[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, November 20, 1995

.1045

[English]

The Chairman: We will commence the meeting.

We are very pleased to have the Hon. Allan Rock, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, with us today. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will commence the comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act, in particular issues relating to youth crimes, the youth justice system, and the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act.

Minister Rock.

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): I want to first of all express my gratitude to the committee for delaying the opening of the session this morning for a few moments to let me do other business. Perhaps we can make up the time at the other end, subject to the convenience of the committee.

I would like to begin by expressing the appreciation of the government for the important and challenging work the committee is now undertaking. The comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act, which you are now beginning, represents the second phase in the government's strategy toward improving and strengthening Canada's youth justice system.

[Translation]

As you know, the first phase was devoted to amendments contained in Bill C-37 which was adopted by the House of Commons and the Senate and which will come into force in 11 days.

In June 1994, when I introduced Bill C-37 in the House of Commons, I wrote to this committee asking it to undertake an in-depth review of the Act as amended by Bill C-37. Today, you are starting this important work.

[English]

I remain very much of the view that I expressed in the letter of June 2 of last year to the then chairman of this committee, that the government recognizes the need for change in the youth justice system, and Bill C-37 constitutes important change and needed change. But we must strengthen and make the YOA more effective through a broader review as well.

I needn't tell any members of this committee who have just returned from their ridings that the Young Offenders Act is a highly controversial piece of legislation. Questions have arisen about whether it remains the best model for juvenile justice for Canada in the 1990s and beyond. It's important for us to acknowledge and respect the public concerns about the YOA and about youth crime generally.

In order to restore the public's confidence in the youth justice system, I believe this committee should undertake a very public, very thorough, very open-minded examination of the act and its provisions. When you've completed your work, I respectfully invite you to report fully on the real facts and, if you can, help the government understand the public perception of the YOA and youth crime generally.

Because of the intense public interest in those crimes of violence committed by some young offenders, it's easy sometimes to lose perspective about the subject we're discussing. I therefore want to begin by putting issues of youth justice in context.

The vast majority of Canadian young people are hard-working, productive and responsible individuals who are already contributing in many ways to our society. The vast majority of young Canadians respect their families, apply themselves in their work or at school, and look forward to a future in a prosperous country. These young Canadians are our future, and we must cherish and respect them.

.1050

It's only a small segment of young Canadians who are involved with the criminal justice system, and it's a smaller segment still who engage in crimes of violence. It seems to me we must remember that perspective and context when we're discussing issues relating to youth and youth justice.

May I suggest to the committee that our fundamental objective in a justice system for young people must be to achieve two goals.

The first is accountability, in the sense that young people, like all other Canadians, are responsible for their conduct and must understand that there are consequences for their actions. Accountability involves a sense of justice for the victims who have been harmed. It involves discouraging reoffending and taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen.

The second objective must be effectiveness, in the sense of an integrated strategy involving both the courts and other resources to reduce the amount of crime committed by young people and achieve personal and public safety and security. We need to focus on both of these goals, it seems to me, recognizing that they are different.

At the heart of the committee's review must be the determination of how best to achieve both objectives, restoring public confidence in the youth justice system. Strong response to very serious behaviour is part of holding young people accountable; however, we also need to recognize that this alone is not enough to achieve the goal of either accountability or effectiveness. Some of this must obviously be done through the courts.

This system must be complemented by a wider system that recognizes there are many other resources in the community for providing safety, in addition to those available through the courts. We must develop a system that taps those community resources and integrates them with the resources of the courts. We can no longer ask the courts to do alone what could be done better with the support of communities.

We need to complement our formal system with a system that operates outside the courts and also holds youth accountable for what they've done to victims and to the community. These can be powerful resources to serve the goals of promoting not only justice and accountability but also safety and security.

In the course of its work, the committee may look at the history of youth justice in Canada. It may learn that in 1908 the Juvenile Delinquents Act was enacted, but over the years it too was criticized. The most fundamental criticism was that it failed to hold young people accountable in the criminal law.

The committee may learn that over some 20 years prior to its enactment by the House of Commons there were studies about the Young Offenders Act. The committee will learn that in 1982 the legislation received unanimous support of all parties in the House of Commons.

Despite the 20 years of research and the unanimous support in the House when the bill was enacted, it was necessary over the last 11 years to introduce amendments to the Young Offenders Act, primarily to deal with cases of violence.

This government introduced Bill C-37 last June, and now, of course, it has been passed by both the House and the Senate. Bill C-37 builds on the general policy of this government to distinguish sharply between violent and non-violent crime. There is no doubt we have sought to increase the scope for holding youth involved in very serious crimes more accountable, to enhance the court's ability to respond more appropriately to serious violent offenders and to improve the system's effectiveness in managing them.

As the committee will recall, Bill C-37 results in changes, including 16- and 17-year-olds charged with first- and second-degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault being dealt with as adults, unless they can satisfy the onus of satisfying the court that the objectives of protecting the public and rehabilitation can be achieved by the time periods available in the youth system.

Murder sentences will be increased in the youth system. For first-degree murder there will be a maximum sentence of 10 years with up to 6 years spent in custody and the remainder in the community under intense supervision.

In addition, periods of parole and eligibility will be increased for 16- and 17-year-olds transferred and convicted of murder in adult court.

Information sharing will be allowed among police, educators and other professionals working with the young offender to ensure compliance with any court order or to ensure public safety. Provision is also made for disclosure to select members of the public where a court is satisfied safety warrants it.

.1055

A more flexible use of youth court records is provided, including indefinite keeping of the records for more serious crimes.

For youth being released from custody, conditional supervision will now be available for all offences, allowing immediate reincarceration upon a breach.

As to where we go from here, Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to be presumptuous in suggesting directions for possible future changes. The committee is just beginning its important work in determining what changes are desirable. If I may be permitted to do so, I would like to identify directions the committee may wish to examine, possibilities you may wish to consider and avenues you may want to explore.

You'll first want to have a reliable factual foundation from which to proceed. The Department of Justice will do everything possible to make available to the committee and its members the research and the factual background we have to assist you in that work. Statistics about the extent and the nature of youth crime, trends from province to province, and the costs of incarceration and alternative programs will all be of interest to the committee.

It also seems to me that for the purposes of this discussion this morning and for the purposes of your work in the weeks ahead, it will be important to distinguish between two very different categories of crime: those that involve violence and those that do not.

In terms of crimes of violence, it's important to acknowledge the level of public concern about violent crime in general and about violence among young offenders in particular. As a father of young children living in an urban community, I understand that concern and the need to address it. Public protection must remain the paramount objective of the criminal justice system generally, including the youth justice system.

We need to explore the reasons that underlie the lack of public confidence in the youth justice system. Any such system must have public credibility. I invite the committee to consider the issue of the public perception and to provide ideas from that perspective on how the youth justice system can be improved.

We need to examine the fundamental question of whether the present YOA deals adequately with offenders who commit crimes of serious violence. Is it effective? Does it hold these offenders sufficiently accountable? Does the YOA adequately repudiate violent criminal behaviour? In addition to murder, are there other violent offences for which we should use different approaches for youth kept in the youth justice system?

Bill C-37 raised the maximum for murder, but are there other offences for which the maximum three years is not an adequate response? Should we look at other offences to which to apply the transfer provision? Should we consider the issue of a lower minimum age where a child under the age of 12 is involved in a very violent act? Should children under 12 be included in the scope of the YOA? Or should we examine different approaches, such as working with the provinces to ensure there's a protocol in place to deal with 10- and 11-year-olds in a child social welfare system that will look after the needs of such a young person and also address issues of public safety?

The committee will hear from experts, from victims and from young people. I hope you tour detention centres for yourselves to see the scope and the dimensions of these issues.

Surely these are some of the questions the committee must address as it looks at the question of dealing with violence among young people.

