Justice Committee on June 15th, 2010

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

If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Lemay has called the question.

Is that correct, Mr. Lemay?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

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

It think that's it. He is calling for a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have three others on the list.

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

Do we have to finish the list?

[An hon. member]

Ask the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There's no such thing as calling a question.

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

There is no reason to expedite consideration of this bill, first and foremost because up to now the witnesses have been saying, virtually unanimously, that the existing act is working very well, that it is not outdated and doesn't risk causing major problems for society. So we can perfectly well continue to consider the bill as it needs to be considered, with the gravimen required, as all the testimony heard to date has suggested to us that it should be.

As well, and in response to Mr. Norlock, I would refer him to what happened at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. For the bill on balanced refugee reform, the Minister heard the witnesses, he heard the opposition parties, he negotiated with the parties and an agreement was reached. So it wasn't that the opposition parties wanted to be obstructionist.

We also want to stand up for our constituents' interests, and we don't all understand our constituents' interests the same way; we do it as best we can. So I reject the idea that because something comes from the government we absolutely have to approve everything without discussing it and taking the time to consider things thoroughly. That is what we're doing with this bill. It affects the lives of thousands of young people who are involved with the Canadian justice system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I have three others on the list. I don't want to prolong this debate, because we do have witnesses, and we owe them the courtesy of listening to them. I'm going to go to Mr. Woodworth, Monsieur Ménard--if he still wants to say something--and then Monsieur Petit, if he still wishes to speak.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I happen to also sit on the environment committee, and we've had our difficulties recently on that committee. I know that at least a year and half ago, we began with the notion that when we were studying legislation or items we would pick representative witnesses--three or four, or a reasonable number--from a particular constituency and with a particular point of view, whether they be academics or scientists or non-governmental organization members, whatever the constituency might be. We would hear from them and get a good balanced view of all of the interested constituencies. We would have a definite timeline, and we would work to it. That's what the people of Canada deserve to get from us as parliamentarians.

They do not deserve to get a timeline that is set and then disregarded and set aside. We were, after all, originally intending to go to clause-by-clause on this bill today, and there's absolutely no reason why we couldn't have reached clause-by-clause on this bill today. We've already had hours and hours of hearings on it. Instead, we have a flood of witnesses--almost 40 witnesses--mostly from the same constituencies, with the same point of view, and that's not necessary. Now we hear that the opposition wants to prolong this even more by recalling some of the same witnesses.

Now, I won't go so far as to speculate on the motives of the opposition, but I certainly want to point out that whether or not they intend it, they couldn't think of a better way to bog down the committee process than to call dozens and dozens and dozens of witnesses all from the same constituency, which in effect holds up what many Canadians believe is an appropriate and good piece of legislation.

So that's why I support Mr. Dechert's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard.

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

I am going to go quickly so I can respond to all the falsehoods I have just heard. There are a lot.

Let us remember a few truths. The government chose the time when we would start considering this bill. Why did it not introduce it while we were free, right at the beginning? Why did it prorogue in the first place? There have been no stalling tactics. We agreed to the resolutions at the last meeting because the witnesses said they were not happy with the time allotted to them. We had brought a large number of witnesses in at the same time. There was barely enough time to ask one of them a question. It was the witnesses who told us they were not happy with the way things went when they came to talk about this important bill, which they had studied thoroughly and about which they had serious objections.

I would remind you, for one thing, that at the last meeting there were witnesses from various fields who had not consulted one another beforehand, who all told us they were very unhappy with the conduct of the consultations held by the Minister, who obviously did not pay the slightest attention to them. They said they wanted to correct the impressions the Minister had got.

I would also remind you that the existing act, which is only 13 years old, is producing good results. Youth crime is declining. The witnesses who came here and complained that they did not have enough speaking time are convinced that if we go backwards, and that is what this bill does on certain important points, youth crime rates will go as high as before. Not everything in the bill is negative; some parts are even progress, and on those parts we will support you.

We have a different idea of efficiency. I have pointed this out to you several times. It seems that yours amounts to going as fast as possible, asking as few questions as possible and calling witnesses who will say what others have said before them. You think that isn't important, but actually it is. For example, representatives from the aboriginal nations have told us things that are similar to what was said by people from Quebec, who have the lowest youth crime rate in America, I would point out. These people see that there are dangers in the measures proposed by this bill. The fact that someone says something similar doesn't mean it is not efficient. Efficiency doesn't mean asking witnesses who agree about something not to say so.

In any event, we made a decision last time. So far, the chair has abided by it. I congratulate him for that and thank him. We are going to live with that decision. Otherwise, you are opening a Pandora's box. In the circumstances, another decision is being made, a motion with no notice, etc. Another one will be made in a half-hour, another one in an hour and yet another one at the next meeting.

