Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 21, 1995

.0940

[English]

The Chairman: Order. We'll start matters for the day. We're again reviewing the Young Offenders Act, phase two.

Today we have, from the Criminal Justice Association, Arnold Snyder; Matthew Yeager, a criminologist; Cécile Toutant from Montreal; Colleen Hamilton from the Ministry of the Solicitor General in Ontario; Roger Brunette, director of professional services; and Jane Fjeld, with the Community Support Team of Eastern Ontario Young Offender Services.

I believe you have a presentation. Whoever is to make the presentation, please go ahead.

Ms Cécile Toutant (Head, Adolescent Unit, Institute Philippe-Pinel; President-Elect, Canadian Criminal Justice Association): I first would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for having accepted to receive us. We have a lot to say, as I think you will notice.

After Mr. Snyder presents the brief, I will add a few comments. We would like to add a few things to the brief. Then we will answer your questions. We would also like discussions with you people. We know you've heard a lot in the past year. You've had to listen to some comments that will seem close to the ones we want to make. Maybe we can give you more details.

Mr. Arnold Snyder (Co-Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association): On behalf of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, we wish to thank the standing committee for inviting our comments on the subject of the Young Offenders Act, phase two.

As you well know, our organization represents the largest group of criminal justice professionals and interested citizens in Canada, with an average membership of about 1,100. In 1994-95 it marked our 75th anniversary, a significant achievement for a national voluntary organization.

We publish the Canadian Journal of Criminology, The Justice Report and The Bulletin. We sponsor the Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice every two years. In fact, the 1995 congress recently held in Winnipeg was our 25th. We were pleased That representatives of the standing committee chose that event at which to hold a consultation.

As expressed in our previous brief of September 20, 1994, with regard to Bill C-37, we would have preferred this review to have taken place prior to the amendments passed in June 1995. We find it unusual that the government has chosen to engage in this process in what we perceive to be a reverse order. Nevertheless, we believe a comprehensive review of the youth justice system to be a valuable endeavour.

At our recent Winnipeg congress, the Deputy Minister of Justice, George Thomson, presented an analysis of the public's perception of youth crime. Deputy Minister Thomson stated that while violent crime is on the rise, as indicated by the 133% increase between 1986 and 1994, the public's perception differs from reality in that the rate for such offences has slowed down dramatically. That's less than 1% in 1994.

Much of this increase in violent crime may be a reporting phenomenon, because this increase is due largely to an increase in the number of simple assaults. There has been no increase in juvenile homicides. Overall rates of youths charged for all Criminal Code offences as a percentage of youth population has been declining since 1991. That's 6% in 1994.

The CCJA agrees with the deputy minister that a poor job has been done in conveying to the public information on the youth justice system. The CCJA encourages both the federal government and all provincial governments to develop and maintain, for public distribution, accurate information about their youth justice systems. There are, however, important constructive elements to the public's perception that have also been identified by the Department of Justice analysis. The following aspect is of particular significance.

The public supports crime prevention. Victim-based organizations, for example, decry the lack of early intervention when the need is known. It is encouraging to see this concept of crime prevention supported by the public, as the CCJA considers it to be an integral part to the foundation of youth justice reform.

.0945

As this concept is delineated in proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) of Bill C-37, the amendments to the Young Offenders Act, our presentation today will focus primarily on this area.

The CCJA strongly supports the recent amendment made to the declaration of the principle, which emphasized crime prevention and multi-disciplinary approaches in addressing the problems faced by youths who commit crimes. Over the years the CCJA has consistently emphasized that research demonstrates the ineffectiveness and expensive nature of punishment. The importance of recognizing the long-term, complex nature of youth criminality has always been the position of CCJA. The CCJA supports and views proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) as one of the most important principles in the new Young Offenders Act.

Proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) of the amended Young Offenders Act declares:

To maximize the full potential of this section, it is essential that the federal government be unequivocal in fulfilling its leadership role in youth justice policy development and implementation. We contend that giving life to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) will also require special initiatives on the part of all the provinces.

The first area I'd like to talk about in terms of giving life to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) is funding. As the CCJA expressed in its open letter of March 15, 1994, to Attorney General Allan Rock, the justice department's own studies document a failure to allocate sufficient funds to implement treatment programs and alternatives to custody. We also raised our concerns about this problem in our presentation on September 20, 1994.

We wish to reaffirm this position and remind committee members of the following. According to the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, approximately 77% of the $118 million spent on young offenders in the year 1992-93 was for closed or open custody detention. The annual cost of a secure custody detention bed in Ontario is about $130,000 per youth under 16 years of age. These costs rise even more when young people over 16 are included.

Most funds intended for young offender programs are allotted to the operation of custody rather than the development of a wider range of community alternatives and programs, such as specialized foster care, intensive supervision, day programs and attended centres.

The YOA failed to educate the public as to its real intent. Perhaps the way it was introduced had the opposite impact. Its historic promise to intervene and redirect adolescents who have come into conflict with the law has never been realized due to the lack of targeted resources. Without these resources, new provisions encouraging greater use of community sanctions will be, as stated by John Braithwaite, a former president of CCJA, akin to simply placing a fancy label on an empty container.

Perhaps one solution is to pass a community corrections act and fund its implementation from the custody budgets.

We are fully aware of the current crisis in public funds. We are not calling for new moneys. Hence, the only obvious and responsible option seems to rest in the reallocation of existing funding, in other words to force the custody institutions to contribute to the funding of community alternatives from their existing lock-up budgets.

The community could benefit from consideration of the Community Penalties Act, which was passed in North Carolina in the United States, as well as a recent draft Community Corrections Act adopted by the American Bar Association.

It could be hypothesized that unless Parliament moves to change the direction of the YOA funding, no amount of legislative drafting can address the fact that not enough meaningful alternatives to custody are funded, which would reduce our over-reliance on custodial institutions.

Having said that, however, the CCJA agrees with Deputy Minister Thomson's recent pronouncement that we should not worry that the introduction of incentives to spend more on innovative front-end programs will convey the message that we are not prepared to use the custody disposition where truly necessary. The CCJA recommends that the Minister of Justice pursue, with his provincial counterparts, the adoption of a policy pertaining to incentives for innovative front-end programs.

.0950

The second area I would like to discuss is federal-provincial cooperation. It is the position of the CCJA that the federal government encourage the provincial governments to develop a comprehensive and coordinated youth service that addresses the needs of the youth from both a child welfare and criminal justice perspective.

The need for such an approach was identified by Corrado and Markwart of British Columbia in their research. They concluded that:

The CCJA realizes this could lead to changes for some provinces in organizing the delivery of child welfare and justice system services for youth. However, the effectiveness of this perspective in giving proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) life must be examined.

In 1995 the Quebec government ordered a comprehensive study examining how the Young Offenders Act has been implemented in Quebec. Au Nom...et Au-Delà de Loi, or the Jasmin report, is the product of that study. To our knowledge it is the most current Canadian analysis of the youth justice system. This report outlines several recommendations consistent with the views held by the CCJA.

I'd like to just speak of the alternatives to custody. As indicated by the Jasmin report, Quebec has the lowest rate of secure custody of youth of all the provinces, as well as the lowest rate at which young people are taken to youth court. Extensive use is made of the alternative measures program as well as diversion strategies developed in conjunction with their child protection legislation. In addition, as stated by Deputy Minister Thomson, there is no evidence to suggest that Quebec has a higher recidivism rate or crime rate then any other province.

Given this information and its application to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a), the CCJA recommends increased collaboration between the federal and provincial governments in developing specific programs as alternatives to custody.

As an example of an innovative program, the CCJA proposes a substantive change to section 13 of the YOA by recommending that a youth court be permitted to appoint a youth advocate, or disposition advocate, who is not necessarily a physician, psychiatrist or psychologist. Disposition case advocacy has been shown to reduce the over-reliance on closed custody sanctions by permitting advocates to search their local communities for alternatives, including: specialized foster care; intensive counselling programs; skills development programs; and a similar host of intervention strategies.