The second and separate category deals with non-violent offences. It seems to me it's important to remember that the vast majority of crimes prosecuted under the Young Offenders Act do not involve violence, and while serious violent offenders receive a lot of attention, we need to be most innovative in looking at how best to deal with non-violent young offenders. There are important factors to consider.

I invite the committee to look at research. I understand you have a copy of the report funded by the Department of Justice, prepared by Professor Anthony Doob and others, revealing what we do and do not know about a host of issues.

Dr. Steinhauer from the Hospital for Sick Children, who's testified here on Bill C-37, has other information and the federal-provincial-territorial task force is also examining a number of these factual issues.

.1100

Mr. Chairman, let me identify some areas dealing with non-violent offenders that might be fruitful for the committee to examine. First, are there ways to effectively reduce the use of custody for those who are not serious violent offenders? May I say that this must be one of the central preoccupations of the work?

The rate of youth sentenced to custody in Canada is much higher than in several other nations, including England, Wales, Scotland and many American states. Indeed, in 1991 our rate of youth sentenced to custody was 447 per 100,000. In England and Wales it's 69. In Scotland it's 86. Collectively, Canadian governments spend over $250 million each year locking up young offenders whose most serious offences were non-violent. Five out of six young people are in custody for non-violent offences.

Are there better ways within the community to deal with these young people? Are there ways to free up financial resources that could be better used for these young people, not to mention in efforts to rehabilitate the violent offenders who are in custody?

Mr. Chairman, to keep a young person in secure custody costs more than $100,000 a year in seven Canadian jurisdictions and it reaches as high as $300,000 a year in the territories. That's a shocking amount of money. In the cases of youths who might otherwise receive custody, there's a need for a wider variety of options to be available to judges, options that offer more effective supervision and intervention than the traditional caseload of a youth or probation worker permits.

[Translation]

As an example, take the Programme de mesures probatoires intensif pour adolescents contrevenants, run by the Child and Youth Protection Centre in Quebec. The program is a pilot project for youths aged 15 to 18 whose criminal records show that their risk of reoffending is high.

The objective is to set up a community based intermediary intervention system, which is cost-effective and efficient, and which is half way between open custody and mandatory supervision. Support is provided by family members, school authorities, the police as well as community and recreation groups.

During the two years the project was under way, the recidivism rate among participants was 44%, compared to 77% among members of the control group.

[English]

Second, when dealing with less serious behaviour, what can we do to hold young persons accountable outside of the formal court process? Dealing with more young people outside of the formal system entirely and dealing with them through alternative measures would allow for better use of the formal court process for serious crime and for greater involvement of parents and communities.

Mr. Chairman, when one uses the phrase ``alternative measures'' one isn't simply embarking upon a soft-headed sort of ineffective approach to dealing with offenders. Alternative measures often represent a much more demanding way of holding offenders accountable. Working to pay the victim back requires more of a young person than do many of the penalties imposed by courts, including the penalties of probation or a short period of custody.

In Ottawa, there's a program called the criminal pre-trial mediation program. For some minor offences like theft under or possession under, young people are taken out of the formal court process and through working with the victims and their families are given a direct feeling of the consequence of their crime for the victims. It's much more instructive than the passive experience of appearing in a court or even of serving a short period in custody.

.1105

To what degree are we dealing with young offenders outside of the traditional process in Canada? There are wide variations. Quebec's charging rate is about half that of Ontario, but there's no evidence to suggest that Quebec's crime or recidivism rates are higher than that of its next-door neighbour.

There are wide variations in other countries. England and Wales deal with 56% of their cases outside of the formal court system when it comes to young offenders. In New Zealand, it's 61%. In Scotland, it's 59%. In some American states, it's as high as 50%. We're lagging very far behind in this regard.

Third, what can we do to widen the range of processes by which youth who have committed crimes can make restitution directly to the victim? In regard to accountability, we would do well to closely examine the 1995 Jasmin report on Quebec's youth justice system in which improving the response to victims was one of the major themes.

Fourth, how can we develop ways to involve victims, communities, and parents in decision-making in order to increase the likelihood that offenders will be deterred from offending again?

Here, experience illustrates that offenders often find being held accountable for their actions to victims, victims' families, and their own families and peers to be a much more demanding exercise than the anonymity of a court appearance and a short custody sentence.

It also addresses many of the criticisms of the current system. Victims' groups are growing throughout the country because victims feel as though they are the orphans of the criminal justice system. They are estranged from it and feel forgotten by it.

Is there not an opportunity here to achieve both the objective of making the youth justice system less expensive and more effective while addressing the concerns of victims by involving them more directly in what happens to a young person who has been convicted of a crime that does not involve violence?

I met with a man in my constituency office about a year ago who came to complain about the Young Offenders Act. His house had been broken into when he wasn't home. The court had sentenced the young person to a period in custody, but it had also asked the young person to write a letter of apology to the victim. The victim told me that he wanted to know the name of the young offender and how to get in touch with that person because he very much wanted to communicate the effect the crime had on him.

This is what had happened. This man had a jewellery box on his dresser in his bedroom. The jewellery was taken. Among the things taken was a penny that had been carried in the pocket of this man's father throughout the father's entire life. Upon the death of the father, the man had received it. He kept the penny as a highly sentimental reminder of his own dad.

The young offender had taken this penny. Of course, it meant nothing to the young offender, but it meant the world to the man who had lost it. All he wanted, he told me, was the chance to sit down with this young person and explain to him the enormous emotional impact this insult had on him.

I say this should be possible. How much better that man would have felt if he had that opportunity! Can't we design a system so that the young person gets the impact of that kind of effect and hears it directly? Can't we involve the family of the young person, the victim, and members of the community more directly in this process?

I believe we can, and I believe we can learn from other countries that have done just that.

In New Zealand, their young offender system makes use of these approaches. For 97% of their youth cases, they deal with them outside of the formal court process. They deal more directly with the victims and members of the community.

In the six years since they made this change, the rate of crime and recidivism among youth is down. So they closed 21 of the 24 secure-custody institutions for youth in the country.

Interestingly, this initiative in New Zealand grew out of a an aboriginal justice initiative from the Maoris of that country. So we can learn from the aboriginal model in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, let me come to the last part of my presentation, since I'm anxious to have the questions of the committee as well. This has to do with crime prevention, linkages and partnerships in the system, so that we don't see courts, judges, and police in isolation when it comes to justice, crime and young people.

[Translation]

We must ask ourselves how we can reinforce the links between the juvenile justice system and other systems for young people and adolescents and how we can ensure better crime prevention.

.1110

I know that almost all of the witnesses who appear before the committee on Bill C-37 propose concrete measures for crime prevention.

As you know, my colleague, the honourable Herb Gray, and I set up the National Crime Prevention Council. The Council makes legal recommendations to the minister responsible.

The council has decided to focus primarily on crime prevention through social development and has made children and adolescents its priorities.

You will have the opportunity to hear representatives from the council on November 23rd. They are looking for ways to make our communities safer by improving the efficiency of the system as well as the accountability required under it.

[English]

A criminal justice system cannot succeed in isolation. It cannot alone make a society safe. It's incapable of doing that because it deals with effects and not with causes. By the time the justice system becomes engaged, people are in trouble, the harm has been done, charges have been laid.

Some people assume that we can make things better and make the streets safer just by ratcheting up the penalties, but that alone is not going to solve the problem. Just throwing more kids in jail is not the only answer. That will not improve public safety. Mr. Chairman, let's do the hard work and make the tough choices and get it right, because by itself more law or even better law will never be the complete answer. In the long run the surest protection is in crime prevention.

I believe the connection between social justice and criminal justice should be respected. Making the streets safer has as much to do with literacy as it does with the law; it has as much to do with the strength of families as with the length of sentences and it has as much to do with early intervention as with mandatory supervision.

I invite the committee to examine the linkages between the social system and the justice system, between the educational system and the families it serves, between community workers, health care professionals, police and young people. I invite your attention to some examples in the provinces.

