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.

[Gaylene Schellenberg, Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

Good morning. I am Gaylene Schellenberg, a lawyer with the legislation and law reform department of the Canadian Bar Association.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the CBA's views on Bill C-4 to you today.

The CBA is a national association of over 37,000 lawyers, law students, notaries, and academics. An important aspect of the CBA's mandate is seeking improvements in the law and the administration of justice, and it's that aspect of our mandate that brings us to you today.

With me is Scott Bergman, a member of the CBA's national criminal justice section. The section consists of crown and defence lawyers from every part of the country, and Mr. Bergman practises criminal law in Toronto. I'll turn it over to him to address the substance of our brief and respond to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 21 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, June 3, 2010.

Members, you have before you the agenda for today. We're continuing with our review of Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I was hoping to actually have a planning meeting in camera at the end of today's meeting, but given the fact that we're already starting late and we have three panels to deal with, we may not get to that. If we have some extra time, we'll discuss some committee business.

Today's meeting, as I mentioned, is divided into three panels. We have our first panel with us. First of all, we have William Trudell, representing the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. Welcome back. We have the Canadian Bar Association, represented by Scott Bergman and Gaylene Schellenberg. Welcome back to you, as well. And finally, we have, as an individual, Simon Fournel-Laberge. Welcome.

I think you've been told that each organization, or each individual, has ten minutes to present. Then we'll open the floor to questions. If you can do your presentation in less time, it will leave more room for questions. And given that we have a fairly limited timeframe, I'd appreciate your definitely staying within the ten minutes.

We'll start with Simon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We are at the end of our time. I want to thank each one of our witnesses for appearing today. Your testimony will form part of the evidence. We'll discuss Bill C-4 probably about a month down the road and move to clause-by-clause.

Again, thank you to all of you.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right. Well, then, you show me where in Bill C-4 section 3 is amended to include denunciation and deterrence, sir.

I'm sure this is just a simple error on your part. Section 3 is not being amended to include denunciation and deterrence, right?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to state at the outset, for the record, that I note that there's not a single Liberal at this table. That speaks volumes about the approach of that party to this study and this evidence.

I want to also say at the outset that I've heard many things today that are simply not correct about Bill C-4. There has been no abandonment of the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration in Bill C-4. In fact, there is no new paramountcy of the public safety provision in Bill C-4 than didn't exist in the previous bill. There's certainly no requirement of mandatory adult sentences, as a previous witness suggested. The same witness suggested that there was a section 8 Juvenile Delinquents Act incorrigibility offence here; there is no such thing in this act.

I have some questions for the Barreau du Québec. I don't know for sure who is the primary speaker, so I'll just pick Mr. Trahan.

In your written brief, you describe clause 7 as applying to “section 3 of the Act”.

I'm assuming that's simply an error and that the reference should be to “section 38”. Is that correct?

[Prof. Jacques Dionne, Professor , Department of Psychoeducation and Psychology, Université du Québec en Outaouais, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, committee members, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you.

Like every member of the public, when the media report a heinous crime, whether committed by a young person or an adult, my first reaction is to hope that the person guilty of the crime will be punished very severely, and I sometimes even think the expression "very severely" would not be adequate for the seriousness of the harm done to victims or the anger I feel. But as in many other situations in life, our first impulsive reaction is rarely the right one, and in many cases, the consequences may be the complete opposite of what we want. Life teaches us that in situations like that, it is important to stop and think.

I do understand the need felt by some members of the public and some parliamentarians to believe that toughening the Act will provide better protection for victims of crimes committed by young people, but it would be a serious mistake to believe that and to proceed to amend the Act on that basis.

My core message is that rehabilitating the young offender and protecting the victim are two sides of the same coin. It isn't an either-or choice, as the public discourse would currently have us believe; it is both one and the other, when it comes to protecting the victim and rehabilitating the young offender. In other words, the best way to protect victims is to rehabilitate young offenders. I therefore strongly support the position stated by Mr. Dudding of the Child Welfare League, who spoke a little earlier about clause 3 of the bill.

In what capacity am I appearing before you? I am wearing three hats: first, as an researcher studying the development and evaluation of leading edge practices in the rehabilitation of young offenders; second, as an educator involved in the rehabilitation of young offenders for over 40 years; and third, as a member of the public and grandfather of grandchildren.

As a researcher, first, I would like to highlight a few facts. All of the literature on intervention with adolescents shows, first, that nearly all adolescents, and I would ask some of you to remember this, commit at least one criminal offence during adolescence. The research data show very clearly that 95% of boys and 75% of girls commit an offence during adolescence. Some of those offences may be serious, and even very serious, but most of these young people are able to make reparation for their acts, to develop, to become responsible citizens and not to become criminals. Only a small proportion of them, fewer than 5%, will pursue a career as young offenders and as criminals once they become adults. So it is important to realize that adolescents have multiple different development trajectories and it is important to take this into account in a youth justice system.