I would also inform you that if I make a motion, it will be in French. Then you will see whether you are satisfied with the translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am going to address only one point.

We had agreed to extend the time we were to spend hearing all the witnesses by a half-hour. But I will point out that one opposition party has not called its witnesses to date. We could have rejected that, but we nonetheless agree to it, and it created an overflow.

When that overflow was agreed to, we also had to agree to an additional 30 minutes to hear the witnesses. I think that one opposition party must really consider its own responsibility. We took an important step. We agreed that the witnesses would be heard, even after the date set by the committee. We asked for an extra half-hour, but now it is being taken away. It is being cut, from the steering committee's perspective...

I know there are witnesses waiting for us, and we apologize to them. Like everyone around the table here, I represent people. We had agreed on something. We had rules to follow, but one of the parties didn't follow them, and that is why we are stuck where we are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. I mentioned there was a list.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you asked to speak. We have witnesses we want to hear from.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

That's why I want to speak, Mr. Chair. Can I speak?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You can if you wish, but then you'll be prolonging it.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's where I want to go.

We have witnesses here, and with due respect to these witnesses, in the wake of extending it by half an hour we have wasted more than half an hour just beating around the bush. We should have called the question at the beginning to see if we wanted to extend, and we would have given time to do that.

This is a repeated pattern from the Conservatives, whether it is prorogation or producing those manuals to disrupt committees. This is how this Conservative Party works. I request that we call the question and give the time to witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dhaliwal, just so you know, you can't call the question like that. You'd be out of order. But we are at the end of the list of individuals who wish to speak, so I'm going to call the question on the motion.

(Motion negatived)

We're going to continue our study and review of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. We have a number of witnesses here with us. I extend my apologies to you for having to cut into your time a little. This is committee business. It does happen from time to time.

There may also be a vote right in the middle of all of this. So I'm extending to you my apologies in advance. These things sometimes happen. But we want to hear from you as much as we possibly can.

We welcome today Joseph and Lozanne Wamback, representing the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation; the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, represented by Kim Pate; from the John Howard Society of Ontario, Paula Osmok and Elsa Marie Knudsen; and from the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, Jonathan Rudin.

Each organization has up to 10 minutes to present. We'll start with Mr. Wamback, please.

[Joseph Wamback, Founder and Board Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members of this committee.

I am a father of a young boy who was almost beaten to death by young offenders in 1999. I'm a father who recognized a system that needs change—change for both sides of what we now see is the end result of violent confrontations. I have researched this issue across Canada and beyond, and I have volunteered over 11,000 hours working with victims, families, police, and those within our medical community.

There are very few issues in the criminal justice system in Canada that have been the subject of national debate with dissatisfaction reaching the heights as there are with the existing youth criminal justice system. But it is absolutely vital to my presentation this morning that everybody here understands that this concern and this frustration have never been focused on the provisions for dealing with minor crime or youthful mistakes. Anyone who suggests that they have is being dishonest with this committee and with Canadians.

The national outrage is directed at the Youth Criminal Justice Act's inability to deal with psychopaths, killers, and repeat violent victimizers under the age of 18.

In January of this year I held a conference in Toronto that was made up of families whose children had been murdered by killers under the age of 18. Sadly, there was no problem and no difficulty in finding members to participate in this conference. These families did not ask for the death penalty. They did not ask for extreme or Machiavellian sanctions on the young persons who murdered their children. They asked that the lives of their children be recognized as having value. They asked that the Canadian Parliament recognize not only their tragic loss, but the loss of their child's future contribution to Canada.

What are we telling these parents, as well as all of Canada, about the value of their children's lives when we refuse to impose serious sanctions on murderers? These parents want violent repeat offenders segregated from innocent children to prevent others from experiencing the horror that they live with each and every day. Additionally, they want the necessary time provided to rehabilitate those killers before they are released again, if that is possible.

During the last 10 years I have spoken to dozens of psychologists and psychiatrists who tell me that it takes an average of three years of clinical intervention to change criminal behaviour. Unless we provide mandatory clinical intervention and the time necessary to undertake this intervention, we are exposing Canadians to additional preventable victimization and not helping those young victimizers through what we are now suggesting is rehabilitation.

Canadians who obey our laws have the birthright to be protected by those same laws. The changes proposed in Bill C-4 are not about getting tough; they're about protecting our children, our society. It's about acknowledging the value of the lives of murdered children as well as providing those who are the perpetrators of violence the time necessary for positive reinforcement and reintegration into Canadian society as law-abiding citizens. I believe the proposed changes in Bill C-4 will ultimately lower victimization and, most importantly, restore faith in the Canadian justice system.

