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.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise a second time to speak to this bill, and I will start by saying that this bill is yet another example of the Conservative ideology. There is no need to worry. I can back up what I am saying.

The Conservative ideology is not just the party line or the party's policies. It is also about how they act and how they view society. Since the Conservatives took power—since they got a majority—the House has passed a number of measures, and we have seen a moratorium on sponsorship for parents and grandparents and a decrease in the number of family reunifications, which appears to be a concept that the Conservatives have essentially scrapped, not to mention the punishment of vulnerable refugees.

I remember that one of the very first speeches I made in the House after I was elected was on Bill C-4, which would have enabled government officials to imprison children. The Conservative ideology is not just the party line. This bill would also put children in jail. The Conservative ideology can once again be found in this bill.

The bill does not deal at all with the issue of backlogs. Come to think of it, how did the Conservatives handle that problem? As my colleague explained, they told the 280,000 people who had been waiting to get their Canadian citizenship that they should pack up their bags and go away, then come back some other time and take their place in line.

That is how the Conservatives decided to deal with the backlog. We obviously should not expect the bill to address the problem then, since they already took care of it.

A number of people from my riding have been in my office, feeling desperate because they have been waiting for months, or even years, for their children or parents to be allowed into Canada. Some have been waiting for over two years, which, let me tell you, is very distressing for Canadians. The backlog issue is really not a priority for the Conservatives, let me assure you.

The bill would give the minister the authority to grant or revoke citizenship. A number of my colleagues have already spoken to that. In fact, the bill would create a two-tiered citizenship, something the Conservative government does not find troublesome at all.

The Conservatives spend their time driving a wedge between urban and rural Canadians or between regular and seasonal workers. We all know their style of governance. Nothing that I say will come as a surprise. Everything they do revolves around dividing people and keeping them in the dark to better govern. That is the Conservative ideology. Every time they introduce a new policy in the House they attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians.

This bill creates two classes of citizens, those who are Canadian citizens and those who are dual citizens or who may have been born abroad.

We are creating a double standard where two people guilty of the same offence may get very different sentences. One of those people could wind up in jail while the other, found guilty of having committed the same offence, would lose their Canadian citizenship and maybe even be deported. One never knows with the Conservatives.

We already have the means to punish criminals who have broken the law, means that are beyond the control of the government and the executive branch. There is no need to give the minister the power to personally decide who is guilty and who is not.

What is even more ridiculous is that they do not even abide by the courts' criteria, such as proving an accused's guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the burden of proof, or “reasonable and probable grounds to believe”. The minister gives himself the right to revoke a person's citizenship on the basis of mere suspicion, without allowing an independent court to review his decision. I must say, out of respect for people who are fighting against a dictatorship in their country, that the Conservatives' intentions are obvious. They want to give themselves all the powers and decide the fate of Canadians.

In his speech, the minister said that the Canadian citizenship was held in high regard before 1977. He even talked about World War II. He wants to bring us back to before 1977, and perhaps even to just after World War II. I knew this was a backward-thinking government, but it is beyond comprehension. They want to take us back to 1950. Now, this is another illustration of the Conservative ideology.

Things have changed since the end of World War II. This is 2014 and the government wants to take us back to before 1977, as the minister said in his speech. Revoking the Canadian citizenship is a huge step backwards on many fronts. I will talk about the constitutionality of this kind of measure, and of this kind of power, which a minister can definitely not give himself. Indeed, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, this is unconstitutional. I am aware of the Conservatives' contempt for our democratic institutions. We know how they have been treating Parliament since they got a majority. They imposed time allocation 70 times. Therefore, they may criticize our motion today, but nobody believes what they are saying.

The Supreme Court was clear about the fact that stripping a person of citizenship is unconstitutional. I would like to read an excerpt from a Supreme Court decision:

The social compact requires the citizen to obey the laws created by the democratic process. But it does not follow that failure to do so nullifies the citizen’s continued membership in the self-governing polity. Indeed, the remedy of imprisonment for a term rather than permanent exile implies our acceptance of continued membership in the social order.

Professor Macklin explained:

In other words, the Supreme Court of Canada stated quite clearly that punishing somebody by depriving them of their constitutional rights, indeed, by denying them all constitutional rights and casting them out in the name of the social contract, is not constitutional.

I clearly recall the first time I spoke in the House about this bill. The minister told me that citizenship existed long before the Supreme Court and that the court did not, in any case, have the right to contradict him. Just as an aside, I understand how disdainful the Conservatives are toward our democracy and the nation's highest institution, but it has been stated quite clearly that revoking someone's citizenship is unconstitutional.

Once again, the Conservatives are going to talk to us about the beauty of Canadian citizenship and our Canadian society, but unfortunately, they will then continue to express contempt for the highest institutions that make this country a democracy and a haven for newcomers. If the Conservatives love their society so much and are so attached to Canadian citizenship, why are they not even able to respect the human rights of Canadians and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, I never get tired of talking about this subject. As hon. members know, the safe streets and communities act reintroduced nine bills that died on the order paper with the dissolution of the last Parliament. The government promised to enact these reforms within 100 days and we are delivering.

Before I turn my remarks to some of the key elements of the safe streets and communities act, I will highlight why our government has pursued these reforms and why and how this is important. It would be an understatement to say that our lives have changed substantially since the Criminal Code was first enacted in 1892. Much like other parliamentary democracies around the world, Canadian society and its values have and are continuously evolving and our justice system needs to evolve as well.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, it is my responsibility to maintain the integrity of the justice system. We need legislation that is responsive to what is happening on our streets and meets the expectations of Canadians in the 21st century. The proliferation of drugs and violent crime is, unfortunately, a reality in this day and age and it is our job as parliamentarians to deal with criminals, to protect society and do whatever we can to deter crime.

The truth of the matter is that no parent wants their child to be the victim of a crime. We need only ask Lynne Lacasse whose 19-year-old son was senselessly murdered at a house party in 2004. Her son matters. She appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in their studies of the safe streets and communities act. Her message was clear and it was not about vengeance. It was that the justice system needed to respond effectively and to learn from experience like that of her family so that, hopefully, other families do not suffer in the same way.

No parent wants their child to fall prey to a pedophile. In fact, parents list abduction and sexual exploitation as two of the three concerns they face with Canadian children. Any story on child pornography, whether it is about the pedophile who perpetrated the act or the one who watched it online, outrages each and every one of us. When involving a child, the consensus seems to be that sentences must be serious and lengthy.

Canadians are also concerned about the illicit drug trade. No Canadian wants to live next door to a grow op.

In British Columbia, Surrey Fire Service conducted a study and found that a home with a grow op was 24 times more likely to catch fire than a home without one. Even more troubling is that these fires are not always reported because no one actually lives in those dwellings, but there are families living right next door or across the street.

There are countless stories of Canadians who have been victimized and they are the first to lose confidence in our justice system. Many do not like to think these things happen in Canada until it happens to them or their loved ones. If we were to ask parents, I am sure they would say that the last thing they want is for their child to get involved in a life of crime or to become addicted to drugs. However, the sad reality is that it sometimes happens.

According to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, illicit drug use costs Canadian society an estimated $8.2 billion a year. Canadian statistics show that offences involving certain types of illicit drugs, such as crystal meth, ecstasy, LSD, barbiturates and date rape drugs, rose by 168% between 1997 and 2007. As a parent, the fact that these are readily available is simply unacceptable. It is our job as parliamentarians to ensure we give the tools to law enforcement officials to prevent this and other crimes from happening.

My own Department of Justice conducted a comprehensive analysis of the cost of crime in 2008. The analysis included costs to the criminal justice system, for example police, court and prosecution costs; costs to the victims, including health costs, losses to property and losses to productivity; costs to third parties; and intangible costs such as pain, suffering and loss of life. It was estimated that those costs amount to approximately $100 billion. That is astounding and unacceptable.

Since 2007, I travelled from coast to coast listening to victims, community leaders, the police and my provincial counterparts. I have heard from them how best we can improve the Criminal Code. Victims tell me they want to ensure that nobody has to suffer the same sense of loss and frustration as they have.

Police impart upon me the necessity for more robust legislative tools so they can better protect Canadians. The provinces provide important regional perspective into crime and justice issues. For that, I have been very grateful. They often come forward with recommendations and requests for changes in the Criminal Code. Likewise, Canada's police forces across the country provide helpful insight and advice on our criminal justice system. They are, of course, the front-line experts when it comes to fighting crime. This input is crucial. We have responded.

Despite what some of our opponents say, we believe in a balanced and comprehensive approach to justice. Our government wants to prevent further victimization and make sure that Canada's most serious, violent criminals are kept off our streets. Our experience shows that toughening sentences does not create new criminals. It keeps the existing ones in prison for a more appropriate period of time. We want to make sure there is not a revolving door of justice.

Parliament has seen and debated all the measures included in the safe streets and communities act. This comprehensive legislation brings together nine bills: four previously introduced by me, four previously introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and one previously introduced by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. Over the past four years, the justice committee has spent 67 days reviewing these measures. That is 139 hours of discussion, 95 hours of debate, 261 speeches and 361 witness appearances.

It should be apparent by now why we have immersed these reforms into the safe streets and communities act. The act targets organized crime by imposing tough sentences for the production and trafficking of illicit drugs, and it responds to concerns about violent young offenders. It ends house arrest for serious crimes such as sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking, and it eliminates pardons for serious crimes such as sexual offences against children. It enacts legislation for victims of terrorism. It also prevents the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable immigrants. It enacts mandatory penalties for serious drug offences and all child sexual offences, all of them.

Much has been written about our government's introduction and passage of mandatory penalties for certain crimes. There are some myths surrounding this issue. Mandatory sentences have a long history in Canada. We are not the first government to introduce them. Indeed, over the years, both Liberal and Conservative governments have imposed mandatory minimum sentences. Today, the Criminal Code contains over 40 offences which carry a minimum sentence.

Criminal organizations that rely on the drug trade do not respect current penalties. They simply see them as a cost of doing business. The safe streets and communities act contains tougher penalties which specifically target the source of the illicit drug trade, the drug traffickers. The bill does not target substance abuse victims or experimenting teenagers. There are, contrary to some reports, no changes to the laws with respect to simple possession.

The kinds of offenders that we are targeting are those involved in exploiting the addictions of others. The fact is that police and prosecutors, those who work hard to keep our country safe, have been calling for these sentences for some time. They know all too well the reality on our streets with respect to drug dealers who infiltrate communities and cause irreparable harm, especially to our youth.

The amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would impose mandatory penalties for the offences of production, trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, possessing for the purpose of exporting Schedule I drugs, such as heroine, cocaine and methamphetamine, and Schedule II drugs, such as marijuana.

Mandatory penalties would apply where there is an aggravating factor. This includes where the production of a drug constitutes a potential security, health or safety concern, or the offence has been committed in or near a school.

The bill includes a specific exemption to allow for the use of drug treatment courts so that those who are unfortunately addicted can get the help they need. Drug treatment courts are for adult offenders who have committed non-violent crimes that are linked to their addictions. Our national anti-drug strategy provides $3.6 million per year to six drug treatment courts across Canada. By helping offenders overcome their addictions and improve their social stability, we will help reduce crime rates in this country. It is worth clarifying that even where there is no drug treatment court, the court sentencing the offender for a drug offence can still refer the offender for treatment if an appropriate treatment program is available and approved by the attorney general of the province.

The amendments for child sexual offences in the safe streets and communities and act have two objectives. First, they aim to consistently and adequately condemn all forms of child sexual abuse through the imposition of new and higher mandatory penalties for all sexual offences where the victim is a child. Second, they aim to prevent the commission of a sexual offence against a child through the creation of two new offences that target a certain type of conduct, as well as directing the courts to impose conditions that would prevent a suspected and convicted child sex offender from engaging in conduct that would enable or facilitate their sexual offending against a child. The current approach to penalties for child sexual abuse must end. The reforms in the safe streets and communities act would do just that.

The bill deals also with conditional sentences, usually referred to as house arrest. Our legislation would ensure that serious crimes such as sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking would not result in house arrest. Conditional sentences would continue to be unavailable for any offence with a mandatory minimum penalty. In addition, a conditional sentence would never be available for offences with a maximum of 14 years or life imprisonment; or for offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm or involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs or involve the use of a weapon; nor for a range of other offences including kidnapping, theft over $5,000 or motor vehicle theft. Our act would ensure that serious offences, including serious property offences like arson, would also not result in house arrest. This would ensure that jail sentences for such offences are served in jail.

Part 4 of the safe streets and communities act proposes amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. These reforms would improve the ability to deal with violent and repeat young offenders, for example by highlighting the protection of the public, making it easier to detain young people charged with serious offences pending trial, ensuring that prosecutors consider seeking adult sentences for the most serious offences, prohibiting youth under 18 from serving sentences in an adult facility and requiring police to keep records of extra-judicial measures. The act continues to be a good framework to address young offenders. There is a shared view that young people should have the opportunity to be rehabilitated and have a second chance. However, there is also the concern that some youth, a small number who are out of control, are not being effectively dealt with under the current legislation. The safe streets and communities act reforms build on and preserve the solid framework of the act.

The amendments would not change the Youth Criminal Justice Act's current approach to making the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons who have committed offences the basis of our youth justice system. These reforms are not about detaining more or fewer youth. They are about facilitating appropriate and effective decision making at the pre-trial stage. This includes managing youth in the community where this is possible and ensuring that youth who should be detained can be detained. These reforms were previously proposed in the former Bill C-4 or Sébastien's law.

At the January 12 meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice, we had a good discussion of the safe streets and communities act and the need for us to continue to work together toward its implementation.

Many of these reforms have been the subject of discussions over the years. Many are well supported by provincial and territorial ministers. The proposed reforms in the safe streets and communities act would come into force in the same manner as originally proposed. There is a coming into force clause for each part of the bill. The only parts of the safe streets and communities act that would come into effect on royal assent are the amendments relating to the Criminal Records Act and acts of terrorism. The other reforms, those to the Criminal Code, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, would come into force on a day or days to be fixed by the order of the Governor in Council.

The Minister of Public Safety and I noted that we would seek the views of our provincial and territorial counterparts about the timely and effective implementation of these reforms. Clearly, as many of these amendments have been proposed for years, there is good reason to proceed expeditiously.

With the safe streets and communities act, our government would be once again sending out a message to criminals that they will be accountable for their actions and that crime will not be tolerated in this country. Our goal is to restore a sense of balance so that Canadians can continue to be confident in our justice system. The enactment of the safe streets and communities act would be another positive step for the people of this country.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in the House today to talk about the important changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are included in the safe streets and communities act.

Through this package of amendments, this government is taking action to strengthen the ways in which the youth justice system would deal with serious repeat and violent young offenders. The package of Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments responds to issues raised during cross-country consultations led by the Minister of Justice, to key decisions of the courts, to recommendations put forward by the Nunn commission, to concerns raised by the provinces and territories, and to positions put forward by witnesses who appeared before the justice committee during its study of the proposed amendments.

The reforms reflect the widely held view that while the Youth Criminal Justice Act is working well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes, there are concerns about a small number of youth who commit serious repeat or violent offences, including those youth who appear to be spiraling out of control toward more dangerous and harmful behaviour.

The proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act would amend the act's general principles to highlight protection of the public; clarify and simplify the provisions relating to pre-trial detention; revise the sentencing provisions to include specific deterrents and denunciation of sentencing principles; broaden a range of cases for which custody would be available and require the Crown to consider seeking adult sentences for youth who commit serious violent offences; require judges to consider allowing publication in appropriate cases where young persons are found guilty of violent offences; require police to keep records of any extrajudicial measures they use in response to alleged offences by young persons; define violent offences and offence in the commission of which a young person causes, attempts to cause, or threatens to cause bodily harm, and includes conduct that endangers life or safety; respond to the Supreme Court of Canada 2008 decision of R. v. D.B. by removing the presumptive offence and other inoperative provisions from the YCJA and by clarifying the test and onus requirements related to adult sentences; and require that no youth under 18 sentenced to custody would serve their sentences in an adult prison or penitentiary.

In recent weeks, we have often heard it suggested that with the changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act proposed in Bill C-10, the government is moving the youth criminal justice system toward a more adult punitive system that would not sufficiently allow for the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth. However, this is simply not the case.

In fact, when the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are viewed in the proper context, it is abundantly clear that the youth criminal justice system would remain separate and distinct from the adult system, would be based on the presumption of a diminished moral blameworthiness of youth, and would emphasize the rehabilitation of youth and their reintegration back into society.

As I have already stated, the comprehensive review and consultation process undertaken by this government found that while most provinces, territories and stakeholders believe that the current youth justice legislation works well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes, there are concerns about the way the system responds to the small number of youth who commit serious violent offences or are serious repeat offenders who may need a more focused approach to ensure that the public is protected.

For the most part, the changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act in Bill C-10 would target this relatively small group of offenders by providing the courts with more tools to deal with them while leaving most of the current act as is.

Let me focus on a few of the proposed changes that some have used as the basis of their criticism that Bill C-10 would dramatically change the existing approach to youth justice.

First, during the justice committee hearings on the former Bill C-4 and on Bill C-10, some witnesses expressed the view that highlighting protection of the public in the declaration of principle found in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act would move us toward a more punitive youth justice system and away from a system that emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration.

However, the proposed amendment actually states that the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by holding young persons accountable through proportionate measures, by promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons, by supporting the prevention of crime, and by referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community to address the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour.

Clearly, the amendment recognizes that rather than being mutually exclusive objectives, rehabilitation and reintegration are key to the protection of society.

Further, Bill C-10 would add to the Youth Criminal Justice Act declaration of principles a fundamental principle of justice articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2008 case of R. v. D.B.; namely, that the youth criminal justice system must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability.

It is important to recognize that this statement of fundamental principle would apply throughout the act. I am pleased to acknowledge that this proposed amendment received widespread support among witnesses who appeared before the justice committee on the legislation.

It is also important to point out that most of the principles set out in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act would not be altered by Bill C-10. Section 3, which again applies throughout the act, would continue to emphasize the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration; fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity; enhanced procedural protection for youth; the importance of timely intervention; repair of harm done to victims; the involvement of parents, families and communities; respect for gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences; and the needs of aboriginal young persons and young persons with special needs.

Therefore, the proposed changes to the declaration of principles reflect a balanced approach that, together with the preservation of the existing principles, will guide those within the youth criminal justice system to respond to youth offending in a fair and effective manner.

Bill C-10 also proposes amendments to the principles of sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act by adding specific deterrence and denunciation as possible objectives for a judge to consider in sentencing young offenders. Under the current law, the courts have said that deterrence and denunciation are not included as objectives in youth sentencing. Bill C-10 proposes adding specific deterrence and denunciation as possible objectives of a youth sentence, but makes it clear that a youth sentence may, not must, have these objectives.

In addition, the proposed amendment also makes it clear that a sentence must still be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence. That means, for example, that judges would not be able to give a young offender an extra long sentence just to send a message that the unlawful behaviour was wrong.

Moreover, it is important to recognize, in proposing this addition to the principles of sentencing, the government is not amending the other sentencing principles in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The existing purpose and principles of sentencing, which clearly emphasize the importance of both proportionality and rehabilitation, remain intact.

In my view, the proposed amendment, taken together with the existing purpose and principles of the sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, represents a balanced approach that would give the courts more tools to respond to youth crime in an appropriate and effective way.

Another amendment that has been subject of criticism is the provision that would allow for the publication of names of young offenders who have been found guilty of a violent offence and given a youth sentence.

Let us be clear. Currently, the act allows for a judge to lift a publication ban. This is not new.

Bill C-10 would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to require a judge to consider lifting the publication ban if he or she is satisfied that the young person poses a significant risk of committing another violent offence and the lifting of the ban is necessary to protect the public against that risk. This threshold is not insignificant, and in determining whether to order the lifting of the publication ban, the court is required to consider the principles set out in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as the purpose and principles of sentencing to which I referred a moment ago. Furthermore, the onus of satisfying the court as to the appropriateness of lifting the publication ban lies with the Crown.

Therefore, once again we see that the proposed changes, together with the application of existing principles in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, reflect a balanced approach toward responding to youth crime.

Finally, in examining the allegations that Bill C-10 would move our youth system toward a more adult system, I think it is important to remind the House that this bill would change the Youth Criminal Justice Act to make it clear that no young persons under the age of 18 will serve their sentences in an adult prison or penitentiary, regardless of whether they are given an adult or youth sentence.

Youth justice is in the area of law that generates a great deal of debate from a wide variety of perspectives. While I certainly respect everyone's right to his or her opinion, I urge all interested parties to examine the changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act being proposed in Bill C-10 in a full and proper context.

These changes represent a balanced and focused response to concerns identified through a significant consultation process. The amendments would provide additional tools to respond more effectively to a relatively small number of young offenders who commit serious, repeat or violent offences, while protecting the elements of the Youth Criminal Justice Act that have been working well.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to conclude my remarks because this is a very important bill for Canadians, who have expressed their desire to have us pass this into law as soon as possible.

I want to address something that I heard recently with relation to complaints from some quarters, in fact the opposition primarily, that there has not been sufficient time to study Bill C-10 in its entirety. If we look at the history and examination of the charges as they relate to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we will see how very wrong that is. As I briefly outlined a minute ago, the proposed reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are contained in part 4 of Bill C-10, being made after consultations with a broad range of stakeholders and members of the public, are in response to key court decisions, such as the Nunn commission of inquiry, an extensive parliamentary study, and indeed, input from provincial and territorial partners.

First, most of us will know that the former Bill C-4 was extensively studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights prior to the dissolution of the previous Parliament. The committee actually held 16 meetings on that bill and heard from over 60 witnesses. I do not know how anyone in this place or elsewhere can say it was not properly consulted.

Second, prior to introducing former Bill C-4 in March 2010, the Minister of Justice undertook a comprehensive review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In February 2008, the Minister of Justice launched that review with a meeting he held with provincial and territorial attorneys general who, I would suggest, know much more than the opposition does in relation to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They discussed the scope of the review to encourage provincial and territorial ministers to identify the issues that they had, that they had heard from their Crown prosecutors and others relating to the youth justice system, and that they considered the most important. That is very important.

Finally, in May 2008, the Minister of Justice, as I said previously, undertook a series of cross-country round tables usually co-chaired by provincial and territorial ministers in order to hear from youth justice professionals, front line youth justice stakeholders and others around this country about areas of concern and possible improvements regarding the provisions and principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

To say it was not properly consulted and that we did not spend enough time is simply ludicrous. We have heard from Canadians and they have clearly outlined what they wanted us to do. We have consulted with stakeholders, including the provinces, members of the government and the public and, most importantly, victims. We are listening to victims.

The Nunn commission itself convened on June 29, 2005 and heard from 47 witnesses, with over 31 days of testimony. We are listening to Canadians, reflecting the society that they want, and moving forward on keeping all Canadians safe.

Motions in Amendment

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the advance warning of my cutoff.

I have had an opportunity to practise criminal law in Canada for some period of time under the Criminal Code. In fact, I practised law for over 10 years in northern Alberta in a very busy criminal practice. Therefore, I speak to this matter first-hand. I want to let the previous member know that I saw the rotating door of the criminal justice system in Canada, especially in relation to youth offences, and I take exception to his statements relating to more crime. We heard some witnesses say that, but it is utterly ridiculous that if we send people to jail for more time there will be more crime. I do not think any normal Canadian would accept the premise of that member's comments.

However, I am very pleased today to talk about the important changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are included in the safe streets and communities act. I think the title of this particular bill, the safe streets and communities act, is actually the purpose of the bill and exactly what the bill will accomplish once it becomes law. I am very proud to be part of that.

The proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are found in part 4 of Bill C-10, with a few exceptions. The proposals that are in the bill very much mirror the changes that were proposed in the former Bill C-4, Sebastian's law, which, of course, members are familiar with. This was introduced in the House of Commons on March 16, 2010. It was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when Parliament was dissolved just prior to the May 2011 election.

The proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act reflect the concerns that I have heard clearly in committee and that I have heard for years from Canadians who have expressed concern about violent young offenders. When we think of our youth, we do not usually think of violence, but there is a certain minority of the population under the age of 18, youth, as our courts see them, who have no concern for society as a whole and who do commit very violent offences without thinking about the ramifications.

It also deals with youth who may be committing non-violent offences that, frankly, are spiralling out of control. I saw this time and time again. When we would look at a docket in Fort McMurray on a Wednesday, we would see the same names, not just for one week or two weeks but it would be a constant situation of young people who would be before the court on a continuous basis over the same issues. I do not think that is acceptable and I do not think Canadians find that acceptable because we continue to hear from them on that.

The package of Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments also respond to some other issues, particularly those issues that other Canadians and provincial Attorneys General raised with the Minister of Justice in his cross-country consultations.

I want to take a moment to compliment the minister for going door to door throughout the country, city to city, and talking to Canadians first-hand to find out exactly what they were interested in so that we, as a government, could do exactly what we are supposed to do, which is to reflect the priorities of Canadians. This bill would do exactly that.

These amendments also take into account and are responsive to key decisions of the courts, and these are courts right across Canada, provincial courts, territorial courts, superior courts of the provinces, and the Supreme Court of Canada, because, of course, the courts would reflect that, too, but it is ultimately our job as legislators to do that.

These positions also reflect what witnesses have told us. Victims groups and victims came forward and applauded this government on the bill and on specific things that we would bring about in this bill.

The reforms reflect the widely held view that, while the Youth Criminal Justice Act is working well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes, there are concerns about the small number of youth who commit crime. It is a small number but it does not mean it is any less serious, in fact, it is even more serious because if we have an opportunity to deter these people early on in life they can then go back into society as a whole and become good citizens and contribute to society. However, these are people who, as I mentioned before, are repeat offenders and commit serious violent offences.

The proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act would do several things. First, they would amend the act's general principles to highlight protection of the public. That is very important because the judges, when they look at the act themselves, they can see that one of the primary concerns, which would seem fairly trite, would be to protect the public.

Second, the amendments would clarify and simplify the provisions relating to pre-trial detention, which is very important as well but has become quite cumbersome and complicated in the past years.

The third is to revise the sentencing provisions to include specific denunciation and deterrence factors as sentencing principles. Sentencing principles means that the judge takes that into consideration in the totality of the evidence put before him or her. This would broaden the range of cases for which custody will be available as well. Again, we heard clearly from Canadians that that is what they want.

Fourth is to require judges to consider allowing publication in appropriate cases where young persons are found guilty of violent offences. If we were to read the specific statute regarding this, we would see that it is very difficult for a judge to make that decision, but it is available to the judge if he or she feels it is in the public policy to do so, with some other criteria set out in the act itself.

Fifth is to require police officers to keep records of any extrajudicial measures they use in response to alleged offences by young persons.

Sixth is to define “violent offence” as an offence in the commission of a crime in which a young person causes, attempts to cause or threatens to cause bodily harm and includes conduct that endangers life or safety. It is hard to believe that these particular factors as set out in the Criminal Code were not there before, but this adds that criteria to the sentencing provisions of the judge and the considerations for him or her.

Seventh is to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's 2008 decision R. v. D.B. by removing the presumptive offence and other inoperative provisions from the Youth Criminal Justice Act and by clarifying the test and onus requirements related to adult sentences.

Finally, eighth is to require that no youth under 18 sentenced to custody will serve his or her sentence in an adult prison or penitentiary. That is very important.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today in the debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. I am going to limit my remarks to the changes this bill makes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. These changes were previously incorporated in Bill C-4, or what was known as Sebastian's law. Those proposals are now in part 4 of Bill C-10, clauses 167 to 204.

The former bill, Bill C-4, was first introduced on March 16, 2010, and was being reviewed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when the opposition caused Parliament to dissolve on March 26, 2011. Sixteen meetings had been held to study Bill C-4 and over 60 witnesses had already appeared before the committee.

The problems with our current youth criminal justice system were recently highlighted by the results of four months of observation by the Toronto Star of a typical Canadian youth court. I will briefly quote the conclusions reached, which state:

Changes to youth sentencing law in 2003 were supposed to fix an overreliance on custody. Instead, serious offenders are thumbing their noses at the courts because they know they will be treated lightly. Victims feel their voices are not heard. Kids who violently break the law, many from broken homes, are reoffending.

Our government invests significantly in crime prevention and rehabilitative measures and in restorative justice, but a balanced approach to criminal justice requires that we also pay due regard to protecting the public and victims of crime against violent youth offenders and repeat youth offenders. This is what Bill C-10 targets.

A number of amendments to the youth justice provisions of Bill C-10 were tabled by both NDP and Liberal members of the standing committee during clause-by-clause consideration and I will comment on some of the more significant of those.

One proposed amendment relates to protection of the public, specifically calling for the reinsertion of “long-term” ahead of the phrase “protection of the public” in the overarching principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In highlighting protection of the public in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the government has responded directly to recommendation 20 of the Nunn commission report.

The Nunn commission was a Nova Scotia public inquiry, which examined the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Theresa McEvoy, who was struck and killed by a youth driving a stolen vehicle. Justice Nunn concluded that highlighting public safety as one of the primary goals of the act was necessary to deal with this small group of repeat offenders that was spinning out of control.

We agree with the conclusion drawn by Justice Nunn that the current provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act are not sufficient to deal with this small group of dangerous and repeat offenders. It is simply wrong to suggest that by removing the adjective “long-term” from ahead of the phrase “protection of the public”, we are forbidding consideration of long-term factors. No, by removing a restrictive adjective, we are merely restoring the phrase “protection of the public” to its true meaning. In doing so, we are allowing judges to consider all factors relating to public protection, including short-term and long-term considerations.

It is also very important to note that, just as it was before Bill C-10, protection of the public will continue to be simply one principle of the act, alongside and equal to other principles, such as emphasis on rehabilitation in section 3(1)(b), fair and proportionate accountability in section 3(1)(c) and special consideration for young persons in section 3(1)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Another motion to amend called for the removal of specific deterrents and denunciation from the sentencing principles in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That is proposed by clause 172 of Bill C-10.

By allowing judges to consider specific deterrents and denunciation in sentencing, and I say only allowing, not requiring, we increase confidence in the youth justice system. We simply give judges the right to choose the tools they feel necessary to deal with the needs of the differing young persons who come before them.

In proposing this amendment, the government is not abandoning the current sentencing principles in the legislation. It is instead giving judges an additional tool to help deal with that small group of repeat and violent offenders where it is reasonable to consider specific deterrents, or even denunciation, for the benefit of the young person and in order to maintain the public's confidence in the administration of justice. Even this provision would be limited in its effect because the application of these provisions, specific deterrents and denunciation, would be subject to the principle that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender.

Another of our proposals that was discussed quite extensively at the justice committee was the test for publication in clause 185 of Bill C-10. The opposition proposed to amend this clause to basically make this test optional rather than mandatory.

The wider circumstances under which publication bans may be lifted, proposed by clause 185, fulfills our government's commitment to Canadians to ensure that young offenders will be named when the circumstances of their offence requires it. In our view, it would be inappropriate for this provision to be optional when the very purpose of the amendment is to protect the public, and that is not optional. The government is not calling for unlimited publication, but merely equipping judges with an additional tool for circumstances that require it.

In fact, it should be noted that this provision would only make it mandatory for judges to consider, to think about, publication. They are not be required to order publication in any particular case.

The threshold for this is also significant. The judge is required to consider the purpose and principles set out in sections 3 and 38 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the judge must decide that the young person poses a significant risk of committing not just any offence but a violent offence and that the lifting of the ban is necessary to protect the public against that risk. If there is no significant risk of violence or if any other solution makes publication unnecessary, then publication remains banned. Furthermore, the onus of convincing the court of these matters remains on the prosecutor.

Our government recognizes the importance of our youth criminal justice system and as such we propose changes in Bill C-10 to address the many concerns that Canadians have expressed about the shortcomings of the current system.

Our government responded to calls for change from several provinces asking for modifications to the former Bill C-4. Manitoba, Alberta and Nova Scotia officials appeared before the commons committee in June 2010 and subsequently provided suggested amendments in relation to pretrial detention, adult sentencing and deferred custody and supervision orders.

Our government considered these submissions and made changes to the applicable provisions found in clause 169 and subclauses 174(2) and 183(1) of Bill C-10. These changes have been well-received by the provinces that proposed them and would ultimately strengthen the youth justice system.

At clause-by-clause consideration, the government also proposed changing clause 168, by replacing the verb “encourager” with the verb “favoriser” in the French version of paragraph 3(1)(a)(ii) of the act. That is a change Minister Fournier from Quebec had requested.

This government is committed to the protection of our communities and to tackling crime committed by young persons. Our view is that this can be achieved without compromising the use of measures outside the judicial process, while still preserving non-custodial sentences for the vast majority of cases where such measures are appropriate.

Part 4 of Bill C-10 would provide judges and others working in the youth justice system with tools needed to deal appropriately with the differing needs of young people who come before them, including the needs of repeat and violent offenders who have not responded well under the current system. Such changes would restore public confidence to our youth criminal justice system.

I invite all the members opposite to join us in these efforts by supporting this bill. Let us join and together take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them.

[Kathy Vandergrift]

That is correct. Under the current government policy there are statements, in response to other studies of children's rights, that when laws are proposed that affect children, a child rights assessment is done. During the review of Bill C-4 we asked for this. I followed up with individual MPs who asked for this, and as far as I know, no one has seen the child rights assessment that was done.

I'm simply saying that all members of Parliament should at least be aware of how the proposed changes fulfill or violate their obligations to protect the rights of children in Canada. Our submission is that there are serious matters in these proposed changes that do violate the convention.

[Kathy Vandergrift, Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children]

Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children is a national umbrella group that brings together organizations that work with young people and individuals to promote respect for the rights of children.

We would like to offer the following suggestions based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991.

First of all, we express support for improved protection of children from sexual exploitation in part 2.

Secondly, we suggest that you remove part 4 from the omnibus bill and take no further action on it until all members of Parliament are fully informed about the ways in which these changes fulfill or violate Canada's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We have three reasons for this recommendation.

First, the youth justice system needs to be different from the adult system, and you've heard quite a bit about that today. Changes in youth justice should be considered separately in order to ensure that high priority is given to the best interests of children at all stages of the bill's consideration.

Second, the evaluation of the current Youth Criminal Justice Act did not recommend the changes proposed in Bill C-10. It recommended a focus on improving implementation of the current law. No evidence has been presented to justify rushing these changes into effect without careful consideration of their implications.

Third, members of Parliament have not received an assessment of how the proposed changes comply with or violate their obligations to uphold the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This was requested during the review of Bill C-4, but it was not delivered. Such reviews are supposed to be done on all proposed legislation that affects children, according to government documents. Members of Parliament should be aware of how this bill fits with their obligations to ensure that the rights of children are respected in Canada.

I would like to offer you our analysis. We would argue that part 4 violates articles 3, 37, 39, and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There are additional documents from the committee that expand on this, and there are additional international standards. Also, Canada received recommendations in 2003 with regard to youth justice. They're likely to come up again when Canada is reviewed in 2012.

Article 37 of the convention requires that detention “be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time” Bill C-10 will expand the use of detention beyond any accepted notion of last resort. The proposed revisions of the definitions of serious and violent offences are over-broad and likely to result in more young people being put in detention for less serious crimes. I can go into those specific examples.

Article 40 requires that penal laws focus on “promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society”. Bill C-10 shifts the focus from rehabilitation and reintegration by adding deterrence and denunciation as principles for sentencing young people. Here I would refer to the submission by Dr. Nicholas Bala and a written submission you have received from UNICEF Canada. They provide substantial evidence that deterrence is not effective for young people.

Bill C-10 will require that young people be detained separately from adults, which complies with the convention and we're pleased to see that. But it does not require that youth detention facilities provide the kind of programing that promotes reintegration and preparation for a constructive role in society, as required by the convention.

Article 40 specifically protects the right of a child to have his or her privacy fully respected, and we would argue that Bill C-10 violates that.

Article 39 calls for early intervention for young people who come in conflict with the law and who have a history of neglect.

Finally, article 3 requires states to make the best interests of the child a top priority. That principle is not cited in Bill C-10.

Going quickly to our recommendations, our preferred solution is to take part 4 out until you have a comprehensive child rights assessment. That assessment we are convinced will result in the following recommendations: add recognition of the principle of the best interests of the child; do not amend section 38.2 to add deterrence and denunciation; revise the definitions of serious and violent acts; and retain the current bans on publication of the names of young offenders.

Thank you.

[Jean-Marc Fournier, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec, Government of Quebec]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I have the honour of appearing before this Committee to present Quebec’s position on Bill C-10. Although there are precedents, only exceptionally does the Quebec government appear before a parliamentary committee studying a piece of Federal legislation. The seriousness of the situation explains my presence here today. I am appearing on the strength of a motion tabled by the member for Joliette and passed unanimously by the Quebec legislature.

As a mark of the wide-spread support for the position I will be sharing with you, I am accompanied today by representatives of the Quebec Bar, the chief prosecutor, Criminal Prosecution Service, Ms. Murphy, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, the Canadian Paediatrics Society and the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec. I would like to make it clear that we are not challenging the Government but rather the provisions of a Bill, which negatively impact the long-term protection of the public. May I remind you that it was in the much the same mindset that I came last June to urge the leader of the Green Party, Ms. May to expedite the study of Bill C-2 on megatrials. When something is good, we say so and when it is not we also speak out.

I would like to make it clear from the outset that we cannot agree to the removal of the concept of long-term protection of the public. By removing the reference to long term, you are opting for temporary protection of the public. It is difficult to see how this is a tough-on-crime proposal. In actual fact, the removal of this concept and the amendment of other provisions means that Bill C-10 will actually encourages repeat offenses and increases the number of victims. Many studies, including some by the Federal Government, have demonstrated that prison sentences do not reduce crime or recidivism. Quite the opposite in fact. Prison may actually serve as crime school, thus encouraging inmates to reoffend. One things is certain, an effective, long-term anti-crime strategy cannot focus soley on sending offenders to prison. At some point, offenders are released from prison and return to society. Any long-term anti-crime initiative requires special focus on their reintegration into the community. A strategy purely focused on locking up offenders for a time is nothing more than a temporary, superficial solution. It is a springboard to more crime. However, if you teach a young offender acceptable behaviour, you can stop them repeating the same mistakes. Failing to provide offenders with instruction or follow-up on how to behave in society is tantamout to encouraging them to offend again. The solutions proposed in Bill C-10 do not meet the stated goal of making the public safer. They also fail to address effective penalties for offenders or the prevention of crime and recidivism.

I would like to point out that Quebec has, on several occasions, expressed its misgivings and disagreement with regard to the initiatives put forward by the Federal Government. We even took the step of suggesting amendments in writing to Minister Nicholson on the now defunct Bill C-4. Simply put, this Bill does not contain the right provisions to ensure the long-term protection of society and victims. For decades now, Quebec has developed a unique strategy for the long-term protection of its citizens. We have done this with the involvement of the police. We have chosen to focus on reeducation, rehabilitation and social reintegration of young offenders. This involves sensitizing them to the harm they have caused their victims. In actual fact, the rehabilitation approach provides a greater role for victims than does the custodial sentence model. Indeed, young offender initiatives must consider the best interests of victims, the impact of the crime on them and ensure their rights and dignity are respected. Victims have the right to be informed of steps taken to bring young offenders to recognize the harm caused to their victims. Where possible, youth offenders are required to submit to a process of reparation. This way of dealing with young offenders works. Quebec has the lowest crime rate in Canada.

Our vision is based on Supreme Court of Canada pronouncements on the importance of dealing with young offenders differently. Our view is also based on opinion from experts, such as the Canadian Paediatrics Society. They too consider that youth must be treated differently if they are to become fully-integrated, useful members of society.

Some will argue that Bill C-10 maintains the difference in the way adults and youth are dealt with. This, in our opinion, is a mirage.

In reality, the Bill introduces even more cookie-cutter principles that should only really apply to adult offenders.

Indeed, the Supreme Court and prosecutors, who deal with youth and adult offenders on a daily basis, firmly believe that this approach to youth justice does not work.

What's more, it is likely to confirm youth offenders in a life of crime because it does not tackle the basic underlying causes of their inappropriate behaviour. It fails to ask two fundamental questions: who are they and why do they behave as they do?

By focusing on the short term and jail time, Bill C-10 provides only an illusion of protection. It overlooks the long term since it fails to consider offender release. It is like applying a bandaid to an infected wound. It is temporarily out of sight and out of mind. However, the problem inevitably reappears.

Rehabilitation is designed to tackle the root cause. The long-term protection of the public requires individualized processes that bring youth offenders face to face with their responsibilities.

In our opinion, the guiding principle of youth justice must continue to be the use of appropriate measures to fit the circumstances.

Please do not remove the concept of long-term public protection.

Please do not encourage the publication of the identities of youth offenders. It compromises the person’s chances of reintegration and society does not really benefit from knowing the offender’s identity. The Supreme Court recently pointed to the importance of this principle.

Please listen to those stakeholders, who over the past 40 years, have developed the studies, science and statistics to enable them to rehabilitate young offenders. Should you choose to reject their expertise and science, the onus is on you to support your proposals with serious studies and analysis.

Quebec is willing to partner with you in a science and statistics-based dialogue. However, we are asking you to postpone the enactment of the young-offender provisions.

The new minimum sentences are our second concern. Quebec doubts that these sentences will be a deterrent and therefore has expressed misgivings about them. Quebec would far prefer to trust prosecutors and the courts to set the most appropriate sentence.

Indeed, it is a basic principle that judges, having heard all the facts of the case presented by the defence or the prosecution, are best placed to determine a sentence in keeping with the context of the offense.

The proliferation of minimum sentences restricts the court’s ability to impose a suspended custodial sentence where circumstances warrant despite Supreme Court pronouncements on the restorative value of such an approach.

As Mr. Jean-Claude Hébert said, Bill C-10 transforms courts into an ATM for custodial sentences.

The closure gained through revenge is illusory. At some point, offenders will have served their sentence. Bill C-10 fails to provide for the release of offenders back into society. Without provision for reeducation or behaviour correction, inmates are released to offend again and to create new victims.

Once again, please do not enact these restrictive provisions that will prevent the courts from playing their proper role until you have developed studies or well-thought-out justification to support your proposals.

Our third concern relates to the financial impact of the proposed initiative.

[Professor Nicholas Bala, Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here. I'm a law professor at Queen's University and a father of four children. For over 30 years I've been involved in doing research around child and youth issues, both for young offenders and for children as victims, and for children as subjects of custody and access disputes.

I've been the observer of changes in Canada's legal regime, first with the Juvenile Delinquents Act, then the Young Offenders Act, and now our present legislation. I've been involved in writing about the acts. Some of my work is cited by the courts. I've been significantly involved in the education of lawyers, judges, probation officers, and police officers.

When I was preparing to come here today my 15-year-old daughter Elizabeth asked me what I hope to accomplish. I told her frankly that I was not optimistic about the committee making any changes. I think the process of the committee is somewhat rushed. I'm particularly concerned about the fact that youth and adult matters have been combined into one piece of legislation. I think there are good reasons for having young people, including in a legislative review context, dealt with separately from adults.

I am, however, here to help bear witness, if you wish, for those who are not able to speak for themselves, in particular for young people and also for the many professionals who work with you and who are concerned about these measures. I'm particularly concerned that they'll be both expensive and not improve the safety of society.

Finally, I'm here to help set out some markers for future assessment of this legislation. I'll talk about that in a moment.

In my view, there are some very good parts to part 4 of Bill C-10, but there are other parts that are affected really by what could be referred to as a politicization of response to youth crime or an ideological response, rather than one that is driven by either research or on-the-ground experienced professionals.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act has been in effect since 2003, and there are certainly some important changes that should be brought to the act. I think Justice Nunn did a very good job of identifying, after a lengthy inquiry in Nova Scotia, some important areas that need to be changed. I would submit to you that the present bill goes significantly beyond his recommendations, and I have therefore some concerns about it.

I think some of the changes are going to help slow down the youth justice process but will not have any effect on outcomes. There are other changes that I think will be potentially negative and may result in increased use of custody for non-violent young offenders without seeing a reduction in youth crime.

I have a brief that I know you have. It deals extensively with all the provisions. I'll be happy to answer questions.

My greatest concerns about the act, about the amendments, are the effects it will have on less serious offenders, non-violent offenders, particularly section 38, the introduction of deterrence and denunciation. While politically it may be popular to introduce these kinds of provisions, I think it is unwise. The reality is that young people who are committing offences are not considering the consequence of getting caught. They lack judgment and forethought, and inserting deterrence into the act will not change their behaviour. It will, however, change the approach of the courts. I think we have a unique opportunity with young people to attempt to rehabilitate them, to refocus their lives, often using community-based responses. It's important not to squander our resources by sending some young people unnecessarily into youth custody.

I'm also very concerned about the provisions around pre-trial detention. I would note that this is one area where actually Bill C-10 is significantly different from the previous legislation, Bill C-4. Bill C-4 provided that for young people committing violent offences, there would be greater possibilities for pre-trial detention. That provision has now been significantly expanded in this legislation. I think pre-trial detention is an enormously important concern, as I discuss in my brief and as is widely known. Young people who are placed in pre-trial detention are especially vulnerable, for example, to being recruited into youth gangs, and this may result in a spiralling increase in their offending.

Finally, I agree with my colleagues here that section 75, about allowing the publication of identifying information especially for any violent offence, is a very broad and unnecessary provision that will tend to slow down the process of the youth courts. There are certainly very real problems in our youth justice system. There's a lack of support for an engagement of victims. There's a lack of resources for prevention. There's a lack of use of restorative justice and community-based responses.

I worry, however, that this bill, in part, will increase the use of custody for less violent youth offenders, and as a result be a costly undertaking and not increase the protection of society. Certainly, this bill has some positive features, and one thing I'm pleased to see is that it retains significant discretion for youth justice judges and youth justice courts. I think as a result of the continued discretion—

[Gilles Ouimet, Former President, Barreau du Québec]

I'll be addressing the committee in French.

On behalf of the Barreau du Québec, I would like to thank you for welcoming us. Joining me are Mr. Battista, president of our committee on criminal law, and Dominique Trahan, president of the committee on youth law. For your information, it is important to know that these two committees of the Barreau, which were involved in drafting our brief, are made up of both prosecutors and defence lawyers. The committee members represent the state, the victims and the accused alike.

I would like to remind the public that the primary mission of the Barreau du Québec is to protect the public under the law. So the Barreau does not take the side of any particular party in the criminal justice system. As part of its mission of protecting the public, the Barreau is sharing its unbiased view on the bills currently being studied in Parliament.

The Québec Bar regrets the government's choice to have an omnibus bill and, moreover, to insist on making those amendments within 100 days. Unfortunately, this decision will muddle the issues and undermine our ability to determine the real needs of Canadians. Our natural tendency to contrast diverse opinions on complex topics, such as the fair and equitable treatment of victims and offenders, only leads to oversimplifying those opinions.

In passing legislation, we should not be constantly weighing the rights of victims against the rights of the accused. Canadians expect legislators and all players in the justice system, including victims groups, to work together on passing the best possible legislation that meets the real needs of our society. In light of that, the number and length of the consultations preceding the passing of a bill should not be considered or denounced as inconveniences.

The increased use and number of mandatory minimum penalties are the figurehead of Bill C-10. The bill specifically proposes the increase in certain mandatory minimum penalties that had been passed in 2005, although the true effect of those penalties is not actually known yet. At the Québec Bar we definitely believe that mandatory minimum penalties make our criminal justice system more complex and less effective, while raising the possibility of miscarriages of justice.

One of the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Only judicial discretion can adequately balance the various principles of sentencing and the circumstances of an offence, and can, as a result, impose a just sentence.

On the issue of minimum penalties and their effect, the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously acknowledged the following:

Even if it can be argued that harsh, unfit sentences may prove to be a powerful deterrent, and therefore still serve a valid purpose, it seems to me that sentences that are unjustly severe are more likely to inspire contempt and resentment than to foster compliance with the law.

Of all the pernicious effects of mandatory minimum penalties, the most negative and harmful aspect for our society is definitely the message that is being sent to the public about their justice system and the judges.

If Parliament considers that it is necessary to restrict courts from imposing a just sentence to such an extent, the inevitable conclusion is that we cannot trust judges to get the job done. Is it really necessary to show the devastating effect of this powerful message in a free and democratic society like ours, founded on the rule of law?

In short, it is unfortunate to see how isolated anecdotes continue to be used to justify mandatory minimum penalties. This was clearly seen in the comments made at the committee's last meeting, on October 18. The case that was discussed had to do with a judge who handed down a sentence of only 23 months to someone who had sexually assaulted a child, saying that he had spared the child's virginity. The problem is that the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which passed a sentence of nearly four years. But no one mentioned that. That is exactly what appeal courts are supposed to do in our justice system.

As for the amendments proposed to the youth criminal justice system, the Barreau reiterates its concerns about Bill C-4, which makes up much of Bill C-10. In the letter of September 30, 2011, that Jean-Marc Fournier, Quebec's Minister of Justice and Attorney General, sent to Minister Nicholson regarding this bill, he criticizes the fact that the fundamental principles of youth rehabilitation and social reintegration are pushed aside. Those are preferred principles in the Quebec model because they ensure the lasting protection of society. The Barreau shares Minister Fournier's opinion; he concluded the letter by asking that the bill not be passed without considering the needs of Quebec society.

The Barreau once again stresses the importance of maintaining the specific nature of youth criminal justice, by focusing on rehabilitation as a solution to protect the public in the long term.

[Eric Gottardi]

Yes, I am aware that some of these bills have been considered before, in the House and by committee. But there are significant component parts of the bill that have had no opportunity for consultation.

The bill that my colleague Professor Jackson has focused on has had little or no analysis, and it represents a fundamental sea change in policy for Canada in terms of how we as Canadians are going to deal with our offenders and of how they are treated inside our corrective institutions and of how they are better prepared to be released back into our communities.

I also recognize that bills such as Bill C-4, dealing with youth criminal justice, have had extensive consultation. Yet many of the recommendations for amendments we have not seen implemented in Bill C-10.

And the amendments that were made were added in and not specifically drawn to our attention. We had to sift through these bills to find out what had changed, only to discover that the bail regime in the Youth Criminal Justice Act is set to be completely overhauled with no reference to the bail regime that is currently in the Criminal Code. We're going to see more and more at risk youth detained before their trials.

We also see changes in the Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments that will remove the high standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” that was put in place to ensure that young offenders are not subjected, improperly and contrary to the constitutional imperatives found by the Supreme Court of Canada, to an adult sentence and to publication of their names, with the stigmatization and labelization that happens thereby.

We had to sift through to find those changes so that we could come to try to make comment to this committee. We have tried to do this in our 100-page written material, which I commend to all of you and hope you will take the time to review carefully.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I want to address a comment that was made by Mr. Gottardi, who said that there has been little previous review and that this is undemocratic.

Mr. Gottardi, were you aware that former Bill C-4, Bill C-5, Bill C-16, Bill C-39, Bill C-23B, Bill C-54, Bill S-7, Bill S-10, and Bill C-56, which are the primary components of this legislation, had 49 days of debate in the House of Commons, 200 speakers, 45 committee meetings, and 123 hours of committee study with 295 witnesses who appeared?

Can you square that circle for me, to say how there has been very little study of this legislation?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the ministers. You're both very articulate in explaining the provisions of these acts, and I want to thank you for that.

I had the privilege of serving on this committee in the last Parliament. I stand to be corrected, but if memory serves me, I think our committee spent something in the range of 18 meetings simply studying what was then Bill C-4 regarding young offenders. We heard from quite a number of witnesses over a great many hours of testimony. I was sometimes amazed at the things that witnesses who came in believed about this bill. For example, they seemed to think that we were taking out of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions regarding rehabilitation and reintegration and addressing circumstances underlying behaviour. Yet if you look at what we were doing and are still doing, I think all of those things are retained.

My question is for Minister Nicholson. Some of the criticisms were that the bill was focused more on punishing all young offenders rather than rehabilitating them. But my understanding is that Bill C-4 was responding and targeting and focusing on the 5% or so of young offenders who were violent and repeat young offenders and who really posed a threat to public safety. It was those people, that very small number of young and violent offenders, who were being targeted and focused on by Bill C-4, and the balance, the rehabilitation and so on, remained.

Minister Nicholson, does the new Bill C-10 maintain this same approach with respect to young offenders?

[The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Rob Nicholson]

Thank you very much. I'm pleased to be here with Catherine Kane, from the Department of Justice, who I think you know very well from all the different pieces of legislation we've had.

I'm pleased to address the members of the committee, as they begin their review of Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act fulfills our government's commitment to quickly reintroduce legislation to combat crime and stand up for victims and law-abiding Canadians. As you know, Canadians gave us a strong mandate to bring forward measures that will better protect society and ensure criminals are held accountable for their actions.

Bill C-10 combines nine bills that were not passed in the previous Parliament. All of them have been debated in the House of Commons and/or the Senate.

I am pleased today to be joined by my colleague, the Honourable Vic Toews, the Minister of Safety, to outline the important measures contained in this bill. I will speak to parts 2 and 4 of the bill. Minister Toews will speak to parts 1 and 3 of the bill.

As I previously stated, while the text of Bill C-10 is certainly longer than most, the fact remains that these reforms have been debated, studied, and in some cases passed by at least one chamber. I encourage all members of the committee to consult the parliamentary record that exists for all of the previous bills.

I'll take a few moments to highlight a number of the measures.

Part 2 of the Safe Streets and Communities Act includes former Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act. As you may know, it proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose mandatory penalties for the offences of production, trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting a schedule I drug, such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, and schedule II drugs such as marijuana.

As you may be aware, this is the fourth time the bill has been introduced. They've been passed by both chambers, but obviously never by both in the same session. This bill is in exactly the same form it was in at the dissolution of the last Parliament.

Part 2 also includes reforms previously proposed by the former Bill C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act. The reforms would explicitly state that a conditional sentence is never available for offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life; offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm, involve the import and/or export, trafficking, and production of drugs, or involve the use of a weapon; or the listed property and violent offences punishable by 10 years and prosecuted by indictment, such as criminal harassment, trafficking in persons, and theft over $5,000.

This is the third time these reforms have been introduced by our government. On each prior occasion, they received second reading approval in principle and scope.

I note there have been a few technical changes made to the list of excluded offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years. These include changes to include the recently enacted new offence of motor vehicle theft and to coordinate the proposed imposition of a mandatory sentence of imprisonment in section 172.1, the luring of a child, with the conditional sentences amendments.

The last component of part 2 is on the reforms previously proposed by Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act. These reforms seek to consistently and adequately condemn all forms of child sexual abuse through the imposition of new and higher mandatory penalties. They also seek to prevent the commission of sexual offences against children through the creation of two new offences. We also seek to require the courts to consider imposing conditions to prevent suspected or convicted child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate or further a sexual offence against a child.

Bill C-54 had been passed by the House of Commons with all-party support. It was at debate on third reading in the Senate when the opposition parties unfortunately decided to force an election. I was very disappointed that this important bill then died on the order paper.

We've made some changes since that time, as you will see, to increase maximum penalties with a corresponding increase in mandatory minimum sentences to better reflect the nature of the offences, including making or distributing child pornography or a parent or guardian procuring his or her child for unlawful sexual activity.

These changes are consistent with the government's objectives for the former Bill C-54. As well, the two new sexual offences proposed by this part would be added to schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act to ensure that persons convicted of either offence are subject to the same period of ineligibility for a record suspension, currently referred to as a pardon, as they are for other child sexual offences.

Finally, part IV of the bill proposes to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to strengthen the way the system deals with violent and repeat young offenders.

These measures include highlighting protection of the public as a principle, making it easier to detain youth charged with serious offences pending trial, ensuring that prosecutors consider seeking adult sentences for the most serious offences, requiring police to keep records of extra judicial measures, and requiring courts to lift the publication ban on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences when a youth sentence is given. These reforms were previously proposed in Bill C-4 , Sebastien's Law.

The former Bill C-4 was extensively studied by the House of Commons standing committee through 16 meetings at the dissolution of the previous Parliament. The bill includes changes to address concerns that have been highlighted by the provinces regarding pretrial adult sentencing and deferred custody provisions in the bill. For example, changes to the pretrial detention provisions respond to the provinces' request for more flexibility to detain youth who are spiralling out of control and pose a risk to the public--by committing a serious offence if released--even if they have not been charged initially with a serious offence. The test for pretrial detention would now be self-contained in the act, without requiring reference to the Criminal Code, which is currently the case.

Other technical changes include removing the proposed test for adult sentences and deferred custody and supervision orders and returning to the current law's approach. For example, the former bill referred to the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which some provinces found more difficult to meet. That has been removed. The bill continues the current approach of leaving it up to the courts to determine the appropriate standard of proof.

Under Bill C-10, deferred custody and supervision orders will not be available if the youth has been found guilty of an offence involving or attempting to cause serious bodily harm.

In closing, most of Bill C-10's reforms have been debated and studied, and some have even passed. The few new elements I've outlined are consistent with the objectives of the former bills, as originally introduced, or make some needed technical changes. I urge the committee to work with the government to support the timely enactment of the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

We are taking action to protect families, stand up for victims, and hold individuals accountable. Canadians can count on our government's commitment to fulfill its promise to pass this comprehensive bill within the first 100 sitting days of this Parliament.

Thank you very much.

I would ask Minister Toews now to deliver his remarks.

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

We all know that the safe streets and communities act proposes a wide range of reforms to strengthen the law's response to several things: child sexual abuse and exploitation, serious drug and violent property crimes, terrorism, violent young offenders, offender accountability and management, and the protection of vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation.

As many hon. members have noted, the bill brings together in one comprehensive package reforms that were included in nine bills that were put before the previous Parliament and that died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament for the general election.

I will itemize these. These former bills are: Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders); Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act; Bill C-16, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act; Bill C-23B, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act; Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act; Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act; Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act; Bill C-59, Abolition of Early Parole Act; Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act; and finally Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.

Many hon. members have participated in several hours of debate today and ongoing debate from the last Parliament to now. It is clear that some do not share the same views as the government about the need to address crime in our society, the need to increase public safety, the need to better balance the role of victims in the justice system and the need to make offenders more accountable.

My remarks here today need not repeat what some of my hon. colleagues have already noted about the key features of Bill C-10 and the importance of these reforms. I propose to briefly comment on the important reforms proposed in Bill C-10 as they relate to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act came into effect in April 2003. The reforms now proposed in Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act, have been shaped by consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. After five years of experience with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a review was launched by the Minister of Justice in 2008. This began with discussions with provincial and territorial attorneys general to identify the issues that they considered most important.

In May 2008, the Minister of Justice began a series of cross-country round tables, often co-chaired by provincial and territorial ministers, in order to hear from youth justice professionals, front-line youth justice stakeholders and others about areas of concern and possible improvements regarding the provisions and principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Input from individuals and organizations was also provided through the Department of Justice website, in letters and in in-person meetings. The results showed clearly that most provinces, territories and stakeholders believe the current youth legislation works well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes. However, there were concerns about the small number of youth who commit serious, violent offences or who are repeat offenders who may need a more focused approach to ensure the public is protected.

Clearly, the message was to build upon the good foundation of the law and make much needed improvements and the reforms proposed in Bill C-10 reflect this. Although the Youth Criminal Justice Act is working well for most youth, particular elements of the act need to be strengthened to ensure that youth who commit serious, violent or repeat offences are held accountable with sentences and other measures that are proportionate to the severity of the crime and the degree of the responsibility of the offender.

There have been concerns voiced from many sources and this government has responded. The reforms included in Bill C-10, previously included in Bill C-4, known as Sébastien's law, would enhance our fair and effective youth justice system and result in a system that holds youth accountable for their criminal misconduct and promotes their rehabilitation and re-integration into society in order to promote the protection of the public.

In addressing amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it is important to note that the act's preamble specifically references that Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Youth Criminal Justice Act also recognizes that young persons have rights and freedoms, including those stated in the charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights. Nothing in Bill C-10 will impair these rights of young persons.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act provides for a range of responses that relate to the seriousness of the crime. These sentences also address the needs and circumstances of the youth and promote rehabilitation.

Amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act will ensure that young people under 18 who are serving a custody sentence will serve it in a youth custody facility. It will no longer be possible to put young people in adult prisons or penitentiaries, where the correctional regime is more suited to adults and where young people could all too easily become vulnerable to older, more hardened criminals. It is in the interests of the protection of society that young people become rehabilitated, and this amendment is aimed to ensure that this takes place.

While a sound legislative base is an essential part of ensuring that Canada has a fair and effective youth justice system, it is also essential to address the conditions that underlie criminal behaviour if we are to achieve any long-term or meaningful solution to the problem. Conditions such as addiction, difficult childhoods, mental health, fetal alcohol syndrome, or longer-term marginalization will continue to pose challenges to solving the problems of youth offending.

Our government has implemented various programs to assist in addressing these issues. The national anti-drug strategy has a significant youth focus. On the prevention front, the government has launched a national public awareness program and campaign to discourage our youth from using illicit drugs. The government has made funding available under the youth justice fund for pilot treatment programs that will assist with the rehabilitation of youth who have drug problems and are in the justice system, and for programs that are working toward preventing youth from becoming involved with guns, gangs and drugs.

Partnering with health, education, employment and other service providers beyond the traditional system, we can all work together. For example, through the youth justice fund the Department of Justice provided funding to a pilot program called Career Path, which offers a comprehensive specialized service for youth in the justice system who are at risk or are involved in gang activities. The program offers youth educational training and employment opportunities by connecting them with an employer who will also act as a mentor to facilitate making smart choices, foster pro-social attitudes, build leadership skills and gain valuable employability skills as a viable option to gang membership.

The reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are essential and responsive and should be supported as a key part of a broader effort on the part of the government to prevent and respond to youth involved in the justice system.

I would like to bring it a little closer to home, if I may.

This is the story of Ann Tavares, of London, who suffered a huge loss in November of 2004 when Stephan Lee stabbed her son 28 times. Steven Tavares was an innocent victim who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His death irreparably scarred the lives of those who loved him forever. That loss is what happened.

To compound her tragedy, her son's killer was found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder and sent to an Alberta hospital the following year. He was conditionally released in May 2008 and is now living in Alberta. All of this happened without notification to the victim's family or the public at large.

Suffering such a loss might have destroyed an individual. However, this became an impetus for Ann's quest to make others aware of what happened to her son and the lack of justice for this heinous crime. She has lobbied tirelessly against the inequities of the system, a system the government is trying to fix.

Ann strongly felt that there needs to be a connection between mental illness and crime. Specifically, she felt that the insanity defence needs to be banned. She felt that to say a perpetrator is not criminally responsible is too subjective. Mental impairment is a defence that anyone can claim. If someone commits a crime, that person should be punished.

She believes mental illness should not absolve someone from the crime they committed. The punishment needs to be based on the severity of the crime, and a fixed minimum time needs to be served before they are put back into the community. However, Ann did want good to come of her tragic situation. In addition to the punishment, she felt that the perpetrator should get mental health treatment, and that to protect innocent victims like her son and the community at large, such criminals should not be released into the community until they have been certified as not a risk to others.

I would like to expand on that through the questions and answers, if I might, Madam Speaker.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act

Bill C-10 is a comprehensive bill that brings together reforms proposed from nine bills that were before the previous Parliament. The short title of the bill, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, reflects the overall intent of this comprehensive legislation. It seeks to safeguard Canadians and Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast. This is such a fundamental principle and objective. To my mind, this objective should be unanimously supported by all parliamentarians in all instances and in all cases. While I appreciate there are many issues on which we as lawmakers may reasonably disagree the safety and security of Canadians, including that of vulnerable children, should never be one such issue.

Let us consider this comprehensive bill is. It proposes amendments that generally seek to do the following:

First, Bill C-10, through part 2, proposes to better protect children and youth from sexual predators. These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-54 in the last Parliament, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act.

Specifically, these amendments would propose new and higher mandatory minimum penalties to ensure that all sexual offences involving child victims are consistently and strongly condemned. They would create two new offences to target preparatory conduct to the commission of a sexual offence against a child. They would also enable courts to impose conditions on suspected or convicted child sex offenders to prevent them from engaging in conduct that could lead to their committing another sexual offence against a child.

Second, through part 2, Bill C-10 proposes to increase penalties by imposing mandatory minimum penalties when specified aggravated factors are present for serious drug offences. Those offences would be the production, trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, possession for the purpose of exporting of schedule 1 drugs such as heroine, cocaine, methamphetamine, and schedule 2 drugs such as marijuana.

These offences often involve organized crime, including gang warfare over turf, which in turn brings its own disastrous impact on Canadian communities. They also enable and feed drug abuse, the negative impact of which is not only felt by the addicted individual but also by the family of that addict, as well as by the Canadian health system and the economy.

These reforms were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in former Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.

Third, part 2 of the bill includes what was previously proposed in former Bill C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act to end house arrest for serious crimes.

Under these reforms offences carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years, as well as serious offences that are punishable by 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment, that result in bodily harm, or the import or export, trafficking and production of drugs, or that involve the use of a weapon, or that is specifically identified, would never be eligible to receive a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Fourth, Bill C-10, through part 4, proposes to protect the public from violent and repeat young offenders. These amendments include: recognizing the protection of society as a principle in the Youth Criminal Justice Act; making it easier to detain youths charged with serious offences pending trial; requiring the courts to consider adult sentences for the most serious and violent cases; and, requiring the police to keep records of extrajudicial measures.

These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-4, Sébastien's law and respond to the Supreme Court of Canada 2008 judgment in Regina v. D.B., and the 2006 Nova Scotia report of the Nunn commission of inquiry “Spiralling Out of Control, Lessons Learned From a Boy in Trouble”.