Second, contrary to certain beliefs conveyed in the media and elsewhere, it is possible to rehabilitate young offenders, and it works. There are very good programs and effective methods for doing that. Canada is even a world leader in terms of prevention and in alternative justice and rehabilitation methods. In terms of rehabilitation and open custody, for over 30 years, nearly 65% of young people who participated in the program at Boscoville, in Montreal, did not reoffend after their time at that institution.

In more recent experience dealing with serious instances of crimes committed in the community at the Centre jeunesse de Montréal, we have achieved similar and even slightly better results. Research data show that contrary to what was said a few minutes ago, rehabilitation programs work with young offenders if conditions are placed on them. However, when those figures were collected, they also measured young people who had simply been placed in detention with no treatment or rehabilitation. In that case, over 90% of the young people reoffended within a few months after their placement.

The use of deterrent sentences, as shown by a multitude of studies, produces no results and results contrary to the desired effects. Not only does this not protect society, it worsens youth crime.

In order for interventions with young offenders to be effective, that is, for them to succeed in preventing recidivism and promote reparations to victims and harmonious reintegration of the offender, there are some essential prerequisites. The first is that the criminal justice system must be different from the adult justice system. All of the scientific and professional literature shows very clearly the extent to which a young person is not yet an adult, that they have not finished developing, not just in physical terms but also in cognitive and emotional terms, and thus that they have needs that are different from adults' needs.

The second prerequisite is that the entire criminal justice system be guided by the principle of differential intervention. The principle of differential intervention means that because not all young offenders are the same and they do not all have the same needs, the intervention must take those differences into account. For example, a young person with a minor delinquency profile who was placed in a secure custody institution with intensive intervention would be at risk of leaving the program with a more serious delinquency profile. Conversely, a young person with a serious delinquency profile for whom only minor intervention is used will have a strong chance of engaging in more serious delinquency afterward.

It has also been shown that certain intervention methods work well with certain types of young offenders but are ineffective with other types of young people. That is why it is important to adapt the intervention to the young person's delinquency profile.

If the law is to punish the severity of the offence, it must also allow for the young person's profile and needs to be taken into account. A formula that would also be an objective was suggested in Quebec, in response to the report by Judge Jasmin: the right measure at the right time for the right young person.

Researchers elsewhere in the world, and particularly here in Canada, have developed assessment methodologies that make it possible to get a better idea of the risks of recidivism and the needs of these young offenders—Andrews and Bonta, among others. These methodologies are necessary and we have them, and they have proved their usefulness. It is important that before sentencing a young person, allowance be made for using methodologies like these to assess each offender's situation. That would mean that the sentence would be based not only on the seriousness of the offence, but also on the needs of each young offender and on their chances of being rehabilitated and not reoffending.

And in addition to all that, it is important that the criminal justice system offer various forms of intervention, ranging from alternative justice methods and mechanisms, mediation with victims and community service to rehabilitation on probation and open or secure custody, all of which is currently possible under the YCJA, without amending it.

As an educator, I worked for 20 years as a psychoeducator at Boscoville in Montreal. For several decades, Boscoville has been a beacon in the rehabilitation of young offenders. The institution has had tremendous influence not only in Quebec, but also internationally, to an extraordinary extent. My experience in that institution involved working with and getting to know a large number of young people who had extremely positive experiences with rehabilitation and social reintegration. That is the case for most of the ones I have known. Of course there are very sad cases that failed. For the most part, they became responsible, well integrated citizens. They are now labourers, business people, teachers, company managers and artists in various fields. Some of them are have families of their own and are happy and proud to come and introduce their offspring to us, their former teachers. Most of the young people who successfully completed rehabilitation have also taken action to make reparation to their victims, during or after the rehabilitation process. I think full rehabilitation necessarily requires some effort to make reparations to the victims, directly or indirectly.

Fifty years ago, educators in the vanguard went and got young people who had been placed in Bordeaux prison in Montreal to give them a chance to take part in a new rehabilitation program they were creating. Personally, over the years, I have had the opportunity to visit young teenagers placed in adult prisons in the United States, in Chile and in other countries. Every time, I saw how terrible a situation it was, how degrading and how disrespectful of the fundamental rights of those young people. Those consequences are terrible for them, for their victims and for society. For these young people in prison, one of the worst consequences is to find themselves in a situation in which they are in despair, and that can only exacerbate their delinquency and violence.

For the victims, the human degradation of the young offender provides no real relief and may even heighten their fear of a recurrence of the violence committed by the young person when they get out of prison. The same is true for society in general.

A just law therefore must not base the assessment of the act and the sentence imposed on a young person exclusively on the seriousness of the offence. That is where this bill goes wrong. A just law must be based on a complex youth criminal justice system that is constantly trying to strike the difficult balance between the needs of society and victims and the needs of the young offender. That complex system, and this is where the government may have a job to do, should include a system for administering the law in which there is a series of components: first, a differential assessment process based on the principle that each young person is different, that each case is different; second, a multimodal system of intervention that includes the possibility of alternative justice measures, mediation, reparations to the victim, etc., and rehabilitation; third, a process that allows victims to participate and provides them with the support they need; fourth, a structure that encourages parents to participate and be involved; fifth, rehabilitation programs while under supervision, while being intensively monitored in the community, and while in open and secure custody, administered by competent personnel; and sixth, an investment in research to promote the development of best practices and to evaluate the effects of the law.