I was in Winnipeg recently and I saw the youth involvement program, an alternative education program for fifteen high-risk young offenders who were on probation. It addresses their unique needs and promotes skills and job training, offering a multi-disciplinary support system including probation officers, psychologists, mental health workers, and aboriginal community services.

The same thing is happening in Edmonton with Partners for Youth, an umbrella organization of over 30 agencies of municipal, provincial and federal governments working together to offer one-stop shopping when police find a young person who is in trouble or has committed a crime and who can be dealt with more effectively than being drawn into a room filled with judges and lawyers.

The Youth Service Canada community safety initiative is another example in which young people are working directly with police officers to deal with the needs of those youngsters who are at highest risk to offend criminally.

The last thing I'll say before stopping, Mr. Chairman, has to do with cost-sharing. The work this committee is embarking upon will be enormously important in setting the stage for the renegotiation of cost-sharing agreements between the federal and provincial governments.

At the moment, the federal government contributes money to the provinces towards the youth justice system. Almost all of it goes to custody. We want to renegotiate those agreements so that over time almost all of it goes to the kinds of alternative approaches I've been describing. Particularly for the non-violent offender, we'll have a better outcome, less reoffending, and less cost ultimately if we take that approach. I look to this committee for work that will support me in that initiative and I look forward to working with all members of the committee in the months ahead for this important objective.

Thank you very much for your attention.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We will now have a period of questions and comments.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies.

Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Minister, I would like to begin by apologizing for Mrs. Venne's tardiness. Unfortunately, she is stuck in traffic in Montreal. She should arrive shortly.

.1115

I have two short questions. First of all, you talk a lot about rehabilitation; you also refer to decreased costs and increased benefits resulting from rehabilitation or alternative measures. In keeping with this philosophy, how do you think you will able to increasingly criminalize violent young offenders who commit murder or aggravated assaults? And what direction should the committee move in with respect to this type of crime?

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, does the question deal solely with violent crime?

Mr. Deshaies: No.

Mr. Rock: Regarding my approach in light of various possible measures and as my comments this morning show, I firmly believe that in Canada, it is possible to develop a way of reacting to crime committed by young offenders, particularly for non violent crime.

I referred to the Jasmin Report which was prepared by the Quebec government this year. This reports sets out the challenge of making young people accountable by means autres que l'incarcération.

It is possible to set up, outside the official legal process, a system for victims and their families, as well as for the families of young offenders, a system which would yield more tangible results.

[English]

I believe strongly that we can learn from what has gone on in other countries and in some American states. We can take approaches that are different from what we've done in the past. Thirty per cent of young offenders receive custodial sentences. That means they go to a detention centre or some form of facility where they're kept under supervision and confinement. Eighty-three percent of those kids go into custody for crimes that are not violent.

It costs us an enormous amount of money to do that, and the outcome is not good. So it seems to be a matter of common sense that if we could find a way to spend less money, or even spend the same amount more effectively and have a better outcome with a lower rate of reoffending, then we should look at it. It's that exercise to which I urge the committee.

I don't know if that responds to the member's question.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Minister, can you draw a parallel between your approach and the Young Offenders Act in Quebec? Do you want a policy or an act which would be more restrictive, or does Quebec use fewer methods for rehabilitation or alternative measures than you want to use?

Mr. Rock: Generally, I think that Quebec currently has the most efficient system for creating links between the justice system and other systems in society. To a certain extent, it serves as a model in Canada for the integration of available services.

[English]

I mentioned in the course of my opening statement that the charging rate in Quebec is a fraction of what it is in Ontario, and yet there's no suggestion that crime among young people is a bigger problem in Quebec than in other provinces. Au contraire, something's being done very well in Quebec. There's even a higher level of confidence among the people of Quebec in the youth justice system than in other parts of the country. I suggest the committee look at the experience in Quebec and see what we can learn from it.

.1120

I believe a large part of it is the linkages, not just in the justice system but in the social services as well. I visited the detention centre at

[Translation]

the Centre Jeunesse Montréal Cité des Prairies, in the east end of Montreal. I met the managers and the board of directors there. I also met young offenders. I examined the approach and the principles of this detention centre.

[English]

We found a very impressive integrated system that involved education for the young people in the facility. Some of them were there for murder. They were taking rigorous high school equivalent courses. There was the full involvement of health services, including mental health services, to assist young people during their incarceration. Just as important, there was rigorous follow-up afterwards, so when they were released the detention centre had a relationship with the families to whom they were being released, or knew where they were going. There was follow-up to maintain efforts to keep the young person going in the right direction. I think that's an exemplary approach and we can learn from it.

In answer to the question, yes, I think the policies and the practices pursued in Quebec are in many ways exemplary for all of us, and we should study them with care.

I was inconsiderate in not introducing the person with me. Mary-Anne Kirvan is a lawyer with the Department of Justice, in a senior position in the sector that deals with youth justice and the Young Offenders Act. From time to time, as in this instance, may I invite her to give fuller answers from her broader knowledge of the issues that are being discussed.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, it will be just fine if you would like her to respond to some of the questions.

Mr. Rock: Mary-Anne Kirvan may wish to deal with the question relating to the systems in Quebec.

Ms Mary Anne Kirvan (Senior Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Department of Justice): I think the only additional comment I might make is that at the outset of your question you mentioned rehabilitation and that principle. I think the suggestions that have been offered by the minister speak to changing the behaviour in different ways. Some of these are very much in tune with rehabilitative approaches that would be pursued in Quebec.

For example, for many of the youth who are in custody for very serious offences, involvement with the victim, where the victim is willing to be involved, is a critical part of that rehabilitative process. Some of these other suggestions offered in the context of less serious offending seek to involve the victim with the offender, so the young person will really understand the effect of the behaviour. They do not take the place of the principle of rehabilitation, but are seen as complementary to it where there is a need to really get at the underlying behaviour and change it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, thank you for your presentation this morning.

I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask you. We have been asked by yourself to conduct this 10-year review. But it's really not a 10-year review because there were two amendments prior to Bill C-37, and the last amendment occurred in 1992. It seems to me the purpose of the review is to determine the impact the Young Offenders Act had upon the young offenders of this country.

You brought in Bill C-37 prior to a review. That has changed the act, and yet we have not had sufficient time to see the impact of those amendments upon the young offenders in this country. Bill C-37 received royal assent three months ago.

I have to ask - and it leaves me a little frustrated in terms of our job to review the Young Offenders Act after it has just so recently been amended - why you brought in Bill C-37 prior to the 10-year review.

.1126

Mr. Rock: I think there are three reasons.

The first is that in 1993, during the election campaign - which now seems a long time ago - the party of which I'm a part made a commitment that if elected we would make specific changes to the act, including doubling the maximum sentence for first-degree murder and dealing more effectively with youth violence. We felt it imperative to comply with that commitment and to fulfil it, and Bill C-37 did that.

Second, I believed when I introduced Bill C-37, and I still believe, that it reflects and meets matters on which there was real public concern and a demand for action - not just talk but action. There were concerns about 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds committing seriously violent crimes, about police officers being able to share information with schools, principals, or teachers. If a young person is charged and is capable of violence, they wanted to tell them so that they could put security systems in place. That wasn't possible before Bill C-37. They wanted to keep the records of violent young offenders for longer periods so that when they became adults and reoffended, they'd be able to have reference to them.

It's true to say that we could have waited - and I know there were some who came before this committee who expressed the opinion that we should have waited - but on balance I felt that we should act, put those changes in place, and then ask the committee to consider the YOA as amended, so that it could be determined whether further changes were needed.

The third reason, if I may say, is that we are positioning ourselves to renegotiate the cost-sharing agreements with the provinces. Part of that is Bill C-37, because Bill C-37 makes it clear that custody should be used as a last resort in non-violent crimes, and that if a judge is going to give custody, then he or she should give reasons as to why some other penalty wasn't imposed. It creates the groundwork we're going to use in renegotiating cost-sharing with the provinces to try to put the emphasis for non-violent offenders on non-custodial approaches.

