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.

[David Greening, Executive Director, Policy Development and Analysis, Department of Justice, Government of Manitoba]

Thank you.

I will address the issue of deferred custody sentences.

By way of background, paragraph 42(5)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provides that an offender may receive a deferred custody sentence for any offence “that is not a serious violent offence”. Paragraph 42(2)(p) provides that those sentences cannot exceed a maximum of six months. Essentially, the deferred custody sentences are the equivalent of the conditional sentences that are provided for under the Criminal Code for adults and that the media often refer to as house arrest.

The issue we have is that currently the serious personal injury offence definition is one that focuses on the circumstances of the offence, and its application is to an offender who commits an offence during which he or she causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm. In our view, this makes good sense, as a deferred custody sentence--a deferred custody offence--allows the youth to effectively serve at home what would otherwise be a custodial sentence and limits the sentence to six months. It's not a sentence that's intended for offences that are serious and violent.

In terms of the concern we have, it appears that there may have been an unintended consequence as a result of the change in the definition of “serious violent offence” in relation to the adult sentencing provisions that are contained in the amendments in Bill C-4. By operation of the new definition in subclause 2(2) of Bill C-4, deferred custody sentences will now be available for all offences except murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and aggravated sexual assault.

This broadens the availability of these sentences to a wide range of offences for which this type of sentence is not available currently. Basically, a youth would now be allowed or be able to serve their sentence at home, and only for a maximum of six months, for such serious offences as aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, and impaired or dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm. The availability of such a short sentence option for these serious offences is a matter of significant concern.

We also, I think, are concerned that this would appear to be directly contrary to the stated policy objectives of the government in terms of trying to strengthen the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and reduce barriers to custody for violent and repeat young offenders. It would also appear to be contrary to the policy behind Bill C-16, currently before Parliament, which is designed to remove conditional sentences as an option for serious adult offences.

In our view, there is no justification for allowing the YCJA equivalent of conditional sentences to be available for serious violent offences that are now excluded from consideration. Doing so jeopardizes both public safety and public confidence in the justice system. It is our view that Bill C-4 should be changed to ensure that deferred custody sentences remain unavailable for situations in which a young person causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm.

In terms of the proposed approach that we've suggested, the fix or the change that we're proposing for Bill C-4 is actually very simple and straightforward and reflects our view that this is an unintended consequence. Essentially, all that we're proposing is that the current wording in paragraph 42(5)(a) be changed, so that instead of relying on the definition of serious violent offence that has been proposed in Bill C-4, we instead use the existing wording that is the status quo right now, basically providing that these types of sentences would not be available for a youth who commits an offence during which he or she causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm.

The proposed change has been outlined in our chart. You can see in comparison what the change would be. It's a very simple change, but again, in our view, it would be something that's important to remedy what would be an unintended consequence that has serious consequences and could undermine public confidence in the justice system.

As a closing note, I'm not aware of and haven't seen any arguments or evidence in support of a need to reduce the scope of the prohibition on the sentences to the very narrow scope that's contained in the proposed definition of “serious violent offence”.

In summary, it appears that this is an unintended consequence. A very simple change to the bill could be made to address the issue. We ask the committee to give serious consideration to this change.

[Ronald MacDonald, Senior Crown Counsel and Criminal Law Policy Advisor, Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Justice, Government of Nova Scotia]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to explain our concerns about Bill C-4.

The committee has the transcript of our prior appearance. It will remind you of our concerns relating to specific provisions of Bill C-4. They relate to pretrial detention provisions, issues with the definition of deferred custody, and problems relating to the test of having a youth sentenced as an adult.

I again remind the committee, as I did the last time, that we support the general policy directives of the government as stated by Minister Nicholson in Parliament. However, it is our position that the legislative drafting has created the problems we address. I will deal with pretrial detention, Mr. Hawkes will address the adult sentence issue, and Mr. Greening will address the issue of deferred custody.

On the issue of pretrial custody, I remind you that in his report Justice Nunn did not advocate for, and Nova Scotia today is not advocating for, general changes that provide for greater incarceration of youths. Rather, our submissions emphasize that at times there are youths who are out of control, and the courts must therefore have the appropriate tools available to them to protect the public and assist the youth. These tools must, perhaps unfortunately, include at times the practical ability to place the youth in custody, both pretrial--and in particular pretrial--and obviously sometimes post-trial, for the appropriate range of offences and fact circumstances.

