JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, December 1, 1999

• 1533

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum to hear witnesses, and I expect others will join us.

Once again we're having hearings on Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts.

The witnesses who will be appearing before us today are the Canadian Association of Police Boards, represented by Wendy Fedec, the executive director, and Mike Badham; and Gord Boyd, director, Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton. I'm advised that Grant Obst, the president of the Canadian Police Association, is on his way.

As you probably are aware, you each have about 10 minutes to make a presentation, and then we'll begin questioning. Have you decided who will lead off?

Ms. Wendy L. Fedec (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Police Boards): Good afternoon. My name is Wendy Fedec. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. I'd like to thank the committee for allowing us the the opportunity to present our thoughts on the proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act.

• 1535

The CAPB represents the views of municipal police governing authorities across the country, and it is on their behalf that we appear before you today. Earlier this year, at our annual general meeting in August, the CAPB membership unanimously endorsed a response to the proposed legislation. I believe a copy of that response has been provided to each of you prior to today. If not, I have a few extra copies with me.

I'd now like to turn it over to the immediate past president of the association, Mr. Badham, to highlight the key points for you and some areas we have concerns with.

Mr. Mike Badham (Immediate Past President, Canadian Association of Police Boards): Good afternoon, Mr. Scott and members of the committee. It's a pleasure that I am here today. I was very fortunate in that I happened to be here for the meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and as immediate past president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, I was delighted to be able to accompany Ms. Fedec and present our prepared response to you.

I'm not going to read aloud the entire response, but I do wish to highlight what we consider to be some of the key points for our members and some of our concerns. They are under six headings: preamble and declaration of principle; sentencing; publications and records; custody, rehabilitation, and reintegration; measures outside the formal court process; and other issues.

Speaking first to the preamble and declaration of principle, the principles set out what we as a society expect of our young people and of our justice system in dealing with young people. In earlier submissions on this subject, the CAPB called for the declaration to provide a clear mandate for judges who are asked to balance the needs and rights of young offenders with the protection of society.

Although the declaration fails to directly address the issue of balancing these conflicting interests, when taken in its entirety, the declaration encompasses the concerns of the CAPB. These include the need to address underlying social problems before young offenders become involved in the justice system and to direct more attention to repeat offenders. Our association therefore endorses the preamble and declaration of principle as it is presented.

Sentencing: It's a key indicator for the public as to the merits of a new system. Rightly or wrongly, the public will end up judging this legislation by how well the balance of incarceration versus rehabilitation is handled. Having said that, the CAPB is in agreement with the majority of sentencing provisions included in the bill.

I would make, though, three cautionary comments.

One provision calls for the creation of an intensive custody sentence for the most high-risk youth who are repeat violent offenders or have committed murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault. The CAPB certainly supports this approach. However, we believe that in order for it to be successful, sufficient funds for the necessary programs must be guaranteed, and the programs must be operating as soon as a new legislative and regulatory regime is finalized.

Secondly, another provision would allow a judge to decide on the admissibility of statements made by a youth to a person in authority, such as a police officer. The CAPB agrees, provided that the protection offered to youth in these circumstances is no less than that provided to an adult offender.

Thirdly, with regard to the encouragement of community-based sentences where appropriate, the CAPB recommends a cautious approach that would include research on the use and success of alternate measures. Our caution stems from concerns about a lack of uniformity in approach in various jurisdictions and, once again, because of concerns over adequate funding to support a system of alternate approaches.

Publications and records: This is an area that seems to be a flashpoint for public attention despite being a relatively minor piece of the legislation in terms of cost and effect. Like sentencing, it too will be used by the public as a key indicator of the merits of a new system.

• 1540

The CAPB agrees with most clauses pertaining to publications and records, including the provision that permits the publication of the names of all youth who receive an adult sentence and of 14- to 17-year-olds given a youth sentence for a serious violent offence.

Our one caution is with regard to the provision allowing authorized people access to youth records. We agree, but on condition that only individuals with a demonstrated interest in keeping the declaration of principles be allowed access to the records, and only in those circumstances where the offence is considered serious enough to warrant a wider knowledge of the circumstances.

Custody, rehabilitation, and reintegration: Our comments with regard to this should be considered in the context of earlier statements made with regard to the importance of sufficient funding. We also believe federal-provincial cooperation is crucial to ensuring that the proposed approaches are successful. CAPB agrees that greater flexibility should be provided to provinces in determining the level of security when a youth is placed in custody and when moving youth who reach adult age while in custody to adult facilities. However, we believe it should also recognize the need for some degree of consistency in approach across all provinces.

The proposed requirement that all periods of custody be followed by an intensive period of supervision in the community is applauded, again as long as necessary funding and protocols are in place.

With regard to requiring that mandatory conditions be imposed on periods of supervision, such as attending school, obeying a curfew, or abstaining from alcohol, CAPB questions the level of enforcement that may be possible given the need for adequate supervision to make such conditions enforceable and practical. However, we support the principle as set out.

The CAPB also believes that for alternate measures to succeed, it will require a more systematic approach than what exists now, one that engages police leadership. It cannot be an informal or ad hoc initiative that is practised by some members of the service and ignored by others who work in a separate area. The best opportunity for success may be in dedicated youth crime units, which would allow for comprehensive training and education. It would also require dedicated funding and a possible realignment of resources within a municipal police service.

However, this still leaves unresolved the mixing of the roles of the police and other representatives of the judicial system who are specifically trained to determine guilt and the appropriate restorative sentence. This blurring of the important line between those who enforce and those who adjudicate should be approached with caution.

Because of these concerns, the CAPB would support pilot projects on alternate measures, which should be constructed so as to provide clear mandates, lines of authority, and the measurement of outcomes.

In short, we support the use of informal sanctions, provided the necessary background work has been done to ensure that they are successful.

Under some other issues, CAPB has been a consistent advocate for the need to include education and research as distinct elements within the youth justice strategy. It's our belief the public must be constantly educated in the realities of youth crime. Otherwise, they will have as their only measure media reports on the most serious crimes, which are not representative of the majority of statistics. Education also means educating youth as to their rights, responsibilities, possible consequences, and implications of being involved with the youth justice system.

In terms of research, the CAPB believes objective ongoing and focused research is needed to provide a solid, substantiated, and defensible foundation for current and ongoing measures, both legislative and within the youth justice system.

Another area of concern, which is not addressed in our response but has been drawn to our attention by representatives of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, CACP, is that of speedy trials. The CACP feels strongly that the new legislation should make provision for trials to occur within 30 days unless the judge orders otherwise. Given the age of young offenders, it's not in their best interest to have trials delayed for months. Further, trials that are delayed for lengthy periods of time send a negative message to other youth, causing them to lose respect and undermining the whole judicial system. The CAPB would therefore be supportive of a provision for speedy trials.

• 1545

In conclusion, overall, the Canadian Association of Police Boards supports the measures contained in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We believe the proposed legislation balances the rights of society at large with the rights and the needs of youth.

However, we also believe that any legislative and policy framework is doomed to failure without adequate funding and a consistent and cooperative approach from the various levels of government. Without these elements in place prior to the enactment of new legislation, any early hopes will be dashed and public opinion will be that the new act is no better than the one it's replacing.

In conclusion, CAPB appreciates this opportunity to comment on the important initiative and acknowledges the efforts of the federal government to respond to the shortcomings of the current legislation and youth justice system.

Ms. Fedec and I will be pleased to respond to any questions that occur later in the session. So with that, thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Boyd.

Mr. Gordon Boyd (Director, Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton): Thank you very much for allowing me to come and say a few words today.

I'm Gordon Boyd. I'm the director of young offenders services for the Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton—in phase one as opposed to phase two. I'm here today representing the Youth Services Bureau because we have many programs, both pre-charge and post-charge. We run services in the community—community programs—as well as our open-detention custody and secure-detention custody. We have a lengthy history of working with youth in this area.

There are a couple of points I'd like to make today. First of all, the bureau is in support of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. There are some key things that are important from our perspective.

One is that over the years there have been no hard data supporting positive outcomes for utilizing custodial models for youth justice, and most provinces have not come close to fully implementing the non-custodial, community-based measures of the Young Offenders Act.

So in terms of the new bill, there's certainly promise in terms of when we talk about intensive supervision models and community reintegration, post- and pre-custody programs, and alternative measures and diversion. It's very positive in terms of some of the possibilities.

More serious alternatives are needed for those who commit serious crimes—crimes such as murder, aggressive assault, and other similar types of charges. Historically, our experience with young people in custodial situations is that support to integrate these young people back into the community is very necessary. There is a great deal of need for collaboration and support among the custodial facility, the police force, and the community to ensure successful reintegration of young people who have broken the law, particularly coming out of our more secure facilities. More planning right up at the front end is needed. So we're very supportive of that.

There's no question that secure custody is necessary to prevent the most serious violent youth from harming themselves or others, and to provide consequences along with clear deterrents for serious crimes of violence. We support that type of approach.

On the other hand, we still support that while we're serving young people in our facilities, they get the supports that are required through programming, through structured, targeted interventions that will be measurable with outcome measurements so that we can actually take a look at results that allow supportive movement back into the community for our young people.

Most of my history in YO has been in custody, but the particular interest in the last few years in the community has been around community-based responses to crime and youth who have not committed the most serious acts. And programs like alternative measures, diversions, youth justice committees, probation, and mandatory counselling have cost-effective, proven results, including the reduction of recidivism and reintegration of young offenders back into the schools, into employment situations, and into the community.

• 1550

You cannot separate custodial youth from youth going back into the community. They are our youth. They will return to the community, and we need to ensure at the front end that we provide those services while the intensive supervision and assistance is given.

We're very pleased with the steps the act is moving toward. We think it strengthens the community response in terms of intensive supervision. That really means for us intensive support, doing outcome measurements, and doing supervision of young people and helping them while they're in their communities to ensure that the possibility for further crime or charges is minimized.

I'm pleased to say that a lot of the community responses...certainly locally, in Ottawa-Carleton, the service providers are working very hard to break down the barriers when we talk about young people and the law, and to take a look at their needs, creating youth employment centres, community support programs, and community programs that not only work within the community but also work within our custodial facilities along with the staff so that pro-social behaviour can be encouraged.

Community reintegration starts at day one when a young person is charged. It means working with the police, the social workers, and the custodial staff to have young people reintegrate into the community.

I guess my key message today is that strengthening pieces like intensive supervision models will assist and support the community to shift its mindset so that we don't lock young people up and forget them, but we actually continue to work with them from day one, all the way through the period they're within those facilities to reintegration into the community.