I understand, Mr. Ramsay, that there are those who say we should have just waited. There is something to be said for it, but on balance the conclusion was that it was better act to fulfil our commitments, to make needed changes, and to go in the direction in which we wanted to start.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but you do recognize the paradox that exists here.

Mr. Rock: Yes.

.1130

Mr. Ramsay: On the one hand it seems that the justice department has taken it upon itself to come forward with amendments without a review, and the rationale for that has been provided at least in part by what you said when you appeared before us back in June, as well as this morning.

As a committee, how can we assess the impact of those amendments only three months after royal assent of that bill? It seems that on the one hand you did not need a review of the act in order to come forward with amendments, and then on the other hand you're saying that this committee ought to do work in all of these other areas, including the part that has been amended by Bill C-37, so that you can make further amendments.

Mr. Rock: If needed, if you think they're needed.

What I'm saying is this. Yes, it's very difficult to assess, in fact it's impossible to assess, immediately the effects of the changes in Bill C-37, because they're just coming into effect. But there is still so much to learn about the act and how it's operated over the last 10 years.

Apart from the matters touched upon in Bill C-37, there's still so much for you to consider. As I mentioned this morning, what about the age ranges? That wasn't touched on by Bill C-37; we expressly left it to this review. Should 16- and 17-year-olds be in the Young Offenders Act? Should we have the transfer provisions apply as they do under Bill C-37 to a broader range of crimes? What about 10- and 11-year-olds? That wasn't dealt with by Bill C-37. What about the three-year maximum for offences other than murder under the Young Offenders Act? Is that appropriate? That wasn't touched on by Bill C-37. What about matters such as the admissibility of statements in section 56, which is a major issue?

I spent the summer with police across the country. I went to seven police forces in different Canadian cities, met with them in their parade rooms, went out on patrol with them in their cars. To a person they expressed frustration with the process for getting statements into evidence under the Young Offenders Act. That's very important for the committee to look at.

As I mentioned, how we deal with non-violent offenders...we can do such a better job. You can tell us what steps to take to improve the system.

I agree with you, Mr. Ramsay, that it's an anomaly. I agree with you that it's impossible now to measure the effect of changes that are just coming into play, but I suggest to you that there's still an awful lot this committee can look at, that there are very important questions to examine overall. I'd rather have Bill C-37 coming into force on December 1 than be waiting another year and a half, until after the committee's global study of the act, because I think the changes are needed now.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. I have one other question.

At the time the Juvenile Delinquents Act was contemplated or at least the amendments to it that brought about the Young Offenders Act, there was considerable debate over a considerable period of time. It seems from my examination of the subject that what really pushed the changes forward was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, inasmuch as the courts indicated that there was inconsistent sentencing across the country. It had to do with the degree of equality.

There is still, and I suppose the committee will find this as we go across the country, a great degree of inconsistency in the sentencing, which of course is a continuation of the violation of section 15. Would you comment on that? What is your opinion about the consistency of sentencing across the country, which really was the final driving force that brought about the change from the Juvenile Delinquents Act to the Young Offenders Act, and whether we're facing a similar kind of problem here today?

Mr. Rock: I'm not sure I agree that it was the Charter of Rights or the equality provisions in the charter that led to the enactment of the Young Offenders Act. My understanding -

.1135

Mr. Ramsay: Partially it did.

Mr. Rock: Partially it did? It may have been a factor, but my understanding is that the act grew out of about twenty years of research, study, and discussion. The committee that considered the act at that time took a very long view.

In any event, there's no doubt that inconsistency in the way young people are dealt with is a continuing problem. As I mentioned this morning, it's an uneven picture across the country. Quebec has one practice. The incarceration rates differ from province to province, as Ms Kirvan will tell us. That is a concern.

One of the reasons for that is that we write the law but the provinces administer it, and they administer it very differently. Different provinces put different degrees of investment into their youth justice system. They have different philosophies as to what could happen to young people who are convicted of crime.

In some ways we'll never get over that, we'll never be able to overcome it, because under our system of government the provinces do have that responsibility. But I think one of the functions this committee can serve as it does its work, Mr. Chairman, is to identify approaches that provinces generally will find attractive. Maybe we can work towards a greater uniformity in sentences.

Does that respond to your question?

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mrs. Barnes, you have ten minutes.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, thank you for attending. Thank you also, Ms Kirvan.

I'm very pleased that you started off with the statement that recognizes that most of the youth of Canada are operating very well in our society and have no need for this system. Obviously their parents and communities are coping well. That must be difficult; it's probably a very difficult time to be a child, with all the impacts of TV and the violence we see in our society.

One of the things that concern me most is that most people, even though our feeling that there's something wrong with the Young Offenders Act is very real, really don't know the difference between the facts and what are perceived to be the facts. Therefore, it's like saying that education is wrong so let's throw out the schools. You can't do that; you might want to change some of the things in the curriculum or the way we do things.

Violence and youth is something that concerns me and I believe most Canadians a lot, but violent offences in this country are mainly committed by adults; they are not committed by youth. Yet most people don't realize that about our youth crime picture.

One of the problems that I see having to be overcome is the public perception of what exactly is happening in our society. I'd like you to address, for a minute, the role of education of the public, which involves not only the adult public but also the youth public, with respect to the facts around our youth system, as well as the role of the media in that education process.

Mr. Minister, I would also like you to talk for a moment about why we even have a youth justice system, why we don't just have an adult system for everybody. If you do the same thing when you are a kid that you would do when you are an adult, why don't we treat it exactly the same?

I may have some more questions if you have time.

Mr. Rock: I'll try to be very brief. The subjects you've raised are very broad, but let me be as direct as I can.

As to why there's a separate youth system, I think it's recognized today, as it always has been, that it's only right to have a different system for young people, not that they aren't accountable but that they should be accountable in a different way. It's more effective to take a different approach, because with young people you have a better chance than you do with adults to change or influence their behaviour.

I think that's the fundamental reason. It's why Parliament unanimously enacted the Young Offenders Act in 1982. I believe the principle is as strong today as it was then.

The second question you asked is about letting the public know the facts about the Young Offenders Act. One of the reasons I'm excited about this committee's work is that I think we have a chance to do that. As I go around the country, I'm finding there isn't a single piece of legislation that's more controversial than the Young Offenders Act, even -

Mrs. Barnes: Don't say it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rock: I won't say it. Mr. Ramsay and I have promised not to talk about it.

There is a real concern about the Young Offenders Act, and I think it's important to acknowledge it and to respect it. People are extremely concerned about the youth justice system and have the deep impression in many cases that it's not working, that we're not being protected.

.1140

One of the really significant contributions this committee can make in its work is to bring the facts forward. Let's look at the facts. What is the incidence of crime among young people? What's the incidence of violent crime among young people? How does the youth justice system compare to the adult justice system in dealing with it? Once those facts are on the table, public perceptions may change. That's a very important role for you to fulfil at this time.

In terms of the media, it is just doing its job. It's reporting on the facts, and it's natural that the media will have more interest in a spectacular crime of serious violence than in a shoplifting case. So I don't think we're in a position to blame the media; they're just fulfilling their responsibility.

However, when undue attention is drawn to those spectacular crimes of violence, an impression is left that they're either far more common than they are or that the risk for us in society is far greater than it is, and I think that should be addressed. These things should be seen more fully in context.

Does that respond to your question?

Mrs. Barnes: Yes.

If you're talking about the long-term safety of a community being affected by the rehabilitation of the offending youth, if that's a priority, changing the behaviour so they come into an adult world with a better direction and with normal societal dispositions, then alternate measures, programs, are going to be more effective. We have research to support that. However, in your statements today you've also said that very few provinces are not utilizing the act in the way that will bring about the alternate measures.

