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.
Section Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
I think that probably is right, with this one caveat, though: if you look at—
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Let me stop you, because at the moment I'm not interested in your caveat; I'm just interested in confirming that the only place that violent offence comes into play is in paragraph 39(1)(a) and that in that case it gives the judge the discretion to impose a custodial sentence. Is that correct?
Section Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
It's not completely correct.
Conservative
Section Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
If a young person commits what is deemed to be a violent offence and that violent offence will be subject to five years or greater, which all of them probably will be, it's also a serious offence, and a serious offence then comes into play when you're talking about bail. So violent—
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Let me stop you. A “serious offence”, I agree, is any offence subject to five years or more. But that's a different issue. I'm simply talking about the definition of “violent offence” and trying to understand why it makes a difference to you to allow a judge the discretion to impose a custodial sentence.
If, for example, as in the case that was described to us the other day, someone shoots off a gun in the area of young people, perhaps without any intention of hitting someone but perhaps endangering their lives, section 39 doesn't say a judge “must”; in fact, section 39 says that even if it's a violent offence, the judge has to explore other alternatives, and only if there is no other alternative but custody, then—
Conservative
Section Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
Sure.
Conservative
Section Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
No.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing.
I want to thank Mr. Fournel-Laberge. This is your first appearance before a committee. You were probably a little nervous, and you did very, very well. Congratulations to you as well.
We're now going to take a two-minute break, so that the witnesses can clear out, and we'll have the next set come.
We're suspended for two minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We're continuing our study on Bill C-4, and we have our second panel with us.
First I want to welcome representatives from Statistics Canada. We have Julie McAuley, Mia Dauvergne, Craig Grimes, and Rebecca Kong.
Representing Justice for Children and Youth we have Martha Mackinnon. Welcome.
Finally, representing Defence for Children International--Canada we have Agnes Samler and Les Horne.
Welcome to all of you. Time is in short supply, so if you can keep your submissions under ten minutes that will be helpful, because we probably have a lot of questions we'd like to ask you.
We'll begin with Statistics Canada and Ms. McAuley.
Julie McAuley Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee regarding Bill C-4.
Statistics Canada does not take a position on the proposed amendments in the bill. The presentation we have prepared contains our most recent data on youth criminal justice. All data sources used are clearly indicated as are any pertinent data notes. Distributed for your consideration are the most recent Juristats related to youth crime, youth courts, and youth corrections. Furthermore, in July, Statistics Canada will be releasing new crime and youth court data, which may also be of assistance during your examination of Bill C-4. My colleagues Ms. Mia Dauvergne, Ms. Rebecca Kong, and Mr. Craig Grimes will help to answer any questions.
Using data received from police services across Canada, we can examine trends in youth accused of police-reported crimes. Over the last ten years, there has been a substantial shift in the trends regarding youth aged 12 to 17 accused by police. The rate of youth charged has dropped while the rate of youth cleared by other means has increased. Cleared by other means includes, for example, judicial sanctions and police discretion.
Crime can be classified into two categories: violent and non-violent. Most crime committed by youth is non-violent. This has been a consistent trend over the last ten years. In 2008, seven in ten youth accused of crime had committed a non-violent offence. The rate of non-violent crime committed by youth in Canada has been decreasing over the last ten years, while the rate of violent crime has remained relatively stable. As the youth crime rate is predominantly driven by non-violent crimes, the overall crime rate as reported by police services in Canada has also dropped over the last ten years.
The top ten offences accounted for 93% of all police-reported offences committed by youth aged 12 to 17 in 2008. Seven of the ten shown are classified as non-violent crimes. The most common police-reported offence committed by youth in 2008 was theft under $5,000. This along with mischief and assault level one accounted for about half of all police-reported offences committed by youth in 2008.
I will now turn to what happens once charges laid by police move into Canada's youth courts. In 2006-07, theft was the most common type of case completed in youth court, followed by assault level one and break-and-enters. The composition of cases being heard in youth court is changing. We are seeing fewer cases involving less serious offences, such as possession of stolen property, and an increase in more serious offences, such as uttering threats and weapons offences. Since the introduction of the YCJA there has been a 26% decline in the cases completed in youth court. While there is variability in the magnitude of the decline in caseload, all provinces and territories have experienced a decline since the YCJA.
