This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, which ended in March 2011.
Rob Nicholson Conservative
In committee (House), as of May 3, 2010
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
I want to thank all four of our witnesses for their time.
Your testimony will form part of the public record, which well help us in moving forward on Bill C-4.
Thank you, to all of you.
We'll suspend for two minutes while our next witness takes his place.
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
May I ask you another question? I know our time is short here.
As you know, a significant amount of this Bill C-4 flowed from the conclusion of the Nunn report. In that report Justice Nunn concluded that highlighting public safety as one of the goals or principles of the act is necessary to improve the handling of violent and repeat young offenders. Would you agree with Justice Nunn in that statement?
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
In that regard, does Bill C-4 improve the situation over the current legislation?
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
That was my assumption as well. Most of the things we're talking about in Bill C-4, the changes, are aimed at violent and repeat offenders. I just want to make the point that I don't think in that regard it likely negatively affects the indigenous population to a greater extent than perhaps the non-indigenous population.
Prof. Jacques Dionne Professor, Department of Psychoeducation and Psychology, Université du Québec en Outaouais, As an Individual
I want to sincerely thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear a second time.
The first time I appeared before you, I had three hats on, a researcher's, an educator's and a grandparent's. I will be reiterating the same core message this time around, so I will keep my remarks brief to allow more time for questions and discussion.
My core message from that first appearance still holds true today. To my mind, rehabilitating young offenders and protecting victims are two sides of the same coin. I want to tell you that it is not one or the other, but both at the same time: protecting the victim while rehabilitating the young offender. In other words, protection for victims is achieved through the rehabilitation of young offenders. That is the position taken by the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, Quebec's youth centres association, and the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, Quebec's victim advocacy association. Clause 3 of Bill C-4 seriously threatens that principle, which is essential, in my view.
My message is primarily supported by the entire body of scientific literature and by real-world experience that has shown that young offenders do not have the same level of development as adults and youth, in general, and that that is an important consideration in order to have a real juvenile justice system that is not merely a copy of the justice system for adults. These principles are included in the act but are seriously undermined by the wording of clause 3.
Good rehabilitation programs for young offenders produce much better results than purely repressive measures. And that is also very well-documented. In short, a law that is fair to both young people and society must not be based solely on the severity of the offence when judging an act and sentencing a young person. A fair law must be based on a complex criminal justice system specifically for young people. It is one thing to have a law, but something entirely different to have the whole system necessary to apply that law. And that system must constantly seek to maintain the uneasy balance between the needs of society and the victim, and the needs of the young offender.
This complex system should include a system for applying the law where there is a differential assessment process based on the principle that every young person is different, that every case is different and that every context is different. My colleagues from aboriginal communities did a good job of demonstrating that earlier. This complex system should also include a differential intervention system that includes the possibility of alternative justice and rehabilitation, as well as a process that allows victims to participate and that gives them the support they need. That, too, contributes to rehabilitation. In addition, this complex system should incorporate an organization that promotes the participation and involvement of parents and should especially include rehabilitation, monitoring and intensive community supervision programs, as well as open custody and closed custody enforced by competent staff. I realize that creating a system of this nature extends beyond the federal government's reach and comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but I think the law should very clearly open the door to such a system. Finally, this system must also include an investment in research to encourage the development of better practices. That is a broader responsibility of the federal government.
Thank you for listening, and I am ready to answer your questions.
Juliette Nicolet Policy Director, Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres
Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.
My name is Juliette Nicolet. I am the policy director at the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. I'm going to try to be brief.
The Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres represents the interests of 29 friendship centres across Ontario. Friendship centres serve status and non-status first nations, Métis, and Inuit people. We provide holistic, wraparound, culture-based programming in such areas as health, education, employment and training, children, parenting, addictions counselling, seniors, and justice, of course. Eighty per cent of the aboriginal population in Ontario—80.4%—reside outside of reserves and 36% of the aboriginal population in Ontario are under the age of 19.
The justice programming that friendship centres provide in Ontario has been around for 30 years. Our court worker program is just over 30 years old. The community justice program, which is an alternative measures program, has been running since 1999, so for 12 full years.
I'm going to provide a really brief outline, some high points, of our position on Bill C-4, on the substance of it. But in general our primary concern is that it seems to mark an overall drift toward a more punishment-oriented regime that we do not feel serves the interests of the public and, more specifically, the interests of the urban aboriginal community and urban aboriginal youth.