To conclude, as a member of the public and a grandfather, I am concerned that our laws be just, both for the welfare of society and for the protection and development of my grandchildren and other people's grandchildren. If one of my grandchildren commits an offence, I would fervently hope that not only the seriousness of their offence, but also their needs, will be taken into account. My fondest wish would be that we help them to rehabilitate themselves and make reparation for their criminal act or acts. In the event that one of my grandchildren was a victim, I think my first reaction would be a desire for revenge, but once that passed, I would sincerely hope that whoever assaulted them would get help and be able to rehabilitate themselves. In holding this dialogue about Bill C-4, we must not lose sight of the fact that the future welfare of our society depends on the welfare of our children and grandchildren.

[Serge Charbonneau, Director, Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for inviting me.

I am going to start out on a positive note by saying that I am relatively convinced that I share intentions similar to yours. I have not come here in the hope that people will be victimized or murders will be committed. For 25 years, I have worked hard to reduce crime among young people throughout Quebec and Canadian society. I am involved in a number of things. I think we are in agreement on those intentions. Our opinions may diverge when it comes to some facts and methods. I am therefore very happy that this discussion is possible and that you are allowing it. I congratulate you on holding these hearings.

Given that the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative is not very well known, I am going to say few words about it.

We are a provincial association composed of 37 non-governmental organizations in Quebec. Those organizations work with young people and victims of crime. We work with those two clienteles with the aim of protecting society, and through referrals by the police, extrajudicial sanctions and the administration of several specific sentences as provided by law. Each year, we work with and offer services to about 10,000 young people and 5,000 victims of crime. We believe that we are, in a way, a key player in the field of justice for young people and victims. Our analysis of Bill C-4 has led us to the conclusion that in its present form, the bill will contribute neither to improving public safety nor to improving outcomes for victims of crime.

With respect to public safety, we wonder about the appropriateness of amending the Act. It has been in force for seven years now, and I think there are still several approaches to be developed. Some aspects have not been fully implemented. It is mainly the arguments you are advancing for amending the Act that is causing us problems. We can see from the figures, using all of the methods used to identify crimes, that youth crime is either stable or declining. I could quote the figures you certainly have at your fingertips, in particular the Statistics Canada data. They are easy to find. It seems to us that for the moment, there are no objective data that justify the proposed amendments to the existing Act.

Quebec, and Canada as well, in our opinion, has chosen to tackle youth crime by examining the causes of that crime and working to rehabilitate the young people. Several programs have been created with a view to remedying the harm caused to victims of crime. We want to tell you that when they are combined, the following three strategies—rehabilitation, reintegration and reparations—are recognized as being the most effective for combating crime and recidivism in young people. In our opinion, public safety will not be enhanced by applying measures that are essentially based on detention and punishment. In our opinion, the objectives of achieving more public safety are inconsistent with the methods adopted in this bill. Forgive us for giving you advice, but we will take the liberty of doing that.

We propose, instead, that you strengthen what is already working: remedial justice and rehabilitation. In our opinion, it would be a shame if considerations other than objective data and measures that are working were to result in major amendments to the Act such as those you are proposing. In our opinion, Bill C-4 is a step backward in terms of justice for minors. Clearly the overarching objective of this bill is to protect the public rather than to meet the needs of young people and provide reparations for victims. I think this bill flies in the face of the conclusions reached by several authors, who say that deterrence and denunciation are ineffective with offenders. The prospect of a longer sentence has no impact on them at the point when they commit an act. This has been demonstrated over and over. And it means that young people are no more rational then adults when they commit an act.

If referring young people to the adult system is contrary to the unique needs of young people, making it easier to sentence them as adults, even in small numbers, amounts to putting many components of our youth justice system, a system that has its roots in the 19th century, back on the table.

As well, it seems inappropriate to us to amend an act to cover a few special cases. It becomes a general policy that affects all young people, based on only a few of them. Why would we want to take harsh measures for the few extreme cases when the existing Act already allows for adult sentencing? The possibilities available under the present Act have been illustrated by both the Barreau du Québec and other people who have testified here. It is already possible to punish violent behaviour by young people under the existing Act.

I will move on to the question of outcomes for victims. The ROJAQ adopts the comments made here by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes on May 13, 2010. We also oppose the way this bill exploits victims. Using victims' rights to legitimize getting tougher on crime is despicable, in our eyes. Victims are not all calling for punishment. Revenge is not a common thread among victims. Harsher punishment will not necessarily meet the demands of all victims, even if some would like to see it.

