, so it's not a federal cost. At the same time, as the minister said today, any costs will be negotiated with the provinces. There will be a cost somewhere. I'm sure the provinces will say, “Look, you in Ottawa are not going to dump onto us the cost of all of those bills you're bringing in; somebody has to pay for it.”

Shouldn't the government estimate how much it will cost and not just say no, no, this is going to provinces, so it's not costing us anything?

Are you satisfied with those answers?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we look at the motion itself, on October 6, 2010, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion requesting certain financial information from the government within 10 days. Specifically, FINA requested the Department of Finance Canada to provide it with the adjustments to the fiscal framework to incorporate the costs of Bill C-4, Bill C-5, etc.

When we look at what you gave us here, it says: No detailed cost estimates are available because any impact of the amendments would be on the provincial and the territorial corrections costs. The Bill should not result in cost impacts for the Correctional Service of Canada because young persons are rarely held in these facilities.

Are you saying there will be no cost to the federal government, but there will be a cost to the provincial government?