The addition of a qualified youth disposition advocate to those medical mental health professionals who can be appointed by the court would vastly increase the disposition information available to a youth court judge. This would in turn improve the quality of the sanctions and reduce over-reliance on lock-ups. As noted previously, the cost of incarcerating a youthful offender is extremely high.

In developing alternatives to custody, the CCJA supports the development of systems that support the family unit. Again, if the government is serious about giving life to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a), it must fund family preservation programs where the role of the parents is supported and encouraged. The CCJA points to the Jasmin report as a source of further reference.

The fourth topic is interim detention. The Jasmin report has identified interim detention as an area for examination. It states that the increase and the use of interim detention during trial raises the issue of the need to assign new resources for that purpose. Rather than trying to create new secure interim detention resources, the report recommends that we support the use of less coercive resources in the community.

.0955

The conclusion reached by the Jasmin report is consistent with the CCJA's position on interim detention. We recommend that this area be monitored very closely to ensure that interim custody is not being used inappropriately and that community resources are developed.

The fifth area is exchange of information. In giving life to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a), the CCJA understands that the process of information exchange is very complex. In principle, the CCJA supports information-sharing between and among professionals, although we also believe that a well-defined system must be established. In our opinion, there must be clear guidelines governing to whom and under what circumstances certain kinds of information are disseminated. This is particularly true for the educational system. The CCJA recommends that the provinces create provincial standards for information exchange applicable to the areas of responsibility.

In conclusion, proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Young Offenders Act is the beginning of a change in perspective. This is not to say that the other principles outlined in the act are not important. However, the CCJA takes the position that proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) is the basis in establishing any response to youth criminality. It is for this reason that we commend the government for the inclusion of this principle.

We again must emphasize that both resources and clear direction for alternatives to custody, federal-provincial cooperation, and information exchange must be provided to ensure that Canada has an effective youth justice system. In so doing, the government will have recognized the importance of meeting the needs of victims, offenders, and the community as a whole by offering everyone a system that works. It is possible that a number of changes will be brought to the YOA as a result of the current review.

As a last comment, we would urge the government to remember that more effort will need to be expended to ensure that the public and all concerned have a clear understanding of the goals and principles of the YOA and of the support mechanisms necessary to ensure its proper functioning. Public education is key, and CCJA would be pleased to support and participate in such efforts, as it has always tried to do.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Ms Toutant: I am going to speak in French because I can be a little more precise.

I spoke with Mr. Dupuis a moment ago. I'm going to request the Jasmin Committee's assistance so that he can have the Jasmin Report translated, perhaps in cooperation with this committee, if you can come up with the funds.

Quebec does not want to tell you what you should think about the Young Offenders Act, but the committee that worked on this Act in Quebec has considered the questions you are currently considering. In my view, the committee has given very subtle answers in this report. I brought it so you could see it. This report is quite important and I think it would be sad if you had only the recommendations. Recommendations are a cold thing and don't reveal the arguments behind them, whereas, in the text, you have the basic principles that underlie the recommendations and the report as a whole. I think it would be very important for you to have this entire report translated into English for those who don't speak French.

I don't know whether you have the power to obtain money. For my part, I'm going to try to see whether there are interests in Quebec that might be the same as yours so that a translation can be obtained.

One of the principles the Jasmin Committee adopted, and it is very important that you bear it in mind since you are in the process of reviewing the Act, is the concept of adolescents' special needs.

In my view, the Young Offenders Act is a very good act, which introduced the notion of youth accountability. Accountability is not synonymous with severe punishment. There is some confusion in people's minds in thinking that the more you punish, the more you make someone accountable. That's false.

.1000

There are youths who have been punished their entire lives and who are still unaccountable. I cited a case that I am going to present to you in a moment; I absolutely want to talk to you about it because I think it clearly illustrates my remarks.

It's essential that we make young people accountable, that we make them feel the consequences of their acts, but steps must also be taken to educate them because they are in the process of being educated.

A youth 13, 14 or 15 years of age can't buy cigarettes. We think he's too young. There is a statute that provides that young people are incapable of judging. So if we want people to smoke less, we're going to reach youths by passing a statute that prohibits them from smoking. I'm giving you this example, but I could give you others. Youths can't sign contracts. There are many things you can't do when you're young because our society recognizes that children or adolescents are beings in the process of being formed and of acquiring the maturity that will enable them to make valid choices. Some adults never reach maturity, you know. There are some adolescents for whom it is more difficult, for all kinds of reasons.

The concept of special needs, which is recognized in the Act, is one of the important concepts that must underlie the decisions that are made. The Conseil permanent de la jeunesse in Quebec recently conducted a study on youths' needs, and what came out of it was not so much violence against others, but violence among youths. Youths commit more suicides, they commit many more desperate acts against themselves and they are more often victims of violence because they are usually in places where there are other people. They are more often outside their homes, where there are more people who commit suicide, more victims and more assailants.

I wanted this concept to be very clear. If you want us to discuss it at greater length, I am quite prepared to do so. When we take measures for youths, we must think first of all of rehabilitation and support.

Yesterday Mr. Rock spoke here of the overreliance on custody for young offenders. We can't disagree with that. I am going to give you a statistic that very much surprised me, even though you may perhaps know it. Custody is currently used in 80% of cases for less than three months. I repeat: 80% of custody cases in Canada are for less than three months. In roughly 90% of cases, it is for less than six months.

At some point in the community, we may need to rap someone on the knuckles and tell him: ``That's enough; we're going to lock you up for a while to try to bring you back onto the straight and narrow or to make you cooperate.'' However, this can't be necessary in 90% of cases. Rehabilitation can't occur in such a short space of time. It's inconceivable that you can rehabilitate anyone in three months or even in six months.

Thus, there is an overreliance on custody and we must examine measures that may be taken in the community. As we suggested in our brief, we could transfer sums of money to various classes of intensive action projects.

I am going to describe to you the case of a youth that I find very interesting. I work with adolescents who, under the Young Offenders Act, have committed extremely violent acts such as murder, attempted murder and assault. Your committee will be coming to meet with us at the Institut Pinel in February. I know we're on your agenda. You'll see what we're doing at that time.

.1005

It is sometimes said that adolescents of 15 or 16 are monsters, that they were born that way, that they are fundamentally bad. It's as though society had played no role in it.

Last week, we took in an adolescent who was not functioning in another environment and who was continually attacking people. You could say he was committing assault on people. You could call it attempted murder, depending on the wording you chose.

I looked at his history. I'll tell it to you, not to make you cry, but so that you can see that adults were never present in his life. They say these kinds of children don't know how to behave, that they are aggressive, but the adults who were never present in their lives nevertheless have some responsibility here.

This child was born to a family in which the father didn't want children. This occurs very frequently among our clientele. He lived alone with his mother very early in his life because his father had left, and his mother was then arrested for a misdemeanour. She was a woman involved in fraudulent activities. So she was arrested very quickly. The child was placed in a foster home or in a foster-care home for the first time at the age of two.

Let's talk about the first home. He had to be removed from that home because the man in that home assaulted him and abused him physically. This was noticed and he was removed.

Let's talk about the second or third home, because at one point, the youth began to have increasingly difficult problems. The child had to be removed from them because someone in the immediate family was assaulting him sexually. He was four years old at the time.

We're taking him in at the Institute. He is 16 years old. He is extremely angry, obviously. He doesn't express these things as I've told them to you this morning; he says them through his behaviour. He is almost completely uncooperative. He provokes all the adults who try to help him. If we really want to help him, we'll have to opt for long-term rehabilitation. What I find sad is that, under the amendments that have been passed and will have force of law starting on December 1, this type of adolescent will very quickly be put on the list of those who can be sent to adult court. And we know that treatment is virtually impossible at that level.

I've presented the case to you. I would have liked to introduce the youth. I didn't do so because that's not done, but the comments are different when you put a face on the case. You then realize that adults are absent from the lives of these youths. I'm not just talking about parents. I'm also talking about supervision in certain homes. In practice, many more mistakes are made and we don't just need statutes to correct them; we also need corrections.

