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]

Tuesday, February 15, 2000

• 1110

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, in the interest of getting the best bang for our buck with the witnesses, we'll call the meeting to order. The session is scheduled to go from now until approximately 1 o'clock.

We have three groups of witnesses. From McGill University, we have two students, Erin Fitzpatrick and Marie-Claire Leman. We have, from the

[Translation]

Association des centres de jeunesse du Québec, Pierre Lamarche, Director General, and Jacques Dumais, Director of Youth Protection.

[English]

And from the Quebec Conference of Regional Health and Social Services Boards, we have Marc Lacour, director.

Without further introduction, I would call on the McGill University students. Am I giving the appropriate introduction? If not, you can clarify in your opening comments.

As the rules go—and we'll have to stick with this, because we have three groups and not a lot of time, and we may have some interruptions—for opening presentations, you have ten minutes between the two of you. For each group that is represented by more than one person, the group gets ten minutes. I will wave frantically inside a minute. Okay?

Please begin.

[Translation]

Ms. Marie-Claire Leman (Children, Youth and the Law Committee, Faculty of Law, McGill University): Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for having us here today. I'll just do the introductions again. I'm Marie-Claire Leman. I'm a law student at McGill University and my colleague Erin Fitzpatrick is also a law and social work student, also at McGill University. We're here as representatives of the Children, Youth and the Law Committee of McGill University's law faculty.

We're sorry not to have provided our written document this morning. We didn't have enough time to have it translated. However, we will be sending it to you shortly in both official languages.

As far as the matter of criminal justice for youth is concerned, we're of the opinion that we shouldn't be harsh; we should be winners. We have to look at real success objectives: fewer victims, less recidivism, less mistrust between generations and fewer human rights violations. Costly failures must give way to effective intervention. We strongly support Bill C-3's emphasis on diversion and alternative measures. My colleague will elaborate on that and I will then come back to tell you about our concrete recommendations to ensure the implementation of the constructive elements of this bill.

First of all, we would like to place our intervention in context and say that the teen years are a particularly important period in the human being's development. This principle underlies a criminal justice strategy for youth which, among other things, must be understandable for and accessible to youth, avoid stigmatization, proceed in a fair and efficacious manner, integrate rather than isolate, support the potential of our youth and make it easier for adults to understand the behaviour of young delinquents.

With that, I'll give the floor to my colleague Erin Fitzpatrick.

[English]

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick (Children, Youth and the Law Committee, Faculty of Law, McGill University): Merci, Marie-Claire.

I will be speaking specifically to what Marie-Claire outlined and in particular to the benefit of looking at this act in a psychosocial manner.

I will be starting off by looking at the detriments of incarceration, from a psychosocial framework. Then I'll move into looking at the part of the bill that pertains to extrajudicial measures, from a psychosocial framework. And thirdly, I'll be looking at non-custodial sentences and a realistic approach to recidivism, again from a psychosocial framework.

For the sake of the committee, I will briefly outline what we will be using as a definition for “psychosocial framework”.

From a social work perspective, “psychosocial” implies looking at youth from a psychosocial developmental model. That implies looking at the individual's psychosocial development, “psycho” meaning their psychological development, and “social” meaning looking at the individual within their context—for example, perhaps their family, their community, or their peer group, as well as their larger society.

What is the importance of a psychosocial framework? Considering youth justice from a psychosocial framework is unique for a multiplicity of reasons. Among others, the psychosocial model is congruent with article 6 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that state parties shall “ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child”.

• 1115

We submit that in light of what is now known, development should be read broadly as psychosocial development. In addition, as you know, our domestic legislation pertaining to children and adolescents has been revised to use the standard of the best interest of the child. Again, interpreted broadly, experts in the area of child and adolescent development would attest that psychosocial development is key. In addition, among the recommendations that came out of the coroner's inquest into the killing of the first young offender in youth detention, a strong thrust was placed on a psychosocial approach to youth justice.

However, most importantly, Mr. Chair, a psychosocial approach is what we hear from the young people of this country, who are really our future. The young people we come across in our work as social workers and law students working in this area tell us that they want to be treated in a psychosocial manner.

Moving on to the issue of ensuring that the extrajudicial measures that are framed in Bill C-3 are implemented in a psychosocial manner, there are many advantages to this, and this is what we'd really like to impress upon you today.

The extrajudicial measures must involve meaningful restitution that is victim oriented as well as offender oriented. This takes into account the self-esteem of the offender and the injury caused to the victim. Otherwise, restitution will be hollow and meaningless.

Significantly, extrajudicial measures must explore the underpinning of why the offence was committed. This in turn is co-related to decreased recidivism, and it benefits the offender in many ways. For example, it promotes greater self-understanding and introspection of the individual, along with identifying the community and societal factors that may have contributed to why the offence was committed, for example, discrimination and peer victimization.

Extrajudicial measures need to involve self-reflection exercises in an age stage and culturally appropriate manner. If carried out properly, this can be extremely constructive and challenging for the youth—more challenging, we submit, than sitting in a cell. It causes the youth to reflect on the harm caused to the victim, himself or herself, and others in society at large.

It is widely acknowledged that attending therapy sessions that are carried out by professionals is challenging and has been deemed to be a replacement for the incarceration of adults, for example, for wife batterers at the McGill Family Centre. If we do not make this option mandatory for youth, arguably this could be considered discrimination under subsection 15(1), the enumerated grant of age, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

This is, of course, totally unacceptable and sends a strong message to society and our youth—again, the future of our country—that we will allow fully grown adults to have the privilege of having professional help so that they can get better, while we do not put that faith in our youth who, owing to their age, are still malleable, learning, and developing, and who may not have had the opportunity to have the appropriate role models and training they are deserving of.

Psychosocially sensitive extrajudicial measure goals include avoiding the stigma for the offender that is associated with the process, from arrest to the appearance in court. Extrajudicial measures keep offenders from being labelled as criminals and thus influencing their self-concept in a negative manner. Along this line, problem-solving methods that include reintegration of the offender into the community and the preservation of his or her dignity, rather than stigmatizing and punishment, reduce recidivism and promote long-term protection of the public, as evidenced in studies that have been done internationally.

If time permits, I now would like to move on briefly to—

The Chair: You have about a minute and a half.

• 1120

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: I'll now turn it over to my colleague Marie-Claire for our recommendations.

If there are questions, we will move on to the detriments of psychosocial incarceration and the psychosocial benefits of non-custodial sentences, which we would also like to present to the committee.

Ms. Marie-Claire Leman: Thank you, Erin.

[Translation]

So we'd like to make three recommendations. First, our reservations about incarceration are all the more urgent in view of the talk about pre-sentencing custody. Pre-sentencing custody centres are ill-equipped to meet the needs of young offenders. So we can't count on those centres to ensure those services that should be available elsewhere in the community. So we agree with the first paragraph of clause 29 which states:

29.(1) A youth justice court judge or a justice shall not detain a young person in custody prior to being sentenced as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures.

We're also of the same opinion as the legislator who says, in paragraph 2 of the same clause:

(2) In considering whether the detention of a young person is necessary for the protection or safety of the public under paragraph 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code, a youth justice court or a justice shall presume that detention is not necessary under that paragraph if the young person could not, on being found guilty, be committed to custody on the grounds set out in subsection 38(1)...

And I'll stop there because we're afraid that this limitation might be undermined by what follows, which reads:

... unless there is substantial likelihood that the young person will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice.

We would not like to see the probability that the youth might commit an offence for which he would not be put in custody under the first part of the paragraph at clause 38 contradicted by this pre-sentencing custody measure. Perhaps it should be more specific as to the kind of offence meant in this last provision and ensure that at the very least those offences, upon a finding of guilt, lead to the possibility that the youth might be remanded into custody.

Our second recommendation is more of a warning. We think that we must ensure that the Canadian public is well informed in order to understand the subtle undertones of what is at stake in this situation. The government and our citizenry must refrain from hasty conclusions that would derail the tracks taken by Bill C-3. It would be unfortunate if we had to come back to this same forum every three or four years just because of political pressure.