The justice system is not the sole province of lawyers, criminals, and judges. It belongs to the people of Canada. The system works when victims report the crimes that are committed against them and testify truthfully when asked. When faith in that system is lost, ladies and gentlemen, it will cease to exist, and nowhere is that faith being eroded faster than with our young people.

In the last three years, my wife and I have spoken to over 32,000 young people in the province of Ontario, and we are repeatedly told of their greatest concerns. They're concerned because there's no consequence for violent acts among their peer group. There's concern because of bullying, which is, in reality, criminal victimization, assault and sexual assault--of schools, police, and a justice system that do nothing or whose hands are tied by existing legislation; of parents who are frustrated and angry because they are unable to do anything. We are told that they are frightened of violent peer groups in their schools and in their communities, and we hear stories of violent peer groups victimizing them, and retaliation has become the norm, if it's been reported.

The last Canadian criminal victimization survey noted that 88% of crimes committed against young people in this country go unreported—88%. The reason they go unreported, I'm going to suggest today, is because our young people don't trust the system that should be in place to protect them. This is a result of the current Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Who are the victims of young offenders today? Canada's last criminal victimization survey showed that 37% of violent victims in this country were under the age of 18, and the majority of perpetrators of those crimes against that 37% were under the age of 18. Who will benefit from the proposed changes suggested in Bill C-4? The young people of this country, Canadians from all walks of life, our justice system, and all political institutions.

The ultimate goal, I believe, of Bill C-4 is to restore faith in our justice system, to provide rehabilitation or perhaps habilitation to criminally inclined youth, to provide futures for kids who obey the laws, and to provide safer communities.

In the year 2000 I created a petition, which I've distributed. I hope everybody has a copy of it. It has circulated across Canada. Today, it has the signatures of 1,252,223 Canadians. The proposed changes and minor alterations reflected in Bill C-4 recognize the points in that petition and, more importantly, will recognize that the lives of the victims of violent young offenders also have value.

I've heard brief after brief from those concerned with the rights and lives and futures of violent criminals under the age of 18, but those voices remain deafeningly silent when asked to comment on victims and victims' families.

Since 2000 I have worked with hundreds of families and survivors of violent crime whose children have been the victims of killers and brutalizers under the age of 18.

My petition, item number 5, stated back in 2000 that protection of Canadians and communities must be paramount, along with deterrence and societal denunciation for violent young offenders. This is the first change recommended by Bill C-4—a change that has the support not only of millions who have signed my petition, but additional millions of Canadian families from coast to coast.

I'm an engineer, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe, and I think most Canadians believe, that the laws of this country are reactive tools. It's not social policy. We should not confuse Canada's social policies and programs with criminal law measures.

I've heard it said that the proposed changes are a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I'm going to suggest that such a claim is absolute nonsense. I will argue that the existing Youth Criminal Justice Act is a violation of the UN convention on the rights of child victims and young offenders, specifically articles 13, articles 16, and articles 19, and I will go into details later, if you ask.

I also further suggest that the proposed changes in Bill C-4 are in keeping with that convention and will not only recognize the intrinsic value of the lives of child victims, but also, if we are honest, recognize that serious custodial time will create the opportunity to rehabilitate those who are victimizers.

In addition, I want to argue that the existing Youth Criminal Justice Act is a violation of the UN declaration of the rights of victims, especially child victims of young offenders, and specifically articles 4 and 5. I will go into those later, if the time allows.

I also suggest it is a violation—this is the existing Youth Criminal Justice Act—of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. That clause, which is clause 7 in the Canadian charter, includes you, it includes me, and it includes our children and all victims of crime across Canada, not just those who have been accused of crime. Admittedly, it has never been used in that context, but I believe that someday very soon it will.

Canada is very proud of and believes in judicial independence. I ask you to let it work by supporting Bill C-4.

Current provisions in the legislation are tying the hands of justice. It was not that long ago when a judge in Winnipeg sentenced a 17-year-old boy who had just beaten a 22-year-old man to death with a pool ball stuffed in a sock. He sentenced that young man to one day in closed custody. Why? Because the law required him to impose the least restrictive sanctions available to him. He imposed that sentence and he cried out to ask legislators to help him impose greater sanctions against young killers. To this date there have been no changes.

These proposals will provide our courts and judges with the tools necessary to more fully utilize judicial discretion and independence. I urge this committee to support the changes in Bill C-4, as do millions of ordinary Canadians like us from coast to coast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Wamback, you're out of time.

[Joseph Wamback]

I have one last thing. I have a lot more to say, but I urge, I implore, this committee not to exercise political partisanship, but to listen to what I have said and to support this legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on now to Kim Pate.

You have 10 minutes.

[Kim Pate, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

Thank you very much, and I want to thank you for inviting our organization to participate in this discussion and to appear before the committee. I know some of you. I represent 26 member associations from across the country, from coast to coast, who represent thousands of volunteers who form part of our membership but also form our board of directors.