Simply put, while it is right to say that in principle we don't want any more youth than necessary in custody, it does not mean the system should have restrictions that effectively block that custody when we suggest it may well be necessary.

After our appearance on June 17 of last year, and further to the request of this committee, we were asked to prepare legislative drafting that we felt would resolve the problems we had identified. We therefore filed a supplementary submission and a chart that outlines that drafting.

I just want to quickly remind you that in its current form, Bill C-4 provides changes to section 29, providing a broader availability for pretrial custody for offences that would net an adult sentence of greater than five years. However, as we stated the last time, it completely precludes the availability of pretrial custody for offences that would net an adult sentence of less than five years.

My colleague, Mr. Greening, referred to those provisions as the “mandatory release” provisions, and I would suggest that is an apt characterization. We are very concerned that without amendment it will create a situation that allows youths to repeatedly commit offences, without any pretrial system that could prevent them from so doing and that could thereby protect the public. In other words, the bill does not preserve the discretion necessary for judges to detain a youth engaged in repeated criminal behaviour that poses a threat to the public or that demonstrates an unwillingness or inability of the youth to comply with conditions designed to protect that community while the youth is awaiting trial.

We have, therefore, filed our suggested changes, which you will find.... I hope you have with you the chart of changes. I will now review it. The suggested wording preserves the courts' discretion while at the same time recognizing that the crown should bear an increased burden when seeking detention for offences not falling within the new definition of “serious offence”.

On the left side of the chart, we have the current drafting of Bill C-4, and on the right side, our suggested alternative wording. I've already outlined our concerns with the current drafting. It broadens it for serious offences and precludes it for what are non-serious offences.

What we are suggesting, first of all, is to maintain the connection between section 29 and section 515 of the Criminal Code, which would allow the system to be familiar with the courts and practitioners in the courts. In other words, the bail hearings would still fall within a similar structure. Other than that, what we are saying is that there ought to be a tougher test for the detention of youths who commit non-serious offences. Therefore, we are suggesting that subsection 29(2) should read instead, as stated in the chart: “In considering whether the detention of a young person is necessary...under paragraph 515(10)(b)...a youth court judge or a justice shall presume that detention is not necessary under that paragraph unless the offence is: (a) a serious offence...”.

This means there would be no presumption against detention for a serious offence, but, of course, the courts would still have to apply all of the tests that are currently in place with respect to pretrial detention.

You don't simply detain someone unless the crown has met the burden to convince the court that it is necessary for the variety of tests that currently exist under section 515 in the relevant case law.

However, with respect to non-serious offences, what we are saying is that detention would continue, unless—and this is where you go to proposed paragraph 29(2)(b) of our legislative drafting, which deals with the offence being one “where the circumstances of the offence and the youth” and with the circumstances of “the youth's prior conduct”.

That would allow the court to consider not just their record, but perhaps previous offences committed without their having been found guilty, and Justice Nunn specifically spoke about that. Those circumstances and that conduct would have to “demonstrate on a balance of probabilities”—in other words, the crown would have to show that either the youth “is engaged in repeated criminal behaviour”--so that in effect the crown would have to show, if it's a non-serious offence, that the youth is out of control and is engaged in repeated criminal behaviour--or that there “is a threat to the safety of the public”--which I would suggest makes good sense--or that the youth “has demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to comply with conditions to secure good conduct”.

In other words, they've repeated a bunch of offences, you've released them on conditions, and they've demonstrated their unwillingness or perhaps inability to comply with those conditions that were designed to keep them out of trouble and protect society. Essentially, what those clauses are getting at is two things.

One is that they, in our view, capture the current state of the case law of courts that have interpreted the current presumption against detention provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act; we have taken that case law and have codified it for the benefit of the court. The other is that they essentially define the out-of-control youths who are committing the non-serious offences.

Let me give some examples. You have a youth who commits a “theft under” the first time, and that's all they've done; they would not meet this test. There's a presumption against detention, and one would hope they would not be detained.

They commit a few more shopliftings here and there, or perhaps they steal a car that's only worth a few thousand dollars, but they haven't done any additional damage. Again, are they engaged in repeated criminal behaviour? That would be for the court to determine, if it has risen to that level. Are they otherwise a threat? It would again be to the court to determine. Have they demonstrated an unwillingness? Again, it is up to the court to determine.

I would suggest that what we've attempted to capture here is our desire to continue a presumption against detention, unless it has risen to the level at which the youth is essentially out of control and the court really should have no option but to hold them.