In order for your committee's work to have its full meaning, it is worth looking more closely at the process now and let the legislation prove itself later on. That brings us to our third recommendation.

We think the success of this bill will depend on its implementation which, in turn, will directly depend on the allocation of sufficient and sustained financial resources. As the provincial administrators have already done, we would encourage you to get assurances concerning the renegotiation of the financial agreements between the provinces and the Minister of Justice when she appears before you. The government has shown the seriousness of its intent by allocating $206 million to the initial funding of the bill. However, this temporary measure isn't enough to ensure adequate funding for the execution and long-term implementation of the legislation.

We think it's primordial for the funding question to be settled before Bill C-3 is implemented.

Thank you for your attention.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, and kudos to translation. That was a pretty good clip. They were doing a very good job of keeping up.

I understand that the brief has been prepared by a collective. It may be a leap, but I think some of the collective is here. So to the balance of the folks who I think are accompanying the presenters, our thanks to you as well for coming and for helping in our inquiry. Thank you very much.

Now we'll turn to

[Translation]

the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec. You're on, Messrs. Lamarche and Dumais, you have the floor.

Mr. Pierre Lamarche (Director General, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. First, I'd like to introduce the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec.

The association represents all those public centres that work with young offenders within the context of the implementation of the province of Quebec's legislation on youth protection. That means that the association speaks for those who work with young offenders on a daily basis but also for the 80,000 to 100,000 children that the youth protection services and the young offender system deal with every year.

• 1125

Actually, you can probably establish a parallel between the two services as many of the young offenders have already been seen or should have been by the youth protection service. I'll get back to that later.

I agree with the comment made by the member before. He said that the substance of the debate shouldn't have to do with Quebec's situation and the rest of Canada but rather about the concerns one might have concerning all Canadian children. So the concerns we'll be debating here should take all Canadian children into account. There's no doubt at all about that.

However, one must recognize that the Quebec system does have its specific points. First of all, I'd like to make them known to you and then Mr. Jacques Dumais can follow up. Mr. Dumais is the Director of Youth Protection for the Chaudière—Apalaches region. His status of Director for Youth Protection under the Youth Protection Legislation means he is the provincial director as defined in the Young Offenders Act.

In Quebec, the use of police discretion has been on a constant increase going from 25% of all cases brought to the attention of the police in 1990 to 53.3% in 1997. I'll give you a few figures before going to more substantive matters.

Second, I'd like to point out that 53% of the cases brought to the attention of Quebec's provincial director are routed toward alternative measures. So police discretion applies in 53.3% of cases and 53% of cases brought to the attention of the provincial director are settled through alternative measures. After that, when you get as far as going to court, two thirds of the measures ordered by the courts are community measures.

Custody is ordered in about 27% of the guilty verdicts against minors while it's 33.7% elsewhere in the country. In concrete terms, that means that 4.4 young people out of 1,000 are placed in custody in Quebec as opposed to 10.5 out of 1,000 elsewhere in Canada.

So the regime uses all the levers provided by the Young Offenders Act and, despite that, the situation regarding criminality is no worse in Quebec than elsewhere. On the contrary, the proportion of indictments of minors in Canada is almost double what it is in Quebec. In Quebec, 269 youth per 10,000 are indicted as opposed to 495 in the rest of Canada.

I wanted to give you these figures to show that even though the Quebec system makes full use of the measures authorized under the Young Offenders Act and community justice measures, the province doesn't necessarily have a higher rate of criminality. That also shows, in our opinion, that the Young Offenders Act meets whatever needs there are in dealing with the young offender cases we have to deal with at the present time.

Why is the situation in Quebec the one we have today? I'd like to draw your attention to a certain number of conditions that seem to explain very concretely, in our view, how, over the last 50 years, we've managed to build a distinct system in Quebec.

The first condition is extremely important and is very different from what you have in the other provinces. This is the link that's been made between the youth protection system and the young offenders system. In reality, it's the same person or the same team that deals both with those cases drawn to our attention under the youth protection legislation and those cases that fall under the Young Offenders Act.

• 1130

The young people aren't necessarily kept in the same location, but it's the same team, in any given region, that ensures follow- up. Thus, the judges are in a position to follow how the young person is evolving and are therefore more able to make decisions because they know about that young person's first problems with the system from the first cases of negligence when he was a child all the way to the first offences as a young offender. It's the same teams of professionals, the same socio-legal teams, the same courts and the same judges that will do the follow-up from childhood to adolescence and see to meeting the youth's needs.

We consider that the balance mentioned at the beginning of the Young Offenders Act, the balance between penalty for the crime and rehabilitation, runs the risk of being severed. This balance was a perfect support for the perspective and the system that the youth protection system and the young offenders system had joined to create.

Third, the Quebec legislation on youth protection, until very recently—and other provinces have recently amended their legislation in this way—was the only one that allowed a flagging to be brought to the youth protection director where you had a young person showing signs of behavioural problems. This is a preventative measure that you can use as soon as the parents or the school or even the parents and the school consider that they're losing control of their teenager's behaviour. There's no obligation for them to wait for the teenager, boy or girl, to commit a crime before sending that young person for help. They can do this flagging under the youth protection legislation. You can take charge of a young person before that youth is caught up in the young offenders system.

Fourth, for at least 50 years now we've been trying, in Quebec, to develop a rehabilitation centres network for those youths who show behavioural problems, young offenders and youth that have been taken under control under the youth protection legislation. We've established over 40 psycho-social rehabilitation centres. As some of you will remember, the Oeuvres du Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger were the source of funding for setting up rehabilitation centres for youth. All around the world, it is recognized that institutions like Boscoville, Mont Saint Antoine, Mont d'Youville and the Institut Dominique-Savio have managed to develop an effective rehabilitation approach for young people showing behavioural problems.

Fifth, many years ago, we started developing specialized disciplines for professionals working in those centres. At this time, Quebec is the only province to certify what we call psycho- educators, in other words professionals who are trained precisely to help young people showing behavioural problems. Five thousand seven hundred psycho-educators are now practising in Quebec. Moreover, I must point out that training in criminology in Quebec is also focussed on the clinical aspects of delinquency.

I'd like to bring up one last point that is really important and that is that Quebec has always wanted to be up-to-date with its treatment of young offenders. We've always tried to analyze the system in depth. I'll just mention the study done by the Honourable Judge Michel Jasmin and his working group on the implementation of the Young Offenders Act and the youth protection legislation. Since then, around our youth centres, we've set up two university institutes and many research teams working to perfect our knowledge of the best practices to treat our young people who show behavioural problems.

We think that the present Young Offenders Act already allows us to acquit ourselves of all the obligations set out in Bill C-3. We see no value added by Bill C-3 to what we're already offering under the Young Offenders Act. Not only are not able to identify any significant added value that might justify a very important transformation of the system, but we're afraid we'll undergo losses that Mr. Dumais will identify.

• 1135

Mr. Jacques Dumais (Director of Youth Protection, Chaudière- Appalaches, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

You are of course in the presence of a person who is both Director of Youth Protection and Provincial Director as set out by the terms in the Young Offenders Act. It is often said that I wear two hats depending on the legislation that applies to the young person whose case we're entrusted with.

I have four main ideas that I will set out after which my colleague and I will be in a position to answer any questions the members of the committee might want to put.

First, I don't think we need another legislation on youth crime, even for the most hardened youth. The statistics the minister presented when she tabled the bill show that there's a decrease in criminality all across Canada as well as a major decrease in violent crime. So we think we have all the tools we need to deal with our youth.

A lot was said before about restorative justice. The Young Offenders Act already provides for all kinds of possibilities in terms of alternatives that are being called “extrajudicial measures” in the new bill. The alternatives provided for in the present Act allow us to exercise discretion and use more community- oriented measures including those calling for interaction with the victim. The present Act also provides for referral to the adult system in very serious cases or cases where the young person can derive no further benefit from the system designed for minors. In Canada, this referral mechanism is used in only fewer than 0.1% of all cases. So we do have the tools that allow us to work with those young people showing far more major difficulties. Despite that possibility, this measure is only used in very few cases in current practice.