We know that at this point already the Youth Criminal Justice Act has a differential impact on aboriginal youth in Ontario and across Canada, but I'm speaking for Ontario. A number of the amendments made are likely to worsen the effect the YCJA already has, and they don't allow us to see, in the fullness, the possibility of positive action the YCJA might have.
The first issue I will bring to your attention is detention prior to sentencing. Bill C-4 amends subsection 29(2) of the YCJA, which refers to the use of pre-sentence detention if there is a likelihood for the young person not to appear. To give you an idea, the court worker program deals with indigenous people in the courts. Thirty-two per cent of appearances of court worker clients in Ontario are for administration of justice charges. This means that there is an extremely high rate of charges that will inevitably result in the use of detention prior to sentencing, increasingly for aboriginal youth, as opposed to others, because of the high rate of non-compliance with administration of justice charges. So this is a problem to begin with.
Second, I'd like to highlight the police record of extrajudicial measures. We believe this will reduce the use and effectiveness of such programs as the community justice program, which has had a very high success rate. There has been 82% compliance with the conditions in the community justice program for the people participating, which we think is very good, as well as decreased recidivism.
The third highlight is publication of names. The OFIFC disagrees with this approach on principle. We think it's needlessly punitive, and it flies in the face of the need to minimize stigma for aboriginal offenders, who are already highly stigmatized in society.
Fourth, and last, we think that denunciation and deterrence should not be part of a youth sentencing regime. The amendments to include denunciation and deterrence are not appropriate for youth, and are not appropriate, in particular, for an aboriginal population. Sentencing, inasmuch as it is possible for it to address some root causes of criminal behaviour, should do so. Sentencing for aboriginal youth should be aimed at the reduction of criminogenic factors and should be oriented towards pro-social outcomes. Putting more of our kids in jail will not result in increased or better outcomes for our children, and inevitably will not result in better outcomes for society at large.
As a small aside, we know that in Ontario, aboriginal gangs are migrating from the prairies over to the Kenora and Thunder Bay regions, and that much of the recruitment for these aboriginal gangs takes place in youth detention centres and, after age 18, in jails. Increasing opportunities for incarceration are going to lead to an increase in criminality.
In conclusion, we at the OFIFC are very concerned about ensuring that the sentencing regime for youth provides us with alternatives and with opportunities to continue to place an emphasis on preventative, culture-based, community-driven measures and programming that address the root causes of crime--poverty, the effects of racism, and a high incidence of addictions and substance abuse--and that allow us to expand programming options. These include Kizhaay Anishnaabe Niin, which is traditional gender roles programming that teaches men and women about gender responsibilities and how to be good men or good women in the world; Streetwolf, which is specifically addressed to justice-involved youth to try to get them off that track in a culture-based way; and Wasa-Nabin, which addresses youth aged 12 to 18.
These programs have been shown to work. They keep kids out of trouble and keep kids in school, which is not the direction these amendments go.
Finally, I'd like to conclude with a request. There needs to be more time to allow the YCJA to work. More funding needs to be put into programming to allow this to happen. For aboriginal kids, the effects of the YCJA have not yet been felt. This is a result of a lack of programming. It's not necessarily a result of any inherent problems in the legislation.
Thank you.
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right. Thank you so much.
We're going to begin by going back to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
We have with us four witnesses. First of all, representing the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, we have Juliette Nicolet and also Teala Quintanilla. Welcome to both of you.
We also have, as an individual, Professor Anthony Doob, Centre of Criminology at the University of Toronto. Welcome back, Professor.
We also have with us Professor Jacques Dionne, department of psychoeducation and psychology at the Université du Québec en Outaouais. Welcome to you as well.
Perhaps we could begin with the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. You have 10 minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions.
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
I want to thank both of our witnesses for appearing. Your testimony will be part of the public record and will help us move ahead with Bill C-4.
Thank you to all of you.
We're adjourned.
February 28th, 2011 / 5:20 p.m.
President, Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec
Not about Bill C-4.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
The Minister of Justice conducted a series of public but private consultations across Canada with a number of stakeholder groups; as far as I'm aware, we don't have a list of the groups that participated. Were either of your organizations part of these consultations on Bill C-4?
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Dagenais.
Mr. Greenberg, for you, it's the same thing. I have the executive summary. I can also provide you with the links where you can get the full report online. It's written in English. It's an excellent report and I have to say that the recommendations with regard to actual amendments to the current law were very considered.
Unfortunately, the government's Bill C-4 does not follow those recommendations. It's unfortunate, because the report came out in December 2006, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, so the government has had a number of years to study the report, to consider it, and to do their consultations.