So, as today, there would still be the presumption against detention. The court would be given clear direction and would have the ability to hold those youths who commit those types of offences that out-of-control youths will commit over and over again, offences that unfortunately we have seen lead them to more serious offences. It would still maintain the current provision of the act that serious offences would not be subject to the presumption.

That's our suggested alternative wording. It would make it harder for the crown to hold them for those offences but would still make it possible, whereas it would not be possible now with the present provisions.

Those are my comments on pretrial detention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll reconvene the meeting. We're continuing our review of Bill C-4.

Returning to us are representatives from the Government of Alberta, the Government of Manitoba, and the Government of Nova Scotia.

From Alberta we have Joshua Hawkes, director of policy appeals, education and policy branch, Department of Justice and Attorney General. From the Government of Manitoba we have David Greening, executive director, policy development and analysis, Department of Justice. The Government of Nova Scotia is represented by Ronald MacDonald, senior crown counsel and criminal law policy advisor for policy, planning and research, Department of Justice.

Gentlemen, you've been asked to come back because since your last appearance before us we've had ongoing correspondence with you. You've made suggestions for some amendments to this bill. We're interested to hear what you have to say. We'll give each of you an opportunity to speak, and then we'll open the floor to questions from the members.

Go ahead, Mr. Hawkes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I thank our three witnesses for appearing. Your testimony is helpful as we move forward on our consideration of Bill C-4.

I'll excuse you.

Members, before we suspend for a couple of minutes, could you review the ninth report of our steering committee?

We met earlier today and essentially agreed to add two more days to our consideration of Bill C-4 to accommodate more witnesses, which would be on March 21 and March 23. On March 28, we would then go to the draft report on organized crime to see if we can make some headway there. On March 30, we could tentatively deal with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-4, including all of the amendments that I'm sure you have ready for us.

You've had a chance to read it. Is there any discussion?

Do we have someone to move adoption?

It's so moved by Monsieur Ménard.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Could I ask you a specific question?

In paragraph 3(1)(a) of Bill C-4, the provision inserts the words “protect the public”. In paragraph 3(1)(a), the wording is “the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public”.

Do you agree with that statement? Is it an amendment that you would support? Does the amendment flow from the comments of Justice Nunn?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

I'll just ask this of the panel generally. Clause 18 in Bill C-4 amends section 72, and this has to do with adult sentences. The prosecutors have come forward in three provinces, I believe, with the suggestion that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard should not be put in the act, as it is now in Bill C-4, and also the taking into account of background circumstances regarding the seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the young person, such as age, maturity, and character. These are all things that judges generally do, but they like to have the bedrock of legislation.

They seem to be, in part, quite reasonable suggestions. They're suggesting it will be watered down, but there will be no background for the court to draw on. Briefly, what do you think of the prosecutors' suggestion, if I have summarized it well enough for you to comment?

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

Certainly I think the three provisions that jump out from Bill C-4—the provision in proposed paragraph 3(1)(b) on “diminished moral blameworthiness”, the pretrial detention provision in proposed subsection 29(2), and the place of detention in proposed subsection 76(2)—are what I would call clarifications of the original intent and approach of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They are learning from practice in areas where things needed to be improved and where there was clear evidence to support a change.

The issue that concerns the advocates is that all of the other things that have been layered on top of these are a concern, and that these smaller issues may be lost in some bigger consequences that may target and increase incarceration for vulnerable youth.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

I think, again, it depends on the purpose. It would appear in the draft of Bill C-4 that the publication of names is connected to some types of deterrence, to the notion that if the name is out there, it will deter future offending behaviour. I think it's a very weak link between this device and that outcome.

What is the purpose of naming, then? Is it just simply retribution in the community--social stigmatization at school, and so forth? I think it's unclear in this bill what the purpose is. It's not clear to us that there's been enough deliberate and thoughtful consultation and review of this issue to support this provision.

[Heidi Illingworth, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime]

Thank you, and good afternoon.

The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, or CRCVC, is a national non-profit advocacy group for victims and survivors of violent crime. We provide direct assistance and support to victims across the country, and we advocate for public safety and improved services and rights for crime victims. We are pleased to appear before you today regarding Bill C-4, also known as Sébastien's law.

In this submission, we examine the proposed amendments and also provide some recommendations we have made in the past with respect to ensuring that the interests of crime victims are fully taken into account.