In 2001, as the AQPV noted, Allan N. Young certified in his study for the Department of Justice of Canada that there is no evidence that victims want harsher sentencing. That bias had been criticized by other countries. The ROJAQ therefore protests against Canada taking that path, in spite of the criticism leveled against it. What some victims, or most victims, want, what means most to them, is to get answers to their questions, to be able to speak about what they are feeling, about their experience as a result of the event, and to obtain reparations.

The ROJAQ believes that it would be much more appropriate for your government to propose a set of measures that would promote participation by victims in the judicial or extrajudicial process, and to support the development of restorative justice in Canada, which means supporting the existing provisions of the YCJA in that regard.

It would also have been desirable to announce improvements to the assistance provided to Canadian provinces so they could improve the criminal injuries compensation system. Thank you, sir.

[Megan Forward, Lawyer, Policy Research, African Canadian Legal Clinic]

Good morning.

My name is Megan Forward. I am the policy research lawyer at the African Canadian Legal Clinic in Toronto.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the standing committee for inviting the ACLC to appear and to present submissions on behalf of the African Canadian community.

I apologize for not having been able to provide the committee with briefs to review beforehand. If, upon reviewing the brief, you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

The African Canadian Legal Clinic is a not-for-profit legal agency established expressly to address anti-Black racism and other forms of systemic and institutional discrimination in Canadian society. In addition to providing legal services, the ACLC also operates a highly regarded African Canadian youth justice program, which provides court worker services, counselling, programming, and reintegration support to ensure successful outcomes from African-Canadian youth within the criminal justice system.

Anti-Black racism is undeniably present in all facets of Canadian society, but it seems that nowhere are its effects more pronounced or more palpable than within the criminal justice system. African-Canadian youth, who are powerless and plagued by negative stereotypes, are particularly vulnerable to discrimination at all stages of the system. They are stopped, questioned, harassed, and charged at rates disparate with youth from the general population. This discriminatory treatment also extends to sentencing. African-Canadian youth are typically handed harsher punishments and more custodial sentences that their non-racialized counterparts.

As it stands, the Youth Criminal Justice Act's primary focus is on the prevention of youth crime through rehabilitation, reintegration, and community involvement. In the revised act, while they are still included in section 3, these principles are overshadowed by the overarching objective of protection of the public. The ACLC is concerned that the incorporation of this principle will legitimize negative stereotypes about African-Canadian youth--specifically, that they are prone to violence and therefore should be avoided and feared.

At the same time, we are concerned that the addition of these principles will give police officers, lawyers, and judges yet another discretionary factor to consider in deciding how to punish young offenders. Whereas discretion is disproportionately used to the detriment of African-Canadian youth, this provision will inevitably lead to justifying more custodial sentences for African-Canadian youth--all in the name of protection of the public.

Although protection of the public is a valid objective under the YCJA, this principle ought not be framed as an overarching objective under proposed paragraph 3(1)(a). The ACLC proposes that it should be placed along the other objectives as subparagraph 3(1)(a)(iv).

The ACLC is also concerned with the proposed inclusion of the principles of deterrence and denunciation as principles a judge may consider in sentencing. These principles require cognitive and emotional capabilities beyond those of most youth. As with the concern with protection of the public, we are concerned that the inclusion of these principles will give criminal justice officials two more discretionary factors on which to base sentencing decisions. The proposed addition of these principles is further evidence of the government's lack of awareness and understanding when it comes to the dynamics of youth crime.

We believe that in order to combat youth crime, the government must address the socio-economic conditions that drive young people to crime. Indeed, there is no evidence to support the view that increasing the severity of sentences imposed on youth will result in greater societal protection.

For these reasons, the twin principles of deterrence and denunciation must be left out of the legislation altogether. The ACLC is vehemently opposed to proposed subsection 115(1.1), which would require police officers to record any extrajudicial measures handed out in the course of dealing with young persons. Due to police officers' tendency to over-police the African-Canadian community, African-Canadian youth are stopped, harassed, and questioned by the police more often than the general population. We are concerned that this increased interaction with the police will result in extrajudicial measures being issued to African-Canadian youth at rates disparate with other groups.

This effect, caused by the increased contact with police, is exacerbated by the additional discretion afforded to police under this provision. Police officers have the discretion to take no further action, warn the young person, administer a caution, or refer the young person to a program or agency. We are concerned that due to the discretion involved in issuing extrajudicial measures, records created under this provision may be subject to a police officer's racist or prejudiced attitudes toward African Canadian youth. The ACLC is also troubled by the rhetoric surrounding proposed subsection 115(1.1), which will provide police officers with the means by which to identify patterns of criminal behaviour.

Whereas African Canadian youth are already afflicted by negative stereotypes about their propensity toward crime, the ACLC is worried that the presence of extrajudicial measures on a young person's record may be further used to validate and promote this stereotype. In addition, we are gravely concerned that the extrajudicial measures record may be used to justify further surveillance and harassment of African Canadian youth. The ACLC recommends that proposed subsection 115(1.1) be removed altogether or modified to limit the discretionary powers afforded to police under this provision.

