Yes.
Evidence of meeting #53 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 data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #53 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 data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
You mentioned something about a credit card case, but it seems to me that what we have here is pretty clear, thoughtful, and circumscribed language to make it clear that these are for people who are serious offenders and have a substantial likelihood of committing not just another offence but another serious offence. Am I reading that correctly?
4:35 p.m.
Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
You're reading it correctly--and smart people can disagree, if Professor Bala feels this is a good amendment.
The position is as set out in the paper. We're opposed to the amendments for the reasons we've set out. It would certainly be a lot easier to accept if it said something like “will commit a serious violent offence” or “will commit a violent offence”. That would make us more comfortable in defining the situations where a young person should be detained before trial.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
My understanding is that this wording, this proposal, really flows from the Nunn commission report. My recollection is the case that gave rise to the Nunn commission in the first place was one of a young person who had a history of stealing cars. After he was charged with stealing one car, he stole another car, and in the commission of the second offence he killed somebody. That's theft of property. The car might have been worth only a few hundred dollars, but it was used in a way that ended up killing someone. That's what gave rise to the whole Nunn commission, which resulted in these proposals and Bill C-4.
4:35 p.m.
Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
I was a witness there and actually met the family of the poor woman who was killed. The issue there is as much about the definition of violent offence. This is a place where I support the legislation and perhaps disagree with some of my colleagues here. What happened in Nova Scotia was not just that they stole a car, but that the young person was involved in a car theft and a high-speed police chase. The Supreme Court of Canada said it wasn't a violent offence because no one was hurt. Then the second time he stole a car, unfortunately, he was driving down the road with the police following and he killed somebody.
Justice Nunn wisely, in my view, said that the concept of violent offence should be broadened to include situations where there's danger to the public. That's the definition of violent offence in here. We don't all agree about that. I certainly support the bill on that point. It's really Justice Nunn's recommendation.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We're going to excuse our witnesses. I want to thank all of them for either coming back or coming for the first time. We'll have the other witnesses from Statistics Canada take their place.
In the meantime, we'll suspend for a few minutes.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We reconvene the meeting, and we're continuing our study of Bill C-4.
Our next panel welcomes back representatives from Statistics Canada. We have Julie McAuley back, and we have Craig Grimes, Rebecca Kong, and Mia Dauvergne. Welcome to all of you.
Do you have a presentation to make? You do. Please proceed.
4:40 p.m.
Julie McAuley Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
I think the presentation has been distributed.
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 and has been updated since our June 2010 appearance to inform this bill.
All data sources used are clearly indicated on the slides, as are any pertinent data notes. Distributed for your consideration are the most recent Juristat reports related to youth crime and youth courts.
My colleagues with me, Ms. Mia Dauvergne, Ms. Rebecca Kong, and Mr. Craig Grimes, will help answer any questions.
Please turn to the second slide in the deck. Using data received from police services across Canada, we can examine trends in youth accused of police-reported crimes. Over the last 10 years there has been a substantial shift in the trends of youth accused by police. The rate of youth charged has dropped, while the rate of youth cleared by other means has increased.
In 2009, 45% of youth accused of a police-reported crime were charged or had charges recommended against them. The remaining 55% were cleared by verbal warnings, written cautions, referrals to a community program, referral to an extrajudicial sanctions program, or other means, including incidents where the complainant declined to lay charges.
Crime can be classified into two categories, violent and non-violent. As can be seen on slide 4, most crime committed by youth is non-violent. This has been a consistent trend over the last 10 years. In 2009, seven in ten youth accused of a crime had committed a non-violent offence. The rate of non-violent crime committed by youth in Canada has been decreasing over the last 10 years, while the rate of violent crime has remained relatively stable.
As the youth crime rate is predominately driven by non-violent crimes, the overall crime rate as reported by police services in Canada has also dropped over the last 10 years.
The top 10 offences shown on slide 5 account for approximately 80% of all police-reported offences committed by youth in 2009. Eight of the ten shown are classified as non-violent offences. The most common police-reported offence committed by youth in 2009 was theft under $5,000. This, along with mischief, assault level 1, and administration of justice violations accounted for about half of all police-reported offences committed by youth in 2009.
On slide 6 we turn to what happens once charges laid by police move into Canada's youth courts. In 2008-09, theft was the most common type of case completed in youth courts, followed by Youth Criminal Justice Act infractions, break and enters, and common assaults. These 10 most common offences shown accounted for just over 75% of total youth court cases in 2008-09.
The composition of cases completed 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 robbery, major assault, and uttering threats.