The Jasmin Report's main conclusion is that the Young Offenders Act is a good statute, but that it has weaknesses in practice. We looked at what had to be improved. As you know, service providers sometimes make bad decisions, hasty decisions. When they look back on a case, they sometimes say: How could we have done such a thing?

I'll stop here. You heard the titles of the people who are here. Some are working with youths. We are prepared to answer your questions and comments. I thank you for listening to me.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

You have ten minutes, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I'd like to thank you folks for being here this morning and for the presentation you've given. You've been here before, and we've heard from you before on Bill C-37. There are lots of questions to ask and I don't have much time.

.1010

I see a resistance to changes that will deal with the cause of crime, and I see that resistance coming from what I call the criminal justice industry, those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, whether consciously or unconsciously. I have asked witnesses who appeared before the standing committee about this, in that very few of them have addressed the cause of crime, as you have this morning. I'm pleased to see that. You referred to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a), where it states ``crime prevention is essential''.

I'd like to ask what your organization is doing to enhance those aspects in society that would reduce crime. You touched on it again, but very lightly, and that is strengthening the family. What are you doing about it?

I was a police officer back in the 1950s and 1960s. We found that one of the greatest contributing factors to the commission of indictable offences, violent crimes, and so on was the abuse of alcohol. I haven't seen a group come before this committee that has said or done anything about making the public more aware of that causative factor of crime or has done anything to attempt to reduce that factor, which contributes so greatly to crime.

We did a survey in one of our subdivisions, and we found that 85% of the indictable offences that were brought into court probably would not have occurred in the first place if it had not been for the abuse of alcohol. It seems such common sense to me that this is one of the main factors or contributing factors to crime and that it weakens the family unit.

We see programs...we have designated drivers. I can go and get drunk, but as long as I've got a designated driver who can dump me off at my home when I'm drunk, it seems to be okay. It's acceptable certainly to the people who are putting on the ads. We don't hear anything from the police departments. We don't hear anything from organizations like yours saying that this is the wrong way to go.

So I'm dropped off drunk at my home, I go in, and I abuse my family. That seems to be going beyond or over the heads of people who are supposedly concerned about proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Young Offenders Act.

I would be very impressed if your organization could tell this committee what you're doing and in what way, if any, you're able to promote an awareness, not only of the Young Offenders Act but also of the root causes of crime. If you're doing that, I sure want to hear what you're doing. I'd like to hear it, because I'd support it.

I don't know whether I can support just the fact that.... In fact, most law-abiding people who are raising their children aren't concerned about the contents of the YOA. The only thing they're concerned about is whether or not it maintains safety in their communities, on their streets, and so on. They're not concerned.

We could spend a lot of money advertising the contents of the YOA and how it's administered and what it does. Because the vast majority of children don't get into difficulty, the vast majority of people couldn't care less about it. We would be trying to promote something they're not very interested in. It's only those who get into difficulties who want to know what protection the YOA provides for safer schools, safer communities, and safer streets, inasmuch as crime threatens them.

I would like to know whether your organization promotes a program that addresses the cause of crime, particularly the abuse of alcohol and now, of course, drugs. Do you do that?

Mr. Matthew Yeager (Criminologist, Secretary to Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association): Mr. Ramsay, if I may be permitted to respond, it's nice to see you again.

As you know from our recent dialogue in Winnipeg, the association has been involved in crime prevention since 1919, when we started as a voluntary organization. It was one of the purposes of the founding of the association.

You may remember that back in the late 1980s we published a dialogue in our journal, Canadian Journal of Criminology, about crime prevention through social development. A whole section was devoted to crime prevention strategies, which we recommended the government adopt and pursue. Since that time, in each of our congresses, which are held every two years, we've featured materials on alcohol-related problems, which you mentioned so eloquently, issues of crime prevention, and so forth.

.1015

The approach we're taking with the YOA, emphasizing the new section of the act that summarizes the principles of the act, is to talk about what ought to be a fundamental shift, not only in the values of the act but also in resources.

You've commented on where the resources go and you've commented so eloquently about this lock-up industry. We're trying to address that.

That's really something you, as a concerned and eloquent legislator, can address. You can do this with further amendments to the YOA. You can also make some recommendations to the minister about how resources are allocated and where resources need to be sourced.

In fact, if I read you correctly, you believe we've concentrated too many of our resources on the lock-up and not on crime prevention. Then here's an opportunity for you and your colleagues in your caucus to talk about reallocation toward prevention, toward those family reinforcement programs and toward alcoholism prevention. The association would be delighted to help you with that.

Mr. Ramsay: I have to sit farther away from this gentleman.

I want to thank you for that. I want to ask you -

Ms Toutant: Can I just interrupt you? She would like to answer too. Do you have enough time?

Can we do that, Mr. Chairman? I don't want to take all of his time, because then he's going to hate me.

The Chairman: Since he's the only member on the opposition side, he'll get a lot of time.

Mr. Ramsay: I'll have lots of time.

Ms Jane Fjeld (Manager, Eastern Ontario Young Offender Services): I would just like to add to Matt's point and to reinforce what Mr. Ramsay is saying in terms of the association, because this association represents individuals in the field.

From a practical intervention point of view, there may not be much the association can do to speak to that. But we are representatives who come to the CCJA, and since we're focusing on alternatives to custody and asking that legislation by the federal and provincial governments look very closely at the intents of intervention programs that are needed to actually make a difference in recidivism, that speaks exactly to Mr. Ramsay's point.

The point is that certainly from the research and from my personal experience in working with young offenders, well over 50% of our offenders are themselves addicts or come from families where alcohol and drug abuse has been a significant factor.

That's exactly why the association and many people today believe that punishment alone of young offenders will do absolutely nothing to make a difference in their lives. These kids go back to those very same families where alcoholism and drug addiction is a major factor.

By changing the homes they go back to and their understanding of how alcoholism and drug addiction has affected their lives, they have a chance to actually change their lives.

So I think you're absolutely right.

Mr. Ramsay: I'll just make a comment to cap that point before my ten minutes are up. I would like to see your organization - you're respected because you're here and you're respected in many other ways as well - and other ``respected'' organizations that command an audience before the standing committee speak out against not the use but the abuse of alcohol and drugs as a contributing factor to crime. I'd like to hear that.

Mr. Yeager told us what was done in the past; I'd like to know what you've done today. I'd like to know what you've done yesterday. I'd like to know what you plan to do tomorrow in that regard. If we can strengthen the family unit, we're going to reduce crime; there's no question.

There is nothing that causes more of a disintegrating effect upon the family than alcohol abuse. If organizations such as yours are not going to speak out in that regard, with all the other things you're saying, then I think....

.1020

Let me put it this way. I'll give you an A if you're prepared to do that. If I see you doing that, I'll say here's an organization I want to hear from because they have their mind on the right channel. Not only are they looking at the cost of crime, but they're attempting to deal with the effect of it as well.

We have to deal with both - not only the cost, but the effect.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Unless someone has a comment, we will then go to Mrs. Barnes. Does someone have a comment with respect to that?

Mrs. Barnes (London West): I would love to hear all 1,100 of your members going out in their individual communities and talking to every chamber of commerce, every service centre, every group, every cable television show, giving this message, because it's not getting out.

Just a few of us on this side are being heard and this message has to go out. Please do that. We need your help to get out the real facts on criminal justice, especially criminal justice involving youth.

We are constrained by budget and cannot visit every place we need to visit, listen to everybody we need to listen to. We need allies to get out the true facts on youth criminality. Please push your members to do this for us.

I come from Ontario. Please tell me as succinctly as possible about what you know about boot camps and their effectiveness.

Mr. Yeager: Madam Vice-Chair, it's nice to see you again.

We've been getting the results of some research on that subject now. We can tell you that for the most part we're not seeing suppression effects - in other words, a reduction in recidivism - from the introduction of boot camps.

The cases and the samples in which we see a reduction in recidivism in boot camp areas is when a boot camp is essentially run in a treatment milieu as opposed to a military milieu. That raises the question: if you're going to run a boot camp in a treatment milieu, why do you have the boot camp in the first place?

Our concern is that the extension of boot camps appeals to a number of people who may not have studied the issue. Boot camps extend the closed and open custody institutions, the very same industry, so to speak, that your colleague Mr. Ramsay complains of.