The ACLC is also concerned with proposed paragraph 39(1)(c), which would allow judges to consider the presence of extrajudicial sanctions on a young person's record as evidence of criminal tendencies to be considered in sentencing. The ACLC would like to alert the committee to the potential constitutional implications surrounding this provision, which enables a judge to imprison a youth based in part on criminal activity of which they were never officially convicted. At the same time, subsection 10(4) mandates that extrajudicial measures are inadmissible in evidence against any young person in civil or criminal proceedings. The ACLC submits that in order for the extrajudicial sanctions to establish a pattern of criminal activity, the youth court judge must accept the presence of said sanctions as evidence of the young offender having committed the crimes. We do not believe that these two provisions can coexist in the same legislation, and submit that this provision will inevitably attract constitutional scrutiny.

We also believe that proposed paragraph 39(1)(c) should be rejected, as the presence of extrajudicial sanctions on one's record may have no bearing on a young person's propensity toward crime. The presence of extrajudicial sanctions on a young person's record may be the result of discrimination at one or more stages in the criminal process. Furthermore, young offenders may accept extrajudicial sanctions because they do not have the financial wherewithal to fight charges in court or because they do not fully understand their options.

Because the presence of extrajudicial sanctions on a young person's record is not necessarily an accurate reflection of their criminal tendencies and may be tainted by discrimination, the ACLC recommends that this provision be removed altogether.

The ACLC is extremely concerned with proposed subsection 64(2), which would create an obligation on the part of the Attorney General to consider adult sentences in all instances where a young person over the age of 14 has committed a serious violent offence. This is because where there is discretion to sentence a young offender as an adult, this discretion has been disproportionately used to justify adult sentences for racialized youth. Increasing the number of youth subject to this discretion would almost certainly exacerbate this effect. To avoid this effect, the ACLC submits that adult sentences should only be contemplated in extreme circumstances involving egregious facts and exceptionally mature accused.

The ACLC also objects to what it considers to be a widening of the net of offences eligible for custody. We are concerned that the expansion of the definition of serious offences to include property offences will be used to justify the pretrial detention of a disproportionate number of low-income youth, including African Canadians. Accordingly, such an expansion ought not to be allowed. The ACLC further objects to the expansion of the definition of “violent offence” to include any offence that endangers the life or safety of another person by creating a substantial likelihood of harm. This definition is far too subjective and ought to be modified or left out, lest it be used to target young members of the African Canadian community.

While African Canadians are very concerned about safety in their communities, many feel that this kind of tough-on-crime approach is not the answer. Youth crime must be addressed through rehabilitation, reintegration, and community involvement. Indeed, the power of these principles has been confirmed through the success of the African Canadian youth justice program.

The amendments under Bill C-4 represent a significant departure from the prevention-centred principle, which the ACLC believes will result in the further stigmatization and criminalization of African Canadian youth.

These are my submissions. Thank you.

[Peter Dudding, Executive Director, Child Welfare League of Canada]

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. I am, indeed, Peter Dudding, the executive director of the Child Welfare League of Canada. I'm most appreciative of this opportunity to present our views on the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

During my 40 years of working with vulnerable children in Canada, I've worked with children under the Juvenile Delinquents Act and its successors. It is my experience that many of the provisions of the old JDA failed to meet the needs of vulnerable children and our societal objectives of rehabilitation and reintegration, as the measures were arbitrary and punitive.

In particular, I can vividly recall the harsh sentences being given to children under the particularly odious section 8 of the JDA for “incorrigibility”. These children, whose behaviour was deemed dangerous and unacceptable to society, were sentenced to lengthy incarceration. The results were predictably bad in creating angry and dysfunctional adults and too often career criminals who present a life-long threat to society.

By contrast, the Youth Criminal Justice Act was one of the first pieces of Canadian legislation that was written to conform to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was signed and ratified by this Parliament in 1991.

The convention recognizes that all children under the age of 18 have specific and immutable rights that take into account their vulnerability due to age, their relative position in society, and their evolving capacities.

Sébastien's Law unfortunately violates some of these rights, notably article 3 of the CRC, which states that the best interests of children should be the primary concern in making decisions that affect them.

It is my judgment and experience that the amendments proposed by Sébastien's Law will reverse the substantial progress that we have made in Canada since the abolition of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. It is the youth justice system that is failing our children and not the legislation, to be clear.

The stated intentions of the government are to hold violent and repeat young offenders accountable and to ensure that society is protected. The amendments proposed by the government are flawed as follows.

The provisions of the current YCJA have proven satisfactory in addressing the needs and issues raised by violent and repeat offenders.

The proposed amendments have implications that go well beyond the application to a small group of violent and repeat offenders, which will result in more children becoming trapped in the criminal justice system. This is particularly concerning as it impacts on aboriginal and visible minority children who are already overrepresented within the criminal justice system.

Finally, the proposed amendments ignore recommendations that have been made to the government to improve the implementation of the YCJA.

I will now comment more specifically on our concerns related to the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-4.

