Justice Committee on June 1st, 2010

[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.

[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]

Thank you.

Monsieur Laperrière.

[Yves Laperrière, Department Head, Youth Criminal Justice Act, Centres jeunesse de l'Outaouais]

Good morning, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. Allow me to introduce myself. I am the department head responsible for administering the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the YCJA, at the Centres jeunesse de l'Outaouais located just across the river, under the authority of the provincial director.

I have been working with young people and their families in the Outaouais for over 20 years. I have long experience in child protection and juvenile delinquency. Through direct intervention with young people and their families, I have been in a privileged position to observe the impacts of poverty, substance abuse, violence, all kinds of abuse and the distress and social exclusion that are often associated with the emergence of delinquency in our young people.

I am currently responsible for the YCJA department, which includes the team of probation officers responsible for all stages and avenues of treatment in young offender cases. I am also responsible for the custodial unit, which houses young offenders from the Outaouais who are sentenced to a specific term of custody or who are in pre-sentence custody at the Apprenti residence.

Representatives of the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the ACJQ, have already laid out the provincial position of the youth centres and provincial directors, the PDs. Obviously I support that position, but I am here before today to provide, I hope, some further information about that position by talking to you about the day to day experiences of young people and their families living in the Outaouais.

Let's talk about the position taken by the ACJQ and the PDs in Quebec. The ACJQ is sensitive to and empathetic toward victims, and they, like many experts, believe that the public is best protected by rehabilitating and reintegrating young people into society rather than by punishing them. The message sent by the present federal government is the opposite, and its effect is to create a false sense of security by implementing harsher measures. An information campaign would in fact have the advantage of promoting an informed message among the public based on the studies that have been done. Harsher sentences and an essentially punitive or deterrent approach have never been shown to be effective with young people.

The ACJQ and the PDs strongly oppose the desire to make denunciation and deterrence of unlawful behaviour in fact the primary objectives of sentencing. These are principles imported from the adult criminal justice system and transferred to the youth criminal justice system. To date, there is no evidence that harsher sentences have any deterrent effect on either young people or adults. The real effect of that approach would be that young people would be treated in a manner similar to adults.

Young people all have a sense of invulnerability. They share the perception that nothing can happen to them. This is a good characteristic, and leads to discoveries made during adolescence, but for some of them those discoveries take them down the wrong path. They have the impression that consequences only happen to other people. If a young person who is also a delinquent sees a peer getting arrested by the police, the limited reasoning ability and mistaken thought processes of an adolescent will persuade them that the other person was the victim of their own lack of skill, a mistake or simply bad luck, regardless of the seriousness of the consequences associated with the criminal act, because the young person believes that they will never get caught that way.

As well, the harsh maximum sentences introduced by successive amendments to youth criminal justice legislation are rarely applied by the courts. The case law, legal practice, assessments of young people's situations and protection factors identified by courts at all levels often mean that the judicial system shows a degree of clemency to young people. We believe this stems from the judicial system's recognition and consideration of the fact that a young person is, in fact, different from an adult, and is not fully formed, and that the sanctions imposed on them must be tailored to fit.

Rather than just come down hard on them, at the same time as protecting society, the goal is to offer the young offender an opportunity, through rehabilitation services, to acquire a prosocial lifestyle. Young people have to be held accountable for their actions. That means that measures must be taken that take into account their level of maturity, so that they understand the extent and impact of their actions, and alternatives to those behaviours.

We would also point out that serious and violent crimes, for which the federal government intends to toughen sentences, comprise only a tiny fraction of crimes committed by young people. Experience also shows that those young people are not necessarily on a distinctive path of criminal behaviour. Studies show, in fact, that they present a lower risk of recidivism after treatment, and their other offences are less violent, than young people who commit property offences.

In the Outaouais, last year, we offered services to nearly 900 young offenders, out of a population of 28,500 young people between the ages of 12 and 17 years.