Second, it is also untrue to pretend that the new bill will change nothing in how delinquents are dealt with in Quebec. First of all, no amendment to the present Act is being proposed. This is a new bill and it's very clear that a new bill is the vehicle of new values and a new philosophy. Besides that, and this is far more damaging, it upsets the balance that we had managed to achieve between protecting society and the needs of young people who have committed an offence. The new bill deals very little with the needs of young people. It is far more focussed on dealing with an offence although, of course, this offence has been committed by a young person. The essence and spirit of this new bill are also focussed mainly on the idea of the offence.

Thirdly, and more importantly, we are currently witnessing an unprecedented erosion of a separate justice system for minors. Amendments to the Young Offenders Act were made in 1986, 1992 and 1995, to provide for longer periods of custody, to promote referrals and to make transfers to the adult system automatic.

Now there is a proposal to get rid of referrals and to make the adult system part of the system for minors. This despite the fact that, within the youth system, it is currently possible to hand down adult sentences. This is where I feel that the bill is even more dangerous. There is a lot of talk about sentences for adults, about making the sentence match the seriousness of the offence, and about harmonizing sentences in Canada. In fact, this is an attempt to make the system for minors correspond to the system for adults by copying it.

A certain number of people will no longer be able to avail themselves of the provisions of this Act and the only option will be to treat them as adults. If they are 14 years of age or older, have committed a serious offence and are a repeat violent offender, they will almost certainly be treated as adults.

• 1140

Fourthly, this is an unimaginably complex bill that has been tabled. I wonder how people will be able to make sense of it. I'll give you only a few examples. The current legislation contains a declaration of principle that has eight paragraphs, while the bill contains four declarations of principle having 32 paragraphs. There is an overall declaration of principle, a declaration of principles for extrajudicial measures, a declaration of principles for sentencing and a declaration of principles for custody and supervision. I can only imagine all the debates to which these declarations of principles will give rise. The declaration of principle found in the current legislation has led to numerous cases being referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation and for a ruling on whether needs should have precedence over protection. Now we have been presented with a declaration of principle containing 32 paragraphs. Just imagine the debates that will take place in the coming years to determine which should have priority.

There are also many very unwieldy and very expensive mechanisms being proposed, in order to determine whether an offence is truly a violent crime or not, and whether an adult sentence should be imposed before the case is even tried. The Court will have to spend a ridiculous amount of time on setting up the procedures proposed in this bill.

In conclusion, I would say that, at present, we are concerned with young people who have committed an offence, whereas under this bill, in the future, we would be concerned with an offence committed by a young person who is very often associated with an adult.

The Chair: Mr. Lacour.

Mr. Marc Lacour (Director, Quebec Conference of Regional Health and Social Services Boards): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I'm very pleased to appear before you today. My presentation will be quite short, Mr. Chairman, so that we may spend more time on questions and answers with MPs. I will not go over again the aspects that were raised by my colleagues from the youth centres, but I will read a short text that we have provided to you.

The organization of health care and social services in Quebec comes under the authority of the province's Ministry of Health and Social Services. Since 1992, Mr. Chairman, we have opted for a decentralized service organization model, involving 17 socio-health regions. In each of these regions, there is a regional health and social services board. A regional health and social services board is an administrative authority that is under the direction of an executive made up of representatives of various local socio- economic sectors. Its main responsibility is to oversee the planning and coordination of services, and to allocate funding to these services. The boards, which I represent today on behalf of the Conference of the 17 regional boards, are thus responsible for implementing the orientations adopted by the province and adapting those orientations to the special features of their respective regions.

With regard to the Young Offenders Act, Quebec—as Mr. Dumais told you—chose to appoint in each region a provincial director. In addition to exercising the responsibilities entrusted to them by the Young Offenders Act, the provincial directors also act as youth protection directors, as set out in Quebec's Youth Protection Act and have certain responsibilities in the area of adoption, under the Quebec Civil Code.

Each director, who is referred to as a Youth Protection Director or a Provincial Director, is attached, administratively speaking, to a youth centre. Quebec's youth centres are responsible for providing psychosocial services and specialized rehabilitation services for children and young people who are subject to the Youth Protection Act of the Young Offenders Act, among others. This provides a kind of one-stop service.

As a result, when it comes to services for these young people, we have available to us a separate and specialized network that covers all dimensions of the life of an adolescent or child. This comprehensive approach means that adolescents who have committed an offence are always dealt with by a system that is dedicated exclusively to them.

Furthermore, as my colleagues mentioned earlier, Quebec has a long tradition of diversion, and financially supports 42 alternative justice organizations in their implementation of the alternative measures program. Each of these alternative justice organizations is guided by a board of directors made up of citizens from the community. In 52% of all cases, these alternative justice organizations deal with offences committed by young people and obtain excellent results.

• 1145

Because these 42 alternative justice organizations are very broadly rooted in their communities, they are able to take advantage of thousands of local agencies when there is a need to arrange restitution, compensatory measures or community service work, whether voluntary or court ordered.

Furthermore, with the youth centres and alternative justice centres, we have developed expertise in the areas of mediation and reconciliation with the victim, an expertise which is receiving increased recognition. In our opinion, this is a promising approach which should be supported and developed, since it is currently producing excellent results.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that society has the right to protect itself and to be safe, but it also has the duty to ensure that its young people will be able to contribute in a positive manner to the advancement of society. It is this vision, based on the higher interest of society, that we feel is threatened by the present bill. The ideology that underlies our vision weaves together accountability and help and support for young people.

At the present time, the Young Offenders Act—Mr. Dumais explained this a few minutes ago—makes it possible to find this balance between assistance, accountability and retribution. Moreover, in Quebec, this balance is based on mechanisms and structures for co-operation found in each region and involving the participation of partners in public safety, justice, health care, social services and community organizations.

The results we have obtained so far in Quebec are extremely encouraging, since—as Mr. Dumais pointed out earlier—we are seeing a steady decline in the rate of juvenile crime. What is strange, Mr. Chairman, is that while we are seeing a drop in the number of offences committed by young people, we are at the same time seeing an increase in the number of activities they are prohibited from doing.

Teenagers can no longer buy cigarettes, they no longer have the right to buy lottery tickets, they cannot vote until they are 18, they cannot watch erotic films at the movie theatre. There are many more activities that are banned for teenagers than for adults and, in spite of this, even though we impose more restrictions, there is a decline in juvenile delinquency.

At a board of directors meeting to which a Youth Court judge was invited, the administrators of a youth centre asked the judge what he thought of today's young people. In reply, the judge asked them what they thought about today's adults. It is important that adults feel they are a part of it.

As Mr. Lamarche explained, in Quebec, we studied the application of the Young Offenders Act with a critical eye and concluded that the provisions of the Act are appropriate, but that its application should be improved. The main areas for improving the application of the Young Offenders Act involve reducing the length of time that elapses between the perpetration of the offence and society's response.

One committee member mentioned the concept of time, which is very important to young people. Our work has in fact shown that, the less time there is between the perpetration of the offence and society's response, the more effective the measure.

Therefore, in terms of applying the Young Offenders Act, we mentioned reducing the waiting times and increasing the intensity and quantity of services available. We were also seeking greater consistency among the various stakeholders, be they judges, Crown attorneys, social workers, educators or community resources.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, the Quebec Conference of Regional Health and Social Services Boards, which is the umbrella group for the 17 regional boards in Quebec, has joined the Coalition for the youth justice system and bases its comments today largely on the brief prepared by the Coalition which, as you know, is asking that you simply withdraw the bill currently under study, because we feel that the amendments will not be able to correct the spirit behind it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

For the first question I go to Mr. Cadman, for seven minutes.

• 1150

But before we begin, I believe there's nourishment in the back, so I would advise members to pick it up as they see fit. We're sitting through lunch and dinner, so to keep everybody alive, we're forced to go through this.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): So what else is new?

The Chair: So there we are.

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

Thank you all for coming today.

I don't think I'll take seven minutes here. We've heard a lot over the last number of days about the things that are being done in Quebec, and I think we can all agree there are some good things being done in Quebec, and the rest of the country can follow up on some of this.