In addition to the decrease in the total number of cases, there has also been a decrease in the number of guilty cases stemming from youth courts. While the decline began in the early 1990s, the introduction of the YCJA coincides with a decrease in both the total number of cases completed and the number of guilty cases.
Of the approximately 56,500 cases heard in youth courts in Canada in 2006-07, 60% resulted in a guilty finding. For those cases where the youth was found guilty, the most frequent sentence was probation. In recent years the proportion of violent cases resulting in a custodial sentence has been declining. In 2006-07, these cases were at their lowest levels in 15 years. Since the first year of the YCJA, all provinces and territories have experienced large decreases in both the numbers and proportions of guilty youth cases receiving custodial sentences. The use of custody has also decreased across all offence categories.
The average length of custody for all youth cases in Canada was 72 days, compared with 124 for adults. When split by violent and non-violent offences, we see that there is a difference in the length of the custodial sentence imposed: 117 days for violent cases versus 54 days for non-violent cases.
By far, the average length of custody was the longest for homicides, at 1,084 days, which is almost three years, followed by attempted murder and other crimes against persons. On any given day in 2008-09, about 900 youths aged 12 to 17 were in sentence custody, which was down 8% from the previous year and down 42% from 2003-04. In fact, the number has been declining annually since 1995-96.
Looking at slide ten, we see that the youth in remand outnumber those in sentence custody. In 2008-09, 52% of all young people held in custody on any given day were in remand.
Youth continue to spend fairly short periods of time in remand. Four of the eight jurisdictions that provided data in 2008-09 indicated that youth spent, as a median number of days, one week or less in custody. Since the implementation of the YCJA, the median number of days spent in remand has varied across jurisdictions. Overall, in 2008-09, 54% of youth released from remand had spent one week or less in remand. This proportion has fluctuated between 53% and 56% since 2004-05.
For youth there are operationally two levels of custody: open custody, which is less restrictive, such as halfway houses; and closed custody, which are secured facilities and would include detention centres. Among the reporting jurisdictions, the trend in time spent in open and secure custody has fluctuated.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee. This ends my presentation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you very much.
We'll move on now to Martha Mackinnon from Justice for Children and Youth. You have up to ten minutes.
Martha Mackinnon Executive Director, Justice for Children and Youth
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you on legislation that affects the lives of all children.
Justice for Children and Youth has been acting both for young offenders and young victims since 1978. Just as it says in the submission of the Canadian Bar Association, we feel that we understand the issues from the perspective of both those desiring to be more safe and those who have offended.
The first thing I have to do, unfortunately, is apologize. I would normally just ignore this, but because our written submission says the exact opposite of what I mean on one page, I want to point it out now. On page 7, the last sentence of the first complete paragraph says “If this amendment is passed, we can expect a return to much higher rates of detention at great taxpayer cost but with increased public safety”. I mean “without” increased public safety. I will send an amended submission to reflect that change, but I wanted to apologize now in case I misled anyone about my views.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Madam, a moment please. I do not have that document. I don't know what you are talking about. I am sorry, Ms. Mackinnon, but I do not have your brief.
Conservative
Executive Director, Justice for Children and Youth
The submission I sent says “Justice for Children and Youth's Submissions re: Bill C-4” at the top. It is the last sentence under the subtitle “Endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person” in a section entitled “Expanded Grounds for Pre-trial Detention”.
Conservative
Executive Director, Justice for Children and Youth
Thank you very much.
The first thing, substantively, that I wanted to say is that the Supreme Court of Canada has made findings about youth and their reduced moral blameworthiness and the principles of fundamental justice as they apply to youth. I would like to praise Parliament for its consideration of amending the Youth Criminal Justice Act to incorporate those findings. Those, generally speaking, relate to moral blameworthiness, the definition of “serious violent offence”, and the onus provisions where it's not presumed that kids will be treated as adults are.
But Justice for Children and Youth disagrees with the proposals to make the act harsher, because the legislation currently is working. In fact, it is the current legislation that allowed the young man who presented before you to receive the very sentence he said was beneficial. That's the current legislation that got him to where he was.