A majority of requests were handled through diversion, outside the courts, with a success rate of nearly 95%. In cases where a sentence was imposed, for a total of about 274 young people, two thirds received probation with supervision, of which 15 involved intensive probation; 10 received suspended custodial sentences; and 33 received custodial sentences, that is, 33 young people were placed in the custody unit. It will be observed that 33 out of 28,500 is a minority.

Some of the young people in our secure custody unit at the Apprenti residence had received multiple short sentences, the average sentence being 30 days, because of sentencing criteria that limit the use of custodial sentences for young people who are on their first offences.

When we went from the YOA, the Young Offenders Act, to the YCJA, we lost opportunities for meaningful intervention and rehabilitation work with younger offenders, for whom crime is not yet a crystallized way of life. While we could previously intervene for a few months and guide the young person for a period that reflected their needs, access to longer sentences is available to us now only in late adolescence, for young people whose path is more often more firmly formed by then. It must be kept in mind that the centres, the custody units, in Quebec are first and foremost rehabilitation centres.

The law provides the tools that are needed for intervention, but access to those tools is limited, for example in terms of sentencing criteria that reserve access to the rehabilitation centre to young people who have committed more serious crimes, or multiple repeat offenders.

In 2009, in the Outaouais, no young person was sentenced for murder, attempted murder or serious sexual assault. All of the young people who occupied spaces in the custody unit for longer periods were repeat offenders whose crimes involved property or drug-related offences.

Based on scientific data and what the case law tells us, the ACJQ and the PDs are asking the federal government to preserve a separate criminal justice system for young people between the ages of 12 and 18 years. A young person who is still developing has different needs from adults, and intervention must therefore be appropriate. Only an intervention that takes into account, in addition to the nature and consequence of the offence, both what its meaning is to the young person and their individual needs is likely to bear fruit. It must be based on an assessment of the young person and their situation, to determine the measure most likely to succeed in rehabilitating them and consequently protecting society.

Young offenders nearly all have maturity levels below their age. The personalities of young offenders are not completely formed. Early intervention based on their individual needs is the key to effective intervention in this case.

In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered an important judgment in 2008. It held that the provisions relating to the presumption of adult sentencing of young people and the presumption of publication were unconstitutional. The Court therefore acknowledged that because of their age, young people are more vulnerable, less mature and less capable of exercising moral judgment. That decision helps to explain the importance of distinguishing between the treatment of young people and the treatment of adults.

It is also proposed that the name of young people 14 years of age and over who are convicted of violent offences be made public. The age limit may vary from province to province, and so the legislation in force in Quebec would mean that this law would apply to young people 16 years of age and over.

On that point, the ACJQ and the PDs call for the identity of young people 14 years of age and over to continue to be protected, to guarantee that they can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society and thus avoid the risk of recidivism. Labelling, perhaps even stigmatizing, these young people makes it more difficult to reintegrate them and for them to acquire prosocial behaviours. Long-term protection of the public will be jeopardized, since that measure could increase the risk of recidivism on the part of a young person who anticipated more limited opportunities for reintegration.

The ACJQ reminds us that Quebec is in the vanguard in the world and has the lowest crime rate in Canada. The Quebec model for rehabilitation has stood the test and has made an impression outside its borders. In the last few years, international delegations have been meeting with actors in the Quebec system in an effort to adapt this model of intervention to their countries. In 2009, in the Outaouais, we hosted delegations from South America, and we were invited to Jamaica to explain our system. We have a solid partnership with the academic community, who are also receive international requests.

The ACJQ and the PDs have always advocated a balance between protecting the public and rehabilitating young people. The government should invest in social services, particularly in concrete measures to reduce poverty; it should implement programs to integrate young people into the workforce and promote access to housing, instead of taking the path of punishment and toughening the laws.

We have experienced a population increase in our region, and so have had increased pressure to respond to all requests, without investment being made to support interventions with young offenders. In the last year, we have developed an intensive intervention program for cases at higher risk of recidivism, which are dealt with in their home setting. The program is a fine example of collaboration with the partners in the network, where each of them has agreed to contribute to provide a better response to our young people's needs and target their risk factors. The interventions deal with autonomy, employability, substance abuse, peer influence, victimization and management of their financial and legal situation.