Fifth, Bill C-10, through part 3, includes proposals to replace the word "pardons" with "record suspensions". It would expand the period of ineligibility to apply for a record suspension and proposes to make record suspensions unavailable for certain offences, including child sexual offences, and for persons who have been convicted of more than three offences prosecuted by indictment and for each of which the individual received a sentence of two years or more.

These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-23B, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act.

Sixth, Bill C-10, also through part 3, proposes to codify some additional key factors in deciding whether a Canadian who has been convicted abroad would be granted a transfer back to Canada. These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act.

Seventh, Bill C-10, through part 3, proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to recognize the rights of victims, increase offender accountability and responsibility, and modernize the disciplinary system for inmates. These proposals were previously proposed in former Bill C-39, the Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act.

Eighth, Bill C-10, through part 1, seeks to deter terrorism by supporting victims of terrorism. Specifically, these reforms would enable victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that is incurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985. These amendments were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in former Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Last, Bill C-10, through part 5, proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect vulnerable foreign nationals against abuse and exploitation. These amendments were previously proposed in former Bill C-56, the Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act.

I have briefly summarized the nine core elements of Bill C-10. All of these proposed amendments seek to better protect Canadians. That is something on which we should all be able to agree. Certainly, we know it is something on which Canadians agree. I call on all members to support the bill at second reading so it can be quickly referred to and studied by the justice committee.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

The bill would fulfill the government's commitment in the June 2011 Speech from the Throne to bundle and quickly reintroduce crime bills that died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved for the general election.

Integral to this commitment, as articulated in the Speech from the Throne, are two key statements that I want to quote because I think they give voice to what all Canadians firmly believe.

First:

The Government of Canada has no more fundamental duty than to protect the personal safety of our citizens and defend against threats to our national security.

Second:

Our government has always believed the interests of law-abiding citizens should be placed ahead of those of criminals. Canadians who are victimized or threatened by crime deserve their government's support and protection--

In my view, this precisely characterizes Bill C-10. It packages nine former bills that, collectively, recognize and seek to protect our vulnerabilities; for example, children's vulnerability to being preyed upon by adult sexual predators, foreign workers' vulnerability to being exploited by unscrupulous Canadian employers, and our collective vulnerability to suffering the harms that go hand in hand with serious drug crimes, such as drug trafficking, production and acts of terrorism.

Knowing this, and knowing as well that many of these reforms have been previously debated, studied and passed by at least one chamber, there is no reason not to support Bill C-10 in this Parliament.

Bill C-10 is divided into five parts.

Part 1 proposes to deter terrorism by supporting victims. It would create a new cause of action for victims of terrorism to enable them to sue not only the perpetrators of terrorism but all those who support terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism or omission committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985.

The State Immunity Act would be amended to remove immunity from those states that the government has listed as supporters of terrorism. These amendments were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in the form of Bill S-7, justice for victims of terrorism act, in the previous session of Parliament. They are reintroduced in Bill C-10, with technical changes to correct grammatical and cross-reference errors.

Part 2 proposes to strengthen our existing responses to child exploitation and serious drug crimes, as well as serious violent and property crimes. It would better protect children against sexual abuse in several ways, including by uniformly and strongly condemning all forms of child sex abuse through the imposition of newer and higher mandatory minimum penalties, as well as creating new core powers to impose conditions to prevent suspected or convicted child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate or further their sexual offences against children.

These reforms are the same as they were in former Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators act, with the addition of proposed increases to the maximum penalty for four offences and corresponding increases in their mandatory minimum penalities to better reflect the particularly heinous nature of these offences.

Part 2 also proposes to specify that conditional sentences of imprisonment, often referred to as house arrest, are never available for offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life, for offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm, trafficking and production of drugs or that involve the use of a weapon, or for listed serious property and violent offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that are prosecuted by indictment.

These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-16, ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious violent offenders act which had received second reading in this House and was referred to the justice committee when it died on the order paper.

It is in the same form as before with, again, a few technical changes that are consistent with the objectives of the bill as was originally introduced.

Part 2 also proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences involving production and/or possession for the purposes of trafficking and/or importing and exporting and/or possession for the purpose of exporting Schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and Schedule II drugs, such as marijuana.

These mandatory minimum penalties would be imposed where there is an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard, or the offence was committed in or near a school.

This is the fourth time that these amendments have been introduced. They are in the same form as they were the last time when they were passed by the Senate as former Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, in the previous Parliament.

Part 3 proposes numerous post-sentencing reforms to better support victims and to increase offender accountability and management. Specifically, it reintroduces reforms previously contained in three bills from the previous Parliament: Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act; Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act; and Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill C-10 reintroduces these reforms with some technical changes.

Part 4 reintroduces much needed reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better deal with violent and repeat young offenders. Part 4 includes reforms that would ensure the protection of the public is always considered a principle in dealing with young offenders and that will make it easier to detain youth charged with serious offences pending trial.

These reforms were also previously proposed in former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders).

Part 5 proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to better protect foreign workers against abuse and exploitation. Their reintroduction in Bill C-10 reflects the fifth time that these reforms have been before Parliament, with the last version being former Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act.

In short, Bill C-10 proposes many needed and welcome reforms to safeguard Canadians. Many have already been supported in the previous Parliament and Canadians are again expecting us to support them in this Parliament.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Bill C-10 is comprehensive legislation that addresses a number of serious issues that are in front of mind for this government and for all Canadians.

It proposes legislative reforms to strengthen our existing responses to: child sexual abuse and exploitation as well as serious drug, violent and property crimes found in part 2, clauses 10 to 51; terrorism, found in part 1, clauses 2 to 9; violent young offenders, part 4, clauses 167 to 204; offender accountability and management, part 3, clauses 52 to 166; and the protection of vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, part 5, clauses 205 to 207.

There can be no question that this is an important package of reforms. That is why we must take our task as lawmakers seriously, and study and pass these proposals to ensure the safety of all Canadians.

Bill C-10 compiles the reforms that were included in nine bills that were before the previous Parliament which died on the order paper with the dissolution of that Parliament for the general election. Former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders) is now in part 4 of Bill C-10. Former Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-16, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act is now in part 2. Former Bill C-23B, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act is now in part 2. Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act is now in part 5. Former Bill C-59, Abolition of Early Parole Act is now in part 3. Former Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act is now in part 1. Former Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act is now in part 2.

Many of these former bills were previously debated, studied and some were even passed by the House of Commons. Therefore, they should easily be supported again in this Parliament.

I would like to focus the balance of my remarks on the proposals in Bill C-10 to better protect children against sexual exploitation, that being those reforms now in part 2 of this legislation that were previously in Bill C-54 in the last session of Parliament.

The reforms build on the government's well-established commitment and track record in delivering concrete measures tackling violent crime, and in particular to safeguard children against violent sexual offenders. For example, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, 2008 raised the age of consent of sexual activity from 14 to 16 years to better protect Canadian youth against adult sexual predators. It also better protected all Canadians against dangerous offenders by providing police, crown prosecutors and the courts with much needed tools to more effectively manage the threat posed by individuals who were at high risk of reoffending sexually and violently.

While it is true that our existing criminal laws addressing child sexual abuse and exploitation are already comprehensive and robust, there is always room for improvement. We should never be complacent in ensuring that we are doing all we can to safeguard such a vulnerable segment of the Canadian population.

This point is underscored by Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Juristat article “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2010”, released on July 21, 2011, which reported increases in the rates of child pornography offences as up 36% and sexual assault as up 5%.

The proposed reforms in Bill C-10 are both timely and welcome. They address clear gaps in our existing laws. The address the gap created by inconsistent penalties for sexual assault offences where the victim is a child and the gap that now exists because some of the preparatory conduct engaged in by child sex offenders is not criminalized. They fill a gap in our existing measures to help prevent known or suspected child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their sexual offences.

The proposals in Bill C-10 seek to ensure that all sexual offences involving a child are treated equally, seriously and consistently. They do so by: proposing to impose new mandatory minimum penalties for offences involving child victims that currently do not carry minimum penalties; increasing the mandatory minimum penalties for some child sex offences that are already imposed; and, by increasing the maximum penalties on some other offences. Once these reforms are enacted, there would be a consistent approach to sentencing in all sexual assault cases involving child victims.

Child sexual assault could be charged under any of the child-specific sexual offences or under the general sexual assault offences that also apply to adult victims. Currently, 12 but not all child-specific sexual offences impose mandatory minimum penalties and none of the general sexual assault offences impose mandatory minimum penalties.

In practice, this means that the overwhelming majority of child sexual assault cases do not carry mandatory minimum sentences. This is because the majority of child sexual offences are charged under the general sexual assault offence in section 271, which does not currently impose a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. That is 80% of all child sex offences charged in 2008. The source of this information is Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, UCR2. It is very current data.

If we take as our starting point the universally shared view that all child sexual abuse must be strongly condemned and that mandatory minimum penalties are exceptional in the Criminal Code and are reserved for those crimes that Parliament determines must be strongly denounced and deterred, it should be obvious to all that the current use of mandatory minimum sentences for some but not all sexual offences involving child victims is just wrong. That sends a message to some victims that their experience of sexual assault is less serious than that of other child victims. It also sends a message to child sex offenders that they should try to plea bargain for charges under offences that do not impose mandatory minimum penalties.

Bill C-10 contains fundamental legislative safeguards for all Canadians. I call upon the opposition members to put an end to their attempts to obstruct the bill and to support our efforts to keep Canadians safe.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my previous comments, I was talking about Bill C-10 and specifically the portion affecting the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

On the old Bill C-4 from the last Parliament, the justice committee heard concerns from many of the provincial attorneys general concerning the issue of pretrial detention. I would remind the House that the primary concern of provinces with the approach of Bill C-4 was that pretrial detention would not be available to a youth charged with an offence that was not “a serious offence”.

The provisions in the current Bill C-10 address this concern. Under the proposed amendments, pretrial detention of a youth charged with a non-serious offence is possible if the youth has a history that indicates a pattern of either outstanding charges or findings of guilt and if the court finds that detention is necessary for the protection and safety of the public.

This change would allow for detention of so-called out-of-control youth who would pose a danger to society even if that youth were not presently before the court on a serious offence charge.

Moreover, the test for pretrial detention will be self-contained in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, without requiring reference to the Criminal Code provisions as is currently the case.

The second modification to the former Bill C-4 deals with the availability of the deferred custody and supervision order, which is a Youth Criminal Justice Act sentencing option that allows a young person who would otherwise be sentenced to custody to serve his or her sentence in the community under conditions. If those conditions are violated, the young person can be sent to custody.

Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, this order is not available as a sentencing option if the young person has been found guilty of a serious violent offence, currently defined in the act as an offence in the commission of which a young person causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm.

The new narrower definition of a “serious violent offence” proposed in Bill C-4 would have expanded the scope of offences for which deferred custody and supervision orders would be available.

However, the provisions in the current bill include the new definition of “serious violent offence” and would also include a change to the amendments proposed in the former Bill C-4 in order to retain the current law on eligibility for these orders, meaning that a deferred custody and supervision order will not be available if the youth is found guilty of an offence involving either serious bodily harm or an attempt to cause serious bodily harm. I think members could agree with me that these modifications are an improvement over the former Bill C-4.

The third modification since Bill C-4 concerns the adult sentencing provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The amendments to the former Bill C-4 and contained in this new bill would require a prosecutor to consider seeking an adult sentence for young offenders 14 and older who committed serious violent offences. Prosecutors would also have to inform the court if they decided not to apply for an adult sentence for individual 14 or older who were convicted of a serious violent offence. When the Crown would apply for an adult sentence, the onus would have been on the Crown to convince the judge that an adult sentence was justified.

In part these amendments respond to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the case of R. v. D.B. that certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act violated section 7 of the charter. These presumptive offence provisions placed an onus on a young person found guilty of certain serious violent offences to justify receiving a youth rather than an adult sentence and to justify the continued protection of their privacy.

The proposed amendments remove the presumptive offence provisions from the Youth Criminal Justice Act as well as other inoperative provisions to clarify the test for the imposition of an adult sentence and ensure that the onus is on the Crown to satisfy the court as to the appropriateness of an adult sentence.

In the former Bill C-4 the proposed test for an adult sentence would have required that a judge be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an adult sentence was necessary. When we were consulting, a number of the provinces expressed the view that “beyond a reasonable doubt” was too high a standard to meet, was not required by the current case law and would make it significantly more difficult to obtain adult sentences in appropriate circumstances.

The current proposals remove reference to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that had been in the former Bill C-4, thus leaving it up to the courts to determine the appropriate standard of proof, as is the case under the current law.

I think all members of the House will agree that the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act included in Bill C-10 are the result of the widespread consultations and respond to the concerns of Canadians. Our government listened to our provincial and territorial counterparts, to provincial attorneys general, Canadians and victims and have made the necessary changes to this part of Bill C-10.

I think all members can agree that the changes I have described and outlined for the House are reasonable and responsive. I encourage all hon. members to support all parts of Bill C-10.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-10.

As hon. members know, Bill C-10 contains provisions from various bills that were introduced in the previous Parliament, but unfortunately were blocked by the opposition.

The focus of my remarks today will be on the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act reflect what we as parliamentarians have been hearing from our constituents. They are concerned about the threat posed by violent young offenders as well as by youth who may commit non-violent offences but who appear to be spiralling out of control towards more and more dangerous and harmful behaviour. In talking to fellow Canadians, we have found that they can lose faith in the youth criminal justice system when sentences given to violent and repeat young offenders do not make these youth accountable for their actions.

The package of Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments also responds to issues raised during cross-country consultations, to key decisions of the courts, to concerns raised by the provinces and territories, and to the positions put forward by the many witnesses who appeared before the justice committee during its study of former Bill C-4.

The reforms reflect the widely held view that while the Youth Criminal Justice Act is working fairly well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes, there are concerns about the small number of youth who commit serious repeat or violent offences.

The proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are found in part 4, clauses 167 through 204, of the comprehensive Safe Streets and Communities Act. With a few exceptions, the proposed changes are the same as the changes that were proposed in former Bill C-4, also known as Sébastien's law.

Bill C-4 was introduced in the House of Commons on March 16, 2010 and was before the House of Commons justice and human rights committee, of which I am a member, when Parliament was dissolved prior to the May 2011 election.

As I have indicated, most of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions in the bill now before us were included in former Bill C-4. However, after Bill C-4 was introduced in Parliament, a number of provincial attorneys general expressed concerns about the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions dealing specifically with pretrial detention, deferred custody and supervision orders, and adult sentencing.

These concerns were raised directly with the Minister of Justice and were brought before the justice committee. The government has listened carefully to these and other concerns, and has responded by making the appropriate changes to the previous legislation.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, has already given the House a thoughtful and thorough description of the provisions that were found in former Bill C-4, I will specifically discuss the minor changes that are included in this version of the bill.

With respect to pretrial detention, the government recognizes that the current Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions are complex, leading to a varied application of the provisions by the courts.

Bill C-4 proposes a much more straightforward approach to pretrial detention that would have allowed courts to detain a youth awaiting trial if the youth was charged with a serious offence and the court found a substantial likelihood that, if released, the youth would either not appear in court when required to do so or would commit a serious offence while awaiting trial.

The provinces' primary concern with the approach of Bill C-4 was that pretrial detention would be available for youth charged with an offence that was not deemed to be a serious offence. They felt that this could prevent detention of a youth who, although currently charged with a non-serious offence, had a prior history of charges or offending and appeared to be spiralling out of control and thus was posing a risk to public safety.

I will be happy to—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be in the House today to talk about the important changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are included in the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Since coming to power in 2006, our government has been working hard to ensure that Canadians can feel safe and secure in their communities. A key part of this ongoing work has focused on improvements to our youth criminal justice system. In particular, the government is taking action to strengthen the ways in which the system deals with serious, repeat and violent young offenders. My remarks today will focus on some of the key proposals that address those concerns.

First, the proposed amendments ensure that protection of society remains a key goal of the youth criminal justice system.

While the principles of the youth criminal justice system currently identify the long-term protection of the public as an objective of the act, the bill before us would make it clear that the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by holding young offenders accountable, by promoting their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and by preventing crime by addressing the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour.

A youth justice system that fails to protect society fails Canadians. Canadians have the right to be protected from crime, including youth crime, and the Government of Canada is committed to achieving that goal.

During our committee hearings on the former Bill C-4, some witnesses expressed the view that this change to the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act would move us toward a more punitive youth justice system and away from a system that emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration.

In fact, if members look at the full statement of principles in the amendment, it is clear that this is simply not the case. Indeed, the proposed amendment specifically states that rehabilitation, reintegration and crime prevention are key to the protection of society.

Furthermore, the bill also proposes amending the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act by adding a fundamental principle of justice already articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, namely that the youth criminal justice system must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or diminished culpability.

Therefore, the proposed changes to the principles reflect a balanced approach that, together with the preservation of the existing principles, will guide those working within the youth criminal justice system to respond to youth in a more effective manner.

The proposed amendments also make important changes to the principles of sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The amendments add specific deterrence and denunciation as principles to guide a judge in sentencing young offenders. Right now, deterrence and denunciation are not even included as objectives in youth sentencing decisions, even though many Canadians believe that young offenders' sentences should be designed to deter further offending and to send a message to that particular young offender before the court that criminal behaviour is simply not acceptable.

However, the proposed amendment would also make it very clear that a sentence must still be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence. That means, for example, that judges will not be able to give a young offender an extra-long sentence just to send a message to other youth that the unlawful behaviour was wrong.

Once again, in my view these changes, taken together with the existing principles of sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, represent a balanced approach that will allow courts to respond to youth crime in an appropriate and effective way.

The package of reforms also includes several significant changes to the definition sections of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The amended act would define “serious offence” as any indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty in the Criminal Code or in another act of Parliament of five years or more.

This definition includes both property offences, such as auto theft and theft over $5,000, and violent offences, such as common assault, sexual assault and robbery.

Right now there is no definition of “serious offence” in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This new definition will have important implications for pretrial detention, and I will touch on them in a few moments.

The amendments also expand the meaning of “violent offence” under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The current scope of “violent offence” under the act was interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada as including offences in which a young offender causes or attempts to cause or threatens to cause bodily harm, but not to include other offences that endanger someone's life or safety. An example is dangerous driving.

The proposed definition includes offences in which a young person actually endangers the life or safety of another person by creating the substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm. This new definition would have application in a number of areas, including the imposition of custodial sentences and the lifting of publication bans.

The proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act modify the restrictions on the use of custody as a youth sentencing measure. Apart from exceptional cases, currently a court cannot impose a custodial sentence on a young offender unless that young offender has committed a violent offence, failed to comply with previous non-custodial sentences, or committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, and also has a history that demonstrates a pattern of findings of guilt.

The proposed amendment pertains to the third circumstance, namely to cases in which a young offender has committed a non-violent indictable offence for which an adult is liable to more than two years in prison. The amendment would simply allow and give discretion to a judge to impose a custodial sentence in such a case if the youth's history demonstrated a pattern of findings of guilt or of extrajudicial sanctions or both.

This means that custody could be an option for a young offender who has been found guilty of a non-violent offence and who has in the past engaged in criminal behaviour for which the youth has admitted responsibility, but which was dealt with through extrajudicial sanctions. This simply allows the court to take the youth's full history into account to help determine the appropriate sentence.

The bill also creates a requirement that records be kept when extrajudicial measures are used by law enforcement, which will make it easier to find patterns of repeated reoffending that the police and others may take into account in deciding on appropriate interventions, such as whether to use another extrajudicial measure or proceed through the courts.

Changes to the publication provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act are also contained in this package of reforms. Currently the identity of a young offender is protected, and identifying information can be published only in limited circumstances; for example, the publication ban is automatically lifted if a youth receives an adult sentence. The publication ban could also be lifted by the judge in cases in which a youth has received a youth sentence for an offence that falls within a very narrow category of the most serious violent offences.

The new law requires judges simply to consider lifting publication bans whenever a youth sentence is imposed on a youth found guilty of a violent offence. The publication ban could be lifted, but only if the judge finds that the young person poses a significant risk of committing another violent offence and only if the lifting of the ban is necessary to protect the public. It will always be up to the prosecution to convince the judge that lifting the ban is necessary.

As the title of the bill indicates, the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act contained in the safe streets and communities act would make violent and repeat young offenders more accountable for their actions and better protect Canadians. This is what Canadians expect of their youth justice system, and it is an important priority for our government.

I ask all members of the House to join together with me and the government to focus on the concerns common to all Canadians.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. It is a bill that is very important to residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and certainly across Canada.

The June 2011 Speech from the Throne recognized the government's fundamental duty to protect the personal safety of all Canadians. Toward this end we have committed to reintroduce law and order legislation to combat crime, including protecting children from sex offenders, eliminating house arrest and pardons for serious crimes, and protecting the most vulnerable in society, our children.

Bill C-10 supports this commitment. It is a comprehensive package of law reforms that had been proposed in nine bills before the previous Parliament, but which died with the dissolution of that Parliament for the general election.

Part 1, clauses 2 to 9, of Bill C-10 includes reforms to support victims of terrorism. These were proposed in former Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Part 2, clauses 10 to 51, proposes sentencing reforms to address child sexual exploitation, serious drug offences, and to eliminate the use of conditional sentences for serious, violent and property crimes. It incorporates reforms that were proposed in former Bills C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act and C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act.

Part 3, clauses 52 to 166, includes post-sentencing reforms to increase offender accountability, eliminate pardons for serious crimes, and revise the criteria for determining international transfers of Canadian offenders. These reforms were proposed in former Bills C-39, the Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act, C-23, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, C-59, the Abolition of Early Parole Act and C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act.

Part 4, clauses 167 to 204, proposes reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better protect Canadians from violent young offenders. These had been proposed in former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders).

Part 5 of Bill C-10 proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking. These amendments had been proposed in former Bill C-56, the Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act.

Many of these proposed reforms were debated and studied in the previous Parliament. I welcome their reintroduction in this new Parliament.

I will focus my remaining time on Bill C-10's proposal to better protect children against sexual exploitation.

As with its predecessor Bill C-54, the objectives of Bill C-10's child sexual exploitation reforms are twofold. First, they seek to ensure that for sentencing purposes all child sexual offences are treated severely and consistently. Second, they seek to protect children by preventing the commission of these offences. Bill C-10 does this by imposing stiffer and stronger penalties.

Bill C-10 proposes numerous amendments to enhance the penalties or sentences of imprisonment that are currently imposed for sexual offences involving child victims. It imposes new or higher mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment as well as higher maximum penalties for certain offences.

Currently, the Criminal Code has an inconsistent approach regarding penalties for sexual offences involving a child victim. For instance, there are 12 child-specific sexual offences that impose a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment, yet there are other child-specific offences that do not impose a minimum penalty.

Similarly, the general sexual offences that apply to both adult and child victims alike do not impose any mandatory minimum penalty where the victim is a child.

As the grandfather of two granddaughters, one six years old and the other three years old, this means a lot to me. The bill serves to strengthen the laws that protect our children and the vulnerable. There should be no question about supporting this bill.

Mandatory minimum penalties are exception In the Criminal Code of Canada. Generally, they have been imposed because Parliament has determined that the nature of a particular offence is sufficiently serious to include a sentence of imprisonment. That sentence was devised to best reflect the facts and circumstances of the case and does not get lost between the mandatory minimum period of time to the prescribed maximum penalty. Where mandatory minimum sentences are imposed, a conditional sentence of imprisonment is never appropriate for the offence.

Given this understanding of mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment, the effect of imposing these in only some but not all sexual offences where the victim is a child suggests that some child sexual offences are more serious than others. It is ludicrous to suggest that some child victims have been less victimized than others. I cannot understand that thought process.

In my view, this contradicts a fundamental value of Canadian society, namely that all children are among our most vulnerable and that all are deserving of equal protection against all forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation. Therefore, I welcome the proposals of Bill C-10 to impose mandatory minimum sentences for seven sexual offences wherein the victim is a child and where currently mandatory minimum sentences are not imposed.

Bill C-10 also proposes to impose higher mandatory minimum sentences for nine offences that already carry a minimum sentence. These increases would ensure that the minimum sentence is not only in line with the offence in question but also is coherent with the minimum sentences imposed for other offences.

As well, Bill C-10 proposes to create two new offences to prevent the commission of a contact sexual offence against a child. Both of these offences would also impose mandatory minimum sentences.

I would also note that Bill C-10 proposes a few sentencing reforms that were not included in Bill C-54. These changes are entirely consistent with the overall sentencing objectives of former Bill C-54 and seek to better reflect the particularly heinous nature of these offences.

Finally, these changes would increase the maximum penalty and corresponding mandatory minimum sentences for four child sex offences. When proceeded on summary conviction, subsections 163.1(2), making child pornography, and 163.1(3), distribution, et cetera, of child pornography, propose to increase the maximum penalty from 18 months to 2 years less a day as well as increase the current minimum sentence from 90 days to 6 months.

In section 170, parent or guardian procuring sexual activity, the bill proposes to increase the minimum penalty from 6 months to 1 year and the maximum penalty from 5 years to 10 years where the victim is under the age of 16 years, and the minimum from 45 days to 6 months and the maximum from 2 years to 5 years respectively where the victim is 16 to 17 years old.

I hope that all hon. members will work with us to support the expeditious enactment of these much needed reforms.

In closing, as members of Parliament we all have a number of issues that come before us. In my seven years in this great place the one thing that I consistently hear from my constituents, especially those with children, young children and grandchildren, is the lack of rights for victims in this country. We worry more about the rights of criminals than victims, which is a sad case. The pendulum has swung too far one way. I am proud to be part of a government that would straighten that out.

I look forward to all hon. members in the House supporting Bill C-10.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise here today to speak at second reading of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

As many of my colleagues know, this government committed to introducing once again—yes, once again—any law and order bills that died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 40th Parliament.

The proposed changes aim, for example, to protect children from sexual crimes, to clarify ineligibility for conditional sentences and pardons, and to protect other vulnerable members of our society.

With all that in mind, the bill before us constitutes a comprehensive bill incorporating all the changes previously proposed in nine separate bills introduced during the previous parliament.

The first part of the bill—clauses 2 to 9—contains the changes suggested in the former Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Part 2 contains clauses 10 to 51 of the bill, which include the amendments found in former bills C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, which was designed to protect children from sexual predators and certain sexual offences; C-16 , the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act, intended to limit the use of conditional sentences; and S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, to increase sentences for serious drug-related offences.

Part 3—clauses 52 to 166—includes measures to increase the accountability of offenders, eliminate pardons for serious crimes and modify the factors considered in the international transfer of Canadian offenders. These amendments were contained in former bills C-39, the Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act; C-23B, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act; C-59, the Abolition of Early Parole Act; and C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act.

Part 4 of the bill—clauses 167 to 204—amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better protect Canadians against violent young offenders. These amendments were included in former Bill C-4 , Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders).

The last part of the bill—clauses 205 to 207—proposes amendments contained in former Bill C-56, the Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act, that would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to protect workers who want to work in Canada and are at risk of being subjected to humiliating or degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation.

In particular, I would like to elaborate on clause 34 of Part 2 of the bill, which seeks to curtail the use of conditional sentences for some property crimes and other serious crimes.

As I mentioned earlier, these amendments were contained in a previous bill, Bill C-16, which died on the order paper with the dissolution of the third session of the 40th Parliament. However, there are some technical differences, which I will discuss later.

Currently, under the Criminal Code, conditional sentencing, sometimes referred to as house arrest, can be imposed when an offence is not punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence and the court hands down a prison sentence of less than two years.

In fact, since December 2007, conditional sentences have no longer been available for indictable offences with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more in the case of serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences or organized crime offences.

What is more, the court imposing a conditional sentence has to be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community will not jeopardize the safety of the community and that the sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

It is important to note that the fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; to separate offenders from society, where necessary; to assist in rehabilitating offenders; to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders.

The Criminal Code also informs us that a just sanction is a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. To achieve this, the courts take into consideration aggravating and mitigating factors in each case. Before describing the key aspects of the proposed changes, I want to provide some background on the provisions in the Criminal Code on conditional sentences.

Conditional sentencing came into effect in 1996, when the government wanted, among other things, to reduce excessive use of incarceration for less serious crimes. I repeat: less serious crimes. Moreover, the information document that accompanied these sentencing reforms states that the addition of conditional sentencing as a new form of sentencing means that offenders who have committed a less serious crime and who otherwise would be incarcerated can serve their sentence in the community under close supervision.

The limits that I mentioned earlier were established in order to guarantee that conditional sentences could be given only for less serious crimes, in keeping with the fundamental principles and purpose of sentencing. However, in the years following the creation of this type of sentencing, there has been a complete lack of consistency when it comes to determining when conditional sentencing is appropriate.

At the time, many court decisions gave a conditional sentence for serious and violent crimes. This contributed to the public's loss of faith in the justice system. Clearly, many people, and some provinces and territories, wondered whether the limits on conditional sentencing set out in the Criminal Code were sufficient.

In order to deal with this lack of consistency in conditional sentencing, this government introduced Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) on May 4, 2006. This bill proposed the elimination of conditional sentencing for any indictable offence with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more. However, Bill C-9 was amended by the opposition parties to limit the ban on conditional sentencing to indictable offences with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more that constitute serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences or criminal organization offences. These amendments took effect on December 1, 2007.

The definition of serious personal injury was developed in the context of dangerous offenders, which is why this definition is found in part 24 of the Criminal Code. According to this definition, serious personal injury offences include any indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder—punishable by at least 10 years in prison—involving the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person.

The second part of this definition is clearer, as it lists sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault as serious personal injury offences.

It is important to understand that the opposition parties borrowed a term straight from the dangerous offender regime in order to put limits on a sentence that should only be applied to less dangerous offenders. That created two philosophical approaches for interpreting the definition of serious personal injury in the context of conditional sentencing.

Another issue with the definition of serious personal injury is that it only targets violent offences. The definition of serious personal injury cannot ensure that a conditional sentence will not be used in the case of serious fraud or theft over $5,000.

The amendments in this bill will ensure that certain non-violent serious offences will still be treated as serious offences, thus avoiding the use of conditional sentencing. The amendments to the conditional sentencing regime proposed in this bill aim to establish clear benchmarks to allow for consistent use of conditional sentencing in order to respect Parliament's intention when it created this sentence.

That is why the bill proposes eliminating the reference to serious personal injury offences and restricting the availability of conditional sentences for all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life.

The same will apply to indictable offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment when they result in bodily harm, involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs or involve the use of weapons.

When an offence is committed under these circumstances, it is even more important to deter the offender and denounce the crime. This justifies restricting the availability of conditional sentences in such cases. It is possible however that the limits I just described do not cover all offences prosecuted by way of indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Therefore, the bill also proposes limiting the availability of conditional sentences for prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, abduction of a person under 14, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house, being unlawfully in a dwelling-house, and arson for fraudulent purpose.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there are technical differences between the changes proposed in this bill and those contained in the former Bill C-16.

For example, Bill C-16 proposed the abolition of conditional sentencing for the offence of luring a child, described in section 172.1. This is no longer on the list of offences that would not be eligible for conditional sentencing, since article 22 of this bill proposes a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year in the case of an indictable offence, or 90 days in the case of a summary conviction.

Another change from Bill C-16 is that the list of offences that are no longer eligible for conditional sentence includes the new offence of motor vehicle theft, described in section 333.1 of the Criminal Code.

The final change would correct an error that slipped into Bill C-16. That bill did not include the offence of abduction of a person under 14 by a parent or guardian. The intent was, however, to target the offence described in section 281 of the Criminal Code, which has to do with the abduction of a person under 14 by a stranger.

I want to reassure my colleagues that even though the reference in section 742.1 to serious personal injury offences is set to be eliminated, the changes in this bill will ensure that those who are convicted of sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault will not be eligible if prosecuted by way of indictment.

Note also that conditional sentencing will no longer be available for persons convicted of sexual assault against a person 16 or under since clause 25 of the bill proposes a minimum sentence of one year when the offence is prosecuted by way of indictment, and 90 days on summary conviction.

This government is addressing the concerns of Canadians who no longer want to see conditional sentences used for serious crimes, whether they are violent crimes or property crimes.

For the reasons I have just mentioned, I urge my fellow members of this House to unanimously support the proposed changes to the conditional sentencing system.

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

Madam Speaker, it is really a historic day with regard to this bill in terms of the debate that we will see in the House over the next number of days and weeks.

It is historic because we have had a government for the last five years that has attempted to reverse the approach to the criminal justice system that we have taken in our country for the better part of 40 years.

It was about 40 years ago when governments, and not just governments in the ideological centre or left of the political spectrum, but progressive Conservative governments as well, followed this pattern. Then we saw the advance of the Reform and the Alliance, the radical right wing ideology adopted mostly from the United States, which, incidentally, is now reversing itself and looking at Canada as an example of how to deal with crime, with anti-social behaviour and how to build a fair, just and effective criminal justice system.

The current government is driven entirely by ideology, never by fact, never by solid evidence.

It is interesting. I always think of the minister who was the minister of justice before the current one, now the Minister of Public Safety, being challenged by Dan Gardner, one of the reporters or commentators for one of the Ottawa papers, to send him studies that showed deterrence worked, so he did. He sent him five studies. Three of them, when Mr. Gardner looked at them, showed that in fact deterrence did not work. The other two were totally unequivocal and were very subjective in their analysis and were not valid studies based on normal methodology for sociological and criminology studies.

The Conservatives have never been able to do anything better than that.

We heard today again that expression. The Conservatives stand in the House and talk about victims with the assumption that the bill, and the kinds of bills they have passed in the last five years, will somehow deter crime, that they will reduce that $99 billion figure, which is highly suspect, as I keep repeating. They say they will do something to reduce crime by the use of punishment, by the use of deterrence, by the use of putting thousands and thousands more people into jail.

Not one study, not just in Canada, but any place in the developed world, any place in the democracy we can go to and find a study, says deterrence works. We are about to spend an additional, depending on whose estimates we want to use, anywhere from at least $2 billion to $11 billion, $12 billion and $13 billion over the next five years on a philosophy, on an ideology on criminal justice that does not work. The bill just repeats that.

This is me wearing my lawyer's hat to some degree. I have stood in the House over the last seven years as the critic for our party on both public safety and justice. I have advocated a number of times that we do need major reform to our Criminal Code and the methodology of doing that would be with omnibus bills. This is not the first omnibus bill we have had from the government; it actually is the second one. When I first heard the Conservatives would do that, I thought that they were finally listening to those of us who have advocated for the need for reform to the Criminal Code because of the duplication and contradictions in the Code, particularly around sentencing, but around offences as well.

However, the Conservatives are not doing that. All they are doing is lumping a whole bunch of bills together and sending them through, a number of bills that have no relevancy to each other. If they are to do an omnibus bill, if they are to do major reform to the Criminal Code, they have to do it systematically. For instance, even in the bill we are seeing conflict in terms of sentencing principles that they are going to use as an example. We saw it in one of the newspapers reports overnight.

The bill will have this kind of a consequence. We are going to have a mandatory minimum penalty for an offence of trafficking a drug that is double what the mandatory minimum is for the rape of a child. We have that kind of confusion and contradiction just in this bill, and we have huge numbers of those kinds of contradictions.

Therefore, if we were really intent on building an effective criminal justice system that did not have these kinds of contradictions, that make it difficult for our police, judges, defence lawyers and the prosecutors to enforce the law, we would have started reform a long time ago.

I am going to go to the bill itself. As opposed to what the minister said, the bill is actually a composition of nine bills from the past Parliament. Although it has five parts to it, it actually encompasses nine different bills, and I will not have enough time to address all of them. Therefore, I will concentrate my comments, because of the cost factor, on the drug part of the bill.

This will be the third time that the bill is before the House. It has had some changes since the first time, but it is essentially the same. When it came before the House at that time, both the Conservative government and the Liberal party supported the bill. They got it passed. I am quite sure it went to the Senate. We had an election and it failed and we started over again.

In the last Parliament, it was a bill that came out of the Senate. At that time because of a change in leadership for the Liberals, they flip-flopped and decided they would oppose it.

We have been opposed to the bill in its various incarnations for two reasons: the cost; and the reality that the cost is totally unjustifiable in terms of this bill doing anything to combat drug trafficking. It is easy for us to say that.

I live in the most southern part of our country. In fact, I live in an area of the country that is south of our neighbours to the north in the United States. I have watched the United States legislature try to deal with the problem of drug trafficking. Starting about two and a half years ago, the Americans began to repeal legislation that had mandatory minimums. It was simply that they were going bankrupt in terms of keeping that many people in jail.

There was a similar pattern in California that hit its epitome a year ago in the spring. In the jails, people were double and triple bunking and were in fact being housed in the cafeterias and the gyms, with no rehabilitation or treatment, or sense that these people were going to get out, with a large number of them with mental health problems as well, the usual pattern. California was going to be required by the courts to release 35,000 to 45,000 inmates in that year. A good number of these inmates had been convicted of serious violent crimes, had no treatment or rehabilitation while they were in and they were going back out onto the streets. That kind of crisis occurred in the United States when it passed these kinds of laws and proceeded to enforce them. Over a period of 10 to 15 years, the prison population doubled there.

We are following the same route. It is back to the government refusing to look at the facts and accept any hard evidence of what this kind of legislation does. It is going down the same route that the United States went down between 15 and 20 years ago, and is now reversing itself. Now the Conservative government is starting down the same path.

It is not just the United States. If we go around the globe very few other countries have attempted this, I am happy to say. No other government in our western democracies has attempted this successfully. It does not work, yet in the next five years we are about to spend between $10 billion to $13 billion just on this bill.

The drug part of the bill in particular is going to increase the prison population, mostly at the provincial level. We have provinces that are double-bunking now to the rate of 200%. They are over capacity by 200%. There is not a province or territory that is not in excess of its capacity.

Perhaps the House should also appreciate this fact: we have signed on to an international protocol that says we will not do double-bunking at either the provincial or the federal level. We are in complete contravention of that protocol and have been for a number of years, and it is going to get much worse.

I know I am emphasizing the drug part of the bill because it is where the costs primarily are. It is not the only area, but it is the overwhelmingly large one. The vast majority of the people who are going to be affected by the bill are not the Hells Angels, not the bikers, not the people we have seen historically as organized crime. Again, I say that because we have studied the situation in the United States when it passed bills identical to this one. It is the low-hanging fruit that gets caught. The vast majority of those people, the petty traffickers in marijuana in particular, are the ones who get caught, especially because they only have to have six plants, and they do not have to be six-foot-high plants. It just says more than five plants. Someone with six plants that are three inches high will be considered a trafficker, in spite of some of the comments we have heard from the minister.

I do not think the minister has ever done a drug trafficking trial. I have, and the way the act is worded, anyone who has six plants or more cannot justify that he or she is not a trafficker. We are going to have a huge number of young people who are now being convicted of simple possession going to jail, including some of the children of the people sitting across the aisle from me and some of the children of the people sitting on our side of the table. They will be going to jail for at least six months simply because they have six marijuana plants.

That is the consequence of the bill, and we are going to end up, as taxpayers, paying the toll.

I would like to deal in some detail as well with the bill that was Bill C-4 in the last Parliament, the bill that dealt with young offenders.

This one had a very interesting history. It was the attempt on the part of the government to return us to an old pattern of history, when we used to treat youth much more harshly than we have in the last 15 or 20 years. We heard from the minister again today that they are justifying it on the basis that they are going after the young offender who is already a serious violent offender. I say this from all of the parties that are sitting in the House and that were at the justice committee last time that we all accepted that as a reality. That is just a historical side note. We had major reform to the young offender law almost six years ago now. When the minister brought this bill forward, there was a lot of commentary from a number of sides that it was too soon to amend the bill. The committee as a whole, all political parties, said no. It was true generally, and some of the things they were trying to do--in particular, to reintroduce deterrence to young offenders--we rejected. We said no. We said we needed to look at whether there were mechanisms or enforcement tools or legislative tools that we could give our police and our prosecutors, and ultimately our judges, to be able to deal with that small percentage of young offenders who are already serious, violent risks to our society.

We all conceded that this group existed and we also felt that we could do something about it. Interestingly, three prosecutors came before the committee voluntarily. I and the other opposition parties do not take any credit for finding these senior prosecutors of young offenders in their respective provinces of Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Alberta. They got together and asked collectively to come and make presentations.

The first thing they said to the committee was that the government's bill would do just the opposite: it was going to make it more difficult for them to prosecute serious, violent youth offenders.

In the last few weeks I received a letter from the attorney general confirming the prosecutors in Saskatchewan. We had representation from two Conservative governments and two NDP governments before the committee saying that we had messed up really badly, that our bill was going to do exactly the opposite of what we were telling the country it was going to do.

I take credit for asking them if they could give us the amendments they needed, and they did that. I want to recognize the work that they did. They gave us three amendments. Basically they let the youth criminal justice system focus in on the serious offenders and let the rest of the system work, because the rest of the system, from everything we heard at committee, is working reasonably well. It is effective, fair and just and it deals with youth crime quite effectively, but it is not doing so with serious offenders.

The prosecutors gave us three amendments and came back a second time to present and explain them to us in detail. I asked government members if they would adopt them. They said no. They were so certain they had a perfect bill that in spite of the experts, their own prosecutorial experts, the government refused to accept those amendments.

Interestingly, and I will give them credit for this, in this incarnation, this omnibus bill, Conservatives have taken two of the amendments. The third amendment deals with sentencing of youth as adults, and they need that amendment again for this one. I have no answer for why it is not in here. I was hoping I would have enough time to ask the minister today, but I will have to do that subsequently. However, it is not there.

Those amendments are necessary in the bill. Again, I repeat that the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc members were prepared to support those amendments, and the government refused to do so simply because, in dealing with the Conservatives, it is their way or the highway. They were absolutely adamant about refusing to take those amendments.

The third part I want to address is the international transfer of prisoners. We have had a long history in this country of signing treaties with other countries that say that if we have one of their citizens convicted of a crime in prison in our country, we will allow the prisoner to apply to his or her country to be returned to that country of origin. Of course, we have the vice versa arrangement for ourselves, so that one of our citizens in another country can apply to be returned to Canada. I do not how long we have had those arrangements, but it has been a number of decades.

When the Conservatives first came into power in 2006, they unilaterally decided they were going to change the pattern and reject a whole bunch of these applications. We went from accepting something in the range of 90% of those applications to less than 50%. There were court applications made against the government's conduct, and it was slapped really hard by the Federal Court.

The Conservatives have now tried to put into the bill what really amounts to absolute discretion for the minister to be able to continue that practice of reducing those numbers. This has created an international incident between ourselves and the United States, with which most of these prisoner exchanges occur. Americans actually sent a note of protest to the Canadian government in January 2010 because it had so radically changed the pattern.

The bill has major problems. There are parts of it that New Democrats could in fact support; I could not get to them because my time is just about up, but with the attitude we have of the government, it is going to be very difficult to work out those kinds of compromises.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts.

The bill, which is known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, fulfills the commitment in the June 2011 Speech from the Throne to quickly reintroduce law and order legislation to combat crime and terrorism. This commitment, in turn, reflects the strong mandate that Canadians have given us to protect society and to hold criminals accountable.

We have bundled together crime bills that died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament into a comprehensive piece of legislation and it is our plan to pass it within the first 100 sitting days of Parliament.

As I met with victims of crime and their families yesterday in Brampton, I was once again struck by the importance of having this legislation passed in a timely manner. Both in Brampton and in Montreal yesterday, people such as Joe Wamback, Sharon Rosenfeldt, Sheldon Kennedy, Yvonne Harvey, Gary Lindfield, Maureen Basnicki and Line Lacasse spoke about the need for these changes to our laws.

We have a duty to stand up for these victims, which we are doing by bringing in this legislation.

The objective of our criminal law reform agenda over the past few years has been to build a stronger, safer and better Canada. This comprehensive legislation is another important step in the process to achieve this end.

As I travelled across the country holding round tables or meeting people on the street, the message was clear. People want to ensure their streets and communities are safer and they are relying on us to take the steps needed to achieve this.

There are five parts to Bill C-10.

Part 1 includes reforms to deter terrorism by supporting victims of terrorism and amending the State Immunity Act.

Part 2 includes sentencing reforms that will target sexual offences against children and serious drug offences, as well as prevent the use of conditional sentences for serious violent and property crimes.

Part 3 includes post-sentencing reforms to increase offender accountability, eliminate pardons for serious crimes and strengthen the international transfer of offenders regime.

Part 4 includes reforms to better protect Canadians from violent young offenders.

Lastly, part 5 includes immigration reforms to better protect vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, including through human trafficking.

Some may say that this comprehensive bill makes it difficult to understand. In response I would note that these reforms should be very familiar to members of Parliament, indeed all Canadians, given that these reforms were before the previous Parliament when they died on the Order Paper with the dissolution of that Parliament.

Many of these reforms have been previously debated, studied and even passed by at least one of the two chambers of Parliament. For the most part, the comprehensive legislation reintroduces these reforms in the same form they were in previously, with technical changes that were needed to be able to reintroduce them in this Parliament in one bill.

A few additional changes have been made and I will describe them as I provide a summary of the individual areas of reform. However, I want to note that these additional changes remain consistent with the government's objectives when these reforms were originally introduced in the previous Parliament and, therefore, should also be supported today.

I will now take hon. members through some of the elements of Bill C-10.

Part 1 is comprised of clauses 2 through 9. These amendments seek to deter terrorism by enacting the justice for victims of terrorism act.

As reflected in the proposed preamble to the new act, these reforms recognize that, “terrorism is a matter of national concern that affects the security of the nation”, and that it is a “priority to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against Canada and Canadians”.

As Canadians recently marked the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, it was a stark reminder that the threat of terrorism remains and that we must continue to be vigilant.

Accordingly and with a view to deterring terrorism, part 1 proposes to create a cause of action for victims of terrorism to enable them to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism or omission committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985.

It also would amend the State Immunity Act to lift immunity of those states that the government has listed for support of terrorism.

Part 1's amendments were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in former Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, in the previous session of Parliament. They include technical changes to correct grammatical and cross-reference errors.

Part 2 is comprised of clauses 10 through 51. It proposes sentencing amendments to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to ensure that the sentences imposed for child sexual exploitation, serious drug offences, as well as for other serious violent and property crimes, adequately reflect the severity of these crimes.

The exploitation of children is a most serious crime, one that is incomprehensible and must be met with appropriate punishment. Bill C-10 proposals addressing child sexual exploitation were addressed in the previous bill. These reforms seek to consistently and adequately condemn all forms of child sexual abuse through the imposition of new and higher mandatory sentences of imprisonment, as well as some higher maximum penalties.

They also seek to prevent the commission of sexual offences against children through the creation of two new offences and by requiring courts to consider imposing conditions to prevent suspected or convicted child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate or further their commission of sexual offences against children.

The bill's proposed reforms addressing child sexual exploitation are essentially the same as the bill we had in the previous Parliament, that was passed by the House of Commons and was before the Senate at third reading debate when it died on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, some members kept on talking so that the bill did not get passed.

The primary difference is that this bill also proposes to increase the maximum penalty for four offences, with a corresponding increase in their proposed mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment to better reflect the heinous nature of these offences.

The bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty on summary conviction for a number of offences. All of these are consistent with the objectives of the former Bill C-54 as originally introduced.

It also proposes Criminal Code reforms to further restrict the use of a conditional sentence, or house arrest as it is often called.

Originally proposed in Bill C-16, ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious and violent offenders act in the previous Parliament, these proposals seek to make it explicitly clear that a conditional sentence is never available for: offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life; offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm, involve the import-export, trafficking and production of drugs or involve the use of a weapon; or listed serious property and violent offences punishable by 10 years and prosecuted by indictment, such as criminal harassment, trafficking in persons and theft over $5,000.

The bill's proposals are in the same form as previously proposed in Bill C-16 which had received second reading and had been referred to the justice committee but not yet studied when it died on the Order Paper.

It includes technical changes to the list of excluded offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years: to include the recently enacted new offence of motor vehicle theft; to coordinate the proposed imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment in section 172.1(1), luring a child; and to change the listed child abduction offence to section 281.

We are also addressing the serious issue of drug crimes in this country, particularly those involving organized crime and those that target youth because we all know the impact that such crimes have on our communities.

Part 2's proposals to address drug crime include amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for the offences of production, trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking or importing, and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting of schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and schedule II drugs, such as marijuana.

These mandatory minimum sentences would apply where there was an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard, or the offence was committed in or near a school.

As well, it would double the maximum penalty for the production of schedule II drugs, such as marijuana, from 7 to 14 years and it would reschedule GHB and flunitrazepam, most commonly known as the date rape drugs, from schedule III to schedule I.

As a result, these offences would now carry higher maximum penalties.

The bill would also allow a court to delay sentencing while the addicted offender completed a treatment program approved by the province under the supervision of the court or a drug treatment court approved program and to impose a penalty other than the minimum sentence if the offender successfully completes the treatment program.

These proposals are in the same form they were in when they were passed by the Senate as former Bill S-10

Part 3, which is comprised of clauses 52 through 166, proposes post-sentencing reforms to better support victims and to increase offender accountability.

Canadians have told us they expect their government to ensure that offenders are held accountable for their crimes because only then can they have complete confidence in our justice system.

Part 3 introduces reforms previously contained in bills in the previous Parliament. It includes proposals from the ending early release for criminals and increasing offender accountability act that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to recognize the rights of victims, increase offender accountability and responsibility, and modernize the disciplinary system for inmates.

As now proposed in Bill C-10, it includes technical modifications that would delete provisions that were ultimately passed as part of the Abolition of Early Parole Act, as well as clarifications regarding, for example, sentence calculations, adding new offences recently enacted by other legislation, and proposes to change the name of the National Parole Board to the Parole Board of Canada.

It includes proposals previously contained in Bill C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (the International Transfer of Offenders) Act and which seek to enhance public safety by enshrining in law a number of additional key factors in deciding whether an offender would be granted a transfer back to Canada. The bill proposes these reforms as originally introduced.

It includes proposals included in the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act in the previous Parliament and that propose to expand the period of ineligibility for a record suspension, currently referred to as a “pardon”, and to make record suspensions unavailable for certain offences and for persons who have been convicted of more than three offences, prosecuted by indictment, and for each of which the individual received a sentence of two years or more. This bill corrects inconsistencies that occurred in the former bills before Parliament.

One of the areas of criminal law I received an extensive number of letters, emails and calls about is that dealing with violent and repeat young offenders. I have been particularly interested in correspondence I have received from young students themselves and I am always pleased to hear everyone's views on this subject.

Part 4, which is found at clauses 167 through 204, proposes reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to strengthen its handling of violent and repeat young offenders.

These reforms include: highlighting the protection of the public as a principle, making it easier to detain youth charged with serious offences pending trial; ensuring that prosecutors consider seeking adult sentences for the most serious offences; prohibiting youth under the age of 18 from serving a sentence in an adult facility; and requiring police to keep records of extrajudicial measures. These reforms were previously proposed in Sébastien's law, which had been extensively studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it died on the order paper in the previous Parliament.

The bill includes changes to address concerns that had been highlighted by the provinces regarding the pretrial adult sentencing and deferred custody provisions in the former bill. A number of the provinces requested a less restrictive regime for the pretrial detention provisions than that of Bill C-4, and therefore the changes found in this bill respond by providing more flexibility to detain youth who are spiralling out of control and who pose a risk to the public and to themselves.

The test for pretrial detention will be self-contained in the act without reference to other sections of the Criminal Code.

Other changes are more technical, if that is possible, and include removing Bill C-4's proposed amendments in two areas: deleting reference to the standard of proof for an adult sentence, and the expanded scope of deferred custody and supervision orders.

Last, part 5, which is found at clauses 205 through 207, proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize immigration officers to refuse work permits to foreign nationals and workers where it would protect them against humiliating and degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking. These proposals are in the same form they were in when they were previously proposed in former Bill C-56, the preventing trafficking, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable immigrants act.

I would point out as well that the proposed reforms would come into force in the same manner as originally proposed by the predecessor bills. Part 1 would come into force upon receiving royal assent, and the balance would come into force on a day to be fixed by the governor in council. This will enable us to consult with the provinces and territories on the time needed to enable them to prepare for the timely and effective implementation of these reforms.

I realize that I have taken some time to go through some of the details of this bill. We were very clear in the last election that this was a priority for this government. We have put these bills together and they better protect victims. As members know, in all the legislation that we have introduced, we always highlight how it better protects victims in this country and stand up for the interests of law-abiding Canadians.

I am pleased and proud to be associated, as are my colleagues, with this important piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

Mr. Serre and Mr. and Mrs. Virk, thank you for sharing your stories. We encourage you to continue to do so.

Here in Ottawa we're doing our very best to try to address some of the crime challenges we have in Canada, and your testimony is very helpful as we move forward with this Bill C-4.

Thank you to all of you.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Bruno Serre, Board Member and Group Leader of family meetings, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

Good afternoon, and thank you for having me.

My name is Bruno Serre. My daughter Brigitte was killed on January 25, 2006. I have been on the AFPAD board of directors for three-and-a-half years. I am here for personal reasons, but I share the views of many of the victims who have gone through what I have.

My daughter was murdered by two 18-year-olds, Sébastien Simon and Tommy Gagné. They stabbed her 72 times with a knife and punched her and kicked her in the head repeatedly. On that January 25 night, she had no hope of escape. Sébastien Simon had quite the record, he had a history of violent behaviour and had gone through a number of youth centres beginning at a young age. He has no conscience or scruples. He showed no remorse. Later that same night, after committing their crime, Sébastien Simon, Tommy Gagné and their accomplices went to a motel with a bunch of prostitutes. The next day, Sébastien Simon got tattoos on his forearms that said Born to kill and Born to die. He had turned 18 just a few months earlier.

I support Bill C-4 because I think we need to do a better job of controlling young offenders so we don't have tragedies like mine happening again. It is imperative to protect the public from repeat young offenders with a history of violent behaviour.

This bill would serve as a useful tool for judges and police officers. It would make it possible to apply extrajudicial measures, which would give society the ability to check up on individuals whose records showed a progression towards violent behaviour. Furthermore, placing a young person whose behaviour had endangered others in detention would be a good thing and, in my view, a deterrent.

Youth who commit serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and sexual assault, should be sentenced as adults. Releasing their names to the public would be another way to protect society.

We need to take steps to prevent crime, not just react to it. The association I belong to represents victims' families in Quebec. Many of the victims I meet say we need to impose tougher measures on violent young offenders.

I accompanied the family of young Francesca Saint-Pierre to court. She was a 14-year-old who was beaten to death by a 15-year-old. He was sentenced to seven years, so four years of detention without parole and three years in a detention home. Seven years for premeditated murder. Imagine how her family reacted to that sentence.

Francesca had complained about the young offender in question when they both lived in the same centre. Had he been in detention, this tragedy would probably never have happened. We have an obligation to protect the public from young people with a history of violent behaviour and no respect for human life. Unfortunately, there are more and more of them, and their violence knows no bounds. Bill C-4 may help to deter some of them. One thing is for sure, once in detention, they will have time to think about the consequences of their actions. These are measures victims' families have long been waiting for.

I do not think the status quo is the answer. We have to give prosecutors, judges and police officers tools to ensure that young offenders receive sentences commensurate with the severity of their crimes, not just a slap on the wrist. We have to send a clear message. We have to protect society against youth who are violent repeat offenders.

Thank you.

[Marvin Bernstein, Chief Advisor, Advocacy, UNICEF Canada]

Thank you.

I'll just indicate that there is a full submission not yet translated that will be coming to the committee. There are some summary notes provided that I believe have been translated. There is a UNICEF Canada position statement that was just formulated last night. There isn't enough time to go through it in my opening remarks, but that can be transmitted to the committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here, even in an abbreviated capacity. I did want to indicate that I have 28 years of child welfare experience in the province of Ontario, in various capacities. That's outlined in the summary notes. I recently spent five years as the provincial children's advocate in the province of Saskatchewan, as an independent officer of the legislature. I then came back to Ontario and have been appointed as the chief advisor, advocacy, with an emphasis on our Canadian children, and that position started roughly six months ago.

I did want to indicate that I participated in the round table discussions in Regina, Saskatchewan, in 2008, with the Minister of Justice, Minister Nicholson, and the provincial minister, Don Morgan. I'm very pleased, finally, to see the round table discussions' roll-up. That's very consistent with the tenor of the comments made in the province of Saskatchewan.

I also wanted to reinforce the point and to follow up on comments made by Kathy Vandergrift. She testified before this committee on June 10, 2010. At that point she referenced a Senate committee report, “Children: The Silenced Citizens”. She said there was some indication by Justice Canada that there is an assessment of compliance with international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I've read through the transcript, and there seems to be some indication on the part of this committee, or some members of this committee, that efforts would be made to retrieve that assessment, or to determine whether or not it existed, and then to provide a copy not only to the committee but to Ms. Vandergrift. When I communicated with her this past weekend, she said she hadn't received any further notification from the committee as to the status of that child impact assessment report.

I raise this because our position—and this will appear in the detailed brief—is that the proposed amendments to Bill C-4, for the most part, would be incompatible and contrary to the principles set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child; would be inconsistent with recommendations Canada made in the concluding observations by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2003; would be inconsistent with facets of general comment 10, which speaks to the issue of juvenile justice. The concluding observations also relate to the best interests of children, and there are concerns in our submission with respect to the proposed amendments in Bill C-4.

So I would certainly urge this committee to make further efforts to secure that report, if it exists, and to determine whether or not there is compliance with Canada's international obligations, having ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. If there is an opportunity to provide that report to UNICEF Canada, I would appreciate an opportunity to respond, having considered the report as to whether or not Bill C-4 would be consistent with the human rights obligations that are set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I reconvene the meeting. 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.

We have three witnesses with us. First of all, representing UNICEF Canada, we have Marvin Bernstein, chief advisor, advocacy. Welcome. We also have, representing the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared, Bruno Serre, board member and also group leader of family meetings. Finally, by video conference from the beautiful city of Victoria, we have as individuals, Manjit Virk and Suman Virk.

To all of our witnesses, I want to apologize for the delay in getting to you. Unfortunately, we had some unexpected votes, so we had to suspend the meeting for some 20 or 25 minutes.

Your opportunity to provide testimony today is going to be limited. I'm going to provide each of you with five minutes to present. Unfortunately, we will not have time for questions, due to the vote.

Why don't we begin with Mr. Bernstein? You've got five minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

Do I have any more time?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This debate is about trust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't we start with Ms. Reid.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reeve, why don't you start?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ministers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So are we.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you satisfied with those answers?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

[Catherine Kane, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

Very briefly—and I appreciate that you haven't had time to digest the information that's included—the summary information at tab 4 with respect to Bill C-4 indicates that the current cost of the youth justice corrections system in Canada is $350 million. Those are not the costs that are associated with Bill C-4 in particular; we've included that for context for the committee.

We have attempted in these templates to respond to the very specific questions you had in your motion. In several circumstances it's not possible to respond to incremental costs and baseline costs and so on, but with respect to your request about baseline costs, we have indicated that the current cost to the federal government—because we cost-share those agreements—is $177.3 million. That is right now, at this moment, and it has nothing to do with incremental costs associated with Bill C-4, so there's no variation between the information on the chart and here.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Chair, the Minister just said there was no variance between the documents provided today and the documents provided on February 17. I draw his attention to the estimates on Bill C-4 provided on February 17. He said there were no incremental costs for Bill C-4, and today's document says there is a $358-million incremental cost as a result of Bill C-4.

Given the fact there is a variance and the Minister didn't know there was a variance between the two documents--those provided on February 17 and those provided today--I would ask on behalf of the committee that the ministers return tomorrow morning for two hours of discussions on these figures. There's a lot of information here; I'm certain they would not mind that scrutiny, since we've already identified variances between the information provided February 17 and the information dumped on us a few minutes ago here today.

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

I realize that from that perspective it's different. As we have discussed, there will be an increased cost to the taxpayer flowing from the provisions we're studying in Bill C-4, and I wanted to see the comparison.

[Julie McAuley, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada]

I think the presentation has been distributed.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee regarding Bill C-4. Statistics Canada does not take a position on the proposed amendments in the bill. The presentation we have prepared contains our most recent data on youth criminal justice and has been updated since our June 2010 appearance to inform this bill.

All data sources used are clearly indicated on the slides, as are any pertinent data notes. Distributed for your consideration are the most recent Juristat reports related to youth crime and youth courts.

My colleagues with me, Ms. Mia Dauvergne, Ms. Rebecca Kong, and Mr. Craig Grimes, will help answer any questions.

Please turn to the second slide in the deck. Using data received from police services across Canada, we can examine trends in youth accused of police-reported crimes. Over the last 10 years there has been a substantial shift in the trends of youth accused by police. The rate of youth charged has dropped, while the rate of youth cleared by other means has increased.

In 2009, 45% of youth accused of a police-reported crime were charged or had charges recommended against them. The remaining 55% were cleared by verbal warnings, written cautions, referrals to a community program, referral to an extrajudicial sanctions program, or other means, including incidents where the complainant declined to lay charges.

Crime can be classified into two categories, violent and non-violent. As can be seen on slide 4, most crime committed by youth is non-violent. This has been a consistent trend over the last 10 years. In 2009, seven in ten youth accused of a crime had committed a non-violent offence. The rate of non-violent crime committed by youth in Canada has been decreasing over the last 10 years, while the rate of violent crime has remained relatively stable.

As the youth crime rate is predominately driven by non-violent crimes, the overall crime rate as reported by police services in Canada has also dropped over the last 10 years.

The top 10 offences shown on slide 5 account for approximately 80% of all police-reported offences committed by youth in 2009. Eight of the ten shown are classified as non-violent offences. The most common police-reported offence committed by youth in 2009 was theft under $5,000. This, along with mischief, assault level 1, and administration of justice violations accounted for about half of all police-reported offences committed by youth in 2009.

On slide 6 we turn to what happens once charges laid by police move into Canada's youth courts. In 2008-09, theft was the most common type of case completed in youth courts, followed by Youth Criminal Justice Act infractions, break and enters, and common assaults. These 10 most common offences shown accounted for just over 75% of total youth court cases in 2008-09.

The composition of cases completed in youth court is changing. We are seeing fewer cases involving less serious offences, such as possession of stolen property, and an increase in more serious offences such as robbery, major assault, and uttering threats.

Please turn to the next slide. Since the introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, there has been a 23% decline in the cases completed in youth court. While there is variability in the magnitude of the decline in caseload, all provinces and territories have experienced a decline since the YCJA.

In addition to the decrease in the total number of cases, there has also been a decrease in the number of guilty cases stemming from youth courts. While the decline began in the early 1990s, the introduction of the YCJA coincides with the time where we see a decrease in both the total number of cases completed and the number of guilty cases.

Turning to slide 8, of the approximately 58,500 cases heard in youth courts in Canada in 2008-09, 59% resulted in a guilty finding. In half the cases where the youth was found guilty, probation was the most serious sentence imposed.

As seen in slide 9, in recent years, the proportion of violent cases resulting in a custodial sentence has been declining, and in 2008-09 they were at their lowest recorded levels. All provinces and territories have experienced large decreases in both the numbers and proportions of guilty youth cases receiving custodial sentences since the first year of the YCJA. The use of custody has also decreased across all offence categories.

On the next slide, in 2008-09 the median length of custody for all youth cases in Canada was 36 days, compared with 30 days for adults. When split by violent and non-violent offences, we see that there is a difference in the median lengths of the custodial sentence imposed: 65 days for violent cases versus 30 days for non-violent cases sentenced to custody. By far, the median length of custody was the longest for homicide, at two and a half years, followed by attempted murder and sexual assault.

On any given day in 2009-10, about 835 youth, aged 12 to 17, were in sentenced custody, down 7% from the previous year and down 46% from 2003-04. In fact, the number has been declining annually since 1995-96.

Looking at slide 11, youth in remand outnumbered those in sentenced custody. In 2009-10, 53% of all young people held in custody on any given day were in remand compared with 35% in 2003-04.

Youth continue to spend fairly short periods of time in remand. As seen in slide 12, four of the eight jurisdictions that provided data in 2008-09 indicated that youth spent, as a median number of days, one week or less in custody. Since the implementation of the YCJA, the median number of days spent in remand has varied across jurisdictions. Overall, in 2008-09, 54% of youth released from remand had spent one week or less in remand. This proportion has fluctuated between 53% and 56% since 2004-05.

For youth there are operationally two levels of custody: open custody, which is less restrictive, such as a halfway house; and closed custody, which means secure facilities and would include detention centres.

As shown in slide 13, among the reporting jurisdictions, the trend in time spent in open and secure custody has fluctuated.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We reconvene the meeting, and we're continuing our study of Bill C-4.

Our next panel welcomes back representatives from Statistics Canada. We have Julie McAuley back, and we have Craig Grimes, Rebecca Kong, and Mia Dauvergne. Welcome to all of you.

Do you have a presentation to make? You do. Please proceed.

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

My understanding is that this wording, this proposal, really flows from the Nunn commission report. My recollection is the case that gave rise to the Nunn commission in the first place was one of a young person who had a history of stealing cars. After he was charged with stealing one car, he stole another car, and in the commission of the second offence he killed somebody. That's theft of property. The car might have been worth only a few hundred dollars, but it was used in a way that ended up killing someone. That's what gave rise to the whole Nunn commission, which resulted in these proposals and Bill C-4.