So we're not really enthralled with the boot camp solution to delinquency. With respect to prevention our aim would be more community-based.

Mrs. Barnes: The Jasmin report -

Ms Toutant: Can we answer?

Ms Fjeld: The only thing I'd like to add to that is that there may be a role for boot camps for some kids. There is a percentage of kids for whom that kind of strict discipline with a very clear physical component works.

Certainly, Ontario has the experience with DARE, which is a very rugged kind of outdoor...pushing your physical being to the maximum. That has proved successful with some kids.

It's true of any kind of solution to criminality. It probably works with somewhere around 10% or 15% of the kids who would ordinarily come into custody.

So in the examination of boot camp I would, as Matt suggests, encourage you to look to the research and determine for whom it does make a difference. Then ensure that in deciding who should be a participant in boot camp, we match the needs of these young people with the programming.

If we continually look for this ``one size fits all'' solution to offender programming, you're going to have very diminished results, and not only for the kids who might have benefited, because now they'll be in the company of kids who are not benefiting.

So you run a sort of dual difficulty. Even if the program could have proved successful for some, they're now with other clients and residents who will be sabotaging their ability to succeed. So I would encourage....

As we talked about in the brief, when you look at disposition advocates or you look at having the kind of information at the point of sentencing, these are exactly the kinds of things we could bring to the court - to say who might benefit and who might not.

Certainly in my experience of working with chronic violent young offenders, the introduction of that kind of power and control way of dealing with young people will in fact produce the opposite. Although they may be compliant in boot camp, you need to be careful about whether the research is telling you how they're behaving while incarcerated. But what happened to them when they left? Many kids are very compliant within programs and two days later are recidivating out in the community.

.1025

So, again, it's a complicated issue. I don't think it has a straightforward answer, and yet it may work for a percentage of kids. Let's find out who they are and then tailor the program to meet their needs. But certainly our experience is that it wouldn't work for the majority.

Mrs. Barnes: I just have a follow-up question, then. I'm familiar with the DARE program based on my experience as duty counsel many years ago. I've been there putting kids into that program. Do we have empirical data, research data, that proves its effectiveness in the way you're discussing?

Ms Fjeld: Where we've run into difficulties with that.... Forgive me, I'm not completely familiar with that. I know that the DARE program has been evaluated by the Province of Ontario. I'm not sure of the extent to which it showed its efficacy to the extent that people would have liked it to have done so.

Mrs. Barnes: Let me just say that I'm not aware of one study that shows its efficacy. So if you're saying that here, I'd like you to back it up with the research study that tells me that.

Ms Fjeld: The only research study I could offer you at this stage is probably more anecdotal, although I know some American boot camp programs have been showing some level of success. I can look for that information....

Mrs. Barnes: I would like that, because I've also asked my sources at the family court clinic in London to look for all that information. I'm also not aware of any studies that show empirical data on a reduction in the long-term recidivism rate. They show a reduction in the short term, yes, but not in the long term.

So if anybody else would like to follow that up.... It's wonderful that you want to give me anecdotal information, but I'm more interested in real, hard facts.

Mr. Yeager: Madam Vice-Chair, we'll try to send you a recent study that appeared in the journal Criminology. In the matter of empirical analysis of boot camps, it looked at six different sites in various U.S. states and at the very kinds of things I summarized.

Also, there's an interesting summary of evaluations that I think you and the committee members would like to look at. It's by a professor at Vanderbilt University, Mark Lipsey. Dr. Lipsey studied a large number of studies on the impact of juvenile intervention, over 400 evaluations. So it was what we call a meta-analysis.

His conclusion was that services provided outside formal correctional settings and institutions generally resulted in what he called a suppression effect, which is lowering recidivism, particularly in those who were intensively oriented toward treatment. In other words, controlling for the characteristics of the sample, treatment in custodial settings for juveniles was less effective than treatment in the community.

I can make that reference available to you and the other members of the committee.

Mrs. Barnes: I'd like that.

With respect to the Jasmin report, I'm very happy. I would love to get and read the full report, and I would love to talk to the people who developed that report.

Maybe, Chair, we can talk about that at some future steering committee meeting.

Quebec probably has the best integration of the child welfare and youth justice systems. Maybe that's the model we have to strive for in our different provinces and territories.

Could you give us some history, some reasons for that integration, how it occurred, what was needed to break down the barriers, especially with respect to the younger children before they got to the age where they were put into the criminal justice system?

How were you successful in managing that change? Right now we have walls between the various systems, at least in my province.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Brunette (Director, Professional Services, Centre Jeunesse de l'Outaouais): I am a service provider at the Outaouais rehabilitation centre.

The Youth Protection Act appeared in 1979. At first, young people who needed protection were confused with youths who attacked members of society. In 1984, the Young Offenders Act became the lifeline that enabled us to distinguish between the two types of youths who were sent to us.

The key to this approach lay in the fact that the Director of Youth Protection, who took charge of youths whose safety and development were compromised, also had responsibility as the provincial director for young offenders.

With respect to social intervention, that enabled us to consider the question that Ms Toutant raised a moment ago, that is youths' special needs. It is hard not to receive a youth as a whole person and it is impossible to compartmentalize him. Consequently, we have developed programs and a multidisciplinary approach that have made it much easier to take on cases and that have enabled us to intervene earlier and more effectively, particularly by involving the family.

.1030

Mr. Ramsay referred to the family a moment ago. In the past at the rehabilitation centre, we worked with youths from 12 to 18 years of age without necessarily involving the families. Then we discovered that it was absolutely necessary to work with the families concerned right from the start. Today, our intervention is no longer focused strictly on youths, but also on people who gravitate around them in their living environment. It is hard to move youths back into a so-called environment without taking the components of that environment into consideration.

This type of intervention has required considerable investment and money. As a result of petty quarrels in the various professions, because some people were afraid of losing their jobs, we realized, since our mandate was broader, that the needs were so great we had to get involved in this area.

Today, after seven or eight years of experimenting, even though we feel we are just getting started, the results are conclusive and we must continue in this direction.

In Quebec, we remembered that we had a Civil Code that assigned parents responsibilities and obligations, but that parents needed to be supported in their responsibilities toward their children. We are still working in this direction. Parents have rights and duties with respect to their children. The State is no longer a substitute for parents, but an essential complement for those who need help.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Let me ask a quick question and then get on to another point I want to deal with.

Madam, page 5 of the brief states: ``...the CCJA supports the development of systems that support the family unit.'' You went on to uncover the fact that some of these offenders, these children, are victims of violence themselves. Do you consider children who have watched violence on TV, thousands and thousands of hours of it, to be victims of violence?

Ms Toutant: I never thought about it that way.

Mr. Ramsay: Let me give you a quick example. The police are at present investigating two young boys under the age of twelve for raping an eight-year-old girl in British Columbia. That was unheard of in my day, absolutely unheard of when I was growing up.

I ask myself if these children could have done that because they were physically abused or sexually abused, or are they cavalier about that kind of act where we weren't? We were so shy and intimidated by even the thoughts of that kind of act back in our day. Perhaps the sensitivity to this that we experience has been dulled by acts of violence, if not acts of pornography, on television. Do you feel that -

[Translation]

Ms Toutant: I could never answer your question with a yes or a no because there are always a number of factors involved in violent behaviour.

We can look at the situation you describe. First, how is it that children spend an astounding number of hours watching television and videos? The videos may or may not be violent, but that's not the question.

This shows how easy it is for some families to rid themselves of children. Instead of taking care of them and taking part in activities with them, they rent them videos and put them in front of the television because it's less complicated.

.1035

What we see in our youths, and I am not saying this to blame the parents, is that they have parents who find it very hard to communicate with their children.

I'll give you an example. A few years ago, I had an adolescent who hadn't gone on leave with his family for 18 months because he had committed a serious offence. His first leave was granted to him around Christmas and we agreed that he could go home. When he returned, he said that they had rented him videos. Our first reaction was that, after 18 months, he and his family could have done many other things together.