Please turn to the next slide. Since the introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, there has been a 23% 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 the time where we see a decrease in both the total number of cases completed and the number of guilty cases.
Turning to slide 8, of the approximately 58,500 cases heard in youth courts in Canada in 2008-09, 59% resulted in a guilty finding. In half the cases where the youth was found guilty, probation was the most serious sentence imposed.
As seen in slide 9, in recent years, the proportion of violent cases resulting in a custodial sentence has been declining, and in 2008-09 they were at their lowest recorded levels. All provinces and territories have experienced large decreases in both the numbers and proportions of guilty youth cases receiving custodial sentences since the first year of the YCJA. The use of custody has also decreased across all offence categories.
On the next slide, in 2008-09 the median length of custody for all youth cases in Canada was 36 days, compared with 30 days for adults. When split by violent and non-violent offences, we see that there is a difference in the median lengths of the custodial sentence imposed: 65 days for violent cases versus 30 days for non-violent cases sentenced to custody. By far, the median length of custody was the longest for homicide, at two and a half years, followed by attempted murder and sexual assault.
On any given day in 2009-10, about 835 youth, aged 12 to 17, were in sentenced custody, down 7% from the previous year and down 46% from 2003-04. In fact, the number has been declining annually since 1995-96.
Looking at slide 11, youth in remand outnumbered those in sentenced custody. In 2009-10, 53% of all young people held in custody on any given day were in remand compared with 35% in 2003-04.
Youth continue to spend fairly short periods of time in remand. As seen in slide 12, 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 a halfway house; and closed custody, which means secure facilities and would include detention centres.
As shown in slide 13, 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.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
There is a lot of information here, and I can't seem to see much correlation between what the statistics say and why we're amending the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
You talked about informing the bill. From 1998 to 2008, the non-violent cases as a percentage of guilty cases declined from about 30% to about 15%. That's quite a drop. These are cases that result in custody, right?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
Yes, they are.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
A youth commits an offence, is found guilty, and is sentenced to custody. We know, because we've just discussed what the bar for that is, what the judge must consider. We're seeing that non-violent cases resulted in a higher degree of custody than violent cases. Then in 2008-09, that inverses itself so that, as I would have expected, violent cases outstrip non-violent cases.
Can you explain why the two roles reversed? It would seem to me that violent cases would result in custody more often than non-violent cases. Is there an explanation for that?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
All we can provide to you is the data. We wouldn't be able to provide you with the explanation underlying the data. What the graph is showing you is the trend in non-violent and violent cases that are sentenced to custody, over time.
We can look at that percentage and we can see that since 2003-04, with the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the number of violent cases sentenced to custody has decreased. In 2003-04, it was that 21% of violent cases were in custody. We are now, in 2008-09, sitting at 17%.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I have a further question on this, about the whole graph for the whole period. I think I got my answer that the YCJA's implementation had an effect on this. I am a liberal arts major, so help me here. The percentage of guilty cases is 30% for 1998 and about 26%.... There are other percentages of guilty cases. How do you classify them? What's left after non-violent and violent cases?
And then, overall, you get about 55% of cases going to custody, and now, in 2008, you get down to something like 35% resulting in custody. There are fewer guilty cases that end up in custody in the 10-year period, first of all. I guess my primary question is, what are the other categories?
4:55 p.m.
Craig Grimes Chief and Advisor, Courts Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
The way the data have been organized for this chart is that all the violent cases would include homicide, attempted murder, robbery, sexual assault, other sexual offences, common assault, criminal harassment, uttering threats, and other crimes against a person.
The non-violent cases would include all the other offence categories, including other federal statutes, which would include CDSA offences. Everything else is in the non-violent category.
4:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
If you look at the graph, on the left hand side the legend is showing it's the percentage of the guilty cases. If we look at that graph in terms of the percentage of the guilty cases, for violent cases, it's approximately 17% of all cases going before the courts, and if you look at the non-violent cases, it's approximately 15%.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
Sorry, it would be going to custody. Excuse me.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
In 1998, 55% of guilty cases ended up in custody? No?
4:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
In 1998, if you add those two together, you would have slightly over 55% of cases where they are guilty being sentenced to custody. If you look at that trend over time, we are now closer to 35%, 37%.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Chief and Advisor, Courts Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
The overall percentage is around 15% going into custody. You're not simply adding those. You have to rework the percentages because we're talking about percentages.
4:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada
The rest of those would have gone to probations, fines, and other things, when you take the entirety of all cases found guilty.