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

Let me ask you a question. I'm not sure that I completely followed the discussion when you talked about the vagueness of the words “substantial likelihood”. As I read clause 4 of Bill C-4, which amends subsection 29(2) of the act, it says:

A youth justice court judge or a justice may order that a young person be detained in custody only if the young person has been charged with a serious offence and the judge or justice is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities

(a) that there is a substantial likelihood that [he will flee] or commit [another] serious offence

There's a “serious offence” there again, and there is:

(b) no condition or combination of conditions of release that would reduce...the likelihood of [a secondary offence being committed]

and

(3) the onus of satisfying the youth [judge] is on the Attorney General [or the prosecutor].

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

Okay.

Given that Bill C-4 really concentrates primarily on serious and repeat offenders, the changes we're talking about are going to affect a rather small percentage of young offenders. Isn't that correct?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses.

I have two questions. My first question is for Professor Bala, but if the other witnesses wish to answer it and there's enough time remaining, I invite them to do so.

Professor Bala, in clause 4 of Bill C-4, the one that would completely replace subsection 29(2) of the YCJA, my understanding is that you are in favour of the Bill C-4 amendment. And I do know that the Quebec Bar Association is also in favour of this. This is where the youth justice court or justice may order that a young person be detained in custody only if the young person has been charged with a serious offence and the judge or justice is satisfied on a balance of probability that there is substantial likelihood.... Do you have an idea as to how the “substantial likelihood” term might be determined? Is there any case law on what constitutes a substantial likelihood? That's my first question.

My second question is on how Bill C-4 would include, in the determination of sentencing, the extrajudicial sanctions in paragraph 39(1)(c) of the YCJA. I have your brief before me here, Professor Bala, and you state:

Judges already have a discretion to use the fact of prior youth participation in extrajudicial sanctions as a factor in youth sentencing [see s. 40(2)(d) (iv)]. Amending s. 39(1)(c) to make further specific reference to extrajudicial sanctions seems contrary to the intent of these programs, which is to give youth a “second chance,” and may be inappropriate since youth usually agree to participate in these programs without an opportunity for having legal advice.

For the benefit of the members sitting around the table and any Canadian who is watching these proceedings, would you explain how extrajudicial sanctions actually come about? Just give us a hypothetical case so that people would understand what you're talking about when you say that it happens before a youth may have access to legal advice, for instance.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. I'll see what I can do with one minute.

By the way, Professor Bala, it's nice to see you back again, and also Ms. Schellenberg.

I don't think I've met Mr. Stroppel, so welcome.

Are you comforted by the fact that Bill C-4, in clause 3--which in fact amends paragraph 3(1)(a) of the act to move the concept of protection of the public from the last line to the first line--still says that:

(a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by

--among other things--

(ii) promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons

That seems to me to be exactly what you are in agreement with, so I want to be sure that it is of comfort to you and that you haven't overlooked it.

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

If I don't jump into the sort of broad issues, you should take it, witnesses, that we've been around the board on this. There are significant differences on many of the large issues between the government and this side—denunciation. I want to hone in on some very particular items.

First of all, I want to thank you all for coming. I've read your briefs and heard your submissions, and I will be getting to specific questions on the use of extrajudicial sanctions in section 39 of the act as amended.

I first want to say, though, to the CBA representatives that we appreciate your brief. It was thorough. You properly paraphrased Justice Nunn’s recommendations as calling for the protection of the public not as the only and primary goal but as one of the goals and objectives, and that is what the Nunn report is all about. Opposition MPs might try to pigeonhole you into saying something else, so be careful.

I also very much appreciate your discourse, sensitively put, about Sébastien's Law. Of course, we all feel for that family. The fact, however, is that the legal outcome—as you say in your brief—was appropriate in that circumstance, and this serves a little bit to exploit the situation, so the short title of the bill is—we give a shot across the bow to the government—something we might be objecting to.

Now what I want to get into is a matter of legitimate concern, and we could go either way on this one: the use of extrajudicial sanctions in the consideration of the judge and the amendments in Bill C-4 to paragraph 39(1)(c) of the YCJA. Essentially I am paraphrasing here, but it says a judge, in deciding whether to commit the youth to incarceration, can now consider extrajudicial sanctions.

I think, Dr. Bala, you have made the point, and so have you, Ms. White, that the judge already has the ability to consider that in the case where a pre-sentence report is prepared, which shall include the history of extrajudicial sanctions and compliance therewith.

My question for all of you is, why is paragraph 39(1)(c) amended here to include extrajudicial sanctions? Is it necessary? Is it piling on? Is it for greater clarity? What can you see is the purpose for reiterating it? Or is there a legitimate concern that even though the pre-sentence report has to have this history in it, the judge does not have to take into account what's in a pre-sentence report?

Can you comment on that? Maybe we'll start with Ms. White.

[Richard Stroppel, Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Gaylene.

My name is Rick Stroppel. I've been a lawyer for 27 years. For seven and a half years I've done nothing but youth cases. I work as staff counsel at the Youth Criminal Defence Office in Edmonton. I've done every level of case, everything from shoplifting up to and including murder. I was involved in the CBA's submission and I'm here to support it.

I want to start by saying that the amendments that are proposed to the YCJA are, in some senses, necessary amendments. When one is dealing with a criminal statute, it's very common, one might say almost unavoidable, that as the statute is implemented and put into practice in the real world, issues come up that need to be addressed and dealt with. That's what we had with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I must say, with respect to the CBA's submission, that I believe we have attempted to achieve some balance in our submission. That reflects the balance of the CBA itself. Our organization includes not just defence lawyers; it includes prosecutors and judges. So when we respond to legislation like this, we like to pick out the things we see as positive, for instance, the positive changes that are proposed, and we've acknowledged that in our submission.

If I could refer you to page 5 of our submission, we have commended Parliament for including the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness from the case of R. v. B. (D.). Referring to the top of page 6 of our submission, we agree with the prohibition against youth serving time in adult prisons. We agree with the redefinition of serious violent offence with a view towards clarification. These are some of the things we see in Bill C-4 that are positive and that we agree with. It's obvious to us that the amendments, in general terms, are drafted by people with some familiarity with youth law, with some expertise in those areas, and that a lot of thought has gone into that.

One of the things I wanted to do in my opening comments is to put the problem of youth crime into a context. I was speaking to Professor Bala before we began our appearance here today. He advised me that it's his understanding that about 80% of youth crime is non-violent. As regards the remaining 20%, more than half of that represents I think what we would objectively characterize as relatively minor violent crimes, not beyond simple assault. The people who are coming later this afternoon could give you the exact figures, but it's my understanding that less than 10% of youth crime represents serious violent crime. Whenever you appear in a context like this, you spend 90% of your time talking about the 10% of youth crime that represents serious violent crime. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, with respect to this act, when it comes to non-violent offences and relatively minor violent offences, it works like a charm. It's tremendously successful and we should acknowledge that in our consideration of the act.

Another point I'd like to make is that what's built into the legislation as it stands is a very important safety valve, which allows for the imposition of an adult sentence against a young person. There is reference in our submission to the Lacasse case. Certainly, it's a tragic case. The point is made at page 3 of our submission that this young person who was convicted of second-degree murder as an adult, or at least sentenced as an adult, received a sentence of life with no parole for seven years. That's a life sentence. That young person may spend the rest of his life in jail. Another thing that flows from that is that we can say his name here, because when young people receive an adult sentence they are treated in all respects as adults, including the publication of their name.

Some of the issues and problems that the amendments to Bill C-4 are directed at are in fact already solved by the legislation and therefore unnecessary. A sixteen- or seventeen-year-old who is convicted or pleads guilty of first-degree murder can receive up to life with no parole for 10 years, and this is pursuant to section 745.1 of the Criminal Code. That's surely an onerous sentence, so we already have a statute that's been very carefully considered and drafted to allow for the safety valve of the very tiny minority of young people who commit very serious crimes. They can receive already a very onerous sentence.

Ms. White has already talked about the cost savings that are associated with the decreased rate of incarceration of young people as a function of sentence. What's become apparent to us, and this is mentioned in our submission, is that when we consider the history of the act, not only has the rate of incarceration gone down, but the rate of youth crime generally has gone down. So we have to ask a serious question: what were we accomplishing 10 years ago when we were incarcerating young people at one of the highest rates in the western world? Well, one of the things we were accomplishing was we were wasting a lot of money that could have been much better spent on programs that would have helped to rehabilitate young people.

That leads to a concern on our part in that it seems that many of the proposals in Bill C-4 are aimed towards making it easier to incarcerate young people, and also, with respect to subsection 29(2), making it easier to detain them prior to trial. So we disagree with the amendments to subsection 29(2)--and this will be my last point as I see my time is almost up. In the amendments to subsection 29(2), which make it possible for a judge to detain a young person if there's a substantial likelihood that they will commit a serious offence while they're on release, we've made this point in our submission that “serious offence” contains quite a collection of things that we would characterize as frankly relatively innocuous, like cheque fraud and that sort of thing. The other problem we've identified is that “substantial likelihood” is a rather nebulous phrase.

In youth law, of all areas of the law, we would like to have some certainty and predictability, but what troubles us about this is that we're talking now about keeping people in custody who haven't been convicted of anything as of yet. It seems to us that this is contrary, first of all, to the Charter of Rights, paragraph 11(e), which provides that a person cannot be denied bail without just cause, and also to another principle that is enshrined right in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, item 3(1)(b)(iii), which says that young people are entitled to enhanced procedural protection of their rights.

Those are some of the reasons that we're opposed to subsection 29(2). Some of the other amendments that are proposed here we think would have the very negative effect of increasing the number of custodial sentences imposed against young people and the number of young people detained before trial, which, as is noted on page 3 of Professor Bala's submission, unfortunately has gone up since the Youth Criminal Justice Act was proclaimed into force. I'm ashamed to say it has particularly gone up in the prairie provinces. It's almost like we're giving with one hand and taking away with the other. We're imposing fewer custodial sentences but making more young people remain in custody before trial.

Those are my submissions on behalf of the CBA. I'm grateful for this opportunity, and I'd be happy to answer any questions later this afternoon.

[Elizabeth White, Executive Director, St. Leonard's Society of Canada]

Thank you very much, Chair, for the invitation to appear before the committee.

I am speaking on behalf of the St. Leonard's Society of Canada, and as it has been some years since we have presented before you, I would simply note that we have 45 years of experience in criminal justice and social justice, supporting member agencies that provide direct service across this country. While in the past we have been best known for our focus on long-term and life-sentenced individuals and for our residential services, it is our belief and knowledge that youth are key to providing safer communities, and for that reason we are pleased to present on this issue.

I was fortunate enough to participate in the round table in Toronto on youth justice in 2008, and now that the report from that has become available, I am struck by how similar its findings are to the matters we raised in the brief we submitted to you some months ago.

At St. Leonard's Canada, we believe it is important to note that since the enactment of the YCJA in 2003, there has been a significant decrease in youth incarceration without a significant increase in youth crime. Something clearly is working very well.

Turning to Bill C-4, we are in support of the inclusion in clause 3 of “diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability” as a principle, and we also wish to express support for clause 21 on the prohibition against the imprisonment of young persons in adult correctional facilities. On the other hand, St. Leonard's has serious concerns about clauses 4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 20, and 24. I would like to take a few moments on those. We are also concerned about the broadening of the definition of violent offence through the inclusion of sweeping wording, which we believe is cause for grave concern.

We would also like to note that the act did give this country the opportunity to overcome its dubious distinction of having the highest western incarceration rate for youth. That is a big achievement.

We believe these amendments respond to isolated and somewhat sensationalized cases, not the best basis on which to reform legislation. We believe that a more thorough examination and a longer-term opportunity for this act to continue to prove itself should occur before changes are made. We find many of the issues raised by Bill C-4 to be already appropriately addressed.

Deterrence as a sentencing principle would not be useful. There is no substantive support of its effectiveness in crime prevention. We submit that the YCJA deliberately omits deterrence as a sentencing principle with good reason and that it currently addresses the needs of the court in providing appropriate sentencing for youth that offers the best chance for rehabilitation and reintegration. Based on the lack of substantive evidence to show that deterrence is effective, we are concerned about amending the rules for pre-sentence detention. The current guidance from the act regarding pre-trial detention does not lack the necessary focus. The authority to detain a young person is already included if such an action can be justified in the youth court. We believe the proposed amendment places the onus on courts to focus on detention for so much broader a spectrum of offences that very few will remain unconsidered.

Extrajudicial sanctions support the key values of the YCJA in its aim to avoid custodial sentences unless those are required, and they support more viable alternatives that increase the likelihood of positive impact on the youth. The current approach allows the youth's admission of guilt to be a basis on which to move forward rather than a means of embroiling the youth further in the system. The youth will take responsibility. Expanding the criteria to allow them as admissible evidence for custodial sentencing will reduce the attractiveness of admissions of guilt for extrajudicial sanctions for the youth, but will also deter police, we believe, from using them.

On publication bans, the act currently allows a ban to be lifted when it is justified to do so in the interest of the youth or public safety. We know that publication leads to stigma. We know that stigma leads to reduced opportunity and often to recidivism. That's simply not consistent with the principles of the act. As Professor Doob noted in his appearance last week, if publication is to be broadened, it ought not to occur until all appeal processes are complete.

I would like to turn briefly to the relationship between mental health and youth crime. It is suggested that about 10% of youths involved in the criminal justice system have mental health disorders. I note this because in our view the attention in youth criminality should be addressing the needs--and yes, therefore the risks--of the many youth who have mental disorders. Ensuring that supports are in place to help them avoid conflict with the law is essential. Given that more than 70% of adults with mental health diagnoses who are in the criminal justice system had pre-age-18 onsets, it is clear that addressing youth mental wellness is key to minimizing long-term health costs and human distress.

Further to this, we are concerned with recent reports of a 70% co-morbidity rate among incarcerated youth who have mental health and substance abuse problems. Additionally, it has been found that more than 30% of youth with major medical issues also have mental health issues. So it's evident that there need to be more good mental health results, which will ensure good justice results. We're not sure that these proposed amendments get at this very serious issue, and we are very sure that punitive measures will not do a great deal to address it.

There is strong evidence supporting the need to reduce the criminalization of youth with mental health disorders in order to increase rehabilitation, reintegration, public safety, and greater cost-effectiveness overall.

I want to reference an example from London, Ontario, where the St. Leonard's community services in that region have an attendance centre program. They supervise around 150 youths over a six-month period, with a high rate of success through diversion programs. In six years of operation it is estimated that the savings between custody and the attendance centre are in the neighbourhood of $7 million to $10 million. That kind of money can go a long way to assisting youth.

I also want to reference the IRCS sentence. This excellent measure is still not being used to its full potential. Indeed, this week we heard that there are many judges in this country who are not aware that it is possible to use it. So despite allocations of funding that would allow 50 sentences of this type a year, since 2003 there have been less than 80. We need to give an opportunity for this very effective intervention to become known and used to further decrease ongoing criminalization.

We believe that the extended costs of further custodial measures are not necessary or appropriate for the Canadian public. We must give this act time to work, in the view of the St. Leonard's Society. There is overwhelming consensus from the report on the round tables that the flaws are not with the legislation; they're in the system. Implementation needs more and better work.

We submit there is indeed a need for action on youth justice: not legislation or incarceration, but vastly enhanced access to interventions and support through collaborative federal-provincial-territorial initiatives that overcome the silos of governance and address what is needed.

Thank you.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I also took note, by the way--and I say this with the utmost respect and levity--that Mr. Comartin has admitted that he does think that judges make mistakes, at least when they don't agree with his policy. I appreciate that. I mean that with respect, Mr. Comartin, and you know that.

I want to thank these witnesses in particular, because I regard them as being in a different class, if I may use that word, from many of the witnesses we see.

I'm assuming you are all lawyers, and I see from your credentials that you all hold senior positions. Without imputing too much to your age, I'm going to assume that you've probably all practised law for at least 10 years or more and that you are very familiar with the details of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which therefore gives you a position of expertise that many of the witnesses we see here don't have.

I would like to just briefly go back to something you said, Mr. Hawkes, because when you were here last, we had an exchange about section 3. I asked you if I was right in my reading of the current section as including protection of the public and in reading the amendments as not changing the fact that there are four factors in section 3, and that paragraph 3(1)(a) has no greater or lesser priority than paragraphs 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), or 3(1)(d). You did agree with me at that time on those things, and I think today when you said that the amendments add protection of the public to section 3(1)(a), you were misspeaking. In fact, if you look at the existing provision, you'll see that it is there, albeit referring to “long-term protection” rather than just “protection.”

I feel it's important to make that clarification, because so many of the witnesses we have heard from seem to be drinking from water that makes them think that protection of the public isn't already there, and I wish to dispel that notion. However, I would like to ask all of you, as serious and experienced counsel, about what my colleague Derek Lee was talking about earlier.

He was suggesting that somehow there has been creep, which makes the sentencing principles for youth criminal justice or the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act come very close to the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code proper. I noticed that at the time, he wasn't actually reading from Bill C-4; he was reading from the existing provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and suggesting that they were already too close to the adult provisions of the Criminal Code.

I would like to get your opinion generally on whether you think that the Youth Criminal Justice Act, with the amendments in Bill C-4, does still preserve the necessary distinction and the necessary separation between youth criminal justice and adult justice principles.

Perhaps, Mr. Hawkes, I'll start with you, since I was picking on you earlier.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much for your presentations today and for appearing before this committee.

From the briefs you have jointly prepared it's quite clear that you're very familiar with Justice Nunn's commission of inquiry, his report, and the specific recommendations he made with regard to the YCJA. It's also very clear that you've looked very carefully at Bill C-4.

You have noted that there are sections that appear to create unintended consequences, and you propose amendments to fix them. There are other areas of the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-4 where you appear to not consider they should be done. If we take, for instance, adult sentences, there seems to be a real problem with Bill C-4 in that the crown would have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt”, whereas from a complete reading and understanding of current jurisprudence that has been developed on this issue, it's clearly the aggravating circumstances, as you've just mentioned.

Do you feel that amendments can be brought to Bill C-4 that would correct all of the unintended consequences that you don't believe should happen because they would not be to the benefit of the youth criminal justice system? Can those sections of Bill C-4 that you feel are just wrong be salvaged through the amendments you're proposing? That's my first question.

Second, the federal government—or should I say the Harper government—has not in any way, to our knowledge, caused to be carried out any kind of serious study of the actual impacts of the YCJA across Canada in the different jurisdictions, with the assistance of the provincial governments, in order to have actual empirical data, actual evidence, as to what's working and what's not working. Do you feel that it might have been more appropriate to wait for such studies and the five-year review of the bill before moving on amendments?

If you tell me that's a political question and you don't feel comfortable answering it, I'll understand completely.

[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?

[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.

[Jean-Guy Dagenais]

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.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Minister, I am asking about the legislation that is in front of us. I am asking about Bill C-4. Let's start with Bill C-4. What is the head count for Bill C-4? What is the projected cost? It is something you are asking Parliament to pass. What about Bill C-5, Bill C-16? You take your choice. There are 24 bills.

Give me any bill, Minister. Give me projected head counts, projected costs on any bill of your choosing--just one. Why don't you give it to me on Bill C-59? It just passed--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'm asking on Bill C-4, Bill C-5, Bill C-16, Bill C-17, Bill C-21, Bill C-22, Bill C-23B, Bill C-30, Bill C-35, Bill C-37, Bill C-38, Bill C-39, Bill C-43, Bill C-48, Bill C-49, Bill C-50, Bill C-51, Bill C-52, Bill C-53C-54, Bill C-59, Bill SS-6, Bill S-7, Bill S-10.

What are the costs? What are the head counts? What are the implications? Why won't you give them to Parliament?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 49 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and for the record, today is Wednesday, February 16, 2011. This meeting is being televised.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're continuing our review of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children). After we hear three witnesses who are before us right now, we'll move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Before we move forward, there are two items.

We received a communication from a witness who testified at last Wednesday's meeting with a clarification of his status. Mr. Randall Fletcher was shown on the meeting agenda as representing the Office of the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island. You may recall that the chair sought to confirm his representation of the AG during Mr. Fletcher's testimony, at which time Mr. Fletcher appeared to confirm that he understood his presentation had been reviewed by the minister. Last Thursday, Mr. Fletcher sent a clarifying note to the clerk. I'll read it verbatim:

Prior to my videoconference presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights yesterday I advised the person I report to about the request to present. I was not certain if this was being passed on to the minister and had not had a chance to pursue the matter before the presentation. When I was introduced as representing the Department of the Attorney General for P.E.I., I thought perhaps there had been some communication to that effect, as I had not represented myself as doing so in my own communications. As of this morning I believe that the matter was not put before the minister and would like to clarify that the opinions I expressed in the session may, or may not, represent those of the department. I will attempt to get further clarification on this but do not want any current misunderstanding to continue.

That's the end of his quote. That's just for the record. He wanted us to ensure that it was on the record.

The second item, before we move to our witnesses, is that you have before you the eighth report of our Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. At that meeting we decided to move to Bill C-4 next, meaning the Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments, and it was agreed that we were going to ask approximately 21 witnesses to either come for a first time or to return for further testimony. We've agreed that the panels will consist of no more than three groups apiece per hour. That's your eighth report. I believe it accurately reflects what we settled on there.

Do we have a mover for that report? It is Monsieur Lemay.

(Motion agreed to)

Moving to our witnesses, we have with us Julie McAuley, Craig Grimes, and Mia Dauvergne. They are representing Statistics Canada and are all coming back to testify.

You know the process. I don't know if you've prepared remarks. Would you like to start? Then we'll open the floor to questions from the members.

Abolition of Early Parole Act

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion, just another in a series of extraordinary justice legislation that has been brought forward by this government to restore balance to our justice system. I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the good people of Oak Ridges—Markham.

I want to take a moment to commend the hon. members who have already demonstrated their support for Bill C-59 and are ensuring that these important changes receive quick passage into law. Those hon. members are showing their commitment to ensuring the safety and security of our communities.

All offenders must be held accountable for the crimes they commit. Bill C-59 is all about accountability, about offenders serving appropriate sentences for the crimes committed. That is what we call justice.

Bill C-59 would ensure that all offenders will be treated equally, regardless of the nature of the crime they commit, when it comes to eligibility for parole. Currently, there is a distinction made between crimes committed with or without violence. Parole, in cases of non-violent crime, is presumptive, meaning that the Parole Board of Canada must automatically release the offender into the community under supervision unless it has reasonable grounds to believe that the offender will commit a violent offence if released.

That does not seem fair to me. Fraud and white-collar crimes must not have been committed with violence but the victims are harmed nonetheless. Lives are ruined, entire life savings are lost and the physical, psychological and emotional harm resulting from these crimes can be equally as devastating.

Can we honestly say that justice has been served when an offender who has received a sentence befitting the crime walks out of jail well before the sentence has been served? In essence, many victims are essentially re-victimized by the relatively short amount of time that offenders spend behind bars for their crimes.

Canadians have spoken loud and clear. They are outraged that the rights of offenders seem to be put ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens. Our government is listening and we are taking the necessary action to crack down on crime and stand up for those who have been victimized. We are ensuring that victims' voices are heard and that their concerns are being addressed. Bill C-59 is just one step in that direction.

Our government has already introduced several initiatives that demonstrate our commitment to victims' rights. The federal victims strategy was introduced in 2006 to improve the experience of victims of crime in the criminal justice system. Since its creation, the government has committed over $50 million to this strategy. We created the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime in 2007 to ensure that the federal government meets its responsibility to victims of crime.

Under our leadership, the truth in sentencing law was passed, which eliminates the two-for-one credit that offenders receive for time served in custody prior to sentencing. We have gotten tough on organized crime, including drug crime, with stiffer sentences and we have passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which better protects Canadians from those who commit serious and violent crimes.

In addition, we are facilitating access to EI benefits for family members of victims of crime and the right to unpaid leave for workers in federally regulated industries. The victim surcharge is also being made mandatory to provide better financial support to victim services.

There are several more examples I could give that demonstrate that this government is making victims' rights a priority, but now I want to turn to the accelerated parole review challenges, the very rights that we are working so hard to uphold. By allowing accelerated parole review to continue operating in the justice process, we are, in essence, undermining the rights of victims and trivializing the suffering that they may have suffered at the hands of their offenders.

The current system of accelerated parole review grants parole to offenders convicted of non-violent offences after serving only one-sixth of the sentence and full parole after serving just one-third. This means that a white-collar criminal who has received a sentence of 12 years would actually spend very little time in jail. With accelerated parole review, these offenders can be back in our communities on day parole in just two years and be on full parole in just four years.

The current system requires that the Correctional Service of Canada refers the case of offenders eligible for APR to the parole board. This is done before the offender's day parole eligibility date so that they can be released into the community as early as possible. Parole hearings are not held in these cases, as there is no requirement for the parole board to hold a hearing to determine whether offenders eligible for APR may be released on day parole and full parole.

I, like most Canadians, would expect that the decisions around parole for white collar criminals would entail more than a simple paper exercise. It does not work that way for violent offenders, so it should not work that way for fraudsters either. They should not simply be let out on day parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence, as they essentially now often are.

Other offenders must convince the parole board that they will comply with the law and the conditions of their release. These offenders must make their case at an actual hearing. Unfortunately, as it now stands, white collar offenders do not actually have to explain to anyone why they should be granted parole. They only have to go through a paper review with the parole board.

Compounding the problem, the parole board has no choice but to grant parole to an offender who is entitled to APR, except in those instances where the parole board believes the offender may commit a violent offence before the sentence is up.

This situation is unlike the one facing other offenders and, thankfully, Bill C-59 will put a stop to it.

Let us think about the current scenario again because it offends both me and many of my hon. colleagues in the House. Under the present law, only the prospect of an offender committing a violent offence will prevent that criminal from receiving automatic parole.

Those fraudsters, the ones who may have duped many and literally destroyed lives, will not be denied parole and will only serve a fraction of their time behind bars. Without grounds to believe a violent offence will be committed, the Parole Board of Canada simply has no other choice but to grant parole.

The special treatment afforded to these offenders has to end. All other offenders are subject to a very different standard, one that instills, rather than undermines, confidence in our justice system. Right now, for all other offences, the parole board has set criteria to guide its approach in deciding whether they grant or deny parole.

In these cases the parole board will assess whether an offender poses an insurmountable level of risk to commit any type of an offence if released. If that risk exists for any type of offence, parole is denied.

Let us not miss the importance of that principle; it is one that warrants repeating. With the troubling exception of white collar offenders, all other offenders are not granted parole if the parole board is convinced that any type of offence will be committed once a person is released, whether violent or not.

There are no justifiable grounds for the existing exception for white collar criminals. These are the offenders who have bilked many, washing out entire savings and crippling lives in the most extreme cases. These offenders must no longer enjoy the different standard they face under the current law. The scales of justice seem unfairly tilted in their favour.

This government has made it quite clear that it will not put the rights of any offender ahead of the rights of others. We will stay committed and remind ourselves of a few clear cases where these white collar criminals have benefited from the current APR system. These are cases that make us all question whether justice is being served.

The parole board simply does not have the discretion is so sorely needs in these cases. Bill C-59 would bring about that change, which is why I stand here in the House and turn to my hon. colleagues and ask them to ensure timely passage of this bill.

I for one feel compelled to see the changes proposed in Bill C-59 put into place so that we put victims first. In my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham, we have certainly not been immune from the scourge of white collar crime. Indeed, not long ago a fraudster was at work within my community. After being convicted of her crime, she spent very little in jail and was released back into the community and was quickly found to be in violation of her parole. The police had to track her down and put her back in jail.

I know this person's victims. They are from my small home town of Stouffville. I see the stress they have faced. As this continued to be in the local papers, I watched the person who committed these acts flaunting our current system. It is absolutely positively unacceptable that we have a current justice system that would allow people who commit this type of crime to walk our streets after serving only one-sixth of their sentence.

However, this speaks to the many different things that this government has done.

Of course, when we came into office in 2006, we found a criminal justice system that was tilted not toward the victims but more toward the perpetrators of these crimes. Since then we have been rebalancing our justice system. The Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and this government have focused on restoring balance to the justice system so that the victims of these crimes can feel that the government is truly working on their behalf to give them a system of justice they can be proud of and so that Canadians can understand that the government will always stand for them and the rights of victims before those of criminals.

There are so many different programs and justice bills that we have brought forward. We have Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and Bill C-39. As I said, it is part of this government's focus to restore people's confidence in their justice system.

However, when we talk about Bill C-59, it is sometimes forgotten that it deals with incredibly serious crimes. There are fraudsters out in the communities who are seeking vulnerable people in a lot of instances and taking advantage of them and their life savings, the things they have worked so hard for their entire lives. Yet there are fraudsters out there who are doing this and who have no shame. Then the victims are victimized again when a court pronounces a sentence and then the person is released back into the community after serving only one-sixth of their sentence. That is clearly unacceptable to the people I represent in Oak Ridges—Markham. That should be unacceptable to every single member of this House.

It is unconscionable that we have had delays in getting this bill passed and have been spending so much time at committee on what should be a common sense bill. The people from my riding have been calling me and asking why it is taking us so long to deal with this. They do not want to hear about delays. They do not want to hear about the stalling tactics the opposition have been using to try to thwart the bill being passed. They want us to get it done and get it passed so that people will pay the price for the crimes they have committed. They do not want us to make a distinction that would have us treating the criminals better than the victims. They do not want to be re-victimized. They want to know that this government and the Parliament of Canada will stand up for victims' rights ahead of criminals. That is what this bill does; that is what all of the legislation we have brought forward does.

It is interesting that before the government operations committee, we had the head of the Correctional Service of Canada. He was asked if he had the resources required to keep convicted criminals in jail longer so that they could serve the sentences they had been given by the people of Canada. He of course said that he could continue to provide one of the best criminal justice systems in the world, a system that has been looked at by other nations as an example. He talked about the savings that he has been able to find within the correctional service by computerizing scheduling and finding other efficiencies so that he could put that money into keeping offenders in jail longer.

Therefore, I am pleased to support this. I hope that all of my opposition colleagues will join with the government in passing this bill so that the Canadian people can feel confident that the government, and Parliament and the people they elect are putting them first.

When I was asked to speak on this bill, the first thing that came to mind was the individuals in Stouffville who were victimized by this unscrupulous person who took them for thousands of dollars and was later found back on the streets with the exact same group she had used to abuse these people and take their money.

People call me and talk to me and send emails asking how this can be allowed to happen in Canada. How can we allow these victims to go through this time and time again? Why should their names be in the paper again? Why should they be re-victimized? Why can members not get their act together and pass this bill?

Canadians, the people in my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham, find it completely unacceptable that this bill has been stalled and delayed. They have sent me a very clear message to get the bill passed, get it through Parliament and start focusing on all the other crime legislation that has been brought forward in this House to restore balance to our criminal justice system. I am proud that I can do that, and I will be working with colleagues, at least on this side of the House, to make sure that all of those criminal justice issues are brought forward.

The delays to this particular piece of legislation and all of the legislation that we have been trying to get through this House speak to the sad reality of some individuals on the opposition benches who think more of their entitlements than they do of the people of Canada. If we were truly putting the Canadian people first, we would have passed this bill. We would not have spent a full day debating and talking about how we could delay this bill. It would have gone through committee.

In the government operations and estimates committee last week, we had an opposition witness who was talking about some of the crime legislation we had brought forward. It is something that stuck in my head as the father of two beautiful girls. The opposition was very happy with the group of witnesses before the committee. These witnesses did not support this government's agenda to keep violent criminals in jail. They did not support this government's agenda to keep white collar criminals in jail. They did not support our agenda to rebalance the Young Offenders Act. The opposition thought they had a great witness who would counter all of the arguments for keeping violent criminals in jail, but when the member for Peace River asked the witness whom the opposition had been so happy to bring forward, “Do you believe that people who rape children should be put into prison?“, that witness said, “Not necessarily.”

I know that members, at least on this side of the House, had to take a step back and make sure that the person truly understood the question. The member for Peace River asked again to make sure the witness has understood the question. The answer came back the same: “Not necessarily”.

Imagine having to go back to a riding and trying to explain that there are people in this House who support groups and organizations that do not feel that somebody who rapes or victimizes a child should necessarily go to jail. I can say that as a father of two, I found that completely unbelievable. I still find it unbelievable. It was testimony from a witness brought forward by the Liberal Party of Canada. It was jammed through committee in such a quick rush; they had to have this witness in front of the committee and now I know why.

When it comes to standing up for victims of crime, we can never rely on the Liberals to stand up for the victims. They will always find a way to stand up for the criminals, whether it be the member for Ajax—Pickering or others who tour our prisons and talk about how upset they are that the criminals are so demoralized in prison because they have a government that is getting tough on crime.

I can assure the residents of Oak Ridges—Markham that they have a member of Parliament who will always stand up for them. They have a member of Parliament who will always stand up for the victims of crime. I implore the opposition to once and for all vote the way their constituents are asking them to vote. Get tough on crime and do the right thing for victims.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the comments of the member in this chamber, and I am a bit surprised, because he is actually engaging in substantive debate around the bill to which the time allocation motion applies. However, what is really before us in the House today is the time allocation motion itself and the government cutting off the amount of time for debate on the bill.

We should not be debating the merits of the bill itself at all, yet I just heard the member say that all kinds of crime bills have been stalled at committee.

Let me give the House a number of the bills that have now passed through the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: C-4, C-5, C-16, C-17, C-21, C-22, C-23A, C-23B, C-39, C-48, C-50, C-51, C-52, S-2, S-6, S-7, S-9 and S-10. Can the member really suggest that the crime agenda of the government is being stalled?

Some of us would argue they are the only bills we have been dealing with in the House. I wish the member would return to what we are really debating here tonight, and that is the time allocation motion, not the substance of the government's crime agenda.

Standing Committee on Finance

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened today to feel the obligation to rise to address comments with regard to the question of privilege raised by the member for Kings—Hants on February 7.

It is like the movie Groundhog Day. Anyone is familiar with that movie knows it was very successful. American actor Bill Murray relives the day over and over again until he learns his lesson.

It appears the government is reliving the same thing and forcing all other members of the House of Commons and Canadians to relive the same days we experienced back in 2009-10 with regard to a request from the special committee on Afghanistan for the production of documents from the government. The government resisted that. It took a question of privilege to be raised in the House. It took comments from many members of the House. It took considerable reflection and study on your part, Mr. Speaker, before you made a ruling that there was a prima facie case of privilege in that regard.

Yet, again, we are faced with the exact same situation today.

If I look at the timeline, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance tabled its 10th report on Monday, February 7. The member for Kings—Hants, pursuant to that report, raised the question of privilege of which we are now all aware.

I want to concur with the arguments raised by my colleague for Kings—Hants, as well as those raised by my colleagues from Mississauga South and Windsor—Tecumseh on the issue.

However, I wish to note a number of points. I also wish to address, in particular, the issues of cabinet confidence and the requests with regard to all the justice bills. It is important to do so, particularly with the time of events and the government's response to date to the committee's requests for the production of documents. We have not yet heard the government's response in the House with regard to the question of privilege.

On November 17, 2010, the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion, ordering the Government of Canada to provide the committee with five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate tax rates from the 2010-11 fiscal year until the 2014-15 fiscal year, inclusive. The November 17 motion also ordered the government to provide the committee with certain financial information pertaining to justice bills, which I will enumerate.

As all members in the House know, I am the justice critic for the official opposition. Therefore, all the information, all the documents requested through the motion of the finance committee have direct pertinence to the committee on justice and human rights. Those justice bills were Bill C-4, the youth criminal justice bill, Bill C-5, Bill C-16, Bill C-17, Bill C-21, Bill C-22, Bill C-23A, Bill C-23B, Bill C-39, Bill C-48, Bill C-50, Bill C-51, Bill C-52, Bill S-2, Bill S-6, Bill S-7, Bill S-9 and Bill S-10.

The motion specifically requested:

—detailed cost accounting, analysis and projections, including assumptions, for each of the bills and Acts, conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Guide to Costing.

Members are now aware, by the issue of privilege raised by the member for Kings—Hants, that the motion established a deadline of seven calendar days, which ended on November 24, 2010.

On November 24, Finance Canada replied to the committee, and I will read the department's response in its entirety because it is quite important, particularly to any Canadian and any member sitting in the House who takes his or her work as an elected official representing Canadians, a sacred duty in fact, to know the response. It said:

Projections of corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate income tax rates are a Cabinet confidence. As such, we are not in a position to provide these series to the Committee.

The department claimed it was not in a position to provide these documents to the committee because, according to the government, these documents were a cabinet confidence. That is the heart of the matter. Do the documents requested constitute a cabinet confidence and, if so, are they excluded from the rule of the House of Commons, the power and authority of Parliament, to require documents to be provided?

As the House knows, because it has been mentioned by others in the House who have commented on the issue of privilege raised by the member for Kings—Hants, the government has yet to speak to this issue. I understand that one of the parliamentary secretaries has said the government is taking note of all of members' comments in the House, relating to the issue of privilege, and will respond in due course.

On December 1, 2010, one full week after the deadline of November 24, 2010, the committee received a reply from Justice Canada regarding projected costs of the justice bills. I will read the response by Justice Canada in its entirety. It said:

The issue of whether there are any costs associated with the implementation of any of the Government's Justice bills is a matter of Cabinet confidence and, as such, the Government is not in a position to provide such information or documents.

That is interesting because in justice committee, of which I am a member, when we have repeatedly asked the minister for the cost analysis of a government bill before the committee, the minister has never stated that he could not give us that information because it is a matter of confidence. I would challenge members to check the transcripts of justice committee. What I did hear was he did not have the information with him or some befuddled answer that did not answer the question.

On December 7, 2010, after the government had refused to provide the information ordered by finance committee by the established deadline, the member for Kings—Hants provided the committee with written notice of a motion by which, if passed, the committee would draw the attention of the House to what appeared to be a breach of its privileges. That has been done. The committee adopted the motion and the member for Kings—Hants rose in the House to speak to the issue.

On December 10, the committee received an additional response from the Department of Finance Canada in answer to its motion ordering the production of documents relating to the projections regarding corporate taxes before profits.

In response, the department stated:

To the best of its knowledge, the Department of Finance has determined that [the] "series" or projections of corporate profits before taxes or the effective corporate income tax rates have never been previously disclosed. These projections are from a comprehensive economic and fiscal projection that constitutes a Cabinet confidence.

To reiterate, according to the second or additional response of the Department of Finance to the finance committee, the Department of Finance, acting on behalf of the government, claimed that these projections have never been previously disclosed and constitute a cabinet confidence.

As pointed out in this chamber before, but which bears repetition, I would suggest to any Canadian to Google the phrase, “Corporate tax profits before taxes”, and restrict their search to the domain of the Department of Finance Canada. That Canadian would get exactly two results: the HTML and PDF versions of “The Economic and Fiscal Update“ from November 2005. In that update, we find precisely the information that the Department of Justice, in its December 10 additional response to the finance committee, claimed had never previously been disclosed because it constituted a cabinet confidence. In fact, it was disclosed in the November 2005 economic and fiscal update that was issued by the previous government comprised of the Liberal Party of Canada's elected members of Parliament.

Therefore, the assertion on the part of the government, through its Department of Finance, justifying its refusal to obey, respect and act on the order of the finance committee to produce the documents is an outright fabrication.

The government department could have said that in the past the information had been released, but that the policy had been changed with a new interpretation of what constituted a cabinet confidence and, as a result, would not be releasing those documents to the finance committee. However, that was not the reason given by the department, by the government, for refusing to release that information. The reason given to the committee for not providing that information, that it is a cabinet confidence, is pure nonsense.

What is the state of legislation regarding cabinet confidence?

As mentioned, one can look to the Access to Information Act and the law of evidence act, and one will find that the government does not have a leg to stand on, and in fact does not have two legs to stand on.

Any reasonable Canadian reading the pertinent sections of the Access to Information Act and the law of evidence act would see that the two responses given by the Department of Finance and the response given by the Department of Justice are nonsense.

As I said, we know that in 2005 the previous government recognized that projections of corporate tax profits before taxes were not covered by cabinet confidence. Such projections are not considered a cabinet confidence when, as is the case with Finance Canada's revenue model, these projections are used by the department in a manner not exclusively related to cabinet operations.

What has changed between 2005 and 2010-11? On what grounds is the government now claiming that these projections constitute a cabinet confidence when there was no such assertion in the past and governments in the past have in fact provided and disclosed that information?

The costs of the justice bills are also important because the Department of Justice, as well, replied to the finance committee by claiming cabinet confidence as a justification for not releasing that information to the finance committee.

We know that due diligence would have required that cabinet consider the cost implications of each justice bill before making a decision to proceed with each bill. We know that under normal practices, an analysis of the cost implications of each justice bill would have been included with the memorandum to cabinet prepared for each justice bill.

Why do we know this? We know it because the Liberal Party of Canada has formed government in the past. We know that when we came power the government that preceded us, the one formed by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, had done that as well. So these are normal practices. These are practices of a prudent, diligent and competent government.

No diligent, prudent and competent government would consider an issue, whether amendments, or a justice bill bringing in new legislation to the Criminal Code or amending existing sections of the Criminal Code, because that constitutes government policy, would do so without informing itself of the cost of those changes.

That is what previous governments have done, because those previous governments, whatever their faults, have followed prudent, diligent and competent practices with regard to taking decisions on issues brought before cabinet.

As I said, we know that under normal practices, an analysis of the cost implications of each justice bill would have been included with the memorandum to cabinet prepared for each justice bill.

Now let us look at the legislation that deals with what is, or is not, cabinet confidence and whether or not something that falls into cabinet confidence can be accessible.

If one looks at section 69 of the Access to Information Act, it tells us that such analysis and background information is not, and I repeat, not, a cabinet confidence, if the cabinet decision to which the analysis relates has been made public.

A cost analysis of the implications of a justice bill should have been included, and I believe was included, in the memorandum to cabinet, as it is on each and every justice bill.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I'm basically hearing that you're not the least bit concerned, because you've already made the efficiencies within your own budget. You're not concerned about having to hire 4,000 new employees—getting in effect a 6.5% reduction in your budget—I'm still trying to square that peg—even with the savings you've found under deployment and new efficiencies.

I'm going to ask you a question, and this is all about the Truth in Sentencing Act. We look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer did in looking at that area and the requirements that are going to be needed by the correctional services under that act.

Now, there are many other acts, and I'm just thinking of what's before us today. Bill S-10 is before us today. We've got Bill C-4, Bill C-39; we've got a number of other acts. Bill C-39 is the act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Bill S-10 is an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-4 is an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They can't be fitting into your plans, I don't think, at this point because you're still going through the process. Yet I think the Conservatives are hoping that the process will come to a quick conclusion.

The impact is going to be layered on top of the Truth in Sentencing Act. Are you not concerned that instead of being tough on crime you're going to be wrong on crime, in the sense that the judicial system will face an overburdened point where criminals may actually not be punished in the right and proper manner?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

In our system of responsible government, the government must seek Parliament's authority to spend public funds. Parliament, in turn, has an obligation, a responsibility to hold the government to account and to scrutinize the government's books.

Recently, this government impeded the work of the Standing Committee on Finance by hindering its attempts to better understand the federal government's budget projections.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 108 empowers committees to send for persons, papers and records. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, describes Parliament's right to order the production of documents as a right that is “as old as Parliament itself”.

On November 17, 2010, the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion ordering the Government of Canada to provide the commitment with five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate tax rates from the 2010-11 fiscal year until the 2014-15 fiscal year, inclusive.

The November 17 motion also ordered the government to provide the committee with certain financial information pertaining to justice Bills C-4, C-5, C-16, C-17, C-21, C-22, C-23A, C-23B, C-39, C-48, C-50, C-51, C-52, S-2, S-6, S-7, S-9 and S-10.

Among other things, the motion specifically requested:

detailed cost accounting, analysis and projections, including assumptions, for each of the bills and Acts, conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Guide to Costing.

The motion established a deadline of seven calendar days, which ended on November 24, 2010.

On November 24, the Department of Finance replied to the committee with the following. I will read the department's response in its entirety. It stated:

Projections of corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate income tax rates are a Cabinet confidence. As such, we are not in a position to provide these series to the Committee.

The government provided no further information to the committee before the deadline.

On December 1, 2010, one full week after the deadline, the committee received a letter from the Department of Justice regarding projected costs of the justice bills. Again, I will read the department's response in its entirety. It stated:

The issue of whether there are any costs associated with the implementation of any of the Government's Justice bills is a matter of Cabinet confidence and, as such, the Government is not in a position to provide such information or documents.

On December 7, 2010, after the government had refused to provide the information ordered by the committee by the established deadline, I provided the committee with written notice for a motion by which, if passed, the committee would draw the attention of the House to what appeared to be a breach of its privileges.

On December 10, 2010, perhaps in response to the written notice I had written on December 7, the committee received an additional response from the Department of Finance.

In its response, the department stated:

To the best of its knowledge, the Department of Finance has determined that “series” or projections of corporate profits before taxes or the effective corporate income tax rates have never been previously disclosed. These projections are from a comprehensive economic and fiscal projection that constitutes a Cabinet confidence. As a result, the Department of Finance has not been in a position to provide these "series" to the Committee.

This response appeared somewhat dubious. For, if any member of the House or if any Canadian wishes to Google the phrase “corporate profits before taxes” and restrict their search to the domain of the Department of Finance's website, he or she would get exactly two results: the HTML and PDF versions of “The Economic and Fiscal Update” from November 2005, in which they would find, on page 83, that the previous Liberal government had actually published projections of corporate profits before taxes from 2005 until 2010.

At this time, I would like to seek unanimous consent to table page 83 of “The Economic and Fiscal Update” from November 2005.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. You're excused.

I just have a comment about where we go from here.

On Wednesday we have the minister and justice department officials scheduled on this bill. On the following Monday we have a number of witnesses on this bill; there are three. And then we are proposing to go to clause-by-clause.

After that we have nothing, so I'm proposing that we have a steering committee on the Thursday. I believe you might have already been contacted on that. We need to decide what bills we want to deal with next. We have Bill C-16; we have Bill C-4 still hanging out there; we also expect BillS-10 to be at committee very shortly. And we still have the organized crime study. At the steering committee I'll be looking to you for some direction in that regard.

We're adjourned.

Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to put it on the record here, without apology, that we believe that the Liberal Party is opposing or delaying this legislation for partisan purposes.

In fact, she as much as admitted that she challenged the ruling of the chair at committee, when she knew that the ruling of the chair was correct. I cannot think of a better example of delay than introducing amendments that she knew were out of order, then challenging the chair when he correctly ruled that the amendment was out of order. This has been the process at committee.

I also refer back to the discussions at committee on Bill C-4, where essentially the Liberal Party, in regard to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, where we are trying to introduce the protection of the public as a key and primary sentencing principle, is using the tactic of death by witness.They stack the witness lists and keep introducing witnesses in order to delay and obstruct the legislation.

I want to challenge her. Why is it that today in this House, when she and her party were given the opportunity to allow this bill to pass immediately--

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to put the debate on this issue back into context. We are not debating Bill S-6 itself. We are debating motions moved by the government to restore the text of the bill to what it was when it was referred to the committee. After studying the bill, the committee made two minor amendments to reflect concerns raised during the study. The government has rejected those amendments.

The minister attended our committee meeting again yesterday. He urged us to spend more time studying Bill C-4 and make suggestions for amendments, which he would take into consideration. Today, he is objecting to such minor things as the title and extending the deadline after obtaining permission from the provincial chief justice or delegate because circumstances beyond a person's control prevented that person from applying before the deadline. That is what we are debating now.

Let us begin with the easy part, the title. The title the government wants to use is not the same in English and French. The English title is Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act. The French title is Loi renforçant la sévérité des peines d’emprisonnement pour les crimes les plus graves. With all due respect, those are not bill titles. They are slogans.

In my opinion, when we are talking about crime and about putting people in jail, we have to take a calm approach. We have to leave the hustings mentality behind and behave like parliamentarians. One would expect a minister of justice to be conscious of the dignity required in exercising his functions and do so of his own accord.

As long as they keep giving us titles that are really slogans, we will vote against those slogans. The trend seems to be on the rise, with the government trying it with nearly all of its bills. If they give us objective titles like the ones the previous government provided, we will vote in favour. This has become absurd. Some of the titles are outright libel against Canada's judges.

In that regard, the most impressive title is that of Bill C-16, which would purports to end house arrest for violent and dangerous offenders. No violent or dangerous offenders ever receive such a sentence, because current legislation clearly indicates that judges cannot sentence dangerous offenders to house arrest. Furthermore, these sentences are for more than two years, and are not the kinds of sentences that violent and dangerous offenders receive. If any judge in Canada were to release a violent or dangerous offender to serve his sentence at home, it would be the duty of the crown prosecutor on the case to appeal the decision. In some cases, the sentence could be overturned.

The government needs to stop making up these slogans and start proposing objective titles. In this case, I see a specific problem. Indeed, this time there are two slogans and furthermore, the French and English are not the same. This is what happens when advertising executives are hired to give titles to bills.

The second amendment, which is more serious, would extend the time period. Lawyers who have experience with these kinds of cases gave evidence before the committee. They explained to us how complex the procedures are and how hard it is to build a case 15 years later. Indeed, these requests are made 15 years after the offences, and the offender may have been through many different prisons in many different cities. The lawyers have a very hard time finding the old files. This was acknowledged by correctional authorities, who told us how much effort they put into these requests. They also told us that in many cases, it would be impossible to fulfill all of the requirements as set out in the legislation within the prescribed 90-day period. I therefore believe that the amendment proposed by the Liberals was carefully designed and drafted to target a specific problem, unlike the bills presented by this government.

It is only in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the inmate, as the amendment says, that the chief justice of the province or a delegate could grant this additional 180-day deadline.

Victims have waited 15 years and we would be asking them to wait even longer. They will be told to wait 90 more days because for reasons beyond their control, the inmate the inmate's lawyer was unable to follow all the highly complex procedures within that timeframe. What is so unreasonable about that? Does the minister lack confidence? If anything comes from a committee, then it is no good. He asks us to make suggestions and we do. They are justified, but he does not accept them. I fully agree with the eloquent remarks made by the member who spoke before me.

Consider this: 84% of murder victims knew their murderer. Murder is often committed by a family member. In at least one case, that of young Mr. Kowbel, the father and sister testified to give him a chance even though he was the one who attacked them 15 years earlier, killing his mother and seriously injuring his father. Nevertheless, his relatives recognized his rehabilitation efforts.

This is essential legislation and we only use it when necessary. It is essential for setting the stage for someone facing a sentence of more than 10 and up to 25. He has to have some incentive for good behaviour and respect for the guards. This legislation is good for safety within the prisons and it has not been abused.

Statistics show that before 1995 only 63 applications were filed, 13 of which were denied. The fact that not many applications were denied makes sense because before an application is filed, prison officials have already reviewed the case. Of that number, 27 were approved, but with sentences up to 16 years and 20 years. Three were from 21 years to 23 years. Of the cases that were approved by the juries, 6 were denied by the National Parole Board. We can see from this that the safeguards are substantial.

Since that time, 921 people have been eligible but only 169 requested authorization. Of that number, 141 received authorization to apply and 125 were granted early parole. The result? No repeat murders. There was only one serious criminal offence, an armed robbery. Fifteen people were sent back to prison because they failed to meet some of the very strict conditions of parole imposed on offenders under the supervision of the National Parole Board. In addition, 11 people died.

This is not a law that is abused. We are keenly aware that it may require victims to testify and may cause them painful moments. The cases we are discussing, like the Olson case, will not be affected. Regardless, these offenders will have no chance of parole.

This is a useful law in terms of prison security. It is a good law that encourages some criminals who have committed serious crimes to be rehabilitated. It is a law that, in the end, has produced excellent results. What is worse is that we think that we are doing more in Canada but, in this case, it is quite the opposite.

In Canada, the time that murderers spend in prison is greater than in all other western countries, as well as in Australia and New Zealand.

Let us therefore respect the committees and vote the same way as those who have studied the issue carefully.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to have the associate deputy minister, Don Piragoff, with me today. I'm here before you again to assist in your examination of Bill C-4, amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The proposed reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are contained in Bill C-4, Sébastien’s Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), are based on a mixture of what was heard during the cross-country consultations on decisions of the courts and the views expressed by Canadians with an interest in the issues, whether in written submissions or in discussion with me and others.

During the course of developing these reforms, I held consultations with various youth justice stakeholders in every province and territory across the country. In addition, I sought and received written submissions by mail and electronically prior to the introduction of the bill.

To put the details in context, after more than five years of experience with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, I launched a review of the act in February 2008. This began with a meeting with provincial and territorial Attorneys General to discuss the scope of the review and to encourage provincial and territorial ministers to identify the issues relating to the act that they considered to be the most important.

In May 2008 I began a series of cross-country round tables, usually co-chaired by provincial and territorial ministers, in order to hear from youth justice professionals, front-line youth justice stakeholders, and others about areas of concern and possible improvements regarding the provisions and principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Input from individuals and organizations through the Department of Justice website was also sought, as well as input through in-person meetings and in written form.

This review and other consultations permitted a variety of different views, including those of police and the legal community, aboriginal Canadians, youth involved in the youth justice system, and others, to be brought forward and considered.

The results show that most provinces and stakeholders believe that the Youth Criminal Justice Act works well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes; however, there were concerns about the small number of youth who commit serious, violent crimes or are repeat offenders.

As well, while the goal of the act is to deal with young offenders through alternative means that encourage rehabilitation, some are of the view that the act has imposed barriers that could restrict the courts from imposing custody on youth who should receive custody. Also, they believe that while adult sentences are available for those 14 and over and can be used where appropriate, these are not always considered, even in the most serious cases. Concerns were expressed by some about youth who commit violent or repeat offences and who may need a more focused approach to ensure that the public is protected.

For example, some were concerned about violent youth who may avoid detention through bail. The fear is that those youth could commit a serious or violent offence while awaiting trial. The current law on pretrial detention is seen by some as too complicated. These complications might also make it more likely that youth who should be kept off the street pending trial may be released, only to reoffend, sometimes with lethal consequences.

As you are aware through the testimony of Justice Nunn and of others who appeared as witnesses on this bill, the Nunn commission of inquiry in Nova Scotia dealt with a case in which a youth who had been detained was released, stole a car, and was involved in a car accident in which a person was killed.

The proposed reforms would greatly simplify the judicial interim release scheme. The new law will include a very simple test. If the youth has allegedly committed a serious offence, then this youth can be detained while awaiting trial if he or she, if released, would likely endanger the public by committing another serious offence.

Overall, taking into account all that was heard during the round table discussions, as well as on the website and from other written and oral input, the conclusion we came to was that although the act is working well for most youth, particular elements of the act need to be strengthened to ensure that youth who commit serious, violent, or repeat offences are held accountable with sentences and other measures that are proportionate to the severity of the crime and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

The proposed reforms address these concerns. The principles of the act will be changed to make the protection of society an explicit objective of the act. Specific deterrents and denunciation will be a part of the sentencing principles. Not only youth who commit violent offences or who have a pattern of findings of guilt will be eligible for a custodial sentence, but also those who have a pattern of extrajudicial sanctions.

The meaning of “violent offence” will be expanded to include offences in the commission of which a young person causes, attempts to cause, or threatens to cause bodily harm, including endangering the public. To ensure that adult sentences are imposed in appropriate cases in which the youth has been convicted of committing a serious, violent offence--which is defined in the bill as first- or second-degree murder, attempting to commit murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault--the prosecution will be required to consider seeking an adult sentence and to advise the court if they choose not to apply for an adult sentence. The provinces will have the ability to continue to set the age for the requirements at 14, 15, or 16.

Changes will also be made to publication provisions. In addition to retaining the current lifting of the publication ban when an adult sentence is imposed on a youth, the new law would require judges to consider lifting the publication bans for all convictions of violent offences for which youth sentences are imposed.

Also, there will be a requirement that records be kept when extrajudicial measures are used by law enforcement. Keeping these records will make it easier to find patterns of reoffending, which ties in with the amendment to the sentencing provisions with regard to extrajudicial sanctions.

A further change is related to youth serving custodial sentences. The bill makes it clear that no young person under 18 will be placed in custody with hardened criminals in an adult institution. Youth can, however, be transferred to an adult facility, of course, when they become adults. All young people under 18 will serve any custody portion of their sentence in youth facilities, separate from adult offenders.

In addition to the feedback provided through consultation with stakeholders, decisions of the courts were also a critical factor in developing Bill C-4. Of particular importance are the amendments that respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Regina v. D.B., remove the presumptive offence provisions, and clarify the test and onus requirements related to adult sentences.

In May 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act violated section 7 of the charter. These provisions placed an onus on young persons found guilty of presumptive offences to justify receiving a youth rather than an adult sentence, and to justify the continued protection of their privacy. The amendments we are proposing will remove the presumptive offence provisions from the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as other inoperative sections.

The act will also be changed to clarify the test for the imposition of an adult sentence and to ensure the onus is on the crown to satisfy the court as to the appropriateness of an adult sentence. Amendments are also being proposed to ensure that the youth sentence calculation provisions are applied when a young person who has reached adult age is serving a youth sentence in an adult correctional facility.

In conclusion, the reforms in this bill are based on a mixture of what was heard across the country: consultations, decisions of the courts, and the views of Canadians with an interest in these issues, which were expressed either in written submissions or in discussion with me and others. These amendments will support and improve a fair and effective youth justice system for this country and result in a youth justice system that holds youth accountable for their criminal misconduct and promotes their rehabilitation and reintegration into society in order to promote the protection of the public.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 42 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, December 9, 2010.

You all have the agenda before you today. We'll be dealing with two items. First of all, during the second half of today's meeting we'll be proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

Before we do, however, we have with us again, for an hour, our Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Rob Nicholson. The minister is here to review and respond to questions regarding the consultation report on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

Minister, thank you for coming.

[François Levert]

Thank you for the question.

The Canadian Council of Provincial and Territorial Child and Youth Advocates has in fact been advocating for the creation of such a commissioner. If you are familiar somewhat at the international level, France, for example--whom we have dealt with in trying to model what a commissioner could look like--has its own republic commissioner for children and youth. This person would likely be tackling issues that have national challenges that fall under the federal jurisdiction, issues such as youth criminal justice reforms.

We know that Bill C-4 is before the House at this point in time. Maybe provincial child and youth advocates can—if I can use that example—weigh in in terms of being the custodian or managers of the justice system within their own respective jurisdictions. However, the spirit of the act and the whole functioning of the judicial act is done across the board uniformly.

So a federal commissioner would certainly be useful in weighing on some issues that have a broader impact across all jurisdictions. How it would work specifically--certainly in issues such as this one--is this person could be weighing in on the rights and interests of all children across the spectrum. Other issues can include anything related that falls within health concerns under the federal jurisdiction or any international relationships with other countries in terms of adoption or otherwise.

I think that the Convention on the Rights of the Child--if I may use that specific instrument--has a broad impact on a number of programs that are offered through our social safety net. We as provincial advocates have limited jurisdictions. For example, we do not have any jurisdiction over judges, over lawyers, over private matters, over legal representatives, over medical experts. The commissioner's job would likely be one who could exercise his role through the power of recommendations such as we do: guiding, assisting the federal government in either developing or improving public policy.

That is mainly one of the roles we play in the province. I spoke to this effect, about working collaboratively with provincial departments in improving their system and being creative and thinking outside the box, if I may use the expression, in terms of developing public policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 36 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, November 18, 2010.

We are going to be continuing our study of Bill S-6. However, before we do that, members, I want to go through a couple of housekeeping items.

First of all, at our next meeting we will be hearing at least one more witness, if not two. We’re just trying to line up the final witness. We’re waiting to confirm that. Then we will move to clause-by-clause.

At the following meeting we will have the minister appearing on Bill C-4, you may recall. Then we will be dealing with Bill C-21.

Mr. Comartin, you had asked about witnesses on Bill C-21. The one witness you asked for was Statistics Canada. They have indicated that they don’t have any additional information to add to what’s already on the record. Also, incidentally, they’re not available on the two dates we made available to them.

We haven’t received any other witnesses from our members here. I just want to make sure that you’re aware of that, because our timeframe now is pretty short.

Go ahead, Ms. Jennings.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I just want to address the comments made by Ms. Duncan that there was an agreed agenda. There was not an agreed agenda. I think there was a motion that was passed by the coalition to not deal with SARA, which I disagreed with, and I made that very clear to each of the members.

I think we had a moral responsibility to fufill our first responsibility, which was to finish SARA and to make sure that species that are at risk are being dealt with properly. But that was voted on--the coalition said no, we don't want to deal with SARA--so we're now dealing with Bill C-469.

I'm a little concerned also that the number of witnesses is being very one-sided. We're not hearing from industry. We're not hearing from first nations. We're not hearing from fishermen. We're not hearing from Hydro-Québec; we heard from testimony that Hydro-Québec could be shut down, and yet we're forging ahead with Bill C-469.

I think we need to hear witnesses or we need to proceed to clause-by-clause, but to have this go on, and without an agreement about how long this is going to be, I think it's fruitless.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

I was relieved that your comments on Bill C-4 were forthcoming, and that there will be a report tabled. We're very happy in that regard, because all of this committee moved in June 2010 to have a report of the round-table discussions that you undertook in 2008. So that's two years, but it's better late than never. So I thank you somewhat for that, Mr. Minister.

Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, which comes at a very bad time. We will try to deal with this methodically. I want to respond to my colleague who just spoke. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently studying six bills, including Bill C-4 on young offenders. The review of this particular bill is not complete because the government has not yet tabled the necessary documents, as it should have done in June 2010. The bill we are discussing today could also die on the order paper because it may be some time before it is studied in committee.

I do not know whether my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, is studying as many bills that affect the public in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. If she is, then we have a serious problem. This government is playing politics and taking a piecemeal approach to justice issues, doing a little bit here and a little bit there. It has introduced a bill that I would say is extremely worthwhile and has been a long time coming. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, and we would like to send it to committee as soon as possible.

Let us look at the dates of this bill. On June 16, 2009, we were examining Bill C-43. Summer arrived, the House adjourned, and then MPs returned. In October 2009, we were examining Bill C-53. Then, the government—not the opposition parties—decided to prorogue. This bill died on the order paper on December 30, 2009. Now, the government has re-introduced the bill as Bill C-39, which is the same as the previous bills C-43 and C-53. I hope this one will not die on the order paper, because it is very important.

The government is accusing the opposition of not looking out for victims, of not caring about them or being interested in them. According to the government, the only thing that the opposition cares about is criminals, and getting them out of jail as soon as possible. I never hear so many blatant lies from the other side of the House as I do when they talk about victims. We absolutely care about victims. The best example is that the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the abolition of the one-sixth of the sentence rule for two years now.

I will give a little legal lesson, more specifically on criminal law, for my colleagues opposite. It is a problem with criminal law that comes up when an individual is sentenced. The best example is the case of Colonel Williams. We can talk about him now, because he will probably be sentenced to life in prison, with no chance of parole for at least 25 years. We can get back to that, because the government just introduced another bill. Let us take the example of someone sentenced to jail time. Bill C-39 applies only to someone sentenced to more than two years. That is extremely important. We are talking about sentences of more than two years in prison. The problem is that in provincial prisons, in Quebec in particular, this service already exists. However, even if the individuals are sentenced to two years less a day, they are still eligible for release after serving one-sixth of their sentence.

In terms of criminal law, let us look only at sentences of at least two years, for example, someone in Quebec who is sentenced to three years in prison. This person is sent to the regional reception centre in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, in the Montreal region. Regardless of where that person is from, that is where they are sent.

It takes between three and four months for the case to be dealt with. If the person was sentenced to 36 months in prison, after six months, or one-sixth of the sentence, that person is already eligible for release, and no one will have dealt with the case.

There is a gap there. We have long been saying that parole must be earned and that release after serving one-sixth of a sentence should not exist. I have 30 years of experience as a criminal lawyer. Some of my clients were released after serving one-sixth of their sentence. After having been sentenced to three years, they were released after six months and no program had been established for them, which made it far more likely that they would reoffend.

My colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, who is a criminologist and has worked with these types of people, probably knows what I am talking about. This is exactly what is happening in prisons. They cannot even begin to work with an individual who has one foot out the door if he was sentenced to two or three years in prison. He has practically left before he has arrived. Why? Take the example of one of my clients. We decided that it was better for him to be sentenced to 24 months in prison instead of two years less a day because it would take longer to serve a sentence of two years less a day in a Quebec prison than a 24-month sentence. One-sixth of 24 months is four months, and so he was released after four months. There was not even enough time before he was released for them to deal with his case and have a meeting to discuss a plan for his return to society.

That is the worst possible mistake. As I have been saying in this House for nearly six years now, the problem with the Conservatives is that they do not understand. So, I will try to explain it again. The Conservatives think that minimum prison sentences will solve everything. Nothing could be further from the truth, so far that even the Americans are beginning to realize it. Canada—and especially the Conservatives—seems to be a few years behind. In two or three years, they are going to realize they are on the wrong track.

The public is not shocked when someone receives a four-year sentence, but rather when that individual gets out after one year. The public is shocked by the fact that people are not serving their sentences. That is precisely what the Bloc Québécois has been criticizing for some time.

Whether my Conservative friends like it or not, minimum prison sentences do not preclude offenders from being eligible for parole. Even with a mandatory minimum of three years, the individual is still eligible for parole. That is what the Conservatives do not understand. Once again, we will try to explain to them that it is the parole system that needs to change. The parole system needs to be changed so that people who are sent to prison are not released unless they have a plan for their reintegration into society. That is the problem. In the example I gave of someone who has been sentenced to three years, if he is eligible for parole after six months, he will sit back and do nothing.

