Evidence of meeting #21 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Simon Fournel-Laberge  As an Individual
Gaylene Schellenberg  Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association
Scott Bergman  Section Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
William Trudell  Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
Julie McAuley  Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
Martha Mackinnon  Executive Director, Justice for Children and Youth
Agnes Samler  President, Defence for Children International-Canada
Les Horne  Executive Director, Defence for Children International-Canada
Mia Dauvergne  Senior Analyst, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
Craig Grimes  Chief/Advisor, Courts Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
Irwin Elman  Provincial Advocate, Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth (Ontario)
Lee Tustin  Advocate for Children and Youth, Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth (Ontario)

12:35 p.m.

Les Horne Executive Director, Defence for Children International-Canada

Thank you.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm an advocate. I'm going to start with a quotation from Michele Landsberg: “So that's our Canadian contradiction: every time we're confronted with the results of our dysfunctional 'tough on youth crime' approach, we call for more and tougher punishments.” That was 1999. It hasn't changed.

I have a story, which I will end with. During the last ten years of the last century we appeared at every inquest on a young child who had died in the care of the state. And bit by bit, we found that the way in which to change what was happening at the inquest and to let people's hands get off the evidence and stop controlling the evidence in the public was to bring along a team of young people to listen, who had the same experiences as the people who had died in custody, to give evidence to the lawyer that she could use in the inquest. Bit by bit, we found that was the way to get truth into the situation, because the whole protective wall was taken down.

The final inquest was the Meffe inquest at the end of the nineties. The outcome was that the jury asked for immediate closure of the institution, and the Toronto Youth Detention Centre closed as a consequence of that. Since then, another major detention home has opened in Ontario, and that home has already collected many indications that putting kids in jail is the last thing you would do with them--the very last thing you do with them. It's dangerous, expensive, wasteful, and those kids are our children.

When I came to Canada in 1959 I came to work with delinquents, and I was amazed. The first person I met was a little boy, 14 years old, shuffling around in irons with two huge gun-carrying guards beside him. It was Steven Truscott. Over and over again.... I opened a little place called White Oaks in Ontario, and we brought in the children who were under 12--all of them were under 12--from different parts of Ontario, who had been sentenced for up to two years. The first two who walked through the door were two little brothers from Red Lake who could barely speak English, and they were there for an indeterminate amount of time. They were there, in fact, for about three weeks, and we got them right back to a home and to a different, decent kind of existence.

It was just frightening to me at that time, and I've never ceased to be shocked since with what I see when I go and visit people in institutions. I still work with people who come out of institutions and I see the damage it has done to them, and it's all done in the culture.

You can change all the laws you want, but unless you change the culture in institutions and the culture of this province in looking at crime and criminal behaviour, you're not going to change anything. Because that culture seizes the institution and controls it. As we used to say to the guards, “You don't run this institution. You know who runs it. The inmates run it.”

I will leave it at that, except that what I object to personally, and what DCI objects to, is the vindictiveness of the legislation, in our view. The way of looking at young people who are still children, still under 18, by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.... This document, for some reason, seems to have been pushed into the background in Canada, although to me it's the greatest document in the history of human rights that this world has produced. Even bringing that into play could change a whole lot of things, if it was rightly and properly done.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

12:40 p.m.

President, Defence for Children International-Canada

Agnes Samler

Our overall concern is that this bill seems to have a law and order approach, get tough with young offenders. And we believe that the result of the bill as it stands will be that there will be more young people in custody. That truly causes us concern.

I want to talk briefly about two things. First are the principles under subclause 3(1) of the act. People have spoken about this before.

We're moving away from a focus on youth, addressing the circumstances underlying their offences and rehabilitation. We're moving to a focus on public safety, and not even long-term public safety. We're talking about public safety, and we believe this will just incarcerate more kids, and that's not what we should be doing.

We think this section fundamentally changes what the act is about. By moving it away from youth to public safety, I think we have in some ways gutted the original intent of the act. So I would suggest that this be looked at very carefully before people change it.

I've had some comments that it's really just a reordering of the intent of the principles. If you look at it clearly, it's more than that. And if it's simply reordering, maybe it should just be left alone. That might work well.

With regard to institutions, Les has talked a little bit about our experience. But in large institutions we see two groups: we see victims and we see bullies. And when we talk about the victims, just read the inquests about kids in state care in Ontario. I'll speak to Ontario because it's what I know best.