What I'd like to know is, if the proposed legislation is adopted, where do you see it as being detrimental to what is going on in Quebec now? Does it stand in the way or does it stop Quebec from proceeding as they are now? Is there anything that is actually going to change the way things are done in Quebec?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Dumais: The main sticking point in the current legislation is the notion of making the sentence correspond to the offence and harmonizing its application throughout Canada. Once this type of principle is affirmed, it means that the judge and prosecutors will have to take into consideration the text of the Canadian legislation when a young person is before the courts. Therefore, the sentence will have to be determined according to the principle of proportionality because, in any event, Canadian jurisprudence will ensure that a young person who commits armed robbery—whether it be in Quebec or in British Columbia—with such a bill in force, will have to receive more or less the same sentence, whether it be a custody order or an adult sentence.

The sticking point in this bill is the philosophy that judges will have to follow, which makes them pay too much attention to the offence and not enough to the offender, making it difficult to reach the balance that we spoke of earlier.

[English]

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chair, maybe I could answer.

This ties in exactly to what we were speaking to, looking not only at the offence but at the offender, and looking at them in a psychosocial manner and looking at the reasons behind the way the crime was committed. Using Quebec as an example, in our research and speaking with the youth of Quebec, we found Quebec has really been a leader in looking at youth justice from a psychosocial perspective, more than any other province has. So we would really like to encourage the committee to look at Quebec as a leader in this area and encourage other provinces to follow this lead.

For example, Ontario at one point had a program set up called Rittenhouse, which did look at youth justice from a psychosocial perspective, but because the legislation, as we pointed out in our recommendations, uses the word “may” and not “shall”—and now that we have a Mike Harris government this program is no longer mandatory but is rather optional, whereas Quebec has adopted this type of program and is very committed to it—there are very many disparities among the provinces.

As we have demonstrated and as our colleagues from Quebec here have demonstrated, the recidivism rates are down owing to the use of diversionary tactics, or as the bill has now renamed them, extrajudicial measures. It is very much to the benefit of the youth, the community, and society as a whole to be really looking at not only the offence but what's behind the offence, and that is what we can call, broadly, a psychosocial framework for youth justice.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you. I'd still like to know, is there anything in this legislation that is going to preclude Quebec from proceeding as it has always done? I understand the argument, but is there not enough discretion left to the Attorney General and to the courts to carry on just the way things are now?

• 1155

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: The discretion in the bill is that there's a linguistic problem between “may” and “shall”. If you read the bill closely, the discretion is that Quebec, for example, has taken the initiative and obviously has consulted with experts and determined that using a more psychosocial approach to youth justice is taking a step in the right direction. It can be detrimental to youth to increase incarceration. As you know, the great majority of our young people are incarcerated, and this is psychosocially damaging to the offender.

Rehabilitation and reintegration efforts of incarcerated youth are hampered by what Judge Mary Ellen Turpel has called the pernicious penal mentality. As you probably know, among the key conclusions of the committee on justice and legal affairs in a 1997 report was that incarceration of young offenders was not the most appropriate way of dealing with youth crime. As they explained, Canada uses imprisonment in response to youth crime more than any other country. The bulk of financial resources devoted to youth in conflict with law in this country has gone to build and operate custodial facilities.

So it is detrimental in that we are using the word “may” and not “shall”. The voices of our youth—as demonstrated by one of our colleagues here on the committee, Megan Stephens, when listening to the voices of youth—show this psychosocial damage in incarceration. For example, one of the youths she interviewed, a 14-year-old girl, shared with Megan that at the age of 14 she was convinced she would never have a normal life. This is a girl at the age of 14. She would never have a normal life. This is because in the bill, the word “may” is used and not “shall”, in terms of alternative measures. This, as we see, is detrimental.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Lamarche, and then Madame Venne.

Mr. Pierre Lamarche: I'll try to be as clear as possible on this. In the short term, many things are going to change. The sentencing is going to change and the number of children in closed custody is going to increase. The number of children who are going to go from minor settings to adult prison is going to increase also. These are just a few examples of what happens in the short term when you actually just import the adult criminal system to the youth system.

That's our perspective. I would bring the question to the honourable members here. If this legislation doesn't change anything, why is it here before you? There's probably something that changes. That's the kind of comment we've been receiving from our colleagues at Justice for the last few months. They're telling us it's business as usual. Well, if it's business as usual, why are we here and why do we have to look at the provisions of this proposed legislation? I don't understand.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Unfortunately, witnesses, I cannot stay here until the end because we are currently examining other bills. Please excuse me. Among others, we are examining a bill that concerns Quebec, namely Bill C-20 on the clarity requirement.

Let's come back to Bill C-3. I will attempt to ask a clear question. You have no intention of proposing to improve the bill. You are asking that it simply be withdrawn. That's what we understand you have said.

Mr. Lacour, why are you so satisfied with the current legislation that you would ask for the withdrawal of the bill? Do you have any examples of concrete results to give us, that could illustrate why you are so satisfied with that statute? If any of the others have comments on this subject, we will hear them after.

Mr. Marc Lacour: Thank you, Ms. Venne. In general, we are very satisfied with the Act. As we said earlier, we believe that some aspects of it could be improved, primarily the availability and quality of services, and the speed with which they are delivered. Mr. Dumais might be able to cite some figures illustrating our results in Quebec, particularly the changes in our crime rates and placement rates. As I said, the current legislation strikes a balance between the needs of young people and society's right to protect itself. It encourages young people to take responsibility for their actions, but is geared to their needs, their lives, and their family and social circumstances in general. The Young Offenders Act does not focus solely on retribution, or on the consequences of unacceptable acts; it provides the young offender with an opportunity to take himself in hand and get back on track. That spirit is being compromised with this bill.

• 1200

Even the title shows that: it contains the words “criminal justice”. The word “criminal” never appears in the Young Offenders Act, nor does the word “sentence”. They are referred to as courts' decisions, not sentences. According to the spirit of the Act, young people—since they are still developing—are recognized as being perhaps less responsible than adults. Hence, society collectively had a duty to support them and help them correct their behaviour.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Does Mr. Dumais have anything to add?

Mr. Jacques Dumais: In 1984, when the Young Offenders Act was passed, Quebec established an alternative measures program, which was negotiated very openly between the justice system and the social system. It led to an agreement whereby many offences could be dealt with outside the justice system, and the program has been very successful.

A few moments ago, we pointed out that alternative measures were applied in some 50% of cases referred to the provincial authorities. And in some cases, we stopped taking any action because parents did what they had to do: the young person had committed a minor offence, and parents went over to see the neighbours, say, to settle the problem amicably. We don't need to interfere in people's lives when parents take their responsibilities seriously.

So we established an efficient alternative measures program. In the first few years, the police observed us and commented; for example, they said it was quite ridiculous to have a young person who committed an offence perform 10 hours of community work. But over time, the police, the justice system, community groups and others understood that this was the right way to deal with young people who were having perhaps their first brush with the law.

There are referral measures however and I spoke of them earlier. We in Quebec have never been against referring young people to adult court when we have exhausted all the resources available at the juvenile court level. There are mechanisms for referral in the current Young Offenders Act. Some of the more hardened juvenile delinquents were dealt with in the youth justice system, while others were referred to the adult justice system. We believe the system works very well. Why change it?

Mr. Lamarche mentioned community measures imposed by the courts, though many probative measures are imposed on young people who find themselves before the court. Some people consider it very important that custody be followed by supervision. Frequently in Quebec, judges do impose supervision followed by six months' or one year's probation to promote the integration of the young person into society. There then may be a momentary break in the process, but that break is followed by social measures to promote the young person's rehabilitation. We may not send the young person back into custody when it doesn't work, but community measures do help young people with higher penalties, such as custody, return to society.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Lacour, in your brief, which I have before me, you state that you have developed expertise in mediation and conciliation with the victim. You say that these methods produce excellent results.

• 1205

I would like you to provide more details on this, and explain what you mean. Do you feel that such initiatives could not continue if this bill were enacted?

Mr. Marc Lacour: Our mediation and conciliation with victims are other examples of measures applied in Quebec. For example, intermittent custody—a discretionary provision in the Young Offenders Act—is applied in many regions of Quebec. We have applied it in almost all Quebec regions, along with intensive probation, also provided for under the Young Offenders Act, as well as mediation and conciliation with victims.