It has decided not to implement those recommendations, in fact, notwithstanding that at the time there seemed to be a real consensus across Canada. I consulted with different stakeholder groups across the provinces, including the Attorneys General, and there seemed to be a real sense that yes, Justice Nunn's recommendations were what was needed--nothing else.
Thank you.
Jean-Guy Dagenais President, Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like to thank you for the invitation and for your attention to our presentation.
The Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec represents more than 5,200 unionized police officers in Quebec. We feel that the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act will result in greater protection for the public from crimes of violence.
We must stress the importance of focusing on violent offences. As police officers, we feel that it is our responsibility, when we are investigating serious crimes committed by young people, to gather enough evidence so that the judge can order detention where appropriate.
The bill seeks to amend the act by reducing the burden of proof, which will help us in our job of getting repeat violent offenders off the streets.
Because of the new requirements that Bill C-4 will bring with it, additional financial and staffing resources must be provided.
The establishment of a central registry will assist police forces like the Sûreté du Québec in our work. Information must be standardized in order for coordination to be better.
Adult penalties must be considered only in cases of violent crimes.
Police forces firmly support the possibility of lifting publication bans. Young people must not be able to commit other violent crimes. They may end up in areas where public protection is important.
For example, a neighbourhood may find a sexual offender living there. The public interest must be protected, and, by so doing, more crimes, repeat offences, can be prevented. Young offenders must be made aware that they have committed serious crimes; we feel that the amendments to the bill will right the wrongs done to victims who for too long have been ignored.
Young people do not have the same level of development as an adult; they are impressionable; they can be influenced. The amendments to the act must make them aware of the gravity of their actions.
As police officers, our primary role is to protect society and we must have the tools we need to carry out that role. Young people who commit serious crimes must answer for their actions when warranted by the circumstances of the offence.
Some of our investigations into serious crimes committed by young people compel us to feel that they must be made aware of the seriousness of their actions. Releasing them, often too soon, does not serve the interests of the community, a community that deserves to be able to live in safety.
Young offenders must be discouraged from offending again. We are of the opinion that the current act has shortcomings and that amendments are warranted. We support the idea that protecting society must be made the main goal of the act. Without amendments, the act does not meet the objective of living safely in our society and would not match our expectations and our values.
Some young people will not hesitate to resort to violence and intimidation for criminal purposes; in our opinion, this poses a major threat to Canadian society. Some young people, although they may not have the developmental level of an adult, will be driven to commit serious crimes; whatever the nature of those crimes, the amendments to the act must convince them not to reoffend.
As investigators, we must not be deprived of the tools that allow us to have access to the various provisions of the Criminal Code that we could use in the course of our inquiries.
With the passage of time, we believe that there is a way to develop regulations governing serious crimes committed by young people. This will allow the police and prosecutors at various levels to use the provisions in the Criminal Code to their full extent in order to reduce the threat to public safety.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I will reconvene the meeting.
We are now moving to further consideration of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
We have with us two witnesses. First of all, representing the Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec, we have Jean-Guy Dagenais, president.
We also have with us the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, represented by Hirsch Greenberg, member of the board of directors.
Welcome to both of you. We apologize for bringing you on a little bit late. As you can see, we are trying to finalize clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, but thank you for coming.
Each one of you has been given some time to present. You will present and then we will open the floor to questions from our members.
Why don't we start with Monsieur Dagenais?
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We have Monsieur Lemay now.
I just want to remind everybody to please keep your questions short if they are addressed to Ms. Morency or Mr. Villetorte, because we may run out of time again on this clause-by-clause. We do have two Bill C-4 witnesses that are going to be appearing somewhere around 4:30 p.m., so as brief as you can keep your comments.... I would very much appreciate it.
Monsieur Lemay.
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I'll call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 50 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is February 28, 2011.
All of you have the agenda before you. We're dealing with two different bills.
First of all, we'll complete clause-by-clause review of Bill C-54, which we started before the break. Once clause-by-clause is completed, we'll continue 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.
We have with us a number of witnesses.
From the Department of Justice, and standing by to help us, we welcome back Carole Morency, acting general counsel, criminal law policy section, as well as Matthias Villetorte, who is also counsel with the criminal law policy section.
When we last adjourned, we had completed discussion of an amendment to clause 3, which was negatived. We returned to clause 3. There was some debate that took place about clause 3. I'm wondering if there is any further debate on clause 3 before I move to the question.
Mr. Comartin.