James Lonnie was a young man who was 44 hours in a concrete box intended as segregation for one person. He was placed with another aggressive young man who understood that Lonnie was a rat and he headed out to get him. And Lonnie spent that time screaming and yelling for help, without getting any. In the end he was beaten to death.

We have David Meffe, who was so bullied in a detention home in Toronto that he hanged himself. At the inquest that heard that, which was not made up of bleeding hearts, these ordinary citizens were so appalled by the conditions that they said the institution should be closed. That was their first recommendation.

And I listened to the young man this morning and I could see no reason why the things he was saying, the help he got, could not have been given to him outside a lock-up. He talked about the relationship with people and so on. I'm not sure you have to lock people in custody to get that kind of assistance. We should definitely see the kinds of things people are locked up for, and we should see locking kids up as a last resort.

On the other side, you have bullies. You have kids who are smart; they get in and they affiliate themselves with the toughest group in the place. They may never have beaten up anybody or stolen their food or just had them do degrading acts. Suddenly they are in an institution where, in order to survive, that's what you do.

Martha spoke about people coming out and wanting kids to be rehabilitated in the long term, and that's the safety feature. If we're going to get there, that's what we need to do.

Les, you have that one closing statement.

12:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Defence for Children International-Canada

Les Horne

1994 was a good year. It was a good year because the Convention on the Rights of the Child was beginning to be noticed. It's a very wise document.

I was at an international conference for young people in Victoria in 1994. We had gathered groups from all over the world to talk about the convention. There was a group of Quechua from Tena in Ecuador, Maoris from New Zealand, street kids from Vancouver, and a youth leader from Belfast. It all happened in a huge auditorium at the University of Victoria. The last afternoon of the conference came, and the grand finale was to be piped onto a gigantic screen. It was a show from Charlottetown, P.E.l., performed by a professional cast who were celebrating the marvel of Canada and what it could mean to all the young people who were there. There was singing and dancing, and the message was that Canada was some sort of heaven that had been found by all these happy refugees who had escaped the horrors of their home country to live a new life in Canada.

But then we noticed that the message was not getting across. The crowd in the auditorium was shrinking. They were gathering in pockets of space. And at first the conversations sounded confused. Then the confusion turned to anger. With amazing courage, the organizers closed down the pipeline to Charlottetown and people slowly moved to the large platform. It didn't happen by arrangement; it just happened. People went up to the mike, said a few words, and stepped away. People told stories. People cried. I felt so lucky; we all did, and we all knew how lucky that was.

The anger had started because Charlottetown was trying to sell a phony promise, and we all knew that it didn't apply to everybody, but our anger had faded to amazement. We had rights because we had taken ownership of the promise. That is what actually happened, and if you want confirmation, give Senator Landon Pearson a call and ask her. She led the conference in the Lord's Prayer and a peace came down on us all, a happy peace.

That's what should come out of these hearings—a peace that could wrap our angry and hurting offenders and bring healing to them, and a peace that will ease the pain of the victims and help them to reach out and touch hands for the sake of the children who will have the opportunity to rebuild justice in a world that we will have to leave to them.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

We'll move to questions.

Monsieur LeBlanc, let's make it five minutes, please.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Chair, I think my colleague is going to ask a question on that issue. Maybe this is a point of order. I'm looking for some guidance.

We've spoken informally on this side of the table. We're quite unhappy with the way we're rushing through these witnesses and going until 1:30. Some of us have question period meetings at one o'clock. That's not going to work. The schedule having an evening meeting and rushing into this stuff I don't think does a service to the witnesses. We're not having time to let them answer questions. The panels, in my judgment, are too big. I think there's a bit of consensus on our side with that issue.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if perhaps as the first item of business before we hear witnesses on Tuesday morning next week, you would put committee business on the agenda so we can clear some of this up. Otherwise I think we're heading for a collision around some of this stuff. It's unfair to witnesses, some of whom are travelling considerable distances.

We'd like to reorder some of this. Because of the time and witnesses today, we're not going to be able to do it before 1:30, but I'd like to deal with it as the first item off the top on Tuesday morning. I don't know if you want a motion to do that, or if we can just quickly agree to do that and then go on to questions.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

I think we can agree to do that by consensus.

Are there any problems with that? No. We'll do that.

I'll set aside 15 minutes, or do you want half an hour?

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

I think we could do it quite quickly and we could even speak informally before the meeting on Tuesday. I don't want to drag this on, but personally I don't think the way we're doing it now should continue for the next few weeks.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

We'll set aside 15 minutes at the beginning of the next meeting. We may have to cancel a witness or two who we've already scheduled.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

I want to echo the comments about short-changing witnesses.