I would like to discuss what factors inhibit the community involvement. Is it resources? Is it information? Is it commitment? Are we down to talking about money, and if it is money, what's the difference in cost for a secure custody, what's the difference in cost between the different levels of security within the custody settings, and what's the cost of an alternate measures program?

I know that they're going to vary from province to province, relatively speaking, and perhaps Ms Kirvan can get into that type of detail.

The other thing I want you to address, Mr. Minister, is the fact that we can make all the recommendations in the world here, but generally speaking we're going to have to have a provincial or territorial government go ahead and implement this act, whatever the recommendations or the changes. What are you doing as a ministry at the moment to have those discussions with our provincial colleagues and counterparts, at the bureaucratic level as well as at the other levels?

Mr. Rock: May I answer the second question first and then invite Ms Kirvan to answer the first question second.

In terms of the provinces and territories, as you know, there is right now a federal-provincial-territorial working group that started its work in the spring, that's working in parallel to the committee, that will report next spring, and report in such a way that you will be able to take its views into account before you make your final recommendations. That federal-provincial-territorial task force is examining six issues: the integration and coordination of youth justice systems and other systems; how best to deal with serious offenders; diversion, pre-trial detention, and alternatives to custody; due process issues, such as getting statements into evidence and so on; cost-sharing and cost-reduction; and publication of names, information sharing, and the keeping of records for young offenders.

This work directly involves the provinces and the territories. Their officials are doing this work with the federal government. I see signs of real commitment on the part of the provinces to work collaboratively to improve the present system.

I believe that when they will report and give their report to you, and when you will in turn make recommendations, we will be able to find a strategy that all levels of government can support to improve the youth justice system.

I can't speak for the provincial governments, obviously, but I can tell you that I see signs of real commitment. If we produce a thorough report pointing the way, as I've suggested, to saving money and having a better outcome, then I think they will follow through.

May I invite Ms Kirvan to deal with the first part of your question.

Ms Kirvan: If I could just seek clarification first about the question of alternative measures, are we speaking just about alternatives generally; that is, alternatives that deal with the problem outside of the formal system, and also alternatives to custody?

Mrs. Barnes: I'd like you to address both.

.1145

Ms Kirvan: The answers probably lie in change at three different levels. About what the mechanisms are to achieve some of the changes you spoke about, we need to look at the federal level and what can be done there. Three tools probably come to mind.

First, certainly, is whether something more can be done in the legislation to point in this direction. For example, when we speak about using alternative ways of arriving at solving the problems, such as these family conferences or some of the New Zealand practices, those can be either enshrined in the legislation or just set in policy and not put in the act. So we need to look at whether the act itself should be changed federally.

Second, at the federal level, as the minister earlier suggested, your ideas will be invaluable in the shift in cost and how the cost-sharing mechanism can be used to bring about a shift.

Third, there has been some developmental work at the federal level where the federal government has played a facilitating role in funding programs that do things differently so we have some sort of comparison. They're very interested in looking at ways communities can integrate or can organize themselves so at a community level this can actually happen.

Those are probably the federal tools. At the provincial level, you're quite right...just inferred by your question...so much can be done there. While outside the jurisdiction of this committee, if you will, there's no doubt when you go about on your travels you're going to be hearing about this connection between the provincial system and its delivery and the federal system. That information will really shed light on what may need to be done there. Even though it's outside your formal mandate, it's not outside your mandate at least to say these appear to be areas that need to be further studied at the provincial level.

The third part of the equation, which really all points to the complexity of doing business differently, is how very limited dollars...whether some of them come from the federal government and some of them come from the provinces...how they can be used best at the community level. That really brings in the community and it brings in the agencies, who as we speak are really looking at their dollars, in many parts of the country, and asking whether they can take more control of the dollars that come into their communities so they can serve the kids they have in these communities, and the public, in the best way.

There's really no easy answer. Movement's required at the community level, the next level, the provincial, and the federal. It's going to be up to the committee to shed some light on the best ways of seeking the change you spoke of.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Deshaies, you have five minutes.

Mr. Deshaies: I just have one short question to ask the Minister. I am concerned, because with Bill C-37, an Act to amend the Young Offenders' Act and the Criminal Code, a right-wing trend is being introduced. Bill C-37 will soon come into force and you're asking the committee to carry out an in-depth review.

Are you not afraid that the system is becoming more right-wing instead of focusing on the objectives that is using less costly alternative measures or more rehabilitation? What are the pros and cons of increasing sentences and decreasing the age for a young person charged with murder? Do you not think that you're sending a message that in fact you want the committee to become more right-wing?

Mr. Rock: I see the process used by the committee in its study of the Young Offenders' Act and the process used by the government not as an exercise moving either to the left or to the right, but as a step forward.

[English]

I don't see it as going either to the left or to the right. I see it as going forward. I don't think there's anything right-wing about wanting to protect society from violent crime. I don't see it as a matter of ideology to deal sternly with people who commit crimes of violence. I think that's common sense, and that's why we said in Bill C-37 that if you're 16 or 17 years old and you commit one of the serious crimes of violence referred to in the act, you're going to be tried in adult court and face adult penalties unless you can satisfy the onus of proving that the protection of the public can be achieved if you are tried in youth court. That's not right-wing, Mr. Chairman. To my mind, that's just a sensible way of approaching an issue that affects our safety.

.1150

While I'm not concerned about what's on the left or what's on the right, I am concerned about moving forward. I am concerned about a critical examination of how we spend all those hundreds of millions of dollars every year to lock up kids who are not a threat to our personal safety. I'm concerned about having a rigorous examination of different ways of dealing with those kids, ways that will produce better results for the young people themselves, cost us less money, and be in the public interest. I don't regard this as ideology; I regard it as a fact-based analysis of what is the best way to serve the public interest.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies: I agree with you, but there are different ways of looking at this. For example, in my riding, the natives, in particular the Inuit and the Cree, have a way of dealing with their crime which is different from what they call the White man's law. In your view, how will young native offenders see these changes?

What worries me the most, is that these changes emphasize accountability to a greater extent. However, is accountability the same as criminalizing young people? That's why I have all these questions. There are different ways of looking at the situation. It is not necessarily a move to the left or to the right, but the fact remains that Bill C-37 has made things a little more...

You are placing more emphasis on the accountability of young criminals, but there may be other ways of looking at it. In Quebec, young people can be tried in adult criminal court if the crime is considered quite serious. However, with Bill C-37, it will be the opposite: young people will have to prove that they should not be tried in adult criminal court.

[English]

Mr. Rock: We have a great deal to learn from aboriginal models. As I mentioned in my opening, among the Maoris of New Zealand there were processes developed that, when applied to the population in general in the youth justice system, resulted in a significant decrease in the rate of offending and allowed the government to close 21 out of 24 of their custody facilities. So the aboriginal approaches can teach us a great deal.

Yes, I've spoken of accountability, but I'm only the first witness. You're going to hear dozens of witnesses. You heard dozens of witnesses on Bill C-37. You have a very good knowledge of these areas already.

It seems to me the committee is going to hear that accountability for non-violent crime sometimes is better achieved than simply by bringing the person before a judge in a courtroom with a lawyer paid for by legal aid, with technical, arid arguments of law, with a sentence requiring that the person be removed to a locked facility, with three months being spent in that facility shooting pool and smoking cigarettes and then the person being dumped back out on the street.

Is that accountability? What about instead bringing that person into a system where they have to sit down across the table from the victim, where the victim has a chance to directly explain the consequence of the crime? I lost that penny. That penny meant an awful lot to me. It meant nothing to you. Let me tell you why it had an effect on my life.

Directly confront the offender. Have the offender perform work that is some degree of restitution for the victim, that is meaningful to the victim, that teaches the offender something worth while, that costs us less, that's properly supervised so we know it has some consequence to it, that's rigorous. You know, that's accountability too, and maybe it's accountability in a way that's far more effective than just taking them away to the youth centre.

The committee will hear of these subjects in the weeks ahead. It will hear witnesses who know much more about them than I do and it will form its own conclusions about how best to go in directions that are more valuable than those we're chasing at the moment.

The Chairman: Mr. Allmand, you have five minutes.

Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, has the Canadian government signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child passed by the United Nations in 1989?

Mr. Rock: Yes, we have.

.1155

Mr. Allmand: Has the Canadian government signed and ratified the United Nations standard minimum rules for the administration of juvenile justice?

Mr. Rock: Yes, we have.

Mr. Allmand: As you probably are aware, articles 37, 39 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are very explicit with respect to standards and principles of youth justice and, in particular, to matters that relate to the Young Offenders Act. I want to ask whether or not the present government fully supports the measures in articles 37, 39 and 40 of the convention.

Mr. Rock: I have to consult my lawyer, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Allmand: That's quite all right, I understand that.

Mr. Rock: I'm reminded that in keeping with the international practice, the Government of Canada has filed a reservation in relation to one aspect of those treaties, and it has to do with placement of young offenders - article 37.

Mr. Allmand: I would be pleased to know the specifics of that reservation in due course, although not necessarily today.

I want to go on to ask you whether or not you know of any provinces that have expressed reservation to the convention and to the minimum standards.

Mr. Rock: We'll have to find out and let you know. I don't know of any this morning, but we'll look at the record.

Mr. Allmand: I see.

My bottom line is this: I wanted to ask you on behalf of the Canadian government whether or not the Canadian government believes, or whether or not you believe, any amendments to the Young Offenders Act should respect the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the minimum standards. In other words, we've signed and ratified these conventions - subject to the one reservation you referred to, it's true - but shouldn't the recommendations of this committee for amendment respect conventions that we've signed internationally?

Mr. Rock: I think the committee should have regard to those in making its recommendations, and we certainly will in considering any recommendations the committee makes.

Mr. Allmand: On that point, I'd like to ask the chair and the clerk to make sure that all members of the committee have the Convention of the Rights of the Child. If it hasn't already been distributed, it should be, along with the minimum rules for standards for juvenile justice that Canada has signed.

I'll move to another point. You pointed out that Canada has a relatively high rate of incarceration for young offenders. You said 30% of those convicted are sent to secure-custody institutions, and that 83% of those have not committed violent offences. Is it not correct that this is probably being done in many provinces - in other words, judges are deciding to send young offenders to custody - because in those provinces there aren't sufficient resources available for non-custodial alternatives? I have information that judges would like to send people to non-custodial alternatives in many provinces but those provinces just haven't voted the funds, haven't provided the resources. The judges therefore have no alternative but to send people to custodial alternatives.

Have you any response to that? Is that not correct?

Mr. Rock: It certainly is.

I neglected to say what I usually do in this context. When I described the high rates of incarceration, I didn't mean it as a criticism of the judges in youth courts, because many of them are frustrated by the fact that alternatives are just not available.

I think an important reason for a high level of custody in youth crimes is that there aren't alternatives. That's why I say that when we sit with the provinces to renegotiate the cost-sharing, I want to stipulate for a plan that will work toward a reversal of the present ratio. At the moment, eight of every ten dollars that we give the provinces goes to custody costs. Well, that's easy, and in a sense it's lazy. It just makes sure that we build more facilities with locks on the doors. I'm going to negotiate this if I have the chance because I'd rather see that money spent in the other proportion over the next few years, with 80% of it going to alternatives. When there is a non-violent offender before the court and the court wants to see a way in which to deal with that young person other than just locking the kid up, it should have alternatives available.

.1200

So I agree with you, Mr. Allmand, and I say this is an objective that we must work towards together.

Mr. Allmand: I have a final question on that point: could you tell the committee about the instruments by which the federal government assists the provinces with these resources. I understood that one of the instruments was the Canada Assistance Plan. That now has been repealed to be replaced by the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act.

Are there other instruments by which the federal government assists the provinces? Have we reduced our moneys to the provinces for those resources through those instruments? I know we've done it through the Canada Assistance Plan, but what about the other instruments by which you help provinces for young offenders?

Mr. Rock: I don't know that the Canada Assistance Plan has any direct relevance except to the extent that it provides funding for the civil legal aid side.

The more direct way in which we participate as a federal government with the provinces in terms of youth justice is through the money we spend every year - between $150 million and $160 million. I think last year it was $156 million. We give this to the provinces on shared costs for young offenders. What happens is that we give this money to them and, as I say, about 75% or 80% goes to custody costs.

So our primary involvement with the provinces financially is through the shared-cost money for young offenders. In answer to your question about whether or not that's been reduced, we can give you the detailed answer in due course, Mr. Allmand. To give you the thrust of the response, though, it is going down because of program review, and I think it's going to be at the level of about $150 million per year over the next few years.

Mr. Allmand: Would you give that to the committee?

Mr. Rock: Yes, we will get those details in response to Mr. Allmand's question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Allmand.

I am wondering if the document you referred to, Mr. Allmand, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, can be made part of the briefing book for us. We'd appreciate it if Ms Kirvan could also supply to the committee, through the clerk, the reservation that the government has filed, along with the response that you indicated you would supply to Mr. Allmand's question.

Ms Ablonczy, you have five minutes.

Mrs. Ablonczy (Calgary North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Rock: Good morning.

Mrs. Ablonczy: We appreciate your being here right at the outset so that we can clear up some of your thinking about where we need to go on this. In order to assist us in our review of this act, my question is on the priority that you would like to have placed on it.

There are, of course, a number of perspectives for youth justice, and a number of them have been brought out. We've talked about crime prevention, we've talked about social justice, we've talked about rehabilitation, we've talked about restitution. Could you identify for us one thing you want this act to be able to achieve, or what tool it could place in your hands by being best framed?

Mr. Rock: I think the most important thing is to restore and build public confidence in the youth justice system. I mentioned that I don't think there's any act that is more controversial. When I cross the country, as I know you do, to speak to people about issues on their minds, the Young Offenders Act always comes up.

One of the advantages of your work is that we're dealing openly, squarely, and in a very public way with those concerns. That lets us look at the facts. I think that is fundamental because the system is not going to be effective unless it is credible. It won't be credible unless it has the respect of the public, so let's get public confidence back. If that involves sharing with the public the facts about youth crime, then let's do it through this committee. You'll be having public hearings right across the country. It's a great way to get those facts in the public's mind. Beyond that, it's hard to know.

Personally, I'd like to see us examine the questions about crimes of violence, and the questions that I've put on the table this morning. Should there be more cases for which the transfer provisions in C-37 apply? Does the three-year maximum sentence fall short of what we should be able to impose in youth court on a young person who commits a crime of violence other than murder? What about the age range? How do we best deal with the 11-year-old child who's involved in a serious crime of violence? It's going to happen one of these days. Let's be ready for it. Let's think through the best way of dealing with it, for the sake of children and for the sake of the public.

.1205

Last, there is that huge chunk of money we're spending locking up kids who are not a danger to us. Can't we do better than that? Can't we work with the provinces to devise more intelligent and more effective ways to spend that money? Those are the priorities I see.

Mrs. Ablonczy: I appreciate that. You and others have made that point this morning. I think it certainly bears repeating: we're dealing with a very small segment of our young people in Canada. Most of our young people make us proud and they are going to be good leaders of the future; but the act, of course, applies to that small proportion of young people who are not law-abiding and who do not respect the rights of others. So as you say, we need to assure the public that the small segment of our youth population is going to be dealt with in a way that meets with our approval.

You've alluded to the fact that you've been talking across the country, as I have and as others have. As you know, not only does the public not have confidence in the way the youth justice system works at present for a whole range of reasons, but youth themselves don't have confidence in this act. In fact, as you talk to young people in high schools, they'll tell you it's a joke. They see their peers and people they know break the law and violate the rights of others with consequences that are slim to none. The deterrence factor of what is happening now in the youth justice system is virtually non-existent. This is what young people tell me, and I'm sure they've told you the same thing.