Essentially, we use interviews: we organize meetings between the victim of an offence and the young person who committed the offence. These meetings make it possible to negotiate some reparation measures. The victim and the young person who committed the offence come to an agreement about how he will correct the wrong he has caused. Such operation may take different forms, such as reimbursement, work, or a letter of apology.

The process has an interesting impact. The young person often sees his victim as someone who may, for instance benefit from insurance, and whom, in any event, he does not even know. By contrast, the victim often sees the offender as a young person who is enormously tall, mean and nasty, and wearing leather. Yet generally, when the two meet, their perceptions change.

The six-foot-four nasty giant often turns out to be a little 14 year old with blue eyes, sitting on a chair and beginning to realize the fear he aroused in the victim. That often has an interesting effect: the victim sees who committed the offence, and therefore has much less to fear in the future. Also, the young person who committed the offence is far more aware of the harm he has caused. Rates of recidivism in these cases tend to be lower.

Obviously, we cannot go this route in all cases. We cannot do it with very serious cases. And when the victim indicates that he or she has not had serious problems, it is not perhaps the best option. However, 42 organizations and 17 youth centres increasingly apply such measures. We have instituted training so that workers in the field can acquire the technique. Alternative justice organizations even go to schools, particularly secondary schools, to teach young people how to deal with interpersonal conflicts using conciliation and mediation techniques.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lacour and Ms. Venne.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Lacour. Unfortunately, I am not able to put my questions to you in French.

[English]

I will also begin by offering apologies. I'm going to have to depart because we have a justice bill that's being debated in the House at the same time as we're here in the justice committee, which is often the case.

I was very interested in the presentation, particularly with respect to Monsieur Dumais' comments regarding the unwieldy nature of the bill. That is, there appears to be an attempt to codify everything within this legislation and perhaps please everyone, both those who are very much predisposed to the restorative justice model and those who would like to see harsher penalties. I think there is almost an incongruency within this legislation. It has tried to force these two philosophies together, and what we have seen is an act that is inconsistent in many ways.

But there is a clear division between violent and non-violent offences, which I think is an important distinction to be made. As well, I believe there is an attempt to embody progressive discipline—that is, approach young offenders in this alternative measures-restorative justice model in the first instance, if it isn't a crime that is on this list of scheduled offences.

Again, the question has been asked with respect to how this is inconsistent with the good work that is being done in Quebec, and I think most people in this line of work who have travelled in justice circles acknowledge that Quebec has done a better job than the rest of the country in administering the Young Offenders Act. However, I view this as at least an attempt to bring about a sense of uniformity in our approach to criminal justice across the country and very much perhaps encompass some of the things Quebec is doing into what's happening in other provinces, like British Columbia and Nova Scotia.

• 1210

Is that not a good thing, to try to have a unified approach that codifies to a large degree much of what Quebec is doing? And again, to repeat the question, how is this inconsistent with the work that is being done in Quebec presently?

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Dumais

Mr. Jacques Dumais: In my opinion, it does not take new legislation to enable the application of alternative measures throughout Canada. We are applying them in Quebec under the current legislation. There is no reason why other provinces cannot do the same.

This is of course at the provinces' discretion, as we were saying before. However, we are seeing amendments to the legislation to make such measures somewhat more mandatory, because they are not being applied in the rest of Canada. It seems to me that we do not need to go so far to achieve the objective, which is to enable the process Quebec applies with such good results to be applied across Canada. There is no reason why other provinces cannot do what Quebec does, even for serious offences, under the Young Offenders Act. As I was saying just now, young people can be transferred to the adult justice system when youth system resources are no longer sufficient.

In my view, we do not need all the changes the government is attempting to implement in order to extend Quebec's way of applying the Young Offenders Act to other provinces, so that YOA application is somewhat more standardized.

As I was saying, C-3 embodies a philosophy and basic values completely out of line with those in the Young Offenders Act, which required that the offender be taken into consideration, along with his offence, in order to reach a sound decision. This is what professionals call differential diagnosis. We must have the capacity to consider not only what the young person has done but also the young person himself. We must know what stage of development he has reached, as well as the role his parents have played. Let's not forget we are talking about minors. We must also know what the role the offender's parents might play in the future, so that we can come up with measures adapted to each young individual. Simply looking at the offence is not enough; it obscures all other aspects of the young person's circumstances.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: You mentioned a very important element that we are perhaps not focusing on enough in our deliberations, and that is the issue of parental accountability in all this. Do you feel that under the old system there are sufficient provisions to bring the parents into the system?

I know this act talks more about accountability after the fact—that is, putting provisions in place that will criminalize the parents' abrogation of responsibility in enforcing the probation orders or the terms of release. Is there more that can be done? Are there changes or additions to this act that will bring into reality a system where parents are actually asked the direct question: where were you when your son or daughter was breaking into that house, or involved in a swarming, or involved in violent activity? Is there a way we can do that, that is currently being used in Quebec or could be utilized in this new system?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Dumais: Parental accountability and the criminalization of neglectful behaviour towards their children are two different things.

One of the principles set forth in section 3 of the current Young Offenders Act is that parents have responsibility for the care and supervision of their children. All those who work with the current legislation, including judges, police officers, prosecutors and social workers, are required to take account of the fact that for the most part, young people live within families. Some have left their families because they have long-standing problems, but most of them do still live with their families. So the very important role parents might play must be taken into account. That is what I call parental accountability.

• 1215

As for the concept of criminalizing parents' behaviour in discharging their responsibility, you would encounter very strong opposition in Quebec. Of course, under the Civil Code, parents can be prosecuted for failing to give their children the best possible care and the best possible supervision, but this provision is little used. Parents frequently have significant problems themselves, and will benefit far more from help and support than from having criminal charges laid against them for failing to be satisfactory parents. This principle also appears in the Young Offenders Act: the focus is not only on the child but also on the parents.

The Young Offenders Act does not mention parents much, however, except in the statement of principles, which sets forth mandatory notices parents must receive when their child appears before the courts. However, in practice, judges do want parents to be present at hearings to ensure they become more involved with the child.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Monsieur Lamarche, and then Madam Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Pierre Lamarche: On this subject, you have to remember also that out of the 50,000 new reports under the Youth Protection Act, about one-third are made for behavioural problems of adolescents, and most of these reports are done by the parents themselves, who cannot cope with their adolescents any more. So there is some accountability, and some parents, when they lose control, try to get some help. That's where the junction or the merger between the Youth Protection Act and the Young Offenders Act is also so important.

I would also like to address your first question. It's true that it's a very strange piece of legislation. It's typically Canadian legislation: there's a little bit for everybody in there. But the problem with it, actually, is that the parts you point out, and the parts people have been pointing out since we've been into this discussion, are the parts that are actually already there in the Youth Protection Act. They're improved here of course, but they're feasible, and they haven't been done; they haven't been applied in most of the jurisdictions.

I would put to you the question: what makes you think it's a change in legislation that will convince jurisdictions that have not yet got involved in this area to do so?

So the good parts of it, I would say, are already in the Young Offenders Act. The problem is the bad parts. What's new about this legislation is the increased criminalization and penalization, which is something we do not have.

The third thing I wish to say is about differential diagnoses. The equilibrium between protecting society and taking into consideration the needs of the child is done now through a socio-judicial process where the provincial director, the attorneys, and the judge are involved. This legislation is transforming this into a mechanical process, and you can't do that. You can't go from applying the principle, for instance, that one-third of the sentence will be served in the community, and then make it a mandatory requirement.

It's one thing to present it within the process of rehabilitation of a child. It's a totally different thing to say we're going to—do you say this in English?—mechanize this, or transform this into a mechanical process. These are clinical issues, and they cannot be legislated. It's a mistake.

The Chair: Madam Fitzpatrick.

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: I believe Marie-Claire was first.

The Chair: Oh, sorry.

Ms. Marie-Claire Leman: I just wanted to reinforce something after the comments that have been made. The original question was, what does this bill actually bring that's new or that prevents Quebec from doing anything? Quebec's answer is, “Well, it doesn't prevent us necessarily, but why are you changing it?”