That is why we are calling for the elimination of parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served. That is also why we hope to vote quickly to pass this bill. I know my Conservative Party colleagues always overreact because of the worst criminals. In the case of Colonel Williams, who has committed a rash of unspeakable crimes in the Belleville and Trenton area, if he is sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, society will take care of him. He will be sent to prison, as he clearly deserves. I will not try to defend him here, since I am not his lawyer.

That is not the problem. The worst criminals deserve the harshest sentences. That has always been true. The problem lies with individuals who are not criminals, but who are going down a path of crime. If we do not stop them, if we do not take measures to stop them, they will become hardened criminals. Generally they are individuals who are serving their first penitentiary sentence. Obviously it depends on the crime, but in most cases, a person's first penitentiary sentence is somewhere between 3 and 10 years. Those are the people this bill absolutely must catch and as soon as possible.

When I say “catch”, I mean we must encourage them to do what it takes to return to society with a plan in order not to reoffend. The problem is that the parole board does not help. It does not have a chance to work with the individuals. If an individual is eligible for parole after one-sixth of his sentence, what will he do? Take, for example, an individual who has a three-year sentence. When he arrives at the regional reception centre—every province has them—it takes three to four months before his case is reviewed. What do you think he does in the meantime? He plays cards, watches television, drinks Pepsi and waits. No one works with him, at least not very much. Someone needs to work with him as soon as he arrives at the penitentiary.

There is something my Conservative friends do not understand. I will explain it to them yet again. An individual who is sentenced will return to society and if he is not properly prepared to return to society, then, unfortunately, he will reoffend. It is a known fact that the risk of recidivism for this type of person—I am talking about those who receive sentences between 3 and 10 years—is quite high. The risk is there. We have to find ways to correct this.

Quite honestly, this is a good bill. This afternoon, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is going to study Bill C-22 on Internet child pornography. We all support this bill. It must be passed. Everyone agrees that this legislation needs to be put in place. It must be passed, but the government will have to submit it to us. The same holds true for Bill C-39. We must deal with it as soon as possible because it is a good bill. The parole board needs to be able to implement it. But no work is being done right now because no one knows whether the bill is going to come. The bill might not pass and could die on the order paper because of an election in the spring of 2011, for example, which is not such a far-fetched idea. It could happen. Suppose there is an election in the spring of 2011. If the government has not submitted this bill to us—we have six bills to study—then it is going to have to set priorities for the committee. We have already agreed to study Bill C-22 while we wait for the translation of the report on Bill C-4 on young offenders, as I said earlier. But it is important to pass Bill C-22 on child pornography.

There is the other bill on vehicle theft—I cannot remember the number—that we discussed before the House adjourned a week ago. Everyone supports this bill.

The government should do the sensible thing and say that since the opposition supports a number of bills, they will be sent as soon as possible to be studied, discussed and passed.

Since this bill will likely be studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I think things should go quickly. But we have to give the penitentiaries the means to prepare release plans. This is the process where an offender is told that he has five years left to serve, for example, and he has to begin, now, to take part in preparing a release plan or serve his last five years.

At least the individual still has the choice in prison. But it is clear that he may leave—and will leave—after five years. There needs to be some follow-up with this person. During the entire prison sentence, the individual offender's treatment needs to be personalized, just as the courts hand down personalized sentences.

The individual must be made aware that their release from prison is as much their responsibility as the crime they committed. The person was found guilty or pleaded guilty to the offence and was given a sentence. However, after they are sentenced, many individuals tend to sit in prison and just wait for the end of the sentence. This bill should put an end to that. We must change the attitudes of people as they enter the prison by asking them about their plans for release and what they want to do. Do they want to finish school? Do they want addiction treatment? Do they want some sort of training? What do they want? That would set the wheels in motion so that they can leave prison better equipped than when they arrived.

Obviously, that is not what is happening right now. The National Parole Board, the prisons and the Correctional Service of Canada are not able to provide these services. That would require many things. The government supports this bill, but it needs to invest the necessary funds. Why invest? Because criminals will eventually be released. Victims need protection. They are always talking about victims.

There is something that we do not understand about the Conservatives. The National Parole Board takes care of victims, especially in terms of the prison system. This organization's main priority is the rehabilitation of an individual who is rejoining society, but the victims must also be protected and every possible step must be taken to keep that individual from reoffending.

I am being told that I have only two minutes left, but I could go on about this for a long time. I would like the Conservatives to remember this: automatic sentences have never solved anything. A minimum prison sentence has never solved anything, and that will not change today. All the studies presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that minimum prison sentences have never led to a decrease in crime.

We must ensure that these individuals serve their sentences, keeping in mind that they will one day return to society. It is clear that we will probably never see people like Colonel Williams, who will receive a minimum sentence of 25 years for a double murder, outside the prison walls. But we will see people who were sentenced to five to ten years in prison, and some are already close to being released.

Did people like Mr. Jones or Mr. Lacroix, who owned Norbourg, learn their lesson? With all due respect, I think that the only thing they learned was not to get caught.

Unfortunately, with the current system, prisoners learn more about not getting caught than they do about preparing for their release.

Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, but we have a problem at the outset. I am going to say something important, and the members opposite should listen, because if they do not, they are going to make the same mistake again.

Currently, in committee in the room next door, we are trying to finish studying Bill C-4. Some members will say that that has nothing to do with Bill S-9. I am coming to that. Because of the government, we are still waiting for a report on Bill C-4 that should have been tabled on June 16. We have been waiting for three and a half months for this report so that we can finish studying this young offenders bill. The government says that we are dragging our feet. I have good news and bad news for the government. The good news is that we are not the ones dragging our feet. The bad news is that they are the ones dragging their feet. The same is true of Bill S-9. The first iteration of this bill was introduced on April 14, 2008—not last week, not in April 2010 or April 2009, but on April 14, 2008. All the parties said they were prepared to study this bill quickly in committee, as I am saying today.

The problem is that they are introducing so many silly justice bills, so many populist bills as they see it, that we can no longer work. As we speak, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has already received four bills to study, and the session only resumed on September 20. Does the government think we are going to have the time to consider Bill S-9? Still, the government should not take us for idiots. That is the problem with the Conservative Party, the problem with this government. It thinks it can ram bills through. It is wrong.

Getting back to this bill, I have some trouble calling it S-9 because they tried to pass it through the Senate before bringing it here. It is not moving any more quickly because the problem is that part of the work had already been done on Bill C-26. The committee had already heard from representatives of the Insurance Bureau of Canada and Statistics Canada. It is the party in power, not us, that is delaying the work. I hope that the public will remember this because auto theft is an important issue. Everyone in Quebec and across Canada is asking us to do something. We certainly have no objection. It is an interesting bill. It is a bill that should have been introduced well before Bill C-4, and well before a number of other bills, given that we were probably going to move more quickly on it.

We do not have recent statistics, but just in terms of auto theft—addressed by Bill S-9 before us today—there was a small drop in 2007. However, auto theft remains one of the most common offences in Canada and is committed in particular by youth between the ages of 15 and 18. In 2007, they were responsible for three solved auto thefts in ten. That same year, 146,000 vehicle thefts were reported to police, an average of 400 thefts per day. I imagine that I will be asked about the statistics for 2008, 2009 and 2010. We do not have them. I believe we should have them soon. It is possible that we may not get all the information because the census will not be taken. However, with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, as well as Statistics Canada and the police stations, we should have a good idea and we believe the numbers will be similar. Unfortunately, there will be around 140,000 vehicles stolen per year.

That is a huge number and it is far too high. We need to eliminate this scourge.

We in the Bloc Québécois think that Bill S-9 is not a bad bill. We agree that it should be studied quickly in committee, as was the case with Bill C-22. Perhaps we will set some other bills aside in order to pass Bill C-22 on child pornography. Perhaps the same thing could happen with Bill S-9, but for that to happen, it has to come to us in committee. It seems as though the Conservatives have other bills like this. In fact, we have been told that we will spend the whole week discussing justice bills. We have to be able to work at some point.

I have been looking at what is being done with the bill. I am sorry to say it this bluntly, but there are three types of motor vehicle theft. Three out of ten vehicles are stolen by youth. We call it theft, but the young people take what are known as joy rides. In French we call them des promenades de joie. I know that it is likely not the best term, but no better terms come to mind. They take a vehicle from somewhere and drive around town. They take a vehicle that was “forgotten” at the corner store, with the keys in the ignition, lights on, motor running. They take it for a ride and leave it somewhere else. This type of crime happens a lot with youth.

Where it becomes a bit more dangerous—and this is happening in Manitoba—is when someone takes off with a vehicle and kills someone. Unfortunately, this type of offence happened recently in Abitibi-Témiscamingue when a young man took a motor vehicle from Rouyn-Noranda to Val-d'Or. He stole the vehicle in Rouyn-Noranda and caused an accident that seriously injured two people. This is extremely dangerous and something must be done.

I am not saying that the motor vehicle thefts I just mentioned are not serious. They certainly should be punished, but there are worse kinds. There are several different types of motor vehicle thefts, and there are essentially two main methods. One of them involves stripping the vehicle for parts.

I will read a list. I do not know if my Conservative colleagues have these models, but if they do, they should be careful, because they are the most likely to be stolen: 1999 Honda Civic—this one is a bit old, but it gets stripped for parts; 2000 Honda Civic; Subaru Impreza; Acura Integra; Dodge Grand Caravan or Plymouth Voyager; 1994 Dodge Grand Caravan or Plymouth Voyager with all-wheel-drive; 1998 Acura Integra; Audi TT Quattro and Dodge Shadow or Plymouth Sundance. These vehicles were among the 10 most commonly stolen vehicles in 2006, and I do not think much has changed since then.

We need to take action quickly. These vehicles are generally stripped for parts, and are rarely exported. They are exported, but not much. This is where organized crime comes in. These individuals place orders for certain types of motor vehicles, which are then stripped for parts. The thief is one thing. Yes, he is a criminal, but the ones who place the orders are the worst ones. These types of orders are generally made through organized crime groups. So we must find a way to punish them.

Bill S-9 does contain some interesting elements. We believe we can improve it through further study in committee. It seems to me that we all agree that we need to improve this bill and that we need to find ways to prevent criminals from taking vehicles apart. We need to reduce the incidence of auto theft. We need to create an offence for tampering with an identification number. When certain vehicles are taken apart, some very important parts disappear, such as the engine, the body and the doors, if they do not have a VIN. As we heard in committee, if the thief is really organized, a vehicle like a 1999 Honda Civic, for example, can be taken apart in half an hour. Now that is organized crime. We must absolutely find a way to make it impossible to take vehicles apart.

We also heard in committee that there are small electronic chips placed in secret locations in certain vehicles, and when those vehicles are stolen or taken illegally, they can be found with a certain kind of GPS. We did not take our study any further, which is why we want the bill to be examined in committee. Perhaps we could find a way to encourage manufacturers to install this kind of electronic chip in several specific locations in vehicles without necessarily forcing them to do so. This would allow authorities to find these vehicles or parts quickly, as soon as the theft is reported. We began receiving this information when we started studying the bill.

Today we must absolutely find ways to prevent this crime. To do so, we have to work with Industry Canada. The Criminal Code is not enough. It is used to punish individuals who steal and dismantle automobiles. We will probably invite the departments involved to work on prevention, which is the best way to avoid this type of theft. If someone knows there is an alarm system set up, they might be less likely to commit a break-and-enter. We want to look at the bill from that angle in committee. Even though we are on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, it is nonetheless important to find ways to prevent crime.

There are some major offences. However, at least there are no minimum prison sentences. That is a step in the right direction. If the bill passes, then we will amend the Criminal Code to ensure that there are maximum prison sentences for trafficking in property obtained by crime. This did not exist before. The bill will create the offence of trafficking in property obtained by crime, specifically parts from stolen vehicles. The offence of possession of stolen goods exists in the Criminal Code, but when a vehicle is dismantled into parts and there is nothing left but the car door, generally speaking, if there is no identification number or electronic chip linked to a GPS, the door cannot be linked to the vehicle stolen a few weeks or months before. The offence that will be created will concern trafficking in property obtained by crime. That is how the parts will be linked to the vehicle. Circumstantial evidence will show that the vehicle was dismantled into separate parts and that some parts were sold to this or that individual.

To traffic will mean to sell, give, transfer, transport, export from Canada, import into Canada, send, deliver or deal with in any other way, or to offer to do any of those acts.

This bill will help border services officers conduct searches. It will tighten the noose around criminals who tend to steal vehicles to resell them quickly or, more importantly, to alter them. We think this is a worthwhile bill, and we will have to come up with ways to put an end to this scourge.

Criminals tend to take the easy route. Why do young people steal cars? Generally, car thefts take place outside a corner store, when the car owner leaves the key in the ignition and steps inside for some milk. How many tens of thousands of thefts sadly result in penalties that may seem light to a young person, but that can have an impact if the offender commits other crimes later?

We support this bill, which we have to say is worthwhile, even though it should have been introduced much sooner. I do not understand the government. We have been waiting for this bill since April 2008, but it seems to have been forgotten when Parliament was prorogued.

Vehicle theft is an easy crime that is often committed by young people. We must find ways to prevent people from falsifying the vehicle identification number or VIN.

The question was put to Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, and this was its reply:

The Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau has identified an increase in four main fraud techniques that are used by organized crime to steal vehicles. These include: the illegal transfer of Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) from wrecked vehicles to similar ones that have been stolen; a legitimate VIN is used to change the legal identity of a stolen vehicle of the same make, model, and colour, a process called “twinning”.

Let us consider the example just given. The VIN from a wrecked Honda Civic 1998 can be used for a stolen Honda Civic 1999. This is where we are being asked to take action.

In closing, we want to study this bill quickly. We can work on it in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but on the whole, it is a worthwhile bill that the insurance companies and police forces have been calling for. I do not believe that any member of this House will be against having this bill studied quickly in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a valid point. In fact, the requirement that he is referring to is included in Bill C-4, which is currently before this House. It contains an amendment to change the Youth Criminal Justice Act in connection with pretrial detention.

If the member takes a look at Bill C-4, he will find it there. This is the appropriate place for it, because it is an amendment to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

He also makes the point that Winnipeg has seen a lot of organized auto theft. When the justice committee visited Winnipeg this past spring, we heard from many witnesses, including the chief of police, about the problem of organized auto theft in Winnipeg, which is putting many good citizens of Winnipeg at risk.

I thank the hon. member for raising that in the House. I think it is important. This is why the government is proposing this bill today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes. Bill C-16 has been referred. There is also a private member's bill, Bill C-389. We are currently dealing with Bill C-4, the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Those are the bills at our committee. Then there is the organized crime study.

Perhaps at our next meeting you could come prepared with some ideas with regard to our business moving forward.

The other thing is that I would invite the following motion:That the Committee cover the costs of hospitality incurred from the light lunch on September 28, 2010, at 12:00 p.m. with the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of the National Assembly of the Republic of Kenya.You may recall that we had a meeting with them.

Justice Legislation

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the spring session of this House moves toward conclusion, I am relieved that this House has finally found a compromise on Bill C-23 to prevent dangerous offenders convicted of serious crimes from receiving pardons.

However, I am convinced that the only reason such a compromise was reached was due to the outcry of thousands of Canadians and their many calls to many MPs' offices demanding immediate action.

It is reassuring to know that members of the soft on crime coalition still occasionally listen to their constituents and act on their wishes.

I hope that those members will pay similar attention to the express wishes of their constituents over the summer and that, come this fall, the soft on crime coalition will stop stalling important pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-4, which would make crucial amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I also trust that the 20 opposition members who voted in favour of Bill C-391 will be capable of applying that same democratic deference this fall and finally bring an end to a wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

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

You can count on us. We are going to scrutinize this closely, I promise you. I have always held that rehabilitation, particularly with young offenders, could begin during pre-trial detention. If we cannot manage to get the young offender to stop behaving in this way, we risk facing a real problem at some point in time.

The other subject that interests me is detention. It is referred to in clause 18 of Bill C-4. You had started answering Mr. Woodworth, but personally, I want to understand the Supreme Court decision in R. v. D.B. You say the following about clause 18: “However, clause 18 goes further. It proposes a new test for imposing an adult sentence, and stipulates that the standard of proof in relation to this test is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Are you saying that in order to impose an adult sentence, a standard of proof should not necessarily be beyond a reasonable doubt, but that it could be as it is defined in the current legislation?

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

I understood that this is our last day, Mr. Chair, and that you wanted to make my colleagues happy. Mr. Woodworth asked good questions. Having said that, I knew that I would get my turn.

Gentlemen, Mr. Justice, I congratulate you. Thank you for the report. It is going to be very useful to us. Gentlemen, you may tell your respective employers that not only was your presence useful, it was in fact necessary to our understanding of Bill C-4.

I am going to ask you a question while attempting to be very precise. I also worked on the front lines for many years. I am going to give you a practical example and...

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

Thank you.

By way of background, I am the executive director of policy development and analysis for Manitoba Justice. I have been doing criminal law policy work now for a bit over 14 years, and prior to that I was defence counsel, dealing with both adult criminal cases and youth court cases for roughly five years.

I'm pleased to be here today to speak to the committee about the Manitoba government's position on YCJA reform and its concerns about Bill C-4 and its approach to reform of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Manitoba has longstanding concerns about youth crime and the YCJA. Since 2006 it has been advocating for reforms to enhance the bail and sentencing provisions of the YCJA to ensure that serious and repeat young offenders can be more easily held in custody upon arrest and face jail sentences for their crimes.

To clarify, Manitoba is not suggesting that all alleged young offenders should be detained in custody or sentenced to custody, but just that judges be allowed the opportunity to consider the circumstances of each case and to make appropriate decisions based upon the youth's behaviour and the risk they pose to the public, rather than having their hands tied and being prevented from doing so by the existing YCJA presumptions against pre-trial detention and custodial sentences. Being unable to keep out-of-control youth in custody not only creates a public safety risk, but also undermines public confidence in the justice system, as the public begins to see it as a revolving door catch-and-release exercise.

In addition to Manitoba raising its concerns at meetings of federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice, and in meetings with the federal Minister of Justice, in September 2007 Manitoba's then Premier and Minister of Justice led a non-partisan “Mission to Ottawa” delegation, including Manitoba's opposition leaders, the mayors and chiefs of police of Winnipeg and Brandon, and community leaders to press the Prime Minister, the federal Minister of Justice, the federal Liberal caucus, the federal New Democratic Party caucus, and Manitoba members of Parliament to amend the YCJA to address Manitoba's concerns.

A key impetus for Manitoba's concerns and for the “Mission to Ottawa” delegation was a trend of escalating reckless and dangerous conduct associated with motor vehicle theft, which is one of the offences for which the YCJA currently provides a presumption against denial of bail and a presumption against the imposition of a custodial sentence. In the first seven months of 2007, in Winnipeg, there were four incidents where persons were killed or seriously injured as a result of being struck by vehicles driven by youth motor vehicle thieves.

In fact, one of the participants in the mission to Ottawa was Kelly Van Camp, a jogger who was deliberately targeted by a youth driving a stolen vehicle, was struck by the vehicle, and was hospitalized with broken bones and serious head injuries. There were further serious injuries and fatalities caused by out-of-control youth car thieves in 2008 and 2009 and there have been circumstances in which the police have been targeted for collisions, both while in their vehicles and while on foot. Although we have had great success in reducing the overall incidence of motor vehicle theft--down by over 75%--we still need amendments to the YCJA to address this problem.

Turning to Bill C-4, although the bill implements some of Manitoba's longstanding YCJA reform recommendations, such as recognizing deterrence and denunciation as valid principles for sentencing young offenders, in other respects it does not address Manitoba's concerns but is actually a step backwards that worsens the ability of the youth justice system to deal with serious out-of-control young offenders. I want to clarify, much like previous speakers, that certainly we do support the intent and the policy thrust behind Bill C-4, but there are serious concerns we have about some of the provisions.

Again, this is going to sound a bit repetitious, and I'm going to try to streamline my comments so I don't repeat the fine comments of colleagues to my left. Manitoba definitely shares their view that there are three key problems with Bill C-4. The first one is the amendments related to pre-trial detention, the second is the amendments related to adult sentences, and the third is the amendments related to deferred custody sentences.

I should also note that those three concerns have also been identified and championed in terms of trying to find a solution by the western Attorneys General and Solicitors General in Canada.

In terms of pre-trial detention, instead of eliminating the presumption against pre-trial detention outright, Bill C-4 actually creates what is in effect a mandatory release provision that prevents judges from denying bail for offences that do not fall within the new limited category of serious offences and offences such as committing an indecent act, damage to property, theft of a vehicle worth less than $5,000. Unless Bill S-9 is passed and proclaimed—it creates a new offence—violating bail conditions or other court orders, or escaping from custody or failing to return to a custody facility when required to do so, regardless of how many times this conduct is repeated, won't fall within the definition. At a minimum, the definition of “serious offence” in Bill C-4 needs to be removed or changed to allow a broader range of offences to be considered for denial of bail and thereby prevent re-offending with impunity.

In terms of the adult sentencing provisions, Manitoba shares the view expressed today that Bill C-4 goes beyond what is necessary to address the Supreme Court of Canada's concerns in the R. v. D.B. case and that the proposed new proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard for determining when an adult sentence should be imposed will make obtaining an adult sentence virtually impossible except in the rarest of cases. The adult sentence provision of Bill C-4 should be amended to remove the reasonable doubt standard of proof requirement and restore the existing list of factors in terms of providing guidance to the court about when an adult sentence should be imposed, such as age, maturity, background and prior record of the offender, and circumstances of the offence. All of those should be considered by the court in determining whether an adult sentence should be imposed.

In terms of deferred custody, Manitoba's view—and again, this is the same as my colleagues' from Alberta and Nova Scotia—is that 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. Bill C-4 should be changed to ensure that the deferred custody sentences remain unavailable for situations in which a young person causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm. Also, at the very least, there is a need for consistency with the legislation on the adult side in relation to where conditional sentences are prohibited.

In conclusion, I would ask the committee to give serious consideration to the concerns I have identified about Bill C-4 and to amend the bill to rectify them before the bill proceeds any further.

Thank you, and I will take whatever questions you have.

[Ronald MacDonald]

Sorry; I'm too cognizant of the ten minutes. Thank you.

Justice Nunn made a total of 34 recommendations, seven of which related specifically to the YCJA. One passage that I think should stand out for all of us is this one:

Aside from the misunderstandings and missteps that occurred in relation to AB, many of which were procedural in nature, the real culprit, which failed to provide an adequate response to AB's behaviour and, indeed, to society's rightful expectations, was the Youth Criminal Justice Act itself.

As a result of that, Mr. Justice Nunn made seven specific recommendations related to the act, including these: to make protection of the public a primary goal; to change the definition of violent offence; to make pretrial detention provisions stand alone; and to allow courts to consider a youth's prior findings of guilt and outstanding charges in pretrial detention.

There were a few other ones as well, including those relevant to “responsible person” undertakings and attendance at non-residential community centres. This was the tweaking that Justice Nunn today spoke about.

The recommendations related to pretrial detention and the definition of violent offence have been a particular focus of Nova Scotia's representations. Justice Nunn didn't advocate, and Nova Scotia isn't advocating, changes that necessarily call for greater incarceration of youths. Rather, our submissions emphasize that sometimes youths are out of control, and courts must have the appropriate tools available to them to protect the public and assist the youths. These tools must include the practical ability to place a youth in custody, both pretrial and post-trial, for an appropriate range of offences and fact circumstances.

A failure to give the courts these tools leads to increased risk to public safety and the public's loss of respect for the administration of justice. It also results in the loss of an opportunity to intervene into the life of an out-of-control youth, an intervention that could well make a great difference in the life of a youth--I have seen that personally on several different occasions--simply as a result of short periods of pretrial custody.

In general, Nova Scotia supports the statements of policy made by Minister Nicholson in Parliament when speaking to Bill C-4. For example, he said:

Sébastien's law will make the protection of society a primary goal of our youth criminal justice system, and it will give Canadians greater confidence that violent and repeat young offenders will be held accountable through sentences that are proportionate to the severity of their crimes.

He later also talks about violent and repeat offenders needing to be kept off the streets while awaiting trial when necessary, and about reducing barriers to custody for those violent and repeat offenders where appropriate.

Nova Scotia supports those policy goals and suggests that they reflect some of the comments of Justice Nunn in his report--for example, on page 230 of his report, where he indeed talks about “enlarging the gateways to custody”.

Justice Nunn also states:

I cannot overestimate the importance of taking a balanced approach. Parts of the YCJA must be changed in order to create a workable and effective approach to handling repeat young offenders in a manner based upon protection of the public as a primary concern, as well as providing a means to step in to halt unacceptable criminal behaviour in a timely manner. This is not an option. It is crucial.

Simply put, while it is right to say that in principle we don't want any more youths than necessary in custody, it does not mean the system should have restrictions that effectively block that custody when it's necessary. I will be speaking today primarily about pretrial detention and how that can occur.

First of all, Nova Scotia would like to note that the changes intended to be made to the principles of the act by Bill C-4, to provide that protection of the public is an immediate goal of the act, is supported by Nova Scotia and is indeed consistent with Justice Nunn's recommendation.

We also support the changes planned to the definition of violent offence--namely, to include offences that have bodily harm as an element or where life is endangered by substantial risk of bodily harm. Those too are consistent, we suggest, with Justice Nunn's recommendations.

They recognize that an offence that involves a substantial risk of bodily harm to someone is as serious and significant as when a youth takes actions to intentionally cause bodily harm. In some ways they place the general public more at risk, because general dangerous behaviour can affect the public, whereas intentional violent behaviour is more often directed at persons known to the accused.

We strongly suggest, however, that the actual wording, the legislative wording of Bill C-4, does not meet the stated policy goals in three significant areas: pre-trial detention, deferred custody, and adult sentencing. These drafting issues, we suggest, must be corrected to ensure the government's intent is met and to ensure the amendments do not create what we believe will be very crucial problems to the youth justice system.

With respect to pre-trial detention, the bill provides clause 29 as stand-alone provisions, which we support. We note that the test the crown will have to meet will still be very significant, and we support that as well. However, we suggest the current wording of the bill contains a very serious problem. While it provides that pre-trial custody is available should the strict test be met, it is only with cases that could carry a maximum sentence of five years or more for adults. What this means is that offences such as theft under $5,000, breach of dispositions, failure to comply, escape from lawful custody, committing an indecent act, damage to property, fraud under $5,000, inciting hatred, corrupting children, etc., are offences that are completely ineligible for custody. These are the very offences that youth are most prone to commit. This means that the bill does not deal with the repeat offenders, as the justice minister had hoped. It allows youths to repeatedly commit these offences, be arrested, and be released again. There would be no remedy for the public, pre-trial. It would allow an out-of-control youth to continue in a downward spiral without the system being able to step in and impose the needed control.

The amendments fail to consider that less serious offences, which on their own should not justify pre-trial custody, when committed in conjunction with many others can give you a very serious situation. Let me give you an example. A youth walks down Sparks Street, breaks every single pane of window glass on a block, is picked up by the police, and is taken to court. They must release him; they have no choice. He gets out. He tells the judge he has no intention of following the rules and does it again the next day. This type of behaviour could continue. While you might say that's an extreme example, what we know about human and indeed youth behaviour is that those types of examples are out there.

Currently the act provides that those offences are eligible for detention, although there's a presumption against detention. We suggest that this portion of the bill must be amended or the act will contain provisions that will allow a youth to commit offences with no pre-trial consequence available. There does not appear to have been any case law or other explanation for this change, as currently these cases are eligible for detention, as I've mentioned, albeit subject to a presumption against detention. We are very concerned that this will create a situation where the community will lose confidence in the very system designed to protect it.

On the issues of deferred custody and adult sentencing, my colleague Josh Hawkes will be discussing those details.

I just wish to say this in closing. You've heard from many witnesses who have suggested the proposed changes to the act will result in greater incarceration of youth. We come before you today to indicate that in fact the changes that Mr. Hawkes will discuss do the opposite. They will greatly increase the opportunities for youth to avoid custody in situations of crimes of serious violence by being granted a deferred sentence, which is the same effect as a conditional sentence for an adult. They'll also make having a youth sentenced as an adult much less likely. Our comments are not based on a general concern about policy; rather, they're based on the impact from legislative drafting.

I come before you as a person who works with legislative drafting and has done so on the ground. These changes will take a current practice, about which no one was concerned, and will make it more difficult to have youth placed in custody in the context of acts the public already sees as being too difficult. We are submitting that this is contrary to the submitted intent of the government and is in effect an error that must be corrected before these amendments become law.

I will leave it to Mr. Hawkes to explain those details.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right.

Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Excellent.

We'll get back to Bill C-4. To help us with our review, we have a number of witnesses.

As an individual, we have Merlin Nunn, a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. Welcome.

We also have the Government of Alberta, represented by Joshua Hawkes, director of policy for the appeals, education and policy branch of the Department of Justice and Attorney General. Welcome.

We have the Government of Nova Scotia, represented by Ronald MacDonald, senior crown counsel and criminal law policy adviser in the policy, planning, and research branch in the Department of Justice. Welcome.

Finally, we have the Government of Manitoba, represented by David Greening, who is executive director of policy development and analysis in the Department of Justice.

Welcome to all four of you. I think you've been told that you each have ten minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

I'll ask those who have cellphones or other hand-held devices to please put them on vibrate or turn them off completely and to please take any telephone calls outside the room.

Why don't we start with Justice Nunn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I want to thank each one of our witnesses for appearing today. Your evidence is helpful as we complete our review of Bill C-4. Again, thank you.

There is a point of order from Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. You are an analyst and you have looked at existing subsection 29(2) of Bill C-4. Correct? That's the pretrial detention.

[Jonathan Rudin, Program Director, Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto]

Thank you very much.

Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto appreciates the opportunity to present our position on Bill C-4 to the justice committee.

ALST earlier appeared before the House and Senate justice committees regarding the development of the YCJA, and we're proud to say that our appearances contributed to having the wording of paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code explicitly placed in the YCJA.

In addition, we were an intervenor at the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. B.W.P., which is the case that confirmed that deterrence does not have a role in the sentencing of young offenders. The bill before you, if passed, will overturn that decision.

In our submission we do not wish to go over the amendments line by line. Rather, we'd like to focus on the overall impact of the amendments, and that impact will clearly be that more youth will be jailed either on sentence or on remand. Before embarking on such an approach, however, we would ask that this committee look beyond the rhetoric and consider the realities of the youth justice system today.

In April of this year, Statistics Canada released a Juristat study entitled “Youth custody and community services in Canada, 2008/2009”. This report makes clear what has been a very disturbing trend over the years since the enactment of the YCJA, and that trend has been for youth jails to become the increasing preserve of aboriginal youth. Indeed the overrepresentation of aboriginal youth in custodial facilities today far outstrips the overrepresentation of aboriginal adults in prison, and this bill will only make a very, very bad situation even worse.

In 2008-09, aboriginal youth made up 36% of all youth in sentenced custody, despite the fact that aboriginal youth are only 6% of the youth population. This overrepresentation is not some geographic anomaly. The report indicates that all jurisdictions showed evidence of overrepresentation. If we look simply at the situation of the overrepresentation of aboriginal girls, the figure is even more striking. Forty-four percent of girls in sentenced custody in Canada are aboriginal.

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the decision of R. v. Gladue, referred to aboriginal overrepresentation as “a crisis in the Canadian criminal justice system”. The current figures for aboriginal overrepresentation in youth jails are much higher than the figures were for adults in 1999, at the time Gladue was decided. If overrepresentation was a crisis in 1999, what words can describe the situation today?

Among the problems with this bill, in our opinion, is that it will allow judges to rely on deterrence to justify jailing youth. You have already heard today, and I know you've heard earlier, that there are studies that illustrate that deterrence, both general and specific, does not work. While we agree with these studies, we would suggest that levels of aboriginal overrepresentation themselves show that deterrence is not effective.

Ever-increasing levels of aboriginal overrepresentation in the adult and youth justice systems mean that aboriginal people know better than most that if you break the law, you will go to jail, yet those same, ever-increasing levels of aboriginal overrepresentation show that this fact does not stop the phenomenon. If deterrence worked, we would see a decreasing proportion of aboriginal youth and adults in jail, but we don't see that. This bill will contribute to ever-increasing levels of overrepresentation by allowing judges to send young people to jail to send a message that no one will get.

Let’s be clear. Allowing deterrence into the sentencing equation will mean that youth, and disproportionately aboriginal youth, will be sent to jail, not because it will serve any purpose for them, but to satisfy a mistaken and wrong-headed belief that someone else will be dissuaded from criminal activity as a result of those sentences.

It is cruel to punish a person by taking away their liberty in order to send a message to someone else. It is beyond cruel to do so when we know that no one will get that message.

This bill will also make it easier to detain young people before trial, and this too will have a disproportionate impact on aboriginal youth, who, not surprisingly, are also overrepresented among those on remand.

Why is there such a great need to increase the youth remand population? If we look again to the Juristat article, we find that in 2008-09, for the second year in a row, there were more youth in Canada on remand than there were in sentenced custody.

The idea that it is difficult to remand a young person in custody is belied by the facts. Indeed, one quarter of the youth detained on remand were there for offences against property only. Making it even easier to rely on remand will increase those numbers even more. Reliance on remand means that sections of the YCJA that look to alternatives to custody are made irrelevant because young people will already have served their sentence before they're actually sentenced.

In his appearance before this committee, the Minister of Justice referred to consultations he undertook in 2008 on the YCJA. ALST attended the consultations that were held in Toronto on July 16, 2008, with the minister and with the Attorney General of Ontario. At that meeting, there were representatives of many different organizations, including the police. While minutes of those meetings were not released, I can tell you, as a participant, that no one in the Toronto consultations advocated that deterrence be added to the YCJA. No one argued for more reliance on remand. No one felt the YCJA was too lenient.

We would never make the mistake of saying that what people in Toronto think is necessarily representative of what the whole country thinks, but it is significant that the amendments being advanced here are not addressing the concerns that were expressed at that meeting.

As I mentioned, we are already seeing that youth jails in Canada are really aboriginal youth jails. In some provinces this has already occurred. In Manitoba, 87% of boys and 91% of girls in custody are aboriginal. In Saskatchewan, 73% of boys and 93% of girls in custody are aboriginal. This is an incredibly disturbing trend. If these amendments are passed, this trend will just accelerate.

Is this development going to make communities safer? Is it going to address the root causes of aboriginal offending? No. We need to recognize in Canada, in both our adult and youth systems, that we increasingly reserve incarceration, our harshest penalty, for aboriginal people. Almost always when legislators toughen up the criminal justice system, that translates into more aboriginal people going to jail, and these amendments are no exception.

When important decisions are made in the aboriginal community, people are often reminded by the elders to think seven generations ahead. We realize that it's often difficult for politicians who must regularly run for re-election to think 10 or 15 years down the line, much less seven generations. The sad reality, the tragedy, of aboriginal overrepresentation can at least be partially understood by the fact that decision-makers have often not looked at the impact of their decisions on aboriginal communities.

We urge you to resist the pressures of those who believe the problem with youth justice is that we have not been tough enough. Resist those pressures, because bowing to them will result in the perpetuation of practices that do not work, practices that lead to the continued over-incarceration of aboriginal people, practices that do nothing to change the behaviour of those who commit offences, practices that, in their short-sightedness, do not increase community safety but rather make communities more dangerous by placing aboriginal young people into the revolving door of the prison system.

Thank you, merci, meegwetch.

[Else Marie Knudsen, Policy Analyst, John Howard Society of Ontario]

Thank you.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-4 give us significant cause for concern, due to the negative impact they will have on young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. These proposed amendments to the YCJA do not advance the goal of improved community safety. They will also be very expensive.

I'll briefly discuss our three main concerns about the bill and ask that you refer to our brief for a more comprehensive analysis.

One of our primary concerns about this bill is its expansion of the grounds for holding a youth in pretrial detention. Pretrial detention should be used as a measure of very last resort with young people and for the shortest possible time. Significant justification for restraint in the use of remand is found in a range of sources, from the research literature, to human rights principles, to arguments for fiscal responsibility. The research shows that time spent incarcerated is actually a criminogenic factor. To be clear, that means that the incarceration of a young person actually increases the likelihood that they will reoffend. The reports on the death of Ashley Smith speak to the profoundly negative impact of custodial settings on young people, particularly those with mental health concerns, as well as the dangerous spiral of pretrial detention, institutional charges, and around again, that can result from unnecessary entrance into the carceral system.

The likelihood of harsher sentences also increases. A Department of Justice study found that the detention experiences of young people, when all other factors such as prior record are controlled for, affect the likelihood of pleading guilty and receiving the most severe sentence. Those who are not released by a court after being detained at their first arrest are disproportionally sentenced to custody, as are those who have multiple stays in pretrial detention. Thus, if the goal of the youth criminal justice system includes reducing recidivism, protecting the public, and even saving money, then pretrial detention should never be used unless it's the very least restrictive measure available.

By relaxing the conditions under which a young person can be detained prior to trial, there's also an increased risk of police and the courts using remand to deliver a sort of wake-up call or short, sharp shock to youth. But pretrial detention decisions must never be made with the goal of modifying a young person's behaviour prior to their conviction for a crime. Young Canadians have the constitutional right, as we all do, to not be punished for a crime for which we've not been found guilty. Despite these concerns, Bill C-4 actually seeks to increase and expand the use of pretrial detention, and we strongly oppose this proposal.

Bill C-4 also seeks to add general deterrence and denunciation of sentencing principles. To this, the John Howard Society also strongly objects. This amendment is not supported by evidence and will not prevent crime or reduce reoffending. It will also inevitably increase the use of custodial sentences and may contradict the legal principle of proportionality. As you're aware, people who commit crimes typically do not consider the length of the sentence they might face when they're making the often split-second decision to commit a crime. Young people in particular are characterized by immaturity, spontaneity, and a sense of infallibility. Deterrence and denunciation are, unsurprisingly, without support in the academic literature as a means of preventing or reducing crime or improving public safety. There is, in fact, literature to suggest that the very issues that are correlated with criminality and young people, things like family conflict, low self-control, and school disruption, are also correlated with high impulsivity, low self-control, mental health concerns, and addictions, all issues that reduce one's capacity to perform the careful cost-benefit calculation that is required if general deterrence is to be effective.

Finally, the John Howard Society strongly opposes the amendments contained in clause 8, namely, the provision that participation in extrajudicial sanctions be considered in sentencing and contribute to the likelihood of a custodial sentence. This amendment is counterproductive and it undermines the rehabilitative focus of the YCJA. The proposed amendment can only effect a decrease in the use of EJSs by youth, which would be extremely regrettable. The focus on EJSs in the YCJA has been a wide success, and this process is effective at meeting goals of reparation and lowering recidivism in a much more inexpensive and effective way than custodial or other traditional interventions.

This amendment also raises concerns with regard to the legal rights of youth. The requirement that youth “take responsibility” when agreeing to undertake an EJS cannot be equated with a finding of guilt under the law, and to conflate the two is dangerous. The Convention on the Rights of the Child mandates that youth be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and participation in an EJS does not equate to legally proven guilt.

This amendment threatens to dilute the YCJA's important focus on not unnecessarily propelling young people into the criminal justice system and on not unnecessarily criminalizing what are often very minor acts.

In summary, we urge the committee to abandon or make significant amendments to the bill, which will undermine aspects of a well-functioning youth criminal justice system.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

[Paula Osmok, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Ontario]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Paula Osmok, and I'm the executive director of the John Howard Society of Ontario. I'm here today on behalf of the John Howard Society of Ontario and the John Howard Society of Canada. Our national executive director is out of the country and not available today.

Also, we have a written submission for you today, and it will be forwarded to you, I understand, once it's translated.

As you know, the John Howard Society is an agency with 65 offices across the country that helps improve the safety of Canadian communities by working with those who are at risk of becoming involved or are involved in the criminal justice system.

Our mission is effective, just, and humane responses to crime and its causes, and our work is grounded in the research on what works to prevent crime and recidivism.

As an agency with literally decades of experience working with youth involved in the criminal justice system, as well as communities affected by crime, we have what we believe is the unique and important vantage point from which to consider the success and the challenges of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to comment on the potential benefits and harms of the proposed amendments.

It's with this background that we speak to you today on the matter of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. We oppose the majority of amendments that this bill would make to the YCJA.

The introduction of the YCJA led to many positive changes to the youth criminal justice system, such as the significant decrease in the incarceration rates of young people, and, as you heard previously, without a substantial increase in the crime rate as well.

It's important to be reminded that prior to the introduction of the YCJA, Canada had the poor distinction of having the highest rate of incarcerated youth in the western industrialized world, even higher than the United States. These changes were achieved as a result of the firm and sound focus on rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention in the act.

We believe Bill C-4 seeks to dismantle this foundation and shift the focus of the youth criminal system to a punitive approach. In the words of the Montreal Gazette editorial board, “The thrust of this bill, unfortunately, is to move away from rehabilitation and toward retribution.”

Punitivism and retribution are incompatible with sound, research-based criminal justice approaches that work to reduce crime and its causes.

Instead of preventing youth crime or reoffending, this bill would actually increase rates of youth in custody, leading to harsher and more adult sentences for youth, reduce the use of extrajudicial sanctions, and increase the cost of the youth criminal justice system to Canadian taxpayers overall. Most importantly, the proposed amendments will do nothing to improve community safety.

Youth crime, as all of you should know, is best prevented by tackling the root causes of crime: poverty, lack of quality education in early childhood education, employment services, and recreation, to name a few. While clearly slower, the approach of preventing crime through social development is the best and most cost-effective way to improve the safety of Canadian communities.

At this point, I would like to call on my colleague, policy analyst Else Marie Knudsen, to speak to some of the specific amendments in Bill C-4.

[Joseph Wamback, Founder and Board Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members of this committee.

I am a father of a young boy who was almost beaten to death by young offenders in 1999. I'm a father who recognized a system that needs change—change for both sides of what we now see is the end result of violent confrontations. I have researched this issue across Canada and beyond, and I have volunteered over 11,000 hours working with victims, families, police, and those within our medical community.

There are very few issues in the criminal justice system in Canada that have been the subject of national debate with dissatisfaction reaching the heights as there are with the existing youth criminal justice system. But it is absolutely vital to my presentation this morning that everybody here understands that this concern and this frustration have never been focused on the provisions for dealing with minor crime or youthful mistakes. Anyone who suggests that they have is being dishonest with this committee and with Canadians.

The national outrage is directed at the Youth Criminal Justice Act's inability to deal with psychopaths, killers, and repeat violent victimizers under the age of 18.

In January of this year I held a conference in Toronto that was made up of families whose children had been murdered by killers under the age of 18. Sadly, there was no problem and no difficulty in finding members to participate in this conference. These families did not ask for the death penalty. They did not ask for extreme or Machiavellian sanctions on the young persons who murdered their children. They asked that the lives of their children be recognized as having value. They asked that the Canadian Parliament recognize not only their tragic loss, but the loss of their child's future contribution to Canada.

What are we telling these parents, as well as all of Canada, about the value of their children's lives when we refuse to impose serious sanctions on murderers? These parents want violent repeat offenders segregated from innocent children to prevent others from experiencing the horror that they live with each and every day. Additionally, they want the necessary time provided to rehabilitate those killers before they are released again, if that is possible.

During the last 10 years I have spoken to dozens of psychologists and psychiatrists who tell me that it takes an average of three years of clinical intervention to change criminal behaviour. Unless we provide mandatory clinical intervention and the time necessary to undertake this intervention, we are exposing Canadians to additional preventable victimization and not helping those young victimizers through what we are now suggesting is rehabilitation.

Canadians who obey our laws have the birthright to be protected by those same laws. The changes proposed in Bill C-4 are not about getting tough; they're about protecting our children, our society. It's about acknowledging the value of the lives of murdered children as well as providing those who are the perpetrators of violence the time necessary for positive reinforcement and reintegration into Canadian society as law-abiding citizens. I believe the proposed changes in Bill C-4 will ultimately lower victimization and, most importantly, restore faith in the Canadian justice system.

The justice system is not the sole province of lawyers, criminals, and judges. It belongs to the people of Canada. The system works when victims report the crimes that are committed against them and testify truthfully when asked. When faith in that system is lost, ladies and gentlemen, it will cease to exist, and nowhere is that faith being eroded faster than with our young people.

In the last three years, my wife and I have spoken to over 32,000 young people in the province of Ontario, and we are repeatedly told of their greatest concerns. They're concerned because there's no consequence for violent acts among their peer group. There's concern because of bullying, which is, in reality, criminal victimization, assault and sexual assault--of schools, police, and a justice system that do nothing or whose hands are tied by existing legislation; of parents who are frustrated and angry because they are unable to do anything. We are told that they are frightened of violent peer groups in their schools and in their communities, and we hear stories of violent peer groups victimizing them, and retaliation has become the norm, if it's been reported.

The last Canadian criminal victimization survey noted that 88% of crimes committed against young people in this country go unreported—88%. The reason they go unreported, I'm going to suggest today, is because our young people don't trust the system that should be in place to protect them. This is a result of the current Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Who are the victims of young offenders today? Canada's last criminal victimization survey showed that 37% of violent victims in this country were under the age of 18, and the majority of perpetrators of those crimes against that 37% were under the age of 18. Who will benefit from the proposed changes suggested in Bill C-4? The young people of this country, Canadians from all walks of life, our justice system, and all political institutions.

The ultimate goal, I believe, of Bill C-4 is to restore faith in our justice system, to provide rehabilitation or perhaps habilitation to criminally inclined youth, to provide futures for kids who obey the laws, and to provide safer communities.

In the year 2000 I created a petition, which I've distributed. I hope everybody has a copy of it. It has circulated across Canada. Today, it has the signatures of 1,252,223 Canadians. The proposed changes and minor alterations reflected in Bill C-4 recognize the points in that petition and, more importantly, will recognize that the lives of the victims of violent young offenders also have value.

I've heard brief after brief from those concerned with the rights and lives and futures of violent criminals under the age of 18, but those voices remain deafeningly silent when asked to comment on victims and victims' families.

Since 2000 I have worked with hundreds of families and survivors of violent crime whose children have been the victims of killers and brutalizers under the age of 18.

My petition, item number 5, stated back in 2000 that protection of Canadians and communities must be paramount, along with deterrence and societal denunciation for violent young offenders. This is the first change recommended by Bill C-4—a change that has the support not only of millions who have signed my petition, but additional millions of Canadian families from coast to coast.

I'm an engineer, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe, and I think most Canadians believe, that the laws of this country are reactive tools. It's not social policy. We should not confuse Canada's social policies and programs with criminal law measures.

I've heard it said that the proposed changes are a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I'm going to suggest that such a claim is absolute nonsense. I will argue that the existing Youth Criminal Justice Act is a violation of the UN convention on the rights of child victims and young offenders, specifically articles 13, articles 16, and articles 19, and I will go into details later, if you ask.

I also further suggest that the proposed changes in Bill C-4 are in keeping with that convention and will not only recognize the intrinsic value of the lives of child victims, but also, if we are honest, recognize that serious custodial time will create the opportunity to rehabilitate those who are victimizers.

In addition, I want to argue that the existing Youth Criminal Justice Act is a violation of the UN declaration of the rights of victims, especially child victims of young offenders, and specifically articles 4 and 5. I will go into those later, if the time allows.

I also suggest it is a violation—this is the existing Youth Criminal Justice Act—of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. That clause, which is clause 7 in the Canadian charter, includes you, it includes me, and it includes our children and all victims of crime across Canada, not just those who have been accused of crime. Admittedly, it has never been used in that context, but I believe that someday very soon it will.

Canada is very proud of and believes in judicial independence. I ask you to let it work by supporting Bill C-4.

Current provisions in the legislation are tying the hands of justice. It was not that long ago when a judge in Winnipeg sentenced a 17-year-old boy who had just beaten a 22-year-old man to death with a pool ball stuffed in a sock. He sentenced that young man to one day in closed custody. Why? Because the law required him to impose the least restrictive sanctions available to him. He imposed that sentence and he cried out to ask legislators to help him impose greater sanctions against young killers. To this date there have been no changes.

These proposals will provide our courts and judges with the tools necessary to more fully utilize judicial discretion and independence. I urge this committee to support the changes in Bill C-4, as do millions of ordinary Canadians like us from coast to coast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dhaliwal, just so you know, you can't call the question like that. You'd be out of order. But we are at the end of the list of individuals who wish to speak, so I'm going to call the question on the motion.

(Motion negatived)

We're going to continue our study and 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 a number of witnesses here with us. I extend my apologies to you for having to cut into your time a little. This is committee business. It does happen from time to time.

There may also be a vote right in the middle of all of this. So I'm extending to you my apologies in advance. These things sometimes happen. But we want to hear from you as much as we possibly can.

We welcome today Joseph and Lozanne Wamback, representing the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation; the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, represented by Kim Pate; from the John Howard Society of Ontario, Paula Osmok and Elsa Marie Knudsen; and from the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, Jonathan Rudin.

Each organization has up to 10 minutes to present. We'll start with Mr. Wamback, please.

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Arising out of our discussion at the last meeting of the committee, I'd like to make a motion concerning how we deal with the witnesses and a review of the legislation on Bill C-4. If that's appropriate, I'd like to read the motion.

I move that in light of the significant number of justice bills and other important issues before this committee, and recognizing the substantial number of witnesses who have already appeared before this committee with respect to Bill C-4, it is resolved that the justice committee proceed on the basis of the earlier agreement of its members to sit for an additional half hour at each scheduled meeting in order to hear all previously scheduled witnesses and conclude the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-4 prior to the summer recess of Parliament.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome.

With respect to your concerns about the bill's title, if it's helpful, I would say that I also don't think it makes any sense. It means... How can I put it? It's precisely because the government cannot measure its own words that it chooses these types of titles.

I'm going to use an example to show you how the Conservative government works. When we were talking about minimum sentences and law and order, Sébastien's Law was created. This law made people emotional. Another act amending the Criminal Code referred to “trafficking in persons”. That meant that the government, if we didn't agree on certain parts of it, could say, for example, that the Bloc Québécois was protecting pedophiles. So you can see how this government doesn't know how to measure its words.

Now, in terms of fairness at the pump, it should be pointed out that Bill C-14 deals with all weights and measures for electricity and gas, obviously. On the other hand, we also know that the federal government has to market its message. We know that it hasn't received good press over petroleum, with western petroleum companies and everything that's happening. Therefore, it's making the retailers shoulder the responsibility. I don't think that's the way to do things. The title of this legislation could simply have included words such as “fairness in measuring”, “accurate measuring” or something like that that involves all devices for weights and measures.

The government refers mainly to petroleum because it does not want to give more power to the Competition Bureau. You know, collusion is much more profitable than inaccurate instruments and differences of 0.5% at the pump. Neither do they want any sort of monitoring agency. They know that this affects many individuals and people who buy gas. So they come up with a pompous title for marketing purposes, simply because they're concerned with their image, it's obvious. They think they can improve their image by doing that.

That said, we know perfectly well, as Mr. Lake said earlier, that the government is surprised by that $20-million loss to the consumer. Obviously, that's not right. However, it's a relatively small amount compared to the $40 billion worth of gas sold every year in Canada. If retailers wanted to, rather than manipulate their instruments—this is what Mr. Lake is claiming—they could simply increase their costs by a tenth of a cent, or a cent, and that would easily cover it.

Generally speaking the Weights and Measures Act covers all measuring devices. What's important is that consumers can feel confident that when they buy something they're getting the right amount.

I do not believe that retailers are going to manipulate their pumps to get a price that will set them a few cents more. Not everyone sells 10 million litres annually. In any case I don't believe it. That would be rare. They should not be accused without any proof. Accusing them offsets to some degree everything the Conservatives have done on the other side. Twenty million dollars is a lot of money for Mr. Lake when the issue is pump adjustments, but $1 billion over three days doesn't appear to be a problem. We could pay for a lot of inspections with that money.

With respect to inspection costs, I've heard that they would vary between $50 and $200. How much are they now? How much does a retailer pay currently for inspection and calibration, approximately?

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

Okay. I believe you mentioned earlier that you may have dealt with one of the perpetrators in the death of Sébastien Lacasse. I know that one or two people have mentioned that perhaps because this Bill C-4 is dedicated to the memory of Sébastien Lacasse, that was inappropriate. Is that true? Did I hear you correctly? Did you deal with one of those perpetrators?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right.

I'm just going to ask you to do a little homework with your lawyers, because in your written statement, for example, there is a sentence that suggests that Bill C-4 is adding denunciation and deterrence and giving them priority over rehabilitation and best interests of the child.

I have in front of me the provision of Bill C-4 that adds denunciation and deterrence. That's clause 7 of Bill C-4, and it adds those things to section 38. In fact, it adds them to five other principles and it doesn't give them priority. In fact, it specifically says they will be subject to one of those other five principles.

So I would like you to go back to the people who wrote this brief and ask them to refer this committee specifically to the provision in Bill C-4 and the words in that bill that they say give priority to denunciation and deterrence, because I think if you do that you will find that there is no such thing in Bill C-4.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. Do you have in front of you a copy of Bill C-4, by any chance?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Je vous remercie beaucoup, monsieur le président.

Thanks go to all of the witnesses for being here.

There is so much I would like to say in so little time. I'll begin by simply saying that I want to reassure the witnesses that every member of this committee received a report on the national invitational symposium on youth justice renewal. Indeed, it was a detailed report that indicated the number of participants, the process, the identification of issues, gathering of evidence. I'm sure not all of us have had time to read it yet, but I assure you that I have and I found many ideas in it that I hope I to ensure will find their way into the report of this committee, or at least the discussion of this bill.

Secondly, I would like to point out, for anyone here who was listening earlier, that if you look at the existing Youth Criminal Justice Act you will see that it already includes as a principle the promotion of the protection of the public. That is not something new that is being added by Bill C-4; nor does Bill C-4 give it any greater priority than it had in the previous act.

Ms. Toutant, I would like to thank you. I thought your presentation was balanced. I don't agree with everything you've said, but there are at least two things on which I agree.

First, in your brief, you say: "Young people are now being placed for such short periods that any effort at rehabilitation becomes impossible." That's true and that's clear. You also say: "Yes to a return to a better balance between the importance attached to the offence, and the needs and personality of the young person." That's also true and clear.

I regret that I have so little time. I want to direct some questions to Ms. Vandergrift, because I sit here day after day, hour after hour and I listen often to people say things that I know are not really correct. It's not fair in a way, because I'm a lawyer and I have access to resources, and others don't.

I want to begin by asking you, are you a lawyer, Ms. Vandergrift?

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

In your presentation, I wasn't clear whether you think there was an analysis of Bill C-4 done by the Department of Justice with anyone in government with respect to how it complies with the Convention on the Law of the Rights of Children.

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

Right, okay. So would any of the provisions of Bill C-4 that we're reviewing in this study have applied, in your opinion, to Ashley Smith?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

When you read Bill C-4, do you feel that it reflects the consultations that you've attended?

[Merri-Lee Hanson]

Sure.

And when crime does happen, we need to know how we can rehabilitate and reintegrate the young offenders once they have served their sentences. The NBASW recommends that there be a renewed investment in community-based preventive approaches. It is generally accepted that the more you spend at the beginning on prevention efforts, the more the benefits in the long term will surpass the initial investments.

Second, the NBASW recommends that greater investments be made in treating young offenders with mental health and/or substance abuse issues. For example, I strongly urge the committee to examine the Ashley Smith report by respected child and youth advocate Bernard Richard.

The Honourable Rob Nicholson reported that Bill C-4 is a balanced approach that includes elements of prevention, enforcement, and rehabilitation; however, as we discussed previously, the NBASW believes that amendments in some areas, and specifically those on rehabilitation, are insufficient.

As a social worker, I work with vulnerable people in our community. This is the nature of our health profession. In their approach to necessary legislation, social workers strive to provide a balanced approach that considers all factors of an individual's adherence to the laws that guide how we live as Canadians. The Nunn report is often referred to as one of the guiding forces of the amendments being put forward. Mr. Nicholson himself stated, however, that this bill goes considerably beyond what was in the Nunn report. He has stated that this bill is directed towards a certain type of individual and a certain type of crime. Front-line social workers are concerned that those towards whom this bill is not specifically directed will suffer the consequences of a more punitive approach.

It is important to see that this amendment will not address the impulsivity of young persons or their intellectual capacity to see and predict the consequences of their actions. Since the inception of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the early history of youth justice in Canada has stressed the importance of seeing a young person not as a criminal, but as a misdirected individual. The focus has been on considering the factors that contributed to criminal behaviour rather than on punishing the youth. Although this has moved toward a more balanced and judicial approach over the years, the move towards utilizing denunciation and deterrence turns its back on considering those social factors that so often play a role in youth criminal activity.

We must retain the consideration that because of their lack of maturity, young people require special considerations. We must be able to get young people's attention in order to create an environment for change. It is important to recognize that it is extremely rare that a punitive approach to poor behaviour creates change. There are no skills taught by incarceration.

Owing to individual factors, a small cluster of youth will respond to the recommendations being made; however, that does not take into account the real reasons young people often get involved in the criminal justice system in the first place, which include family conflicts, mental health, and/or developmental difficulties or trauma.

Recommending the use of denunciation and deterrence in the Youth Criminal Justice Act goes against what mental health and child advocates work for day in and day out across this country. Social workers often speak of stigma, the stigma of living in poverty or of having a mental illness; in this case, it is the stigma that comes with involvement in the legal system. By making amendments that may potentially increase the undesirable effects of the youth criminal justice system on young people, we are not creating a system focused on rehabilitation.

In the end, I want to caution against the development of legislative changes that are based on extreme cases. The case of Sébastien, for whom the bill is named, illustrates my point. Using this extreme case to name such a bill promotes emotions rather than a debate of the merits of the amendments. I believe the development of social and economic policies needs to be debated from a perspective that is sound and balanced, but using extreme cases to advance the rationale for changing the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as seems to be happening in this situation, will not result in good legislation.

Again, on behalf of the social workers of New Brunswick, I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to our recommendations.

[Kathy Vandergrift, Chairperson, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children]

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

I will be highlighting points from the written submission that I believe you have in front of you, and I would certainly invite questions on the other content in the submission as well.

Bill C-4 is named Sébastien’s Law to remember a young person killed by another young person. But we also need to remember other children, like AB and Ashley Smith. AB is the child at the heart of the Nunn commission, which weighs into this bill. He was a boy with learning disabilities who spiralled out of control, to use the words of the commission, and then came to public attention when he killed a woman while he was joyriding in a stolen car. You heard just now more of the details of Ashley Smith, a girl suffering from mental health issues who died in federal custody.

What they had in common was that they were adolescents who got involved in criminal activity after they fell through the cracks of underdeveloped, sporadic, or poorly coordinated services for children in need. That's the primary challenge for Canada at this time. Young people within the system told that to members of Parliament directly in a forum we sponsored in 2007. If you were to see the report of the consultation, we are sure you would see that early intervention is a primary message. Several of our members participated in those sessions across the country, and we hope you will insist on seeing the report from those.

I'm raising this because Bill C-4 does very little to address our primary concern in relation to youth justice in Canada.

One of the ways of being sure we balance the various interests is to look at what the Convention on the Rights of the Child has to say about youth justice. That is going to be our primary contribution to the review of Bill C-4, so I'd like to look at various aspects of that bill in relation to the convention, which Canada ratified in 1991.

First of all are the basic principles. Protection of the public, which was recommended by the Nunn commission, can be accommodated without revising the other basic principles. I submit to you that the revisions proposed in Bill C-4 change the approach to accountability and change the primacy of prevention in ways that are contradictory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and are not in keeping with the whole Nunn commission report. If you read the whole report, you could see adding protection of the public without changing the other principles. That would be the recommendation of the Canadian Coalition on the Rights of Children.

We appreciate one good point in Bill C-4: the recognition of the “principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability”, as the Supreme Court ruled. However, there is another principle that the Supreme Court is now recognizing, which your committee should consider, and that is “the best interests of the child”.

In the Supreme Court ruling on Omar Khadr, the justices found that the “best interests of the child” are a matter of fundamental justice in Canada. We are suggesting that this principle also be added as a primary principle for the youth justice system.

In 2003 Canada was asked by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to integrate the best interests principle in its revision of domestic laws that have an impact on children. Last year Canada made a commitment at the UN Human Rights Council to improve its implementation of its international obligations. This is a good opportunity to do so.

The current YCJA refers to the convention in the preamble and the best interests in one article. We would suggest that the best interests of the child should be made a primary consideration for all decisions relating to children in the youth justice system.

Moving on to pre-trial detention, the convention—and when I say “convention” here, I mean the Convention on the Rights of the Child—has very specific provisions relating to detention. It uses two tests: it should be the last resort and for the shortest time possible. I submit to you that the wording of the criteria in Bill C-4 and the definition of concepts like “serious offence” fall short of meeting those criteria.

In 2007 the government responded to a major study on children's right by saying that every piece of legislation is reviewed for being consistent with the convention. My suggestion to you is that the committee ask to see the analysis that was done of Bill C-4 in relation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. If a thorough analysis were done, I suspect that you would find recommendations for more precise wording of the criteria that should apply for pre-trial detention.

A second area of concern is the uneven quality of services provided to young people in detention centres across the country. We would suggest that this should also be addressed as you review that portion of Bill C-4.

Turning now to sentencing principles, no evidence has been presented to show that deterrence is an effective strategy for young people. Adding denunciation is not consistent with the recognition of the reduced moral blameworthiness and culpability of young persons. We suggest those be deleted.

The fourth area we want to address is treatment of extrajudicial measures and sanctions. These are elements in the YCJA that are actually working well now and are helping to get early appropriate intervention that helps redirect young people. The provision suggested in Bill C-4 would result in counterproductive delays and added regulations to that. We suggest that you leave well enough alone in terms of extrajudicial measures and sanctions and not incorporate them, on the grounds that these moves would be counterproductive to the objective of early appropriate intervention with young people who get in trouble with the law.

The fifth area is adult sentences for young offenders. Another good piece of Bill C-4 is putting the onus back on crown prosecutors rather than on the defendants of young people, but requiring crown prosecutors to consider adult sentences for all violent offences and report why they are not recommending them is an unnecessary complication to the current act. Leaving that as discretion is a better way to get what is the highest goal, which is early and appropriate treatment rather than adding complications that are likely to result in delays. We would also like to highlight that allowing provinces to set different ages for consideration of adult sentences contravenes the basic provision of equitable treatment for all children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In 2003 Canada was asked by the UN committee to review how it ensures equitable treatment in a number of areas. It's a request that has not yet been addressed in Canada's third and fourth report to the committee. The federal government bears the obligation of ensuring equitable treatment of children across the country. That needs to be part of Canada's commitment to improve its implementation of international obligations. Parliament should not now pass a law that further enshrines inequitable treatment. In 2003 the UN committee recommended that Canada amend its youth justice law to ensure that no person under 18 is tried as an adult.

We make specific recommendations that are in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The sixth area we want to address is the place of detention. Again, a good aspect of Bill C-4 requires that youth serve their sentences in youth facilities. We would just add that there should be some requirements as to what constitutes a youth facility. The convention says that it must take account of the needs of persons of his or her age. That's not always true in the facilities across Canada. Right now, there are really no guidelines for that.

The final area is publication of names. We appreciate again that Bill C-4 is complying with the Supreme Court judgment about the onus of proof in the publication of names, but we would ask for review of this provision in light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, paragraph 40(2)(b), which states that every child has a right to have his privacy fully respected.

Finally, our submission lists for you the recommendations that the UN committee made to Canada in 2003. When you finish with Bill C-4, I hope this committee will take the time to consider what has been suggested to Canada and look at how we can improve our youth justice system to be in line with developing international standards.

Thank you.

[Bernard Richard, Ombudsman and Child and Youth Advocate, New Brunswick Office of the Ombudsman]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm of course pleased to be taking part in this meeting and in your proceedings on Bill C-4.

I previously sent you a written submission, a brief, and I don't intend to read it or even provide an overview of it. I'm simply going to summarize my concerns about the bill, in order to allow my colleagues as much time as possible and to speak with committee members.

I just want to give you some background, if I could, on the work we do so that you know where we're coming from.

I'm a child and youth advocate, as well as the ombudsman in New Brunswick, and for the time being the Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner as well. Hopefully, there will be a separate Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner soon.

Since about November 2006, I've been dealing with individual cases of youth and children, including youth who have been dealing with the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the justice system. So we have a very hands-on experience day in and day out. I have a number of people who work with me—some lawyers, some social workers, and others as well, with different areas of expertise. We intervene in different cases. We participate in case conferences and meet with families and the youth themselves. So it's very much an on-the-ground experience.

As well, we've published two reports fairly recently. Two years ago we published one report called Connecting the Dots, which really focused on youth with mental health issues and severe behavioural disorders and the experiences they and their families had with the service providers in New Brunswick. We made a series of recommendations. We followed seven youth and their families. The youth suffered from various ailments, including bipolar disorder, autism or autism spectrum disorders, and schizophrenia. Sadly, one committed suicide. But we followed the others over two years. We met with their families and we published a report with recommendations.

We also spent quite a bit of energy and resources reviewing the three years that Ashley Smith—whom you would be familiar with—spent in our New Brunswick Youth Centre. She spent three years in and out—mostly in—the New Brunswick Youth Centre. We reviewed 6,000 pages of documents and 40 hours of video. I assigned five investigators to that specific case. Tragically, as you know, she died in the federal system, but a lot of the issues there were very similar to those in the provincial system.

During those three years, Ashley spent two-thirds of her time in segregation--that is, in solitary confinement in an eight-by-ten cell, 23 hours a day more or less, with lights on 24 hours a day. If she didn't suffer from mental illness when she went in, she certainly did when she came out—and I would have, as well, Mr. Chairman, with respect.

She faced 501 institutional charges during those three years and 70 criminal charges during her lifetime, more than half for incidents inside the institution, not outside. She had 168 self-harm incidents, and she was tasered twice as a youth before she reached the age of 19 in an adult prison while waiting for transfer to a federal institution.

In that report, we made 25 recommendations.

I think we have a fairly good idea or view of how the system works on the ground. It's on that basis that I accepted your invitation to appear.

I know there is a broad range of opinions on the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In fact, in one meeting I heard it described that the Youth Criminal Justice Act, depending on your perspective, might stand for “you can justify anything”, YCJA, or “you can't jail anyone”. I think I'm situated somewhere outside of both of those definitions, but certainly, what I hope we know for sure is this. It's a new piece of legislation. It was meant to address a situation under the Young Offenders Act where Canada had the highest rate of youth incarceration in the world, I'm told. It was extremely high, in any event. At least today, it has worked. According to the research of Nicholas Bala and others, the trend is now definitely towards a reduction of youth crime. There is, as well, a reduction of youth incarceration. That translates to savings, savings financially, obviously, but also savings in emotional costs to families. All of these youth are somebody's son or daughter.

This experience, to me, is still early. It's been seven years in the lifetime of a piece of legislation. Recently I've been working with the Indian Act, which is much older than that; but seven years is a very short time, and I'm very concerned that these changes are premature.

There was a significant consultation in 2008. I participated in it and met Minister Nicholson in August 2008 in New Brunswick. I know that my participation was a small part of the participation nationwide. I have yet to receive the results of that consultation. I think it would be critical information for members of the committee to have access to that. It's hard for you to decide on a piece of legislation without knowing what thousands—well, certainly hundreds—of Canadians had to say about it. The session I attended in Moncton included police, psychiatrists, social workers, and prison guard associations. It was a really diverse group of people, and they had a lot to say. I think you would be very well advised to take advantage of that. Personally, I can say that I know there have been written reports, but none have been published. So I'd love to be able to see what was said during all of those consultations. There was a consultant hired to write a report and to facilitate the sessions. His name was Roger Bilodeau.

As well, we haven't done a really good job of making full use of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I think that's because it's still a very young piece of legislation.

In the case of New Brunswick, for example, the part of the act that permits the use of case conferences is really not used very much.

Justice Canada recently asked my office to conduct an analysis of the use of the act in New Brunswick to establish a model that would enable us to make better use of the elements that already exist but that are not very well known as a result of the recent nature of the act.

It seems to me we should further explore the opportunities afforded by the act as it currently stands before proceeding with changes that are quite significant.

I won't into the details because my main argument is that we are going way too fast. Instead we should analyze what has already been done and determine whether that's working or not. What interests committee members and the Canadian public, in my view, are the results at the end of the process.

What interests us are outcomes, very real concrete outcomes. So if you don't have the benefit of a complete analysis of what's happened so far under this piece of legislation, I think you take the risk of taking us back in time to the Young Offenders Act, the high incarceration rates, and here we go all over again. That is the concern I am expressing to the committee.

I have a lot of sympathy for Sébastien and his family and for others who are victims of crime. As ombudsman, I often am called upon to advocate on their behalf as well. My concern when I saw it was that it's a very tragic story. But by calling it “Sébastien's Law”, I guess the question I ask myself is when will we have “Ashley's Law”, a law for those who are victims of the criminal justice system? Ashley cried out for help and she became progressively worse while in contact with the system.

There are thousands of young Canadians out there who suffer from mental illness, from severe behaviour disorders, from addiction, who come in contact with the criminal justice system, and they should be diverted, directed towards treatment, not incarceration. Inevitably, incarceration makes their conditions worse. The justice system, including the prison system, is just not equipped to deal with these kinds of youth.

My fear is that while driving more of these youth towards incarceration, we're actually taking youth who are confused, sometimes suffering from all kinds of conditions, or who just make errors in judgment.... And I would say that outside of this room, likely most youth make errors of judgment sometimes, but not as severe as.... I know I have. Although I said “outside of this room”, I can confess that as a teenager.... And I have four sons who have been teenagers, and I am happy they're adults now, but they have made their own mistakes, yes.

I'll close on that, Mr. Chair.

I would ask you to carefully consider looking at where we've come from. I'm afraid that if we look at high-profile cases of violent crime by youth in order to change what I think is groundbreaking, very progressive legislation, we're proceeding on the wrong basis and we'll have the wrong results. That's my concern.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Professor Nicholas Bala, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Thank you. It's a privilege to be invited to appear before you.

I believe you all have copies of a brief that I had submitted. It sets out my views in greater detail.

I am a law professor at Queen's University. I believe I've done more research and writing about the Youth Criminal Justice Act than any other academic in Canada. I was also a witness before the Nunn commission for a couple of days. I've been involved in the education of police, judges, and lawyers about the legislation, and I'm engaged in ongoing research, much of it with criminologists and others, in other disciplines. And I should say that in Kingston, where I live, I also work with victims and young offenders.

In terms of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, I think it's important to remember that this is legislation that deals with adolescents, with teenagers. One of the things we have a better sense of today than we may have had 20 or 30 years ago is brain development. We know that at least until the age of 18, the brain is not fully developed. When people say, “Well, that young person was not acting rationally or responsibly; it seems like he had a hole in his head”, the answer is, “He probably did, and you can actually see where it is.” Unfortunately, it's the part of the brain that deals with judgment and future planning that is often the last part to be developed.

Sometimes young people do commit absolutely horrific offences, but they're not adults. Even if they commit the most serious crimes, they should not be treated in exactly the same way as adults. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable, or in some cases even receive adult-length sentences.

One of the challenges in this area is that it is true that we can look back--at the age of 20, let's say--and say that a small group of young people became serious and habitual repeat offenders; the difficulty is that when you look at someone who is 14 or 15, you can't accurately predict which of those will end up in that small group. It is much easier to “post-dict” than it is to predict what is going to happen.

I think the Youth Criminal Justice Act has been a success, at least a qualified success. I've set out some diagrams and statistics there, showing that while we have substantially reduced the level of use of custody and courts, we have not experienced an increase in youth crime in this country. We still have a relatively high rate of use of custody compared with New Zealand and some western European countries. Although our rate has gone down, it is still much higher than in some other countries.

Custody clearly has a place, both in terms of accountability and protection of the public, but one also has to be aware of the costs of custody. One of the costs is financial. The cost—there are different estimates—of incarcerating a young person in a youth custody facility ranges from $40,000 to $100,000 a year. It is very expensive. Sometimes it's appropriate.

Furthermore, once a young person is in custody, they will be stigmatized in their community. People talk about gangs, but the number one place where gangs recruit is in custody. One has to be very careful about not overusing or misusing custody.

I think Bill C-4 is certainly a timely review of the act. Certainly some provisions are very appropriate. I have concerns about others.

Speaking about the specifics, with regard to the change in the declaration of principle--in clause 3--I'm concerned that the long-term protection of the public is removed from this version of the bill. While some reworking of the principles may be appropriate, it's very important to keep in mind the long-term protection of the public, which is most likely to be effected by rehabilitation.

As was pointed out almost without exception, young people who are sent into custody, even for adult-length sentences, are going to get out. The question is this: are they going to get out and be a greater risk to the community or a lesser risk to the community? Their rehabilitation has to be a central concern.

I think proposed paragraph 3(1)(b), the proposal to add the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, is a very important and worthwhile amendment. I certainly support that.

I'll turn now to the definitions, and I'll talk particularly about the issue of violent offence; I know this was a concern of Justice Nunn in his report. I support this change, although I have some concerns about the specific wording. He was concerned that the Supreme Court of Canada held, in the C.D. case, that a young person who was involved in, among other things, a high-speed police chase through a city, unless there was an accident, was not committing a violent offence and could not be placed in custody. I think those offences that do endanger the public and, for that matter, the young person themselves, should be regarded as violent offences.

Before the Supreme Court decided, there were some other cases. The Alberta Court of Appeal, for example, I think took a broader approach to the concept of violence. I think that this recommendation, which reflects what Justice Nunn was saying, is appropriate, although I would say that there should be some element of knowledge or recklessness or lack of foresight on the part of the young person committing an offence, and I've proposed some specific wording.

The issue of pretrial detention or remand is extremely important. As the graphs that I've included in the materials point out, we are actually now sending more young people into remand custody than we are into custody after findings of guilt. In other words, we are sending more young people who are not guilty or not yet found guilty into custodial facilities than we are young people who've been found guilty. This is a serious concern not only in terms of presumption of innocence but also in terms of the nature of the programming that could be provided.

As I read the amendment to section 29, it will actually somewhat focus on that and may tend to address that problem in a way that Justice Nunn supported, so I support proposed subsection 29(2).

On the issue of extrajudicial sanctions and their use, I was very pleased to hear the words of the chief. I would fully endorse his position and those of other police officers and prosecutors who point out that extrajudicial sanctions are intended not to be findings of guilt and will confuse the process if they are treated the same way. Therefore, I would suggest that those changes should not be made.

Finally, with regard to the issue of the change in the sentencing principles added by proposed paragraph 38(2)(f) on denunciation and deterrence, on some level I can understand why one would want to see both denunciation and deterrence as factors in youth sentencing, but these are words that have a specific meaning and will have an effect on the youth justice system that I think is undesirable.

We would all like to see young people deterred from committing crime, and indeed arresting young people and bringing them to youth court in and of itself will have a deterrent effect, but I'm concerned. In the paper I refer to some other research I did with Professor Cesaroni, and one of the things we know is that if you put the word “deterrence” back into this legislation, it will affect judges. Youth court judges will sentence young people to longer sentences--we know that--but if you think that will deter young people from committing crimes, unfortunately that is not the reality.

There is a wealth of information about the fact that longer sentences do not deter young people. The problem is that the young people who are committing offences are not thinking about the future at all. They're not thinking about getting caught. They're not thinking about the consequences of their act. Knowing that if they get arrested and if they get to court, they might get a sentence that's twice as long six months later is not going to affect their behaviour. It would be wonderful if it did, but there's a huge amount of research proving otherwise.

Rational adults think that sending accountants who defraud companies to jail actually has an effect on the behaviour of accountants. They're rational adults and they're reading what's going on, so their behaviour is affected. The problem is that young people are not affected by longer sentences. There is research that suggests they are affected by, for example, more effective policing, so thinking they're more likely to get caught may affect their behaviour. If sentences go up, it does not affect their behaviour. By the way, that's why the American Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for young people. They realized it was not protecting society.

Similarly, denunciation is a word that has a legal meaning. While I think accountability is very appropriate, if we are saying that young people are going to have limited accountability reflecting their moral development, as in proposed paragraph 3(1)(b), we should not turn around and denounce their conduct. We should hold them accountable; denunciation has a meaning that will simply result in longer sentences.

Finally, on the issue of publicity for young people who do not receive adult sentences, in some states in the U.S.A. it is not uncommon for there to be identifying publicity as soon as a young person is arrested. Actually some young people who are arrested rather like the publicity. They take the papers around and show them to their friends in custody in the detention facility, saying, “Hey, see what a tough guy I am?” The problem with publicity is that it doesn't deter their behaviour and it doesn't make them more accountable, but when they get out, it does make it more difficult to rehabilitate them and to reintegrate them into the community.

If we impose an adult sentence, it seems fair to say that there's going to be publicity, but if we're treating them as young people and sending them into youth custody, putting their names in the newspaper will not increase the protection of the public. It will simply make it more difficult for them to be rehabilitated.

Thank you.

[Mel Kennah, Executive Director, Moncton Youth Residences Inc.]

I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to provide input to the proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I am the executive director of Moncton Youth Residences and have worked for this NGO for almost 25 years now. This is the largest non-profit organization of its kind in New Brunswick, and it employs about 180 staff members who provide 19 different services to at-risk youth and their families from around the province. In addition to that, I have been a foster parent for 20 years and have worked with young people in conflict with the law as well as child welfare youth in the permanent care of the Minister of Social Development.

I think it's encouraging that your committee is looking at the YCJA in trying to make it a more effective piece of legislation. The primary goal of the proposed changes is to better protect society, which sounds compelling and well intended. Who wouldn't want to have a safer community? But is getting more punitive the way to accomplish this positive and widely accepted goal?

What concerns me is that although the proposed changes may give the appearance of creating safer communities, the actual consequences of such changes that have an increased reliance on incarceration may indeed have the reverse effect.

The profile of an at-risk youth is someone who is already marginalized and faces numerous barriers between where they are now and becoming a healthy and contributing member of society. Risk factors include, but certainly aren't limited to, mental health issues, substance abuse, issues of homelessness, family and school breakdowns, conflict with the law, prostitution, and a myriad of relationship problems.

The increased reliance on incarceration being proposed cuts the young person off from all of their community support systems and from any important relationships in their lives. It is my belief that a young person with at least one good relationship in their life has a chance for a future. A more punitive approach will further limit the opportunity for meaningful relationships, and I fear it will be at the direct expense of rehabilitation of these young people.

Jail, punishment, and punitive measures all cloud the issue of rehabilitation. Heavier reliance on incarceration, publishing a young person's identity in the press, and trying them as an adult when they are as young as 14 years old does not suggest to me a safer society. These measures will further disengage youth, isolate them from society even more than they are now, and further aggravate their existing challenges.

Labelling a youth in the newspaper may actually influence that youth to accept that label as a permanent part of his or her future. More frequent and longer jail sentences will further reduce opportunities for success in the young person's life. It will most likely magnify and multiply existing risk factors, and it will not assist with skills acquisition. Treating a young person as an adult in these circumstances will not cause them to be any more mature or responsible or effective in their decision-making.

All youth sentenced to secure custody will one day re-enter society. A more punitive approach will help to guarantee that these youth will be ultimately less invested in society and have even less of a chance of achieving their potential.

Placing more emphasis and financial investment on incarceration will have both social and economic costs that may be difficult for society to bear.

I am not aware of any studies that clearly indicate that a young person will be less likely to reoffend because of receiving more time in jail. However, there are many studies that indicate investment in early intervention and community-based services has the best chance of inspiring youth toward more responsible behaviour. Investment in youth-specific community services and fresh options are the way to get young people connected to the necessary services, skills, people, relevant information, and even their own wants and potentials that will assist them in moving forward and also steer them away from ineffective behaviours that lead to a downward spiral.

Creating more community-based services and a heavy reliance on community-based sentences is what is needed to create safer communities. There are too few of these youth services in New Brunswick, especially in the small rural communities. Investing time, energy, and resources on the front end will obtain better results in the long run. With front-ended investment in community-based services for these at-risk youth, pressure will be taken off addiction services, hospitalization, social assistance, and incarceration. Such investment will enhance rehabilitation and will assist in holding youth accountable for their actions. The earlier the intervention, the better chance of success and the greater savings, both socially and economically.

I'm going to tell you a brief story of something that happened to me with my own teenage foster boys last weekend. We had a plugged toilet, which I tried to fix. That didn't work very well. The problem quickly grew into a flood and working with a plumber for the rest of the evening.

The plumber's conclusion was that we had a problem with our main sewer line running from the house to the septic tank. It had collapsed and I was going to have to dig up the yard. So I said, “I'll do that, and you can come back when I have things dug up.”

I then went to my foster children and said, “I could use a hand with this. Would anybody be interested?” They all replied, “Yes, we'd be happy to participate.” So the next Saturday morning we went out there and worked for about three or four hours. I can tell you that after that time they were smiling from ear to ear. I couldn't have created a greater opportunity for happiness or self-satisfaction if I had taken them to the circus for the day. Why was that? I think it was because they gained a sense of making a contribution to resolving a collective and immediate problem. They could see progress because of their efforts. They learned about teamwork and effective communication, and they had a strong sense of achievement.

You need to do esteemable things in order to build self-esteem. I believe increased emphasis on punishment will starve this growth, and emphasis on community-based options and services are the best way to promote this growth. As President Roosevelt once said, “We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future.”

In conclusion, I want to make a couple of brief points on Bill C-4, which I certainly support. First, I agree with the provision prohibiting the imprisonment of young persons in an adult correctional facility. I was actually surprised that this didn't already exist.

With some hesitation I mention the second point. Clause 25 of Bill C-4 requires that police keep a record of extrajudicial measures taken to deal with a young person. I think that maintaining a written record of this information would be more useful than not when it comes to decision-making purposes later on.

I have one final almost miscellaneous comment based on some discussions I had with one of our youth court judges and a crown prosecutor. It pertains to young people who are continuously breaching their probation and breaching undertakings to a judge. In those circumstances, in some instances, the intervention of a short, sharp shock of incarceration has proven to be beneficial in the past for some young people.

I hope the committee will give some consideration to my comments, so as to maintain that important balance between protecting society and supporting at-risk youth.

Thanks very much.

[Sylvie Godin]

This change would run counter to a guideline prepared on this topic by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in its general observation.

The committee had indeed insisted on the fact that an admission made by a child in the context of diversion measures must not be “used against him or her in any subsequent legal proceeding”.

Pursuant to clause 20 of the bill, it would be incumbent upon the Attorney General to convince the court to authorize the publication of information making it possible to identify the adolescents who were given adolescent-specific sentences according to certain defined criteria. Although this change improves to some extent the scope of the protection of the right to privacy, the category of adolescents whose name could be divulged would however be broadened.

Indeed the new provision would apply to adolescents convicted of “a violent offence”, an offence whose scope is broader than the current designated offence. Consequently, this would broaden the category of adolescents who might be deprived of the right to privacy. This protection aims to prevent any stigmatization, which contributes to attaining a priority objective of the distinct legal system put in place to deal with juvenile delinquency, i.e. the adolescent's social reinsertion, as emphasized by the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Pursuant to clause 21 of the bill, an adolescent of less than 18 years of age could no longer serve his sentence in an adult facility, even when given an adult sentence.

However, other exceptions in the bill such as the one concerning pre-trial detention would not be modified and would continue to apply. Consequently, Canada would continue to not be able to comply with the obligation of detaining children separately from adults.

Since 1996, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse has made several representations both before Parliament and the federal government in order to promote the rights recognized by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and by other standards of the United Nations applicable to the juvenile criminal justice system.

The Commission intervened in the reference presented by the government of Quebec before the court of appeal in order to support the position of the Attorney General of Quebec, in particular on the inconsistency of certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The court of appeal referenced principles of international law to conclude that the provisions of the act relating to the presumption that adolescents charged with a designated infraction were subject to an adult sentence, and the presumption of publication, were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court confirmed the interpretation of the appeal court in 2008 in the R. v. D.B. case, and it also based its decision on the convention and other relevant international standards.

In conclusion, the commission urges legislators to respect the provisions and principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It urges them to take into account in their review of Bill C-4 the recommendations and guidelines submitted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The committee emphasized a point that seems fundamental to us in the consideration of some of the grounds expressed to justify several of the changes proposed by Bill C-4.

I will summarize with an excerpt from general observation n^o 10 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child which reads as follows:

“[...] Reintegration requires that no action may be taken that can hamper the child's full participation in his or her community, such as stigmatization, social isolation, or negative publicity of the child. For a child in conflict with the law to be dealt with in a way that promotes reintegration requires that all actions should support the child becoming a full, constructive member of his or her society.”

Thank you for your attention.

[Sylvie Godin, Vice-President, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse]

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen members of Parliament, good morning.

I am Sylvie Godin, Vice-President of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse of Quebec, and I am accompanied by Ms. Claire Bernard, legal adviser at the Research Branch.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Quebec and the Youth Protection Act, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse of Quebec is entrusted with ensuring the protection of the interests of the child, and of ensuring through all appropriate means the promotion and respect of the rights that are granted to children under the Youth Protection Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It is thus the commission's mission to ensure that the amendments to the legislation governing the criminal justice system as it applies to adolescents are in compliance with the rights that are recognized to them. The commission discharges its mission by ensuring that the international commitments that Canada has made in the area of child rights are respected, pursuant to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other applicable treaties.

The commission's analysis of Bill C-4 is informed by the convention, as well as the recommendations which the Committee on the Rights of the Child addressed to Canada in 2003, pursuant to the examination of Canada's second report on the implementation of the convention and the general observation the committee made public in 2007 concerning the administration of the justice system applicable to minors.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Canada fully integrate into its legislation, policies and practices the provisions and principles of the convention, in particular the articles concerning the child's superior interest, the measures relating to deprivation of liberty, the rights of a child who is suspected, charged or convicted of a criminal offence, and rehabilitation and reinsertion, as well as the other international standards applicable in this area.

More specifically, the committee urged Canada to ensure that no person of less than 18 years of age be judged like an adult, whatever the circumstances or seriousness of the offence committed; to guarantee that the opinions of children be duly taken into consideration and respected in all legal proceedings concerning them; to see to it that the right to privacy of all children in conflict with the law be fully respected; to take the necessary measures, for instance alternate measures to the deprivation of liberty or parole, in order to considerably reduce the number of children being detained, and see to it that detention is only imposed as a last resort and for as brief a period as possible, and that in any case, children always be detained separately from adults.

Moreover, in its general observation in 2007, the Committee on the Rights of the Child addressed guidelines and recommendations to all of the states parties to the convention, so that their system of administration of justice applicable to minors be in compliance with the convention.

Our comments will thus discuss the amendments proposed in clauses 3, 4, 7, 25, 8, 20 and 21 of Bill C-4.

The bill proposes an amendment to section 3 of the act so as to make the protection of the public the priority objective of the act. The Committee on the Rights of the Child recognized that “the preservation of public safety is a legitimate aim of the justice system”. However, it “is of the opinion that this aim is best served by a full respect for and implementation of the leading and overarching principles of juvenile justice as enshrined in CRC”. Moreover, Canada itself recently pointed out in the context of its contribution to a report produced by the Human Rights Council on the Administration of Justice, that the Canadian criminal law applicable to minors guarantees that detention is a measure of last resort and that rehabilitation and reintegration must be taken into account in any decision. The principles of rehabilitation and reintegration must constitute the priority objectives of the law and not only be means, as the bill proposes.

Clause 4 of the bill proposes broadening the possibilities of resorting to pre-trial detention. The commission reminds us that according to the rights guaranteed to children in international law, detention must be a measure of last resort and it must be as brief as possible.

In this regard, the Committee on the Rights of the Child firmly pointed out that “the juvenile justice system should provide for ample opportunities to deal with children in conflict with the law by using social and/or educational measures, and to strictly limit the use of deprivation of liberty, and in particular pre-trial detention, as a measure of last resort.”

Clause 7 of the bill suggests the addition of two new principles to the principles of sentence determination, information and deterrence. Although this is no longer a matter of introducing a general deterrence principle applicable to all juveniles, as was the case in Bill C-25, the fact remains that the specific objectives of information and deterrence contradict the objectives of rehabilitation and reitegration which must remain at the heart of the criminal juvenile justice system. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the protection of the best interests of the child means that: “the traditional objectives of criminal justice such as repression and retribution must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice objectives in dealing with child offenders. This can be done in concert with attention to effective public safety.” Indeed several studies conclude that measures aimed at deterrence are ineffective.

Clause 25 of the bill proposes obliging police forces to keep a file regarding extrajudicial measures taken with regard to any adolescent. From the perspective of respecting the rules of international law, this change is not problematic as such, on condition however that the provisions governing access to that register and the use of the information it would contain not be modified.

A change suggested in another clause of the bill however, clause 8, concerns precisely the use of the information involving one category of extrajudicial measures, i.e. extrajudicial penalties. The court could in future impose on a juvenile a sentence of committal to custody in light of prior extrajudicial penalties, whereas currently it can only take into account prior convictions.

[Chief Clive Weighill]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Clive Weighill and I am the chief of police for the city of Saskatoon. I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to provide testimony today.

Youth crime, with its possible solutions, is a very serious and much debated issue in Saskatchewan. Although there has been a national trend showing reductions in youth crime in recent years, Saskatchewan has a serious problem related to criminality involving youth. The latest Canadian Centre for Justice statistics comparisons for 2008 clearly show that the youth crime rate is significantly higher in Saskatchewan than in any other province. The rate of youths charged in Saskatchewan sits at 9,255 per 100,000 population, aged 12 to 17. This is double the rate for the next closest province, Manitoba, with a rate of 4,692 per 100,000 population. By comparison, Saskatchewan has almost four times Ontario's rate of 2,718 per 100,000. In real numbers, not rates, Saskatchewan, with a population of only one million people, has charged 8,052 young offenders, compared to British Columbia, with 5,343 young persons charged out of a population of 4.5 million.

To say the least, the practitioners working in the criminal justice system in Saskatchewan have a solid grasp of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. There are positive aspects to the current act and, correspondingly, several problematic areas.

I provided testimony before this committee on March 30, 2010, and I think at that time I shared with the committee that I'm certainly a believer in social justice. I'm not one who believes that you lock people up and throw away the key. Those days are long gone. At that time I suggested to the committee that the primary reason for gang involvement in Saskatchewan is the marginalization faced by the aboriginal population in our province. A large percentage of the aboriginal population is living in poverty and poor housing, facing racism, the continued fallout of residential schools, and a restrictive Indian Act. I further suggest that in Saskatchewan the prevalence of youth crime is primarily predicated on the same factors.

Although marginalization and required social changes help explain the high numbers of youth coming in contact with the criminal justice system, I speak today of the young person who has gone past the entry level and has become entrenched in a lifestyle of criminal activity. As with most crime, the rule of thumb is that 5% of the population creates 95% of the problem. Once people are into a criminal lifestyle, they may be past preventative stages in their lives and they may have become hard core. It is about this 5% that I will direct my comments today.

As a general rule, the Youth Criminal Justice Act does an excellent job in assisting the police with diversion, official warnings, and holding youth accountable. It is within the small 5% of offenders that are habitual repeat and/or violent offenders where I believe changes in the YCJA are required.

As a case in point, recently in Saskatoon a young offender, aged 17, and an adult, aged 18, were arrested for allegedly committing 40 random street robberies and several home invasions while armed with a machete and a handgun. It is alleged that in one evening, leading to their arrest, they shot a 17-year-old male while robbing him on the street, causing the victim to be paralyzed from the chest down; they committed a home invasion, robbing eight people; and they slashed the leg of a street robbery victim with a machete. They are not from the marginalized cohort mentioned earlier; they are from middle-class families.

Other cases in point include the following. Youths engaged in gang activity and committing random street robberies allegedly stabbed a victim to death while stealing a case of beer. Youth and adults stabbed a victim 26 times because the victim made a derogatory comment. Youths involved with stolen autos are continually being released after being charged, only to reoffend and continue their actions in numbers in excess of 40 stolen vehicles. This is known to the community as revolving door justice.

I must stress that it is this type of crime and victimization that I make my comments about today, not the 95% of cases handled suitably through the YCJA.

I fully support some of the amendments contemplated by Bill C-4. In many instances, a message of deterrence has to be sent to the habitual offender. Violent crimes all have victims.

Society must be protected from those individuals who commit planned, violent crime, even if the individual committing that crime is a young person. Events such as those involving the young man mentioned earlier, who is now paralyzed, and the man who lost his life over a case of beer taken during a street robbery are not uncommon in Saskatoon.

I agree with the principle found in the current act that pre-trial detention of young offenders in general is a last resort. I do not agree with this, however, when the youth is a habitual property or violent offender. There comes a time in everyone's life when they must become accountable for their actions, and the protection of the general public must be taken into consideration. To continue releasing a habitual offender causes society to lose confidence in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, when the public loses confidence in the system, it may attempt to force draconian remedies on the entire youth criminal justice system, thereby also penalizing the youth who could utilize the positive aspects of this act.

I take this point even further. We continually see the use of intimidation by gang members in attempts to prevent witnesses and victims from testifying or assisting the police. The acts of intimidation often include pointing a firearm at someone, assaulting someone using physical force, or threatening to use knives and machetes. This intimidation severely compromises the ability of the criminal justice system to protect witnesses and victims. Protecting witnesses and victims so that they may testify safely without intimidation is a cornerstone of our justice system. I believe an intervention is required to prevent violent and habitual offenders from inflicting further harm.

I support Bill C-4 with the notion that a young person's prior findings of guilt and pending charges should be taken into account upon pre-trial release, specifically when the offender has reached the age of 16 or 17. I also support the recommendation in Bill C-4 in relation to releasing the name of a young offender if she or he has been convicted of a violent offence and the prosecutor convinces the court there is substantial likelihood the young offender may commit another violent offence. In fact, I believe it should even be taken one step further. In cases where the police are actively attempting to apprehend a violent young offender who is believed to be a real danger to the public, his or her name could be released in an effort to warn the public of impending danger or assist with a timely apprehension. Once again, this would be used only when a youth had reached the age of 16 or 17.

In relation to sentencing, I do not support the recommendation for the use of extrajudicial sanctions at the time of sentencing. In Saskatoon, we document all extrajudicial measures and sanctions in an effort to guide our officers when they come into contact with a young offender. For instance, a youth may be caught committing a minor mischief offence and be taken home by the police to his or her parents for them to provide proper direction to the youth. Later, the youth might be caught shoplifting and receive an official police warning rather than a criminal charge. Both of these instances are captured in our data banks and will be used when determining whether criminal charges should be laid if the youth commits further offences.

I believe the extrajudicial sanctions are useful for determining charges but not for sentencing. I suggest that only a criminal record based on court findings should be used. Extrajudicial measures and sanctions are a cornerstone of the YCJA and are used only in minor occurrences. They would not be a major factor in the cases of violent or habitual offenders of which I speak today.

I have no comments in relation to the recommendations pertaining to raising youths to adult court or whether they should be placed in a youth or adult detention facility in extreme cases. I have no background in corrections, and I suggest corrections people could provide more clarity on this topic.

Once again, I thank the committee for allowing me to provide input on this issue, and I'll certainly be open to any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll reconvene the meeting.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses to our study of Bill C-4. We're continuing our review of Sebastien's Law, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other consequential and related amendments.

We have with us today, first of all, representing the Saskatoon Police Service, Chief Clive Weighill. Welcome.

Young Offenders

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I believe that the minister avoided answering my question. However, his refusal or inability to answer are nonetheless significant.

In addition to the National Assembly, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes and many other witnesses have indicated that Bill C-4 would undermine the Quebec method, which gives such good results.

Will the Minister of Justice, who says he cares about the victims, agree to amendments to his law in order to avoid this risk?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution denouncing Bill C-4. The conclusion of the resolution reads as follows:

That the National Assembly reaffirm the validity and the importance of maintaining the Quebec model for treating young offenders, which has been unanimously accepted in Quebec and has allowed Quebec to achieve one of the lowest rates of youth crime in America in the past 25 years.

Does the Minister of Justice also acknowledge that Quebec has one of the lowest rates of youth crime in America?

[Irwin Elman, Provincial Advocate, Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth (Ontario)]

Thank you.

I want to say that I feel very privileged to be here, particularly in light of the last discussion, about witnesses and time. I feel very privileged because I know many Canadians have a real interest in the work of this committee and this bill, including young people themselves.

As you know, I am the provincial advocate for children and youth in Ontario, and I am joined today by one of my advocates, Lee Tustin, who I can tell you is one of the foremost experts on the Youth Criminal Justice Act in the country and has done some work on it. She's also modest. I hope our presentation can be helpful to you.

I want to begin my comments by saying something about process. As you know, when the YCJA was created there was quite a process of consultation and participation at all levels, including the House of Commons committee. What was created was a youth justice renewal strategy. That became the YCJA in 2003, with several years of studying, consulting, and talking to people before making any changes to our youth justice system. I would guess that even in that process few young people were consulted about what they thought might be helpful in terms of changes. Yet there was a consultation process.

In 2008 Bill C-25, which had changes similar to Bill C-4, was introduced without any prior consultation. I'm told by other provincial advocates, as I wasn't in my position at the time, that round-table discussions were held throughout the country on Bill C-25 after it was introduced. I've heard again today and I think I've seen on websites that the report from those consultations has not been made public. Certainly I haven't seen it, or any of my staff. I think that certainly is curious when you're contemplating Bill C-4, which again I feel has not had any true consultation. This is true particularly because the consultations haven't been open and public, and my understanding is there has not been consultation with young people who might be affected by the bill you're speaking to.

I think it's really important that young people and the people who work with your legislation be consulted. I spent the last 25 years working with young people in child welfare and youth justice systems, and I can tell you that the most important things I learned did not come from a lecture or professor I was listening to or from a book I read. It came from the lived experience and wisdom of young people. I urge you, before you make any decisions, to find out what that lived experience and wisdom can say to you. People are saying this act is to some extent about public safety. I want to remind you that young people are every bit as much members of the public as I am or you are, the same way your children are members of the public, and they have a right to be consulted too.

I also understand there's been some discussion of the Nunn commission report about how protection of society should be a primary goal of the act and that a tool should be given to courts to ensure that the protection of society is taken into account. But the Nunn commission also said the Youth Criminal Justice Act is sound legislation, and the report expressed concern about deviating from the sound underlying principles that are enshrined in the act. This is exactly why I think we need a true consultation process before we change what basically seems to be, as people are saying, a sound piece of legislation.

Even some of the questions I've heard you asking today, and I know you have limited time.... It strikes me that to consider changing a piece of legislation fundamentally without knowing some of the information that you need to know—for instance, statistics with regard to racialized members of our community entering into the youth justice system—is a little bit, and perhaps this is too harsh a word, irresponsible without knowing and understanding. So I urge you to take your time and consult widely.

I've thought a great deal about what I wanted to say. I know that I'm one of a group of characters you're going to meet, and probably because of my position and where I've worked, you could probably guess the kinds of things I'm going to say. I want to get beyond that.

Recently in Ontario, we've had quite a debate about a particular youth justice facility outside Toronto. Because we've been on one end of the debate raising the voices of children and youth, particularly youth who have been involved in that facility, people have said there is--and these are their words, not mine--the “hug-a-thug” group, and somebody referred to it as “bleeding hearts” earlier. And then there's the “law and order camp”. I think the polarization of those two camps is particularly difficult, and I want to find another way of having a discourse about youth justice. I think it comes from the voices of young people themselves. My act, which governs what I'm supposed to do, tells me I'm supposed to elevate the voices of children and youth, in this case in conflict with the law.

I spent, and have spent in the last year or two years, quite a bit of time in youth justice facilities in Ontario speaking to young people, meeting them when the veneer of their lives is stripped away, meeting them in these facilities. When I meet them, I don't know why they're there, but I'm talking to them. They're kids. As somebody said, they're every bit as much children or youths as is the child of anybody sitting around this table. You get to understand that they have hopes and dreams. And you get to understand that they are our future. You ask them what they want to do in the future, and they want to be a plumber, a doctor, a parent. They're somebody's sons or daughters. They are people.

To understand the issue with that in the forefront, with them in the centre of this room, you might make different decisions about the act you're contemplating. I really believe that. It also provides us with common ground, because I believe that people in my so-called “camp”, people who are the characters coming to tell you what's wrong with that, believe as much as you do that we want the best for our children and youth. We want public safety too. Speaking about these young people and understanding them will allow us to act differently, I think. That means also listening to them.

I want to say something else, and I'm thinking about what they might want me to say. In one of the places I was visiting--and it's happened many times--I was with young people in their unit, and suddenly there was a call for a lock-down, what the institution called a “code blue”. So all the young people had to go to their rooms, and they were locked in. This is not atypical from any other province. After they came out, I was able to talk to a young person again, and I said, “What happened?” He said, “Well, we were locked down. We have three CDs we're allowed to listen to on our unit, and one of the CDs was missing, and they needed to lock down all the units in the institution--not just this one--to try to find the CD.” It seemed curious to me. By the way, when they tried to find the CD, there were strip searches. They take everybody's clothes off, one at a time. They go in the rooms and look for the CD.

I'm not criticizing, and I don't work in the justice system, and maybe they're thinking--and I think they were--that the CD could be used as a weapon, and that it was a matter of safety. But I asked the young person how often this happened. “Well, two or three times a week”.

It occurred to me that if at any moment the guards who guard the Parliament Buildings could come in here and tell us to go to our rooms, take our clothes off because they had to look for something that was missing.... If that happened three times, and we didn't know it was going to happen, but we just got used to it happening, we might even think we understood why it was going to happen. When you're in custody in that situation, that's a common situation, and it's just one common element of what it means to be in custody. That's punishment enough in terms of what we need to do to young people if we're going to think we're punishing them. But--and young people will say this--it doesn't do a lot. It's common sense when you think about it.

When you think about your children, it doesn't do a lot in terms of rehabilitation and possibilities for reintegration. So the fewer young people, our children, we can put in that situation.... It's kind of obvious that we shouldn't be doing that.

That's the piece I wanted to say. I also wanted to say a little more about some of the pieces in the act, and I think that with Lee, during questions, we can speak specifically to those.

To me, the declaration principle that people have talked about that shifts the philosophy is really important, because I believe it blatantly ignores parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is also mentioned in the act and which the Canadian Parliament and Ontario's legislature have adopted.

I know there's been some discussion here to the effect of what good is that convention anyway, how enforceable is it, and that maybe that's the reason not to worry about it so much in the act. But what a message that is. It's particularly ironic when we're considering youth justice legislation and are honouring what we as a society say we need to commit to as people, and are teaching our young people how important laws are, that in regard to an act and a convention that Parliament and provincial legislatures have agreed to, we say that because it can't be enforced, it doesn't matter. What an irony it is to take that position.

My time is up. There is so much I wanted to say. There is a group of young people here from children in care. Yesterday they were speaking to Senators Pépin and Munson, talking about their struggles to make it through the child welfare system, how difficult it was. They had made it or were making it, but some of them were in group homes too. Under this legislation, they could be charged and end up in custody and have a completely different path, if they threw a glass at someone in a group home because the abuse they had suffered was triggered by something in that home. I want them to be remembered here too.

I know I'm out of time, but that's my message.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I'm going to use my discretion and cut it off here. I know that the government typically gets a question, but we are running short of time. We want to hear from Mr. Elman and Mr. Tustin as well.

I'm going to thank the witnesses for appearing. Your evidence will form part of the considerations.

While the witnesses are moving out and we're having Monsieurs Elman and Tustin take their places, there are a couple of items of committee business that are really important.

First, we circulated the budget for this review of Bill C-4. I need approval of that.

[Martha Mackinnon]

The submission I sent says “Justice for Children and Youth's Submissions re: Bill C-4” at the top. It is the last sentence under the subtitle “Endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person” in a section entitled “Expanded Grounds for Pre-trial Detention”.

[Julie McAuley, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee regarding Bill C-4.

Statistics Canada does not take a position on the proposed amendments in the bill. The presentation we have prepared contains our most recent data on youth criminal justice. All data sources used are clearly indicated as are any pertinent data notes. Distributed for your consideration are the most recent Juristats related to youth crime, youth courts, and youth corrections. Furthermore, in July, Statistics Canada will be releasing new crime and youth court data, which may also be of assistance during your examination of Bill C-4. My colleagues Ms. Mia Dauvergne, Ms. Rebecca Kong, and Mr. Craig Grimes will help to answer any questions.

Using data received from police services across Canada, we can examine trends in youth accused of police-reported crimes. Over the last ten years, there has been a substantial shift in the trends regarding youth aged 12 to 17 accused by police. The rate of youth charged has dropped while the rate of youth cleared by other means has increased. Cleared by other means includes, for example, judicial sanctions and police discretion.

Crime can be classified into two categories: violent and non-violent. Most crime committed by youth is non-violent. This has been a consistent trend over the last ten years. In 2008, seven in ten youth accused of crime had committed a non-violent offence. The rate of non-violent crime committed by youth in Canada has been decreasing over the last ten years, while the rate of violent crime has remained relatively stable. As the youth crime rate is predominantly driven by non-violent crimes, the overall crime rate as reported by police services in Canada has also dropped over the last ten years.

The top ten offences accounted for 93% of all police-reported offences committed by youth aged 12 to 17 in 2008. Seven of the ten shown are classified as non-violent crimes. The most common police-reported offence committed by youth in 2008 was theft under $5,000. This along with mischief and assault level one accounted for about half of all police-reported offences committed by youth in 2008.

I will now turn to what happens once charges laid by police move into Canada's youth courts. In 2006-07, theft was the most common type of case completed in youth court, followed by assault level one and break-and-enters. The composition of cases being heard in youth court is changing. We are seeing fewer cases involving less serious offences, such as possession of stolen property, and an increase in more serious offences, such as uttering threats and weapons offences. Since the introduction of the YCJA there has been a 26% decline in the cases completed in youth court. While there is variability in the magnitude of the decline in caseload, all provinces and territories have experienced a decline since the YCJA.

In addition to the decrease in the total number of cases, there has also been a decrease in the number of guilty cases stemming from youth courts. While the decline began in the early 1990s, the introduction of the YCJA coincides with a decrease in both the total number of cases completed and the number of guilty cases.

Of the approximately 56,500 cases heard in youth courts in Canada in 2006-07, 60% resulted in a guilty finding. For those cases where the youth was found guilty, the most frequent sentence was probation. In recent years the proportion of violent cases resulting in a custodial sentence has been declining. In 2006-07, these cases were at their lowest levels in 15 years. Since the first year of the YCJA, all provinces and territories have experienced large decreases in both the numbers and proportions of guilty youth cases receiving custodial sentences. The use of custody has also decreased across all offence categories.

The average length of custody for all youth cases in Canada was 72 days, compared with 124 for adults. When split by violent and non-violent offences, we see that there is a difference in the length of the custodial sentence imposed: 117 days for violent cases versus 54 days for non-violent cases.

By far, the average length of custody was the longest for homicides, at 1,084 days, which is almost three years, followed by attempted murder and other crimes against persons. On any given day in 2008-09, about 900 youths aged 12 to 17 were in sentence custody, which was down 8% from the previous year and down 42% from 2003-04. In fact, the number has been declining annually since 1995-96.

Looking at slide ten, we see that the youth in remand outnumber those in sentence custody. In 2008-09, 52% of all young people held in custody on any given day were in remand.

Youth continue to spend fairly short periods of time in remand. Four of the eight jurisdictions that provided data in 2008-09 indicated that youth spent, as a median number of days, one week or less in custody. Since the implementation of the YCJA, the median number of days spent in remand has varied across jurisdictions. Overall, in 2008-09, 54% of youth released from remand had spent one week or less in remand. This proportion has fluctuated between 53% and 56% since 2004-05.

For youth there are operationally two levels of custody: open custody, which is less restrictive, such as halfway houses; and closed custody, which are secured facilities and would include detention centres. Among the reporting jurisdictions, the trend in time spent in open and secure custody has fluctuated.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee. This ends my presentation.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Merci. I thank you for that.

Mr. Bergman, how do you feel about that? In your presentation, you believe that if Bill C-4 passes, young persons will be going away for a longer period of time. Well, Mr. Fournel-Laberge just indicated that going away for a longer period of time was what made the difference in his rehabilitation.

[Scott Bergman, Section Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for allowing me to be here and the CBA to be here.

I'd like to start off by saying that although the CBA doesn't support passage of the bill in its current form, there are a number of proposed amendments that are positive and ultimately ought to be included in the YCJA. For example, the recognition of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability of young persons is a very significant step in the right direction. Also, we support the amendment prohibiting youth under the age of 18 from ever being sent to adult institutions.

With that said, on balance, the CBA cannot recommend passage of the bill in its current incarnation. With the emphasis being shifted toward pre-trial and post-conviction incarceration of youth, the bill would be a step backwards for the YCJA. Bill C-4 represents a radical shift from the guiding principles behind the hugely successful YCJA and recognition that most youth come into contact with the law as a result of fairly minor and isolated incidents.

The YCJA recognizes the importance of diverting minors and minor incidents away from the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on extrajudicial measures such as warnings, cautions, referrals, mediation, and also family conferencing. The YCJA stresses the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration of youth offenders throughout the act, including in the preamble and also in the purposes and principles of the act. One of the key objectives is to keep young offenders out of jail except for the worst, most violent, or habitual offenders. For those violent or habitual offenders, the YCJA opened the door to adult sentences and opened it more widely and perhaps rightly so. It was a move in the right direction.

With that said, Bill C-4 is a step back to the dark days of incarceration for youth. It is a movement away from diversion, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

It appears that one impetus for the bill is Mr. Justice Nunn's report, “Spiralling Out of Control: Lessons From a Boy in Trouble”. But Justice Nunn himself has actually spoken out against over-reliance on incarceration of youth, saying recently:

There’s no evidence anywhere in North America that I know of that keeping people in custody longer, punishing them longer, has any fruitful effects for society. Custody should be the last-ditch thing for a child....

Indeed, Justice Nunn has some disdain for certain aspects of Bill C-4 itself. He is quoted recently as saying “They have gone beyond what I did, and beyond the philosophy I accepted. I don’t think it’s wise.”

In the CBA's view, one area where the bill does go beyond what Justice Nunn recommended is the deletion of long-term protection of the public in favour of the more general concept of protection of the public. Without further insight, one can only assume that the deletion of the words “long-term” before “protection of the public” is intentional. This raises serious concerns about young people being locked up for longer periods of time, situations that should only be reserved for the most serious cases.

Except for those most serious or habitual cases—and I pause parenthetically to note that Dr. Croisdale recently talked about the most serious cases being between 5% and 10%, and I believe he testified before this committee on May 13—it's in the interests of both society and the young person to focus on how rehabilitation can best be achieved. The reality is, the vast majority of young people who come into contact with the justice system do so once or twice and likely never come back again. That's what I took from Dr. Croisdale's evidence, and that's what the CBA took from it.

The proposed addition of denunciation and deterrent as sentencing considerations is of very great concern to the CBA. On the one hand, the bill seeks to amend the YCJA to recognize youth's criminal diminished moral blameworthiness in contrast to adults. On the other hand, what the amendments do is import denunciation and deterrents. These are clearly adult-based sentencing principles. Moreover, the literature has conclusively found that incarceration is generally not an effective deterrent against a young person.

Since the YCJA was proclaimed in force in 2003, rates of youth crime have gone down consistently, while the rates of incarceration of young persons after sentence have also gone down. The empirical evidence seems clear. The YCJA is working as intended. Where is the evidence that such drastic and expensive changes are necessary right now for Canadian society? The CBA hasn't seen any such evidence. Before spending massive amounts of money on what appears to be a structural overhaul of some aspects of the system, one would think that significant and widespread public consultation should be the first order of business.

The government backgrounder on Bill C-4 states, and I quote, “...often the system is powerless to hold violent and reckless youths in custody, even when they pose a danger to society.” Again, the CBA has seen no evidence to support this proposition. In fact, the current YCJA appears to be quite effective in keeping truly violent and dangerous youth in custody pending trial.

The amendments to pre-trial detention, with a focus on the newly created serious offence category, would not serve to keep more violent or dangerous youth off the street. What it would do is widen the net of pre-trial incarceration to include many non-violent and in some cases relatively minor offences, like assault—simple assault, that is—uttering threats, possession over $5,000, possession of a stolen credit card.

Like all Canadians, CBA is of the view that pre-trial detention is necessary for truly violent youth who pose a very serious risk to the safety and security of the public. The difficulty we have with Bill C-4 is that the proposed amendments do not align with that desired goal. In the name of protecting the public, a youth charged with a serious offence, like a schoolyard fight, could potentially find himself or herself in pre-trial detention.

Violent offence is now going to be defined as “an offence that results in bodily harm and includes threats or attempts to commit such offences”. Bill C-4 expands the definition of “violent” to include dangerous acts as well. Even if an act is not violent or does not result in bodily harm, conduct that gives rise only to the risk of bodily harm or endangerment would now be considered violent. At the very least, the CBA takes the position that at least an intent or recklessness component ought to be built into the revised definition of violent offence.

It's incompatible, in our view, to say that young people have diminished moral blameworthiness and to only then create a very serious category of offence that includes endangerment of another by creating a substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm. The very notion of diminished moral blameworthiness is premised on the fact that youth do not think about the consequences or nature of the acts in the same way adults do.

While Bill C-4 contains some important and positive amendments, we cannot support its passage in its current form. In its current form it will undermine, not foster, the long-term protection of society. Practically speaking, the bill means more young people going to jail for longer periods of time. The bill is a move away from a restorative and rehabilitative model of justice toward a more punitive model, which we see as both unnecessary and contrary to sound public policy, which itself is based on well-accepted social science. The social price tag will be hefty, no doubt, but the fiscal costs will really be just as steep.

Thank you for your time.

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for a very good presentation.

I would like to clear up a couple of things. You have a federal counterpart, Rob Nicholson, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. You would expect him to be an advocate for his bill, Bill C-4, and appear before us suggesting that people were asking for this kind of legislation and that in fact attorneys general were asking for this kind of legislation, so I have three little questions for you.

My understanding is that attorneys general across the country wanted something done with some of the very sensible recommendations in the Nunn Commission of Inquiry report, and that some of those items have been dealt with in this act. However, much of this act is outside the Nunn commission recommendations. It is essentially a program of the government with respect to inculcating adult criminal sanctions into the YCJA, as you mentioned.

My first question is this: do you feel that this law responds adequately to both the Nunn recommendations and to the concerns of attorneys general across the country, and specifically the concerns of New Brunswick?

Second, what level of consultation did you have with the federal Attorney General on this matter?

Third, you mentioned a direct federal cut to a Fredericton program that is very near and dear to you, a very preventive early intervention program. At the same time, we know through Kevin Page's work that the cost of some of the legislation the government is bringing forward in terms of prison costs is extraordinary. Some of these sentences rely on provincial resources, but what we haven't received yet is any indication from any province.

Where does the rubber hit the road for provinces like New Brunswick? What is your estimation of the costs of the Conservative tough-on-crime agenda to the Province of New Brunswick? I left there this morning, and unless you found offshore oil or gas in the meantime, how are you or we going to afford it?

[Kelly Lamrock, Minister of Social Development and Attorney General, Government of New Brunswick]

That sounds great, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

First of all, thanks for the opportunity to do this. I'm here today in the hope that I can share with you maybe two unique perspectives in one presentation on Bill C-4, as well as share a little bit about the New Brunswick experience.

I come with two perspectives that might be helpful to the committee. One, I believe I'm the only provincial attorney general who also has responsibility for youth at risk with a social ministry. Some of what we are doing with success in fighting poverty, reducing youth crime, and reducing youth recidivism may be helpful to the committee in understanding how we actually can be tough on crime by preventing crime and making sure that young people at risk don't stay at risk.

Second, let me also say clearly that from the perspective of New Brunswick, the current YCJA is working for us. We are seeing youth crime go down. We are seeing reductions in the number of young people who are repeating offences. I'm hoping that we can share with you a bit about why that's happening in New Brunswick and also talk about some of the ways in which Bill C-4 doesn't just layer on an additional level of ways to deal with young offenders, but instead may prevent us in New Brunswick from doing some of the things that are working. As a province that's had some success, we're hopeful that our success will be respected through this process.

I would start by saying this: it seems absolutely essential that we have a youth justice system that is aimed at the unique needs of young offenders. Justice that is served in a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. We know that with young people, for example, there's more time to reform their behaviour. We know that if they are growing up in poverty or have mental health issues or have issues of abuse or neglect at home, those experiences may be more formative and therefore may affect their behaviour more than they would affect an adult who has had more time and perspective.

Young people are also less aware of, and think less of, long-term consequences. Deterrence doesn't work as well with young people. I think any parent who's ever had the experience of saying to their kid, “But if you don't study for your test, you won't get into university and you won't have a good job”, knows that they say, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that, but that's off in the future. I'm immortal and I'm young.”

The fact is that we in New Brunswick have been tough on crime, but we've done it by taking the approach that being tough on crime doesn't mean what you do after the crime's already been committed; it's what you do to make sure the crime doesn't happen in the first place. For us that means being tough on crime, and we are. For instance, we've adopted statutes that allow for forfeiture if you are an absentee landlord and you're allowing your property to be used for anything from selling drugs to profiteering from child pornography. We now have the power to seize that property and crack down on absentee landlords. We have a tenant protection act that allows the state to evict those who are dragging neighbourhoods down with anti-social behaviour. That's being tough on crime.

We're also tough on the causes of crime with aggressive reform of our social assistance system. We have aggressive interventions, including more mental health resources early on, making sure the courts are trained, and now integrated service delivery that makes sure we have school-based intervention teams that spot kids who are abused or neglected at home to allow them to get services in an integrated way, whether it's mental health, help for their parents at home, or help in the educational system.

If I may, I will quickly raise five concerns with proposed Bill C-4 that may stand in the way of our doing what the evidence shows is working in New Brunswick.

First I would say this: if you look at clause 8 of the bill, this is one of the first times the Parliament of Canada has proposed a bill that criminalizes intervention. I say that because this bill allows judges, when sentencing, to look at past participation in programs for substance abuse or mental health, or even at things as simple as police warnings.

Here's our concern about that: when we have a young person who has committed a non-violent offence and who was not deliberately inflicting harm on another, we want to get that person into our intervention programs as quickly as possible. We don't want them lawyering up. We don't want a long trial process. We want to get them into that intervention. By now saying that those interventions can count against them, you'll take away our ability to do what works.

As long as they accept responsibility and participate in these programs, we can begin to start the process of turning their lives around. By saying that participating--whether in sentencing circles, whether in community service, whether in counselling--now counts against kids later on in sentencing, we're going to have more kids lawyering up, we're going to go to more trials, and we're going to have kids getting help far less quickly. From our perspective, it would be a mistake to criminalize participation in the very programs that the evidence suggests are working in New Brunswick to keep people safer and to make sure that they don't do it again.

The second concern, I would say, is that this bill may actually defeat its own purpose by blurring the distinction between intentionally violent crimes and those that may be simply reckless or risky behaviour. If the definition of participating in risky behaviour were applied to all young people, I'm not so sure it wouldn't take care of most of us in this room at age 16—I'll certainly say that myself.

The fact of the matter is this: there is nothing wrong, when you have a young person who is intentionally, wilfully, and coldly inflicting harm on others, in making sure they're tried as an adult. That's the right thing to do. I'm a dad, I have kids, and I want them protected too. But to mix the criteria where the wilful infliction of harm is now treated the same as simply engaging in behaviour that's reckless or risky, where the line hasn't been crossed into deciding to hurt somebody, not only runs against everything we know, but it may actually undo some of the tough on crime agenda that's actually behind this bill, because instead of being very specific and directive to judges as to when as attorneys general we can have our prosecutors get that young person into the adult system, it now has actually muddied the waters. Now the definition isn't clear for judges. The judges have more discretion to keep dangerous offenders in the youth system, yet the youth system itself has been effectively destroyed.

So I think, frankly, because of some very loose drafting around what constitutes getting somebody into the adult system, as an attorney general I'd be very concerned that it will actually be harder for us to get truly dangerous youth into the adult system if this bill passes.

The third concern is that this probably undoes a large part of the reason to have a youth system. If we take a look, for instance, at clause 7, adding deterrence to the act as a consideration, what we try to do as attorneys general is, very early on, have as many tools as possible that actually meet our needs. We should have an adult system that is tough on crime, that emphasizes responsibility, that cracks down on violent offenders and actually makes sure they stay behind bars where they can't hurt somebody—no question. We also need a youth system that is based on the unique needs of young offenders, and that means, in fact, we put more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, because frankly, we know that the 16-year-old who steals a car is not going to be locked up for life but is going to be back on the streets.

As an attorney general and, frankly, as a dad, my interest is this: when we turn that person loose at 18, 19, or 22 years of age, what kind of citizen is he? What have we done to change that outcome? Being tough on crime doesn't mean waiting until he's 22 and hurts somebody again and locking him up. Being tough on crime means making sure he doesn't do it in the first place.

By adding deterrence and denunciation and making the youth system more like an adult system, we've destroyed the whole point of having a system that works to prevent young people from reoffending, and at the same time makes it harder for us to get adult offenders into the adult system.

The youth system is there for a reason, and the more you try to make it like the adult system, the more you then blur the distinction; if we can't get people into the right tools for rehabilitation, then you've effectively hurt our ability as attorneys general to deliver justice that works and protects people.

I might make two more general comments that aren't tied to the legislation.

I would like to share with you some of the concerns that we have at the provincial level.

The Government of New Brunswick believes that adopting this proposed legislation would only make matters worse for young persons and other residents of the province. Just recently, the federal government did away with the Youth Option Program in New Brunswick. This program offered youths who were at risk in a regular school setting and at home alternative methods of learning so that they did not turn to criminal behaviour.

Requiring provinces that are not rich, such as New Brunswick, to spend money on locking kids up will take away from things we've seen, just like the federal cuts to programs like Youth Options and to intensive programs like Portage, which allow us to intervene with those who have substance abuse problems. If we have to spend money putting people in prison, frankly, in a province like New Brunswick we don't have an extra dollar to spend on things that aren't backed up by evidence. You're going to require us to take away from some of the programs that are working in New Brunswick, programs that intervene on mental health issues and substance abuse.

I would be remiss if I didn't share with you the report of Bernard Richard, our provincial child and youth advocate, around Ashley Smith. Sometimes it's easy to lose this in philosophical arguments, but there are risks with the wrong approach in youth justice.

Ashley was a young teenager who originally was arrested for mischief. She was throwing crab apples at people out of a tree. Because she did not comply very often with the directions given in jail, she wound up in higher and higher levels of custody. What we now know about her case is that by putting her into a system that did not have the staff, training, or resources to recognize mental health issues early, ultimately we didn't rehabilitate that young person and we didn't keep her safe. What happened is that Ashley sadly and tragically committed suicide. That happened because we were too quick to steer her out of a system with the right kinds of supports and into a system that measured only whether or not she complied with the orders given to her, which we now know, with the benefit of hindsight, mental health issues had made almost certain wouldn't happen.

People die if we get it wrong. People die if we get it wrong by being too slow to incarcerate. People also die if we get it wrong by being too quick to incarcerate. From our perspective, perhaps I can offer some alternatives in which the Government of New Brunswick would be interested. Let us have two distinct systems--one focused on rehabilitation, and one in which detention and punishment start to become more important. Give us more discretion, not less, to steer young people into that system and to steer violent offenders into the adult system. And work with us. Help give us the tools. Don't cut the programs that help us intervene in these kids' lives, but help us to have the resources to appropriately detect and intervene, and to train staff on issues as wide-ranging as mental health, abuse at home, and substance abuse that can lead to failure.

I will close with this thought, Mr. Chair. Sometimes when we study these sorts of bills, we tend to look at a bad example of a young person gone wrong and ask what went wrong; if we look at the cases of young people who were rehabilitated and ask what went right, we are probably more likely to do it right in the future. In New Brunswick we are funding some programs that are doing it right, and we don't want to lose the ability to do that.

With that, I thank the committee and stand open to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 18 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Tuesday, May 25, 2010.

You have before you the agenda for today. 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 of the committee, let me offer a note about this study. As of the deadline of May 14, a total of 44 witnesses had been submitted by members of the committee. A week later, a week after the deadline, we received another list from the Bloc. There are a number of issues we have to address. One is how we manage the witnesses we have; secondly, what happens with the Bloc's witness list; and thirdly, establishing a date for a steering committee. Those are all issues that are important, because we're trying to manage this and move the bill forward.

Given that we haven't been able to have a steering committee meeting because of conflicts in scheduling, I am proposing that we schedule eight witnesses per meeting—in each two-hour meeting we would have eight witnesses—and try to move them forward quickly. Also, I hope to complete clause-by-clause by June 15. That would give us seven more meetings for some 40 witnesses plus clause-by-clause.

I don't know what the will of the committee is. I want to manage this in a way that is effective, that is efficient, that doesn't shortchange anybody, but that at the same time doesn't drag it out unnecessarily.

What's your feeling?

Monsieur Ménard.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

The primary stated purpose of Bill C-4 is the protection of society, and the secondary is to make it easier to detain violent and reckless youth. Is it safe for me to assume that you disagree with these philosophical objectives of Bill C-4?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

The stated purposes of Bill C-4 are that the protection of society is the principal goal, and the secondary goal is to make it easier to detain—

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes, I'm talking about Bill C-4 and clause 21.

[Michèle Goyette]

So this is Bill C-4.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

At the beginning of your evidence you said that you believe Bill C-4, this particular legislation, as it relates to the prolific offender appears to address the individual concerned--in other words, the person who appears to require more concentrated institutional or behaviour-amending treatments. Would that be correct? Does it sound as though that's going towards where you were...?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you. That's quite all right.

Can you tell me, to your knowledge, how many victims of crime have received from your organization a copy of Bill C-4? Do you know?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Did I understand correctly that in your analysis you think that Bill C-4 may be useful for dealing with these 5% to 6% of offenders?

[Arlène Gaudreault, President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Arlène Gaudreault. I am here as President of the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes. I am a founding member of the association and I have been its president since 1988. I have been very involved in the field of victimology for about 30 years. I have taught at the École de criminologie since 1993. My work has been recognized by the ministère de la Justice, which awarded me the Prix de la justice. I have also received an award for my work from the Commission des services juridiques du Québec and the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. As an expert, I am a member of the advisory committee to the Policy Centre for Victim Issues of the Department of Justice of Canada.

I would like to thank you, on behalf of the Association, for inviting us and hearing our views in this consultation. I am simply going to tell you that since 1984, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes has been working to create a justice system that is fairer and more humane to victims of crime. In all these years, in everything we have done and said, we have always been concerned with the difficult balance that must be struck between protecting victims and rehabilitating offenders. We have always kept respect for fundamental rights, both of victims and of offenders, in mind. For these reasons, it is difficult to support the aims of Bill C-4, C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts..

It is our opinion that this bill marks a backwards step in relation to the practices and expertise that Quebec has developed, in rehabilitating young offenders and reintegrating them into society. It is also a significant break from the philosophy for the treatment of these young people. It opens the door to an undesirable shift toward incorporating measures modeled on the adult criminal justice system into the youth criminal justice system.

We wanted to meet with the committee primarily to express our concerns and questions regarding this bill, in response to the needs of victims of crime. Protection of society is a fundamental value that must be preserved. In light of our mission, we are particularly concerned about victims' safety.

We do not believe that calling for a more enforcement-oriented justice system will automatically translate into greater protection for society in general, and victims in particular. We are not the only ones who think this. Other organizations and people who advocate for the rights of victims in Canada share our belief. In his recent report entitled "Toward a Greater Respect for Victims in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act", Steve Sullivan, who is the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, wrote:

Victims understand, better than most, that nearly all offenders will eventually be released from prison. Given their personal experiences, they know the impact violence can have, which is why many victims sincerely hope that offenders will be rehabilitated while in prison. The best protection victims, their families and the community will have is if the offender can learn to modify negative behaviour before he or she is released.

I think those comments are relevant if we consider them in relation to the bill currently being considered. What do victims want? If victims still feel marginalized in the criminal justice system, if they are still disillusioned, that cannot be explained solely and primarily by the fact that sentences are not harsh. Responses to the needs of victims must be addressed from a much broader perspective than sentencing. That is what we would hope to hear.

In 1988, the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human writes entitled "Victims' Rights, A Voice, Not A Veto", summarized the legitimate aspirations of victims this way. They ask to be able to participate at all stages of the proceedings, they ask for information about how the justice system functions and they want to know about the programs available to them. They are critical of the uneven availability of programs and services and they want the imbalance they see in the criminal justice system restored.

The question is, when we are talking about the needs of victims where the offender is a minor, how do we meet those needs, when we know that a large proportion of victims, 52%, are young people, and that 20% of those victims are family members? Those figures are taken from Juristat statistics. How do we deal with victims of serious violence and victims who have lost a loved one at present? How much support are they offered in the process, in Canada?

What services are they offered in the courthouses and in the community? How can victims in Canada learn about the what progress a young person is making in closed custody or on probation? How can they know whether that young person has made progress in their program?

I would say that we do not have a good understanding of the special needs of victims who are dealing with the youth criminal justice system and how they are treated. We have no answer to the questions I have just asked, even though they relate to the well-being and physical and psychological security of the victims and the people close to them. Nor do we have data about the services and programs that enable victims to recover. As well, we don't know, in Canada, how we are meeting our obligations to them, and that is a matter of some concern.

The committee noted the imbalance between resources for offenders and resources for victims. We wonder to what extent that imbalance will continue or even worsen, when we see the budgets that are going to be allocated to enforcement as compared to the resources spent on initiatives to help victims of crime.

Victims are not a monolithic group, nor do they follow the same process or have the same needs or the same expectations of the justice system. When we listen to them we must respect their differences. To argue otherwise is reductive.

Unfortunately, victims are often associated with enforcement programs. Victims' cause is increasingly exploited and used as a tool for partisan purposes by political parties of all stripes. Victims' rights are used to legitimize more crime control, but that discourse does not express the position of all victims, with the nuances that must be recognized. It does not serve the cause of victims, and we reject Canada's decision to take this path, in particular in this bill.

As noted by Allan Young, a professor and eminent legal expert who did a study for the Department of Justice of Canada in 2001, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that victims want harsher sentencing. In fact, studies show the opposite. Initial research involving victims done in the early 1980s highlights the fact that victims are not excessively punitive, any more than people who are not victims. That is also the case among victims of violent crime.

In a letter sent recently to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mr. Sullivan recalled that measures that focus on enforcement and harsher prison sentences do not, and I quote, make any real difference in victims' lives.

In fact, every day we receive telephone calls telling us that responding to victims' needs does not just mean keeping offenders in prison longer. In our associations and our groups, we hear victims saying the same thing. They are really looking for services to help them and information to support them in the process, particularly when they are dealing with the compensation scheme or other programs.

