Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased to have the associate deputy minister, Don Piragoff, with me today. I'm here before you again to assist in your examination of Bill C-4, amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The proposed reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are contained in Bill C-4, Sébastien’s Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), are based on a mixture of what was heard during the cross-country consultations on decisions of the courts and the views expressed by Canadians with an interest in the issues, whether in written submissions or in discussion with me and others.
During the course of developing these reforms, I held consultations with various youth justice stakeholders in every province and territory across the country. In addition, I sought and received written submissions by mail and electronically prior to the introduction of the bill.
To put the details in context, after more than five years of experience with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, I launched a review of the act in February 2008. This began with a meeting with provincial and territorial Attorneys General to discuss the scope of the review and to encourage provincial and territorial ministers to identify the issues relating to the act that they considered to be the most important.
In May 2008 I began a series of cross-country round tables, usually co-chaired by provincial and territorial ministers, in order to hear from youth justice professionals, front-line youth justice stakeholders, and others about areas of concern and possible improvements regarding the provisions and principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Input from individuals and organizations through the Department of Justice website was also sought, as well as input through in-person meetings and in written form.
This review and other consultations permitted a variety of different views, including those of police and the legal community, aboriginal Canadians, youth involved in the youth justice system, and others, to be brought forward and considered.
The results show that most provinces and stakeholders believe that the Youth Criminal Justice Act works well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes; however, there were concerns about the small number of youth who commit serious, violent crimes or are repeat offenders.
As well, while the goal of the act is to deal with young offenders through alternative means that encourage rehabilitation, some are of the view that the act has imposed barriers that could restrict the courts from imposing custody on youth who should receive custody. Also, they believe that while adult sentences are available for those 14 and over and can be used where appropriate, these are not always considered, even in the most serious cases. Concerns were expressed by some about youth who commit violent or repeat offences and who may need a more focused approach to ensure that the public is protected.
For example, some were concerned about violent youth who may avoid detention through bail. The fear is that those youth could commit a serious or violent offence while awaiting trial. The current law on pretrial detention is seen by some as too complicated. These complications might also make it more likely that youth who should be kept off the street pending trial may be released, only to reoffend, sometimes with lethal consequences.
As you are aware through the testimony of Justice Nunn and of others who appeared as witnesses on this bill, the Nunn commission of inquiry in Nova Scotia dealt with a case in which a youth who had been detained was released, stole a car, and was involved in a car accident in which a person was killed.
The proposed reforms would greatly simplify the judicial interim release scheme. The new law will include a very simple test. If the youth has allegedly committed a serious offence, then this youth can be detained while awaiting trial if he or she, if released, would likely endanger the public by committing another serious offence.
Overall, taking into account all that was heard during the round table discussions, as well as on the website and from other written and oral input, the conclusion we came to was that although the act is working well for most youth, particular elements of the act need to be strengthened to ensure that youth who commit serious, violent, or repeat offences are held accountable with sentences and other measures that are proportionate to the severity of the crime and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
The proposed reforms address these concerns. The principles of the act will be changed to make the protection of society an explicit objective of the act. Specific deterrents and denunciation will be a part of the sentencing principles. Not only youth who commit violent offences or who have a pattern of findings of guilt will be eligible for a custodial sentence, but also those who have a pattern of extrajudicial sanctions.
The meaning of “violent offence” will be expanded to include offences in the commission of which a young person causes, attempts to cause, or threatens to cause bodily harm, including endangering the public. To ensure that adult sentences are imposed in appropriate cases in which the youth has been convicted of committing a serious, violent offence--which is defined in the bill as first- or second-degree murder, attempting to commit murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault--the prosecution will be required to consider seeking an adult sentence and to advise the court if they choose not to apply for an adult sentence. The provinces will have the ability to continue to set the age for the requirements at 14, 15, or 16.
Changes will also be made to publication provisions. In addition to retaining the current lifting of the publication ban when an adult sentence is imposed on a youth, the new law would require judges to consider lifting the publication bans for all convictions of violent offences for which youth sentences are imposed.
Also, there will be a requirement that records be kept when extrajudicial measures are used by law enforcement. Keeping these records will make it easier to find patterns of reoffending, which ties in with the amendment to the sentencing provisions with regard to extrajudicial sanctions.
A further change is related to youth serving custodial sentences. The bill makes it clear that no young person under 18 will be placed in custody with hardened criminals in an adult institution. Youth can, however, be transferred to an adult facility, of course, when they become adults. All young people under 18 will serve any custody portion of their sentence in youth facilities, separate from adult offenders.
In addition to the feedback provided through consultation with stakeholders, decisions of the courts were also a critical factor in developing Bill C-4. Of particular importance are the amendments that respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Regina v. D.B., remove the presumptive offence provisions, and clarify the test and onus requirements related to adult sentences.
In May 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act violated section 7 of the charter. These provisions placed an onus on young persons found guilty of presumptive offences to justify receiving a youth rather than an adult sentence, and to justify the continued protection of their privacy. The amendments we are proposing will remove the presumptive offence provisions from the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as other inoperative sections.
The act will also be changed to clarify the test for the imposition of an adult sentence and to ensure the onus is on the crown to satisfy the court as to the appropriateness of an adult sentence. Amendments are also being proposed to ensure that the youth sentence calculation provisions are applied when a young person who has reached adult age is serving a youth sentence in an adult correctional facility.
In conclusion, the reforms in this bill are based on a mixture of what was heard across the country: consultations, decisions of the courts, and the views of Canadians with an interest in these issues, which were expressed either in written submissions or in discussion with me and others. These amendments will support and improve a fair and effective youth justice system for this country and result in a youth justice system that holds youth accountable for their criminal misconduct and promotes their rehabilitation and reintegration into society in order to promote the protection of the public.
Thank you.