The government should invest in measures like these, measures that have a direct impact on long-term protection of the public, through supervised and ongoing rehabilitation and social reintegration for our young people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Laperrière, you're already a minute and a half over your 10 minutes, so you'll have to wind up.

Thank you.

[Yves Laperrière]

In conclusion, I would just like to express a hope that hold firmly to in the youth centres. We hope to be able to make young people's needs the central aspect of our concerns, as the best way of protecting the public in the long term. Offering young people positive prospects for the future and guidance using tools and approaches for intervention and rehabilitation that enable them to recognize and benefit from those opportunities will mean that they can be rerouted from their criminal path. This will also enable us to effectively address the concerns that we all share. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemay.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Laperrière, you will be submitting your brief, and it will be translated. Can you send it to us, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes, he can if he wishes.

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

Okay. Yes, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move on to Ms. Forward. You have up to 10 minutes.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much, and thank you for staying within your time.

We'll move on to Mr. Bagnell. You've got seven minutes for questions.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

I am assuming the government didn't choose these witnesses.

You have a lot of good suggestions for changes to the act, and I certainly hope it comes out in the report when we do it.

Mr. Dudding, you talked about violating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I think it was articles 37(b), 16, and 40. So what's the remedy to that? Let's say we did violate that convention. What's the penalty? How do you stop us from violating that convention?

[Peter Dudding]

That's a great question, because therein lies another problem. The fact is that we have no mechanism within Canadian domestic law to enforce the provisions of the CRC. It is one of those unfortunate disconnects between what we've stated as our international obligations and what we go about doing.

In terms of the actual legal issue that compels Canada to comply, I would in fact point you to the findings of the Senate human rights committee that looked at this very issue around the implementation of the convention and made a number of interesting recommendations for the government to consider about improving its ability to comply.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I think most, if not all of you, feel that rehabilitation and reintegration would make better avenues to make a safer society. We've been saying that all along for several years, not just for youth but for everyone.

Mr. Dudding, you suggested that this should be studied in depth, and yet youth criminal justice has been studied in depth--it's the Nunn report. I'd just like to ask each of you this: would you have any problem if we just implemented all the suggestions of the Nunn report instead of these amendments, which most of you seem to disagree with? Are there any of those items that you would not agree with?

Don't take too much time or we'll never get through everybody.

[Peter Dudding]

I would have a problem with a number of Justice Nunn's suggestions. Of course, his sample size was one, and I think it's always a mistake when you try to fix the system based on one experience, a very experienced jurist no doubt, but limited in terms of the scope of his inquiry.

[Yves Laperrière]

I am not familiar enough with the report you're referring to. But we would prefer that a revision of the Act like this be done after the first five years it is in force, but a review that involves all of the actors responsible for administering it. In Quebec, those are youth centres, the association, the provincial directors.

[Megan Forward]

I agree with Mr. Dudding in that I believe the Nunn report was somewhat reactionary, reacting to some isolated incidents. I don't believe these represent the overall state of youth crime in Canada. I believe they're a little too focused on end-of-the-pipe solutions, and that instead of reforming the legislation, they should put more funding--perhaps the funding that will be associated with an overhaul of the system--into in-prison programming, more education, and community programming for high-risk youth.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay.

What is the name of the student who is with you?

[Megan Forward]

Lwam

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Do you have anything you want to say, Lwam, on the proceedings so far?

[Lwam Ghebarehariat, Summer Law Student, African Canadian Legal Clinic]

Well, thanks for asking me if I have anything to say. There are maybe a few things that I might add.

The statistics show that under the YCJA, the crime rate among youth has gone down and the rate of incarceration among youth has gone down. Those were two of the main goals of the YCJA, because before the YCJA, Canada had one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of youth incarceration in the world.

So the YCJA has accomplished those goals, and I think it's important for us to keep that in mind. It begs the question of why some of these harsher sentencing guidelines are being introduced, given the fact that the youth crime rate has actually gone down.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have a minute and a half.