I wanted to share with you today a little bit about the families we help. At our centre, we receive calls from families affected by youths who commit violent crime against other youths or adults. We frequently hear concerns with respect to the YCJA and the manner in which it responds to both youth who commit crime and the victims of such offenders. As an organization, we are concerned by the effect on victims of violent crimes committed by youth.

According to the Statistics Canada report entitled “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2009”, although youth crime severity has generally been declining since 2001, the youth violent crime rate was 11% higher than in 1999. While many groups have testified before you and have stated that the YCJA has been an unmitigated success, we remain concerned about levels of violent crime committed by youths in Canada.

We recognize that most youths come in contact with the law as a result of fairly minor incidents and we recognize the importance of diverting these youth away from the formal criminal justice system through the use of warnings, cautions, and referrals to community groups and programs. That being said, we feel the protection of society must be the ultimate goal of the youth criminal justice system. We agree with Mr. Justice Nunn, who recommended that in order to help solve the problem posed by the small group of dangerous and repeat offenders, both short- and long-term protection of the public should be included among the principles set out in section 3 of the YCJA.

Canadian society needs to do a better job of tackling the root causes of crime. We believe that many youth, with the proper social supports, can be steered away from making poor choices that may lead to a criminal lifestyle. We agree that it is necessary for municipal sectors such as schools, housing, municipal planning, and police to identify the roots of crime problems, develop strategies to tackle those problems, and implement and evaluate them.

Focusing particularly on reducing the number of young offenders, the CRCVC strongly calls for providing enriched, subsidized child care for all citizens, along with affordable housing. We favour school programs for anti-bullying, anti-violence, and respect for gender and diversity. In addition, we advocate programs to ensure literacy, to protect children from family violence, to provide after-school care, to make job training and shadowing available to adolescents, to encourage anti-substance abuse in schools, and to offer mental health and addictions treatment to youths in need.

We also see the need to reduce violent victimization in Canada. Working with our clients, we see all too well the devastating impact of violence on individuals and families. It is the victims who too often suffer endlessly in many ways, including emotional, physical, and psychological harm, pain and suffering, and lost productivity.

We support amending paragraph 3(1)(b) to add the principle of "diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability" of young persons. We believe that youths do not have the same amount of experience and knowledge to draw upon in their decision-making. We are pleased to see that the definition of a serious violent offence has been clarified and now includes the acts of first- or second-degree murder, attempts to commit murder, manslaughter, and aggravated sexual assault. We feel that this definition adequately captures the most serious violent offences that are committed, and it removes any uncertainty about which offences should be included.

The creation of a clear definition of these types of offences is in keeping with one of the primary goals of the YCJA—a reduction in the number of youth in custody--while also ensuring that there is a clear definition of the crimes that require more serious sanctions and custodial sentences.

We are also pleased to see the inclusion of a definition of a "serious" offence as it pertains to pretrial detention. We feel that it helps to clarify the provisions in proposed section 29, which in the act cross-referenced section 39. This created complexity in the provisions and implied that the goals and purposes of pretrial detention are the same as for sentencing. This is not always the case.

We acknowledge that the definition they're referring to--offences that carry a maximum adult sentence of five years or more--may seem to cast a wide net, but we would like to point out that this is but one of the criteria a judge or justice uses when determining detention in custody. This definition is necessary to allow judges and justices to hold violent and repeat offenders in custody while awaiting trial.

The addition of the definition of a “violent” offence is designed to attach significance to those behaviours that do not result in harm to any individuals but carry the risk of doing so. A youth leading a high-speed car chase through a residential neighbourhood would be an example of a violent offence under this definition, regardless of whether anyone is hurt. The fact that the chase was carried out in a residential neighbourhood where many people live, including children, makes the behaviour very high risk.

Crimes of this nature pose a significant risk to the public. They need to be acknowledged as such in order to be included in those offences for which a custodial sentence can be considered. This does not say that a custodial sentence is recommended or required in all cases that pose a risk to the public, only that they are eligible.

We are in agreement with the inclusion of deterrence and denunciation in the principles of sentencing. They are both important objectives that are currently missing from the YCJA. While there is evidence that youths do not consider the sentence they may get for committing a crime, the criminal justice system nonetheless must hold them specifically accountable for the harm they have caused, especially when it is serious harm. There is a public expectation that it do so.