We forget that, behind the young people who commit the acts, there is a parental pathology, the parents' difficulty in communicating. I spoke a moment ago about the necessary support. We have to work with families because the youths, who spend their time looking at all this with a critical eye, have very often been left to their own devices.

We have seen that youths are influenced by violent films. I have never conducted any studies on the subject, but I can tell you what is being said. What very fragile youths look at gives them an idea for an action scenario. They very often repeat what they see, but violence and rage are already there and the causes are elsewhere. In other words, you can't say that a child who comes from a very good family, whose parents are very warm and encouraging and do not encourage violence is a child at risk because he has a Nintendo game. Is that child at risk of acting it out? It appears not. It appears that using violent media becomes a problem when the child is fragile. And there are so many fragile children.

Does that mean that something will be done with regard to violence in the media? I'm not sure. That's a problem you'll have to discuss again with others who come to testify here. I don't know if anyone has any other ideas and would like to address this point. There is no single answer.

[English]

Does that answer you, Mr. Ramsay?

Mr. Ramsay: That's not fair, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: That was 5 minutes and 47 seconds.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): On the last point, I think there are some other studies that have shown it does make a difference, so perhaps we'll have to look at that as well.

I'd also wonder if you have studies or know about studies we could access on intensive parental education about how to raise children and how to deal with conflict and children learning in schools. There are a number of programs across the country now working on conflict resolution and peer mediation to try to reduce the level of conflict and give children skills to learn how to deal with life. If there are any empirical studies showing that those programs work, I'd be really interested in getting them.

It's common sense to me that if you've taught people skills, they would somehow have those skills and could use them. But we all know that common sense isn't all that common, so I'd love to see some studies.

It has been raised whether the rest of the community needs to know about the YOA, whether that's important; it's only important when their kids get into trouble. There is the whole issue of parental programs or treatment for the families, because you send the kid back to the same family and if the family is dysfunctional, it keeps reinforcing the wrong model.

I wonder two things. Is it possible to have parental responsibility in terms of taking courses and somehow enforcing that they have to go into substance abuse programs or something? And how can we focus the rest of the community on their responsibility to children in their community? If the parents are doing a good job or a bad job, they're still our kids. I may not have any children, but I'm responsible and those children are my future. So how do I get engaged? All the people doing hockey programs and everything else across the country are demonstrating that, and I think it makes a difference. But how do we get the rest of the community to realize they have a responsibility to intervene or somehow get help for that child?

You can just talk for the rest of the time.

.1040

[Translation]

Mr. Brunette: With respect to the parents, section 54 of the Quebec Youth Protection Act provides that parents must engage in parental activities or in programs designed to support them in their role with respect to their children.

As to the community's involvement, it's very concrete. In Quebec, we have what are called referring organizations. There are 42 of them and their mandate is to integrate young people in their communities. Consider, for example, the Trio Jeunesse agency in Hull. Consisting of roughly four persons, it is particularly effective in recruiting volunteers, who increase their awareness of the cause of young people and become the instruments of their integration in the community, despite the fact that these youths have committed offences.

Here is how it happens. Last year, 551 sanctions were applied to 389 young offenders under this program, and those sanctions broke down as follows: compensatory work, community work as compensation for acts committed, the social skills improvement program and reconciliation with the victims. The skills improvement program is a very important program, which is expanding and which we should favour more because it is essential in meeting the special needs of developing youths.

For your information, I can give you the following statistics on sanctions applied: compensatory work, 48 sanctions; community work, 238; social skills improvement, 55 and reconciliation with the victims, 210.

When we can bring a youth to put a face to a name and become aware of the seriousness of his actions, we're on the right track. In my opinion, we must promote this personalized approach in order to ensure more tangible results.

[English]

Mr. Yeager: Madam Torsney, there's also a structural response for you as legislators. To illustrate this particular point in Quebec, when you write legislation that transfers resources into building up community resources, you see this rather dramatic difference of response in communities where you have a community committee, you have different programs, you develop these kinds of strengthening situations for the family. The problem is that under the current structure, you have all your marbles, over 75% of them, in lock-up. I think that's a wonderful issue for you as a legislator to address in writing.

Ms Torsney: Got ya.

Ms Fjeld: The only other point I'd like to make with respect to family preservation programs is that there are some studies that do speak to.... The only way you're going to make a difference in the very multi-problematic families is the kind of intensive program where workers are in the family for roughly twenty hours a week. That entails that you literally have to be there to do the kind of skills development required to take a family from the point they're at to the kinds of monumental changes we need in these families. I guess that's just to reinforce that there certainly is, in my opinion, a portion of young offenders responsible for the majority of the crimes being committed.

When we talk about intensive programming, we need to be very clear about what intensive means. Unfortunately, intensive doesn't mean one or two hours a week. Intensive does mean ten hours, on call, available to the family to do the kind of real work we're talking about that's going to make a difference in these families, particularly when you consider things like addictions, like all of the multi-generational factors that have continued on with either criminal attitudes, or poor parenting skills, or violent acting out. I don't need to tell you this.

Although the kind of programming that goes on in the schools for peer mediation works great for a large percentage of those kids, I would argue that those kids would likely have been fairly ``pro-social'', probably functioning fairly well in school, having good academic achievement and probably having parents who got them involved in a variety of community activities.

.1045

I'm not saying don't do that, but when resources get scarce - when you need to choose, I suppose - I would argue that you choose those kids who need that kind of very intensive programming. And that doesn't mean custody.

The Chairman: I'm wondering if we could keep the answers a little shorter. We're running over our time here.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: I refer again to page 5 of your presentation and the statement that you support the development of systems that support the family unit. Is your organization in support of the retention of section 43 of the Criminal Code or are you in favour of taking that out of the Criminal Code?

This has to do with the right of the parent to use corporal punishment to maintain order within the house, and the teacher in the classroom, and so on.

Ms Toutant: You want a short answer to a question like that?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, please, a short answer.

[Translation]

Ms Toutant: I will try to give you a short answer. It should never be forgotten that punishment may be useful provided it is accompanied by a great deal of warmth and affection on the parents' part.

When one speaks of corporal punishment in those terms... First, I don't think it should be included in the Criminal Code. Parents who usually have very positive relationships with their children only very rarely use corporal punishment. On the other hand, those who use it very often are usually parents who don't have valid relationships with their children. When you've been close to your children since they were very young, you don't need to hit them for them to understand. That's all.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: In my experience - as a child and as a father and as a policeman - I have found that children are looking for someone who will pay attention to them, who will show they care, who will love them. I have found that for those people who came to my attention as a peace officer, those who were committing a crime, often that's what they required. They needed some figure of authority to show them that kind of care and to give them the sense that someone could see something of worth in them.

From my own experience and from my own procedures, which I used to initiate when I was able to, I know that children who are involved in delinquent acts will respond to that kind of attention. But the timing is so important. I used to wait until I caught them doing the power turn, or caught them red-handed. I would initiate a process, by writing them out a ticket, that indicated they were going to end up in court. After I had accomplished that, I would delve into the motivation behind what they had done. I would ask them how they were doing in school, how things were at home, and what their moms and dads did. I showed some concern about them.

Then I would tell them I could take them into court but unless they came to my attention again, I wouldn't. If, after six months - and this is a summary conviction offence - they did not come to my attention, I'd simply drop it in the wastepaper basket. I'd set them up on a pedestal and make a gentleman's agreement with them. At least 99% of those cases never, ever let me down. When I saw them on the street, I used to say hello, but I never mentioned the case to them again.

.1050

I think good police officers keep many, many youths out of the system. Once the system gets hold of them, the formal system, not very much is done.

So I think what I'm hearing from you, and what I heard in some of the things the justice minister said yesterday - what's happening in New Zealand, and perhaps within our own country in the sentencing circles - is that a crime committed by an individual is a cry for this type of thing I'm talking about, the respect, the love, the care they're not getting from their family or from their environment, and that this is the key to it.

As a police officer, the timing was no problem for me. If I caught them doing it, that was the time. That's when the emotions were aroused, when the apprehension was aroused. They would listen to me. It's much different if you have someone who's hardened, who has not received the love, care and attention within the home. Their sense of justice is being violated because they do not get the physical, emotional or spiritual support from the parent that they need. There is no reason for them to obey the rules. There is no benefit accruing to them to obey the rules within the home or outside.

I wonder if any one of you on the panel would like to comment on some of those principles.

Mr. Snyder: If I could, I'd like to comment, Mr. Ramsay. You've covered a number of areas, but one specific...and I'm going to try to make it short, watching the time.

You talk in terms of police discretion. Most of this conversation in the last hour and a half has been about the end, not the front end but the back end, of the system. You've brought up the front end.

Very briefly, what the CCJA would like this committee to do is to look very closely at what is happening in Quebec in terms of the relationship between the police organizations and the other multi-disciplinary agencies. As far as I can determine, that is a unique situation with regard to the decision-making, or the decision process, that's occurring.

Again, we're short, but.... It looks as though you will be looking at the Jasmin report to some extent. I would ask you to look at that very closely, the relationship between the police organization and the other agencies.

With regard to your point about police discretion, that's occurring. That's a very important aspect. It's been studied quite extensively in terms of just how it works and some of the biases that came out of that in the past, some of the problems inherent in that.

I'll just keep my remarks short, but I'd like to really emphasize the fact that this committee look at what is happening in Quebec with regard to the police. It's completely different, the way I see it, from what is occurring in the rest of Canada in terms of how that decision is made in responding to the young offender.

I'll leave it at that.

The Chairman: Thank you. Don't cut yourself short; that's a very important area, police discretion in the justice system.

If anyone else has a comment, please go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Brunette: Two brief comments. First, with regard to the type of intervention that you described earlier, that confirms what I said earlier about personalizing the approach. Youths are sensitive to someone who takes the time to listen, to hear and to follow up on what has happened. And that's essential.

If anything is obvious in our society, it is this kind of indifference, this kind of isolation in which we live and which perhaps affects young people more than any adult. Let's not forget that they are in the process of developing.

My second comment concerns police forces. Much remains to be done in this area, but I think we have taken steps in the right direction. Consider, for example, the multidisciplinary approach that embraces all the components of each of the stages of the legal process when it is triggered at the time of arrest.

In Quebec, we recently had training sessions involving 1,700 persons. We had 99 two- to four-day sessions. At our request, these sessions brought together the various players concerned, police officers, Crown attorneys, lawyers, social workers and educators in the centres so that they could achieve greater harmonization and better mutual understanding of their roles. We go to work one after the other. We should work together more, as though we were part of a whole.

.1055

In my opinion, that's the way to address the problem of young offenders. We can't lose.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

The last five minutes, Mr. Regan.

[Translation]

Mr. Regan (Halifax West): I would like to ask a question about age. We have heard extensive discussion and we'll hear much more discussion on this issue in the months to come. I would like to know your opinion regarding the age at which the Young Offenders Act should apply. Should it be 12, as is currently the case, or less than 12?

I would also like to have your comments on the changes that were made in June with respect to youths of 16 and 17.

[English]

Mr. Yeager: Mr. Regan, as you well know, on our testimony on Bill C-37 we essentially took the position that the association had no substantive objection to the waiver of 16- and 17-year-olds up to adult court for a very limited number of very serious crimes. The crimes we're talking about are murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, and I believe aggravated sexual assault. Thank God that only involves a very small number of youngsters. We did, however, at the same time reiterate our association's concern that there were implementation issues that were very serious with respect to how we spent money, how we allocated our resources, what we were doing with prevention, and so on.

On the subject matter of lowering the age, statistically speaking, the number of kids in serious delinquency who are under the age of 12 is very small. Although we haven't studied this issue in depth, I'm not sure our association would take the position that we need to lower the age to process more kids formally.

I think we like the kind of approach the Jasmin people took and the people in Quebec took, particularly with those very young people, which was a more social welfare, Children's Aid approach rather than a criminal justice processing approach.

[Translation]

Ms Toutant: I would like to make a final comment about youths. I think it is already too late to make this remark because referrals have already been made and there are automatic mechanisms. It is sad that a statute contains automatic mechanisms. When I say automatic mechanisms, I mean that each time statements are made that lead a person to adopt similar behaviours toward everyone, that's bad.

I'll give you an example. All youths who are violent and who are 16 or 17 years old should be transferred to the adult side. Bad. It depends on the individual youths.

All youths who commit offences against property should remain in the community and not be placed in a reception centre. Here again, it varies. If a youth has just committed his forty-fourth theft, perhaps he should be placed in a reception centre.

In my view, when you talk to me about automatic responses, I find that detestable and harmful when it is set out in the Act. Automatic mechanisms should never be included in statutes.

That's the remark I want to make regarding 16- and 17-year-olds whom you want to sent directly to adult court.

As to the gentleman's answer regarding youths of 12... A good protection statute will give you all you need in order to work with a youth under 12 years of age who displays delinquent behaviour.

We may have said more than enough about the Jasmin Report this morning. You may be fed up hearing about it. I hope in any case that you will read it. We often refer to it because it is a sound study. I believe you can draw certain guidelines from it.

I'm not very familiar with the protection statutes in the other provinces. I can't tell you whether such and such a province also has a good protection statute.

However, I would like to take a minute to return to a question asked by Ms Torsney.

.1100

You asked whether research had shown that very early intervention with young school children yielded results. The answer is yes. Research has shown this to be the case. Come and see me later and I'll give you the details contained in the report on that point. The report describes research that proves that very early intervention with primary-level children who have displayed aggressive behaviour produces results. We see it. Kindergarten teachers tell you: "That one's going to turn out bad." Teacher's intuition is often very significant. Without attaching a label, however, there are ways of doing something. And things are already being done.

May I conclude with an invitation? All the committee members are invited to a conference entitled ``Victime ou accusé: le jeune et le procès pénal'' Victim or Accused: Youth and the Criminal Trial]. This conference is organized by the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and by the Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section, of the University of Ottawa and will be held on February 14. You can celebrate St. Valentine's Day by listening to young people! Lawyers from other countries will also be there to speak to us on how they are working with young offenders in their countries.

We'll send you all the relevant information by mail so you will know the exact time and place of the conference. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much for the comments you have made. I think we've only scratched the surface.

There were certain materials referred to by Mr. Yeager. Instead of making them available to any particular member, perhaps make them available to the clerk, who can then distribute them to all members.

Again, thank you very much for appearing here today.

We'll have a short adjournment before we start the next group.

.1111

The Chairman: We'll start our next morning session. We have before us from the Canadian Teachers' Federation, Maureen Morris and Damien Solomon; from the Canadian School Boards Association, we have Pat Crossman and Marie Pierce; and from the Canadian Association of School Administrators, we have Fred Grant. If you have a presentation to make to us, please proceed and then we'll have the questions and comments after that. Whoever takes the charge, please go ahead.

Ms Pat Crossman (President, Canadian School Boards Association): I'm Pat Crossman, president of the Canadian School Boards Association. We are the national voice of school boards and school trustees. On behalf of the four associations, I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to comment once again on issues related to the youth justice system in general and the Young Offenders Act in particular.

We appreciated the responsiveness and interest of the standing committee when we appeared before it concerning Bill C-37 and are supportive of the government's interest in taking a broader approach to issues concerning safe schools, which include innovative community approaches to prevention and rehabilitation.

It is hoped that through this consultation process not only will the concerns of the education system be addressed but also a balance between the rights of the young person and the protection of the community will be achieved.

The majority of young offenders are of mandatory school age and decisions regarding the disposition of their cases have a direct impact on the school systems in Canada. The concerns of the four groups represented here today are primarily to ensure safety of students and staff within their jurisdictions but as well to fulfil our role with other social service partners in the prevention of youth crime and the early identification and rehabilitation of young offenders.

Our submission, therefore, will focus on the issues of prevention and rehabilitation, lowering the age applicability of the Young Offenders Act, and provincial legislation disparity and resources.

Ms Maureen Morris (President, Canadian Teachers' Federation): It's a privilege for me to be here representing the Canadian Teachers' Federation. The CTF is the national voice of some 240,000 teachers in Canada. We have 13 provincial and territorial member organizations. We appreciate the opportunity to join our education colleagues to present our ideas and recommendations to you regarding the review of the Young Offenders Act.

One of our principal beliefs is that the application of the youth justice system balances both the rights of the young offender, of youth, while ensuring the safety of staff and students in the school community and the community at large. We strongly support an approach that will provide resources for prevention and rehabilitation rather than incarceration. It is our belief that in all cases prevention and rehabilitation are the way to go.

Our perspective is that early identification of young people who may come into conflict with the law is preferable. Certainly, in many of our schools we are now attempting to take that approach. We try to have some predictors of students who may be in difficulty down the way.

.1115

We also believe a better use of the scarce resources we already have can help reduce crime, in terms of rehabilitation. In terms of resources, we would also like to see them be equitably distributed throughout the country.

In the present climate of shrinking resources, it seems to make more sense to develop an integrated community approach to deal with youth at risk, rather than teachers in one section, parents in another section, certain aspects of the justice system doing their thing. If we did approach young offenders and the rehabilitation and prevention of first offenders perhaps from an integrated approach, we would be more successful in terms of supporting our youth.

The coordination of services for identification and prevention would certainly be a step in the right direction. We also think information is important. To that end we support videos such as the one that the Crime Prevention Council of Ottawa is presenting called Judge for Yourself. It talks about the Young Offenders Act and takes you through it and how it operates. It's certainly our belief that youth often misunderstand the act and so perhaps do not necessarily take it as seriously as they should in certain cases.

Ms Maybelle Durkin (Executive Director, Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation): Good morning. The Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation is a national, non-profit and non-partisan umbrella organization for ten provincial affiliates representing parents committed to improving the quality of education available to their children through active involvement in their learning and schooling. Within the structure over 100,000 parents participate in local home and school associations, school councils and parent advisory councils across Canada.

Our association has a number of concerns related to the current age range contained within the Young Offenders Act. In attempting to deal with these issues, we recognize that lowering the minimum and/or maximum ages for the Young Offenders Act is only a partial and perhaps not the most effective solution. Action is required in a number of areas, including provincial legislation and the reallocation of resources.

Three key issues need to be addressed with regard to the possible lowering of the minimum age of the Young Offenders Act.

The first concerns the need for young persons to be held accountable for their actions and to have a clear understanding that when they commit a crime, there are definite consequences for their actions. The second concerns inconsistent provision and application of provincial legislation for dealing with young persons under the age of 12. The third relates to the accessibility of early identification, prevention and rehabilitation services, and inequity in services.

Young people have to have a clear understanding that when they commit a crime, there are definite consequences for their actions.

One of the difficulties we have identified concerning the Young Offenders Act is that it takes too long to deal with a young offender. Amendments to the Young Offenders Act are required that provide for more speedy processing of young offenders charged with crimes of a more serious nature.

One option to consider would be the possible establishment of a public defender system as opposed to the current legal aid system. In this way the process could be speeded up and delays avoided if the young person was assigned to a public defender instead of having to go through the legal aid system to retain counsel. We therefore recommend the Young Offenders Act be amended to provide for fast-tracking of young offenders charged with crimes of a serious nature.

We would also like to comment on provincial disparity. Legislation for dealing with young offenders under the age of 12 varies greatly from province to province. There is currently a lack of clear, concise information, both in the Young Offenders Act and provincial legislation, for dealing with young people under the age of 12.

.1120

The federal government, in cooperation with provincial, local and municipal governments and school boards, should undertake the development of a resource book that clearly identifies the current provisions of provincial legislation, which ensures that young persons are held responsible for their actions. This information should be targeted at police departments, various social service agencies and school boards.

We would therefore recommend the federal government, in cooperation with the provincial governments, develop a clear and concise resource book on the existing provincial legislative provisions for dealing with young persons under the age of 12 who commit offences. Once the information is available on exactly what current provincial legislation allows with regard to the treatment of young persons under the age 12, recommendations for amendment need to be developed to ensure consistent treatment and identification of individuals who commit offences.

Mr. Fred Grant (Superintendent, School District No. 2, Moncton, New Brunswick; Representative, Canadian Association of School Administrators): My name is Fred Grant and I'm with the Canadian Association of School Administrators, which represents 650 executive and senior executive people in school districts across the country.

We feel very strongly that we have a vested interest in working with young offenders because they are in our schools. School is a constant for us and for young offenders, and we feel strongly that any rehabilitation effort should and must include the schools. We feel we can deliver a lot more of the service for young offenders at the school level and that many of the programs we need for young offenders can best be responded to and set up within the school-community partnership.

We feel a number of our young offenders are seeking out all kinds of programs. They're seeking employment opportunities and opportunities to express themselves. They're dealing with dysfunctional family situations and sometimes with drug and alcohol abuse. This is our high-risk group of young offenders.

We think programs at the school level to make school relevant to them - alternate programs, peer mediation programs, police liaison officer programs, programs that have people within the community in partnership with us - are very important. These young people quite often cannot function within the confines of what we call the traditional school system. We need resources, help and partnership with the community to try to develop alternate programs that are meaningful for them.

We've had an opportunity to dialogue continually with young people at risk. They are asking us for the kinds of things I've just mentioned. They want alternate programs; they want employment opportunities; they want opportunities to be in a safe and secure environment; they want counselling support. These are the kinds of things they're telling us when we run focus groups and ask them what they're looking for.

I want to mention a number of other points quickly. We feel very strongly that the fast-tracking is necessary with regard to the response and resolution of infractions. Quite often, a young offender will commit an offence and it will be six or seven months before he ends up in court. By then it is old news and it's not being dealt with in a relevant and meaningful way immediately. So there is a lot of down time between the offence and the response. If you're going to put in rehabilitative measures, you need to do it very quickly, because these people continue to be at risk and quite often they continue to offend while they're waiting to go to court for their first offence.

.1125

We feel very strongly that young offenders and the issues they deal with start before the age of 12 and that we need to look at proactive, early intervention measures, intervention measures that start as early as kindergarten and grade 1. We should be talking about children as citizens of a community and what a community means to them and how they are important to each other. We should be encouraging the child to develop a sense or a perspective of themselves as part of a citizenship of a group of people. Those are the kinds of proactive things we'd like to see happen.

We see schools as a natural partnership with any multi-level group at the local community level. We feel that the issues that youth face are best addressed by including the schools in the partnership.

The Chairman: Are there any other presentations at this point?

Ms Crossman: Just to conclude before the questions start, we do want to make sure that schools are safe places to learn and to teach in, but we are more than willing to work with all segments of society to be proactive and creative in other programs.

The Chairman: Before we start with questions, I'm wondering, Mr. Grant, from the presentation you just made, whether the teachers in Canada - and I'll use my province of Saskatchewan more so than any other - in fact do not want this particular role.

Let me give you an example. Twenty years ago teachers had students they would deal with after school; they would allow school facilities, either the sporting facilities or otherwise, to be used by students who wanted to use them. That's not the case any more. When the school day ends at 3:30 p.m., the students are out. The teachers do not want to supervise at recesses. They don't want to have anything to do with schools other than what is required in the school environment. Is that not a problem that has to be overcome, and has to be overcome by the municipal governments and the provincial governments before the federal government can even get involved?

Mr. Grant: I believe schools and teachers today recognize that they're part of a larger community and they're looking for solutions and ways to help young offenders and young people at risk. I believe we don't stop at 3:30 p.m. We're developing alternative programs that include evening programs for some young offenders. We're looking at ways to tear down the physical walls of the school and expand the whole notion of school as a learning centre, not just as a building. I believe teachers, at least from my personal experience, are asking for help to set up programs for young offenders. I think they're very positive.

The Chairman: Ms Morris, did you have a comment?

Ms Morris: I was going to say that the notion of the school working cooperatively with health, justice, and family services has been supported by all teacher organizations. In fact, the member organizations of CTF were aware of this brief and gave it their support. STF, the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, is certainly a member of CTF. So I would say that my feeling is that particularly in Saskatchewan they see this issue as one that needs support from the community.