I was lucky enough to have participated in the national consultations with respect to this legislation. There was one, I believe, in every province. The consultation I attended was attended by police officers in significant numbers, crown attorneys, probation people, criminologists, psychologists, sociologists, lawyers on both the crown and defence side. In those consultations, every single person said the legislation is working--every single person, after repeated questioning.
I'd also point out about the current legislation that in the case of Sébastien, the young offender received an adult sentence. It is the current legislation that was working and that achieved an appropriate sentence for that young offender.
I would echo the submissions you've heard from so many others that denunciation and deterrence do not work. They cannot work. I would encourage you to look at our written submission, which refers not just to the criminological and psychological research that's been done on this point and which is quite conclusive, but also to some quite new research done by a neuroscientist for the Department of Justice, in which he has taken MRIs of young peoples' brains, and photographically, they look different--the impulse control. Putting language in legislation cannot make their brains work differently. So it does not work.
In addition, if I tie this back to the broader general principles of the act and to what makes criminal justice seem fair to people, sentences must be proportionate. They must be proportional to the thing you've done wrong. It cannot, in my submission, be proportional to punish a young person for something some other young person might do or to punish them for what they might do in the future but haven't done. To maintain proportionality, in my view, you cannot have deterrence and denunciation as sentencing principles.
My next point is that the long-term protection of the public should not be changed. Young people, no matter what they've done, are going to spend more time out of custody than they are in custody. It is the long-term protection of the public that's essential. When they are finished with the youth criminal justice system, I want them to be contributing, positive members of society. That must be the long-term focus.
Anyone can trip on any given day. There is nothing we can do to guarantee the short-term protection of the public other than by locking everyone up in boxes and not letting them out. People, if you live in Toronto, are going to get shoved on the subway. It will be an assault. It will even be kind of deliberate. It won't be what most of us think of as a crime, but we will be on the subway and we will get assaulted. You can't eliminate that.
I would also like to point out that in a time of restraint, I think it is critical that Parliament not spend money on anything that cannot be shown to work. All of the evidence suggests that the proposed amendments will not work, and there is no evidence, to my knowledge, that says they will work. In my view, it would be irresponsible to be spending taxpayer dollars on something that may make someone feel good about thinking they're doing something, but if there is no evidence, we shouldn't be spending money on it.
To summarize, it is my submission that we don't actually need any amendments, even the ones that I like. Lawyers would be all right if you didn't do it, because we've got the Supreme Court of Canada and it has already said those things, but I think it's a good thing to amend the act to reflect those rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada, because, fortunately for the world, not everyone is a lawyer. They don't all read Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and it's important that the law be as clear as it can be within the statute itself.
If you must amend in other areas, I have some cautions. One is that I'm personally ambivalent about requiring police to record extrajudicial sanctions. On the one hand, if a police officer at a crossing or an intersection made a written note of every warning he or she gave to people to be careful of oncoming traffic, you'd be surprised, and that's a warning, right? That's a police interaction with you, and it's a warning.
I don't think they have to all be written down. I think most of them are written down at the current time, but my caution is that if you mandate that they get written down, you must also mandate the destruction of those records.
If a young person is charged, goes to court, is found guilty after a trial, and gets the least reprimand, the record of that reprimand lasts for two months. Surely however long we keep police records should be less than that, because it's clearly less serious. If a record is going to be kept, I urge you to mandate its destruction and sealing as well.
Research does show that longer sentences don't work. They don't reduce recidivism. And as I've said, the current laws can already address that.
Finally, I ask the members of this committee to ask for and read the results of the consultation. I sat in rooms where every single individual was asked repeatedly whether they wanted deterrence as a sentencing principle, and uniformly they, including all the police officers, said no. I ask you to ask for and examine the costs of any proposed amendments, and I ask you to ask for and examine all the research about what works, because all of us want our children who have misstepped to be rehabilitated.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you very much.
We'll move on to Ms. Samler. You have up to ten minutes.
Agnes Samler President, Defence for Children International-Canada
Thank you.
I'm Agnes Samler, president of Defence for Children International--Canada. My colleague Les Horne is the volunteer executive director. We've both worked extensively with young offenders in Ontario and across the country and we both have been child advocates in Ontario; in fact, Les was the first child advocate in North America. Defence for Children has sections all over the world, and its purpose is to promote the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and to work towards its full implementation.
I'll pass over to Les.