You are talking now about diminishing custody because you feel that it's not cost-effective. The public is going to want to know what we can do to send a signal to this very small group of young people to show them that when they break the law, violate the rights of others, hurt people and destroy their property, they are not going to get away with it and there are going to be some consequences they will not like that will make them think twice the next time. How do you propose to send this message? It's clearly not being sent right now.

Mr. Rock: A number of things have to be done. First, I think we have to look at some of the procedural aspects of the Young Offenders Act. I think you'll learn that police officers too often find it a very difficult act to administer. There are so many formalities they have to comply with. There are warnings to be given, protections before statements get into evidence and red tape.

I think the police should be listened to. I think we should look at whether we can cut through some of those formalities and get closer to the basics in the way the act is enforced. I also think we should look at ways in which kids do get the feeling that if they do something wrong there is a consequence that is unpleasant.

If they don't seem to be deterred by a system that involves going to court with a legal aid lawyer, having the case adjourned from time to time, eventually coming before a judge and having technical legal arguments resulting in a finding, what about an approach that involves taking them out of the formal court system where they're prepared to acknowledge their wrongdoing?

What about having them confront the victim directly with the family present, their family and the victim's family if necessary, and having them engage in some practical community work under close supervision for a specified period of time? What about this approach where they'd actually have to put themselves out to do it, where they're answerable to somebody for doing that work, where they know that it's a punishment, where they have time to reflect on the consequence of their misdeed, and where they have the necessary supervision to turn out better as a result of the experience? How about that approach instead?

.1210

I was in an aboriginal community not too long ago and was told how that community deals with its young people who run afoul of local customs and norms. A couple of young people got into some mischief, damaged some property and were given a local community sentence.

No one was really told very much about their running afoul of the local rules, but for a period of about six months people noticed that these two young people were cutting all of the wood the elders needed for their fireplaces. In other words, the community elders had said, ``You two guys are going to go out there and chop wood for six months and make sure we have every piece of wood we need for ourselves and our families.'' That's what they did and they learned a lesson from that.

So I think getting back to some of these basic principles is very important, as is re-establishing the credibility of the process in the minds of the young people. I think there's a lot that can be done toward that end.

Mrs. Ablonczy: It sounds like -

The Chairman: I'm sorry. We're already three minutes over on this round.

Ms Cohen.

Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): Minister, thank you for coming today. I want to express to you a concern I've heard from prosecutors in the system, from defence lawyers, and from young clients of mine who don't share the attitude Ms Ablonczy heard during her travels.

It's a great concern when you're in the courtroom and defending or prosecuting one of these kids where the crime is serious - we're not talking about mischief, nuisance or first offences - and you have to come to grips with a response to this finding of guilt that will assist a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old to get on with his life and that will satisfy and protect the community at the same time.

I guess that's the nub of it. I'm talking about offences where the community itself needs to be protected. This is probably where there are primarily crimes of violence or very serious property offences. You get there and you know this kid has to go somewhere and the only thing that's available is secure custody. Or you know that he needs secure custody, that it's the appropriate response, and you need to keep him there for so long that when he comes out there's not going to be any community supervision.

You're usually going to have him in a combination of secure custody down to open custody and ultimately to parole and probation. But with a total sum of three years, you have a real problem in terms of acknowledging the seriousness of the offence. I always found that frustrating, whichever side of the file I happened to be on.

It seems to me that maybe the answer to some of this is to get away from that awful, punitive, adversarial mindset and to turn our focus to a less expensive and less adversarial system that would still respect the rights of the individual. I don't for a moment suggest that we should be railroading these kids or pushing kids who aren't guilty of offences into some kind of rehab program, but wouldn't it be better if we turned our minds to something that's less expensive and less justice oriented?

Mr. Rock: I agree with you, very much so, but with a couple of conditions. I wonder if you share them.

First of all, so long as it's not perceived as or doesn't amount to a way to escape accountability -

Ms Cohen: No.

Mr. Rock: I know that's not what you suggested. If you're going to go to a route other than the formal court process for someone who has committed a crime, then I think it has to be understood that this is not going to be a picnic, that this is another way to be held accountable. As I said in my opening remarks, it may be a more demanding way than just sitting in the courtroom and shuffling around the youth centre smoking cigarettes for three months.

Ms Cohen: I made a deal with Ms Torsney to allow her to use a Windsor example in her question, and it is something you might want to keep in mind. Our provincial judges in Windsor have been very creative in terms of sentencing. As one judge once said to me, I'm going to create a living nightmare for this kid and he's not even going to have to go into custody.

.1215

It just seems to me there has to be a way we can do this less expensively and more effectively.

But on the issue that set me off, the idea of attaching some kind of supervision to jail sentences or to secure sentences and to expanding beyond the three years, I know you've done that with murder, but can you talk a little about that? Have other steps been taken, or could they be taken, to allow us to supervise children in the community longer?

Mr. Rock: I think there are. As you know, in Bill C-37 we provided for changes that allow mandatory supervision, if I can use that term - it's an adult term - community supervision beyond release for categories of offenders.

Another element of this is that the committee may want to look at the whole regime for the present punishment under the Young Offenders Act. I too have heard from prosecutors and defence counsel about the way they regard the Young Offenders Act in the courtroom. There are some counsel for young offenders who'll try to get their clients transferred, because if they're transferred and they're convicted in the adult court they'll get a jail term but they'll get parole and eligibility for release. There's no such concept in the youth system. If you to go to a period of custody in the young offenders system there's no parole and there's no early release. If you're a young person in many of these cases you get a better deal if you're convicted in adult court. That doesn't make sense, and we should look at that.

The Chairman: Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): The case to which my colleague was referring of course is the Hollinsky case, where there was a really terrific initiative. The young person had killed two people drinking and driving. The families got together and agreed the best way to stop more crimes like this from being committed and more families from losing their young people -

Mr. Rock: Was that the judgment of His Honour Judge Nosanchuk?

Ms Cohen: That's right.

Ms Torsney: He was from Windsor.

Mr. Rock: Excellent judgment.

Ms Cohen: A judgment of Solomon.

Ms Torsney: The Crown appealed. There was a minimum sentence that I believe is supposed to be imposed for this kind of crime, jail, but there was a much better outcome.

I think that's one of the things I'll be looking for: how we can leave judges enough leeway that there are better solutions and we deal with turning off the tap, as with the environmental movement, instead of continuing to deal with end-of-pipe solutions, which just build more jails and make the system more complicated. If you can comment on how we can do that, that would be terrific.

I also wanted to ask you about two things that were brought to my attention from someone who worked in the Syl Apps Centre, which is near my riding. One is the concept of parental accountability. I understand under the JDA there was some more formalized process for parental accountability. One of the minimum ways we might be able to do something is.... Right now I understand the system says everyone's entitled to legal aid, yet poor families would probably need that more than very wealthy families. Maybe asking wealthy parents of children who are in trouble to pay for legal aid would focus the family on the fact that their kid is in trouble and the defence is expensive and maybe they should take action to deal with this child. Could you comment on how we could do that?

The second one is the whole issue of the right to refuse treatment and whether children are really capable of making those decisions and how we can force them. There's a bit of a problem with leading a horse to water and forcing it to drink, but how do we make sure the children are getting the most appropriate treatment and how can we somehow force them to rehabilitate themselves?

Mr. Rock: In response to the first question, as you know, subsection 11(4) of the Young Offenders Act provides that the court will appoint counsel in any proceeding where the young person indicates a desire to obtain counsel but is unable to do so. The theory was that if a young person comes to court and the parents of that young person just won't get involved, won't provide any assistance.... Because the young person has to face trial in a criminal setting the young person should be able to have counsel, and the court is empowered to direct legal aid to provide counsel to ensure the young person is represented. When that's done, the cost of the legal aid lawyer is shared by the province and by the federal government.