The evidence was much appreciated, and I have some questions.

Ms. Mackinnon, I enjoyed your brief. You did a great deal of homework. Most politicians just turn to the first page and the last page. Under recommendations, you have 13, which is good. I wanted to ask you about a couple of them, because they've come up in our hearings before.

With respect to questions, no one seems to be able to answer this one in the affirmative. In point nine, your theme is that amendments should be based on evidence and facts. I suppose it's putting the cart before the horse, because the best evidence is from Juristat and Stats Canada. But in your opinion, and based on the evidence you have, how would you answer these questions? First, is violent youth crime in Canada, in certain communities in Canada, on the rise? Second, is there evidence that incarceration with or without proper rehabilitative treatment is effective? Third, do legislative deterrents actually have a deterrent effect on youth? This last is a theme we've dealt with a lot across the country. As you so poignantly pointed out, their brains are different. I've got three youth at home, and I know their brains are different. I don't need an MRI for that, but I'd appreciate seeing the evidence.

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Now you have the proof.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Luckily, they won't be watching this, even on reruns.

On those points, perhaps you could help us, and maybe Mr. Horne and the other group could also answer.

12:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Justice for Children and Youth

Martha Mackinnon

The evidence is really that the more intense the intervention in a young person's life—i.e., the more intrusive police are, the more frequently they're charged, the more court appearances they have, the longer sentences they have—the worse the outcome, the worse the recidivism, the slower rehabilitation will be.

I hate to say this, because it would mean we could all just go home, but an awful lot of what we have to do for young people is just keep them safe till they grow up. They will outgrow violence. They simply will. They'll have kids and a mortgage, and they will be too tired to be climbing over fences or doing any of that stuff. So some of it is just keep them safe, train them, support them, educate them, give them all the resources they need. That will produce the best outcome.

You asked about increases in crime. There are pockets; there will always be pockets. Maybe the factory closed and a bunch of parents got laid off and the families are poorer. There could be a multitude of reasons, but there will always be pockets where there are increases in various types of crimes. You'll see that car theft goes up in one neighbourhood but there are gangs and there is gang violence in other neighbourhoods. Does length of sentencing affect that? No.

I think you asked a third thing, about evidence, and I'm afraid I've forgotten it.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

I asked about deterrence having an effect on youth.

12:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Justice for Children and Youth

Martha Mackinnon

Oh, no, deterrence has no effect. Certainly general deterrence has no effect. What affects individuals is not actually the notion of the sentence; it's the likelihood of being caught. It's like the kitten or puppy, right? There's absolutely no point in swatting them on the nose, if that's what people still do with puppies. What's effective is a guarantee that they'll be caught and dealt with really fast. There is evidence that this type of deterrence works, but not the kind of specific deterrence we have.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard.

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Thank you.

I was awaiting impatiently for the representatives of Statistics Canada in order to get answers to some questions that we have been asking clearly, since the beginning.

I recognize the scope of all the statistics that you have given us. However, I find it hard to get an answer to some basic questions I was asking myself. Where is the youth crime rate in the statistics that you have provided us?

12:50 p.m.

Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada

Julie McAuley

So what we have provided you today is the pattern of youth crime split by violent and non-violent. But the actual youth crime, looking at the 2008 figures, is—

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Could you show us this?

12:50 p.m.

Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada

Julie McAuley

It's in the police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2008, from Juristat, which I don't think was tabled. I think we tabled three other ones. For 2008, it was 6,454 per 100,000 youth population.

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Could we have that on paper? My research assistants have found in Statistics Canada's data one type of youth crime rate, but I know that there are two. They found the one calculated using diversion, but the other one is calculated from the uniform crime reporting survey that police officers fill out across the country when they are called to a crime.

Do you have that second type of statistics somewhere?

12:55 p.m.

Mia Dauvergne Senior Analyst, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada

The rate of youth crime in Canada is calculated using data from the uniform crime reporting survey. What we are able to do from those data is to determine youth who are charged and youth who are not charged, which may be what you're referring to as being diversionary programs, because that's one of the ways in which youth can be accused but not charged.

So in slide 2, we've given the trend line for both of those types, for the youth charged and the youth not charged. If you were to combine those—the numbers that represent these lines—you would come up with the total of youth charged.

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Could we get--

12:55 p.m.

Senior Analyst, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada

Mia Dauvergne

I'm sorry. It's the total number of youth accused. Excuse me.