We reject the fact that Bill C-4 has been proposed without any real consultation being undertaken with a broad range of people, victims themselves and organizations that have been involved with them for at least three decades and have taken up their cause everywhere in Canada.

The present government still has a lot to do, to give effect to victims' rights, to guarantee them more participation in the criminal justice system and access to services.

Even more effort has to be made in the youth network, particularly to develop a pro-victim culture among all actors in that network. Victims of an offender who is a minor are still being neglected. By trying to toughen sentences for some categories of offenders, the reassuring message is supposed to be that victims are being taken care of and what becomes of them is a matter of concern, but in reality neither the root problems nor the solutions are being tackled. It is a way of salving their conscience.

Initiatives for victims and offenders must be based on a long-term vision and must not be developed for political gain. It is easier to amend legislation than to fund services.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes submits that measures to help parents and families reduce poverty and inequality are essential to combat and reduce criminal victimization. We can restore confidence on the part of victims and the public in general by other means, by other solutions, than enforcement.

Thank you for your attention.

[Michèle Goyette]

Okay, I'll continue.

We have about 13,000 employees, nearly 900 of whom specialize directly in working with young offenders. Note also that the Directors of Youth Protection who are in charge of the youth centres are also provincial directors under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This means that we are very interested in the decisions that will be made in this Parliament, because working with young offenders is our stock in trade and our day-to-day work.

Before talking about Bill C-4 itself, we would like to point out that we were expecting a real revision of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in 2008, as promised, with real consultation with organizations that work with young offenders. That broad and open consultation did not take place, and we hope that it will be done seriously, with intensive involvement by the groups that work with young offenders everyday, as well as in research, and by organizations that advocate on behalf of victims.

That being said, we have read the changes proposed by Bill C-4 and we have several major objections, which I would like to explain.

The first objection relates to clause 3 of the bill, which amends section 3 of the Act. We believe that the change proposed in clause 3, placing the principle of the proportionality of the sentence above everything else, including prevention, rehabilitation and reintegrating the offender, amounts to going 100 years backwards in terms of legislation about young offenders. Whether it be the victim of the offence or society as a whole, everyone benefits if the offender makes a positive change in their behaviour. Some mathematical formula for proportionality is not going to do that, what will do that is intervention strategies tailored to each young person, of course based on aspects of the offence, but also on the unique characteristics of each young person.

On that point, the Quebec model for intervention advocates a differential approach, the right measure at the right time. That model has stood the test when it comes to results, since the youth crime rate is lower in Quebec than in most other Canadian provinces.

The other clause that raises problems for us is clause 7 of the bill, where denunciation and deterrence are added to the decision-making criteria. Every study that has been done to date shows that these strategies do not work to prevent youth crime; the contrary is true. These are principles imported from the adult criminal system, that do not take into account the unique characteristics of adolescents.

What are those unique characteristics? Young people's maturity level is different from adults'. That means two things. First, what stops them before they commit a crime, and what stops them afterward, is different. Second, in the case of young offenders, the right measure at the right time means that the situation will be examined by competent people who are capable of understanding the unique situation of each young person. This is not a mathematical formula, it is a matter of doing a psychosocial and criminological assessment of the young person. Measures relating to young people must also involve the parents and demonstrate concern for the victims. Those are the principles that we stress in the Quebec model.

The other clause that raises major problems, in our opinion, is clause 20 of the bill, which amends section 75 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to allow the judge to lift the ban on publication of the name of a young offender who is found guilty of a violent offence. In our opinion, that does not help anyone, because it seriously limits the possibility of reintegrating a young offender into society.

What is the advantage in ostracizing a young person, depriving them of the opportunity to take positive control of their lives through work or education? Is this not a way of reducing their options and keeping them on the road to crime, and thus creating new victims?

The Association des centres jeunesse and the provincial directors are sensitive and empathetic toward victims, and say that the government is on the wrong track when it claims that society will be better protected by implementing more coercive measures.

The present act already allows for these situations to be dealt with and public safety to be protected. In fact, the situation of Sébastien, to which the bill refers, clearly illustrates what is possible under the act, since the young offender in question in that offence has already been sentenced as an adult, on the recommendation of the provincial director to the Youth Division of the Court of Québec. Today, the young person who murdered Sébastien is serving his sentence in an adult prison.

This example clearly illustrates that the legislative tool for protecting society is already available and the people responsible for administering the act take their responsibilities seriously and protect society.

To summarize, we are very concerned about the long-term effects of the proposed changes. The loss of the protection of young people's identity, exemplary sentences based on denunciation and deterrence and proportional to the offence above all else, are the opposite of what we have constructed as the model for dealing with youth crime.

That model is in fact the envy of many countries, who come to visit our facilities, or who invite us to train their personnel. It has also proved itself through its success in terms of preventing youth crime and rehabilitating offenders and thus effectively protecting society.

Instead of finishing the job of dismantling a model that works, why would the government not invest more in concrete measures to reduce poverty and social misery, particularly among aboriginal people, and to promote access to education, employment and housing, instead of pursuing this get-tough, enforcement approach, which in our opinion leads nowhere?

Thank you for your attention.

[Michèle Goyette, Director, Special services and Services to Young Offenders, Centre jeunesse de Montréal - Institut universitaire, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec]

Good morning. I would first like to thank the committee for inviting our association to come and present our views on Bill C-4.

My name is Michèle Goyette. I am a criminologist. I have worked in the youth offenders network in Quebec for over 30 years. I am currently the Director of services to young offenders at the Centre de Jeunesse de Montréal. I am a member of the board of directors of the Société de criminologie du Québec and of the Quebec section of the Child Welfare League of Canada. I am here today to represent the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, to convey our position on Bill C-4.

The Association des centres jeunesse du Québec is an organization of 16 youth centres in the 16 administrative regions of Quebec. Each of the centres offers services for children, youth and their parents, under the Youth Protection Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the provisions of the Civil Code relating to adoption.

There seems to be a problem with the translation.

[Dr. Tim Croisdale, Assistant Professor, California State University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Fast and honourable members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Tim Croisdale. I'm an assistant professor at California State University in Sacramento. I'm also adjunct professor in the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby. Also, I'm senior scholar and international visiting professor at the Institute of Canadian Urban Research Studies, also at Simon Fraser University.

I am here today to speak about research related to Bill C-4, which seeks to address concerns about dangerous violent young offenders and young offenders with patterns of repeated offending. My statement will provide an overview of the research on persistent offending and report findings of research on persistent offending and violent offending I have been involved with as they relate to Bill C-4.

Persistent offending is commonly defined as repeated offending. It is not, however, simply more offending, but should also be considered and examined as an individual's failure to stop offending. Persistence also means, then, failed responses to offending that may lead to violent offending.

Persistent offender research is conducted within the topic of criminal career research and includes the areas of onset, frequency, seriousness, and duration.

Onset refers to the age at one's first offence, often measured by arrest. Ages for youth onset are the teen years, from 13 to 17 years. Early onset occurs at 13 or 14 years of age.

Research findings revealed two findings regarding onset. First, the earlier the onset age, the more frequently an offender will offend. Second, the earlier the onset age, the longer the offender will continue to offend. Early onset, therefore, is a good predictor of future offending. Research indicates that persistent offenders begin offending early in life. That is, they have early onset.

Frequency of offending refers to the amount of offending by individuals and is most commonly measured by number of arrests. For youth, as age increases through the teen years, so does the amount of offending, producing an increasing trajectory from the early onset ages through the late teen years.

Examination of the number of arrests of youth, by age, reveals an age-crime curve that illustrates that the number of arrests are initially lower in the early teens, increasing through the mid-teen years, peaking at ages 18 and 19 years, before beginning a decline in the early twenties and continually declining throughout the twenties. Persistent offenders not only begin offending early in life, they continue offending at higher rates through their teens and twenties than other offenders.

While persistent offenders are numerically a smaller group than other offenders, they account for a disproportionately large amount of crime. An analysis I conducted on arrest data in British Columbia found that between July 2001 and June 2006, a small group, 9.2% of all offenders, accounted for 36.2%, or over one-third, of all arrest charges in the province.

When considering persistent offenders, we should not only refer to seriousness as the severity of the crime, but also we should discuss seriousness in terms of the total amount of harm caused by numerous repeated offences.

While most often engaging in non-violent offences, persistent offenders are a drain on criminal justice system resources. When one considers the vast amount of resources that are necessary to respond to persistent offending, even persistent nuisance offending increases in seriousness.

Persistent youth offenders do not specialize in one type of crime over time. However, for persistent offenders, offending leads to more offending and in some cases it leads to violent offending.

Desistance is considered to be the end of the criminal career, the cessation of offending. Career length for offending is often calculated by the duration between onset and last arrest. True desistance, however, cannot be determined until an offender can no longer engage in crime. Persistent offenders not only begin offending earlier and offend more often than other offenders, they also offend for a longer duration. That is, they have longer criminal careers.

My own research has focused on persistent offenders, the existence of persistent co-offending, and patterns of persistent co-offending networks.

Two studies I have conducted in California analyzed long-term offending. Examining offending over long terms, 14 years in one study and 18 years in the other, greatly increases significance of findings as short-term variations in offending patterns are reduced. Both studies also followed large populations of youth offenders, further increasing the significance of the findings.

Research on persistent offenders and co-offending networks I have conducted in British Columbia examined offending over four years and included an examination of over nine million records of data. Some important findings from my research on persistent offending are as follows: youth had an average of 10 arrest charges before admission to a correctional institution; the age-crime peak of persistence is 16 to 17 years, two years earlier than crime normally peaks for youth offenders in general; the average age at first incarceration into a youth correctional institution was 17; a small percentage of youth persistent offenders is responsible for a larger percentage of crime; persistent offenders have been found to co-offend in co-offending criminal networks; persistent offenders with 10 or more arrest charges are less likely to actually be charged than offenders with single arrest charges.

Why are persistent offenders different from other offenders?

Most offenders cease offending after their first encounter with the criminal justice system. With additional encounters, more offenders cease to re-offend. In fact, most first-time juvenile arrestees are not arrested again, and the majority of those arrested twice are not arrested a third time.

Persistent offenders are resilient, in that they resist informal interventions and formal sanctions at all levels, even as they increase in severity. Persistence is fundamentally a measure of an offender's resistance to intervention, to rehabilitative efforts, and in some cases to punishment. Repeated arrests, then, equal repeated failures to desist offending. As such, in an examination of persistence, arrests no longer can be considered as simply arrests but as active interventions attempted yet resisted by the offender.

While many persistent offenders offend non-violently, some begin to commit more serious crimes and violent crimes. Increasing offence severity is another indication that prior interventions have failed and been resisted. Persistent offenders start early, offend often, and offend longer, leading to a high likelihood to offend throughout their lifespan. Persistence is a precursor to later offending. Measures must be in place to protect the public from the worst persistent offenders and violent offenders.

What should we expect, then, from youth who persist to offend? We should expect to see long and active criminal careers. It is true that they account for more offending and offend for a longer time than other offenders. It is true that they offend at a higher rate into adulthood than other offenders.

For example, for the youth persistent offenders in our study, following release from incarceration and discharge from the subsequent parole the number of arrest charges peaked again at age 21. Further, our study in California found that arrest rates for persistent offenders aged 21 to 24 were eight times higher than the national average arrest rate for the same age group.

Persistent offenders, however, do not continue to offend at a high rate throughout adulthood. Persistent offenders' number of offences do gradually decline with age, although they still offend at a higher rate than do other offenders.

The facts surrounding persistent offenders tempts the conclusion that criminal justice sanctions are ineffective. However, studies have found crime reduction effects of sanctions.

Our study found that during post-release parole arrests remained relatively low, suggesting that supervision under the criminal justice system reduces criminal behaviour. And even with the post-release spike at age 21 in arrests, criminal behaviour was lower after youth incarceration than it was before.

For those persistent offenders in our study who subsequently were incarcerated in adult correctional facilities, arrest rates declined with age after release from those facilities. The re-arrest rates of those incarcerated again as adults were about half the level prior to that incarceration.

How does Bill C-4 help? Society needs protection from persistent and violent young offenders. Bill C-4 proposes amendments to certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, welcomed by Canadians, based on the experiences of victims of persistent and violent young offenders. The amendments are also consistent with research on persistent and violent young offenders, and as such offer the criminal justice system an evidence-based and appropriate response to these types of offenders.

There are a small number of dangerous offenders and re-offenders causing a disproportionate amount of crime and harm in Canada. In conclusion, I offer my belief that the amendments to the clauses of the YCJA target that small number of dangerous and repeat offenders from which Canadians should be protected.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 17 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, May 13, 2010.

You have before you the agenda for today. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 3, 2010, we're continuing with our review of Bill C-4, Sebastien's law, which is an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

To help us with our review, we have a number of witnesses. First, we have Dr. Tim Croisdale, assistant professor at California State University. We also have Arlène Gaudreault, president of Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes. I hope I got that right. Representing the Association des centres de jeunesse du Québec, we have Madame Goyette, the director.

Welcome here.

I think you've been told that each of you has ten minutes to present and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Anybody here who doesn't know the rule, if you have a cellphone, please turn it to vibrate or shut it off completely, so we don't have any disturbances.

Dr. Croisdale, if you'd like to start, you have ten minutes.

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

I'm going to try to go quickly. I want to go back to clause 21 of Bill C-4, which says: "No young person who is under the age of 18 years is to serve... ."

I'll let you read the rest. A young person aged 15 years is sentenced to serve 10 years in prison for a serious crime. We agree that it is a serious crime. Am I to understand that under this clause, the young person, aged 15 years, is going to serve the first three years of their sentence—until the age of 18 years—in a youth centre, and then they will be transferred to a penitentiary? Is that what I am to understand from the clause?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, ladies. I will ask my questions as quickly as possible given that time is extremely limited.

I would ask you to look at clause 21 of Bill C-4. That clause states: "No young person who is under the age of 18 years is to serve any portion of the imprisonment in a provincial correctional facility for adults or a penitentiary."

That means that formerly, they could be incarcerated in a penitentiary for adults or that this was never done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard, you're out of time.

Before we go to Mr. Comartin, Ms. Leslie also wants to ask questions. I believe they're going to split their time. I believe Ms. Leslie will be participating in future meetings on Bill C-4. Does anyone have any objection?

Seeing none, I'll ask you to go ahead, Mr. Comartin.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, since coming into government, we have taken action to tackle crime and protect Canadians, but much more needs to be done.

Over the spring and summer of 2008, I conducted a series of cross-country round tables, many co-chaired by my provincial and territorial counterparts, in order to hear from youth justice professionals and front-line youth justice stakeholders about areas of concern and possible improvements regarding the provisions and principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The review and other consultations permitted a variety of differing views, including those of aboriginal Canadians, youth involved in the justice system, police, the legal community, and other youth justice experts, to be brought forward and discussed. While most expressed that the fundamentals of the Youth Criminal Justice Act were sound, there was a sense that it could be improved in a number of areas, such as judicial interim release, reducing the complexity of the act, reinforcing proportionate accountability, and targeting serious, violent, and repeat young offenders.

It was with this perspective in mind that I introduced Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders) in the House of Commons.

The proposed changes to that bill that were introduced on March 16 of this year first of all deal with general principles. Currently, the protection of society is not stated strongly enough as an objective in either the preamble to the YCJA or its declaration of principles.

The Honourable Justice Nunn undertook a comprehensive review of the youth criminal justice system in Nova Scotia, from which he produced his 2006 report, “Spiralling Out of Control: Lessons From a Boy in Trouble”. Although the focus was on Nova Scotia and the services available to youth in that province, Justice Nunn did propose a limited number of changes to the YCJA, changes that targeted that small group of violent and repeat offenders. Justice Nunn concluded that highlighting public safety as one of the primary goals or principles of the act was necessary. Stating this objective expressly within the fundamental principles of the YCJA will ensure that courts keep the protection of the public in mind when sentencing violent and repeat young offenders.

The current law on pretrial detention has been viewed by some as confusing and has on occasion been applied inconsistently. As a result, the system is often powerless to keep violent and repeat young offenders in custody while awaiting trial, even when they pose a danger to society. Bill C-4 proposes to replace the pretrial detention test with a stand-alone test that targets youth charged with serious crimes. The amended act will simplify pretrial detention rules to ensure that, when necessary to protect society, violent and repeat young offenders can be detained while awaiting trial if they are charged with a serious offence and there is a substantial likelihood that the youth will commit a serious offence if released.

A serious offence will be defined as any indictable offence for which the maximum punishment is five years or more. This would include violent offences; property offences, such as theft over $5,000, which currently includes car theft; and offences that could endanger the public, such as possession of a firearm, sexual exploitation, robbery, and murder.

Excluded offences would be primarily administration of justice offences and some minor property or mischief offences.

Canadians lose confidence in the youth criminal justice system when sentences are insufficient to hold violent and repeat offenders accountable for their crimes.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act will be amended to broaden the sentencing principles and remove barriers to custody to ensure that violent or repeat young offenders will receive sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes. As it stands now, deterrence and denunciation cannot be considered by a judge as part of the sentencing. What we are doing is adding specific deterrence and denunciation as youth justice sentencing principles, to allow the courts to impose sanctions, when necessary, designed to discourage a particular offender from committing further offences. These changes to the sentencing principles will ensure that youth sentences are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Currently, under the YCJA the general rule is that young persons cannot be sentenced to custody unless certain conditions are met. For instance, young offenders cannot be sentenced to custody unless they have committed a violent offence. In 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted “violent offence” under the YCJA as an offence in which the young person causes, or attempts to cause, or threatens to cause, bodily harm.

We now propose to include in the YCJA a definition of violent offence that expands the Supreme Court's interpretation to include offences in which the young person “endangers the life or safety of another person by creating a substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm”.

The YCJA currently allows for custodial sentences when the young offender has committed an indictable offence for which an adult offender would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, and the young offender has a history indicating a pattern of findings of guilt.

The requirement for establishing a pattern of criminal activity based on findings of guilt has been criticized by some as being too restrictive in cases where a young person may have been accused of several offences for which there are no findings of guilt, but which have been dealt with through extrajudicial sanctions. The act will be amended to allow a pattern of criminal behaviour to be established through findings of guilt, by showing that extrajudicial sanctions have been used to deal with the young offender, or through a combination of both. Taking a young offender's full history into account will help the courts determine an appropriate sentence.

While adult sentences are available for those 14 years of age and over and can be used where appropriate, they are not always applied, even in the most serious cases. The proposed amendments will require the crown to consider seeking an adult sentence for youth who commit serious violent offences, such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and aggravated sexual assault. The crown will also be required to inform the court if they choose not to apply for an adult sentence, and provinces and territories will continue to have the discretion to set the age at which these obligations apply, either at 14, 15, or 16 years of age.

In May, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in Regina v. D.B. that certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act violated the charter. These provisions place an onus on young offenders found guilty of presumptive offences to justify receiving a youth sentence rather than an adult sentence, and to justify the continued protection of their privacy.

The amendments that we are proposing will remove the presumptive offence provisions from the YCJA, as well as other provisions rendered inoperative as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court. The act will be changed to clarify the test for the imposition of an adult sentence and ensure the onus is on the crown to satisfy the court as to the appropriateness of the adult sentence.

Currently, under the YCJA the publication ban is automatically lifted where an adult sentence is imposed on a youth. Also, if the crown applies, the court can consider lifting the ban in appropriate cases when a youth sentence has been imposed in respect of an offence for which the crown was seeking an adult sentence. In practice, violent offenders who are given youth sentences are normally released back into the community anonymously.

The implication for public safety can be significant. For example, parents may have no way of knowing that a convicted sex offender is in the area. The proposed publication amendment to the YCJA would give judges discretion to lift the publication ban for youth who are convicted of violent offences for which a youth sentence was imposed. Judges would be required, when necessary, to determine whether the young person poses a significant risk of committing another violent offence and whether the lifting of the ban is necessary to protect the public against such a risk.

To make it easier to identify patterns of reoffending, the amendments will also require police to keep records when extrajudicial measures are imposed. Typically such measures would include taking no further action or using warnings, cautions, or referrals to respond to an alleged offence by a young person. By requiring that records be kept of these measures, police will be better informed of past allegations of offending so that they can take appropriate action in respect of subsequent offence allegations against a particular young person.

The act will be amended to make it clear that no young person under 18 will serve their sentence in an adult institution, regardless of whether they were given an adult or youth sentence. They can, however, of course be transferred to an adult institution at age 18, as is currently the practice.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Canadians have told us they want action on crime and our government is delivering. With the introduction of Sébastien's law, this government is taking action to strengthen the way the young offenders system deals with violent and repeat offenders. I urge you, my honourable colleagues, to support this bill, which proposes amendments to and addresses key deficiencies in the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is the sixteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Tuesday, May 11, 2010, and I will just note that today's meeting is being televised.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're beginning our review of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments thereto. It's also known as Sébastien’s law.

To help us with our review, we have with us the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Welcome here, Minister.

Accompanying him are officials from the Department of Justice's youth justice, strategic initiatives, and law reform branch. We have with us Catherine Latimer, who is the general counsel and director general, and Paula Kingston, senior counsel.

At the end of our meeting, we will leave a couple of minutes for committee business to work on the selection of some of the witnesses we're calling forward on this bill.

Minister, you have 10 minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

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

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will notice that my voice is a bit hoarse; I have a terrible cold. I have water and throat lozenges in case I cough too much; I have everything I need. I hope I will not have to interrupt my speech.

The Bloc Québécois has serious misgivings about Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which would toughen prison sentences for youth. This bill is part of the Conservative government's tough on crime policy.

Protecting society is the bill's guiding principle, but I will show that this is definitely not what will be achieved in the long term. The tough on crime policy will not, in the long term, protect society. The experience of California, which has been operating under this policy for 30 years, is proof. Quebec, however, with its rehabilitation policy, has the lowest crime rates in North America.

The courts ordered the State of California to let 40,000 prisoners go, 6,000 of them this past January. Are we supposed to believe that we can promote public safety by freeing 6,000 prisoners who spent many idle years in overpopulated and underfunded prisons that produce aggressive and violent individuals? That is not what Californians think.

Tougher sentencing will not enhance public safety, and I will explain why. Repression does not work. Rehabilitation does not work either because costs are soaring and there is no money for these kinds of programs.

Quebec's juvenile justice system works because of its legal aid program, rehabilitation incentive program, offender education program, probation and, most importantly in this context, the complete overhaul of preliminary intervention approaches under the 1977 Youth Protection Act. Our system is the envy of Californians.

An in-depth statistical study entitled Did Getting Tough on Crime Pay? showed that American tough on crime policies introduced since the 1980s were driven by media manipulation and false perceptions about lenient sentencing for serious crimes. Political arguments for tougher sentencing are invariably based on exceptionally lenient sentences that create false impressions about typical or average sentences.

The opposite is true in this case. Bill C-4, which the Conservatives have dubbed Sébastien's law, does not constitute a response to Sébastien's murder at all because the murderer, who was a minor at the time, is currently in jail for life. People who commit serious crimes go to jail for a long time. This proves that the current law works and that we do not need to change it. We cannot do more than that. No law can do more than that.

Unlike California—which, for lack of funding, is keeping prisoners in spaces that are too small and overpopulated with nothing productive to do, which only feeds their violence—the governments of Quebec and Canada have thus far been spending money to keep prisoners in a healthy environment, to occupy their time productively and teach them to reintegrate into society. If we were to begin overcrowding our prisons, that situation would change, as it did in California.

Just when the Canadian Conservative government is about to make the system even tougher, former journalist Art Montague and a number of associations that work with inmates are showing how the American model, which the Conservatives are emulating, is going through a major crisis that is forcing it to move more towards the kind of system that we have here. The Quebec model, as I said earlier, with its focus on rehabilitation, has the lowest crime rate.

The crisis in California is happening on two levels, socially and economically, each echoing the other. One reinforces the other, which demonstrates not only how completely ineffective tougher sentences are when it comes to fighting crime, but also how devastating it is for the economy and the quality of correctional services. A punitive approach undermines the importance of social services such as education and rehabilitation programs for inmates, which are the key to effectively reducing crime.

Many articles in the Wall Street Journal and The Economist, serious publications that cannot be called leftist, demonstrate how 30 years of tough on crime policies have led to overcrowded prisons. The California prison system is currently at 200% of capacity, with 187,000 inmates.

This sort of overcrowding creates a serious threat to public safety. The 2007 Chino prison riot, where authorities stood by powerless while inmates took control of dormitory Z for more than 20 hours, is proof of this.

As the articles in the Wall Street Journal and The Economist show, prison overcrowding is having a disastrous effect on the state's budget, which already has an enormous deficit. More inmates require more resources, yet the state recently had to cut $1.2 billion from its prison system.

The State of California spends nearly 10% of its budget on its correctional system, but only 5.7% on universities. The reverse was true 25 years ago.

The United States has the dubious distinction of incarcerating more individuals per capita than any other documented country in the world. That was the finding of a 2008 study by the Pew Research Center.

California's high budget costs are forcing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to come up with totally crazy solutions, such as having prisons built in Mexico by Mexicans to house American inmates. The Supreme Court, though, ordered him to release 40,000 inmates.

When prisons are overcrowded, it is impossible to maintain proper health and safety services. This led the Prison Law Office to file a lawsuit against the state. A federal judge ruled in favour of the organization and ordered the state to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates, which would bring it down to 137% of capacity, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Just recently, on January 18, 2010, a special judicial panel decided to get around the Supreme Court deadline and order the release of 6,000 inmates.

The crisis is twofold. On the one hand, the high cost of 30 years of so-called “tough on crime” detention policy has killed more sensitive prevention and rehabilitation policies. The current punitive policy has put the prison system in an untenable situation, though, forcing authorities to empty the prisons of thousands of inmates who will reintegrate into society without proper supervision, which is raising serious concerns among local authorities and community leaders in California.

The inmates will leave prison without any training, without any job prospects and without having worked on their rehabilitation. Imagine 6,000 inmates looking for a job while also looking for a place to live. These same 6,000 inmates went to crime school for years in close quarters with nothing else to do than to become more violent and fuel their aggression and rage. Six thousand people are a threat to public safety. The president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League even called this a perfect storm for public safety. Imagine what will happen when that number goes up to 40,000, as the Supreme Court is calling for.

Various media and organizations such as Prison Fellowship, feel that the soaring costs associated with overcrowded prisons in California have other adverse effects, namely budgetary cuts that affect the system's capacity for maintaining or implementing rehabilitation and education programs. In addition to being held in increasingly inhumane conditions, inmates do not receive any help in learning how to control their violence, live in society and become law-abiding citizens.

This lack of services and follow-up, both inside and outside the prison, leaves the inmates to fend for themselves and makes them more likely to end up back in prison. Tougher sentences have a negative impact on all aspects of programs that have for more than 40 years focused on preventing crime through social rehabilitation. It comes as no surprise that the rate of recidivism there is 70%, while in Quebec it is between 10% and 20%.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will conduct a thorough analysis of the study in committee in order to hear all the players involved and improve whatever aspects of this bill that we can.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Sébastien's Law (protecting the public from violent young offenders)

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-4.

I would like to begin with a side comment about crime. Crime dominates the media. The trials of violent offenders and notorious fraud artists get extensive media coverage. We sometimes get the wrong impression and think that crime is on the rise, when quite the opposite is true. Statistics Canada's facts are rather clear and no one is accusing of it partisanship.

Youth courts are seeing fewer and fewer cases. In 2005-06, 56,271 cases were heard, a decrease of 2% from the previous year. While it is true that the youth crime rate increased by 3% in 2006, I must point out that that was the first increase since 2003 and for that reason, we cannot conclude that there is a strong upward trend.

Furthermore, with the exception of Quebec, where the rate dropped by 4% in 2006, all the provinces saw increases in the youth crime rate. Quebec focuses on rehabilitation. Some people will say that it is quite a coincidence, but it is no coincidence. When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is always prevention. We must go after the underlying causes of crime.

Tackling the causes of crime and violence, rather than waiting for things to break down and then trying to fix them, is the wisest, and more importantly, the most profitable approach, in both social and economic terms. Clearly, we must first tackle poverty, inequality and exclusion, all of which provide fertile ground for frustration and its manifestations: violence and crime.

Speaking of fertile ground, I remember when I was young, during the most critical years of childhood and pre-adolescence. I lived in a poor neighbourhood where everyone was poor. People were either the poorest, less poor or just poor. There were some rich people, but they did not live in my area. In that environment there were some people my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue described as “having the makings of a criminal”. It was a social setting where that was likely. The funny thing is that there was a real divide between two streets: one street where people committed lesser crimes and the other street where people committed more serious crimes. This comes to mind because I saw people change under these circumstances. The difference came mainly from the influence, or lack of influence, of their absent parents. We also saw how the context affected the most vulnerable young people in these environments.

A few weeks ago, I was invited to a party hosted by a family that had lived in that neighbourhood. It was a rather big party and many of the young people who had lived in that neighbourhood were invited. I saw that for some people, things had turned around and changed. Some people who were not there were probably still in prison or dead. Other people there had had rather turbulent lives. In talking about it, we realized that social structure and support had been missing in some places. However, other people had been more privileged and things worked out for them.

Prevention is the dominant theme when we talk about potential crimes by young offenders.

Prevention can take a number of forms at the family level. These days some significant tools are available. Let us take, for example, early childhood education centres in Quebec, the CPEs, where children receive intellectual stimulation and physical activity. Young people can make progress more easily than in the past.

With respect to prevention, members will recall that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie already introduced a bill regarding violence on television. I strongly believe that violence on television influences the actions of our children today. Crimes are often broadcast during prime time and are seen by young people. They get a message. Often, these crimes are excessively gratuitous and seemingly have no consequences. We can see someone committing robbery, acts of violence and even shooting another person.

The people committing these crimes seem to have no emotions, or perhaps just smiles on their faces. We never see the consequences. We do not see the police showing up. We do not see the people supporting the victim. We do not see the effects that these actions have on society and on the loved ones of the victims. We do not see any consequences. It is gratuitous and the scenes of violence do not show any sign of a punishment at the end of the day.

My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie did some fantastic work on this issue. He held consultations all over Quebec. Many groups that work with young offenders and at-risk youth have helped kids avoid getting involved in criminal activity.

Television violence also has a major impact on crime rates among young offenders. We should consider taking a closer look at this important factor because, if I am not mistaken, television networks can choose not to broadcast programs or to broadcast them at times when young viewers are much less likely to see them. That is an important aspect of prevention.

As I said earlier, peer groups, poverty, follow-up and support are important factors for at-risk youth. If young people lose interest, cannot keep up at school and feel alienated, and if authority figures do not help them develop a sense of belonging and to their peer group and to society, they may look elsewhere, start getting in trouble and eventually get involved in criminal activity.

Prevention is essential, but unfortunately, there are always going to be some people committing some crimes, whether major or minor. Once that happens, we have to work with those people to identify the root causes. We cannot deter young people just by sticking offenders in jail for as long as possible. They need structure, support and help to identify the problems and fix them.

Some kids really do seem headed for a life of crime. That is when we have to take a different approach. We should adopt Quebec's approach, which focuses on prevention and rehabilitation.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, at first blush, this piece in Bill C-4 raises my hackles and makes me very worried. Right now, I do not see opportunities where this is a good idea. I am open to hearing evidence at committee that this may be an effective tool in some cases. The Youth Criminal Justice Act is also about protecting communities, so I have room for being convinced.

However, on its face, it seems very problematic to me. If it is ever used, it should be used so sparingly that we could hardly count on one hand how many times it is used. I do not see how this would be in keeping with many other principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in particular rehabilitation and reintegration into community. However, again, I look forward to hearing witnesses at committee.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-4, which would make certain changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh spoke about this bill last week. He noted that as a society we have been struggling since about 1960 with this idea of what to do with young people when they are engaged with the criminal justice system. Do we treat them as youth, which is different than adult criminals? Yes, we should, but at the same time we have to recognize that they are not adults even though they commit similar offences as adults. We have been struggling with this for a few decades.

In 2002 the House of Commons passed Bill C-7, which replaced the old YOA, the Young Offenders Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act built on the strengths of the YOA. It introduced significant reforms to address the weaknesses. The key concept of the YCJA is that it provides a legislative framework for a more fairer and effective youth justice system.

When I was a law student at Dalhousie, I did a clinical law semester where I was expected to work with lawyers on youth criminal cases. One of the very first things that we did in our training was we reviewed the preamble and the declaration of principle to the YCJA. Our instructors thought that reviewing the preamble was the most important thing that we could do. We would always have it in the back of our minds when we were dealing with youth, when we were giving them advice, when we were negotiating with the Crown, and when we were representing them in court.

The preamble contains significant statements from Parliament about the values on which the legislation is based. It is noteworthy that the YCJA came about after extensive research and consultation. Three key reports were released leading up to the YCJA coming into effect.

These statements in the preamble can be used to help interpret the legislation. I think it is useful for us to review them. They include the following:

Society has a responsibility to address the developmental challenges and needs of young persons.

Communities and families should work in partnership with others to prevent youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, responding to the needs of young persons and providing guidance and support.

Accurate information about youth crime, the youth justice system and effective measures should be publicly available.

Young persons have rights and freedoms, including those set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The youth justice system should take account of the interests of victims and ensure accountability through meaningful consequences and rehabilitation and reintegration.

The youth justice system should reserve its most serious interventions for the most serious crimes and reduce the over-reliance on incarceration.

These points are important to remember when dealing with youth who are engaged in the criminal justice system. They are also really important for us to consider any time we try to make changes to the YCJA. We have changes before us in Bill C-4, changes that really come from a push for amendments, a push for reform after the Nunn commission of inquiry which took place in Nova Scotia.

Pretty much every Nova Scotian could tell us the story of Theresa McEvoy and how it resulted in a provincial inquiry led by Justice Merlin Nunn. It was widely reported and it really struck to the heart of Nova Scotians.

After an extensive inquiry upon the death of Theresa McEvoy, Justice Nunn handed down a report in 2006 called “Spiralling Out of Control: Lessons Learned from a Boy in Trouble”. It was about constructive ways to improve the Youth Criminal Justice Act but also to improve the youth criminal justice system. I believe there were six specific recommendations about changing the YCJA.

Justice Nunn, both in the report and in any media interview he did, would always say that the act is a good piece of legislation. It is strong and it is workable. The term he used constantly was that it needed to be tweaked. My colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe used the word “tinker”. Justice Nunn always said that if we were going to make changes it just needs to be tweaked.

Bill C-4 is an attempt at that tweaking. The NDP will be supporting this bill because there are some good tweaks. There are some good attempts at trying to fix this legislation, which I will describe in a moment.

We very much want the bill to get to committee because Bill C-4 does have its weaknesses. It is important that we make attempts to improve the bill at committee.

Justice Nunn pointed out in his report:

--that for youths adolescence is a time of testing limits and taking risks, of making mistakes and errors in judgment, of a lack of foresight and planning, and of feelings of invulnerability. These factors do not mean that a youth who commits a criminal offence should be excused or should not suffer consequences. Rather, they are factors to be taken into account when dealing with a youth.

I think that the spirit of these words were taken into account when it comes to one provision in Bill C-4, in that it makes certain and absolutely clear that no youth, no matter what crime they are accused of or convicted of and sentenced for will spend time in an adult institution.

Some provinces have already been following this principle but it is not universal across Canada. Sometimes it is because a province has a particular ideological approach to punishment of youth but more often it is simply because it does not have the resources or the facilities to incarcerate youth in a contained setting, especially when we consider rural areas of Canada.

The government has not done anything to assist provinces in actually meeting this goal. So it is my hope that the witnesses at committee will be able to shed a bit of light on what it is that the federal government must do to ensure that the provinces can meet this requirement.

However, there is no specific date concerning this provision. Therefore, there is nothing there to instruct us on when it is going to come into effect. Hopefully, we can fix this so that we do not have a bill that will actually not take effect.

A change to the YCJA, about which I am very concerned, is the provision to allow courts to lift the ban on any publication of the accused's name. There are good reasons why we have that publication ban. Admittedly, I think this could be a very dangerous change to the YCJA, but I am looking forward to hearing from witnesses to see what experts who study youth justice have to say about this provision and if they think this change is a wise idea.

My colleague and the NDP critic for justice, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has already pointed out some problem areas where it looks like the government is trying to get in stronger language for general deterrence and denunciation, which we know does not work. However, when one looks at the amendments to the act overall, there are a few places where it seems like it is trying to get this language in through the backdoor, trying to get general deterrence in through the back door. There are six recommendations in the Nunn report that deal directly with changes to the YCJA. Deterrence and denunciation are not among them.

I am quite concerned about these sections and once again, I look forward to the bill coming to committee so we can talk to youth criminal justice experts to see if this is actually effective and perhaps flesh out exactly what the Conservatives are doing with this sort of backdoor language.

In all, we are cautiously supporting Bill C-4 at second reading, so we can get the bill to committee to hear from witnesses about these proposed changes to the YCJA and to make constructive suggestions for improvement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my party to speak to Bill C-4. Amending the Youth Criminal Justice Act has consequences for all Canadians and it is, without a doubt, a bill of great interest to many.

The bill would amend not only the current sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, or the YCJA, but the fundamental principles of the system in Canada. Much of the debate in recent days has involved the merits of possible amendments to the current act and this ought to be done with an understanding of the basic guiding principles and the purpose of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The YCJA is so important it is appended to the Criminal Code and any compilation of it. It is a separate act from the Criminal Code, it should be noted, because things dealing with youth are not meant to be dealt with all within the Criminal Code. That is fundamental to the comments that I will make today.

Since the foundation of Canada’s criminal system for young offenders, amendments have been consistently made in an evolutionary manner. The current act strikes a necessary and proven balance between the interests of the young individual and those of society, and notably endeavours to have young offenders recognize the consequences of their actions.

The Young Offenders Act came into force in 1984 and marked the commencement of a progressive and effectual criminal justice system for Canada’s youth.

Today the fundamental principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act can be seen as a balance between addressing circumstances that lead to offending behaviour and reintegrating young offenders into society through rehabilitation.

Public protection would supercede prevention under this bill as proposed by the government, something utterly inexcusable. While we prohibit criminal acts in Canadian society, certainly some will offend regardless of age. This does not, however, mean we should abandon any and all efforts to prevent criminal offences in Canada. The proactive approach facilitated under the current Youth Criminal Justice Act should never be deserted for a reactionary system bent on increasing the number of incarcerated youth offenders.

I will quote from the declaration of principle in the act. It reads:

the youth criminal justice system is intended to: (i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person's offending behaviour, (ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society, and (iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence....

Reading that, how could we disagree with the fundamental principles underlying the existing act? What the government has failed to recognize is that public safety is inherent in the act itself as it exists. As seen in the second principle as I just quoted, the long-term protection of the public is already in the act. The criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults and the act emphasizes the following: rehabilitation and integration; fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons; and their reduced level of maturity.

Also, there is enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including the right of privacy, are protected. There is also indication that there would be timely intervention to reinforce the link between the offending behaviour and its consequences.

Finally, there is an element that promptness and speed with which persons responsible for enforcing this act must be done in a manner to give the young person's perception of time a reality.

Needless to say, preventive, accountable justice is central to the criminal system for young offenders, where public safety is above all understood to be the final aim.

As this House knows very well and reinforced after initial debate on this bill on protecting the public from violent young offenders, the fundamental pillars of the existing act are accountability, rehabilitation, reintegration, and respect for societal values. It is important to highlight the existing laws because they meet the needs of young people and also meet the need for public safety.

This brings me to another point. Bill C-4 would overhaul the sentencing principles for youth criminal justice to include deterrence and denunciation. So, there are a number of elements to this bill, and some of them have been canvassed widely by previous speakers.

Anything that inserts the recommendations of Justice Merlin Nunn in the Nova Scotia report consequent to the McEvoy incident, those are good recommendations. There is no question that this bill will be sent to committee and those recommendations, which have been widely accepted, will be adopted by parties at the committee and sent back here.

I started my speech talking about the need or not for a preamble. I think it is a bit of a red herring. The Youth Criminal Justice Act has a preamble that covers issues of public safety and public security. If the Youth Criminal Justice Act were not needed and not mandated by international convention and not mandated by our sense of how youth are different from adult criminal offenders, then it would not need to exist. However, it clearly needs to exist because it is in the preamble.

We might think that the Criminal Code of Canada, the larger part of the book, would have a preamble saying that the purpose of this act is to make the public secure. However, it does not have a preamble. It just has a title saying that this is a law respecting the criminal laws of Canada. The substance of the Criminal Code of Canada is within the Criminal Code of Canada. I would submit that the criminal code for dummies version that I might author some day would concentrate on section 718, the sentencing principles of the Criminal Code, that takes into account all offences and says that when a court or a judge is imposing a sentence, it should take into consideration the pillars of what we want in society.

This brings me to my next point with respect to criminal behaviour among the youth.

I find it troubling that the insertion of deterrence and denunciation is being attempted here. Why have a separate act? Why not just put it all into the Criminal Code?

My friends across the way will know that in certain presumptive offences, youth who are convicted of certain heinous crimes can be sentenced as adults. We ought to have a separate system because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children demands that we do. Not only that, we are a progressive, enlightened republic and we understand that children are different. When youth are involved in criminal activity, if there is class of criminal offenders who we ought to have hope for it is our youth, the young men and women who are covered by the act that exists.

I fear that, and we will have this debate at committee, the introduction of a preamble, the insertion of grown-up principles of deterrence and denunciation into the act, will leave judges more and more to treat all youth offenders like adult offenders. It will blur the line between youth criminal acts and adult criminal acts. It will say to judges and to the public in general, why do we need a Youth Criminal Justice act? Why not just have a Criminal Code? I think we would then be on the way to throwing away generations of youth offenders who might be reintegrated into society and who are clearly rehabilitatable because of their age and their lack of maturity. As the act says, they do not understand the consequences of their act.

This bill will go to committee where we will study it. There are some meritorious changes in the act but there are some overwhelming philosophical consequences that will spur on great debate at committee.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very serious about Bill C-4 and the need to take into account that there are other social factors related to the incidence of crime and public safety. I am interested in prevention. With regard to fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol-related birth defects, it means that the government needs to start investing in programs to deal with those who have a tendency to commit crime in Canada as young offenders.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had planned to make a 20-minute speech, but we just crossed over the line. I have been very impressed by the debate so far. In particular, I would refer people to the speeches of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, both of whom are lawyers and have extensive background and experience in the legal field. They certainly had some very sound words of wisdom for the House with regard to young offenders and the related legislation.

There has been a rash of bills before Parliament over the last four years. Many of them continue to be recycled. When there is prorogation or an election, we have to start the process all over again. That is exactly the situation the government wants. It does not want a lot of these bills to pass. One of the big reasons is that if most of these bills passed, the legal plan would cause more people to be in jail for longer times and parole, house arrest and faint hope would be things of the past.

The Minister of Public Safety updated his numbers. If all this were to be implemented, it would cost Canadians about $10 billion to build the jails and incarcerate the number of people it is estimated would be put in jails pursuant to much of this legislation. Some of the opportunities for parole or house arrest would be closed down. It is an extraordinary number and it is not necessary. Some of the speeches that have been given have indicated why Bill C-4 may not be the right approach. It may need to be reconsidered.

I received a letter from Defence for Children International-Canada which would certainly like to see a more balanced approach. That group disclosed something that I was not aware of. The group stated in its letter of April 26, 2010:

How can a government, with all its resources for research, get its proposal for changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act so wrong? They [the government] held a series of Round Table discussions but didn't publish the findings.

It is extraordinary that a public consultation would take place but the public's views would never be disclosed. It raises some interesting questions. The minister spoke on Friday, March 19. I highlighted a couple of his statements in his speech. He stated:

The law must be adequate to hold them [young offenders] appropriately accountable for the offences committed, consistent with their degree of responsibility in a manner that protects the public.

He went on to say:

Canadians look to their government to ensure that the justice system is working effectively and that the country's citizens are safe.... Our approach is balanced. It includes: prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation.

Those are good words, but what are the facts? Consistency with the degree of responsibility is the principle point I want to raise in debate. If we are talking about public safety, is this public safety before or after a crime is committed? Most of the legislation is to get tough on crime after a crime has been committed, after someone has committed an offence and after the person is in the prison system.

We are going to protect citizens' safety not from the crime but from recidivism. That is an important point. We are dealing with public safety after the public has already been hurt once. We really have to tighten the screws and keep these violent young offenders from ever hurting the public again. It is interesting to use the words “to protect public safety”, but it is a matter of when. We hear a lot about protecting victims' rights. We should not have to be worried about protecting victims' rights because we should be reducing the number of victims in the first place. This is the whole aspect of prevention.

The minister suggests that the government's approach is balanced and includes prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation. With regard to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, formerly called fetal alcohol syndrome, I asked the health minister a question in the House as to whether or not the funding was going to continue for those support programs for fetal alcohol syndrome. Ultimately, the answer came out that the funding for FASD was cut. It was cut in each of the last two years.

Why is fetal alcohol syndrome, now called fetal alcohol spectrum of disorders, relevant to this debate? It is relevant because the evidence by the federal and provincial governments, as well as in expert testimony and the speech by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca indicate that 40% to 50% of the people in Canada's jails suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or other alcohol-related birth defects. Almost half of the people in Canada's jails have a mental illness.

When I was first elected in 1993, I was involved with a hospital, I was very involved in the community, and I wanted to see what the health community was doing. I had spent nine years on the hospital board. I saw that in 1992, the year before I got elected, the health committee did a study on fetal alcohol syndrome, called “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: A Preventable Tragedy”. I did not know what it was. I did not know what caused it. I did not even know where it was coming from.

I am an educated person, experienced in the community and have done a lot of community service, and I had never heard of it before. That is where the level of involvement of the Government of Canada changed. I took it on as a project. I have been working on it for at least 10 years. I want to raise the level of information and education of Canadians and governments to be able to address the issues.

The point here is that there is an inextricable link between the social conditions in which people grow up and their experience with the law. As a matter of fact, just through looking at the budgets, the last time we had a full-blown recession, the relationship between property and violent crime and the unemployment rate actually tracked very well. We can understand that when people are under pressure for money, those things happen.

I wanted to raise this because the government has a slogan that says it is going to be tough on crime, but there is no plan that deals with crime in reality, such as with fetal alcohol syndrome. Almost half of the people who are in the jails of our country are not culpable. The minister said in the opening of his speech, “consistent with their degree of responsibility”. It is incurable but it is preventable.

People with mental illness do not know the difference between right and wrong. In all of the presentations on these criminal justice bills and particularly now with regard to the young offenders legislation, the government members still have not talked about dealing with those for whom rehabilitation is not applicable and where recidivism is high because of mental illness. These are realities in terms of our criminal justice system.

My plea to the House and to the government is to make an effort to inform Canadians and to support programs that will help to address this problem in our criminal justice system. It is not going to be solved by throwing away the key. These people need help. Their parents have to take care of them, many for the rest of their lives probably, because they are incapable of working or living independently.

This is a serious issue. Fetal alcohol syndrome is part of the discussion of criminal justice matters. I urge the government to start supporting that work.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for his input. Many people will argue that Bill C-4 does not get it right, but that is just their slogan. Talking about slogans, getting tough on crime seems to be not so much a strategy as it is a slogan. I believe that what the member has been arguing is that we should be smart on crime and we have to understand that all people cannot be dealt with the same way.

We understand there are violent persons in society but young people are not born bad. They are functions of their environment. They are functions of their society.

We have responsibilities and there are certain circumstances which are mitigating in their nature. But the strategy of the government to basically put as many people away in jail for as long as possible without any modicum of relief or rehabilitation to help them to eventually reintegrate into the community means that we are letting these kids down.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether or not he believes it is good enough to say that we are tough on crime rather than being smart on crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who just spoke on behalf of the NDP. I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4. I left very early this morning so that I could take part in this extremely important debate that, for the Bloc Québécois, means many things with regard to youth justice. At a minimum, we feel that this bill sets the youth justice system back several decades.

We are not going to vote against this bill at this stage. We want to study it in committee, because it seems clear to us that the committee will have to work very hard so that this bill reflects the will of Canadians and especially Quebeckers who believe, as we do, that young offenders law should focus on rehabilitation.

I cannot support the bill for several reasons. For example, it would make the protection of society the guiding principle behind the law. That would take us back 30 years. Moreover, the bill would add to the situations in which the judge may order pre-trial custody; add deterrence and denunciation as sentencing criteria; allow for custodial sentences for youth with a pattern of extrajudicial sanctions; require prosecutors to justify their decision not to call for an adult sentence for serious violent offences like murder and aggravated sexual assault; allow judges to publish the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences and sentenced as youth; require police to keep records to track extrajudicial measures; and prevent minors from being held in adult detention facilities.

This last provision—preventing minors from being held in adult facilities—is the best one and the only one we feel is acceptable.

However, the bill is ill-conceived and meant to be tough on crime. The Conservatives think we need to be tough on crime, but we think that we should also be smart on crime. In other words, we have to be smart enough—though I have my doubts about some of the members opposite—to see that rehabilitation is extremely important. Rehabilitation is a fundamental factor and should be the priority when dealing with young offenders and juvenile delinquents.

There is a basic difference between young offenders and adults. We think that people under the age of 18 are not fully equipped to understand what is going on, to know how to react and what to do and, most importantly, to make well-informed decisions.

A 13-, 14-, 15- or 16-year-old who commits a series of break and enters or, worse yet, violent crimes, such as assault and sexual assault, may not be mature enough to understand that what he or she did is very serious. It is highly likely that such offenders need help.

Because I have a lot of experience working with young people, I know that 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds are not as mature as 18-, 19- and 20-year-old adults. Even though some 18-year-olds are not much more mature than 16- or 17-year-olds, I find it surprising that if the government goes ahead with this bill, it will lead to major structural changes. Protecting society will become the basic principle that informs all legislation. Protecting society is extremely important, and we think this is one of the fundamental principles to consider when it comes to sentencing.

Quebec has always made rehabilitation the priority. Our Conservative friends may not be too keen on the idea, but statistics show that when we focus on rehabilitating juvenile delinquents and young offenders, crime rates drop. The committee responsible for studying this bill can delve into that fact. That is exactly what has been happening in Quebec for the past 30 years. Significantly fewer crimes are being committed by young offenders, by juvenile delinquents.

We think that this bill is not only useless, but a step backward. There is no way we can support putting up posters with a picture of a 13-year-old “Most wanted kid in Abbotsford” on lampposts. That is ridiculous. We have to give rehabilitation a chance.

There are cases in which rehabilitation does not always work. However, in the vast majority of cases, rehabilitation does work. Why does it work? Because in Quebec, we support our youth. We asked ourselves how a young person could commit so many offences. We asked ourselves how a 13-year-old could be on his 10th, 12th or even 15th break and enter. There is likely a problem. So we provided supports for our youth. We took a look at their families, their schools, their circles of friends to see what was going on. Often, the answer was not incarceration, but instead, with close supervision, the situation turned around. In nearly 80% of the cases in Quebec, there are very few, or no cases of recidivism among young offenders.

Yes, we do see repeat offences. Some young people will not understand, but must we introduce a bill as backward-looking as Bill C-4 to punish 1% or 2% of our youth? That makes no sense.

They are saying that this will require the police to keep records of extrajudicial measures. I will give an example. A few minutes ago, my colleague said that he had been the victim of tagging. I will explain. Graffiti is illegal. Obviously, graffiti is destructive and is a crime. It can be harmful to the environment. There is no doubt that young people who do this are committing a crime.

Do they really believe that every time the police stop a youth who is tagging or scribbling graffiti that they will make a record, take the young person to the station and take notes? That is not how it works in real life. Quite often, a warning is enough. Quite often, the youth who are caught do not reoffend. It is rare that these youth reoffend. Generally speaking, these youth have parents who take care of them and who will be a substitute for the police. Obviously, some youth will not stop and will commit more serious crimes.

That said, I would like to give an example of the outright—and I have to be careful how I say this, but I will still say it—stupidity of this bill.

I will just give one example. Imagine that a young person is convicted of murder, the most serious crime. A young person who commits murder and takes someone's life has obviously committed the most serious of crimes. This law would require that youth to serve an adult sentence, generally about 15 years for manslaughter.

What happens to a 14-year-old who commits murder and is sentenced to 15 years in prison? He will spend the first four or five years in a reception centre and then he will be transferred to a penitentiary. Would anyone be able to work with this youth, knowing that he would be in a prison at the age of 18? It makes no sense.

We will probably be given explanations, and experts and constitutionalists will be consulted. We think this sentence might well be overturned by the Supreme Court, but that remains to be seen. That is not what the debate is about.

Even more dangerous, we believe, is when a young person stays in a reception centre for four or five years with nothing to do, knowing he is headed for prison, and causes as many problems as possible and thinks only of trying to escape. And of course he will escape. What can workers in reception centres possibly do with this young person? Nothing. He will spend four or five years in a reception centre at the expense of taxpayers and the provinces. Yes, the provinces pay for reception centres. The federal government seems to like bringing forward such stupid legislation, but it is Quebec that pays for it.

What happens while the young man is waiting to be sent to prison when he turns 18? It is not complicated: he will commit crimes, play the tough guy, impose his own rules in reception centres, escape and reoffend. This part of the legislation is completely unacceptable. This bill is unacceptable.

I would like to give another example. In my career, I had to represent a young man who was 15 years old when he killed his father. Under this bill, that young man would be in prison. Instead, this is what happened. We started asking questions. It was not normal. No one here condones anyone killing another person, but it is even more serious when a 15-year-old boy kills his father. It is even more unacceptable. Clearly there was a problem. So we created what I would call a process around this young man to find out what happened. He was subjected to medical, psychiatric and psychological examinations. We had to find out what happened. Why did this young man commit such a crime? Why did he kill his father when he was just 15? I am sure everyone agrees that these are not the questions asked when the offender is an adult.

However, since he was only 15, we asked some serious questions. For this young man's community, in my own backyard, this was unacceptable and incomprehensible. This young man was given structure and support. Obviously, he was sent to a reception centre. He had a problem that absolutely needed to be worked through. It took a year and a half for this young man to realize the seriousness of the crime he committed. It was as though the floodgates had opened. It took six months, but after that it was easier to work with this young man. Today, he is one of the top orthopedic surgeons in Quebec. If he had not realized the seriousness of his crime, he would be in a penitentiary today.

What is a young person going to do in a penitentiary? This bill would send them to penitentiary for 10, 15, 17 or 18 years. It makes no sense. That is not what our young people need. I admit that some young people have serious behavioural problems. That is clear. At some point we have to put a stop to street gangs. Obviously we have a problem if a young person is going to school with a knife in their pocket. When a 16-year-old is walking around with a loaded 9 mm revolver in their knapsack then there is definitely a problem. There is no doubt about it. This is someone who has the makings of a criminal, as my late father would say. Nonetheless, if a sapling is properly supported it will straighten. A young person should not be sent to a place like a penitentiary or a reception centre without any opportunity for rehabilitation.

What the Conservatives are telling us is not true, because there will be no rehabilitation programs for youth at reception centres. They will not waste their time on this young person when there are 15 more after him. Perhaps something can be done for them, but in his case, in about four or five years he will probably be sent to a penitentiary to serve the rest of his time. It is stupid to believe that this is the way to solve the problem of crime.

This bill applies only to young offenders and that represents perhaps 1% or 2%. I admit that 1% or 2% is significant. I will be criticized for not thinking about the victims. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, rehabilitation in Quebec puts victims first. That goes hand in hand with rehabilitation. I have experienced it. We have worked on it. I can say that making a young person do community work because he has committed 12 break and enters and sending him to all the garages where he committed the theft to wash cars makes an impression on him. There are two possibilities: either he continues a life of crime, with the obvious consequence of increasingly stiff punishment or, like a tree, he straightens up.

I see that I do not have very much time left. That is unfortunate because, if there were unanimous consent, I could talk for another 20 minutes. I know that time is precious; however, I would have liked to have talked longer. The Bloc Québécois believes that rehabilitation must be the priority. Yes, there should also be sanctions. However, we believe and are absolutely convinced that the more opportunities we have for rehabilitation, the more we can work with youth early in their criminal careers, the lower the risk of recidivism. Quebec statistics prove that we are right. We will come back to that when the bill is studied in committee.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to have this chance to continue the discussion on C-4, the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Concerns have also been raised about ending the publication ban on the names of young people charged with a crime in the apparent hope that denunciation will be a deterrent. The bill would require the courts to consider lifting the publication ban on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences when youth sentences would be given.

The publication ban has been important in the past. It helps ensure a situation where young people can truly be rehabilitated and put a serious mistake behind them by avoiding the publicity associated with their crime. It also prevents the shaming that is part of any criminal conviction. The publication ban was also seen as significant in that it interrupted and even subverted the ability of criminal organizations and gangs to recruit young people who were in trouble with the law. These are all crucial considerations for our youth criminal justice system.

It is also very unclear just what the bill proposes with regard to the publication ban. It seems that judges will still have discretion in this area, so the bill may not change the current situation. The government may only be pretending to do something on that issue.

The Conservatives are still chipping away at an important concept in our youth criminal justice system in the way they regularly criticize this aspect of the system. The Conservatives continue to whip up hysteria about crime. They continue to refuse to analyze youth crime statistics. Prior to 2005, violent youth crime was declining in Canada. Yes, there was a spike in 2005-06, but in 2007 it started to decline again.

Understanding these trends, rather than merely offering a knee-jerk reaction to them, would be a more responsible approach. Looking at what actually works to reduce youth crime would also be helpful.

Quebec provides a great example. Quebec is perhaps the most successful jurisdiction in Canada when it comes to reducing youth crime. It has the lowest youth crime rate. How has Quebec done that? It has stressed rehabilitation and treatment, first and foremost. It also has the lowest number of youth raised to adult court. Ensuring particular programs and process that recognize the needs and realities of youth has worked to lower youth crime. The federal government could learn much from this example.

We know that prevention works. Making education affordable, keeping youth unemployment low, ensuring excellent health care for children and youth, ending child poverty, providing high-quality child care and early childhood education, affordable recreation, putting in place accessible drug education and treatment programs, programs for those living with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and programs to prevent it, all of these have shown, time and time again, to be more cost effective and a more effective way of dealing with alienation and criminal activity of children and youth.

When one looks at the research, if one bothers, there is no doubt about how effective this approach is. In particular, the situation of aboriginal youth demands more attention from the government. The correctional investigator of Canada pointed out in her recent report:

Aboriginal youth are also overrepresented among criminalized young people. Research shows that Aboriginal young people are criminalized and jailed at earlier ages and for longer periods of time than non-Aboriginal young people....the gap between traditional correctional approaches, and Aboriginal methods of justice and reconciliation [must be addressed]. The ongoing support and involvement of elders, Aboriginal liaison officers, community representatives and Aboriginal organizations is viewed as key to closing the outcome gaps for First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders. Advocates for Aboriginal inmates have long stressed that Aboriginal people and Aboriginal organizations must be directly involved in developing and providing appropriate programs, and actively involved in the evaluation of current assessment tools used by CSC.

Finally, the correctional investigator points out that the government must “implement a security classification process that ends the overclassification of Aboriginal offenders”.

Restorative justice is another approach that must be taken. Restorative justice has been defined as a turn away from the adversarial, punishment-oriented philosophy of criminal justice toward the focus on bringing victims, offenders and the community together to repair harm, build understanding and restore relationships.

Building a justice system that seeks to restore broken relationships, rather than merely punishing those who commit offences, has shown huge promise and often startling and positive results.

In the United States, teen courts, which deal with actual criminal cases and issues, have been shown to sharply reduce recidivism. Youth who commit crimes and are judged by their peers are far less likely to reoffend. What is more, the teen court model is much more cost effective than the regular criminal justice system.

Here is how Ritchie Eppink and Scott Peterson described the U.S. experience of teen courts in an article in LawNow. They say:

American teen court programs continue to demonstrate phenomenal success, all at a miniscule cost. Peer courts not only appear to reduce repeat crime by youth, they are dynamic programs that promote volunteerism and community service, build a range of interpersonal skills in their participants, and interactively teach youth about law and justice in partnership with adults. Though letting youth co-operatively handle their own problems is a simple concept, it has turned out to be an uncommonly effective one--one that is fast becoming an integral part of youth justice in America.

In my community, the Burnaby youth restorative justice program has proven very successful. Its shoplifting program in particular has had great success in helping young people appreciate the seriousness of the crime, but in a way that ensures that the relationships it damages are restored. Here is how the program was described in a recent article in the Burnaby NewsLeader. The reporter says:

The retail theft circle program was created last June in a collaboration between RCMP detachments in Burnaby, North Vancouver and Richmond, and was based on a model used to combat graffiti in Vancouver.

Burnaby has since taken the lead with the unique program and has held four such circles with 38 youth participating, said Stephen Morton, Burnaby RCMP’s restorative justice program coordinator.

Youth caught shoplifting, generally aged 13 to 17 and first-time offenders, are referred to the voluntary program by RCMP officers. Morton said the kids involved come from a broad cross-section of society, he noted. He’s seen kids from middle-class families to single-parent families, students and dropouts.

The program’s name is reminiscent of aboriginal healing circles, and other elements are borrowed from aboriginal traditions. For example, participants sit on chairs in a circle, with no table in between to hide behind, and a “talking piece” is passed around allowing the person holding it to feel empowered to speak.

In addition to the youth, participants include police officers, loss-prevention officers and store managers. The circles are as much about those harmed by shoplifting as it is about those picked up for the crime, Morton said.

Over a two-hour period, they each speak about the impacts of shoplifting. For retailers, the losses add up and lead to increased prices on all goods, and they feel victimized. For police and mall security, such incidents take time away from more pressing emergencies such as people needing medical assistance.

As for the youth, they often speak of how a shoplifting incident has made them feel shame and how it’s affected their relationship with their parent

Some kids say they steal because they want something but don’t want to or can’t pay for it, said Morton.

“Sometimes it’s because of a peer influence. There’s a perception among their peers that it’s a victimless crime.”

What’s important to Morton is that the youth acknowledge what they’ve done and that it’s affected people.

“Sometimes you kind of see the light go off for some kids. They’re able to see how it affects the broader community.”

He’ll sometimes see the same happen with the adults in the room. “The adults can see these youth are humans, not just thieves, but members of the community.”

There are all kinds of good results from this kind of process, better citizenship on the part of the youthful offender, the victim of crime, community members and enforcement personnel all result. It is a success story that cannot be dismissed and an approach that should be expanded. Why does restorative justice remains the very poor cousin of our justice system when its benefits are so very obvious?

Bill C-4 takes our youth criminal justice system in the wrong direction. While it seems apparent that the bill will move to committee for further study and discussion, I hope the process will make its flaws absolutely clear and that it will either be abandoned or significantly changed.

The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. House leader of the official opposition as to the future business for the remainder of this week and up until Thursday of next week.

We will continue today with the debate at second reading of Bill C-10, Senate term limits. Following Bill C-10, I will call Bill C-12, democratic representation. I will continue with this lineup tomorrow.

Next week, we will call Bill C-4, Sébastien's law, Bill C-16, ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious and violent offenders, and Bill C-13, fairness for military families. All of these bills are at second reading.

Tuesday, May 4, will be an allotted day. I am looking forward to the motion that my hon. colleague and his party will select for that opposition day. I note there are some nine allotted days in this parliamentary period, and obviously there are many important issues that the opposition has to choose from, including the east coast shellfish industry.

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

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

Let me say from the outset that I have very serious concerns about this legislation. That will not come as a surprise to many people given my concerns about the approach of the Conservative government to criminal justice issues generally. I have expressed that concern on many occasions here in the House.

There is a body of opinion, some represented here in the House and more broadly in the community, that the Youth Criminal Justice Act does require some tweaking. It is not an old piece of legislation but it is a piece of legislation that does need attention. There are people who think some minor aspects of it need some attention. However, I think the bill before us goes way beyond tweaking and way beyond fixing the small problems with the act that need attention. The bill contains some very significant changes.

Here is how some of the bill's key provisions have been described.

The bill would make protection of society the primary goal of the act. The bill adds denunciation and deterrence to the sentencing provisions. That is a very significant addition. The bill would require the court to consider lifting the publication ban on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences when youth sentences are given. It is very important to note that the government has also changed the definition of violent offences and serious violent offences in this legislation.

The bill would require police forces to keep records of extrajudicial measures used to deal with young persons in order to make it easier to identify patterns of reoffending. I will speak about that later.

The bill proposes to detain youth charged with a serious offence while he or she awaits a trial.

The bill would allow custody of young persons where they have committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of extrajudicial sanctions.

Finally, among other provisions, there is a provision that would require offenders under the age of 18 who are sentenced to custody to be placed in youth facilities only, even if they receive an adult sentence.

The last provision in this legislation is the one that is clearly supportable. It marks a huge turnaround for the Conservatives. It comes after they blew it in the last election when folks in Quebec in particular made it clear that they thought youth should not be doing time in adult prisons. That was a significant issue in the last federal election campaign.

I am concerned, however, that the burden of implementing this provision falls to provincial governments, and the federal government has not indicated if it will assist them to assure it is fully implemented. Without that kind of assistance, it could easily be an empty promise.

Even the best part of this bill, ensuring that youth are not sentenced and serve time in an adult prison, could very well be inoperative without a specific commitment from the government to assist provinces to implement that provision.

I do have very serious questions about other provisions in the bill.

Our justice system has always held that youth must be treated differently with respect to criminal justice issues. Children are not adults. We assume they do not have the same maturity as adults. We know they rarely appreciate the consequences of their actions when they break the law. The distinction between how we deal with adults and youth and child criminals must be maintained and not weakened. This is an important principle of our criminal justice system.

It is particularly true when we limit the rights of children in other ways. For instance, we do not allow them to participate in the democratic process in this country until they are 18.

If we are treating children as adults in the criminal justice system, we are not giving them a say in developing the rules of that system until they have become an adult. That is an indication of the unfairness of this kind of proposal.

The bill would make a significant change to the goals of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This bill would place protection of society as the primary goal of the act rather than accountability for the youth who are convicted, rather than the promotion of rehabilitation, and rather than support for crime prevention.

There is no doubt that in criminal justice matters the protection of society has to be a key goal, but I believe that by making it the primary goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is a step in the wrong direction.

We must never write off young people. We must do all we can to ensure their rehabilitation after they have committed a crime. We must put the restoration of their relationship with their community after a criminal conviction as they key goal of our youth criminal justice system. If we want a primary goal or a key goal, that is the goal that should be in place.

Placing the protection of society first, especially when the current Conservative government often uses protection of society as a euphemism for being tough on crime and more punitive, runs contrary to what youth criminal justice should be about.

There has been some considerable debate already about this legislation. Here is what a recent Toronto Star editorial says on this issue:

What Sébastien's Law would do, though, is change the tone of our youth criminal justice system from rehabilitation and reintegration to punishment and public shaming.

This is particularly troubling given the likelihood that the bill will do nothing to reduce crime but may, in fact, turn more juvenile offenders into hardened criminals and cost taxpayers plenty to keep them locked up.

The government says it will “make protection of society a primary goal of the legislation.”

But legal experts argue compellingly that this can't be done by tinkering with our criminal justice system. Harsher sentences, particularly for impulsive and immature young people, do not make offenders think twice about committing crimes, says criminologist and youth-justice expert Nicholas Bala.

Contrary to the government's assertions, this view is supported by evidence both here and in the United States, the poster child for tough-on-crime laws that have cost taxpayers billions without actually helping to reduce crime.

That is what the Toronto Star said in a recent editorial. It has used very strong language to say that the bill is about punishment and public shaming, and not about rehabilitation and reintegration. It is very, very troubling.

Other commentators have also been very critical of the bill. The Montreal Gazette looked at the changes to sentencing that are included in this legislation. It noted in an editorial that it had concerns about the provision that would allow the courts to take into consideration so-called extrajudicial sanctions, and here is what it said on that specific issue:

A sentencing judge would be allowed, for example, to take into account previous “extra-judicial sanctions”—warnings or referrals to community agencies—that were not subject to a court hearing and did not result in a formal criminal conviction.

By their very nature, extra-judicial measures do not involve a careful sifting of evidence, or even the opportunity for a young person to mount a proper defence. To base a prison sentence on such informal interventions is contrary to the normal course of justice. The very goal of informal sanctions is to give young people another chance. No family would go along with extra-judicial measures if there is a risk they will be used against a youngster at any time in the future. In one fell swoop an approach that has amply proven its worth could be undermined.

That is what the Montreal Gazette, in an editorial, said about the whole issue of how the government is proposing to use extrajudicial sanctions when it comes to sentencing a young person. I think again it is very, very strong language and very troubling.

Overall, the Montreal Gazette gave a big thumbs-down to the bill. In the editorial, it concluded:

The thrust of this bill, unfortunately, is to move away from rehabilitation and toward retribution.

It also said:

This legislation still appears to be driven by ideology and political showmanship, not by research or common sense.

It says that it should go back to the drawing board.

That is another editorial board of an important Canadian newspaper that has looked at this legislation and in very strong language has criticized it and said, in fact, that it should be withdrawn because of the serious problems.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member and he talked about anything but Bill C-4 and went off topic continually.

He talked about this government going after the votes on justice issues. After looking at his comments carefully, he is suggesting Canadians do not know anything about justice issues, that the Liberal Party does not agree with Canadians wanting safer communities. He is suggesting the Liberals know how to be smart about justice issues like two for one credit for violent offences. Canadians said absolutely not and this government changed that. Why would the member call that type of ridiculous attitude toward justice smart and say that Canadians do not know what they are doing about justice issues? Why would he disrespect Canadians in the way that he is doing? He needs to stand up for the victims, not just the offenders.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seemed that I was listening to the member ad infinitum.

I thought we were talking about Bill C-4 for a while, but he strayed off to prison farms. What he does not realize is that very few people are finding work in the animal husbandry business because, as he and I both know, farmers are struggling.

My riding is home to Canada's largest federal penitentiary, and I can tell the member that a lot of good things are happening with the people who are serving time there. They are learning trades. Some of them are actually getting their ticket as sandblasters for instance. In some cases they are finding jobs before they leave prison. They are learning a trade while they are in jail. They are getting an education so that they can get a better job to provide for themselves and their families. I could go on and on.

The member for Malpeque should avail himself of the statements of Professor Martin of the University of the Fraser Valley who appeared before the justice committee. He said that sentencing does provide a deterrent.

I wonder if the member for Malpeque could tell the House when the protection of society should be given consideration when sentencing young offenders. Is he of the opinion that the protection of society should be continued?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Why is questionable.

What the government is really doing within the prison system itself, it is closing down prison farms.

I am a farmer. There are several members here who are farmers. We all know how wonderful farmers are, working with livestock, growing crops, and how rehabilitative that is.

The government has announced it is going to close all the prison farms in Canada. It makes absolutely no sense at all. So my colleague, the critic for public safety, and I toured those farms. We were out west at the one outside of Winnipeg. We were at the Frontenac Institution, in Kingston, which has a marvellous dairy herd and a good egg operation. We were at the Pittsburgh Institution in Joyceville, which has an abattoir and a greenhouse. The greenhouse is already closed down. And we were at the Westmoreland Institution in Dalhousie, New Brunswick, which has a wonderful dairy herd and egg-laying operation.

The Conservatives have made a lot of crazy decisions as a government over there, but closing down prison farms just makes absolutely no sense at all.

We had a couple of committee hearings. The sad part about those committee hearings is that we did not get hardly any answers from CORCAN or government representatives. I will make a couple of comments about what others have said, just to fill members in on the issue. The reason I am mentioning prison farms in the context of the young offenders act is because it goes to the attitude of the current government that it is all about penalities, not about rehabilitation.

On prison farms in both New Brunswick and Ontario I have seen young offenders, well, they are below 35 years of age, so, they are fairly young people. One individual was an older gentleman, who went into the system when he was very young. He has been in that prison system for 31 years. He said that he was a bad fellow, that he did lots of crime, and that he was a bad fellow even within the prison system. The only time he really became a human being is about four years ago, when he happened to get moved to the prison farm at the Frontenac operation.

The dairy herd is called the Pen Farm, a herd that was established at the turn of the previous century, a herd that is in the top 20% of production in Canada. When people walk into that dairy barn, they look at the herd and they see the quality of cattle. They see the care and attention that inmates are giving those cattle. They are actually making equipment to assist downer cows.

My point about this individual and what he said to me is, “I never became a real human being until I got here to this farm to work with cattle”. It has a tremendous rehabilitative impact.

Again, the Government of Canada is throwing that opportunity away. Just like what it is doing in this bill, it is throwing the opportunity away to make young people better people, to find the good qualities in them, and make them productive citizens in Canadian society again, not throw them in jail and throw away the key, where eventually when they do get out, all it has done is make better criminals of them. We need a system outside of the prison system to work with people, young people. We also need a system within the prison system to work with folks who have done crime and are paying a penalty. We need to rehabilitate them.

However, the thing that angered me most on the prison farm side of the equation was the attitude of the former minister of public safety. He is President of the Treasury Board today, but he did make it clear why facilities were to be closed. It was the opinion of the minister, and no doubt the Conservative government as well, that the funding for these facilities and the farming skills acquired “could be more adequately redirected to programs where people would actually gain employable skills”.

This is what we heard at the public safety committee with CORCAN and Correctional Service Canada about prison farms. They were saying that those farm skills are not as important anymore. One of the members of the Conservative Party tried to make the point that only 14 people came out of that system and got jobs on farms. What about all the others who went through the prison farm system? They got jobs. Not every lawyer goes into law. What they learned in that prison system on the farms was discipline, getting up on time, doing work, and managing their time. They learned farming skills, welding skills and other skills. They learned all kinds of skills that could be used in many occupations.

I am the agriculture critic and I can understand why a members over there would say they do not value farm skills because we know they do not even value farmers in this country by the lack of programs they are putting in place, but that is a subject for another day.

Just a note on the Frontenac Institution before I move back to the act itself. The Frontenac facility has been described in the agriculture media in the following way:

It ranks in the top 20 per cent of Ontario’s dairy herds for management, is quick to embrace new technologies and make them work. It won Frontenac County’s most improved herd award in 2005 with a jump of 147 points and supplies milk and eggs to Corrections Canada institutions in Ontario and Quebec. And if a recent report is to believed, it is among six prison farms in Canada which not only aren’t making money, but aren’t supplying inmates with the skills they need upon release. Its abattoir services 300 local farmers, processes 60 animals per week and supplies 150 local butcher shops.

That is a productive operation. It teaches those inmates wonderful skills, and for the Government of Canada to be closing them down makes no sense at all, but it comes back to my original point that the government does not care about rehabilitation. The government only cares about penalties and it is actually going to lose. Once those farms are gone they are gone forever.

There are many questions that have been raised by even the people in Kingston, where the government wants to close that institution down, so it can sell off the assets to pay the massive debt that it has imposed on our children and grandchildren as a government. Or is it looking to build a super jail there and go the way that the United States has gone where we will build more jails in Canada and incarcerate more people, and adopt a system that has been found in the United States not to work.

Let me come back to the bill. The major provisions of Bill C-4 are articulating that the protection of society is a primary goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, there is no problem with that; altering pretrial detention rules to make it simpler for judges to keep violent and repeat offenders in custody prior to trial; adding specific deterrence and denunciation of the sentencing principles for youth; expanding the definition of what constitutes a “violent offence”; allowing for more serious sentences for youth with a pattern of extrajudicial sanctions for so-called repeat offenders; requiring the consideration of adult sentences by provincial Crown prosecutors for youth 14 and older, or 16 and older in Quebec, who commit serious offences like murder, attempted murder aggravated sexual assault; and requiring courts to consider lifting publication bans on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences even when youth sentences are applied. Those are basically some of the areas and some of those points we agree with.

However, on the negative side, and this is unfortunate. The government has been in power four and a half years now and each day of the week that it is there it begins to wear on Canadians more and more. It is just like an old machine getting rusty, that is for sure.

It is unfortunate that what the government has shown over its four years in government is that it would rather create jail spaces than child care spaces. There is no evidence to indicate that jailing more people works as a deterrent.

That is what I said earlier when I compared it to the United States. This analysis builds on what has been provided by other experts and the Conservatives have chosen to ignore. Penalties in and of themselves are not the answer. We need systems of social programs that assist people, that help families in trouble. We also need them within the jail system itself.

This plan, along with some of the government's other so-called law and justice proposals, will lead to higher incarceration rates and increased costs for Canada's justice system without a significant improvement in Canadian safety.

I will close with a couple of quotes from others who know the system well because I believe they make the point. Rick Linden, who is a criminology professor at the University of Manitoba, states:

It's designed more for the political effect than to actually have much affect on crime.

That goes right to the mantra of the government. It is all about messaging. I believe we have called it a culture of deceit in question period just the odd time. That is what it is about with the government. It is all about messaging. Do not let the facts get in the way of a good story. It is all about messaging.

There is lots more that could be said about the defaults of this bill, but I will close and turn to questions.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. To review, this bill contains numerous amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the youth justice regime, including changes to the general and sentencing principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

As our critic has indicated, Liberals will be supporting it at second reading and sending it to committee for further debate. I believe very seriously that it needs extensive debate in committee and the calling in of witnesses to look at some of the impacts. Although there are some good points in the bill, some of which I will go through, it raises some serious concerns about previous improvements that were made to the youth criminal justice system.

In the remarks by my colleague from Halifax West in the House on this bill, he summed it up about right in only around 25 words. He said:

One thing that concerns me, though, is that when we hear the Conservatives talk about young people, most of the time it is about putting them in jail.

I thought that was an appropriate comment because it seems to be where the changes in this act are really leading. It is so often all about penalty with the government and never about rehabilitation.

In our ridings and all across the country, and I certainly saw a lot of this when I was solicitor general, we see young people in trouble. Is it always all their fault? Yes, they do get in trouble, but some come from seriously broken homes, some may have gotten on drugs and got in trouble, some did not have a chance in life at all. By throwing them in jail and throwing away the key, this country is losing potential.

Yes, they got in trouble, but it is not just about penalties. It is about a social safety net, daycare programs, child care programs, literacy programs, education programs and working with young people to try to prevent them from getting into trouble. Young people have tremendous economic opportunity to benefit the country and themselves and raise families and so on.

My point is that we have to be very careful that we do not get on this mantra to build more jails, put them in jail, throw away the key and forget about rehabilitation and other social programs that can make a difference in people's lives in terms of preventing crime in the first place. We have lost too many lives in this country as a result of governments not doing enough in other areas to assist people.

There are elements of this bill that appear to favour punishment more than rehabilitation. We in the Liberal Party have serious concerns about the bill, which presents sweeping changes to the youth criminal justice system itself. While we support serious consequences for people who commit serious crimes, we believe that youth must be treated differently from adults.

As my colleague from Halifax West said in his remarks, this bill goes to the heart of what the government's mentality is when it comes to justice. It is a justice system that is based more on penalties than rehabilitation.

I would ask Canadians who may pay attention to these debates that, in terms of our justice system as a whole, in terms of our country as a whole, as we compare ourselves with the United States, where do we feel safer walking on the streets? In Canada or in the United States? I think if we asked 1,000 Canadians, 998 of them would say any place in Canada.

Yet, when we look at the two justice systems, the United States incarcerates somewhere around 690 or 700 people per 100,000 and Canada incarcerates 106 or 107 per 100,000.

We incarcerate less people, but people feel safer on our streets. Yet, the government wants us to go to the U.S. system of justice. That is what it is basically trying to do, and that is just not the way to go.

In the youth criminal justice system, we need to emphasize prevention and rehabilitation rather than just penalties.

Basically, the government's approach is to throw them in jail and throw away the key. In fact, even within the prison system itself, the government is withdrawing itself from good programs that rehabilitate people--

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I began my speech before question period. However, I would like to take a moment to inform the House that during this session of Parliament, an Allied veteran had to fight a long, hard battle to be admitted to Ste. Anne's Hospital. Mr. Speaker, you have heard various comments from several members here in the House. Some of my colleagues have fought for and debated the case of Dennis George Vialls in this House. He was a soldier who fought in the second world war and was even decorated for his service. Since I have the floor, I would like to take a moment to inform the House that Mr. Vialls passed away this morning. On behalf of my colleagues in the House, I would like to express our sincere condolences to his family. Lest we forget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening. I will now continue my speech.

Before question period, I was saying that people who work in community organizations are also our front line workers. It was important that as a society, we develop an intervention plan centred on rehabilitation and prevention. That is what I was saying before question period. We needed to stick to some basic principles. History has proven us right: the youth crime rate in Quebec dropped considerably and in 2002, Quebec's approach enabled it to achieve the lowest rate of juvenile crime and recidivism in Canada since 1985. That is quite a result.

For purely ideological reasons, the Conservative government is trying once again to change the essence of the Young Offenders Act. Although Bill C-4 has been watered down somewhat compared to the previous bill, the Bloc Québécois would like to take the time to thoroughly examine each of its clauses.

Despite the changes, it is important to point out that Quebec has always had a good approach to dealing with young offenders. In 2003, Quebec's Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court both struck down a provision that required teens to prove that they deserved to be sentenced as young offenders. In other words, young offenders were automatically given the strictest possible punishment. They then had to argue against such sentencing and prove that they deserved a lesser sentence. The legislation did not take into account young offenders' records.

In Quebec, we believe that tackling poverty is one good way to prevent young people from committing crimes. When they do commit crimes, sentencing in Quebec takes all of the circumstances into account. Rehabilitation is integral to our morals and values, and everyone in Quebec knows that it has a positive effect.

To properly understand our stance on Bill C-4, we have to take a closer look at what the Conservative government is proposing. The bill introduced in the House would make public perception a factor in the sentencing of young offenders to deter other young people who may be likely to commit crimes. Because of this desire to make examples of individual cases, prosecutors will have to justify any decision not to call for adult sentencing in cases involving serious crimes. This would turn things upside down by taking it for granted that young offenders should receive adult sentences regardless of their records.

In addition, Bill C-4, as written, would give judges more leeway to release the names of young offenders found guilty of violent crimes and sentenced as youths. This provision could have terrible consequences for young people whose names would appear on a public list. Once these offenders have paid their debt to society, people may still single them out and ostracize them. That kind of rejection would have an extremely negative effect on their rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation is a long-term undertaking with a strong track record in Quebec.

Judith Laurier, a spokesperson for the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, said:

By lifting the publication ban, we end up in a situation where the young person may be singled out and may have problems with rehabilitation and reintegration. That is the key item [in the bill] that we really disagree with.

Are we to jeopardize the work accomplished with young offenders in order to satisfy Conservative ideology? I do not think so. We must instead give youth the opportunity to start their lives over again and regain their confidence.

The Bloc Québécois does serve a purpose in the House of Commons. Bill C-4 is a watered-down version of what the Conservative government had proposed in 2007. That is why the Bloc Québécois wants a detailed study of Bill C-4, the Conservatives' proposal to toughen legislation on minors who commit crimes.

As I was saying in my speech, giving adult sentences to young people who have been tried as minors is not the best way to prevent serious crime—it is the worst.

In Quebec, we are acting instead of reacting. Those who work with youth in Quebec believe that society must intervene in areas such as poverty, inequality and exclusion in order to prevent the youth crime rate from increasing. They must make young people aware of the consequences their actions might have.

Quebec's youth protection branch and youth centres have some serious reservations about Bill C-4. These agencies have developed programs that directly involve young offenders in their rehabilitation. When it comes to young offenders, a number of groups work together on the same case. In Quebec, each case is dealt with according to its specific characteristics.

Quebec has long understood the importance of rehabilitation. In 2002, the Montérégie regional services comprised more than 300 active groups. One of their missions was to provide specialized case management services within the framework of the Young Offenders Act. To do so, they brought together the community agencies and establishments involved in order to provide an effective program for young offenders.

Another example of this is found in the Chaudière—Appalaches region where a system has been set up in cooperation with various alternative justice agencies in order to lead young offenders to a better understanding of their actions by incorporating victim reactions into the rehabilitation centre program. These techniques have been tested and found successful in Quebec. Youth centres, social workers and lawyers all agree that the Quebec model is an example to the entire world.

We are investing in rehabilitation and social reintegration. It is better for a young offender to spend time with intervention experts than hardened criminals in prison. A young criminal can become a good citizen if he has the right services.

This week, I spoke with the police officers from my riding, from Quebec and from the Canadian Police Association who came to meet with us. They do not agree with the minister. These police officers, who work with young people in the community, believe in rehabilitation.

Quebec is following some 9,800 young people who need help and services. There are close to 70 in my own riding. Many of them have been rehabilitated and I want to thank those who have helped them. In most cases, the police will have no further contact with these youths who committed a minor offence. They will not see them again because they will not know them. These young people will have taken a better path in life.

We believe that the Conservative government is insisting on giving adult sentences to young people tried as minors. The Bloc Québécois agrees that the bill has been improved somewhat and the government deserves some credit. However, my current criticisms of the bill are that it does not give enough credit to rehabilitation and its effect on Quebec's youth and that this model will not be fully utilized in the rest of Canada.

We have explained a number of times that, if the government took into consideration the recommendations made by Quebec stakeholders, the Young Offenders Act would have much more positive and long-lasting effects on Quebec and Canadian society.

As for Sébastien's Law, which would toughen the law regarding minors, I must unfortunately say that I believe it contains major flaws.

Giving adult sentences to young offenders as a deterrent is not a good way to rehabilitate offenders. I have had proof of this from community organizations, lawyers, youth centre workers and other individuals who work with these young people in the second life they are given.

Giving the public access to the names of young people convicted of serious offences may be detrimental to their development and reintegration into the community. Quebec is held up as an example in other countries because of the way it deals with young offenders. The Bloc Québécois wants to study the bill, but we refuse to amend the legislation to conform to a right-wing Conservative ideology. Society must be proactive, not reactive, to eliminate serious youth crime. That is why Quebec's approach involves setting up programs to help eliminate poverty, exclusion and social inequality.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois knows that young people commit crimes and must answer for those crimes, including in the courts. But the measures brought forward have got to have a real positive impact on crime; they have got to be more than just rhetoric or fear-mongering.

Our youth criminal justice system must be different and distinct from the adult system. The purpose of the youth system should be to reinforce young offenders' respect for social values. Organizations like Quebec's youth protection branch and youth centres have succeeded in creating effective intervention programs in cooperation with various community stakeholders. Quebec has adopted a model based on social reintegration and rehabilitation, and we believe in that model.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can wrap things up after question period, but I will start now.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to say that I had the opportunity to listen to and read the speech given by my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, and I would like to acknowledge his exceptional contribution to this debate.

He gave an excellent speech yesterday on the matter before us now, Bill C-4, and I am pleased to have access to his expertise in this area. I am also glad that, as he said earlier, a number of professionals are providing a new perspective on this bill. We will probably have a chance in committee to take a more in-depth look at the different aspects we must take into account before passing such an important bill.

Today I would like to share a few thoughts that I shared yesterday and the day before with teachers and young people in the riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. We have been participating in a forum for the past two days. We also worked as delegates to the Millennium Summit. Homelessness and extreme poverty are issues that affect thousands of young people in Quebec. We also looked at the impact of poverty on the lives of these young people.

Although poverty is not as serious here as it is in many other countries, there are some hardships in life that could be avoided if we took better care of our young people and gave them more support. Although we all come into the world the same way, not everyone grows up in the same living conditions. We must address the problems facing our young people, and only then will we see a marked improvement in our society. We must deal with problems where they begin.

We are debating an important issue here today, one that must not become fodder for shameless propaganda.

I asked to speak to this issue because I wanted to share with the House some of the experiences recounted by some young people whose lives have not been easy. These young people want us to support their efforts and to understand why they are in their current situation. Young people are willing to talk to us about how they wound up in trouble, if we simply give them the chance. These young people's lives have been difficult.

Throughout my life, I have worked with young people and with several community groups. As I have already mentioned in the House, these groups provide crucial support to the communities they serve. Their opinions must be taken into consideration. The people who work in these community organizations are on the front lines of intervention with young people.

Long before I was elected, I worked in close cooperation with community groups to try to ensure fair and equitable sanctions for young offenders. Our society needed to develop an intervention plan centred on rehabilitation and prevention.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-4. We have gone down this road multiple times in the past.

It has been quite frustrating for some of us who have been around a long time in that the House tends to persist on taking a certain course of action. We need to be intelligent and use the existing data and information that we have in our country and around the world to do what our obligation is, which is to ensure that: first, we support legislation that protects innocent civilians; second, we do what is necessary to prevent criminal activity from occurring; third, we support victims and their families; and fourth, we ensure that those who commit crimes will go to jail or pay the price that the state determines and pay the price that society deems relevant to the crimes they have committed.

What I find frustrating is that we could be implementing many things if we were to deal with the facts. Unfortunately, the government tends to paint itself as a law and order party but doing it in such a way that it is not smart on crime. Rather, it takes a very narrow focus on trying to show that it is the toughest on crime.

However, the law of unintended consequences can occur down the road if solutions are implemented that do not truly address the criminal activity and we will not be able to achieve those four objectives that I mentioned at the beginning.

I think it would be wise in our stance in the beginning to support the bill at second reading so it can go to committee where we can bring in the people who have a lot of knowledge. Many people in the House have a lot of experience. Members on the government side and on our side have long been involved in the issue of youth crime.

My colleague from British Columbia talked about her deep and tragic personal circumstances, as did her husband. We hope to bring that kind of expertise to committee in order to address those solutions that will deal with this situation in a sensible and responsible fashion.

What we ought to do is look at the current statistics in terms of youth crime rates in Canada. In 2006, 6,885 youth crime rate Criminal Code offences per 100,000 people in Canada. That number declined to 6,783 in 2007 and to 6,454 in 2008. If we go back to 1991, that number was 9,126 children per 100,000, and that was the youth crime rate per 100,000 people in Canada at that time.

If we look at the homicide rates, the most extreme of offences, in Canada we have around 600 homicides per year. About 55 to 60 of those homicides are committed by youth every year, and that has been consistent. There has been an up-take recently, and much of that has been attributed to children involved in gangs, but for the most part, if we look back over the last 10 to 15 years, we see that the homicide rates by children have remained essentially static over the last 15 years.

What can we do? I had a chance to be in Vancouver a few weeks ago at the University of British Columbia faculty of medicine with Dr. Julio Montaner and others. A very interesting neuro scientist was describing the following. If we ask ourselves why people take up criminal activity, why they get involved in taking drugs or why they get involved in behaviours that are destructive to themselves and others, the scientists found the following. They looked at the brain, which has two major sections. One section involves our emotional response to activities that are thrill seeking. The other part of our brain, which is called the prefrontal cortex, keeps that part of the brain in check. It is the part of the brain that tells us that it is not a good idea to go out and shoot ourselves up with heroin, to drive a car really fast or to beat somebody up. That part of the brain is essentially the control mechanism on the other part of the brain that takes a more emotional response to issues.

With infant children, the connection between that part of the brain, the emotional response and the prefrontal cortex that checks it, is not well developed. This is why children behave in a more emotional response than a more rational response. As they get older through adolescence, connections happen, tracks develop, neurons connect between those two areas and in that process the prefrontal cortex has a more profound ability to check that emotional part of the brain.

What happens if that child is subjected to violence, sexual abuse, poor nutrition or bad parenting? It has been proven that those neurologic connections between the limbic system and parts of the brain controlling emotional response and the prefrontal cortext do not develop very well. They happen slowly and imperfectly. For children who are brought up in a loving, caring environment and subjected to good parenting, where they have proper nutrition, literacy, those connections develop very well. This means for children who are subjected early on to a bad environment of sexual abuse or violence, the connections do not develop very well, which makes those children much more liable to participate in taking of drugs, violence and criminal activity.

How can we prevent that from happening? How can we ensure that children have the proper neurologic development in those most formative years?

Let us take a look at the longest study in the world called the Perry Preschool program in Ypsilanti, Michigan. It studied a group of kids at risk and followed those children through 40 years of their life. The evidence found that by ensuring those children received good preschool programs, they were more able to complete school. There was less dependence on welfare. There were much higher rates of income. In turn, their children had better outcomes.

This is an important study because it proves that if we ensure children grow up in an environment that is loving, caring, free of being subjected to violence, sexual abuse and other horrific situations, those neurologic connections develop well. As a result of that, there is a profound impact in preventing and reducing crime and ensuring that children have the best outcomes in their lives.

These kids had better educations. They made more money. There was less dependence on welfare. Also, and this is interesting, for an investment of just $15,166, that is $17 for every $1 invested, there is a saving to taxpayers of $250,000; that is a 17:1 savings.

Why is the government not working with the provinces to do what has been proven? Why is the government not looking at the 40 year retrospective study, among a collection of other studies, a study that concludes that good early preschool programs and working with parents and children, which can be done very inexpensively, can have the most profound and positive impact on the future of those children and therefore on the future of society?

The cost to incarcerate a child is $100,000 a year. I used to work in an adult jail as a correctional officer, when I was putting myself through school and university. I also worked in both adult and juvenile jails as a physician. I have seen horrific stories. For example, as a physician, I attended to two girls who were in there early teens. They had been put on the street by their mother, who I happened to know through my alcohol and drug work in emergency. She was a known IV drug abuser. Her children were prostituting themselves so she could pay for her IV drug problem. They thought what they were doing was fun.

I read in the newspaper that one of them was found dead in a ditch. The other one I saw when I was doing my rounds in the pediatric ward. She had suffered a massive stroke caused by her drug abuse.

I remember these two little girls as lovely young children who probably had a whole hopeful life ahead of them. However, because of their environment they were stuck in, through no fault of their own, one ended up dead and the other had a massive stroke. That is the fate of too many children in our society.

These are entirely preventable problems. Therefore, why is the government not do something about it? Why does it not look at the Perry Preschool program? Why does it not work with the provinces and implement those solutions, which are proven to work to reduce crime, to save lives, to save money? The government should be doing that.

This brings me to drug policy. Why does the government not do what is necessary to deal with drug problems? Many of the youth criminal acts are attached to drug addictions. Many of the break and enters and the assaults are carried out by people addicted to drugs.

What I find disappointing is the government, instead of embracing things that work, takes these initiatives to court. For example, there is the Insite program in Vancouver, the needle injection program. It has been proven by Dr. Julio Montaner, Dr. Thomas Kerr, and others to save money, to save lives and to reduce diseases. Why does the government not support that?

Instead, the government has taken that proven medical initiative to court, to block people and to prevent them from having a program that will save their lives. What kind of a government does that? It is utterly immoral, unconscionable and unjustifiable.

Furthermore, why is not it look at the NAOMI project, the North American Opiate Management Initiative? St. Paul's Hospital looked at 350 of the toughest, most difficult to reach IV narcotic abusers and randomized them into three groups. One group was given heroin IV, one group Dilaudid, which is another narcotic, and the final group an oral narcotic, methadone. Because it gave those people the drugs under medical supervision, it severed the tie between the addicts and their criminal activities to get the money they needed to pay for their drugs.

Why does the government not support communities to have access to NAOMI projects across the country? That would be the worst news for the real parasites in this equation, the organized crime gangs, which are the only ones profiteering off the status quo. It would undermine the financial underpinnings of organized crime. It would enable these hard to reach individuals to get into our medical community, which would help them get off drugs, get back with their families, get back to work and get their lives back together. We would save money and reduce costs in any number of ways. That would be smart judicial initiatives by working the justice system, the health care system and the provinces.

Do we hear anything like that from the government? No. There is deafening silence. It is absolutely inconceivable to me why the government does not adopt those things that have been proven. NAOMI and Insite were not something pulled out of someone's ear. These are scientific-based, rigorously peer reviewed assessments of an initiative and an experiment by St. Paul's, in Vancouver, with some of the toughest, most difficult and hard to reach communities.

Then there is fetal alcohol syndrome. I have some news for the government. Posters will not do it. Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in babies. It is estimated that 40% to 50% of the people in jail have FASD. This is a silent scourge in our country.

Why does the government not work with people like David Gerry in Victoria, who has an adult FASD clinic, and others to support something that not only treats but, more important, prevents? We have to get women in their prenatal stage to ensure they will not be in an environment where they drink. They need to understand that this is catastrophic to a child.

The other thing the government should look at is communities at risk. Tamba Dhar, who is a friend of mine, runs a program called Sage Youth. Tamba is a wonderful woman. She is an immigrant to our country who did well and decided that she wanted to give back to Canada, so she developed a program called Sage Youth in Toronto. She has worked, on a shoestring budget, with higher-risk refugees in Canada to ensure that those children have a mentor and that they have essentially an early program. The kids are subjected to a proper, caring environment where their basic needs are met. She has done this through the prism of literacy.

We know that literacy and enabling kids to read or be read to is one of the most profound and positive impacts children will have in their lives. The federal government could work with the provinces to encourage parents to bring their kids to the library once a week and let them roam for an hour or two. It costs nothing and it is a remarkable, simple and easy way to get kids engaged in reading. On average, kids spend 40 hours a week in in front of computers, playing computer games or watching television.

That has a profound impact not only on the development of children's brains in a negative way, but it also contributes to the epidemic of childhood obesity, which will have a massive effect on cardiovascular problems in our country. In fact, quite shockingly, the youngest generation of children today, for the first time in the history of Canada, will be the first generation that is expected to have a shorter life span than their parents. Imagine that?

Those problems will be, for the most part, cardiovascular problems, which are preventable early on. We need to get the kids up, out and active, playing games, free play and also engaged in literacy by bringing the parents and teachers together, particularly in schools. Imagine if the feds were to work with the provinces to encourage parents to come to the schools for one hour a week, so the teacher could work with both of the parents and their children. They could have one hour courses on literacy, the importance of play, appropriate nutrition. These things will have a profound impact if we bring parents and children together. The common unit for that is in the schools. Yet we hear nothing from the government on this.

The government likes to talk about being supportive of the police. Why then does it not do what the police has asked? The gun registry is a case in point. We all know that law-abiding long gun owners are not the problem. They are law-abiding citizens through and through. However, what we have heard very clearly from police officers is that they need the gun registry for their protection. How on earth does the government justify to itself and to our society that it will remove something police officers feel they need for their protection? Above all, that is an overriding responsibility of ours. Our police officers do the bidding of governments and the state to protect us. It is our moral duty to do what can to ensure their protection.

Bill C-4 is an opportunity for the government to build on what the Liberal government did in 2003. It made some profound and positive changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. However, we need to move forward on that. We need to adopt those solutions that will ensure that criminals spend their time behind bars and away from our citizenry. They will also have the chance to rehabilitate and deal with their problems.

The government has an opportunity to adopt those solutions that can truly prevent crime and save money. If the government fails to do this, it is abrogating its responsibility to society, it is not using its intelligence and is simply trying to use its legislation as a way to paint a very shallow political picture to the public, instead of doing that what is important for the public good.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to continue my presentation on this very important bill.

Bill C-4 is an amendment. The enactment amends the sentencing and general principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as provisions relating to judicial interim release, adult-youth sentences, publication bans, and the placement in youth custody facilities. It defines the term “violent offence” and “serious offence”, amends the definition of “serious violent offence”, and repeals the definition of “presumptive offence”. It also requires police forces to keep records of extra-judicial measures issued to deal with young persons.

As I indicated yesterday, we will be supporting the bill to get it to committee and we are hoping that there will be one or two amendments to the bill. We actually like some of the provisions of the bill; however, we have some concerns about some of the other parts of it, but overall and on balance, there is some merit to the bill.

On February 4, 2002, the House of Commons passed Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That new law replaced the Young Offenders Act and was proclaimed on April 1, 2003. The Youth Criminal Justice Act builds on the strength of the old act and introduces significant reforms to address its weaknesses.

We can see that over time legislation does get updated in the House because of changes in society and changes in government or just because in some cases we find things that are not working well with it and we find that, by general consensus, we should improve the legislation.

The introduction of the bill followed an extensive period of review and consultation, much of which is reflected in the following reports. There was a review of the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system in Canada, and a report on the federal-provincial-territorial task force on youth. There was also a report renewing youth justice, a report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, and there was a strategy for the renewal of youth and justice, which was a 1998 report.

In March 1999, Bill C-68, the first version of the Youth Criminal Justice Act was introduced and Parliament prorogued in June. The bill was reintroduced as C-3 in October 1999. The bill proceeded through second reading, the Standing Committee on Justice, and prior to third reading, the federal election was called for November 27, 2000 and the bill was delayed.

We see the same process following us through what we had to deal with in previous times where, because of elections or the prorogation of the House, we end up starting over. So it is little wonder the public gets frustrated with us when they see that it takes forever. I think they expect immediate responses and the government is at fault here too because it promises immediate responses because it governs itself by press release, media events and polling.

When something happens in the country, the Conservatives push the button and put the public relations factory into overdrive, fire up the issue, get some bill thrown out here, and then of course nothing happens with it. Then they blame the opposition, but the reality is, as we know, they only have to blame themselves.

There have been many concerns in Canada regarding the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system. As we had indicated before, and a Bloc member as well indicated yesterday, many of the concerns are based upon misconceptions about youth crime, misconceptions about the legislation and how the system operates. Some concerns have been based on the misunderstanding regarding the limits of the legislation and the unreasonable expectations about what the legislation could actually accomplish, and once again, people have the impression that somehow we will pass a law and the problem will be solved.

When we were dealing yesterday with the bill, there was talk about one of the very good parts of the bill that we like, which is the fact that the youth offenders will be kept separate. They will not be put in with adult offenders.

We recognize that while that is a good idea, and we are going to pass this bill in the House, the fact of the matter is that enforcement of the bill would actually be done by the provinces. We will be putting a financial burden on them to make certain they have the facilities to keep young offenders separate. Some of the provinces do not have the proper facilities.

While the public may think they are going to see some immediate changes following the passage of this bill, they will have to wait until the facilities are improved or built within their own jurisdictions. It could be another decade before the bill actually has its full effect.

There are a number of problems in the youth justice system. The system lacks a clear and coherent youth justice philosophy. Incarceration is overused. Canada has the highest youth incarceration rate in the western world, including the United States, which is a bit of a surprise to me. I did not think that would be the case. In spite of its huge expansion of prisons during the Ronald Reagan era, the crime rate in the United States has actually gone up. I would not have expected that to be the case.

The courts are overused for minor cases that could be dealt with better outside the courts. Sentencing decisions by the courts have resulted in disparities and unfairness in youth sentencing.

The Young Offenders Act does not ensure effective reintegration of a young person into society after being released from custody. This is a very important point. We are trying to rehabilitate people. Society does not benefit from people reoffending. Putting people in jail and making better criminals out of them, so that when they get back out in the street they continue their career of crime, is not what the public wants.

We want these people in jail once and only once. Programs need to be provided to them when they are incarcerated so that when they come out, they come out with a new view on life. They have to be integrated into society. They need to have access to employment.

I would like to provide the House with an example, which I find almost impossible to believe. Six prison farms in this country are being shut down by the Conservative government. If we do anything, we should be building more prison farms in the country because it seems to me that over the years we have lost a connection with rural living, a connection with animals, and taking care of animals. A farm environment provides a perfect case of that.

I toured the Rockwood prison farm just outside of Winnipeg in Stoney Mountain during the break a couple of weeks ago. I saw the dairy herd. It is really sad that it will not be there in a few months. This farm has shown good results for over 20 years. The prisoners get up early in the morning and take care of the animals on the farm. They take ownership. They have a much better attitude than what they would have if they were just simply locked up in a prison.

The government argues that there is not a big market for farm work. It is going to train people in trades such as welding. It is a good idea to get them jobs out in society when they are released. The reality is that learning a welding trade and so on is not the same as working with animals. In some cases it would be a good idea if they could be around humane societies where they could walk dogs and stuff like that, and make some sort of connection with animals.

We are about to lose these prison farms. I realize that is another issue for another day and that day is coming soon. A motion will be coming from committee dealing with the closure of prison farms.

It seems to me that there is a lot of room for improvements in all legislation. We certainly do not want to stand in the way of making sensible improvements to laws. As I have said many times, we are looking for what actually works, where we can show results.

The former solicitor general for the province of Quebec spoke eloquently yesterday on this very bill, about how the Quebec system does work and how the crime rate in Quebec has actually decreased. It is beyond me why we would not have every province in the country and other jurisdictions, which I am sure some are, studying the Quebec model to implement aspects of that system that would work in their own jurisdictions.

To me, that is what a sensible government would do. A government that simply approaches the whole issue on the basis of ideology and says, “Because it worked in Margaret Thatcher's England or Ronald Reagan's United Sates, that is the model we have to follow because we are Conservatives. We cannot accept any Liberal, NDP or Bloc ideas because they does not fit with our overall philosophy”. That is just way out of line.

The justice system should always be an open system where we could adopt the best of a jurisdiction anywhere in the world, whatever gets results. Whatever works properly is what we really want to see in here, instead of a government basically operate this whole system on the basis of political expediency, what is good for it in the short-term, and how it can get some headlines.

I introduced some headlines yesterday that we see across the country, and I maintained that if the press in this country were responsible and started writing headlines like “Soft on crime” and “This legislation does not work”, the government would be retreating, but because it gets these cheap headlines out of these boutique bills and amendments that it introduces, it is encouraged to continue.

We would like to see the bill go to committee. I have one further point on the issue of victims. The government continues to talk about how it supports victims of crime. We in the NDP are solidly on the side of the victims as well. Three years ago, the government appointed Mr. Sullivan to be the victims' advocate and has not reappointed him. He, the government's appointee, is saying that the government has spent too much time on punishment issues, that it has spent not enough time and ignored victims. So much for the government's position of being on side with victims, of supporting and looking out for victims' rights, when its own appointee is saying that this is not true, that the government is not as solidly behind victims as it would like the public to think it is.

The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. At the outset, I want to commend the other speakers for some very interesting presentations today.

I have said before, during the questions and answers with some of the speakers, that the NDP will be supporting this bill to get it to committee. There are some provisions of it that we like and other provisions that we would be seeking some amendment to or clarification. The drafting of the bill itself is not precisely the way our critic, who is quite qualified in that area, thinks it should be.

Having said all of that, I think that this bill will not be staying at second reading for a very long time. The parties will want to get it into committee so that we can go through the process of calling the witnesses and start to examine the various provisions of the bill with the idea of making it better. There may be some amendments that the Liberal Party, for example, may want to introduce. This is all about coming together and trying to make legislation that is good for the country as a whole.

The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin made an excellent speech today explaining how the Quebec model works so well. The crime rate in Quebec is falling and is reasonably low. There is a system there that other jurisdictions should be looking at for improvements and copying. He explained that he did not feel that the federal government could really borrow the system because it was not really set up to be exported. I believe that was the way he explained it.

However, the fact of the matter is that the government has to start looking into types of systems that actually work. It seems to me that its whole approach to the criminal justice system is totally wrong. It is as if it is getting its orders from the Republican Party of the United States. It seems to look to the United States to see what Sarah Palin would think of a particular measure. We have to say that because it is adopting 25-year-old discredited strategies from the United States that have been proven not to work.

I do not know how many times we have to say it. Ronald Reagan's days are long past and so is his explosion of the prison population, the building of private prisons, the three strikes and your out, and the mandatory minimum sentences. Those were 25 years in the making and have produced higher crime rates. How much more proof does the government need to realize that that is the wrong way to go and that we should be looking to be smart on crime?

The government wants to be tough on crime. A lot of people think it is kind of soft on crime, the way it keeps proroguing the House and starting back again with all these crime bills. It talks about being tough on crime. We say we should be smart on crime. For each and every measure that the government takes in the crime area, all we are suggesting is that it should reach out and look for systems that work elsewhere.

If Quebec has good results in certain aspects of the system, why not import those? Why not replicate those? Why not promote those at the federal and provincial levels? Why not do that? If there is a better system that gets results in European countries like Sweden, then why not look to those results?

The government talks about best practices. It looks to best practices in other areas of government. Why can it not apply the same principle when it comes to this system?

Many times we have talked about how auto theft rates in Manitoba have dropped substantially because the government mandated immobilizers in all cars. It provided them for free, gave insurance reductions and set up a system in the police department to monitor the most prolific car thieves in the province. Police officers monitor them, chase them and try to keep them off the streets. That is producing results.

That is a system we would want to encourage and replicate in other provinces across the country and in other jurisdictions. Why—

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his speech on Bill C-4.

He provided us with a lot of information on Quebec's system, which, statistics show, is better than the rest of Canada's.

Could the hon. member tell me what the Conservative government could do to bring the statistics in the rest of Canada to the same level as those in Quebec?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not against reviewing the Young Offenders Act. We are in favour of Quebec's model of dealing with young offenders.

This model has been developed over more than a generation. It has been unanimously supported by all political parties that have governed Quebec since the 1960s. Whether to maintain and improve it has never been the object of partisan politics. Over the past 25 years, it has consistently given Quebec the lowest youth crime rate in North America. It focuses entirely on the future and its main goal is to ensure that, insofar as possible, the young offender grows up to become a law-abiding citizen.

This model has been possible because the federal legislation recognized that its main objective was the rehabilitation of the young offender. The Assistant Chief Justice of Quebec's Youth Court, Mr. Justice Michel Jasmin, admirably summarized the basic philosophy underlying the Quebec model with these words: “the right measure at the right time”.

Let us take two examples at opposite ends of the spectrum: homicide and shoplifting. A young man has killed his father. Drunk most of the time, the father beat his wife and children and kept them in abject poverty. One day the young man decides that this has gone on long enough, and he kills his father. At the other extreme, a young man is part of a group of thugs who rob houses. When surprised one day by an elderly woman who puts up a fight, he hits and kills her.

Can people see that the two offenders have to be treated very differently? That does not mean that the first one deserves a medal. He has committed a very serious crime and should suffer serious consequences. What he did was unwarranted, even under such extreme circumstances. He must show that he understands and is sorry for what he did and that he will never again use force to deal with an unfair situation. He will regain his freedom gradually, depending on the progress he makes in the rehabilitation program he is referred to.

In the second case, the offender may be tried as an adult and receive the maximum sentence of life in prison, after undergoing a thorough examination that looks at his record, his personality, the failure of any previous rehabilitation and the clinical psychological data that comes out of the examination, in short, a series of factors that rule out any possibility of rehabilitation.

Two homicides, two different measures.

At the other end of the criminal spectrum is shoplifting. A young man has been caught stealing a CD by a popular artist. It is his first arrest. He does not want the police to call his parents, but they do anyway. When they arrive, he is as red as a beet. Shamefaced, he swears he will never shoplift again. It is easy to see that this experience and the parents' reaction will be more than enough to dissuade the young man from reoffending. He can be diverted from formal court proceedings and let off with a warning.

But another young man is caught stealing things that can easily fenced. It is his first arrest as well, but authorities will do a more thorough investigation before deciding whether or not he will go to court. They will try to find out more about his circle of friends, his family and school or work in order to determine the best way to ensure that he does not reoffend.

Two cases of shoplifting resulting in a first arrest, two different attitudes that will lead to two radically different measures. We always try to choose the best measure for the situation.

Between these two extremes, there are thousands of cases where, in choosing the right measure at the right time, judges hand down sentences that can be very different for similar crimes committed by young people with very different prospects for rehabilitation.

These sentences may seem lenient to those who are unaware of the results of inquiries made for the pre-sentence report on youth with the best prospects for rehabilitation. Other sentences may be the most severe sanctions under the law if the inquiry reveals that they are warranted.

The approach varies with the accused. The goal is to protect society by taking steps to turn the young person away from crime and to ensure, above all and as far as possible, that he will not become an adult offender.

It goes without saying that, to determine the best measures for achieving these goals, we must also take into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the young person, his efforts to make restitution to victims when possible and other relevant and objective factors. This approach is taken because rehabilitating the young person is the best way to protect society.

Quebec's success is not dependent on the law but on how the law is enforced. Starting with the principle that rehabilitation is the goal in all but the clearly impossible cases, Quebec has created a multi-faceted system where the quality of the people who work with the young offender is of the utmost importance. Specialist judges are available in every region where that is possible and they are supported by psychologists, criminologists and social workers who can advise them about the identity of the young person, the risk factors that have led him to commit the crimes and the best means of ensuring his social reintegration while protecting the public. There are also specialist prosecutors. We build youth centres, not prisons, that fall under the responsibility of the health and social services ministry rather than the public security ministry. Guards have been replaced by psychoeducators and specialized educators who have a university or college education.

With regard to youth crime, like other types of crime, success is determined more by how laws are enforced than by the laws themselves. I know that this is particularly frustrating for federal legislators. However, in Canada, that is the way it is. In Canada, criminal law is a federal jurisdiction and its enforcement a provincial one.

The law has to leave room for an effective system. The law must not hinder a good system that has provided and continues to provide tangible results that are far better than the results anywhere else.

The Bloc fought long and hard for the Youth Criminal Justice Act that was adopted in 2002 to replace the Young Offenders Act because it favoured a more objective approach for treating young offenders.

After it was adopted, the opinion of many involved in the area of young offenders went something like this, “We used to deal with young people who committed offences and now we are dealing with offences committed by young people”.

We could talk about this at length, but we do not have enough time here. We will have more time in committee. For now, I sincerely believe that the first approach is the best. Rehabilitating young offenders is the best way to protect society in the long run. Rehabilitation has to be the priority of the youth criminal justice system.

The approach proposed in the bill before us takes us further away from Quebec's approach. Subparagraph 3(1)(a), which is a declaration of principle at the beginning of the legislation, states:

the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by

(i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person,

This is certainly a very important principle, but it already appears in the current legislation. It appears almost verbatim in paragraph 38(2)(c) which states:

the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence;

This shift from paragraph 38(2)(c) to subparagraph 3(1)(a)(i) is not so innocent when we look at what is being dropped.

The current paragraph 3(1)(a), which will be replaced by the new clause, currently says:

the youth criminal justice system is intended to (i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person’s offending behaviour, (ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society, and (iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence in order to promote the long-term protection of the public;

Under the current legislation, the first two objectives are prevention and rehabilitation.

To be fair, Bill C-4 does not completely dismiss these objectives. Rather, it says that we should “promot[e] the rehabilitation and reintegration” by “referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community”.

But it makes these objectives secondary to making the sentence fit the crime. In short, rehabilitation and reintegration will now merely be encouraged, not mandated.

This is an even more significant change from the former Young Offenders Act, which enabled Quebec to create a system that resulted in the lowest rates of crime committed by young offenders in America.

We believe that any youth justice system should focus primarily on rehabilitation.

This is not a sunshine-and-lollipops system, as some Conservative bigwigs claim.

Some young people have asked judges to send them to adult court so that they can avoid the rigorous requirements of young offender rehabilitation programs.

The government is defending its proposed changes by claiming that stricter sentences will be a deterrent. That principle has had very little effect on adult crime rates. Why would it be any more effective when it comes to juvenile crime?

Since this is the government's main argument, we should debate the issue in committee. Justice Canada has already ordered an in-depth review of the deterrent effect of various sentences in Commonwealth countries. The findings will surely be enlightening. Are there any studies that focus specifically on adolescents? Such studies would definitely be relevant. If there are none, we should order them. That is probably exactly where the government and the opposition disagree. We should have a public debate where we can set partisan politics aside and let cool heads prevail.

The government's decision to name this bill Sébastien's law is both strange and indecent. Sébastien Lacasse was the young man from my riding who was attacked by a group of angry youth who beat him. One of the attackers even stabbed him, which is how he died. Most of the attackers were over 18 years old. The individual who stabbed and killed him was under 18.

He was referred to adult court and received the maximum sentence, life in prison, and his name was released. The others, who were over 18 but did not directly cause his death, received various sentences, the longest of which was four years.

The sentence that the youngest person received certainly does not justify any amendments to this legislation. Since the legislation does not at all change the sentence that the killer would have received, I do not think it has any symbolic value. This is nothing more than propaganda for purely partisan purposes. It seems to me the Conservatives are exploiting the grief of his parents and loved ones.

This only confirms that the government's main objective with this bill is not really to reduce crime, but rather to achieve electoral gains. Unfortunately, a large segment of the population believes that we need to be tougher on young offenders.

But only until they learn more.

Only until they learn more about the real way we treat young offenders on a daily basis, more about the various professionals who work with them—from a constable on a youth squad to the judge and special crown prosecutor, to the university educated psychoeducators who care for them and assess them—and most importantly, until they learn more about the results we get. These results are the envy of many countries whose representatives regularly come to study Quebec's model in order to emulate it and change their own way of addressing juvenile delinquency.

The public very rarely hears rehabilitation success stories for young offenders. But we often hear about the failures. That is the nature of things. A murder, especially committed by a young offender, is an exceptional event that will necessarily get a lot of media attention. Crimes in general make the news. There is always something, and the more serious it is, the worse it is, the more despicable it is, the more we see it on the news. And there is something about youth crime, something we cannot put our finger on, that draws interest from the media.

For the most part, rehabilitation goes unnoticed. There is nothing special about it. It is a process that can take time, and it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when rehabilitation is achieved. However, the vast majority of young offenders do not re-offend.

It is difficult to talk about those who are rehabilitated. First of all, in all civilized countries, we protect their identities. Sometimes, well-known or well-liked public figures will reveal that they were arrested in their youth, and will speak about their rehabilitation, which helped them become the person they are today. However, these cases are not well known, while failures are widely publicized.

Recidivism has a face. If it is not the face of the offender, it is the face of the victim. Rehabilitation is anonymous.

In our media-crazed world, we hear a lot of talk about repeat offenders but rarely do we hear about those who are rehabilitated , which actually represent the large majority of those convicted. Repeat offenders are known to police but those who are rehabilitated are not, since they are obviously not arrested again.

The general public is misinformed about how youth crime is dealt with. It sees only the failures. I am not criticizing journalists. Again, it is the nature of living in a media-crazed world. Unfortunately, in this case, the medium is the message. It is the exceptional things that make news.

Every so often, journalists decide to take an in-depth look at the issue. And generally, their opinion on youth crime and how to reduce it becomes more nuanced. When informed, the public generally comes to the same conclusion.

We need to admit, from the outset, that we will never completely eliminate youth crime. There will always be failures. These failures will be rare, so the media will be sure to publicize them. We cannot be deterred from looking for the best ways to rehabilitate offenders. Not only is it important on a human level, but it is also the best way to ensure society's short- and long-term protection.

I often hear the governing party say that we need to get tough on crime. And the Conservatives always seem to say it with an air of triumph, as if they were winning a trophy or crushing an enemy. It takes a hard line approach because it believes that it will get votes that way. But it was also in the House that I heard the best line on this topic. It came from the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, in one of his first speeches, before he became the leader of his party.

As I recall, he said that the idea is not to be tough on crime or soft on crime; the idea is to be smart on crime. If there is one area where it is important to be smart, it is the area of youth crime, even though being smart is not necessarily very popular right now.

On September 18, 2009, the former Conservative leader, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, said to the big Conservative family as it celebrated the 25th anniversary of his coming to power, “Just because something is popular, that does not make it right.” He was quoted in Le Devoir on September 19, 2009. Former statesmen often like to pass on their wisdom.

This sentence seems especially relevant as we look at the changes the government wants to make to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I very much get the feeling that the government is proposing these changes because they are popular. The tough on crime approach was a big hit in the United States and got many Republican representatives and senators elected.

As a result, nearly one quarter of the world's inmates are in American jails today. The incarceration rate in the United States is seven times the rate in Canada. Is it a safer country? Certainly not. Proportionally, if we look at the most serious crimes, homicides, there are three times more homicides in the United States than in Canada and four and a half times more than in Quebec. The Vera Institute of Justice, an American organization, determined that at least 22 U.S. states were prepared to give up the tough on crime approach. This also applies to the treatment of young offenders, which was based on the same principles.

Being tough on crime may be a good way to win votes, but it is an expensive, counterproductive approach that leads to a dead end. Rehabilitation, on the other hand, produces not only people who contribute to society, but huge financial and social savings for every young person who goes straight. When we see how much more violent crime there is in the United States than in Canada, we may be tempted to think that some of these offenders went through the American youth justice system.

Why follow the U.S. model when we have a system here that produces much better results? The rest of Canada should be following Quebec's lead instead of preventing it from continuing to use its system.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the debate on Bill C-4. I am tempted to do two things and I hope the House will forgive me as I reflect on them.

The first part of the speech was exhortation that was a repetition of what the member for Saint Boniface said during statements by members, and that was have the opposition join with the government in ensuring the bill would pass, but without getting an assurance from the Prime Minister that he would not engage in prorogation in order to eliminate all the benefits of such co-operation.

The second reflection is this. Why do we not talk about how this bill protects society? With all due respect to my hon. colleague opposite, whose sincerity I do not question, is there anything other than the administrative details about which he talked that relate to maintaining records in an efficient and proficient fashion?

Could the member help us to understand how that is significant in maintaining a culture of protection for society, other than just simply one where we keep better books? Is that his concept of a reform of the justice system designed to protect society, to get new bookcases?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak to a bill that is extremely important to all of us and to all Canadians, and that is Bill C-4 dealing with our youth justice system.

I am supposed to be pleased but I am concerned with where we are going with it. I will outline my concerns as we continue on.

Bill C-4 is just the beginning of a discussion on the youth justice system but I would also like to address the larger issue of how we deal with youth crime in Canada, its impact and the consequences of failing to address these things proactively and with a long term vision.

It is too easy to react and I think Bill C-4 will give us the opportunity to seriously look at where we are going on issues like this in Canada and what we can do to ensure the safety of all Canadians but, more important, to ensure our youth have some positive direction and positive role models.

We know the consequences when those are not there and I think we need, as a society, to deal with those issues in a much more proactive way. Having an opportunity to speak on Bill C-4 and have the bill go to committee will give us a chance to examine it and look at where we can strengthen it.

The people of Taber, Alberta and those who were shopping in Toronto on Boxing Day of 2005 know all too well what the consequences are. Sadly, the families of people like Reena Virk, Jane Creba, Jason Lang and my own constituent, a young boy by the name of Jordan Manners who was shot down in the hallway of his school, know all too well the consequences if we fail to address youth crime effectively.

I mention Reena Virk, Jane Creba, Jason Lang, Shane Christmas and Jordan Manners because they are really the reason that I am speaking to Bill C-4 today. These special people are children who were victims of criminal acts perpetrated by other children. Perhaps one of the greatest tragedies any family or any society can bear is children fighting children and children killing children. It is not the Canada we want and we do not want to see that continue.

What can we do about it? How do we strengthen our laws? How do we strengthen the support systems in society so we can have a much better outcome at the end of the day in dealing with these difficult issues?

The children I mentioned were shopping and Jordan was attending school. They were just doing what children do and, because of that, they became victims and their families were shattered.

There was a day when we all felt a child-like innocence, a few years ago but I think we can all remember, a quality we all imagine is in the eyes of our children and grandchildren but, in reality, we as legislators need to make certain that there is an effective youth criminal justice system in place that can deal with the rarely seen but much darker side of childhood.

However, our response to youth crime cannot stop just there.

When Bill C-4 was first tabled on March 16, I again took the opportunity to review it carefully. I represent a riding in the greater Toronto area, a city that, like every other large city in Canada and on the planet, struggles to stem a rising tide of crime of a variety of types.

As an initial reaction to this legislation there are clearly element of the bill that appear to favour more punishment, much more so than rehabilitation. We need to ask ourselves where that balance is between the two.

While I accept that punishment is tremendously important, I would view the prevention and the rehabilitation sides of the youth criminal justice system to be every bit as important.

When I served on Toronto City Council and as the vice-chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, I saw first-hand some of those challenges. I watched as families dealt with tragedy, as politicians grappled with legalities, as social service agencies struggled with poverty and as courts wrestled to find the right balance.

I visited the families of many young people in my riding who had been either shot or knifed to death in some uprising with a gang. I sat and cried with mothers who lost their oldest child to violence in spite of every effort they made to try to prevent that from happening. They examined everything they did while raising their youngsters and asked what they could have done differently.

Many kids are being raised by single parents who are working and trying to keep the family unit together and make sure they are role models for their children. Sometimes things go wrong. Sometimes they only go wrong once in their entire life, but sometimes that once is too many.

As a result of some of the work I have done as a city councillor in Toronto and sitting as vice-chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, I also had a chance to talk to many police officers who constantly try to find that balance. I asked how they treat young people, how they either scare them enough that they will never do anything wrong again or make sure they understand that they will pay a price if they break the laws of our country, that it is not frivolous and they will pay a price emotionally, as will their families.

I developed a very practical tough-on-crime approach, but I also learned to appreciate the need for additional components that recognize the unique challenges presented when dealing with youth crime.

There was once an incident, when I was on the Police Services Board, with a young man who I had a chance to talk to in the detention centre. I asked him, “Why did you shoot that person”, and he said, “Why not?” I looked at him with shock and said, “What do you mean, 'why not'? You have killed someone; that is why you are in here. And you are trying to make me feel sorry for you”. He responded, “You don't care about me, so I don't care about you”.

What he was saying is that as a society, we do not care about them, so they do not give a darn about us either. It is hard to imagine anybody growing up with that kind of mentality, “You don't care about me and I will take your life as if it's nothing”. The reality is that is exactly how that young man felt. Ultimately, he went to jail for a very long time and I suspect he is still there.

Having all these things in mind, it would appear as though the drafters of this bill have little or no regard for the prevention and rehabilitation facets of the youth criminal justice system. Just like every other Conservative crime bill, this legislation is all about sentencing and jail time. The bill says very little about prevention, rehabilitation or working to put young offenders on the right track for life.

It would seem that Rick Linden, a criminology professor at the University of Manitoba, agrees with this. He says the bill is designed more for political effect than to actually have an effect on crime. That is not surprising. We have seen a lot of that in this so-called law and order and crime agenda. Conservatives say the things people want to hear, but then they do not do anything about it.

Professor Nicholas Bala, a family law and youth justice expert at Queen's University, says the same thing. Professor Bala said, “This is an example of pandering to public misperceptions about youth crime”. Clearly, pandering to the general feel out there is very easy for all of us to do politically. At some points in our lives we have probably all done it; there is no question about it. However, on issues of youth justice it is extremely important that we do the right things and make the right decisions on rehabilitation, prevention and, ultimately, whatever punishment will have to be the issue of the day.

We just had a room full of young Olympians. We look at all those beautiful faces and see how proud they are of what they have achieved.

How many other kids out there would have liked to have had those opportunities? However, because of a variety of things that happened in their lives, they do not ever get that opportunity to be able to train and participate and grow up and be a successful Olympian.

As we go back to this bill and talk about the clarity issue, I believe strongly that criminals of all ages should be punished appropriately. While I support serious consequences for people who commit serious crimes, I believe youth must be treated differently from adults. I also believe that effective prevention of youth crime begins long before the actual crime is committed and continues long after a sentence has been served.

After all, in most cases offenders acquire criminal tendencies long before they take action. Furthermore, they will be expected to reintegrate into society at some point, and unless we take steps to ensure that the root causes of their behaviours are addressed, we can be certain that youth criminals will evolve into adult criminals.

Let us take a moment and examine what is actually in Bill C-4. The legislation proposes altering the pretrial detention rules to make it simpler for judges to keep violent or repeat offenders in custody prior to trial; adding specific deterrents to the sentencing principles for youth; expanding the definition of what constitutes a violent offence; allowing for more serious sentences for youth with a pattern of extrajudicial sanctions or so-called repeat offenders; requiring the consideration of adult sentences by provincial crown prosecutors for youth 14 and older who commit serious offences, like murder, attempted murder and aggravated sexual assault; and requiring courts to consider lifting publication bans on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences even when youth sentences are applied.

Some of these things are potentially positive and are at least worth supporting so this bill can go to committee for further study.

My biggest concerns relate to what is missing from this legislation. It would seem that the government's answer to youth crime is to lock the offender up and hope the future takes care of itself. Well, we know that does not happen, because sooner or later they have to get out, and if we have not tried to rehabilitate them while they were in a detention centre or a jail, then they are going to come out worse than when they went in. People can argue with that, but there are all kinds of studies that show that.

I fear this is a shortsighted strategy that will quickly lead to increased rates of recidivism. The youth criminal justice system in Canada must protect society, punish the offender and seek to rehabilitate whenever possible.

Bill C-4 recognizes the first two elements of this criterion but does nothing to enhance or to recognize what is potentially the most important element. What is the government planning to do to address poverty and homelessness in our largest cities? What is the government planning to do to combat domestic violence and violence against women? What is the government planning to do to tackle anger and money management issues? What is it going to do to provide hope and opportunity for many of our young people who feel there is no hope and no opportunity for them?

It might seem as though I am throwing out a laundry list of things I would like to see, but in fact I believe that poverty, homelessness, despair, anger and desensitization to certain negative activities contribute to crime later in life. I go right back to “If you don't respect me, I don't respect you, so your life means nothing”, the quote I referred to from that young man I had spoken to some years back.

We know now that children who do not have support in their formative years are more likely to gravitate to other support networks. We also know that in some cases that support network becomes a gang.

We also know that children who witness repeated bouts of spousal abuse and violence can come to accept that as appropriate behaviour, a behaviour that leads to more ominous activities as the children grow.

I would never suggest that everyone living in poverty is a criminal in waiting. I actually believe that every child represents untapped potential and hope for the future.

Every child is a doctor in waiting, a lawyer in waiting or a scientist of tomorrow, and every child could be our next great leader. Because of this belief, I want to make sure we do not just focus our attention on punishing those who go astray. We need to work together to ensure all children have the opportunity to reach their full potential, even if they veer from the path briefly before they reach adulthood.

I am going to cast my vote in favour of Bill C-4, but I want to be clear that the work is just beginning. We need to get this one right. The families of Reena Virk, Jane Creba, Jason Lang and Jordan Manners and countless other Canadians have every right to expect that we get this one right and we make the changes that are necessary to ensure the safety of our society, but also make the opportunities for the many young people who need that encouragement to move forward.

The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has indicated, I know we have some visitors who we are looking forward to seeing in the chamber shortly, so I will keep this brief as well.

When we get to government orders, following the visit, I will call Bill C-4, Sébastien's law, which proposes to protect the public from violent young offenders. Following Bill C-4, we will call Bill C-13, fairness for military families.

We will continue with that business tomorrow.

Next week it would be my intention to begin second reading debate on Bill C-11, the balanced refugee reform act, Bill C-10, Senate term limits and Bill C-12, democratic representation.

Next Wednesday, April 28, shall be an allotted day.

As for the take note debate, that is under advisement.

Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today and debating Bill C-5, to which the Bloc Québécois objects.

Before continuing, I would like to mention a practice to which this government increasingly resorts, even though it verges on the grotesque. The Conservatives have developed a habit of giving ridiculous names to bills instead of focusing on the legal nature of the bills. Our parliamentary tradition is to identify the real purpose of a bill, but the Conservatives are increasingly giving them subjective names in order to sway people's opinion.

People watching us on television can see what we are discussing today at the bottom of the screen. It is the Keeping Canadians Safe Act. The government is trying to imply that people who oppose Bill C-5 are also opposed to keeping Canadians safe. It is totally ridiculous.