Our responsibility as custodial staff does not stop the day the young person is finished that charge period or the sentence that was given by the judge. It's part of the community responsibility to assist and do follow-up.

We have not succeeded as an agency—nor has any other agency that I'm aware of—to actually do true outcome measurements over a period. It's quite often that I happen to have the opportunity to be visited by delegations from other countries, and their first question concerns what the recidivism rate is in young offenders. I've never really clearly heard an answer for what a positive recidivism rate for young offenders is, yet it's always the first question asked.

Certainly our agency is moving toward doing measurement outcomes, following up with young people at the 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month period to try to get the answers of whether the programs we're running are successful. Are the intervention strategies that we're asked to incorporate...? Do we do what we say we do, and at the end of the day, does it really make a difference?

I guess that's a piece that takes a lot of energy and a lot of movement. But it's not only custodial staff, it's the community that has to partake and help us measure those outcomes.

In terms of the act, again the piece that I highlight is the support in terms of the messaging that the community get involved in terms of community supervision—processes like wraparound and community policing models. Everybody's at the table working, wrapping services around young people, so that the end result is that the young person can go back into society as a productive member.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Boyd.

Mr. Obst, from the Canadian Police Association.

Mr. Grant Obst (President, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, sir. Mr. Scott, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, once again it's nice to be back to talk with you again about the justice system, particularly the youth criminal justice system. I apologize for my lack of punctuality. Having been exposed to the pace that you must have to keep while you're on Parliament Hill, I'm of the opinion that perhaps you all need lights and sirens to get yourselves around here, because it's a little hard to make your appointments on time.

• 1555

I also have a couple of small housekeeping items. I was unable to get the brief together that we normally come here with when we come to testify. We like to provide you with a written brief. We're currently putting that together, but I wasn't able to get it together in time for today with the notice we were supplied.

I also, unfortunately, wasn't able to have my francophone counterpart with me today. In past appearances I've tried to bring either Mr. Prud'Homme or another francophone counterpart, but unfortunately nobody was available today. So if you'll forgive me for that, we'll try to rectify that in future appearances.

I think everybody knows what the Canadian Police Association is about, but just for the record, the Canadian Police Association is the national voice for rank-and-file police officers in Canada. We represent approximately 300 individual police associations from British Columbia to Newfoundland. The 10 provincial police associations are our members, as well as the two national police associations, which are comprised of the CN/CP—the Canadian National/Canadian Pacific Police Association—and the RCMP members' association.

As first responders to most crimes involving young people, our members may have a unique perspective on the problems of youth crime and perhaps some of the failures of our current justice system in providing meaningful intervention.

Every day police officers work with children in their communities. We know that some children have the odds stacked against them, so to speak, and we need more tools to support them and help them make the right choices.

Legislation is simply one tool to achieve that result, and obviously cannot provide all the solutions. The Canadian Police Association is calling for a renewed focus on children and crime in response to the proposed young offenders legislation—the Youth Criminal Justice Act—and disturbing trends in youth crime. I might even come across today as perhaps getting away from that traditional and historical “get tough” perspective that police normally come from.

I think police officers in this country realize that when it comes to children, you have to have a different approach. I'm not going to say it isn't a tough approach; it is a tough approach. But normally we assume that the “get tough” approach is to lock people up and that jail is the answer. I think quite often I've been before this committee and tried to explain that the police in this country don't believe the answer to every problem is to lock people up and throw away the key. I'll try to expand on that a little bit throughout this presentation.

I think everyone recognizes that our current young offender laws lack credibility, not only within the public at large but within the community of children who deal with the youth justice system. We again acknowledge that there is a need for a separate youth justice system that is designed for youth versus adults.

More importantly, in considering a new model, we must clearly distinguish between young people who have made a mistake, perhaps fallen off the track, and will learn from that mistake with meaningful and measured intervention, and repeat or serious offenders who fail to take responsibility for their actions or the consequences of their conduct and in fact learn to play the game, learn to take advantage of the system. These offenders are clearly not benefiting from the opportunities provided by a system that might be perceived as favouring lenience. A system that does not instil meaningful consequences not only fails to protect the community but also fails to protect that offender who learns to play the system.

Just to clarify, when I say “meaningful consequence”, I don't necessarily mean a custodial or jail sentence, and I think that was the theme from my colleagues to the right here.

Police officers across the country relate well to children. I'd suggest that a large portion of my membership, in addition to being public servants, are also mothers and fathers. Police officers are generally prepared—and already do in many cases—to go to great lengths to give kids the benefit of the doubt, to give them another chance when they get into conflict with the law, to work to get them back on track. Police officers are more tolerant when it comes to young people who make a mistake and are willing to cut them some slack, so to speak.

Police officers across this country are already utilizing alternatives to incarceration, and in many cases, alternatives to laying criminal charges in situations where a young person has come to our attention. So we're not only not locking them up all the time; in a lot of cases we're not charging them, we're looking for another route.

• 1600

I think the alternative sentencing provisions as they're outlined in the preamble of the new act are a good thing, but I would try to impress upon the committee that not just the police but, I think, the public at large are concerned not only with serious consequences being reserved for serious offenders, but that serious consequences also be applied to what we might call the less serious offences and the chronic or habitual offender.

So yes, we need serious consequences for serious offences. I'm talking about murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and those types of things. We also need to realize that there's an epidemic with regard to property offences, something that we might place on a lower plane when it comes to talking about offences. We have many kids out there who have been brought before judges or have been introduced to the justice system time and time again for those types of offences—which would be classified as non-violent—but aren't being held accountable and aren't being subjected to meaningful consequences. I may not necessarily be talking jail in that case. Again, I'll get to that in a minute.

I wanted to make that point because I think the preamble is a good thing, but I think it misses that chronic or repeat offender in the non-violent offence category.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to dig up a whole bunch of statistics from across the country on this because I don't think they're out there yet. I know we have a program in Saskatchewan and I know it's going on in Alberta; it stems from the United States. I wanted to take just a few minutes to apprise everyone here of it in case you're not familiar with it. It's called SHOCAP, which stands for “serious habitual offender comprehensive action plan”. This program is something that's relatively new to Saskatchewan, and it's new to my own police service, which is involved in it. I think Alberta has been involved in it for approximately 10 years.

I've talked to some of our members who are actually working in the program and they're not aware of any other provinces that are involved. I'm not saying there aren't, but if there are, obviously there isn't communication among them. It is big in the United States, apparently.

The reason I draw this program to your attention is that it's probably one of the few things we've seen that is actually working. It's working with regard to young people who have had problems with the law.

In Saskatchewan, it's provincially funded. The key here is that it's an inter-agency program that has the cooperation of the police as well as that of social services, corrections people, people who run our youth detention centres, and the school boards. That's the key, because each one of these agencies acquires, gathers, or collects information on kids in our community, kids who have been identified as problem children. Everybody had all this information, but they weren't sharing it. This program, in Saskatoon, Prince Albert, Regina, and Moose Jaw, I think, has allowed for that sharing of information.

The province pays for two police officers in Saskatoon, two in Regina, one in Prince Albert and one in Moose Jaw—so far—so we have six officers in the province of Saskatchewan involved in it. In talking to the officers involved in the section, especially in Saskatoon...we have two officers in Saskatoon, but they tell me that they could easily—and I know we're always looking for more officers—employ six. I thought, well, they must know what they're talking about, because if they'd ask me I'd probably say we need 20, But the member I talked to said no, they could take six officers in this section.

Right now they have 28 kids identified in Saskatoon in this program. They could have up to 350. The officer I spoke with in Saskatoon said that if he had four more officers he could handle the 350 kids they've identified there. These are kids who have been identified as chronic offenders—not necessarily violent. In a lot of cases, we're talking about break-and-enters and property offences, time and time again.

• 1605

What has happened prior to SHOCAP is that judges, I think, have been pulling their hair out. They don't know what to do with these kids who keep coming back. Our only alternative has been to lock them up, which really doesn't do the child any good—well, in some cases maybe it does, but in some cases perhaps it doesn't. It does, I suppose, prevent them from creating more victims, which is a plus.

It's not only the judges who are pulling their hair out. Parents are pulling their hair out and the police are pulling their hair out.

SHOCAP is a one-on-one, officer-child relationship. The two officers in Saskatoon who work that program have a one-on-one relationship with those 28 individuals they handle. They routinely visit their homes and their schools and talk with the children and with the parents, in a very intensive capacity.

It's very labour intensive, obviously, which translates into being very expensive. There is a perception that the program is expensive, but quite frankly, if you take a look at how much good this program is doing in our community and, I think, in the communities in Alberta and the others in Saskatchewan, in the long run we're probably saving hordes. We sometimes forget to look at it in the long run.

So I just draw your attention to that, and when we do bring the brief to you, I intend to have the officers who are involved in the program in my community, and in Regina and Alberta, do a little blurb for you and include it in there, because if you're not aware of this program, it's something you really need to look at.

It brings me to the new act you have in front of you. The new act spends time talking about alternative measures and alternatives to custodial sentences, but it doesn't really address funding for those alternative measures. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it addresses the funding, and I think that will probably become an issue. Yes, we would like to work on alternatives to get these kids back on track, but who's going to pay for it?

As I mentioned, in Saskatchewan the provincial government stepped in and is providing funding for the salaries of the officers involved in SHOCAP. I think it would just be marvellous if there were some way we could have federal funding going to municipalities—I don't know how you do it—targeted for that specific initiative, obviously not just going into municipal coffers so that it eventually makes it into the police coffers and then is up to the chief to administer. Quite frankly, I think most chiefs probably would go for this because it seems to be working really well, but we need it targeted so that it actually goes into SHOCAP.

I don't think I'll talk any more about that. You understand what I mean.

As the police, we welcome a new approach to youth crime and support many aspects of the government's proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act, but again the government is going to have to back up its commitments to young people with funding and standards for these community prevention programs, community enforcement initiatives, or alternative justice programs. That's a concern for us. The recent throne speech renewed this government's commitment to our kids, and we want to see you deliver on these promises.

The Canadian Police Association is extremely alarmed by increases in serious youth crime—and I know somebody here will more than likely take me to task on that statement. Some within the justice system seem to be pacifying themselves with proclamations that youth crime has in fact decreased. I would take issue with that. Statistics reporting youth crime focus in most cases on the number of kids charged with a criminal offence. Most of your statistics are reflecting kids who are charged with a criminal offence—not the number of offences committed.

As I mentioned, we in the public police sector have been utilizing alternative measures for a number of years now. In fact, in Saskatoon, if I have an individual who has never been charged with a criminal offence before come to my attention as a result of an investigation, almost by way of policy I don't charge that individual the first time; I would recommend to the crown that it go alternative—or sometimes pre-charge. If it goes post-charge, you'd probably get a statistic on it; if it goes pre-charge, you probably wouldn't get a statistic on it, and that's quite a common occurrence.

It also is quite common that it may not even go to the crown. Quite often we will meet with the child and the parents and attempt to have a letter of apology written by the child to the victim. Quite often in these consultations the victim is involved as well, and I fully endorse that. I use that quite a lot when I'm dealing with kids. I also train and recruit officers in Saskatoon and impress upon them that it's a good thing.

• 1610

But you don't get a statistic on that. So the more we use that, the more it skews the statistics to a certain extent, I guess. It might make you think that those offences aren't happening when in fact they are.

In framing our submissions today, we would like to remind the committee that the rate of serious crimes committed by youth has increased over the past decade. Drug offence rates increased by 25% from 1987 to 1997. Crimes of violence increased by 85%. Most notably, the rates of robberies increased by 166% and major assault rates increased by 80%. What's really alarming is that the rate of female children charged with crimes of violence has increased 179% over that period.

You should also know that the charges for failing to appear in court have increased by 129%. I think that signals a disturbing attitude with regard to the justice system on the part of kids. If the kids aren't shown that there are meaningful consequences for their actions, they start to adopt that attitude: oh, they can't touch me, they can't do anything to me, I've got three years till I'm 18...that's why they're failing to appear in court. That's exhibited in that statistic.

SHOCAP, by the way, eliminates that. SHOCAP draws a very black, broad line in the sand and says, if you cross this line you're going to be held accountable. That's made perfectly clear in a one-on-one meeting with the officer and the individual as well as their parents. That's why I'm a big proponent of that program.

We support many aspects of the proposed legislation. We believe, however, that a number of principles are key to ensuring the success of the government's youth crime initiatives. In order to accomplish the shared goals of safer communities and the desire to help kids avoid crime, we need sustained funding and support for community prevention programs, community enforcement initiatives, and alternative justice programs.

We also have to focus resources on ensuring that kids understand the consequences of their actions and on preventing repeat offences. Serious and chronic offenders must be the subjects of significant and meaningful consequences. As the severity of the crime increases, the focus must shift towards protection of the community. I think both are important. The child is important. The protection of the community is important. There's a balance we have to reach.

We are concerned that the proposed sentencing principles do not go far enough to reinforce the need to protect society and to provide meaningful consequences and deter reoffending. Judges should not be placed in a position of having to justify a decision to incarcerate a repeat or a serious offender.

Again, that's the concern with regard to the preamble. It indicates that we have an overreliance on incarceration. Well, perhaps we do, but we don't want you to ignore that chronic, habitual offender for what you might call a less serious offence or a non-violent offence.

Measures are required to provide intervention with offenders below the minimum age of 12 in extraordinary circumstances. I'm not talking about the norm. I think there needs to be an early intervention mechanism for children aged 10 and 11 to perhaps be brought in to the justice system when it has been demonstrated that other things aren't working. I'm not saying that the first thing we're going to do is to arrest that 10- or 11-year-old. That's not my point—obviously we're talking about children here. We think there needs to be a mechanism to introduce them into the system in extraordinary circumstances.

On the same hand, society grants a number of adult privileges to young people at the age of 16. We think responsibility for their actions should be reflected in the new Youth Criminal Justice Act and that the maximum age for young offenders legislation should coincide with that principle.

Although the legislation acknowledges and improves the role of victims in the youth justice system, the bill does not go far enough. The Canadian Police Association would like to see increased involvement of victims in the justice process, including the right to submit victim impact statements for sentencing, transfer, disposition, and review hearings. That's something that we've seen introduced in the adult criminal justice system. I think it's something that can apply in the Youth Criminal Justice Act as well.

• 1615

Cost savings—and hopefully cost savings would be generated through the reduced incarceration implied in this bill—must be directly reinvested in community supervision programs if that's what we're going to try to do. So if we save some money by not locking kids up, that's a good thing, but let's take that money and send it back. Maybe that's where the SHOCAP money would come from. That's an idea.

Offenders sentenced for serious offences should be transferred to federal institutions to complete their sentence once they've reached the age of 18. These offenders should not be left in contact with young offenders once they've reached the prescribed age.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Obst. I think you arrived after we began the process. We try to keep the presentations inside of ten minutes. We're at twenty. I've given you latitude because you weren't here when I said it.

Mr. Grant Obst: Oh, I'm sorry.

The Chair: So if you could bring it some—

Mr. Grant Obst: I think I've pretty much made my important points. There are a couple of specific sections I'd like to focus on. Or I probably could do it in questions.

The Chair: I'm sure you'll have a chance, yes.

Mr. Grant Obst: Okay, thanks.

The Chair: On that friendly note, we'll go to Mr. Cadman for seven minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming today.

Mr. Obst, you touched on the extrajudicial measures. I have some concerns, and I expressed them yesterday, about what most people would consider extrajudicial or alternative measures applying to the first offence or the first conviction. As you know, on a pre-charge cautioning or diversion, no offence is registered and no conviction is registered. So you have the potential there of a young person being cautioned and then coming back three weeks later and being cautioned again.

I've heard it certainly from the police in my own constituency. They quite frequently don't talk, so one may not know this young person was cautioned three or four weeks before for the same thing or for something different. It's the same thing if they move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The response I got yesterday was that it's up to, essentially, the jurisdictions to start talking or else to the police to start talking to each other.

Would you all care to comment on that? I perceive that as a real problem. We could have a young person just go from diversion to diversion and never actually get charged with anything.

Mr. Grant Obst: That was my next point.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Grant Obst: We keep records locally—and when I say “we”, I mean the Saskatoon Police Service—on kids we deal with, if it's an alternative measure type of conclusion. But you're right, if a child from Regina moved up to Saskatoon or a child from Calgary or Edmonton came to Saskatoon and got involved with us, we wouldn't know unless we specifically called Calgary or Edmonton and said “Have you had any dealings with this individual?” We've flagged that as a problem. It's a communication problem.

I think everyone knows we use CPIC to share information, but I don't think anything other than a conviction would show up on CPIC, based on the current rules that govern CPIC. I'm not right up to snuff on what governs CPIC, but I know we don't normally put anything on there other than convictions when we're sharing information as far as a record goes.

So yes, that's a problem for us. We support the alternative measures, but we're going to have to work on how we're going to communicate with other police services to see whether an individual has been in their jurisdiction when they come to our attention.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Does that translate now into funding again and resources?

Mr. Grant Obst: Yes, I think it does.

Mr. Gordon Boyd: In young offender services, we share within the residential programs all information we get, but it would be on the custodial sentences and charges. If there were no indications that charges were laid, it would not come up in our system. We would have to go back actually to the forces involved at the time and do background information with the officers, which is very time-consuming, trying to connect with the right people to make sure the information is accurate. So it is a concern in terms of getting the accurate information at the time.

Mr. Mike Badham: My comments are predicated on the fact that I spent thirty years in a school system as a school administrator, a high school principal. I want to mention that we have to be a little bit cautious if we're going to start determining files and shipping them around with young people. My concern is that we don't particularly do that with adults. When I travel from one community to another or take up another residence, I don't believe there's this secret file or dossier to go along. I'm exaggerating a bit on that.

• 1620

Agencies that do work together, where there is some knowledge that there is a troubled youth who moves to another community, have that opportunity to share with similar organizations in that other community.

One of the concerns I see is that with a young person, if you always say on the first occasion they get a free one, and if they get a free one with you and you and you and me, then it can rack up to really quite a number of incidents. Therefore the conversation does have to take place, and you can't overlook that. So to think there should be a free one the first time, I would be somewhat cautious on that.

Consistency and fairness are important. I do believe, though, that cooperation should take place between agencies and also between agencies and communities.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I guess this would be more directed towards you, Mr. Obst. I'm sure you're familiar with the complaints from your members about section 56 of the current Young Offenders Act, dealing with statement-taking and warnings given to young offenders before they give statements to police. Do you see anything in the proposed legislation that's going to alleviate the number of complaints we hear coming from your membership about that?

Mr. Grant Obst: We made a submission previously with regard to greater judicial discretion on the admissibility of statements taken that might not have, for some reason, quite followed the rule, so to speak. That helps us out to a certain extent. Greater judicial discretion is allowed, so from our perspective, that would be a good thing.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cadman.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Are the four groups in front of me aware of what is being done in Quebec under the Young Offenders Act?

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: I understand the National Assembly voted either today or yesterday, I think, to slow down the process.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, generally speaking, do you know how the Young Offenders Act is currently enforced in Quebec to make a comparison with what is being done in Saskatoon, in British Columbia or in Ontario? Do you know that the Young Offenders Act is being enforced differently?

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: I can only say, Monsieur Bellehumeur, that the Quebec federation of police officers partakes in the developing of the resolutions that end in what I come here with, so from a police perspective, they appear to be onside with the rest of the country. As for what other intricacies are going on within Quebec, no, I'm sorry, I couldn't comment.

Mr. Mike Badham: I would not comment either, from either a personal or an association point of view. The Canadian Association of Police Boards has no members in the province of Quebec.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Are you aware of the Quebec Association of Police Chiefs?

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: I would imagine they're probably a member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, but I think they're testifying in February.

Mr. Mike Badham: That's my understanding as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That's right. That association is against Bill C-3. This gives you an idea of the views of the various police forces. That's why I wanted to know if you had seen any differences in the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act in Quebec and outside Quebec. I take your answer to be no.

You said a lot of things about reintegration, rehabilitation, the protection of society, flexibility and the enforcement of some measures with youth. Don't you think we could do all that under the Young Offenders Act?

• 1625

[English]

The Chair: Is your question directed to anyone in particular, Monsieur Bellehumeur?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: To whomever wants to answer.

[English]

Mr. Mike Badham: I would make a comment. I would say the things you have heard—the response from the Canadian Association of Police Boards or any personal comments from me as well—are in response to the Youth Criminal Justice Act being proposed. Therefore we are making a response to that particular item, but we're making it based on issues and—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, but—

[English]

Mr. Mike Badham: Pardon?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Go ahead.

[English]

Mr. Mike Badham: It's also based on principles we believe are important within the community and within society.

So when you talk about working with youth, it would be my position that irrespective of any act, those are principles that I as an individual working with youth and with kids would want to see occur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: For me too, the first objective is the safest society possible. We do not want to hide our head in the sand and see that there are problems with youth. Some young people are having problems. You also have to take into account the poverty level in all that. Misery brings misery as we say in Quebec. One has to realize that the crime rate in youth is too high.