There also needs to be a component of the youth justice system that allows judges to specifically denounce very serious crimes. This is not to say that young people should not receive treatment and rehabilitation. We believe that denunciation is important to Canadian society, and especially to the victims and survivors, as it is an expression of the abhorrence of the actions of an individual and the harm that has been caused. We know that it can be healing for victims to hear a judge publicly acknowledge the harm they have suffered. We believe that it may also be beneficial for a young person's understanding of the true impact and consequence of his or her actions to hear the violent act denounced by a judge.

With regard to record-keeping, we believe that the provisions in the amendments will allow a judge or a justice to take into account a youth's full criminal history when considering a sentence and to thus determine what sentence is appropriate and if a custodial sentence is warranted. This amendment should not interfere with the discretionary powers of police or deter them from considering extrajudicial sanctions as an option for keeping a youth out of the justice system. Rather, it allows the youth court to pinpoint patterns of escalating frequency or severity of criminal behaviour.

Subclause 11(1) of Bill C-4 adds proposed subsection 64(1.1), which requires crown counsel to consider whether it would be appropriate to apply for an adult sentence in a particular case. If the crown decides not to apply for an adult sentence, they must inform the court that they are not doing so. We feel that this does not encroach on prosecutorial discretion; rather, it creates more openness and accountability in crown decision-making, something that victims and the public in general often request.

Regarding publication bans for youth, the provision that allows a judge to consider lifting a publication ban for a conviction in a violent offence is something we have long advocated. There has been an assumption that by not identifying youths, we are somehow protecting them. We have always questioned the wisdom of doing so for repeat serious young offenders. Part of accountability and responsibility is facing the community. Also, what protection are we offering innocent citizens who may not know of a young person's record of violence or sexual assault? As a society, we must remain cognizant of why we are protecting a young person and whether such protection is in keeping with the broader protection of all of society.

To conclude, I would like to say that we generally support the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Unfortunately, the YCJA can only be reactive. It can only deal with people who have already broken the law. As a society, we must invest more strongly in social development programs to ensure that all children benefit. Schools, housing, social services, municipal planning, and other municipal services all have key roles to play in addressing local crime and community safety problems.

We must also remember that not all communities are able to provide social services equally. The YCJA must address some of those gaps legislatively, and it must recognize that there are offenders who require more serious interventions.

As I said previously, we support diversion programs to keep youths out of custody for non-violent offences. However, when we are dealing with serious violent crime, youths must be held accountable for their actions. For some who are very dangerous and/or out of control, the use of incarceration is necessary to protect the public.

Justice must be seen to be done, even when we are dealing with young offenders. When the justice system does not respond in a serious manner to serious harm no matter what the age of the perpetrator, the public loses confidence in the justice system.

We urge that the committee support this bill and the amendments to the YCJA as they are proposed.

At the end of our presentation, you'll find a couple of recommendations we've made in the past, specifically regarding the rights of victims in the YCJA.

Thank you.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

For this reason, we respectfully ask the committee members to step back from Bill C-4 and help instead to promote measures that will further reduce youth crime and promote the safety of the Canadian public. Let's put the emphasis on promoting measures that will give full effect to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, particularly in rehabilitation and reintegration.

In our submission you can see we've made seven recommendations toward that end. We ask for the committee's attention to our recommendations in your deliberations.

We thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and of course we are here to answer any questions you might have.

[Sylvie Godin]

As child and youth advocates, our work is guided by respect for the rights of children and youth in our country. Canada is a signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; the twentieth anniversary of the convention was marked in 2009. The convention clearly underscores the need for youth justice initiatives that are consistent with the rights and best interests of children and youth. Bill C-4does not meet that test.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

Here is another important issue that the proposed amendments do not address that the members of the council wish to bring to the committee members' attention. If it's our objective to improve the youth justice system, we must find ways to stop the criminalization of youth who have mental health issues or cognitive impairments or developmental disabilities in particular. That means strengthening treatment outside the justice system, not increasing incarceration.

In August of this past year, the council of the Canadian Bar Association passed a resolution underscoring how persons suffering from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder live with neurological and behavioural challenges. The Canadian Bar Association called on

all levels of government to allocate additional resources for alternatives to the current practices of criminalizing individuals with FASD.

Our council supports that resolution. We understand that the federal Minister of Justice has embraced that resolution and is looking at ways, in discussion with his counterparts federally and provincially, to achieve that, and we think there is great merit in considering that before proceeding with a matter such as Bill C-4.

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I will have the opportunity to come back to this topic later, when I speak to Bill C-60.