Make protection of society a primary goal of the act. This change will fundamentally alter the purpose of the YCJA so that “public safety” will supersede any other purpose of the act, and this violates article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This significantly shifts the focus from rehabilitation and reintegration of the child, and the focus on the child and not on public safety was intentional and purposeful in creating the YCJA in the first place. The proposed amendment, as a primary goal—a primary goal—is not consistent with Justice Nunn's recommendation 20 in his own report.

Simplify pre-detention rules. According to Statistics Canada, the number of youth in remand outnumbers those in sentenced custody--52% of all children in custody were in remand in 2008-09.

Article 37(b) of the Convention of the Rights of the Child states that the arrest, detention, or imprisonment of a child should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest amount of appropriate time. Rather than increasing incarceration for children, the youth court should be given greater supports to ensure that an appropriate safety plan is in place when releasing violent children into the community. Pretrial detention should only be used in circumstances of violent offences and exclude property offences or offences that could endanger the public.

In terms of specific deterrents and denunciation, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the application of these principles to sentencing is effective or appropriate. The application of these principles specifically undermines the principle of proportionality. The sentencing principles reverse the foundation of the YCJA, and, I think, rather importantly--this is the significant part--take us back to that old odious section 8 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

On adding, to the definition of violent offence, behaviour that endangers the life and safety of others, the current provisions of the YCJA already address these matters. Also, I would refer you to my comments related to having an appropriate plan in place when young people are released back into the community; that's really a very important thing that this committee should turn its mind to.

In terms of allowing custody to be imposed on youth who have a pattern of findings of guilt or extrajudicial sanctions, again, article 40 of the UNCRC expressly states that any child in conflict with the law should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Rather than increasing incarceration for children, the youth court should be given greater supports to ensure the safety plan is in place.

With regard to ensuring that adult sentences are considered for youth 14 and older who commit serious violent offences--murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and aggravated sexual assault--the current provisions of the YCJA should be reviewed in order to create a more appropriate mechanism to review the sentences of any child convicted of a serious violent offence and its application beyond the age of 18 years. The application of mandatory adult sentences should not be required.

In terms of lifting the public ban on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences when youth sentences are given, the application of publication bans is fundamental to achieving the primary objectives of the act: rehabilitation and reintegration of the child offender. The evidence does not demonstrate any increase in public safety by releasing the name of the child offender. In fact, it violates articles 16 and 40 of the UNCRC, which protect children's rights to privacy. Again, the sentencing provisions should be supported by a plan of safety.

As members of the standing committee are aware, the YCJA was introduced in 2003. At the time, it was planned that a national review would occur five years later in 2008. It is my understanding that the minister did undertake a review, although these consultations were limited and no evaluation report was made public.

Since 2008, the CWLC has been partner with the Coalition on Community Safety, Health and Well-being in three national consultations. This is a coalition made up of approximately 28 organizations from justice, health, education, and child and youth services. It is hosted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The summer report and proceedings are attached as exhibits 1, 2, and 3 of this submission. There are over 70 recommendations for changes to the youth justice system in Canada, including specific recommendations related to mental health, substance abuse, and violence.

At the first symposium, there were two key summary findings of note. The rights-based foundation of the YCJA and its attention to the interests of victims were endorsed.

The support systems for children were overloaded before the coming into force of the YCJA in 2003 and are now seriously overstressed and cannot deal with the larger number of children thrust upon them.

In addition to the specific comments already provided in this brief, the CWLC submits our position regarding changes more broadly to the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act as follows: that a comprehensive review of the implementation of the YCJA be conducted by Justice Canada in partnership with provinces, territories, and key stakeholders; that provisions regarding deterrence and denunciation not be included in any new youth justice legislative proposal; that Justice Canada assume leadership in working with provincial and territorial counterparts in justice, mental health, addiction, child and family services, violence prevention, and education to address the requirements of vulnerable young people who are committing offending behaviours; that the federal government develop a national strategy to stop violence against children and youth, as recommended in the UN study on violence against children.

We know that if the federal government enacted these four recommendations, Canada would be in a much better position to prevent, address the needs of vulnerable children, and create a safer, healthier, and more productive society.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 20 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Tuesday, June 1, 2010.

You have before you the agenda for today, and today we're continuing with our review of Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

Members, we had planned to have an in camera planning meeting at the end of this meeting. Given the fact that none of the three regular Liberal members is here, I'm proposing we cancel it and hold that meeting at our next meeting on Thursday, with your consent.

I'm assuming that none of the Liberals here have any instructions on extra meetings and that sort of thing. All right.

Now, what we've done is we've divided today's meeting into two parts, two panels. With us on the first panel are a number of organizations. First of all, we have the Child Welfare League of Canada, represented by Peter Dudding, executive director. Welcome here. The Barreau du Québec will appear in our second panel. We've replaced them with Les Centres jeunesse de l'Outaouais, represented by Yves Laperrière, who's the department head. Welcome here. We also have with us the African Canadian Legal Clinic, represented by Megan Forward, a policy research lawyer, as well as Lwam Ghebarehariat, a summer law student. Welcome to our committee.

I think you've been told that you have a certain amount of time to speak, and then we'll open the floor to questions from our members for the balance of the panel session.

Why don't we start with Mr. Dudding.

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

I'm sorry, maybe I didn't make my question clear enough.

What I was asking was that when a bill is presented, and we'll use Bill C-4 as an example, is it customary for an analysis to be done as to how much it's going to cost your department for that bill to be implemented, assuming it's implemented in full?

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

Okay.

Just to pursue this line, with regard to some of the other legislation that you've mentioned today and that's coming, but specifically with regard to Bill C-4 and Bill C-16, I guess it would be, has this type of an analysis been made as to whether there will be additional cost to the public prosecution office or to your department for the implementation of these new crime bills?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, the program that I think you're mentioning, of several hundred thousand... It certainly is open to the province, indeed any province. As you know, among other things, there have been continuous increases to the Canada social transfer. Certainly any province that wants to get involved with any funding for youth programs is certainly welcome to do that.

I can tell you that under the youth justice fund, money has been set aside for that. As well, we're certainly doing our part in the youth justice intensive rehabilitation, custody, and supervision program. It's not just on the funding side that we are doing that. As you know, with Sébastien's Law before Parliament right now we are taking other steps to better protect young people, better protect Canadians, sometimes better protecting young people against activities they get involved with themselves. As you know--and your colleague, Mr. Regan, knows--with respect to the Nunn report, that sometimes you get a small group of out-of-control individuals who are not only a threat to the public, yes, but they're also a threat to themselves. We're addressing that on a number of levels.

As you will know, in the estimates there's $11 million for the intensive rehabilitation, custody, and supervision program under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

So all these steps are in the right direction.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Well, it's the only one I can actually find myself in support of, which is the contributions under the access to both official languages. I think the department is making a true effort in increasing that budget, and I commend you for that.

Unfortunately, I find it worrisome that all transfer payments budgeted to the youth justice fund are status quo. There's not a single cent of increase in these programs. Considering that we are undergoing a study on Bill C-4, I would like to have your comments on this. Why aren't we finding any increase in funding for youth justice programs, particularly the rehabilitation ones? We did hear from New Brunswick's Attorney General that one of their very successful programs has been cut.

I'd like your comments on this, please.

[Line Lacasse, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon everyone.

My name is Line Lacasse, and I am accompanied by my husband, Luc Lacasse. We are the parents of Sébastien Lacasse, who was murdered on August 8, 2004, by a group of young offenders in Laval. He was only 19 years old.

Our son was taken from us in a very violent way by a dozen youths without scruples and without respect for life. He was severely beaten, hounded, covered with Cayenne pepper, trampled, without even being given a chance—despite begging his assailants to stop—and finally, stabbed to death.

None of the 10 young people even thought about calling for help. All of them, without exception, left the premises without any empathy for the young man lying in a pool of his own blood and dying.

Life will never be the same for us. Not only we, his immediate family, are affected by his death. His grand-parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends and neighbours are affected, as well. Their lives have also been turned upside down. Sébastien was a live wire, always ready to help, likeable, and loved by everyone.

When the doctor told me on August 7 that there was nothing more she could do for Sébastien, it felt like one of my limbs had been severed. I curled up into a fetal position and ended up in another world.

His father, Luc, his sister, Julie, and I came out to the parking lot to wait for our youngest son, Maxime. I will never forget the look on his face when he saw us from afar, after understanding and screaming “no” with painful intensity. As we hugged each other without talking, we knew that the long road ahead of us would be filled with pain, sadness, anger and a lack of understanding, and that there was no avoiding this journey before we could find inner peace.

Feelings we had never felt before surfaced: anger, rage, injustice, grief, vengefulness and fear.

Carrying Sébastien's ashes to their final resting place was unbearably painful. “My little monkey,” as I liked to call him, my first born, was no longer among the living. Reality caught up with us soon enough. Now, we had to learn to live with his absence and his death on a daily basis. The loss of a child cannot be accepted, especially if it comes about so violently. Parents should go before their children and not the other way around.

Adding to our drama, a few days later, certain inconceivable events took place. My two children, Maxime and Julie, received threats of all kinds. In addition, coloured paint balls were fired at our house from a shotgun. The windows of our car were broken, and we received intimidating threats during the trial. In addition, a discriminatory song against our family was composed by friends of the accused. The lyrics scoffed at and disrespected Sébastien's death. The song was made available on the Internet.

What is the value of a life today? All of us around this table can ask ourselves that question.

In addition, my son Maxime lived through two violent and dangerous incidents that put his life in jeopardy. One of them took place in 2007, in a parking lot close to our home. Rubens Alexandre, one of Sébastien's murderers, threatened to beat Maxime. Max's friend, who was a Canadian boxing champion, got involved and told the assailant to leave, since he was not allowed to approach Maxime. The attacker left and came back to the parking lot 10 minutes later in his car. He fired a couple of shots from a shotgun in Maxime's direction. Fortunately, he missed his target.