We have a legislation called the Young Offenders Act which is being enforced, I think, as it should be in Quebec. In any case, that's what I'm hearing even outside Quebec. Even the former minister of justice, Allan Rock, has had praises for the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act in Quebec. In Western Canada, we are told that it is not being enforced or that they don't have the necessary infrastructure to enforce it correctly. It seems that in a province, the success rate is acceptable. I am not saying that it's not possible to improve on it, but the success rate is acceptable in regards to the Young Offenders Act enforcement.

In Western Canada, they don't seem to be enforcing it. They therefore don't seem to have good results with young offenders. You are talking about a lot of good principles and goals which could be met, I think, by enforcing the Young Offenders Act. We could thus reach your goals and those that I just expressed.

You can pass whatever act you want, but as the gentleman from the Canadian Police Association said a moment ago, you need sustained funding, an enforcement of the act and working with the community sector. I think this is the key. We can do all that under the Young Offenders Act, but we have to earmark the necessary funding for it.

My question is rather straightforward. In your opinion, if we enforce correctly the Young Offenders Act, which you probably know, with the help of the community sector and with sustained funding, and not the funding that is presently given by the justice department which only compensates provinces for their investment in concrete so that we can jail young people, but with a funding that will help provinces invest to meet the needs of young people, as is being done in Quebec—maybe we have a somewhat different social tack and we have an $81 million bill that I have difficulties swallowing—, would we not reach the same objectives? We would therefore keep an act that has proved useful in Quebec. My question is to anybody who wants to answer.

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: I'll give that a shot, sir.

I think it was in 1983 probably when the Young Offenders Act came in, or somewhere around there. I had just started my police career in 1983. When the Young Offenders Act came in, there were some major changes from the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which was its predecessor. I think some deficiencies were identified over the course of the time we worked with the Young Offenders Act, and I think some of those deficiencies have been identified in this new act.

• 1630

I think what's important is that we periodically engage in this process. It's probably an ongoing process, but this is obviously a more concentrated process when it comes to dealing with certain things. This would be one: children who have come into conflict with the law.

That's how I view this process, as a review of the old act. There have been some changes proposed in this bill. I'm sure everyone is aware of them. We will have the ability under the new act, assuming it's adopted, to treat 14- and 15-year-olds with the same degree of seriousness that 16- and 17-year-olds were treated with in serious offences.

The preamble is I think important for the police. It highlights that there are serious consequences for serious offenders. I've already outlined what I think is missing from that preamble and we would like to see it put in there.

I think we're talking about the same thing here. I don't know if you're hung up on the name of the new act or if there's a certain change in there that you don't like, but I don't think there's a whole lot of new things introduced here. Some areas that routinely have been complained about over the last few years have been addressed. Some haven't been.

It sounds as though we're both trying to do the same thing, but perhaps you just have a different process.

The Chair: Are there other witnesses who would like to take a crack at the same answer? Mr. Bellehumeur's time has ended.

Mr. Mike Badham: I have a very brief comment, yes.

I hear you talking about an investment in the youth within your province. I think every other province in Canada would also want to do the same investment.

If you have community support, if you have inter-agency support, if you have an investment in the prevention of criminal activities;,if you have parents who have parenting skills, if you have adults who do not exploit children—all of those things—then, yes, we would prevent criminal activities among youth and young people. The bill, though, talks about what happens when someone does go awry, someone does err, someone does stray.

This is somewhat different in that it's not prevention but dealing with something that has occurred and then taking measures for the further prevention and elimination of that behaviour, which is anti-social and criminal.

The Chair: Mr. Boyd.

Mr. Gordon Boyd: From our perspective, the youth justice act is seen as actually reinforcing some of the pieces that may not have been implemented in the past—fully, anyway—in terms of alternative measures and diversion. Certainly with the Young Offenders Act we have felt the public has sent a message that they don't have confidence, certainly around the most serious crimes and offences, in the short sentencing of very serious young people and the strategy around dealing with them. That's our perspective. So it's a combination.

In the province of Quebec a lot of youth services groups certainly do a lot of community pieces, not just custodial. So the act will help us. It's reinforcing some of the pieces that we think need to be strengthened.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the entire panel for being here. We really appreciate your practical input. It's extremely helpful to hear from those who are working directly with not only this legislation but also those most affected.

My first question is a very quick one. Would you not agree, jurisdictions aside—and I think Mr. Obst put it best—that this new bill essentially attempts to take the best of the old Young Offenders Act, perceptions aside, and implement that with some positive changes that will work not only for Quebec but also for the entire country, and that if Quebec is doing well under the old Young Offenders Act they'll do better under the new Youth Criminal Justice Act? Would you agree with that statement?

Mr. Grant Obst: That's what I was trying to say, Mr. MacKay, but you've put it a lot more concisely.

Mr. Mike Badham: I agree.

• 1635

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The new act itself attempts to differentiate quite clearly between violent and non-violent offences, which I think everyone embraces quickly. Do any of you see the need to expand the scheduled list of offences to potentially include such things as break-and-enter, as I heard mentioned, or offences involving weapons as an aggravating circumstance? Do you feel it's necessary to look at expanding that list of scheduled offences? Keeping in mind that it does currently embrace the idea of repeat and violent offences, is there a need to expand the schedule itself?

Anyone?

Mr. Mike Badham: Our association hasn't taken any particular position on that. As I indicated, I'm tossing in some of my personal observations, but I'm also here representing our member police boards, and this is based on the positions we have taken through discussion, dialogue, and resolution.

Mr. Gordon Boyd: My response to that wouldn't be about the schedule so much as what you do during that time when you have the young person. If you're going to have structured intervention strategies that are targeting certain results, then the schedule may not be as significant as the outcomes or results you're actually achieving.

Mr. Grant Obst: Mr. MacKay, with regard to transfers to adult court, I think the current bill allows for lowering the age for presumptive transfers from 17 to 14. We'd like to see automatic transfers for 16- and 17-year-olds who commit serious and violent offences.

When we talk about an expansion of presumptive offences to include the pattern of repeat and violent offences, which is in clause 2, we would like to see presumptive offences include aggravated assault and sexual assault with a weapon. I think that's probably more focused on what you were looking for there. That's one area we'd like to see improved.

Of course, that will be included in the brief you'll get.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. We'll look forward to receiving the brief.

With respect to lowering the age of accountability, Grant, you made the point very clearly, and I've tried to make the point as well, that no one is suggesting that 10- and 11-year-olds should be dealt with in any way in terms of incarceration as a first reaction. But as a triggering mechanism, with all of the goodwill intended and all of the provisions put at the front end of this new act to gear it towards early intervention and prevention, identifying youth at risk, are you or any of the panel satisfied that the current social services programs are equally equipped to deal with 10- and 11-year-olds who, in a very small percentage of cases, will be dealt with outside the criminal justice system as well as they could be under this new youth criminal justice system?

Mr. Grant Obst: From our perspective, again, when the police deal with a 10- or 11-year-old the norm is that we can fix it without too much problem. But there are extraordinary circumstances. There actually are some street-smart 10- and 11-year-olds out there who are probably more criminally oriented than a lot of 14- and 15-year-olds.

The other thing the new act talks about and reinforces, and probably could go a little further on, is that it's hard to legislate parental responsibility. It's probably impossible. But parental responsibility is something we have to pay attention to. That was towards the end of my presentation, so I'm glad I have the opportunity to speak to it now.

If we have a 10- or 11-year-old we're dealing with repeatedly and if social services aren't able to handle it for one reason or another, you're right about the triggering mechanism. Maybe the parent now gets introduced to the system through the Youth Criminal Justice Act and is focused a little more on why we are having trouble with this 10- or 11-year-old.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'd be interested to hear from all of the panel on this issue of parental responsibility, because I think there's a misconception as to what this new legislation is going to do in terms of parental responsibility. It now allows you to criminalize parental acts of neglect, essentially after the fact. In other words, a youth has been brought in, placed on a recognizance and released with conditions to comply. The parent has to sign for them. It's not unlike the old system, but now there is a mechanism where the parent can actually be charged if the youth doesn't abide by a curfew, or stay off drugs, or stay away from a victim.

• 1640

Are you satisfied with that? Do you feel we could do more in terms of encouraging parental responsibility? For example, we could have a parent summoned to come to court and answer the simple question: Where were you when your child broke into your neighbour's house? Could we have that type of a mechanism to encourage the parental responsibility we need?

Mr. Grant Obst: I think that's a good idea. I think anything we can do to attempt to hold parents more accountable is a good idea. I don't know how many times I've picked up a kid at 3 a.m. who's on a curfew, a 12- or 13- or 14-year-old who's on a curfew. I actually, as a matter of policy, phone home now and ask to speak to the parent, and I don't tell them I have the kid. I ask them if I could speak with Johnny just to see what their reaction is. It drives me crazy when they say “I don't know where Johnny is.”

I think your idea is a good one. It has some merit, yes.

The Chair: Does anyone else want to respond to that question? Again, we've expired the time. We'll be back.

Mr. Mike Badham: I think there's a difference when something happens in where the parent is at the time. But once the parent is aware and says “Yes, I will accept the responsibility”, or some other person who has been given the responsibility says “I will accept the responsibility”, then I think we have to be very tough indeed on those individuals. They must be held accountable for the responsibility they've just accepted on the specific instance there.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm not knocking that idea. I'm just asking if there is more we can do.

The Chair: Over to Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you all. I have several questions I would like to raise. Since I will not be able to ask them all, I will chose two or three of them and if I have another chance later on, I will ask more.

[English]

In this new bill that is proposed, it seems to me that the publication of names might be considered as an extension of the punishment or the de facto sentence. You know of course that kids who are criminally active might take pride in having their names published in the papers. Could you explain to me how supporting publication of names is going to help reduce their criminality level?

Mr. Gordon Boyd: My experience with young offenders is that it doesn't take them long, whether their names are in the paper or not, when they're reading it to figure out who they're talking to or about. The publication is certainly an issue in terms of confidentiality and whatever effects it has for the family and the rest of the community.

The piece that would be important is really working with that young person to understand what it's all about in terms of why their name is in the paper, what is being said, and what they're involved in in terms of activity. It goes beyond just the reading of the name.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand, but the question I am asking is the following. If not publishing or publishing the name doesn't change anything, what advantage is there publishing it? That's what I'm asking.

I did read the document from the Canadian Association of Police Boards.