My colleague is quite right. Incidentally, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is in session right now, and I will return to that meeting following my speech here in the House. There are 16 bills awaiting study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and, among them, we are currently examining Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts—also known as the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Our examination of Bill C-4 is nowhere near complete.

That being said, my colleague is probably right to say that perhaps we will not be examining Bill C-60 anytime soon. I found that aspect of the member's position very interesting. The bill contains two series of clauses. One part has to do with the whole notion of self-defence. I will come back to that later. It has to do with section 34 and subsequent sections of the Criminal Code. The second part, regarding the defence of property, has to do with section 494.

Would his Liberal Party colleagues be willing to split the bill? We could drop the whole self-defence part, in other words, the amendments to section 34 and subsequent sections that are far more problematic than the request under section 494 of the Criminal Code. Would they agree that the bill should be split in two in order to study the changes to section 494 sooner, even if it means delaying the passage of the other amendments regarding self-defence, that is, regarding section 34 and subsequent sections?

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, President, Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, members. I'm Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, B.C.'s representative for children and youth and president of the Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates.

As you know, beside me is Sylvie Godin from the Quebec commission. We also have with us in the gallery a number of the individual child and youth advocates from across Canada. We have the child and youth advocate from Manitoba with us today, Bonnie Kocsis. We have representatives from the Ontario child and youth advocate office. We have the child commissioner from Nova Scotia, Dwight Bishop. We have the child advocate from Newfoundland and Labrador, Carol Chafe, and we have the child advocate from the Yukon, Andrew Nieman. I understand we'll be joined shortly by the child and youth advocate from New Brunswick, Bernard Richard.

So we have a bit of a delegation with us here today. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Sylvie and I will share our 10 minutes. Sylvie will speak in French, and I will speak primarily in English.

Our organization is an alliance of the government-appointed child and youth advocates from across Canada. Nine of the 10 members of our organization are independent advocates or independent officers of the legislative assembly; they provide support to children and youth, and particularly have something of a mandate, in the area of either advocacy or review, for youth criminal justice in our respective provinces and territories. I know that a few of our advocates have already made submissions to the committee in writing or have appeared here, including Mr. Bernard Richard and Madame Godin, as well as Mr. Elman. On behalf of B.C., I made a written submission.

We're very pleased to be here on behalf of our national body. Although our roles vary and our statutory mandates vary, we generally provide some direct advocacy supports to children and youth in the justice system, and we also work on systemic advocacy to make improvements to the systems for children and youth. Essentially our organizations promote better outcomes and the use of evidence to inform policy and encourage a more inclusive and responsive system of supports for youth and especially for vulnerable youth. In particular, in our various legislative assemblies where we work, we attempt to give voice to Canadians who by virtue of their age and personal circumstances are often not heard or represented in legislative and policy-making processes.

Through our participation in the council we identify issues of mutual concern. This is the background to our presentation today. Our collective experience as advocates and our review of the evidence leads us to make a strong recommendation that this committee be encouraged to take a position to step back from Bill C-4 and reconsider the impact of the bill on children and youth.

The current Youth Criminal Justice Act recognizes the important and interdependent objectives of protection of the public and rehabilitation of youth, and we strongly concur that both of these objectives are important. We see no evidence that shows that the proposed amendments to the act will decrease youth crime or that they will increase the safety of the Canadian public. We understand that any incident of violent crime is egregious in its devastating effects on families, communities, and the public at large, and as a society we certainly have to do our best to prevent such incidents. However, despite our distress at such incidents, we must not respond by locking up more youth and handing out more adult sentences to youth. Research demonstrates that doing so is not an effective strategy. Jurisdictions that take that approach typically have worse outcomes for children and youth across the spectrum and increase the chances that a youth will become more fixed on, or choose, a criminal path.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 52 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and for the record, today is Monday, March 7, 2011.

You have before you the agenda for today. 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.

Again, we have with us a number of witnesses in two separate panels who are standing by to help us with that review. On our first panel we have the Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates, represented by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who is from my home province of B.C. She is the president. We also have Sylvie Godin, the vice-president. Welcome to both of you.

We also have here, representing the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Heidi Illingworth, who's the executive director. Welcome to you.

As well, we expect that shortly we will have Professor Susan Reid here. She's a professor of criminology and criminal justice, and director of the Centre for Research on Youth at Risk at St. Thomas University.

I think you have all been told the process here. You have 10 minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Why don't we begin with Ms. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond?