Justice Committee on March 2nd, 2011

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to the witnesses for being here.

We've had a great number of witnesses who work in the criminal justice system, specifically with youth, who have suggested, in some cases quite passionately, that this legislation is grossly premature given, really, the recent history of the current youth justice system. I'd ask each one of you for a comment in that regard, if you agree with that and if there are any specific sections in this bill that you think would be useful in enhancing our system and making it more just.

I'll start with you, Ms. Nicolet.

[Juliette Nicolet]

Thank you.

The first part of your question was about....

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Just generally, is this premature? Should we be waiting?

[Juliette Nicolet]

Yes, I'm sorry. We believe it is premature. We believe that, for instance, on extrajudicial measures, aboriginal youth have not seen a decrease in their incarceration rate as a result of the YCJA, yet there has been a decrease in the incarceration rate of mainstream youth. The effects of the YCJA have not yet been felt in the aboriginal population, certainly not in Ontario. So I would argue that yes, it is very premature; we have not yet arrived at a place where the appropriate programming and services have been put in place in order for the YCJA to have the effect that's needed in the aboriginal population. For sure it's premature in that regard.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Okay.

The second question is, do you see any parts of this that in fact you would be supportive of at this period of time?

[Juliette Nicolet]

I do. They do not spring to mind instantaneously, but I know they are mentioned here.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Let me go on to Professor Doob while people are thinking about that.

Professor Dionne, could you answer?

[Prof. Jacques Dionne]

To answer your first question, I think it is clear this reform is premature. A research group was established in Quebec and was given a two-year mandate to assess the effects of the YCJA seven years after it came into force. In two years, we should have factual and empirical data that will help us determine what elements were worthwhile and well-applied under the YCJA, what the repercussions are on young offenders, on programs and on public protection. So, a group of researchers will assess the Quebec-wide effects of the YCJA over the following year.

I think that, if we want a reform, there will be enough information to proceed with one. Some elements could be interesting, but for various reasons—I feel that section 3 is the problem—I think that the amendment is impractical. It will have very negative consequences. Interesting elements of the YCJA are currently being applied, but this legislation also has a negative side. That side should be well-known and well-documented, so that we can make recommendations to legislators and can point out the best ways of improving our justice system. I think that we are currently flying blind, so to speak, basing ourselves on poorly founded premises.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Are there not a couple of provisions you could support at this stage?

[Prof. Jacques Dionne]

If we want to amend section 3, it's possible. Then, the rest will follow.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Professor Doob.

[Dr. Anthony Doob]

Whether it's premature, I'm not sure. My simple answer to that is that there are sections that I think should be changed and should be changed relatively soon. Let me give two examples of that.

Section 29, which has to do with pre-trial release, is important, and it has obviously been a controversial topic. It strikes me that this is a good beginning of what might be looked at because what it lays out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, separate from the Criminal Code, is the beginning of, in effect, a code for what kinds of youth should be held in pre-sentence custody and what kinds of youth should be detained. For example, the test that the person should be charged with a serious offence, and the judge is satisfied that either of those two conditions should be met, is important. It restricts it more than the adult system does, so it's a good start.

I would also have wanted Parliament to look at the conditions and the relationship of the conditions to the purpose of the act as well. When a youth is released on bail, there should be more attention put to what kinds of conditions are put on the youth and for what purposes. At the moment it seems as if large numbers of conditions are put on the youth, and what we do see is large numbers of youth coming back into the system with new charges of failure to comply with those bail conditions. But I think the idea that the test is that there be a substantial likelihood that the youth is going to do one of these things, including commit a serious offence, not just a shoplifting, is important. So I do see that as a good start.

I've already mentioned that I think proposed section 72, which is a different test for the imposition of an adult sentence, is good. I don't think it goes as far as it should, because it doesn't indicate to the crown what the test is for rebutting the presumption. It should rebut the presumption. I think the original section 72 was flawed and that this is an improvement.

So it's a mixture of things, some of which I spoke against, but in previous times I've made it clear that there are other things that I think are important in this. For example, the pre-sentence custody, starting from what's there and looking at it, if this committee were to take that on as a serious project, I think you could well come forward with something that would build on and improve upon, from every perspective—and this is not an issue of political parties—that I think you could probably agree on would be a better system of detention before trial than what we have here or what we have in the proposed amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Dechert, for seven minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I have time left over, I'd like to share that with Monsieur Petit.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here this afternoon. I appreciate your expertise.

I'd like to start by asking Ms. Nicolet a few questions. I want to say at the outset that I've visited some of your friendship centres, and I want to acknowledge the good work that you do through those centres.

You mentioned, Ms. Nicolet, that in Ontario 30% of the indigenous population is under the age of 19. Could you tell me how that compares with the non-indigenous population? Is it different substantially?

[Juliette Nicolet]

Yes. Thirty-six per cent are under the age of 19. Fifty per cent are under the age of 27. Generally speaking, mainstream populations under the age of 27...you're talking about roughly what the under 19 proportion is. So thirtyish per cent are under the age of 27 in the general population.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Under 19, what would that be?

[Juliette Nicolet]

I'm not sure what the number is, but I can find it for you.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Would it be substantially lower?

[Juliette Nicolet]

Absolutely.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay. Given that, could you tell me what percentage, in your view, of indigenous young offenders would be described as violent and repeat offenders?

[Juliette Nicolet]

A very low percentage would probably be described as that.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

That was my assumption as well. Most of the things we're talking about in Bill C-4, the changes, are aimed at violent and repeat offenders. I just want to make the point that I don't think in that regard it likely negatively affects the indigenous population to a greater extent than perhaps the non-indigenous population.

[Juliette Nicolet]

You asked about serious violent offenders.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Violent and repeat offenders.

[Juliette Nicolet]

As differentiated from repeat offenders.