[English]

You have specifically recommended support for this part of the bill. I would like to know on what basis, if I may.

Mr. Mike Badham: I think our position was, as I indicated, that we supported the publication of youth names. If they're receiving an adult sentence and they're being treated as an adult, then they should be treated and published in that particular form as an adult.

However, for the serious and violent ones, yes, we've indicated we would support the publication of those younger persons, because I think there's also a community responsibility in knowing that there have been serious breaches of behaviour on that particular basis. So that's what I would add.

• 1645

Mr. Grant Obst: If I could be really quick, I think it might better enable the community to protect themselves if they knew who they had to protect themselves from, and again, it's in the serious offence category. If I have a daughter going to school and there is a child in that school who is capable of committing or convicted of a serious offence, I think it may help the community to protect themselves.

I don't know that it goes too far to hold the individual more accountable. I know what you're saying about how it might become—

Mr. Jacques Saada: Bravado.

Mr. Grant Obst: —bravado to get your name published, but I think there's a balance there again and I think the balance shifts more to the community being able to protect themselves or take steps to protect themselves.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm not going to enter into a debate on that, because we may have some diverging points of view.

Maybe I can come back to the association. That's the only document I've seen, so I'm not trying to target you. Please help me out—and also the others.

But do you agree with some degree of consistency being introduced in this bill for the whole of the country?

Mr. Mike Badham: Yes, it's a Canadian bill, so there's consistency.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I understand. My question is the following.

We know that school systems are different from one province to another. We know that health systems are different from one province to another. We know that social services are different from one province to another. We know that priorities of government are different from one province to another in terms of moneys invested into this kind of field. How can you have a consistent system when you have such inconsistent tools to address the issue we're trying to address?

Mr. Mike Badham: I think the flexibility still has to be there. Even with any school system or any health district, there are still various flexibilities in how they interpret their objectives. The objectives are there, and I think this should be clearly there, and then there should still be the flexibility with some of the resources that one does have. Some people may have more resources than others—and it's been spoken to by the police association here—but you make do with what you have to try to achieve the same objective.

In my opinion, that would be the objective for across the country. We have the same objectives. If a youth is in difficulty, no matter where, north, south, east or west, then you would want to have the same outcome: one, to have that person accept the responsibility for their actions, and secondly, that they would no longer continue with that kind of action.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): You have about a minute.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. new Chairman. I'm sorry, I didn't notice.

If I have one or two moments for putting a question, I would like to maybe explain what kind of difficulty we're in as a group of parliamentarians trying to address one bill. We have such massively conflicting information and assessments done on these bills.

You have stated that the Young Offenders Act is a failure, but then I heard we should build on it. Some people say this new bill is giving us more tools, and some people are rejecting it outright—especially, to which you referred, the motion passed by the National Assembly of Quebec.

I would like you to understand that it cannot be. There is one way only of doing things in this country, and ultimately your recommendations might be good or not good or not accepted and still be right. It's a very general comment, because in one minute I don't have time to get into details about it.

The Chair: You did a very good job inside of four seconds.

Back over to Mr. Cadman for three minutes, please.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question on the area of identification or publication. I've had some representations made to me at home by the school board, who feel that the school boards should be automatically notified. Currently in the proposed legislation it's my understanding that it can be done through court order. School boards are saying that teachers certainly have a right to know who is sitting in their classrooms, and they feel that, especially in the case of violent offences, they should be automatically notified when they have somebody in the classroom like that.

I wonder if you care to comment.

• 1650

Mr. Mike Badham: I wouldn't be making a comment from the Canadian Association of Police Boards.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, I understand. I realize that.

Mr. Mike Badham: The involvement of schools again depends upon the resources that might be available. Mr. Obst was talking about SHOCAP programs or whatever in working with kids and being able to combine the school into it as a resource.

By the way, I'm also from Saskatchewan. In Regina, we have high school resource officers, as an example, who work within the schools and with kids in crime prevention and in enforcement, if necessary. But again, that takes some money. Those are the kinds of things we talk about when we speak of resources to invest in youth, to invest in crime prevention.

I'll slip something in here. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been talking about a quality of life infrastructure program. These are places that you can include specifically if you have—

Mr. Chuck Cadman: If I could interrupt, where I'm coming from is not so much on the resourcing again, it's just on the actual notification. Do you feel the school boards and teachers should be notified when they have a violent offender in the classroom, purely from a public safety perspective?

Mr. Mike Badham: From my position as a school administrator, I would say yes.

Just to tell you something, I participated one time in a pre-sentence report in a particular work there. I asked if they would tell me what happened and if they would give me an indication. They said they couldn't tell me because it was confidential. I said I had just provided information for the report, and I asked how I was to know they were quoting me correctly in the pre-sentence. They said they were not able to do that.

So all I'm giving you is a personal opinion, not something to do with the Canadian Association of Police Boards. I guess we're entitled to do that sometimes with personal opinions.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I understand that the probation services for young offenders do notify delegates who are established in the schools when young offenders are re-entering the school system, certainly here locally. I understand it's their obligation to do so. It's not necessarily the teacher in the classroom, but it is a delegate within that particular school who has the information. So that piece of protocol is already in play to a certain degree. I'm not sure if that helps you out a bit or not.

Mr. Grant Obst: My answer to your question would be yes, Mr. Cadman, I think they should be notified. I'm not scared to have to justify before a judge or a JP why I want to notify the school. If there's a safeguard in there, if we can't come to a consensus on whether it should be automatic or whether I need a court order, I would hope we wouldn't throw it away.

If I need to get a court order, I'll go get that court order. I'll justify why I need to notify them. If we start running into problems with getting permission to do it, then I expect we're going to end up back here talking about it again.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I think there's a case before the Supreme Court right now.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cadman and panel.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur, three minutes, please.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I have several questions but I will probably not have time to ask them all.

You talked about research a moment ago. The representative from the Canadian Association of Police Boards more specifically talked about it. The research outcome is everywhere the same in Canada. There is uniformity in Canada. Given those answers, I would like to ask what interpretation you have for a very specific provision of the bill. I take it that you all reviewed the bill.

How would you interpret paragraph 37(2)(b) which says:

(2) A youth justice court that imposes a youth sentence on a young person shall determine the sentence in accordance with the following principles:

(b) the sentence must be similar to the sentences imposed on young persons found guilty of the same offence in similar circumstances;

• 1655

According to your interpretation of it, are we trying to get the same result for the sake of uniformity? Does that mean that a young person who commits a certain type of offence in British Columbia should get the same sentence as a young person from Quebec who commits the same kind of offence in the same circumstances?

[English]

Mr. Mike Badham: I'm sorry, but I'm not that familiar with the act. I've indicated that I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a judge. I'd have to look at that and read it much more carefully.

You're indicating that the outcome should always be the same across Canada. In other words, if there's a Criminal Code and there's an act, you would expect that the penalties would be similar across the country. Is that what you're asking?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes. However, I am worried by the fact that you didn't look at the bill before coming here as a witness.

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: I'll take a shot at that, Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Is it of no concern to you? Did you look at it?

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: I have the bill here, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: And you?

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: In other criminal cases, we know judges from one province to the other will be guided by judges in other provinces in the same circumstances, in precedent-setting case law, etc. It affects—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If I tell you that at the present time, under the Young Offenders Act, a young person in Western Canada and a young person in Quebec who are the same age and who committed the same offence are not treated the same way, what do you answer?

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: If you're asking me if that's what this clause says, I would say yes, it brings a certain amount of uniformity to the sentencing process.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Does anyone else want to answer that question before we go over to Mr. John McKay?

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): This is a question directed to Mr. Obst, and it's with respect to the Canadian Police Association.

You come before the committee on a regular basis, and I think our relationship is quite good. I think it's a healthy relationship, and one that is a significant contribution to the committee. I think your association purports to represent the rank and file of the police officers in this country. I assume that includes the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Grant Obst: No, sir, it does not include the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association.

Mr. John McKay: My line of questioning was actually directed to some comments that were on the Fifth Estate. Has the Canadian Police Association taken any position with respect to the comments that were attributed to Mr. Bromell with respect to his relationship with politicians generally?

Mr. Grant Obst: If I can just give you some background, our constitution requires a police association to belong to its provincial organization before it can belong to the national one. I think it was in March that there was some discussion between the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario. As a result of that, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association elected to leave the Police Association of Ontario and, by extension, the Canadian Police Association. Mr. Bromell's organization therefore isn't part of the PAO, and therefore isn't part of the CPA at this point.

I saw the program you're talking about, and I actually haven't had an opportunity to speak to the board of directors of the CPA in any way to discuss it.

Mr. John McKay: I assume your association would dissociate itself from the rest of the comments.

Mr. Grant Obst: I'm not sure, exactly. There were a number of comments made there. There are some I do disagree with, and there are some I do agree with. Do we want to talk about specifics? I'm not sure this is the forum.

Mr. John McKay: I agree with you, I don't think it is the forum, and my questioning is therefore misdirected, Mr. Chair. However, I would like to put on the committee's agenda the comments made by Mr. Bromell on that program. I'd like to put it on the agenda for the simple reason that it goes to the foundation of the relationship between parliamentarians, politicians, and the way we create and administer law in this country. Targeting politicians in particular just because you disagree with them, hiring private investigators...if all of this is true, this is a pretty serious intimidation of our rights and privileges as members of Parliament. As a senior level of government, we need to stand up for members. But I'll leave that rather than as argument, as a point to be put on the agenda.

• 1700

The Chair: We'll take note, and we'll discuss it when we're not taking the time of our expert witnesses.

We'll go to Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make a comment first that many of the concerns you've raised, particularly with respect to funding, are the same issues that, at least in the Conservative Party, we share as well. Much of the attempt of this legislation is very laudable—to put more emphasis on programming and determining early in the process whether it's a violent or a non-violent offender, and putting efforts into the rehabilitative process at the front end. But we know currently that even under the old act, the federal government wasn't living up to the 50% funding of the cost of the administration of the act. I haven't seen anything yet, and there's certainly nothing in the legislation that indicates that's going to change.

I have a specific question with respect to the sentencing provisions of the new act. There is reference in the legislation to a type of deferred custody—and I asked questions of the Justice officials yesterday about this. It's a youth crime form of conditional sentence, where an individual would basically be given an opportunity to go into the community first and then, should they breach certain conditions, be brought in. I have concerns about that. It's the same old “last chance last chance”. If it's going to be used for violent offences, I'm not particularly keen on that happening, particularly with youth.

Another element of this new act that is different from the Young Offenders Act is that there is a form of parole that will now attach. Attached to that, of course, is a form of statutory release, which is also being studied in the adult circles.

I think everyone involved with justice agrees that cold release or someone being released at warrant expiry, having participated in no programming and being completely resistant to rehabilitative process, is not a good thing. But one of the features of the old act that I heard consistently referred to in positive terms was that at least when a young person was given a sentence of 18 months, it actually meant 18 months, and therefore they could target their programming to that period of time. There was consistency. The public knew what the person got, the youth knew what they got, and everyone in the system knew what the actual custodial sentence would be.

I would ask you to comment on some of those changes that will come about as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Grant Obst: I think you're right, Mr. MacKay. That was a plus for the Young Offenders Act. Everyone knew what the custodial sentence was when it was handed down. The number was there, and it was very clear.

It has always been a problem for the Canadian Police Association. We talk a lot about truth in sentencing in the adult process, because quite often the public doesn't really quite understand what the sentence is.

Conversely, I'm not opposed to a period of time wherein a young person would be bound by certain constraints while being reintegrated into society, so to speak. I think that's a good thing. I think it's a good thing in the adult system as well, but statutory release is something that in the adult system is applied across the board regardless of offence. In many cases, there's a whole gamut of things that need to be taken into account. That's why it has always been a stickler for us, and it would be a stickler in the youth system as well if that's the way it was applied.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

Mr. Gordon Boyd: Mr. MacKay, when you talk about determinant sentencing, we use terms like six months or eighteen months. A lot of young people get anything—two months, three months, one day, ten days. So when you talk about programming, it really does make a big difference in terms of the determinant amount of sentencing, but also, knowing how long you have to work with the young person within the structure you're offering is very important.

• 1705

The other piece in terms of young people going back out into the community and having community resources to follow up, rather than just the hold to the day of release, is a very important one. If you house them in a custody facility and then all of a sudden you open the door, everything can be forgotten very quickly unless there's support to remind the young people that these are the goals, these are the targets you need to work toward. And it's getting everybody who works in community-based programs familiar with the strategy so that it can continue in the community.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. MacKay.

Does anyone else wish to comment?

Mr. Mike Badham: I would agree with what Mr. Boyd has been saying.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All the witnesses mentioned that funding had a great deal to do with this. Yesterday we were assured by justice department officials that there would be funding at the front end, which I think is where you're concerned. I often wonder where the back end is.

Mr. Obst, you mentioned that the YOA lacks credibility. I agree with you that it does. I think I know why, but I'd like your answer as to why you think it lacks credibility. I don't want to get into this new act and make the same mistake, if we made a mistake, so that it has no credibility either.

Mr. Grant Obst: For one thing, the YOA didn't have a preamble. So I don't think it was stated up front what the priorities or principles were. I think that's a plus in this act. It actually comes out and says that serious offenders will be subjected to serious consequences. I know it says more than that, but that's one little portion that, if it's adhered to, may go a long way to regain that public confidence.

We're talking about funding. I'm very happy to hear what you had to say. Under the old act, there wasn't any commitment to that, and I guess there isn't any here either, but you're on the record as saying that, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I'm going to monitor it.

Mr. Grant Obst: Okay.

When we brought a kid before a judge and the judge imposed a condition on that individual, no one was there to follow up on it. We didn't have the funding to follow up on that. It lost credibility. The kid didn't abide by that condition—I'm talking about a probation order, in most cases—and found out very quickly that there were no teeth, nothing to back up the condition, nothing to hold him accountable or make him abide by that condition. I don't think we did anything to enhance that.

If we had the funding to implement alternative measures here, it might change that. I don't mean to dwell on it, but that SHOCAP program I talked about has already started to catch on publicly in Saskatoon. Once the public becomes very aware of what those officers are doing, I think they may regain some confidence in the system.

Again, that's under the old act too. We were doing it under the old act. So I guess you could argue, do we really need a new act?

There are other things in this new act that I think will go a long way to reinstil that public confidence. To a great degree, the public confidence is lost in the more serious upper-end things. In the old act, murder got you three years if you were a youth. We changed that.

Mr. Ivan Grose: It wasn't entirely true, but anyway....

Mr. Grant Obst: I think you know what I mean. That perception was certainly out there, and it was true to a certain extent, and I think confidence was lost there. So the addition of the 14- and 15-year-olds in that part, as far as the presumptive transfers go, goes a long way to regain that public credibility.

Mr. Ivan Grose: All right, you've been an upfront policeman.

That's what worries me with my local police force—I'm next door to a much larger police force, and I have some interaction with them. They have no confidence in the YOA, nor do they understand it. What are we going to be able to do to get this across, first of all, to your policemen? If they don't understand it, it doesn't matter what the public thinks.

Mr. Grant Obst: Leave that with me, sir. I'll embark on an education process.

I think you're right, though, and if you want to talk candidly, the police officer is not a whole lot different from the average citizen when it comes to being subjected to the media reports.

• 1710

We lay the charge, and we see the charge go before the court. To a great extent we don't see it any more until we see the kid back on the street. We check to see what the kid got, and we realize he just got another condition on his probation order.

I think the biggest piece the public sees is that we don't deal with repeat offenders as we should, and I dwelled on that. I think we have to recognize that repeat offenders of offences you might think are lesser ones—and I'm talking about property crimes, basically—have to be dealt with, and it's still not in this new bill. I'm here to ask that the committee think about that and make sure that chronic, habitual offenders are dealt with by those serious, meaningful consequences. That would regain us some credibility in the eyes of the public and police officers.

Mr. Ivan Grose: It brings up a point you made—

The Chair: Very quickly.

Mr. Ivan Grose: —that judges have to justify imprisonment for repeat offenders. I wondered about that.

Mr. Grant Obst: I'm just referring to the preamble where it says we're overreliant on incarceration. I don't want judges to say, the act is telling me I can't be overreliant with regard to incarceration, so I have to provide additional justification for a jail sentence. We're a little worried about that. Does that make sense?

Mr. Ivan Grose: Yes, it does. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Grose.

We'll now go back to Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Chair, I don't think you'll find too many people disagreeing with the preamble and the principles as such. I think we can all agree about that. But there has been a fair bit of criticism about the fact that in neither the old act nor the bill before us is there any mention of denunciation or deterrence with regard to the commission of a criminal offence. I'd like to hear some comment on that.

Mr. Grant Obst: Was that directed to me, sir?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: It was directed toward anybody who wants it.

Mr. Grant Obst: I keep taking up a lot of the time here, so I think I'll just defer.

The Chair: Don't be shy.

Mr. Mike Badham: Can you repeat that, please?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Nowhere in the old act or the bill that's currently before us do you see the words “denunciation” or “deterrence” set out when it deals with the commission of a criminal offence or a sanction to be applied.

The Chair: Does anybody have an answer to Mr. Cadman's query?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I just want to know if there's any comment on the fact that we do not see those words in the legislation.

Mr. John McKay: I have no comment.

The Chair: Other than Mr. McKay.

Mr. Grant Obst: I'd just throw out that the Canadian Police Association is big on denunciation and deterrence when it comes to the Criminal Code and to adults. I don't think deterrence and denunciation should go by the wayside. But when we're talking about children—and I tried to allude to this in my remarks—I think our priorities shift a little bit to where we're more focused on the rehabilitation and reintegration aspect. If we can't get that done by the time they're 18, as in this bill, then the sentencing in adult court is directed more toward the denunciation and deterrence aspect.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

We'll now go to Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I have a comment and a couple of questions.

On the funding aspect, the government has committed $206 million over the first three years of the implementation of the act, as well as their ongoing negotiations with the provinces for continued funding. I have no idea of the quantum. So there is a firm commitment in that regard.

On the issue of statutory release parole, when there is a custody sentence given, there is mandatory supervisory integration. But that's not statutory release. He or she is still under the control of the authorities, and if that individual screws up, then they're back in a custodial facility. So it has the philosophy of parole, but the child isn't released cold turkey with no supervision. So I think that's probably a positive aspect of it.

On the issue of deferred custody, it's my understanding this doesn't apply to violent offences.

Also, victim impact statements still apply. When there are extrajudicial measures, victims must be advised if they request it, so the whole idea of the victim is still there.

I have a question for you, Constable Obst. With regard to the automatic transfer at 18 to an adult facility, what do you do with a child who has perhaps three months to go on a sentence? Would you put him in an adult penal institution, knowing what you know about adult penal institutions? What do you do about the child who is perhaps in the middle of an intensive rehabilitation program? Do you discontinue that and put him into an adult facility?

• 1715

Mr. Grant Obst: This individual who is almost 18 is serving a sentence for a very serious criminal offence, because otherwise we wouldn't have him in jail, according to this. I don't like the idea of an 18-year-old mixing with the younger kids. I think they should be separated. If he's in there to start with, it has to be for something very serious, I would suggest.

Mr. John Maloney: But do we discontinue that program even though he's doing well? Does the fact that he has three months to go—

Mr. Grant Obst: Oh, I see your point. You're talking about the program he's in.

Mr. John Maloney: What do you do with that child?

Mr. Grant Obst: That's a good point.

Mr. John Maloney: Isn't that up to the discretion of the court?

Mr. Grant Obst: You're right. Are you talking about moving somebody who was making progress in a program in a youth custody institution?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes.

Mr. Grant Obst: That's a good point. I would take that under consideration.

Mr. John Maloney: So using judicial discretion there would probably be a good idea.

Mr. Grant Obst: Especially if they're making progress.

Mr. John Maloney: With regard to the issue of intercommunity transfers, is that more academic than based on reality? I appreciate that if a child is moving from A to B to C communities, one kick at the can may be six, seven, eight, or nine kicks at the can. But in reality, how mobile are children? Is this something we should be concerned about?

Mr. Grant Obst: I think it's a real concern. I think there are probably quite a few mobile children out there. How many of them are getting into trouble, I don't know. Mr. Badham talked about that.

It's not as if a dossier follows anybody around, but in an adult situation, if someone's convicted of a criminal offence, a record is kept, their fingerprints are taken and kept on record in Ottawa, and any Canadian police officer has access to that. That's all I was getting at.

With the alternative sentencing component in this bill, which might not—and more likely won't—result in a conviction, we could have a problem kid who keeps coming to the attention of the system but whom no one has ever clicked into, and I just don't want to see anybody fall through the cracks who needs the help we're trying to give them.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Badham, can you give me an idea of how prevalent a problem this is?

Mr. Mike Badham: I think for the youth who moves with his family from one community to another, there are various ways and agencies to deal with that. We've talked about the school having some knowledge of the activities of that particular person. There's also the youth who, because of his or her age, is mobile. They aren't travelling with their parents. They just leave town and go somewhere else. If they're under some form of custody, they can't do that. But I think it's legitimate that they can move with their parents. They don't have to be confined to where they committed the crime. But for those who are free-wheeling on their own, there should be, and would be, I would assume, conditions in place so that the individual just can't go on their own, even though technically and legitimately they say that 16-year-olds can leave home.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

We'll go back to Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: My question is for the president of the Canadian Police Association.

You said that the Young Offenders Act lacked credibility. To justify that, you talked about the preamble in Bill C-3. My question is quite simple. Do you know that what is in the preamble of Bill C-3 is in section 3 of the Young Offenders Act?

[English]

Mr. Grant Obst: I think that might have been part of my justification, Mr. Bellehumeur, but not my entire justification. I think the credibility factor isn't addressed just in the preamble. I'm here trying to tell you that you need to take a closer look at how you handle repeat offenders in situations you might not consider serious but that I'm telling you are, such as property offences. If you do that, the public may regain some confidence in this system. That's what I'm here to tell you.

• 1720

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You also talked about a young person who committed a murder and who was sentenced to three years only. You probably also know that the Young Offenders Act was amended in 1992 and in 1995 to allow, where there has been a murder, the transfer of young people to an adult court.

I have statistics here. In 1995, when the last amendments came into force, in Canada, 123 young people have been transferred to an adult court. In 1997, there were 92.

My question is to everybody. Don't you think that if we knew and enforced better the Young Offenders Act and if we had more money for the alternative measures such as the reintegration, prevention programs, etc., given that we can treat young offenders who have committed disgusting and very serious crimes as adults by transferring them to adult courts, amending the Young Offenders Act would not be necessary?

[English]

Mr. Gordon Boyd: In terms of funding and services in program delivery to enhance the programs, it's always about additional funding, but I raise the point that you have to do measurements of outcome evaluation. Does what we're doing make a difference? Does it make sense? Are we putting the right dollars in the right place? That's the first thing, because we can continue to feed the funding issue, but unless we get to outcome measurements and look at programs and their effectiveness, I'm not sure whether we're doing it wisely. That would be my first point.

In terms of the transfers to adult, my personal experience in courts is that usually for a very serious offence, the request for transfer to adult is almost immediate. The judicial process then decides whether it occurs or doesn't occur. But certainly in the cases I've been involved in, it's almost becoming automatic to have that question raised in the court hearing right away. It's certainly been more encouraged to have that question posed and challenged at more hearings.

Mr. Mike Badham: There is a public perception at this time that there are flaws, and individuals have been pointing out some and saying they should be reviewed. This is a review.

There are a few items in here, such as the publication and some issues like that, that are actual amendments to the current act. We've commented that we support those. Those are items we consider amendments. I don't consider that what we're talking about is throwing everything away completely and starting with something totally different or that has no perspective of what was previously there.

The funding issue you have mentioned, though, is, yes, very significant. I heard the comment of how much will be provided. It's also our understanding that there will be funding, and Justice is putting money aside or into the training of officers to better apply the principles of youth justice. That's my understanding, and we support that kind of funding, training, and education.

Therefore it appears what we're talking about is amending something many people seem to feel is broken, redrafting it into a system that would be more acceptable, and also including some points of concern, and they've been recognized. And as I said, the funding issue and that acknowledgement are also included with this.

• 1725

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Saada, I think when you had your first round, you said you wanted to come back. Does that stand?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was a bit concerned when I heard you, Mr. Obst, say we should have considered 10- and 11-year-olds. I have no hidden agenda in putting this question. I'm just putting it straight, because so far I have not been able to get an answer that satisfies me in substance. How are you going to help resolve youth criminality by bringing down the age level from 15 to 14?

If I go by what you were saying a moment ago, and correct me if I understood it wrongly, you're going to have 14-year-old kids being caught, and you're going to be allowed to have them for a longer period in custody—not in custody, but under control—especially in serious crimes, because the period of sentencing was too short. Are you assuming that most young violent offenders are going to be younger than 17? Are you assuming that you're going to help youth criminality by having these people taken care of as early as 14 years old? I have not seen the rationale behind justifying going down from 17 to 14.

Mr. Grant Obst: The rationale for our proposal there....

Maybe it could even be split into the types of offences. It is to a certain extent. In serious cases, 16- and 17-year-olds are now more often being treated as adults. I'm talking about the transfers to adult court for things such as murder.

I don't have any hidden agenda either. The age thing is probably arbitrary to a certain extent, so I can only base it on experience, but a 17-year-old is old enough to be held accountable under the laws that pertain to adults. When you're 16, you can leave home without your parents' permission. You can drive a car. I think you can get married. A number of responsibilities are placed on you at that age. The justice system should parallel that.

That's our rationale.

Mr. Jacques Saada: So you'd be in favour of 16, not 14?

Mr. Grant Obst: No. The submission was that the upper end be 16.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm sorry. Let me understand that.

Mr. Grant Obst: It's 18 now.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Right. You would like to lower it to 16, right?

Mr. Grant Obst: Right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Okay. So I don't understand the reference you made to 10- and 11-year-olds in your presentation. Could you please tell me?

Mr. Grant Obst: Okay. Right now, if I run into an 11-year-old, there's nothing I can do with him other than alert social services or child welfare, or go home and have a visit with the parents. And quite frankly, in many, many cases, that's all it takes. I'll drop by on my next shift and see how the kid's doing, you know, those kinds of things. But if that's not working, then in extraordinary circumstances where the kid, the child, is repeatedly in trouble, maybe we have to have a mechanism to introduce them into the system. But that would be the extraordinary situation. Does that make sense?

Mr. Jacques Saada: It does. I'm not saying I agree with you.

Mr. Grant Obst: No, I know.

Mr. Jacques Saada: But it does make sense.

Mr. Grant Obst: As long as I'm making myself clear.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, that's fine.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Jacques.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of fairly specific questions.

Restitution orders tie in very much with the credibility and the frustration on the part of the public. Even under the old system and under the adult system, and I predict under this system, most often the case is going to be that it's very simple for a judge to say “And you're also to make restitution for the broken window and the piece of property you damaged or stole”, but very little can be done in the actual enforcement of that after the fact.

• 1730

I just wondered, based on your experiences, if there is something we can do to help buttress that in this particular act.

Mr. Grant Obst: If it is a condition of a probation order and can be enforced with...you get into a merry-go-round thing here. First of all, in many cases they don't have the financial resources—I mean, that's granted—so are we going to have them working for the victim? In some cases, yes, we do, and that works. A lot of times the victim won't want to have anything to do with them, so you might have them work for somebody else.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Community service.

Mr. Grant Obst: Exactly, and if they don't do that, that's where our SHOCAP guys come in; that's where they start reducing privileges further. They start implementing mandatory attendance at programs, etc. If that can be legislated, if more legislative power can be put behind that, yes, certainly we would—

Mr. Peter MacKay: The ever-tightening leash.

Mr. Grant Obst: Right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: If they don't follow the rest—

Mr. Grant Obst: It's the reduction of privileges if you can't accept the responsibility.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Without going through the bill in detail, do you feel we should be trying to legislate that further within the clauses of this bill?

Mr. Grant Obst: In fairness, Peter, I'd have to look at that again.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I mean to just having a cascading approach so that restitution actually means something.

This is something I heard constantly as a crown attorney: after the fact, after the sentence was handed down and there was restitution there, I'd have the victim show up at the office and say, “Look, six months is up. This kid's off probation next month. He was ordered to pay me for the ripped jacket, and I haven't seen it.” Once the probation order is complete, it's complete.

So mechanisms to bring the kid back into court after a period of time...?

Granted, all of this is going to be more onerous on the system, but to your mind, is this something we should be taking a closer look at?

Mr. Mike Badham: I'd say to take a look at it.

Mr. Grant Obst: If making restitution was a condition of the probation order, wouldn't breach of probation be an applicable charge there?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Certainly.

Mr. Grant Obst: Now what do you do? What's the accountability factor in the additional breach of probation?

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right.

I have a broader question. In terms of the saleability of this to the public—and again, it ties in to the confidence and perception aspect—I do have some concerns. We've heard from the police association and from many groups that testified before us that our processes and our laws are not streamlined enough. Rather than in some cases stripping away legislation, what we do is like putting shingles on an old house: we just pile more on top and put more legislation in place.

When I look at this new bill, even on the face of it this is twice as thick as the old Young Offenders Act. I'm concerned about that perception, and I'm concerned about it being a make-work project for lawyers, because there is going to be a lot of interpretation of these new clauses.

Your perceptions, please.

Ms. Wendy Fedec: Before we came here, we did speak with representatives of the CACP, the chiefs' association. I think one of the reasons they've asked for some extra time in preparing their response to you is that they have those kinds of concerns.

As people representing police boards, we're not lawyers and we're not front-line police officers, so our concerns and the level at which we can get into the specific clauses of the legislation is quite different from what a lawyer can do.

I think CACP will be addressing those kinds of concerns. I don't think we have the skills necessary to analyse it at that level.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

Mr. Mike Badham: It has to be practical. That's really the only thing I can say. It has to be something that's practical, something that can be worked on, and, with respect, something that is not giving a lot of work to lawyers.

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

I'd like to go back to John McKay, please.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Obst, you glanced off the issue of victims rights, of victim participation in the system, and Mr. Maloney rightly pointed out that clause 5 provides for “an opportunity for victims to participate in decisions related to the measures selected and to receive reparation”.

Have you analysed how victims are treated in—for want of a better term—adult court versus how they are proposed to be treated in this bill? Are there any other significant differences, other than paragraph 5(d)?

• 1735

Mr. Grant Obst: Could I just get the last part of your question again, Mr. McKay?

Mr. John McKay: Are there any other significant differences in the way victims participate in the youth justice system as proposed in this bill versus how they would be treated in adult court, other than paragraph 5(d), which is simply an opportunity to be involved in the extrajudicial measures?

Mr. Grant Obst: Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything. Routinely right now, under the old act, we attempt to draw the victim in as much as we can, probably most often in alternative measures situations, and we attempt to keep the victim notified of what's going on throughout the whole process.

Aside from the proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act, we've seen the development of victims services programs and sections within police services across the country. It pertains to this as well. If I have a case where a victim has become a victim as a result of a crime against them by a youth, our victims services don't draw any distinction. They still go in, whether it's a youth offender or an adult offender. Funding is always an issue there, but we always seem to come back to that.