Certainly our president sends her regrets. She had hoped to come today as well, but she was unable to be here.

Our organization, as many of you know, represents and works with marginalized, victimized, criminalized, and institutionalized women and girls across the country. We're here because of the concern we have that the potential impact of some of the proposed amendments on the lives of those women and girls is profound, certainly the girls and the young women who may potentially be impacted by the legislation.

Corresponding with the inception of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we have seen a decrease in incarceration without a corresponding increase in crime—and I think that's an important piece—as well as, as I understand it, without a necessarily corresponding increase in victimization.

We do believe that there needs to be far more investment in the early intervention methods that certainly the witness before me spoke about, in terms of early intervention, supportive mechanisms, social services, educational services, health services--all of the things that have been cut, services that when they are not available to provide support, their lack actually contributes to young people ending up in the criminal justice system. We don't see that as a place for this legislation and in fact think that the changes proposed by the Youth Criminal Justice Act to push those cases out of the criminal justice system and into an appropriate service, whether it's mental health, social services, or educational services, are supportable and should continue.

We believe that many of the amendments proposed are unnecessary. There are already provisions in the legislation that allow for many of the approaches that are being proposed. We believe that the majority of the issues that are raised and the concerns that are raised by the proposed legislation can and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the existing legislation, using the judicial discretion that already is available.

We have some concerns, for instance, regarding the removal of the presumption for pretrial release, including for property offences. We know now that if in fact there is a risk of violent reoffending, the provision already exists to keep someone in custody, where there have been mechanisms tried that have failed. All of those opportunities still exist.

We know that the more you fetter the discretion of the judge, the greater the likelihood you'll see more individuals end up in the system with fewer opportunities for them to have the cases individualized, in terms of the plans for rehabilitation and reintegration that are so key and have been so successful, we would suggest, in terms of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

We think that the introduction of deterrence and denunciation, as well as proportionality, really, that is being suggested for the principals...these are terms that are quite subjective and difficult to quantify, and will not necessarily provide an opportunity for greater intervention for rehabilitation purposes, or ultimately therefore for public safety, but in fact will likely see exactly what we've seen in the adult system as well, which is more people coming into the system, waiting for longer periods to be assessed, with risk assessments that aren't even validated for young people being applied, and the difficulty then of trying to extricate those individuals from the very system the YCJA was initially introduced to try to unclog and has quite successfully done so.

We think the definition of serious offences now including property crimes is problematic and certainly is too far-reaching, and it will essentially disallow some of the discretion the judges currently have.

We also think the suggestion to lift more easily publication bans is another unnecessary provision. That already exists in the legislation. I believe it's section 127. Application can already be made to lift a publication ban in extraordinary circumstances.

I note that at the same time as there is much discussion and concern about gang-related activity, one of the things we know is that the young people who we have worked with, young women in particular, often who have been—you'll pardon the bluntness and crudeness of it—gang-banged into gangs, who try to extricate themselves...if in fact, based on some of these sorts of provisions, they are exposed, it becomes very difficult for them to extricate themselves in the way that many young women we've had the privilege and responsibility of working with have been able to extricate themselves—with some anonymity, with an ability to move on, with an ability sometimes to even move geographic location. Nevertheless, if there is still perceived to be a need to lift those publication bans, there is a procedure that currently exists to allow that to be done.

We think the challenge of greater reporting and the demonstration before the court that young people have participated in extrajudicial measures is also a concern, in the sense that we already know some of the statistics on racial profiling and some of the issues around the overrepresentation of racialized youth, particularly African Canadian youth and aboriginal youth, and the concern that in fact there is not a need for this kind of measure.

Everybody knows now, if you work in and around the court system, that if you've been victimized, if you've been criminalized, if you've been institutionalized, this information does come into play. It can come into play in sentencing; it can come into play in the process in terms of determining whether someone is held in custody awaiting trial. All of those measures currently exist.

We do support, however, the recognition in the preamble that young people have diminished blame or moral blameworthiness and culpability. We think that is a measure that was read by many of us as implicit in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but explicitly stating it doesn't hurt, particularly in light of the fact that there has been the introduction of a suggestion that deterrence and denunciation be introduced at the same time as we have recently had decisions of the courts that in fact that's unnecessary and not applicable to young people.

We also think the provision of clause 21, that no young people under the age of 21 be transferred into youth facilities, is something that is very supportable. We think the presumption in favour of adult sentences being repealed and replaced by the crown onus is also a positive move.

We are very happy to answer questions. We have certainly other suggestions that we can make, but we're happy to move on and don't want to take any more time from colleagues and other witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on now to Paula Osmok for 10 minutes.