Justice Committee on May 13th, 2010

[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.

[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]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Ms. Goyette. You have ten minutes.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes, I am hearing the English interpretation. We can hear English now, yes.

Please continue. If we have a problem, I'll stop again.

[Michèle Goyette]

Do I have to start back at the beginning?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to Ms. Gaudreault. You have ten minutes.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to questions now. Ms. Mendes, you are the first one.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all three of you for your testimony. I don't think you have to work very hard, Ms. Goyette and Ms. Gaudreault, to persuade us of your position on the bill, and particularly on the flaws it demonstrates rather plainly. In the Liberal Party, we are quite supportive of the questions and problems you raise.

There are victims when crimes are committed. If we prevent those crimes, the probability of there being victims is much lower. That equation really is pretty simple. We need to put more emphasis on prevention and on combating poverty, among other things. Ms. Gaudreault, Ms. Goyette, you both said that. In my opinion, the best way to avoid having victims is to prevent crimes.

Regarding what you said, in particular about clause 3 and measures proportional to the seriousness of the offence, what are you relying on when you say that what is proposed in the present bill goes against prevention, that it does not guarantee a better outcome for victims?

[Michèle Goyette]

In my experience as a worker on the ground, and that is really how I define myself, when a decision is made by a judge about an offence, the nature and circumstances of the offence are important, but we want the decision to be one what will give the young person an incentive to change their behaviour, we have to take all of the circumstances into account. We cannot simply apply a mathematical formula.

Take the example of two similar offences committed in very different circumstances by young people who have very different needs. In one case, there has to be fairly harsh punishment, because the young person's entire profile and record indicate persistent criminal behaviour, somewhat as the gentleman said. That kind of situation calls for time. Persistent delinquency involves time. But if the same offence is committed by a person who actually acted in accidental or unique circumstances, for example because of mental health reasons, we are not talking about the same needs.

In those circumstances, if judges are required to apply a principle that results in them automatically doing legal math, that is, ruling that this crime means that sentence, they cannot take individual differences into account. That is why we use the differential approach as a tool when dealing with young offenders. We want to determine who we are dealing with, what the needs are, why that young person, specifically, is committing crimes. We can then tailor interventions that will bear fruit, that will really lead the young person to get out of crime. In that situation, everyone wins.

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

I think the prevention policies and measures applied by Quebec have proved this for several years. The issues are being addressed.

[Michèle Goyette]

Yes, the youth crime statistics show that our model is the right one, if I may say so.

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

Ms. Gaudreault, do you think that all these prevention measures, particularly for youth crime, are much more effective in the long term than the strict application of punishment?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

Clearly we have to focus our efforts on programs that will prevent youth at risk from getting trapped in antisocial behaviour. We have to help disadvantaged families. We have to work on access to education. There is a lot of crime or delinquency in the schools. We have to work on programs that focus on dispute resolution. We also have to teach young people how to react to and identify violence. There have been very interesting experiments on this subject. We have to allocate the resources.

When you work with victims, you are also concerned with what is called prevention, how can I put it... In fact, it isn't really prevention, because we are at a third level. In other words, when a person has already been a victim, we have to ensure that the consequences and impact of the victimization are not aggravated. That is why I stressed the importance, in my presentation, of humanizing the justice system, of supporting victims and giving them information.

A lot of things have been done in the adult justice system, for example with the Conditional Release Act, in the entire correctional system, to provide more information, to make sure that victims know what is happening. In terms of prevention, one concern is the victim's psychological state. We know that the justice system often victimizes the person again. There is a lot of secondary victimization because the job is not done well and we don't know how to treat victims. If the job is done better, we will avoid victims having as negative a view of the justice system. They have to feel that they are being treated better and they have to be able to continue their process. Victimhood is a temporary status. A person should not remain a victim all their life. A victim stops being a victim when they separate themselves from the offender. To help them separate themselves, we have to do our job well at every stage. That is what organizations that assist victims keep hammering away at. The job has to be done well at every stage. The problem of victims of crime is not going to be solved by locking people up and doing nothing, because the victims will be even more enraged. We also have to address the question of safety.

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

I agree with you completely, Ms. Gaudreault. You said that you don't have all the answers to the questions victims ask. You also talked about the lack of resources for finding the best possible answers to those questions.

Do you think that if the federal government put more resources into finding ways, the best way to meet victims' expectations, that could be one way of meeting their...

[Arlène Gaudreault]

I am practically running to the mic to answer that. Yes, indeed. No assessment is done of victims who go through the youth justice system.

Yesterday, as I was preparing for this consultation, I spoke with Ms. Kane, who was the director of the Policy Centre for Victim Issues. No research is being done on the questions I have raised. However, I will say that the Policy Centre for Victim Issues is doing excellent research work. Recently, there was a study on the subject of compensation and victim impact statements, but there has been no research on the questions I have raised. There are no program evaluations. There are not a lot in Canada, but particularly when we're talking about the youth system.

I would point out that where the offender is a minor, victims are further marginalized. We are even less concerned about our obligations to those victims. I have to qualify my words. In Quebec, in the case of diversion programs, for example, we are starting to get more experience in mediation with victims. We are starting to give information, but the fact remains that this is 2010 and we still have a lot of work to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Merci.

We'll go to Monsieur Ménard for seven minutes.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You have realized how little time we have to question you. Let me say very quickly, to all three of you, how much I appreciated your presentations. I am going to have to limit myself to a few things. I hope others will understand what we already understand when we have lived in Quebec and are familiar with the system for dealing with youth crime.

Mr. Croisdale, you have, in a way, become an expert on persistent offenders. Is that correct?

[Dr. Tim Croisdale]

Yes, it is.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

These persistent individuals represent what percentage of overall youth crime—excuse me, "youth crime" isn't a good way of putting it—all young people who commit crimes?

[Dr. Tim Croisdale]

In British Columbia, we found that about 5% to 10% account for about one-third of the crime, and that is consistent in all the research over about 50 years. You'll see percentages varying from about 5% to 15% accounting for about 30% to even 70% of the crime for youth.

[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?