I don't know that there's anything more you can do in that regard legislatively. I'm sure that the Victims Resource Centre will be happy to answer that question when they get their turn up here.

Mr. John McKay: I see Mr. Sullivan smiling.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

It's 5.40. Have we exhausted the discussion today?

If that's the case, thank you very much to the Canadian Association of Police Boards—

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chair—

The Chair: Michel Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. If I may, I'll hold your point of order until I release the witnesses from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, the Canadian Police Association, and the Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton.

Thank you very much for being here and for your contribution to this important national discussion. Have a safe trip, wherever you may be headed.

Mr. Grant Obst: Thank you very much.

Merry Christmas to all.

The Chair: And to you.

We have a point of order from Michel Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The witnesses that are coming here maybe do not have the resources to have the materials translated in order to submit them in both official languages. However, we adopted rules, and specifically that no material should be submitted if it is not in both official languages.

With due respect to the witness that was here, I did not mention it, but I would not like it to happen again. It is very easy to go around the rules we have adopted. I saw Mr. McKay go to the clerk, take some sheets and distribute them.

I know that the witnesses did not circulate them, but this is doing indirectly what our rules do not allow us to do directly. On a number of occasions, liberal members have said that they were aware of the witnesses' briefs and that they would like to get more details on such and such thing. By doing so, we are not putting the two official languages on an equal footing, whereas we had adopted a rule in 1993 or 1994 for the equal treatment of the two languages.

This is not the first time that witnesses come with a brief which is only in one language. Very often, they have several copies. I already have seen documents in French only but I went by the rule. The clerk took all the materials and we waited for them to be translated to circulate them. I would like this to continue and I respect the letter of the rules we have adopted.

[English]

The Chair: I would ask the clerk to continue to advise those people who are presenting written material to do it with sufficient notice to allow us to do the translation. I would also confirm that it's the position of the committee that we would not distribute material in one official language. I personally feel quite strongly about this, coming from the only bilingual province in the country. I'm quite familiar with the importance of these issues.

• 1740

We have to also appreciate the fact that in the event a witness appears or arrives here with something in writing, in hand, in one language—and this is a practical reality, I suspect, from time to time—there's nothing we can do, really, to prevent them from making those materials available. We could ask them to acknowledge for the record that this is an inconvenience and so on, but as a matter of course, I'm not sure how you enforce that from their end. Certainly I know how to enforce it from this end.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, since 1993, I have not seen one witness get up to distribute his written material in one language only when he knew the rule. Mr. DeVillers, you have been on the justice committee a number of times. When we tell witnesses that their brief is only in one language, they usually apologize, as did the Canadian Police Association. Witnesses say that the document is only in one language and that they will wait for it to be translated before submitting it. Never since I have been a member of this committee, since 1993, have I seen a witness get up to distribute a document in one language only.

What I find unacceptable today, Mr. Chairman, is that a member from the Liberal Party went to the clerk to get the documents and distribute them. I understand why the clerk gave them to him. It was a member who was asking for them. This is doing indirectly what our rules do not allow us to do. I would like to know your view on the matter. If I am not satisfied, I will go to the Speaker of the House of Commons to ask him to decide on this. This is doing indirectly what our rules do not allow us to do.

[English]

The Chair: I think perhaps I can satisfy Monsieur Bellehumeur on this. In the event a witness arrives with a paper in one official language, we will take the opportunity to tell them that in fact it is not appropriate for the committee to receive and distribute that documentation in one language. Many of these witnesses appear here more than once, and we can use it as an occasion to inform them of that.

The only thing I say is that at that point they're seized with these documents, and they can distribute them as they see fit. But I would agree with Mr. Bellehumeur; it would not be appropriate for us to distribute them. I'll see to it that it doesn't happen.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree completely with Mr. Bellehumeur. I have, in all the time I've been here, been in some discomfort at times. As soon as I found out the document I received was in one language only, I did not use it. I don't know what it says. That, I think, is only common courtesy.

The Chair: Monsieur Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Perhaps I can add one more thing. I know it's our practice that when we invite witnesses we ask them to provide us with their briefs ahead of time. Very often they don't do it. Is it our fault because we don't give them enough time, or is it their fault because they just don't have the resources or whatever?

I think it would resolve a lot of problems of this nature. I agree with the principle that we voted for around this table. I think it would help a lot if we could try to ensure as much as possible—and I hate the word “enforce”—that we have a chance to read the briefs before people come up. It would also give us a more intelligent way to prepare for questions.

The Chair: In the first part of my response, I thought I made the point that the first order of business is to take the occasion to remind everyone of that preference. When people do appear, their material would not be distributed by us, by the committee itself. They would have the brief in hand, and each member would have to decide what to do individually in the event that somebody put it in front of them. But the material would not, and should not, be coming from here.

Does that satisfy, Monsieur Bellehumeur?

Mr. John McKay: Are we finished with this issue?

The Chair: Yes, or I assume...?

• 1745

Mr. John McKay: I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether other members have had the opportunity to read this rather shocking transcript from the fifth estate. I think it's about as fundamental an issue as any member of Parliament can deal with—namely, an intrusion into the rights and privileges and the discharge of our roles as public officials.

I would take guidance from you, Mr. Chairman, and from the committee as to just what we could or should do in the circumstances. We are the senior level of government. In some respects, we have a responsibility to protect, if you will, junior levels of government. That may seem a little high-handed, but we are given certain rights and privileges by virtue of our office.

I think this committee should be seized with this matter, because the protection of rights and privileges of members and rights and privileges of politicians generally should fall to the House, and clearly the justice committee is a creature of the House.

I'd be interested to hear some feedback from other members with respect to the intimidation tactics used by a particular police association on a number of politicians, particularly in the city of Toronto. To deal in this issue in an upfront way, I'd like to see that either put on the agenda or dealt with in an expeditious fashion.

The Chair: Before I propose that you may wish to put this as a notice of motion, if that's how you want to proceed, perhaps we could hear from a couple of members to get a sense of everyone else's feelings.

I'll go to Mr. MacKay and then Mr. Saada.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This isn't really a reaction, because I don't know what I'm reacting to. All I know about this is what I've heard from John today. I'm wondering if he can expand on it a little more. If he has a transcript, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Mr. John McKay: I have the transcript. It involves Ms. Sgro, who was a city councillor. Basically, she was hauled in by the Toronto police association, by the union, and intimidated.

I'll read from the transcript, starting with Mr. Malarek, the host of the program:

It was decided to make an example of Judy Sgro, a little trick they learned in Los Angeles.

Mr. Malarek: We understand they were told by the L.A. guys that one way to get instant respect was to take down a mayor or a city councillor.

Mr. Bromell: Correct. If you find somebody who's an enemy of the police, you don't want him to run around, so you try to get him kicked out of the office. It's pretty simple. You're going to keep all the other loudmouths...you're going to get their mouths shut.

Mr. Malarek: That sounds like intimidation.

Mr. Bromell: You can call it that.

Bromell and his boys demand a meeting with the police services board. There's only one item on the agenda—Judy Sgro.

Ms. Sgro: The whole intent of the hour and forty-five minute drilling session was for me to shut up, period. There were seven of them. All seven of them had a list of questions and comments....

Mr. Malarek: Did you feel bullied?

Ms. Sgro: Absolutely.

I don't want to go too much further on this. I'm happy to provide this transcript to each and every member.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This was on the fifth estate last night?

Mr. John McKay: This was on the fifth estate on November 24. I think there's a significant principle in place here, a very significant principle. If we, as practising politicians and members of this Parliament, are to discharge our responsibilities, we have to do it without this kind of intimidation.

The Chair: Jacques.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Since Ms. Sgro was not a member of Parliament at the time it happened, obviously the issue of the question of privilege cannot be used. But I think this matter goes far beyond the justice committee. I think it has to do with any member who is elected and who is subjected to these kinds of threats.

So I would certainly suggest that we seek advice from the Speaker of the House as to what can be done to come to some formal action or statement on this issue before we make a decision amongst ourselves here.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I concur. I didn't see the program, and I would prefer to actually take a look at the transcript myself before going any further with it.

• 1750

I would concur, though, that it's something we might individually want to look at first.

The Chair: Yes. I think out of respect to everybody, so that everybody is coming at this with the same basic information, we'll simply defer discussion until the first meeting of the justice committee next week. Very few people are going to get a chance to do this before tomorrow, so we'll bring it back up as a matter.

In fact, I'm prepared to take this as notice, if everyone agrees, if that's the decision you take. If you'd like to come back with something more formal, then we would take this as notice.

In the meantime, we'll explore with the Speaker, as has been requested, what recourse we have, as a committee of Parliament specifically assigned subject matter. We'll come back to this as a matter on the agenda.

So we're not doing this in a formal sense. I think we're simply making an inquiry.

The clerk has asked me what we're going to the Speaker with. We're simply going with an inquiry to the Speaker as a committee that doesn't really want to engage in some formal process if there are other processes available to us. We just don't know.

I think that's a fair comment. We're exploring the possibilities.

Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I would like us to discuss it again and to have more proposals as to what can be done, but I would above all like to say that the next time we talk about it, I would like us to deal also with the motion on organized crime that was passed unanimously yesterday in the House of Commons. I'd like us to discuss the time lines and the way we are going to work on that issue as soon as next week.

[English]

The Chair: Again, we would interpret this also as notice if in fact that's what it turns into.

John.

Mr. John McKay: I'd like to reproduce copies of the transcript and circulate them among committee members so that we're all on the same page. It might be useful, prior to that time, to consult with Mr. Marleau and see whether there is a basis for any procedure.

I consider this to be a pretty fundamental aspect of your democratic rights.

The Chair: So the clerk is going to keep track of the business of next Tuesday. It's not as if we didn't have enough to do.

A question has arisen as to whether we want to have a discussion perhaps in camera at the beginning of the meeting—on Tuesday, I presume.

Mr. John McKay: I guess the other question that arises is whether we should invite Ms. Sgro, who is, in this particular case, the unique victim. As I say, though, the larger issue is really the one we're dealing with here.

The Chair: It would be my instinct to say that I don't think we want to necessarily identify her that way. She's a member of Parliament. She sat here for awhile today, and she could sit here for awhile on Tuesday as a replacement, but I don't think we want to bring her isolated in that way, as the person we're concerned about.

Again, it's just my position, but I think we want to discuss the broader issue first and go from there.

We know what's on the agenda for next Tuesday—the witnesses from victims' organizations, perhaps? No, that's tomorrow. I apologize. We have the Public Prosecution Service of Nova Scotia and the Minister of the Attorney General of British Columbia.

With that, we'll adjourn.