If we are trying to create legislation that will replicate the good things about the Quebec system, then we're falling short in the wording of the legislation. For instance, I think it's in subclause 38(3) where the first factor to consider when we are looking at non-custodial measures is the availability of those measures.

Well, if we're easily going to eliminate looking into non-custodial measures just because they're not available, then of course all provinces that aren't already providing non-custodial measures under the current legislation will be able to keep doing that, because they can get away with just saying “Well, we've considered them, but they're not available.” So in that sense we have to be stricter in making sure we're actually providing a non-custodial level in the legislation.

• 1220

But as Monsieur Lamarche just expressed as well, it's important to not then go further into legislating the actual mechanics of those measures. Those measures have to be appropriate to the youth, whether he's an urban youth or a rural youth, and those measures have to be appropriate to the context and have to include a lot more than just a legal sphere.

I also wanted to reinforce the other point regarding parental accountability. I know from my experience in Quebec that the judges do really try to involve the parents. Whether it's legislated or not, this is a very good approach on the part of the judges, making sure they're in court, calling them to express themselves. Often this gives the opportunity to draw the parents closer to the youth by allowing the parents to express their understanding or love despite what's happened, which is important, because often the youth in the system will feel a little bit alienated by all parties involved.

But we have to also be careful, because sometimes, as was told to me in a story recently, a very short anecdote, a parent whose child is on probation and has to be home by 9 o'clock for the probation officer, who calls to make sure he's home, is always stuck driving to pick up their child, who calls at 8:30, worried because he won't make it home by the time the probation officer calls. So now the responsibility is all on the parent, and the child can actually take advantage of this measure by getting lifts home every day from wherever he was.

So it's a little bit tricky. We want accountability on the part of parents, we want them involved, but we also want the actual sentencing or the measures that we're applying to the youth to be applied to the youth, not the parents.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Peter MacKay: What's wrong with the parent being asked to come and pick their child up? In your presentation you refer to consulting with children to get input, which is a great idea, but most kids are going to want to eat candy for breakfast and stay up all night and watch TV if it comes right down to it. So the parental responsibility anticipates this whole idea that adults are held to a different level of accountability and have to help the children.

Ms. Marie-Claire Leman: We want the parents to be involved, but the difficulty in this anecdote, for instance, is that the child is not actually realizing that he's being penalized for what he did, because in effect he's being picked up, or whatever the case may be, and the stress of the penalty or of the sentence is all on the parent's shoulder in this particular case. You're probably right; there's a lot the parent could do—for instance, not pick the child up one day and see what happens then. But I'm just illustrating the fact that they are involved, and we just have to make sure....

Another example is when the judge, for instance, gives a fine to a youth. If the youth is working, sometimes they'll say “Well, we won't give you community hours, because we realize you have a busy schedule; you're going to school and you're trying to keep down a job. But since you have a job, we'll have you pay the minimum wage times the number of hours we would have given you in community hours.” That is another way of penalizing.

But often I've heard the judge say “I want you to be paying this fine, not your parent, because we want you to save up the money over the time you're given to come up with the money.” This is important, because then the child is the one who has to make the sacrifices to come up with the actual penalty.

Those are just fine lines that we should keep in mind.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll let Ms. Fitzpatrick respond for a couple of minutes, but then I want to go to Monsieur Saada.

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: From a social work point of view, we're heading into very, very dangerous territory speaking about parent responsibility, because unfortunately many of the children and youth I've encountered as a social worker do not have loving and caring parents. This is a systemic and systematic problem, as we all know, across Canada. So holding parents accountable and criminalizing parents is questionable on a number of grounds.

Even if children do have parents present in their lives, parents are not the only ones who influence their children. There's peer pressure and a number of other influencing factors in their lives. So that's a difficulty right off the bat. Children are exposed to a lot of influences, and offences are often triggered by, as we can see by looking at studies.... For example, the need for culturally relevant alternative measures that pertain to racist remarks is examined in this study. So if parents are held accountable no matter what type of education they've provided to their child, they're up against a wall when we're dealing with very serious issues, such as racism, that are the triggers for offences.

• 1225

I will leave my comments very briefly at that and say it's very different and very difficult to be penalizing parents. If there are parents in the lives of these children, regardless of how committed these parents are, we can't hold and criminalize parents. As was said before, it's not always the parents' fault, if there are parents present.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): If I may, I will begin with two or three brief remarks, and then put my questions.

If I were responsible for these matters at the provincial level, I would take a very close look at bringing in ministries responsible for education, the family and children in order to give greater impetus and a stronger foundation to the comprehensive approach required to identify criminogenic factors, deal with delinquent youth, and deal with related social problems. This is of course a pipe dream, since I am a federal, not a provincial, politician. I would like to know what means we as federal MPs can use to persuade our provincial colleagues to reflect upon what we are convinced is the right approach.

How would we convince Ontario, for example? As you know, funding is shared among the federal and provincial governments; as we have heard, Ontario recovers approximately 80% of the federal transfer, and puts it into the custody system.

We as federal MPs are responsible for enacting the legislation, but not for administering it. In those circumstances, what can we do to help our provincial colleagues understand the right approach, as they have in Quebec? I am glad you said what you did a few moments ago, because it is very accurate. I am from Quebec, and I know Quebec very well. I have spent a great deal of time compiling information on this issue, I have visited the establishment where Judge Jasmin works, and I've done other things as well. I know what you are saying; but I want to ensure that Quebec's approach is also applied in other places. How can I go about it?

Mr. Pierre Lamarche: First of all, our experience with the Young Offenders Act clearly shows that legislation does not lead to changes in social behaviour simply because it exists. The Young Offenders Act is excellent evidence of this.

In some provinces, all measures in the Young Offenders Act have been applied to the full, or almost to the full. In other provinces, they are applied fairly fully. Yet some provinces do not even use the Young Offenders Act as the Department of Justice intended it to be used. Yet the Act is there, though it has had absolutely no impact on Ontario's juvenile delinquency policies. How can people think that amending the legislation will change the cultures in those provinces. It won't work, in my view. The best tool the federal government has is funding, not legislative amendment. If federal funding can be put towards incarceration, provinces that believe in incarceration will apply the funding towards it. But if such funding cannot be applied towards incarceration or can be so applied only in part—provinces who want their share of federal funding will have no choice but to consider alternative solutions.

Mr. Jacques Saada: You would suggest conditional funding.

Mr. Pierre Lamarche: Yes, rather than changing the Act.

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps Ms. Fitzpatrick would like to respond.

• 1230

[Translation]

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: I worked in Ontario for many years, and have seen changes in how government transfer payments are used. I think the way they are used today is absolutely tragic. Transfer payments are used very differently these days.

As I said yesterday, programs like Railton House, which use psychosocial methods, have been implemented. Now, as you probably know, Mike Harris has set up a sort of boot camp program, heavily based on a similar program in the United States. The U.S. boot camps are now closed because research and interviews among young people proved that subjecting children to boot camp treatment was very damaging.

This is why I, as a social worker and law student, believe it is very important that the bill we are discussing today not be too discretionary, so that boot camps cannot continue to be set up. By contrast, social measures in Quebec are far more beneficial to both victims and young people, as well as to society and the community as a whole.

[English]

The Chair: Jacques, we have two more who wish to comment. Do you want to continue, or can they finish?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Maybe they can finish. The only thing is that I have two more questions that I really would like to have a chance to ask.

The Chair: Why don't you put the questions on the table, and then we'll go back to them.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Okay.

[Translation]

In my opinion—you will of course tell me if you disagree—the new bill would lead either to the strengthening, official entrenchment or sanction of three very important elements: the victims' role; the elimination of preliminary hearings to determine whether a young person will come before an adult court; and a strengthening of extrajudicial measures permitted under the Young Offenders Act. The whole process becomes much more official. It provides far more guidance to courts, as in section 37 or 38, if I am not mistaken.

Now this bill contains things that seem progressive to me, not in a dogmatic, but in a very practical way. How would you introduce them into the current system so that the message can be heard more clearly?