There are more examples of this increasingly common practice in other items on today’s agenda, for instance Bill C-13, the Fairness for Military Families Act. I do not want to go into this bill right now but there is obviously already a very subjective twist in the title. We also have Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law. It is even more pathetic because they are trying to take advantage of our horror at the type of tragedy that befell young Sébastien, who was killed in battle. The title implies that anyone who honours Sébastien’s memory should support the bill and anyone who dares to oppose it is against honouring his memory. It is totally absurd.

We saw it as well in the budget. They talked about an act to stimulate economic activity in Canada, or some other aberration of the kind. Another Conservative bill was called the trafficking of minors act, even though the word trafficking did not appear anywhere in the bill. Honestly.

This practice must stop. I do not know whether the bill before us today will go to committee, or if the others will, but I hope the committees that study them will be more objective and will give them names that reflect the legal reality. Today, for example, we are discussing the International Transfer of Offenders Act. That is the real name of the act. People can agree or not agree, but that is what this bill is really about.

If this practice continues, things will get absolutely absurd. There will be a bill to make Canadians happy or put them in good shape and good health or some fine bill to make things better. This does not make sense and should stop. I find this practice, which comes to us from the United States, particularly detestable.

Members may well remember George W. Bush introducing the Patriot Act after the attacks of September 11. It was anti-terrorist legislation and the purpose was to imply to the senators and representatives voting on it that if they were opposed, they were not patriots.

This completely subverts the debate and, most of all, insults our intelligence. It implies that people are not smart enough to discuss the heart of the issue. They think they are going to simplify things by calling it the Keeping Canadians Safe Act and everybody will be in favour because it is about the safety of Canadians.

This is a dangerous gamble on the part of the Conservative government. I would rather appeal to the intelligence of people. I think we can discuss bills just fine without giving them grotesque names.

It starts as the Keeping Canadians Safe Act.

In future, if Parliament wanted to amend this legislation it would have to call it an act to keep Canadians even safer than the Keeping Canadians Safe Act currently does. You can see where this is going. It is utterly ridiculous.

I want to come back to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act. The issue before us is the following. Under the current International Transfer of Offenders Act, what factors does the minister have to consider in determining whether to transfer a Canadian sentenced abroad to Canada or to transfer an American sentenced in Canada to the United States? I am giving the United States as an example, but obviously this applies to all countries.

The current legislation has a certain number of factors that the minister must take into account. He must, for example, take into account the person's health. He must ask himself whether the foreign prison system satisfies recognized principles of basic justice and rights for all. Has this system violated the basic rights of an individual and does it represent a risk to the individual's health and safety? For instance, has the individual been handed over for torture?

This is already in the act, but the government wants to make a change. The act would say that the minister, instead of having to consider all these factors, could consider them, but is not required to. Just imagine. He can look into whether the person incarcerated abroad is being tortured. He might like to know that, but then again he might not. Are the basic rights of the person incarcerated abroad being violated? The Conservatives may or may not be interested. They want the minister to have more discretionary power.

The Bloc Québécois obviously has serious reservations about this. We are already aware of the government's contempt for the rule of law and its contempt for our basic principles of natural justice. Leaving aside the government currently in power, what about a future government? We have to stick to the rule of law in place.

I will digress for a moment. This debate might seem a bit technical for many people at home, but there is something even more fundamental, which is our sense of justice. Do we want to continue to defend the rule of law and the system of natural justice? It is not easy; it is an ongoing battle, and it is intellectually challenging, since it is not necessarily what comes naturally for people.

Do we want to go back in time, to systems that slowly but surely become more and more arbitrary, subjective and inconsistent? Today's legal systems are sometimes complex. The public often believes that the system is costly and complicated and does not always work well. But if we look at the evolution of humanity, we have made incredible progress compared to what was done during medieval times.

People may tell me that is quite a stretch, but I think it is important to keep that perspective. In medieval times, people were tortured and imprisoned for no reason. The king made the decisions, and it was summary justice. Later, people realized that this did not help control crime, that human beings were too intelligent for it, and that we should develop systems to ensure independent justice with effective results.

At the time when certain countries first banned torture, it was not even on humanitarian grounds. They believed that if someone was tortured in order to get them to admit something, that person would always end up saying what the torturer wanted to hear. That is clear. If we want to convict someone, we can torture them and they will incriminate themselves. Does that really serve justice? Of course not.

Our western societies and those elsewhere in the world have developed a rule of law based on numerous principles. I will not list them all, but I will talk about those that I believe to be important.

First, there is the presumption of innocence. According to this principle, we assume that a person is innocent. It is too easy to accuse someone without any proof, to tarnish his reputation and interfere with his rights. We believe a person to be innocent until proven guilty, which is not easy. It tends to go against human nature. When a reprehensible and sordid murder has been committed and the police arrest someone, we want that person to go to jail and suffer. We say that we can sense that he is guilty.

A system has been put in place to curb that tendency and consider a person to be innocent until proven guilty.

The Canadian system also provides for the possibility of rehabilitation, which is important, and even fundamental. If we did not believe that a person can be rehabilitated, why would we hand out sentences other than life in prison? If we believe that someone will be a criminal their entire life, why release them? Our laws allow for different prison terms because we believe that a person can be rehabilitated at some point. We try to gauge that.

We believe that everyone has the same rights. The Conservative government often attacks this principle with an extremely unhealthy populism by saying that the opposition members—the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the NDP—are defending criminals. We are not defending criminals but defending fundamental rights and the fact that everyone should have the same rights. If they are not the same for everyone, then they are no longer fundamental rights. Defending the fundamental rights of a murderer is never very popular. However, fundamental and universal rights apply to everyone, even murderers and people who commit the most horrific crimes.

Under the rule of law, everyone is entitled to a fair trial before an unbiased judge or jury, in which the various parties have an equal opportunity to prove the guilt or innocence of the individual in question. These principles seem rather basic, but the government is undermining them more and more by meddling with the rule of law.

We believe that the powers of the executive branch and the judiciary should be kept separate. It is not up to us as elected officials, and especially not to ministers who are biased and have their own convictions, to determine who should be convicted or acquitted based on the law. Parliamentarians pass laws, but it is the judges and the judicial system that, separately, must enforce legislation and determine who has obeyed and who has disobeyed. Lastly, there must be a mechanism to correct cases of wrongful conviction.

Bill C-5 has only a few clauses. It might seem insignificant, but it could attack the principles I just talked about and could represent a considerable step back.

I have three examples.

Let us consider the case of Maher Arar. Hon. members will recall that this Canadian was deported on the strength of false information obtained by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada's secret service. He was tortured abroad and finally returned home. A commission on the Arar affair completely exonerated Mr. Arar, proving that he had no connection with terrorism. The Canadian government did not apply the principle of the presumption of innocence in Mr. Arar's case. He did not get a fair trial. The separation of the judiciary and the executive was not maintained in his case. In fact, it was the executive that authorized his deportation, first to the United States and then to Syria. Today, the government is asking us to give it even more power. Is it so that the government can attack our system of natural justice even more?

Let us consider the case of Allen Smith, who was convicted of a series of murders in the United States. Admittedly, Mr. Smith is no choirboy, and defending him is not a very popular thing to do. But even without defending Allen Smith, we can defend people's basic rights. In Canada, we believe, or at least it is the position of this Parliament, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment that goes against our belief in the right to life. If this is true in Canada, then it is also true in the United States. It would therefore be fair to ask the Americans to give this Canadian citizen the same treatment he would receive here, which would mean commuting his death sentence to life in prison. But the Conservative government could not care less about the principle of the rule of law, where everyone enjoys the same rights, or the principle of separation of the executive and the judiciary.

When questioned in the House of Commons, the government answered that, in its opinion, the crimes committed were very serious and that, therefore, it would not intervene. Since when is it up to the minister to assess the seriousness of the crime? That is something new in our system and it is deplorable. It is not up to the minister to make that assessment, but up to the courts, which must establish whether or not the person is guilty and decide on the seriousness of the crime and the appropriate punishment. Furthermore, it is the House that passes the laws to punish various crimes. It is not the minister who decides whether or not to apply them.

In the case of Omar Khadr, it is even worse. Without exception, all the principles I mentioned previously have been violated. Omar Khadr is a child soldier who was arrested seven years ago and is still imprisoned by the Americans. He has not yet been put on trial. He is accused of killing American soldiers and, despite a Supreme Court decision, the government refuses to ask for his return to Canada.

There is obviously no presumption of innocence in his case. Nor does he have equal rights. His cruel treatment, bordering on torture, has been contracted out to the United States. He has not had a fair trial after seven years of imprisonment. There is no separation between the executive and the judiciary. The government has told the House that, in its opinion, the crimes are serious and therefore it has decided not to intervene, as though it was up to the minister to decide. The possibility of judicial error was not examined in the least. The government absolutely does not want to hear about the possibility of rehabilitation if—I did say if—Omar Khadr is found guilty.

Since I mentioned the possibility of rehabilitation, I would like to close by saying that we have to keep in mind one thing about this bill: if this bill is passed, the number of Canadians serving sentences abroad will increase. These Canadians, once they have served their sentences, will return here and will not be ready to be reintegrated into society. In many cases, it would be better to return them to Canada and have them serve their sentences here so that they are in a better position to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

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

I agree with you, Mr. Chair.

I have been told that, next week, the schedule in the House will focus on democratic reform for the whole week. That is what we were told about 15 minutes ago. The study of Bill C-4, that clearly we want to debate, will be postponed to the following week. So we would have next week to hear witnesses, the four hours needed and possibly the following Tuesday. Unless you are telling us that something else is coming up—but, from the way you were talking earlier, there is nothing else on the agenda—it looks like those bills will not be debated next week, but the following one. So we have time to hear witnesses.

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

I won't conceal the fact that we would very much like to have them. You'll no doubt be coming back because very soon we'll be studying Bill C-4, the bill to amend the Young Offenders Act.

This isn't clear. Let's go to page 5 of your document, which states the following: “Youth (12 to 17 years) accused of gang-related homicides, Canada, 1998-2008”. As I am a criminal defence lawyer, I don't like the word “accused”. What do you mean by that expression? Where does the word “accused” come from?

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

You mean Bill C-4.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to my hon. colleague, the House leader of the official opposition, as to the business of the House for the remainder of this week and into next week.

Today I hope to conclude the debate at second reading of Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act. The budget implementation act is a very important legislation. We have heard a lot of debate about it in the Chamber. I am very pleased that we are getting our message out about all the good things we are doing to help sustain jobs and create new jobs in our country.

The next bill I intend to call following Bill C-9 is Bill C-5, the international transfer of offenders act.

Next week we will continue with the business of this week with the addition of Bill C-4, Sébastien's law, and Bill C-13, fairness for military families act.

Tuesday, April 20, next week, shall be an allotted day.

As for the hon. opposition House leader's inquiry about specific pieces of legislation, all I would ask is that he be patient. We are bringing forward a lot of legislation. All of it is excellent legislation that I know he can hardly wait to support.

Justice

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at least five groups in Quebec have expressed serious concerns about Bill C-4 regarding young offenders. Quebec's Commission des droits de la personne, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, the Comité en droit de la jeunesse of the Barreau du Québec, the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative, and the Association des centres jeunesse have not taken well to the government's plan and have identified some serious flaws.

Will the government respect the consensus in Quebec and amend its bill to reflect the Quebec model of rehabilitation, which has been so successful for us year after year?

[William Trudell]

I hope that when you are dealing with Bill C-4 and other proposed legislation that deals with youth justice, you take up a suggestion that I made some time ago that you hear from judges in camera who deal with these issues, because they're the best ones who can tell you about what they're dealing with, in front of you.

Generically, they can't vote for you until they're a certain age. They can't drive a motor vehicle until they're a certain age. There are rules built into society, and we make a decision, arbitrarily, that under a certain age is a child. They do not have the same level of development, maturity, or discipline. Some of them have more discipline than some people my age, I suppose. We have to recognize that these people are children, and there's nothing wrong with saying they're children, because do you know what? If you had a 20-year-old child and they were going off someplace and you didn't know where they were going, you'd want to know, because you don't think they're equipped yet to deal with...and make decisions.

We treat them differently because they are different. They have different rights. They don't have as many rights as adults do. The bottom line is that what they don't have is the life experience to make the proper decisions. Most kids are into immediate gratification. The Internet is beamed at them; there is Facebook, if they can afford it--all of the things we throw at them. If there's nobody there to say, “Wait a minute, what are you watching on television, do you understand this”....

Kids--and we've chosen the age of 18--don't have the discipline to stop and say, “I'm going to look at this two years from now.” We talked about this before. Kids who are in a motor vehicle getting ready to rev at a stop sign are not thinking about a mandatory minimum. That's not what they're thinking about. They're not thinking that far. They don't have the discipline. They're looking for immediate gratification, which is part of youth, and what we talked about once before is that sometimes you can see some of the measures that are proposed as immediate gratification, from a legislative point of view. They're making a statement.

The best people who can deal with and help you make a decision about youth are the judges who deal with them every day, and I really urge you to get some of these judges in camera to help you with what works and what doesn't. You're going to hear some judges say, “There are some bad kids who come in front of us”, but you're also going to hear judges tell you stories that are going to make your blood curdle at some of the situations these kids find themselves in that they have no power over.

[Brian Henry]

Thank you.

I wish I was familiar with Bill C-4, but I'm not. That being said, I completely agree that there are concrete steps that can be taken with young people to ensure prevention, to ensure that they don't get to the next stage, which is organized crime. If you don't intervene when they're a young person, that's eventually where they'll evolve to.

I'm happy to say that there are a number of concrete steps we can take within the community that would lead to prevention. One of the things we've been able to do very successfully within the Malvern and Scarborough communities is to empower the neighbourhoods themselves. That old cliché, “it takes a village to raise a child”, is very, very true, especially within the context of the communities. As I mentioned before, there are so many fathers missing and so many single parents who are not able to cope.

Another thing you touched on was the organizations that are doing critical work. There's Tropicana, Hoodlinc Youth Organization, of course, and there's Operation Springboard. There are a number of organizations within the GTA that are doing critical work in terms of prevention.

The Safe Schools Act in Ontario has been referred to on a number of occasions as the gang recruitment act. We see young people coming through the system who are different from what teachers and school administrative staff are used to dealing with. They need different learning strategies. As these learning strategies are not available to school administration staff and to schools, these young people end up in the community disengaged from school.

We need to create alternative school models that specifically address the needs of young people coming out of at-risk, high-risk, communities. In terms of successes, we currently have a ROSE program—real opportunity for success in education—which is an alternative school model that's done in collaboration with the Toronto Catholic District School Board. We see major successes from this model. I'd say 9 out of every 10 kids who come through there are able to graduate from high school. As a matter of fact, the only time we lose young people in this school is to prison or death.

From my standpoint, there are a number of things that an individual or organization can do, on a daily basis, that can lead to the betterment of a young person's life and the prevention of them getting mixed up in the criminal justice system. These are simple things. You need to act like a parent, play a parental role, where you ensure that young people get a meal in the morning. I've seen young people in my neighbourhood who have gone entire school days without having a meal to eat. That's the simple act of providing a meal for them in the morning.

Providing structure has helped a lot of young people within my community who don't feel they can accomplish anything. The history of failure that they've gone through in their lives persists today. The can-do attitude is simply not there. They don't believe they can do anything positive.

You, as an individual or an organization, can get out there, help them get their driver's licence, get enrolled in school, help them if they have a case before the criminal justice system, help them get a lawyer to negotiate that legal process. It's the simple things. Ensure that there's a homework club and that they go to the homework club; ensure that there are recreational and social activities after school. Keep them off the streets, and keep them engaged in a positive way.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you. I suggest that you put your earphones on.

I am not going to speak to you as a lawyer, because I think there are enough of them around the table. I am going to speak to you as an MP who has worked with organizations in my riding for years, for 16 years now.

In particular, I work with the neighbourhood police. I live outside the urban areas, and in my opinion this police service does an extraordinary job. They manage to get close to young people and they even know them by their first names and trust them. That trust becomes mutual. The neighbourhood police are then able to do preventive work with the young people.

In my opinion, we cannot neglect prevention. We absolutely have to work on prevention with young people, otherwise we won't succeed. When young people get older and join street gangs or criminal groups, it is often because they are left to their own devices, they no longer have families and they admire the people who make a lot of money and commit crimes. These young people are not necessarily responsible. Of course I am not talking about the older ones and repeat offenders.

I would like to ask you a few questions. Are there organizations in Toronto that do prevention and that work with that objective? There are in Quebec. Do you hear much about home invasions here? Where I live, that crime is fairly widespread and there is a lot of talk about it. Seniors are wary of young people and think they too are a criminal group, a group organized against seniors.

How does it work, exactly? What more could be done? Do you think that Bill C-4 is a solution? If not, can something else be done to help our community move forward in this regard?

I will give you the floor. Mr. Henry, I'll let you speak first.

[Graeme Norton]

In brief, that's my assessment of that one.

On the civil forfeiture issue, this is something we've had a problem with for quite some time. It is, as you've mentioned, the lower standard of proof, the balance of probabilities. We were involved in the Chatterjee case, which went up to the Supreme Court of Canada, where they did endorse the Ontario legislation and found it to be constitutional. But in our view, the standard of balance of probabilities is too low for what is effectively something comparable to a criminal sanction to be taken against a person.

When you're dealing with potentially taking enormous sums of money from somebody or enormous sums of property, in our view there needs to be something higher demonstrated than simply a balance of probabilities case that those are in fact the proceeds of crime.

Number three, since I am proceeding very quickly here, is Bill C-4. We have another chance to thoroughly vet and review the provisions of Bill C-4. Our general position is that youth are less culpable for their crimes than adults--that's a rule that courts have generally accepted--and they need to be treated differently in the justice system.

In terms of how Bill C-4 does or doesn't do that, I'm not in a position to comment completely. I know it has raised the issue of greater reporting of names and that type of thing. I'm not sure exactly what that would advance, but I'd want to take a closer look at the legislation and see exactly what's being proposed.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks to the witnesses for coming this morning. As usual we are learning a lot, and we continue to do so. Thank you for that.

Mr. Trudell, I was expecting sort of the same thing: that whatever we're doing in government is wrong, it won't pass the charter test, you're against it, and stay with the status quo. I'm glad you went off into a different area, because it's an area that I think is very important.

I agree with some of the things you mentioned, such as collaboration, the need for police forces to collaborate, the need for the folks in the justice envelope—judges, lawyers, crown attorneys, and police officers—to continue their discussion. I think that's what you mean by collaboration.

You went further and talked about collaboration among all the different levels within the community. Thank you for that, because I think that's the way we get things done--from the ground up, as it were--instead of having the so-called experts come to give us the philosophical reasons why we shouldn't do something. In the end it's the people who live it every day—that's why I believe Mr. Henry is here—who have the best information and sometimes the best solutions.

I wonder, Mr. Trudell, if you and perhaps Mr. Henry would comment on whether these things are happening. I'm almost positive they are. I listen to CFRB, so I know some of the things that are occurring in the Scarborough area. And things are improving, by the way.

Mr. Trudell, picking up on your theme, we very recently had the Minister of Justice come to a round table in Northumberland County on public safety and justice issues. We heard from a mix of all the police departments in the area, the victims groups, the police services board, the community policing committee, and representatives of youth--youth groups. The theme was almost identical right across the board.

You say we need to find out what they're thinking. When it came to proceeds of crime, the local police said we needed the proceeds of crime that occur in our community to come back to the police in that community, perhaps through the municipal government, so they can use them for a broad range of crime prevention programs and victims' assistance groups. So I wonder if you'd comment on whether you think that's appropriate, and whether Mr. Henry thinks that's appropriate.

They also talked about the need for more investment in youth anti-crime and anti-drug strategies. At the same time, they said that for those who are repeat offenders there needs to be more accounting. So we went from restorative justice that is happening in that community, which I think really works.... As we know, it started in New Zealand with the Maori Indians and worked its way up into our justice system. It works very well, in my view. But for the worst of the worst--the people who are captured under Bill C-4--that doesn't deal with first or even second offences. That piece of legislation deals with somebody who's been through the system so many times and continues with serious offences, usually bodily injury offences. So we're not dealing with that group.

When it comes to collaboration, as I left the policing background.... As a result of the Bernardo series of murders, we learned the reason why there was a successful conclusion to the investigation. Police forces were previously operating in silos and weren't sharing information, so the joint force operations that currently occur.... I would suggest, Mr. Trudell, that collaboration is occurring even more and better all the time, even internationally.

So I've hit on an eclectic mix of things. I wonder if you can make some short comments on it, and leave sufficient time for Mr. Henry to discuss how his community deals with the police.

Is there a community policing group there that collaborates with the police to look at these socio-economic as well as social justice...?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming. I'm very interested in Mr. Henry's statements. I think we should all take a turn at that. I'll save the second round of questioning from our team for that very interesting stuff.

But in the first round, I'd like to ask both Mr. Trudell and Mr. Norton the same questions. I'd summarize it by saying that in their realm of charter protection and civil liberties protections, balanced with society's need to have public safety—which is something that every member of this committee would agree with, the need to have public safety, security—there seem to be some themes coming from these hearings that I think everybody could agree with. Mr. Trudell's comments on collaboration and the working of the forces together—community forces, police forces, prosecutorial, etc.—hits home very much. It's a way to make things more effective.

I think what we're also hearing from law enforcement officials is the need to be more surgical in the tooling up of how to combat needs. It's no longer the idea, as a municipal council might think, of having a policeman walking the beat. It's all marketplace politics. But what we hear is that we need the resources directed to specific problem-oriented policing types of deals, and that's how we can help as a parliament.

In that regard I want to ask about three areas. One is any legislation that might compel telecommunications companies, ISP providers, and device manufacturers to use devices that are susceptible to interception. I take very seriously what you both say about the need to have judicial oversight and protection of privacy rights, but right now there are devices used in organized crime that can't even be intercepted. The judge can make an order, but it's an order that goes into the ether. So I want to know your opinion on whether you think that's safeguarded if there are judicial protections.

The second aspect is forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. Many provinces are doing great work in that, and we learned in Vancouver that if you take the money out of the system, sometimes that's what organized crime is all about. It's very much about taking the money out of the system. In 2005, the Liberal government reversed the onus on the balance of probabilities to show why something shouldn't be forfeited. I wonder how far you think is too far in going after proceeds of crime, before a finding of guilt, pending or during a trial.

The final aspect, if you have time, is that as Bill C-4 rears its head, regarding amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we're talking about youth being—and I'm in agreement—the pawns in many organized crime activities. Yet they are being used, and some of the provisions are carefully drafted to attack the organized crime units that are using these pawns, by the lifting of publication bans on the names of some of these youths and by doing extrajudicial measures to get at the problem.

I want to know the civil liberties and charter implications of those three areas.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, youth centres in Quebec remind us that the Quebec model, based on the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders, is an exemplary model cited around the world. Social workers and lawyers agree. Yet Bill C-4 goes against Quebec's approach and promotes repression, denunciation, deterrence and exemplary sentences.

Will the government amend its bill and respect Quebec's rehabilitation model?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.

Good afternoon, Mr. Sims.

I would like to start off with a brief comment. Very often, we look at the statistics that are provided to us to help us assess bills, such as the young offenders measure we want to bring in.

I will give you an example. In Quebec, there is a fellow by the name of Vincent Lacroix who defrauded 9,200 people. The statistics will show just a single crime; the 9,200 people will not be represented. In the case of Earl Jones, 150 people were defrauded, and only one person will be mentioned. In the case of young offenders, in Quebec—which I know especially well—all of the cases are not reported. I do not want to know the name; I want to know the crime that was committed to see if progress is being made in society, and so forth. That is important; nothing is reported, and Statistics Canada cannot report on the total number.

In Quebec, between 125 and 175 people disappear every year, and 41% of those are found, while 59% are not, such as Cédrika Provencher. We do not know whether she was killed or raped; we do not know anything. There is no possibility of finding information that can help us.

I am coming to my next question. I am very proud of the bill that we are introducing. Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, includes amendments for violent repeat offenders—in Quebec, it is for youth 16 and 17 years of age—who have committed irreparable harm, in other words, murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and serious violence.

You mentioned it a bit earlier, but how do you plan to allow the judge... This week, youth advocacy groups in Quebec said it was a good idea for the judge to know what had happened in the past. Do you plan to establish a link with the provinces to make it possible to obtain as much information as possible so that the judge can make a proper ruling, because, ultimately, it is the judge who decides?

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

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today on Bill C-4, a bill to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is certainly an issue which is of concern and interest across Canada.

One thing that concerns me, though, is that when we hear the Conservatives talk about young people, most of the time it is about putting them in jail. My experience with many young people in my riding of Halifax West is very different and very positive. I think most people in this chamber would recognize that most of their experiences with youth have been positive, I hope.

For instance, I recently attended the Bedford Lions Speak Out in my riding where seven or eight high school students spoke extremely well, which made it difficult for the judges. I was not a judge but I was asked to ask questions of the students after they had made their speeches to help make it a little more challenging for them. These were young leaders in the community who offered arguments and advocated that other young people should be more involved in the community and in volunteerism. These were terrific young people.

My son is a Scout and I went with his Scout troop on a winter camping trip on one of the coldest Saturday nights of February. It has been a mild winter but it was about minus 20° that night, if I recall correctly. I spent a couple of hours on the Saturday morning with them, helping them set up and taking some pictures of them. I was glad not to have to stay too much longer because it was cold. Sure, I was concerned about my son, but he was well-equipped, very happy and enjoyed it thoroughly. There again was a group of young people doing good things.

The Scout movement is involved in setting goals. My son wants to be a chief Scout, for example, which is an important goal and there are steps one works at toward that. That is the kind of activity in which we want to see young people involved. We should want to see more encouragement of that kind of activity. They have positive role models involved, which is very important because it is so often lacking which is why young people get involved in criminal activities. This is part of the heart of the problem. We need to examine the reasons why young people sometime get into trouble. They often do not have mentors or positive role models. They often have terrible home lives because they are living in poverty. We need to examine that.

In terms of other positive examples, I recently attended the launch of the Girls Soar Physical Activity Week. We saw some terrific young people from a school in my riding. In fact, I saw a young runner from the riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, my colleague's riding, who is on the national team and is a tremendous young role model.

There are so many examples of young people doing good things, I would like to see the Conservative government thinking about them a little more and thinking about how we get more young people to be like that. We need to deal with the issues of youth crime in a way that says that part of the solution here is to recognize the causes of these crimes and what is behind these problems, and then try to address them more effectively.

People in my province have and have had a great interest in this issue for some years, particularly following, which I know my colleague from West Nova will recall, the tragic death of a well-liked teacher named Theresa McEvoy. Justice Merlin Nunn was appointed by the provincial government to do a study and he did an excellent examination into the situation that led to her death by a young offender, 16-year-old Archie Billard. It was a very sad case but Justice Nunn did an excellent job and his report was highly regarded across the province.

It is important to look at the history of this situation. Before the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Canada at one time had one of the highest rates of incarceration of young people in the world. We should consider whether that will really work and whether that is really the answer. The government wants to incarcerate more and more people and wants to have more prisons at great expense but is not willing to put the money into things that will reduce poverty, and that is the concern.

The idea of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in many parts, was to deal appropriately with young people, to deal with people who were not violent offenders in a way that is appropriate. There is no question that, as Justice Nunn recommended, there needs to be some changes to the act.

This is very important, which is why I brought forward a bill. I had great assistance from the lawyer for the McEvoy family, Hugh Wright, a lawyer in Halifax who kindly worked hard and drafted the bill that I introduced to try to implement the recommendations of Justice Nunn.

I am pleased to see in this bill some of the elements of what I was proposing, but I do not see others. I see other elements that were not at all recommended by Justice Nunn, which concern me. I want to talk about this issue, because it seems to me that the government has chosen to cherry-pick from the Nunn report the kinds of things that suited its own ideology and reject those that did not. It is a bit like its attitude toward evidence generally, and I will talk about that some more.

The Nunn report has been out for several years now, and it is curious to me that it has taken so long for the government to come forward with a response to it. We had Bill C-25 introduced in the last Parliament, but the government did nothing to move it forward. That is so often the case with so many of its so-called tough on crime bills. It talked about them a lot, but it did not actually take action to move those bills forward. It would not even introduce them sometimes for debate, which is curious and bizarre to me.

By the way, if this bill passes second reading and does go to committee, I hope that Justice Nunn will be asked to appear at committee to give his expert advice. I think he is very knowledgeable and has done a very thorough review.

There are some good things in this bill. There are numerous amendments to the act and the youth justice regime as a whole, including changes to the general sentencing principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Other amendments include changes to the definitions of terms such as “violent offence” and provisions relating to publication bans and repeat offenders.

I think it would be worthwhile for the House to hear some of the words that Justice Nunn wrote in his report on the McEvoy case, because they are important to knowing the background of this situation and what is happening in youth crime in Canada and what the response to it should be. He said:

[I]t is important to state that not one of the parties with standing took exception to the philosophy behind the act or to the majority of its provisions. Rather, they identified a number of sections causing concern and recommended changes.

He further said:

I can categorically state that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is legislation that provides an intelligent, modern, and advanced approach to dealing with youths involved in criminal activities. Canada is now far ahead of other countries in its treatment of youth in conflict with the law—

He went on to say:

This is not to say that there are not those who are opposed to the [Youth Criminal Justice Act], just as there were those opposed to the previous acts, the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act. Many of these critics believe that jail is the answer: “There they'll learn the errors of their ways.” These critics pay little attention to contrary evidence, nor do they understand that with young persons jail for the terms they recommend does not correct or rehabilitate, but rather often turns out a person whose behaviour is much worse than it was. Others espouse the vengeful adage “adult crime—adult time,” paying no attention to the fact that it is a youth crime and not an adult crime.

He continued:

Such an attitude is in direct conflict with modern approaches to treating criminal behaviour. Most of the adherents of these views refuse to accept that youth should be treated differently and separately from any adult system.

Nevertheless, they are entitled to the views and opinions they express. Unfortunately, in the present state of our youth criminal justice system, they are unable to make any contribution to reform even when some reform is not only reasonable but desirable.

He went on to say on page 230 of his report:

The witnesses and counsel for all parties in this inquiry have indicated full support for the aims and goals of the act while recognizing, at the same time, a need for a number of amendments to give flexibility to the courts in dealing with repeat offenders, primarily by opening a door to pre-trial custody and enlarging the gateways to custody.

He went on to say:

I cannot overestimate the importance of taking a balanced approach. Parts of the [Youth Criminal Justice Act] must be changed in order to create a workable and effective approach to handling repeat offenders in a manner based upon protection of the public as a primary concern, as well as providing a means to step in to halt unacceptable criminal behaviour in a timely manner. This is not an option. It is critical.

Here is the last quotation I will provide from him, from page 233 of his report:

[I] must make it absolutely clear and not open to question that all the witnesses I heard—police, prosecutors, defence counsel, and experts—agree with and support the aims and intent of the act. They accept it as a vast improvement over the previous legislation.

Thus I think it is important that as we examine this bill and examine what should be done to change the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we consider those thoughts and the need not just to change it but also to get it right. We need to be thoughtful about this. We need to provide a balanced approach and be smart on crime and on youth crime in this case.

I have serious concerns about this particular bill, which I hope will be addressed in committee, if in fact it gets to committee. These are sweeping changes to the act and some elements of the bill seem to favour punishment more than rehabilitation.

The government has done virtually nothing to ensure that youth do not get into the justice system in the first place, and that is a concern. What we have seen instead are cuts to anti-poverty programs and child care, and a lack of funding for aboriginal communities, as we would have had in the Kelowna accord, et cetera.

I also believe that youth must be treated differently from adults, and that is an important consideration. The Canadian justice system has recognized for decades that while their crimes may be similar, we need to treat youth differently from adults. The Conservative Party has never held that view.

It reminds me of the fact that children at age 14 have brains that are not fully developed; their brains are still developing and changing. I think anybody who has been a parent of a 13- or 14-year-old ought to be aware of it. Maybe some of us have forgotten that, but young people are terrific. My son is 13 and he is terrific, but there is no question that he is still growing and learning and that his thinking will change in the coming years. It is important to remember that when we think about how to deal with these situations.

In the past, the Conservatives and the Reformers before them have fought to reduce the barriers between youth and adult offenders. In fact, during the last election they said they wanted to put 14-year-olds into our prison system, institutions with hardened adult prisoners. Why would we put a 14-year-old in a prison, the same place as murderers, rapists and gang members, if our intention is not to make them better at crime and more hardened criminals?

There are weaknesses in this bill. Parts of it are poorly drafted. I suspect it may be the result of the fact this really comes from government ideology, as opposed to the bill being drafted by the department, because it usually produces very high quality legislation.

However, there are good provisions in it and I want to give credit where credit is due. For example, the bill would make it mandatory that no youth, regardless of their crime, would spend time in an adult institution. We need to see what the government will do to ensure that the provinces have the capacity to deal with this provision and be able to comply with it. I think we know the government recognizes that it could not get away with what it was suggesting in the last election, that is, putting young people in the same place as adult criminals. At any rate, I am pleased to see this has been modified and is an important provision in the bill.

Another example is the provision that allows courts in sentencing to lift a ban on publication of the accused or convicted person's name. I would hope this would happen rarely, not often, but I can personally see that this could be needed in exceptional cases and would be helpful in protecting the public. That is my own view.

Let me talk for a moment about some of the recommendations in particular that Justice Nunn made and how this bill responds to them. I think he made some 36 recommendations. Some of them related to the provincial justice system, the system for youth incarceration and so forth, and a certain number of them related to federal legislation. I am going to talk in particular about those that relate to the bill we are talking about today.

Recommendation 20 said:

The Province should advocate that the federal government amend the “Declaration of Principle” in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to add a clause indicating that protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act.

The government has certainly made the protection of the public a major part of this act now, but it has also gone far beyond what Justice Nunn recommended. My feeling is that what the government has done in this bill is in fact a rejection of the recommendation I just read. Justice Nunn made it very clear that it was important to be balanced in how this was done and he wanted this to be just one of the principles, because the other principles were still important. The government has made it the overriding principle, and that is a concern.

In recommendation 21, he said:

The Province should advocate that the federal government amend the definition of “violent offence” in section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to include conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person.

I am pleased to see that the government has done this in section 3(c) of this bill.

In recommendation 22, Justice Nunn said:

The Province should advocate that the federal government amend section 39(1)(c) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act so that the requirement for a demonstrated “pattern of findings of guilt” is changed to “a pattern of offences,” or similar wording, with the goal that both a young person’s prior findings of guilt and pending charges are to be considered when determining the appropriateness of pre-trial detention.

In this case, in clause 8 of the bill, the government has resorted to the phrase “either extrajudicial sanctions or of findings of guilt or of both”. Instead of looking at what the pattern of offences was, it has talked about them quite differently with the terms, “extrajudicial sanctions”. It will be interesting to have a discussion about what that would mean.

Does it mean that if a police officer stops a young person and reprimands them or drives them home for some reason, or whatever, that would be an extrajudicial sanction? It is not clear to me, and I am a little concerned that this particular provision might be subject to a charter challenge, because it may bring in things where there has not been due process. Obviously, we should be careful of that because we want to have laws that are actually going to work and not be overturned by courts. Most of us would prefer that we designed these laws and determined what they should be here in Parliament.

In recommendation 25, Justice Nunn said:

The Province should advocate that the federal government amend section 31(6) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to remove the requirement of a new bail hearing for the young person before being placed in pre-trial custody if the designated “responsible person” is relieved of his or her obligations under a “responsible person undertaking.”

This is a very important recommendation at the heart of what Justice Nunn was talking about. It is not clear to me that this is in the bill. I have looked for a provision like this and have not seen it, but I hope we will have some answers from the government on that question of why we do not see an amendment to that section of the act in the bill as presented.

To me, this is at the heart of the matter because in the McEvoy case, the mother of the accused had agreed to look after and be responsible for the accused young person, but then at some point before his trial said she could not handle it any more and could not take responsibility. She wanted to be relieved of her responsibility.

There was no provision for that young person to then be held to their undertaking and be taken into custody. This is one the key things that Justice Nunn wanted to see changed. I am concerned that we do not see it in the bill. I raised this issue with the minister just before speaking here, and I hope he will be looking into it. I think he will perhaps be looking into it and at whether or not we need an amendment to the bill. I hope we will see that coming forward.

Recommendation 23 from Justice Nunn reads:

The Province should advocate that the federal government amend and simplify the statutory provisions relating to the pre-trial detention of young persons so that section 29 will stand on its own without interaction with other statutes or other provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I am pleased to see that clause 4 of the bill appears to do this, though I only received the bill yesterday and only had a good look through it last night. These things take time to digest and we would like to look further at this and have some good discussion among colleagues on it. However, I am encouraged to see that it appears to be going in the right direction.

Recommendation 24 states:

The Province should advocate that the federal government amend section 31(5)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act so that if the designated “responsible person” is relieved of his or her obligations under a “responsible person undertaking” the young person’s undertaking made under section 31(3)(b) nevertheless remains in full force and effect, particularly any requirement to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and other conditions imposed by a youth court judge.

Again, this is one of the issues I raised with the minister and I am pleased he has agreed to look into it.

I am gravely concerned about the provisions on denunciation and deterrence that are in the bill, because they are contrary to all the evidence. The fact is that we know that a 15-year-old generally thinks he or she is invincible and is not going to get caught. So these provisions do not really work.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-4.

This bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other acts. It also amends the sentencing and general principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois would like to do a thorough, professional job of studying this bill in committee. The Bloc will therefore support an agreement in principle to study the bill and hear all witnesses to improve it.

Although the bill is not as excessive as we were led to believe it would be in January, it still contains quite a few irritants, including an ideological change in the act, which is a fairly dramatic change.

Like many experts, we condemn this philosophical change that makes public protection the main benchmark, at the expense of prevention.

The bill adds new criteria to consider in sentencing young offenders. For example, the sentence should have a deterrent effect. This means that public perception, rather than the offence itself, would condition how a young offender is punished. In short, the government is asking judges to make examples of people.

The government is amending a law that works well. What is more, many experts condemn this amendment, because the law had already been toughened. Still, because of the Bloc's efforts, the bill we have before us is much more moderate than what we are used to seeing from the Conservatives. We have to say that our work to raise awareness and fight against an even tougher bill paid off; the government listened.

The government admits that it misled us when it said there were no young offenders in adult prisons. That is an important admission. I feel it is worth mentioning, because the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles spent last summer going around saying that there were no offenders under 18 in the prisons in Quebec and Canada.

It is worthwhile going over some figures. I do not think that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles dispute the source of these figures. It is the Correctional Service of Canada.

I do not especially like quoting statistics in my remarks, but I will do so this time because I want to correct the figures cited by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, among others. I hope that after hearing these statistics, the member will offer an apology for reporting incorrect figures.

In all, 10 offenders under the age of 18 have been placed in a federal penitentiary since January 1, 2004. They were all 17 at the time. Here is the number of young people placed by year, that is from January to December 31—2004, 4; 2005, 1; 2006, 3; 2007, 1; 2008, none; 2009, 1.

I have some more statistics to help the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles clearly understand the situation. According to a reliable source, the public security department in Quebec, in all a total of 39 offenders under 18 have been put in prison in Quebec since April 1, 2003. Here are the figures by fiscal year, that is, from April 1 to March 31: 12 in 2003-04; 10 in 2004-05, 3 in 2005-06; 9 in 2006-07; 5 in 2007-08; and none in 2008-09.

The statistics are based on the age at the time of admission. We must also realize that a single individual can be admitted more than once a year. Now that this has been clarified, we can hope that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will get the facts straight.

The Bloc Québécois as well shares many of the concerns raised by many professional stakeholders in Quebec on the repercussions of this bill. Accordingly, the Bloc will analyze it in depth, as is its custom, when it is being studied in committee. We want to hear all those involved in order to improve whatever may be improved. The Bloc wants to get to the bottom of things and will certainly not tolerate rushing through a matter of such importance. If it is passed, the bill will change the way young people are dealt with. We must therefore take the time needed to invite as many experts to speak to the matter so as to properly debate and examine it.

I would also like to speak to the Bloc's philosophy on justice. It firmly believes that the most effective approach is still prevention. We must go after the causes of crime, delinquency and violence rather than wait for problems to occur and try to fix them after the fact. The wisest and certainly the most profitable approach, in both social and financial terms, consists in working at problems in order to avoid youth crime and incarceration. It could not be clearer. We must fight poverty, inequality and exclusion, all fertile ground for frustrations and the escape valves that violence and crime constitute.

Justice for youth is no different in this regard. Young people should benefit from a healthy environment, they should not be living in extreme poverty, they should have access to affordable education and so on. In all these areas, the Quebec nation has made good choices, which sets it apart. Education costs, for example, are among the lowest in North America. Our network of daycare centres is a model in the field, and so on.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is aware that young people commit crimes, for which they should be held to account, including in the courts. The government has a duty to act and to use all the tools available to it to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians are able to live in peace and safety. But the measures brought forward have got to have a real positive impact on crime, they have got to be more than rhetoric, or fear-mongering. They have got to be more than just an imitation of the American model, which, it should be noted, has completely failed to reduce crime. The American model has produced very weak results and is now on the brink of complete breakdown. Some states are questioning that model because it has failed to reduce youth crime.

A few statistics show that one quarter of prisoners on the planet, over 7 million people, are in prison or on parole. The United States is starting to move away from that model, the “law and order” model. In July 2009, the Vera Institute of Justice determined that at least 22 American states are preparing to depart from tough-on-crime policies and the present system is at the point of human and financial breakdown.

On the other hand, the Quebec model, based on rehabilitation and reintegration, produces real results, results that can be measured using statistics showing the decline in crime.

So we would say that what Canada wants is to copy a completely outdated model instead of drawing on the Quebec model, which is working very well.

A moment ago I listened carefully to the speech by my NDP colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. He said that the government should draw on the Quebec model which has produced good results because the people of Quebec, with their various taxes, have created a health system, a social safety net, that means they can take action to prevent crime and poverty. One thing it means is that young people can be given help and support. Quebec is the province that in 2006 succeeded in reducing its crime rate by 4%, unlike the rest of Canada, where the crime rate rose.

And so I invite the government members to investigate the Quebec model, to look at its successes and its results, rather than trying to copy a completely outdated model that, on the contrary, is of such dubious worth that some American states are now questioning it and are looking for a different model.

Quebec has a good system because we have experts who provide us with sound advice and who have worked, year in and year out, to build a model that works well. These experts are telling us that the Government of Canada is completely off track. The Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, a Quebec organization that provides services to young offenders and troubled youth, and the provincial directors also believe in the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders, which have been successful in Quebec. Numerous experts from other countries come to Quebec to observe, learn about and watch our system, so they can then emulate it. I do not say it often enough, but I am saying it now: our results are very telling and very inspiring.

The Association des centres jeunesse du Québec says that it, too, cares about the victims, but that the government is really on the wrong track when it states that protection of society will be improved by implementing more coercive measures because the current legislation deals with these situations and ensures the protection of society. As we saw in the statistics that I quoted earlier, there are youth under the age of 18 in prison, but such a sentence is rarely handed out by judges. They do so if the crime was very serious. It is rare that they decide that a youth should be in prison and should serve the entire sentence.

The bill refers to Sébastien's situation, which illustrates the reach of the current legislation. The young offender concerned was handed an adult sentence upon the recommendation of the provincial director of the Quebec court, youth division. The youth who murdered Sébastien is currently serving his sentence in an adult prison. This example perfectly illustrates that the current law contains a legislative tool that is used in Quebec when this type of circumstance with a youth arises.

Clearly, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec will want to testify before the committee to share its 30 years of expertise and explain the very serious repercussions this bill would have if it were passed as is.

I would like to give some background on this bill. The Youth Criminal Justice Act, which replaced the Young Offenders Act, received royal assent in February 2002 and officially took effect on April 1, 2003.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act was quite imperfect and was challenged by the Government of Quebec. But in spite of that, in spite of history, the government is still pushing ahead with Bill C-4. We know that the National Assembly of Quebec will also be opposed to this bill as it currently stands.

For years, Quebec's justice minister has been calling on the federal government to exempt Quebec and allow it to implement its own youth intervention model.

The Government of Quebec has shown its opposition to the federal government for a dozen years now. The strong consensus in Quebec is that rehabilitation and prevention are the answer and that Quebec must develop ways of preventing young people from committing acts of physical or sexual violence or serious crimes. Quebec is working hard to put such measures in place. This is the system that Quebeckers have developed to prevent these crimes as much as possible.

I said earlier that I would give some statistics about the decrease in crime. Crime dominates the media: the trials of violent offenders and notorious fraud artists get extensive media coverage. The public often forms an opinion from sensational stories in the papers or on radio or television. We sometimes get the wrong impression and think that crime is on the rise, but that is not entirely true.

I think we can count on Statistics Canada to provide Canadian statistics. I am not accusing Statistics Canada of partisanship, because its statistics are rather clear.

Youth courts are seeing fewer and fewer cases. In 2005-06, 56,271 cases were heard, a decrease of 2% from the previous year. While it is true that the youth crime rate increased 3% in 2006, I must point out that that was the first increase since 2003. We cannot conclude that there is a strong upward trend. However, in 2006 in Quebec—as I mentioned earlier—the crime rate dropped by 4%. All the provinces saw increases in the youth crime rate, except Quebec, which saw a decrease in its crime rate thanks to its focus on rehabilitation and reintegration.

I do not think that is a coincidence. It proves that our model is inspiring and that it should inspire the current Conservative government. Instead of putting up a smokescreen, the government should be able to look at the big picture and recognize that there is a model that is working in Canada and that they can use. As my NDP colleague said so well, why focus on outdated measures, on intervention methods that do not work with young people and that are modelled after the United States, when here, the Quebec nation has a proven, effective system that is intelligent and respectful?

The Association des centres jeunesse du Québec and some specialized lawyers say that the current legislation did not need to be changed. They urge Parliament to be cautious. We are not talking about a few changes to sections of the act here. These are fundamental changes to the ideology and philosophy behind the legislation. This could very negatively impact young people in Quebec and Canada.

The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the Liberal Party who were kind enough to switch with me today because I need to get back to my riding for an event this evening.

Bill C-4 is a significant attempt to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the NDP will be supporting it at second reading to send it to committee. However, having said that, we have some significant reservations about the bill in terms of the drafting of it. Frankly, I find it quite clumsy in some areas. Some amendments will be needed just to clean up the language. The other concern is that the wording seems to have two agendas, the one that is on the surface and then the one that is behind it. I will come back to that in a moment.

We need to set in context the bill. The major amendments in the bill coming into effect are not very old. They were made in 2003 when the bill was brought into effect. In my legal career, we have actually had four separate pieces of legislation dealing with youth who are in conflict with society, who have committed anywhere from fairly minor criminal offences to very serious ones, including murder.

As a society, we have been struggling since at least the 1960s to find that right balance between treating them as youth, different from adult criminals, but at the same time recognizing that they are not adults even though they may commit offences similar to adults.

That pattern goes back at least 100 years in this country, probably even a bit longer than that. The original young offenders bill, which was called the Juvenile Delinquents Act at that time, dates back to the early part of the 1900s. However, even prior to that, our criminal justice system accepted that there would be two systems: one for youth, the age being a variable one over the last 100 years; and a separate major one for adults. Our courts and our legislatures, both at the provincial and the federal levels, have recognized that for well over 100 years.

One of the concerns I have with this legislation, and perhaps this is where the hidden agenda may be, is that the government has repeatedly indicated in speeches and in its party platform that it wants to significantly alter the barrier between youth offenders and adult offenders. It became a major issue in the last election.

I want to acknowledge the role that the citizenry generally of the province of Quebec played in attacking the Conservative Party during that election on the proposals that were floated during that election of lowering the age to nothing so that any youth could be charged as an adult and sentenced as an adult. That provoked a serious negative response from the people of Quebec and I want to acknowledge the role and the leadership they provided in that regard.

The other point I want to make about the way we have treated youth crime historically in this country is that it has in fact varied quite dramatically across the provinces. Here, I want to acknowledge again that Quebec has been the most successful province, the most successful jurisdiction, in dealing with youth crime. It has the lowest rates of youth crime in the country. It has the most developed and sophisticated system in the country to deal with youth who are in conflict with the law and actively engaged in anti-social behaviour. Quebec does this better than anybody does in Canada, and I want to acknowledge that.

With regard to this particular bill, we need to set it in the context of it being really a direct outcropping, not so much of the ideology coming from the Conservatives, but of the push from the Nunn Commission of Inquiry in Nova Scotia and the McMurtry report on victim compensation in Ontario.

Justice Nunn, who was appointed to that special inquiry, certainly had the most detailed recommendations. He and his commission had seven specific recommendations that the government is claiming it has responded to.

I want to be very clear that Justice Nunn, both in the report and in any number of interviews he did afterwards, was very clear that the act, as is, is a good piece of legislation. It is a workable piece of legislation. The term he used constantly was that it needed to be tweaked. On the surface that is what it appears the government is doing here, but in a number of areas Bill C-4 has weaknesses. I want to address a few of those.

Before I do that, I again want to point out that we will be supporting this bill because it has at least two provisions in it that are badly needed.

One is that it makes it absolutely mandatory that no youth, no matter what crime they are accused of or convicted of and sentenced for, will spend time in an adult institution. That is a principle the province of Quebec has followed quite diligently. Other provinces have not, sometimes because of an ideological approach to punishment of youth, but more often because they simply do not have the facilities to incarcerate youth in a contained setting, especially in the rural and frontier areas of this country. The government has done nothing to assist the provinces in developing those institutional settings.

When the bill gets to committee, as I fully expect it will, this will be an issue that we will be raising with the Department of Justice and perhaps with the Correctional Service about what they are going to do to help the provinces meet the requirements of the statute not to incarcerate any youth in an adult prison. I do not believe they have done any planning for this.

As is so often the case with the government, especially with its crime bills, this bill provides no specific date when it will come into effect. I am afraid that what we are going to see because of this particular provision is the provinces sitting back, which happened in one of the prior incarnations of legislation on youth crime. I know that in the province of Ontario specifically we went almost a decade without being in compliance with the statute and that we were not providing the necessary facilities, even though we were the wealthiest province in the country at the time.

Hence, I am afraid we are going to have a piece of legislation passed in this House mandating that youth not be incarcerated in adult prisons and a number of the provinces will have no ability to comply with that. It is an issue that will need to be explored at committee. It is a good policy, a good paragraph in the legislation, but we must have the provinces in a position to be able to carry it out.

The other point I want to make, and I have to say that we have had some division over this in my caucus, is that there is a provision in the bill that will allow the courts who are sentencing individuals, particularly for serious offences, to lift the historically solid ban on any publication of the name of the accused or convicted person. That is one provision that we would expect to be used rarely.

While I am concerned about the criteria the government has built in as to when the judge would be able to do that, we can see this provision as necessary in exceptional cases, for the protection of society. I am thinking in particular of an accused person who has been convicted and sentenced as an adult, who has very severe psychological health problems and is not likely to be rehabilitated and who is, in the extreme, even a serial killer. That person should be identified to society, both in terms of the police knowing the individual and society more generally. Those will be rare cases. We may not even get one a year. However, I believe that for the protection of society, it is important that we analyze that, set proper criteria in place, and allow that discretion for our judges.

With regard to the negative parts of the bill where I see some hidden agenda items, I think it is necessary to go back to the last Parliament. Pretty late in that Parliament, in spite of all the other crime bills the government was introducing, some of which were silly quite frankly, and in spite of the fact it had been in power at that point for over three years and the Nunn report had come out, the government finally got around to drafting Bill C-25 and presenting it to the House. It was late in the 39th Parliament and that bill just sat and nothing happened to it. The bill included a provision that the Conservatives claimed was a denunciation, but it also had a very clear provision for general deterrence as a sentencing principle. That flies in the face of the hundred-plus years of our history in this jurisdiction of Canada, and generally in western democracies, of treating youth separately, recognizing that because of their lack of maturity, general deterrence does not work with them, generally speaking. It specifically is of no value when we are dealing with youth. That has been accepted in many courts and in all jurisdictions in the western democracies. However, what the Conservatives were trying to do was to introduce in that bill, very clearly, right up front, a general deterrence principle.

The government has backed off that in this bill. It has dropped that, I think, in part because of what happened in the last election in the province of Quebec. The government has maintained specific deterrents, that is, individual deterrents. I am not sure even those will survive a challenge in our courts. The Supreme Court of Canada, as recently as a few months ago and in a series of its decisions, made it very clear that the sentencing principles to be applied to youth who are in conflict with the law must take into account exclusively that they are youth, that courts cannot use principles of sentencing applicable in the adult setting. The Conservatives have recognized that and have limited the bill to specific deterrents, at least on the surface in one of the clauses.

However, when one looks at the amendments to the act overall, there are a number of other places where it would appear they are trying to get general deterrence in, if I could put it this way, through the back door. There is some really clumsy wording for what a judge does in determining whether a person should be tried as an adult, accepting of course the application from the Crown, and separate criteria as to whether they should be sentenced as an adult.

There is also wording in there that does not appear any place else in any youth justice act that we have had in the past, that does not appear in any parts of the Criminal Code, either currently or, as far as I know, historically. But it basically introduces moral culpability, and this may come out of a court decision that I think they may be taking out of context. It is introducing morality and asking the judges, in effect, to interpret that and to apply it on a day-to-day, case-by-case basis.

Knowing a lot of judges and judges who work extensively in the youth criminal justice system, I think this is going to pose a major problem of interpretation. I am not sure the legislation worded in this way will survive a challenge, because it is so vague. That is always a principle when looking at criminal law, including sentencing guidelines. Therefore, it is a major problem confronting us in dealing with this bill.

I want to address one other issue that came out of the Nunn Commission report and recommendations. The Nunn Commission arose as a result of a specific case in Nova Scotia. Justice Nunn was quite concerned about a limitation in the discretionary powers judges had around the issue of protection of society when sentencing an individual.

I do not want to sound trite here because it is a serious concern and one of the times when Commissioner Nunn said that tweaking was needed, but what the government has done here is not tweaking. I think it is just nothing: it is smoke and mirrors. Under the existing law the protection of society is a set of criteria for what a judge can take into account, and at the bottom of the full text of the paragraph in the bill, it talks about the protection of society. However, all I see the government doing here is moving that paragraph from the bottom to the top.

In the press releases and minister's press conferences, where he trots out one of the victim's family members, using them for photo-ops, he is forecasting and extolling the virtues of the bill, saying that it in fact addresses this issue. I have to say that I do not see that. This simply seem to be window dressing. The government has combined moving that clause from the bottom to the top with some new wording that I believe, if anything, when interpreted by our judges across the country, will further limit their discretion in taking into account the protection of society.

It is an example of what I said earlier about the bill, that is both clumsy and, in some cases, poorly drafted. I think there is some ideology behind this coming from the government rather than the officials in the Department of Justice, because this is not a bill of the quality I usually see coming from the Department of Justice. The department is usually quite good in drafting, if not excellent, but there are some problems here.

There are also a number of places where the government replaces sections. It takes sections out and repeals them and replaces them with others. From my reading of the bill, and this is another reason we will be looking at it very closely at committee, the government has in fact left gaps, and we are going to end up with the judiciary and prosecutors in this country not being able to prosecute and/or move to sentencing of adults, because the government has left gaps in the drafting of the bill. So we will be looking at that at committee.

To conclude, we are going to support the bill going to committee. We have serious reservations about parts of it and strong support for other parts. We will do what we can at committee to strengthen the bill and provide greater protection for people who are victims of youth crime.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that violent crime went up in 2006 but that is not enough because it did not go up in another year. I generally do not even get into those discussions. We do look at the crime rates and are always concerned about the rate of crime in this country, but the hon. member makes the case that if it goes up one year that is not good enough. I am saying that these are very reasonable measures.

With respect to diversion, we are all of the opinion that we have a better chance rehabilitating a 16-year-old offender than a 36 or 46-year-old offender. I have made the point before that 36 or 46-year-old criminals may be career criminals and they are much more difficult to rehabilitate. It is much more difficult to get them back on the right track than a 16 or 17-year-old.

The bill is very specific. It goes after repeat violent offenders, the kind of individuals who Justice Nunn identified as not only a danger to society but a danger to themselves. Some individuals have said that if they had been detained, they would have had a better chance of not recommitting the offence. That is what came out of the Nunn report.

Bill C-4 is very focused. We applaud the efforts taken for the most part at the provincial level, but there were of course efforts taken at the national level. The national anti-drug strategy is a very good example of where we are encouraging people not to get involved with the kind of activities that could wreck and ruin their life. These are good measures.

This bill is specific. It goes after those individuals who are a danger to themselves and a danger to society. It is very focused legislation and it should have the support of the Bloc.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, for almost 100 years, Canada has provided separate laws and procedures applicable to youth who commit crimes. The fair and appropriate application of criminal accountability to our youth is one of the most challenging areas of justice and social policy.

The law must be adequate to hold them appropriately accountable for the offences committed, consistent with their degree of responsibility in a manner that protects the public.

Canadians look to their government to ensure that the justice system is working effectively and that the country's citizens are safe. Since we were first elected, our government has taken action to tackle crime and protect Canadians.

Our approach is balanced. It includes: prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation. But there is more to be done.

We recognize that we need to strengthen the way the young offenders system deals with violent and repeat young offenders.

I am proud to speak today in this House to Bill C-4, which will bring amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Sébastien's law will make the protection of society a primary goal of our youth criminal justice system, and it will give Canadians greater confidence that violent and repeat young offenders will be held accountable through sentences that are proportionate to the severity of their crimes.

Bill C-4 proposes amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that would make the protection of society a primary goal of the act; simplify pretrial detention rules to help ensure that, when necessary, violent and repeat young offenders are kept off the streets while awaiting trial; strengthen sentencing provisions and reduce barriers to custody for violent and repeat young offenders, where appropriate; and require the Crown to consider seeking adult sentences for youth convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The Crown would also be required to inform the court if it chooses not to apply for an adult sentence. We will require the courts to consider publishing the name of a violent young offender when necessary for the protection of the public.

We will require police to keep records when extrajudicial measures are used in order to make it easier to identify patterns of reoffending, and ensure that all youth under 18, who are given a custodial sentence, will serve it in a youth facility.

I would like to make a couple of comments about the changes that we are proposing.

First, we would make the protection of society a primary goal of the act. As it currently stands, the objective of protecting society is not stated strongly enough in either the preamble to the YCJA or its declaration of principles. This deficiency was identified by the Hon. D. Merlin Nunn in his report entitled “Spiralling Out of Control: Lessons Learned From a Boy in Trouble”. This was a comprehensive review of the youth justice system in Nova Scotia.

Justice Nunn concluded that highlighting public safety as one of the goals or principles of the act was necessary to improve the handling of violent and repeat offenders. Highlighting this objective within the principles of the act would give the courts a necessary tool to ensure that the protection of society is taken into account in sentencing youth who commit violent and repeat offences.

Again, related to one of the recommendations of the Nunn report, we will simplify the pretrial detention rules to help ensure that, when necessary, violent and repeat young offenders are kept off the streets while awaiting trial.

The current law on pretrial detention has been viewed by some as confusing and has, on occasion, been inconsistently applied. As a result, the system is often powerless to hold violent or reckless youth in custody, even when they pose a danger to themselves and to society.

The act therefore will be amended to simplify pretrial detention rules to ensure that youth can be detained while awaiting trial if they are charged with a serious offence, and there is a substantial likelihood that the youth will commit a serious offence if released.

A serious offence will be defined as any indictable offence for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, including: violent offences; property offences, such as theft over $5,000 which can include car theft; and offences that could endanger the public such as public mischief, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm, sexual exploitation, robbery and, of course, murder.

The third provision will strengthen sentencing provisions and reduce barriers to custody where appropriate for violent and repeat young offenders.

Canadians lose confidence in the justice system when a sentence is insufficient to hold offenders accountable for their actions or to protect society. The law will be amended to broaden the sentencing principles and remove barriers to custody to ensure that violent or repeat young offenders will receive sentences that reflect the seriousness of their offences.

The government is proposing to strengthen the sentencing provisions by adding specific deterrence and denunciation to the principles of sentencing to discourage a particular offender from committing further offences.

As it stands now, deterrence and denunciation cannot be considered by a judge as part of sentencing. Adding specific deterrence and denunciation would allow the courts to impose sanctions designed to discourage the particular offender from committing further offences when the circumstances of the individual case indicate that this is necessary.

We will expand the meaning of violent offence to include offences that endanger the public. Currently, under the act, the general rule is that a young person cannot be sentenced to custody unless certain conditions are met. For example, young offenders may not be sentenced to custody unless they have committed a violent offence.

The Supreme Court of Canada in 2006 interpreted violent offence under the act as an offence where the young person causes, attempts to cause, or threatens to cause bodily harm. The definition does not capture situations in which, while no one was injured, reckless behaviour nonetheless posed a risk to others. For example, at the moment, a young offender who leads police on a high speed chase through a residential neighbourhood could be given a custodial sentence only if someone was injured as a result.

The government proposes to expand the definition of violent offence to include offences where the young person endangers the life or safety of others by creating a substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm. This change would give the courts a necessary tool to help ensure accountability and the protection of society, when the circumstances of the offence require it.

We are proposing to reduce barriers to custodial sentences by allowing custody to be imposed on youth who have a pattern of findings of guilt or extrajudicial sanctions. The act currently allows for custodial sentences in situations where the young person has committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, and the young person has a history indicating a pattern of findings of guilt under the act or its predecessor.

The current requirement for establishing a pattern of criminal activity based on findings of guilt has been criticized by some as being too restrictive when a young person may have committed other offences which have not been dealt with through the formal justice system. As a result, in cases where the offender's history indicates that a custodial sentence is necessary to protect society or to hold the offender accountable, it is sometimes impossible to demonstrate that necessity.

The proposed amendment would give the courts the necessary tools to establish a pattern of criminal activity, either through findings of guilt or through showing that the young person has a history of extrajudicial sanctions or through a combination of both. This would allow the court to take the offender's full history into account to help determine what sentence is appropriate.

The new legislation would also require the Crown to consider adult sentences for youth convicted of the most serious violent offences. These are offences such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault. Currently, under the act, judges may impose adult sentences on youth 14 years of age and over convicted of serious violent offences when appropriate. However, the Crown does not always apply for an adult sentence in such cases and is not required to consider doing so, even in the most serious cases.

The proposed amendments will require the Crown to consider seeking an adult sentence for youth who commit serious violent offences. The Crown will be required to inform the court if it chooses not to apply for an adult sentence. Provinces and territories will still have the discretion to set the age at which this requirement would apply. For instance, no province that sets the age at 15 or 16 would be required to change.

This brings me to the fifth provision we are proposing: requiring the courts to consider publishing the name of a violent young offender when necessary for the protection of society. Currently, under the act, the publication ban is automatically lifted where an adult sentence is imposed. However, if the Crown applies, the court can consider lifting the ban in appropriate cases where a youth sentence has been imposed for an offence for which the Crown was seeking an adult sentence.

In practice, the violent offenders who are given youth sentences are normally released into the community anonymously. The implications for public safety can be significant. For example, parents may have no way of knowing that a sex offender is in the area. The amendment would require judges to consider lifting the name publication ban for youth convicted of a violent offence and given a youth sentence when the protection of society requires it.

Finally, the other amendments we are proposing will require police to keep records when extrajudicial measures are imposed to make it easier to identify patterns of reoffending. The amended act will now make it clear that no young offenders under 18 will serve their sentence in an adult institution, regardless of whether they are given an adult or youth sentence.

Our government believes that the law must uphold the rights of victims and ensure the safety of our communities. If in any way our justice system fails to do so, we must take action.

By introducing Sébastien's law, our government is taking action to strengthen the way the young offenders system deals with violent and repeat young offenders.

We are helping to ensure that these offenders will be held accountable and that the protection of society will be a primary consideration in the system as a whole.

I would like to urge fellow members of the House to support these amendments. These are all very reasonable amendments and they should have the support of all hon. members of the House.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how much I appreciate your sending me the photocopy of the rules that govern our operations in the House, in particular the rules on the scope and asking of the Thursday question and my response.

Hence, I am going to hesitate this week from launching into a full-blown debate with my hon. colleague about prorogation and the fact that so many of his colleagues seem not to understand that prorogation is over and the House is back in business.

When it comes to the business leading up to next Thursday, I would note that we will continue today with the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on second reading of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act , known as Sébastien's Law.

Monday, March 22, will be day three of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Tuesday will be the last supply day for the opposition. Hopefully, we will get some meaningful motions put forward by the official opposition and they will show up for the debate.

We will continue with the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, followed by Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

If time permits, we could start Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs).

Young Offenders

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Justice tabled legislation to strengthen our young offender system. Bill C-4 would give Canadians greater confidence that violent and repeat young offenders will be held accountable. It would also ensure that the protection of society is given due consideration when young offenders are sentenced. All too often, a young offender who commits a serious crime such as murder or aggravated sexual assault receives a sentence that is much shorter than Canadians expect. Our new law would require the courts to consider adult sentences for youth who are convicted of these serious crimes.

In some cases, a youth who is convicted of a violent offence is quietly released into the community without anyone knowing about it. This means residents have no way of knowing a convicted sex offender is in the area. Bill C-4 would, in some cases, require the courts to publish the name of a violent young offender when necessary for the protection of society.

This bill is just another way in which our Conservative government is improving the safety and security of Canadians.

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

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)