This same Rubens Alexandre was involved in an incident similar to the one with Sébastien when he stabbed a young man from Brossard while exiting a bar. Fortunately, this victim survived. Rubens Alexandre was accompanied by Maxime Renaud, who was also accused of Sébastien's murder.

Since Sébastien's death, Rubens Alexandre has been arrested several times. Maxime Renaud was arrested for counterfeiting bank cards. Three weeks ago, Rubens Alexandre escaped from the Saint-Jérôme detention centre.

Since these events, the state of our mental and physical health has deteriorated. General symptoms include high blood pressure, anxiety, fatigue, and an impression that we are waging a losing battle. We wonder when it will all end.

You cannot imagine what it feels like to think that another child could have died. Our family is grieving, we are afraid for Maxime, who does not tell us what is going on so as not to worry us, but is experiencing extreme inner anxiety. I became very listless and, for a while, I was unable to support and help my family members.

To add insult to injury, the court proceedings are a real circus. We have spent three years of our lives following this trial, which seems to be never-ending and is very emotionally draining. We have to keep reliving this horrifying night, at each stage of the proceedings, for the various accused in the case of our son's murder. It was very important for us to follow all the stages of the trial in order to try to understand the incomprehensible. We were the body and the voice of Sébastien, who was no longer there to recount the horrors he lived through. Not even animals are able to inflict the kind of violence our son was subjected to. It was important to ensure that the murderers would get a sentence in line with their crime and the seriousness of the inhumane acts they committed on the evening of August 7, 2007. That is to say, they should serve a sentence that is proportional to the seriousness of their crime.

It goes without saying that our mental and physical health has suffered greatly in the process. Maxime left school because he couldn't concentrate and felt too much sorrow. Julie dropped a few courses temporarily for the same reasons.

The assistance afforded to the murderers is unbelievable. They are provided with medical and psychological assistance and are allowed to continue their studies under supervision. All that is paid by our governments. However, the assistance provided to the families of victims is nothing short of pitiful. There is little, if any, support from these same governments. A $600 payment from the government is not going to help us face the financial problems caused by a situation like ours. We rather feel that there is a lack of respect toward us and that we are not important to our elected representatives. Finally, the amount is ridiculous and is an insult to a family in distress. We are left to our own devices in dealing with our grief and all the resulting problems and worries.

As for financial issues, we now have less income. I was unable to work owing to health problems. Luc worked less in order to be able to follow the legal proceedings. The lack of money ended up creating additional worries that we really could have done without at the time. Fortunately for us, there is the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared, AFPAD. They helped us out and were there for us during the court proceedings. We are also lucky to have a friend who is a lawyer, and who supported us throughout the proceedings. Of course, we also have our family.

Sébastien's Law, in memory of our son and in honour of our determination, makes our hearts sing a little. It is gratifying and reassuring to see that a government body is looking into this problem. For us, the most important thing is that people have taken the time to listen to our whole story for hours on end, the story that I have summarized here today. I assure you that this is not even a quarter of what we have really lived through.

I know that other governments are focusing a lot on the statistics, but tell yourselves that one life lost is already one too many. I do not wish it upon anyone here to go through such a tragedy. I challenge any mom or dad who has lived through such an ordeal to oppose this bill. I assure you that if it were your son or daughter who was beaten to death and murdered in such a violent way, you would not hesitate to vote in favour of this bill, which, among other things, will make it possible to punish the murderers, and to do so in proportion to the violent nature of the acts they committed.

I received a wonderful education. My parents always told me that in life, we always suffer the consequences of our actions. The system currently in place sends young people the message that there are no serious consequences for murdering or badly injuring someone. Violence is being trivialized, somewhat like it is in video games.

In my view, it is critically important to strengthen the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, so that it would, among other things, make it possible to remand youths in custody while they await their court proceedings. If this Act had been in effect, we wouldn't have had to go through the horrors of waiting in a hallway with the accused.

Take a moment to imagine yourselves outside the courtroom, waiting in the same line as the people accused of murdering your son. In addition, the accused can enter the room without being searched, while the victim's family and those accompanying them have to undergo a thorough search. To me, that is truly unbelievable. It should be noted that this Act pertains to very serious crimes.

I would like to go back to my son Sébastien, who died following an extremely violent attack. His murderer, Maxime Labonté, who was 17 years and eight months old at that time and who stabbed my son several times, received a life sentence for unpremeditated murder and will be eligible for parole in August 2011. It goes without saying that we will have to challenge the parole application, which is highly probable in his case. So, we will have to face him again and we will have to convince the decision-makers to not release this criminal.

In conclusion, I hope you realize that a family is condemned for life when they lose a loved one in such a cruel and horrible way. Therefore, if we have an opportunity to improve our justice system, let us respect life and protect everyone's safety by voting for this bill to come into force as soon as possible. Clearly, this will not bring my son back, but at least his death and his tragedy will serve some purpose in our society.

Thank you for listening to me.