I have one last question for you, if you can give me a second to find it in my papers. I'm sorry. I cannot find it.

The Chair: Mr. Lacour.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Here, I have it.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sure it's worth it.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: It is most important, especially in consideration of time and of time lines... I think it was you, Mr. Lacour, who mentioned the fact that it is totally unacceptable to have such a long delay between the time of the offence and the time when the youthful offender receives the decision. Do you think that a statutory shortening of these deadlines could be imperative for the province? Would they be obliged to take them into account by allocating the needed resources?

• 1235

Mr. Marc Lacour: If I understood you, your first question was about what you could do in order to improve things, within your duties and responsibilities. You would like to have your partners, namely the provinces, agree to certain criteria that you have identified. You would like to have them all take advantage of certain improvements by importing practical experience, for instance from Quebec, that you find useful.

I think that you will basically have to work on perception. There is a big public perception problem regarding adolescents and young offenders. This perception has nothing to do with reality. Citizens have an incorrect image of adolescents. The image that citizens, decision-makers and even members of Parliament have of adolescents has nothing to do with reality.

There are two ways to correct this perception. One way is to inform the public objectively, with less sensationalism, without putting a spotlight on some isolated case. There is no need to talk about some adolescent who committed murder in England two weeks ago in order to have something to say. This only exacerbates the feeling or image that young people are violent. Besides, we know that of all the offences that they commit, less than 8% are violent crimes, and this includes simple assault and battery. We also know that over 70% of violent acts and sex crimes are committed by adults. Thus, there is a perception problem. People think that young people are dangerous. This image has no basis in observable fact and it has been exacerbated by sensational treatment in the media. There is a perception problem.

The second way to correct this perception problem, besides working on information, would be to have a more strictly scientific evaluation of results. In centres of research and learning, there are more and more new tools that can show us which measures work and which ones do not. Incarceration per se does not yield any results. Incarceration has never been successfully associated with a decrease in repeat offences. Why are we still trying to increase incarceration here today in Canada when the opposite has been amply demonstrated by science, even as regards adults? The system for adults is trying to become more like the system for adolescents because people have realized that the latter is more efficient.

Thus, I want to make two points today. In your situation, you must work on perception to instil this culture and these attitudes. This can be done by directly informing the public and it can also be done by using more objective research data which will let people get beyond their personal opinions and begin to think more scientifically.

Regarding your third question about delays, we realize that there is a problem of insufficient resources to remedy long delays. However, there is also a problem in the legal mechanism that accounts for the large number of postponements. For instance, the way in which the steps of the legal process are organized can slow things down considerably.

In some parts of Quebec, they have been reduced by half in some instances and in others they have been reduced from six months to three months. We got these results by mobilizing our partners, especially those in justice and in public security, who agreed to conclude their investigations more quickly; a prosecutors agreed to see adolescents first in analyzing the soundness of evidence; defence lawyers agreed not to use, or to use fewer, delaying tactics in order to get to the heart of the matter. Largely, we succeeded because our partners were ready to work together for this objective, and not only because of money. Then, everyone worked toward the same purpose, namely stopping reprehensible behaviour, and rehabilitating the young offender.

You ask me if this was a federal mandate. I do not know and I am not competent to answer that question. Nonetheless I can tell you that there are mechanisms that need to be corrected and resources that should be added as required in order to shorten these delays.

• 1240

The Chair: Ms. Marie-Claire Leman.

Ms. Marie-Claire Leman: I would like to add a point to support your argument in response to the first question regarding public perception. If we allocated more resources to implementation and follow-up, to ensure that data is accurate and reliable, we would not have to be constantly reviewing the Act and its implementation.

The implementation will no doubt have to be reviewed. However, I think that even the process we are going through today is of no help for improving public opinion. When an Act is reviewed doubts are raised about the Act. Each time we want to amend or change an Act, we get into a vicious circle, with all the attendant anxiety where we amend things over and over again, with more or less positive results, according to your point of view; but none of this basically changes anything in the implementation or the follow-up. This is perhaps the missing part of the process.

Of course, these waiting periods are quite costly and commandeer some resources. We must also be careful with what we do with young offenders during these delays. Earlier in our presentation, we spoke about pre-sentencing detention. I know that I was speaking very quickly, but it seems to me very important not to incarcerate young people in a prison environment that might be harmful to them.

Delays might be unavoidable because of overcrowded courts, but we must be careful about the way in which we treat young individuals during such delays, so as not to make their situation worse.

The Chair: Mr. Dumais.

Mr. Jacques Dumais: Regarding the three factors that concern you, namely the victim, alternative sentencing and delays, as well as the study about the reference, I think that this is already being addressed in several places under the current Act.

Thus, regarding the victim, when we are asked to make a report before the decision, we are asked to get the victim's opinion, which is becoming current practice, but perhaps this is still too optional. Perhaps we should stress even more our concern with the victim, both in police work as well as social work. Perhaps we should amend the current Act to make the concern for victims more imperative.

Regarding alternative sentencing, the current Act already has optional measures, but they were left up to the discretion of the provinces. If we really want them to be applied more in Canada, they should perhaps become compulsory instead of optional. But we don't have to change the Act to do this. Let us just amend the current Act if we want to make alternative sentencing compulsory.

Let me come back to the discussion about references. It has often been said that it would take a great and costly debate before we can decide whether to apply the adult system or the juvenile system. But with the Act that is being proposed, the debate will be even longer. Does this offence involve violence or not? And then, if the young person is found guilty, should they be sentenced as an adult or not? The debate will be at least as long as, if not longer than the debates under the current Act, to determine the type of offence and the kind of sentence that should be imposed once the defendant is found guilty.

I think that the current bill will not eliminate the delays of the old reference system. Moreover, these delays do not only arise within the legal system. The Jasmin report asked that we be more efficient in Quebec. It asked the police to more efficient in dealing with complaints; and it asked prosecutors to be more efficient in assessing the evidence; and it asked the interveners and social workers to be more efficient when receiving requests from prosecutors. Naturally, this problem is largely due to the fact that none of the interveners has sufficient funds. Better funding would help us greatly to reduce the delays at each step along the way.

• 1245

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Fitzpatrick wants another shot, and then we'll go to Mr. Cadman.

We're lucky, Mr. Saada, you remembered that question.

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: In answer to your third point, I just want to point out that in Ontario many detained youth are held in adult maximum security prisons. Not surprisingly, the mental health problems of many of these detained youth and their psychosocial problems are not addressed at all in these places. Some youth are detained in these environments because there is no where else to go.

For these reasons, our committee on children, youth, and the law supports subclause 29(1) of the bill as well as subclause 29(2). However, we are concerned that this restriction on detention will be undermined by the words that immediately follow, that is:

unless there is a substantial likelihood that the young person will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice.

and we are concerned that these aforementioned clauses will be overridden.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'd just like to go back to the issue of parental accountability. I don't see anywhere in the bill where we're trying to legislate on parents' responsibility in imparting good values to their kids. The only part where I see it coming into play is in clause 138, where we deal with a wilful failure to comply with a court order.

So I'd like to understand just why you're opposed to that. We're talking about a wilful failure to comply with a court order when it comes to basically signing an undertaking before the court to supervise conditions of bail, conditions of interim release. So I'd like to know just why you're opposed to that, because you said you were opposed to criminalizing the parents.

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: As our colleagues here said, overall we're opposed to increased criminalization because—and I think we are all consistent on this—recognizing offences is larger than recognizing the offence.

Now, to speak more specifically to your problem of parental criminalization, as was said before, a crime is just not a crime; it is something much larger than that. Parental responsibility has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Not all children, unfortunately, have loving parents who are able to provide this sort of support to their children.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: If I could interject here, why would they then sign an undertaking before the court agreeing to supervise?

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: Perhaps they are intimidated by the court system, as many people are. Perhaps they are signing under duress. Perhaps they don't have access to justice, as many in this country do not have. Perhaps they're feeling forced to sign this. Perhaps they feel that the repercussions if they don't sign this will be harsher than if they do. Perhaps they don't have a full understanding of what they're signing. As you know, there are innumerable reasons that people feel pressured to sign a legal document when they're in a legalistic environment, which can be very intimidating.