.1220

The federal-provincial-territorial task force is looking at the question of whether that should be discontinued or changed. Many of the provincial legal aid plans want us to change it because it results, they say, in spending too many dollars for people who don't need it. It has been alleged that there are some parents who could afford to pay for a lawyer, but simply hold back waiting for the court to appoint one. It comes out of the public purse, and that, of course, is wrong.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): In every case?

Mr. Rock: Well, certainly, I don't know that in every case the parents are able to afford lawyers. In any event, it's well worth looking at, especially in a day and age when we're trying to find scarce legal aid dollars.

There are options available here, including restricting the appointment of counsel to the most serious of cases or perhaps restricting this practice to certain age groups, like those under 16, or perhaps replacing the statutory right to counsel with an administrative mechanism that would allow legal aid programs to provide young persons with counsel on the basis of criteria like those used for adults. In any event, it has to be looked at.

In terms of your second question, which is about treatment, may I invite Mary-Anne Kirvan to speak to that, because it's an area in which she's particularly interested?

Ms Torsney: And knowledgeable.

Ms Kirvan: I hope knowledgeable.

With respect to treatments, you might recall that a change was made in Bill C-37. The law currently contains a provision that has been really misunderstood. It speaks to consent to being placed in a facility. The thinking behind it was that if a young person agreed, for example, to take responsibility by going to a drug treatment facility, then maybe that was enough and no other sentence was required.

In any event, it has caused a great deal of confusion over the years, particularly in Ontario for some odd reason. So Bill C-37 went some way toward rectifying that, by removing the provision.

That does not mean that under criminal law there is the authority to impose certain kinds of very intrusive health treatments without the consent of either the parents, perhaps, or the young person.

So what the changes really do, and where we're at as of December 1, is that there is no consent-to-treatment provision in the Young Offenders Act.

What must be understood is that health is an area of provincial jurisdiction. The provinces have responsibility for making consent laws.

Under the Young Offenders Act it certainly is possible to extend treatment through conditions of probation.

Secondly, when a young person is placed in custody, the young person has no choice. Of course it's an order of the court. If the custodial program is treatment oriented, then the young person is just part of that milieu.

Thirdly, it's possible for the province to have its system work in a way such that the young offender wears two hats: the young offender hat, plus under provincial health legislation that young person may be subjected to involuntary treatment.

So it's complicated, but the two systems, the young offender and the health system of a province, have to work in tandem.

Mr. Forseth: I administered the Juvenile Delinquents Act at the street level and was involved in those federal-provincial conferences and all those discussions leading up to the making of the YOA. Now we've had this grand social experiment of the implementation of the YOA for ten years.

You certainly admitted very clearly today that the result of that ten years of implementation is that the public reputation of the Young Offenders Act is not very good. That's not from one section of the country; that's a national consensus - and it was part of the last election campaign.

In view of the overwhelming community evidence and the national input, we're now going to do another round of consultations, instead of acting based on the evidence that is already in and is voluminous. There was a period in 1993 when the public was to send in material, and it was extended. We've got studies galore.

I guess I'm concerned about the existing political and philosophical agenda, perhaps a bias against looking at the penalties and defining them. The government has a political problem, which I'm talking about. When the government has a political problem and it doesn't know what to do, it goes on another travelling road show.

We can study in this committee. It's nice to bring the committee up to speed on what young offenders are all about and give ourselves a master's degree education at the public expense, but, in effect, part of this is that you've told the committee they are to go out and settle down the natives, so to speak, or make Canadians feel happy by telling them how good the juvenile justice system is. We talked about communication and so on, which was part of the discussion earlier today.

.1225

I suggest that we need to look at certain administrative and financial incentives of the framework that sets up the game that perhaps sometimes favour custody. It all comes down to money. I guess that's what this committee is all about.

The contrast was talked about concerning Quebec and how efficient Quebec is. I challenge that directly. It may look better on the surface, but you have to look at the overall resources that are put into that social system, which are considerable. In fact, it's disproportionate to any other province. Every other Canadian across the country is subsidizing that system in Quebec. Then we refer to that as a fine example.

I take it that the bottom line is that this committee and the review costs too much, so the committee is to go out there and find a way to get the government off the hook.

Mr. Rock: That's an astonishing thing to say.

Mr. Allmand: It's very cynical.

Mr. Rock: It's very cynical and astonishing to think I would come to this table as the Minister of Justice and a member of the government to ask that of this committee, which is comprised of members of the Reform Party, the Bloc and the Liberals.

I would say it's a completely open-ended review, and to recommend as you see fit. Look into the penalties. That's not a closed issue, as you suggest. I'm expressly asking you this morning to look at the penalties and to report to Parliament as to whether you think they're appropriate. It's a completely open, thorough, no-holds-barred review that I'm asking you to take on. It's just astonishing that in those circumstances you would suggest we're trying to park a political problem.

You call this a road show. Well, the road is going to come to an end in the spring, which is when you're going to come back with a report and recommendations with which I, or my successor, will have to deal.

That's a government measuring up to its political responsibilities. We already have taken ownership of this issue. We've acted in Bill C-37. We have taken very specific action on some tough questions. Now we're confronting the other tough questions directly.

I think it's remarkable that you should suggest we're here to postpone, avoid, or cover up. It's quite the opposite. We're confronting these issues directly, openly and honestly. I think I've been very candid with the committee this morning in doing so.

Let me also say that I think your reference to the experience in Quebec will change over time as you hear the further evidence of the experience in that province. I believe you will be persuaded, as I have been, that's it's more than just money; it's principles, values and approaches. I think the approach taken in Quebec to the administration of this act is enlightened, and it should be looked at as an example for the rest of the country.

It may be that the result they produce is arrived at by spending the same total amount, with less on criminal justice and more on other social programs. But if the result they achieve is qualitatively better, why not reorder the way the money is spent in other provinces?

As to the suggestion that the rest of the country is disproportionately subsidizing what goes on in Quebec, not only do I regard that as arithmetically unsubstantiated, but I think it's also a mean-spirited political attack that has no place in this analysis.

Mr. Forseth: I'm glad, Mr. Minister, that you made that commitment now to really take seriously what the committee is going to report. I hope it will not be like many other committee reports in which the minister involved - whichever committee it is - sits on it for a while, and responds within 150 days, or whatever. Then the final legislation bears little resemblance to, or is only a shadow of, what the committee had recommended.

Mr. Rock: I know there's a problem with the Young Offenders Act. That's what I said this morning when I came here. I don't pretend to have the answers. I have some suggestions and directions I'd like the committee to look at.

What I'm asking of you this morning, Mr. Forseth, is to please help. Roll up your sleeves and listen to the witnesses. I saw the list of prospective witnesses and the briefs you're going to get. It's fantastic. You're going to hear from a wide variety of good people. The committee is going to learn an awful lot and be in a position to really help constructively.

Let's work together on this and make it a better act so that two, three, or five years from now, when maybe we're out of here and the next crew of parliamentarians is at work, we can feel that we did something to contribute to the betterment of this system.

.1230

Let's not regard this as a political matter; let's regard it as something we're doing for our communities and our families, and for the future. That's the spirit in which I think the work should be undertaken.

The Chairman: You made reference earlier today to the Jasmin report. I'm wondering, ifMs Kirvan has that report, whether she can supply it to the committee in both English and French for the benefit of the committee.

That was the last questioner since we have run out of time today. I hope we're not a road show when we leave for the Maritimes next week. I hope instead we are trail-blazers in this area.

Mr. Rock: I forgot to mention something. I think you're going to Prince Edward Island,Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Rock: In Georgetown, Prince Edward Island, there's a youth detention facility I have visited. It's really quite terrific with regard to the staff members and their qualifications. The program for the young people is very instructive and very valuable. If you have time, may I suggest you might visit it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for that suggestion.

Thank you for appearing today before the committee, enlightening us in many areas, and telling us many of your thoughts on the act.

Mr. Rock: It's always a pleasure. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.