I could go on with many other reasons they would feel obliged to sign something. It may not be in their language. They may not have a translator available. They may not have received the legal advice that's necessary to sign the documents. They may feel this is of assistance to their child. They may feel that they will run into further difficulties. They may feel their job is at risk, their name in the community is at risk, and that sort of thing.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: To the second part of that, the only time it would be criminalized is if there is a wilful failure to comply with the undertaking, not just general negligence.

Ms. Erin Fitzpatrick: In response to that, law students and people who are aware of the law recognize the distinction between a wilful failure to comply and a failure to comply. “Wilful” implies a knowledge of the law. The average citizen would not recognize that distinction and would require—

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Ignorance is an excuse—

The Chair: I have two members who would like to get on. We have about five minutes. I know that both Monsieur Dumais and Madame Leman want to speak to this.

Can you do it very quickly so that both Mr. McKay and Mr. Maloney have a chance to put something on the record?

• 1250

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Dumais: I think that you are right in saying that the Act says nothing about criminalizing a parent who is not competent. Rather, it speaks of not obeying a court order or some commitment he has made with the court.

What advantage would we get by criminalizing him or her for not playing his role? Would it make him a better parent? We do not think that this will help the child get the help he needs. We would merely be punishing the parent's poor behaviour. This would be of no advantage to an adolescent.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Leman.

Ms. Marie-Claire Leman: I want to point out also, from the earlier comments we were making about parental involvement, I think it's important not only in the judicial involvement, for instance, but also the involvement we expect from them when we decide upon the measure, to make sure we're deciding on a measure that's for the youth in question and, of course, with the supervision of the parents, but that the measure is appropriate for the youth and that we're not relying unduly on the supervision of the parents. Otherwise, I'm quite in agreement with what you were raising with your question regarding the wilfulness. If they are not doing it wilfully, they won't be criminalized, so there is some safeguard in that wording. I think we have to look beyond that into the measures.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay, and I recognize that Mr. Maloney wants to get on as well.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is directed to Mr. Lamarche.

I want to go back to the initial point you were making with respect to the statistical differences and question you a bit about that, because what you put in is what you get out.

What I was curious about is that I can see clearly that the charge rate in Quebec is quite a bit lower than the so-called “rest of Canada”. However, is the rate of criminality different among youth between Quebec and the rest of Canada? Are there recidivism statistics that show that youth through the Quebec-model system in fact demonstrate that this form of dealing with youth is a preferred form over Ontario's way, for example?

The second question is more intuitive. One would think that if in fact the system in Quebec was arguably a superior system, which is generally the position of the panel, the rate of adult criminality would show real statistical differences between Quebec and the rest of the country.

The final question is with respect to your aboriginal population. The Cree occupy somewhere in the order of half the land mass of Quebec, but I know there are other aboriginal groups within Quebec society. Are there significant differences in the way the Quebec youth system treats its aboriginal population and the way the rest of Canada treats the aboriginal youth population?

Mr. Pierre Lamarche: I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge.

Your first question has to do with the rate of criminality. I didn't bring with me a report that was released very recently by an organization called Observatoire Jeunes et Société, which is a university-based organization in Quebec that has just completed a review of criminality data. Their conclusion actually had some good and some bad news around this issue.

It seems that the rate of violence, for instance, is lower in the province of Quebec than it is in other provinces, and I could provide you with the summary report of this research, if you wish. On the other hand—and this is why I've been wanting to interject since the beginning—there are very many children suffering in the province of Quebec, and we don't want to say in any way that the system is so perfect that everything about it should be imported elsewhere, as is.

• 1255

One of the distinctions that this research has allowed makes it seem as though Quebec children would internalize their suffering more than acting out in violent occurrences, for instance. This might explain why we have such a high rate of suicide. It might be some reason that we don't exactly know. We're dealing with human behaviour, and it's a very complex issue. As I said, though, it might be that Quebec children will have a higher tendency to internalize their sufferings rather than acting them out. That might be the case. It seems like the overall rate of violence is actually lower, but there's a pending conclusion to this, and a contradictory conclusion to this.

I don't have the recidivism rates. I'm not sure we do. If you want, I could certainly look into them and provide the chair with those data. They might be available, but I'll make sure to check when I get back.

On the aboriginal system, in many ways I would say—and this is my personal opinion—we're a little late when compared to other provinces in terms of dealing with helping aboriginal communities to develop systems that are congruent with their cultures. Although there are some experiences around the La Tuque area with the Atikamekw communities, and also with the Cree in the north, the tendency would be that the orientation to this point....

You have to remember that the provincial director also has the youth protection responsibilities. The tendency now is, as is done in Kahnewake, to negotiate a package of services that the community gives itself and that is based on their own cultural values, and to walk out of the responsibility of having the white community dealing with the problems in the reserves.

The Chair: Thank you very much, John.

Mr. John McKay: I had a follow-up question on moving from the youth system to the adult. Arguably, if in fact your thesis is right that this is the better way to treat children, then presumably that should reflect itself in adult rates of criminality. Do you know whether that's true?

Mr. Pierre Lamarche: I have never made that parallel, but I would warrant that there is a risk there. You can't postulate that all adult criminals have been in the juvenile system. I'll look into this and see if we have anything, and I'll provide you with it.

The Chair: We appreciate that.

Mr. Maloney has the last round.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lamarche, I'm trying to reconcile to your statement that you feel there will be more custodial sentences for youth under Bill C-3. I look at that and the idea of Bill C-3 with more emphasis on rehabilitative measures and more emphasis on alternative measures. There's also clause 38, which puts limitations on when or what a judge must consider before he gives a custodial sentence. Can you reconcile that for me?

Mr. Pierre Lamarche: I think Mr. Dumais would be better placed to answer that.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Dumais: Of course, we do not mean to increase the number of young people placed in custody, but rather to increase the length of the time of custody or to have adult sentences whereby young people would spend more time in our institutions for rehabilitating minors. We're afraid that the bill, when applied, will not increase the number of young people, but rather the length of the sentences.

Obviously, community measures will still be applied. This document speaks of alternative sentencing and intensive probation. Currently, all these measures are available.

• 1300

[English]

Mr. John Maloney: Under the current act, if you get four years, you serve four years. If you're given an adult sentence for four years, you'd serve a period less than that in actual incarceration. Is it conceivable that, by getting an adult sentence, the youth may in fact serve less time?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Dumais: We would have problems if in the same unit or rehabilitation centre we placed young people serving adult sentences and benefiting from adult procedures like parole, and other young people serving sentences for minors under the Young Offenders Act. The latter could not be released before the end of their sentence as this does not apply under the Young Offenders Act. This would cause serious problems for management.

We're afraid that there might be some kind of contamination. A young offender having served a sentence in the adult system or who has previously spent some time in the juvenile system and then continued serving a sentence in a penitentiary could turn into some kind of gangland figure. We would be wasting our time by working with young offenders in the juvenile sector if we had to send them to the adult sector afterwards.

It might happen that an adult sentence imposed on a young offender is shorter because he can benefit from parole. This kind of decision could cause serious problems for management.

The Chair: Mr. Lacour.

Mr. Marc Lacour: Mr. Chairman, it is astonishing to see that currently, the reference procedures under the Young Offenders Act are often applied upon request of the adolescent, as he knows that an adult sentence will perhaps let him spend much less time in jail, and even, possibly, to be released after having served one- sixth of his sentence. This clearly illustrates the fact that it would be very difficult to have these two kinds of clients side by side.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

I think the difficult time I had in managing the timelines of all of the interventions is evidence of the energy that you brought to the debate, so I thank you very much.

For the record, I would like specifically to thank all presenters, and in particular the presenters from the Children, Youth and the Law Committee of McGill University, Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Leman, as well as Vesna Guzina, Zorica Guzina, Anna Loparco, Juliette Nicolet, Megan Stephens, Matt de Vlieger, and Eric Ward, the collaborators in their representation. Thank you very much also to the rest of the witnesses. You've helped us very much in our deliberations.

I particularly say thanks for the patience of the members.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.