Cooperation with all sectors of the community will not only be for teachers, but also for everyone. I think teachers have recognized quite significantly that schools do not exist in isolation from the community. I think you would find an openness in the school.

.1130

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your presentation this morning and for coming here.

I would like to ask, from your point of view as educators, whether you believe you have sufficient authority to discharge your responsibility within the classroom as a teacher or as a principal. I ask this because I see an enormous change from when I went to school. Then the idea of calling the police in because there was a scuffle in the hallway was unheard of. We had a principal who would take us by the scruff of the neck and into his office; I'll tell you, he enforced the rules at that school. The school had rules and we knew it, and if we violated those rules and the teachers had to go to the principal...they enforced the rules.

It seems that there is a lack of authority vested in the teachers and the principals to enforce the rules. Consequently, in too many cases they're calling the police in for any little disruption within the class by students who are misbehaving.

Do you feel that you have the authority to run your classroom, to run your school, and to ensure that the rules are properly adhered to?

Mr. Grant: The area I live in has site-based management of schools, which gives them documented authority to respond to discipline issues. It is true that on occasion the police are called in, but that's only when we have a physical infraction.

There are a number of responses that teachers and principals have the authority to make, which include methods such as in-school suspension, time-out, a support counselling service, calling the parents. There's a five- or six-step process that teachers go through when they're dealing with a youth who is disrupting the class.

Mr. Ramsay: Is it adequate?

Mr. Grant: We've been talking about it now for two or three years, and we've had conferences and meetings. We've come up with policies of zero tolerance in regard to violence, and we've come up with policies on safe and secure environments. I would say right now that compared with two or three years ago, educators are feeling more comfortable, more in control, and more like they can respond and do something. I think the alternatives they have are better. I think it's becoming more adequate than it was in the past.

Mr. Ramsay: I see that there has been an undermining of the authority of parents, school teachers, principals, and other figures of authority in society. I'll give you an example. A 15-year-old girl gets into an argument with her mother because she won't clean up her room. In the province of Alberta she goes to the welfare authorities; they rent her an apartment and give her $800 or $900 a month for expenses. So she moves out of the home.

This undermines the authority of the parents to ensure that their children abide by the simple rules within their home. When we hear at meetings all across this country that we have to do something about making parents more responsible for the criminal conduct of their children, people always stand up and say that you have to return the authority to the parents so that they can deal with their children. I think that and I ask this.

My wife is a schoolteacher, and we have twin boys who are going through high school now. It was unheard of back in my day that the police would be called for a disciplinary matter, and we had our rough-and-tumbles and so on.

The authority of the teacher was supreme, and yet I see that being undermined. If it has come back to a state you consider to be adequate, that's encouraging to me, because I have not seen that in many of the meetings across the country. We always seem to be passing the buck. Why? Because now, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you daren't lay a hand on the child. You're going to be accused of either sexual abuse or physical abuse.

.1135

There are always these kinds of problems. My wife mentions from time to time some of these incidents that occur.

Again I ask, are you satisfied as teachers and figures of authority, whom our children ought to be looking up to and respecting, that you have the authority to discharge the responsibility of figures of authority? Are you satisfied that authority is there?

Ms Morris: Certainly, times have changed. When you said the principal would take you by the ear or the scruff of the neck and take you into the office, I was thinking that when I went to school that was also the case.

Times have changed in that we do not have the authority to do that kind of thing for the very reasons you've just outlined yourself. But I believe that we do have authority and that, in terms of violence in the school, we - and not only teachers - are taking back the authority. We work with parents and with students, because students are key players in all of this, in developing strategies that we can use to make schools a safe place in which to work.

Students, for example, are actively involved in peer mediation techniques. We want parents involved in any kind of serious disciplinary infraction. I'm not talking about the little discipline incidents that occur in the classroom over a regular period, but about serious infractions such as acts of violence and verbal or physical aggression. We involve parents and students in developing strategy.

We have already started, as an educational community, doing things. The Canadian School Boards Association and the Canadian Teachers' Federation sponsored a conference to which we invited a large segment of the community. The title was ``Nurturing Harmony in Our Schools and Community'', and we discussed ways we could nurture harmony.

In terms of the police, it's my belief that in most schools the police are normally called in only in situations in which weapons are involved or extremely bizarre or aggressive behaviour is involved. Normally, the staff and principal would handle those kinds of situations.

But yes, I believe we're taking the task in hand.

Mr. Ramsay: Does the intervention of the parents mitigate your authority as a teacher?

Ms Morris: No, I would think not. I believe we work together.

Mr. Ramsay: Why do you have to have the parent involved? The rules are there. Enforce the rules and advise the parents why. Now, I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here, but why...?

Ms Morris: Yes. That's a good question, though. I believe -

Mr. Ramsay: Why do you have to have parents involved when it's a straight matter of obeying the rules when the rules have been violated?

Ms Morris: When it's a straight matter of obeying the rules, certainly the schools take care of it and use the authority they have. When we significantly involve parents, it's because the student in question has violated or gone beyond the rules in terms of verbal or physical aggression. Parents play a vital role in the upbringing of their students, and children need to see that the parent and the school are working together in this regard particularly. When it comes to behaviour and to respect for authority, students need to understand that there is a partnership between the school and the home, and in fact among the broader school community or the other students.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you support the retention of the authority granted teachers and parents by virtue of section 43 of the Criminal Code?

Ms Morris: Does the Canadian Teachers' Federation...?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

Ms Morris: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: So you would support the retention of section 43?

Thank you.

Ms Durkin: May I add, Mr. Ramsay, that so would the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation. We have been asking the justice department for some 12 years now to redefine the word ``force'' to give it the meaning of legitimate restraint.

.1140

Ms Marie Pierce (Executive Director, Canadian School Boards Association): The Canadian School Boards Association passed a resolution on section 43 of the Criminal Code at last year's annual meeting. We asked for retention of the Criminal Code, but we also asked for Criminal Code amendments outlawing corporal punishment. None of our school boards support the use of corporal punishment, and that's why we supported that resolution. We're trying to ensure that section 43 is responsive to the needs of school boards and the need for safety in our classrooms, but we did not support the corporal punishment issue.

Mr. Ramsay: I would urge you to stand firm on that.

Mrs. Barnes: I'd like to follow up on a few things that were said earlier.

With respect to Mr. Bodnar's comments, it's wonderful if children can be involved in organized sports. That's one of the things they tell us. Occupational therapy for kids is play, and if they have a place to play, a room to play in and some supervision, that's good.

I don't know of a school in my riding that's open in the summer, when my kids are off, for them to have those wonderful facilities to play in. They're locked. So you might want to consider that as one thing to talk about when you leave here.

I also firmly believe that there has been an abdication by the schools to the criminal justice system. Zero tolerance affects our criminal charge rates. It effects what goes on. My kids came home from school about a year ago and told me about a fist fight at school where the police showed up and hauled the kids away. I do not think that's the most appropriate response, but that happened with my own children. All three are in an elementary school in the same city, and that was witnessed by a large number of people.

To me, zero tolerance moves toward you not wanting to be involved. You can say that there's an escalation. I've read the codes and certain things happen, but we have teachers who are afraid to get near a child because of the politically correct society we all cope in. When I was teaching bar admissions I was told to not be alone in the classroom with my adult students after hours.

That is what's going on. There are other facts, but I also know that you have anti-violence curricula for your school boards. These curricula were produced at the London Family Court clinic in my riding, and anti-violence messages were incorporated into all of the core curricula. So go back to your boards and see if it's been incorporated into your board's curriculum.

You recommend speedy trials for serious offences, but what about the less serious? Those are the majority. If you want to go in escalation of offences, most of our youth are involved in property crime, but you do not address that in your brief.

I would like a discussion at the school and community levels about these offences not going through the trial process at all. Community-based, alternate measures are now the law. They will become the law on December 1 in our criminal justice system, but I see nothing in your documentation talking about creating alternative measures. The evidence tells us that just going through the criminal process helps the criminalization process, especially of the very young child. That's one of the reasons the research specialists in this area tell us we shouldn't be lowering the age - because of the immaturity of the individual.

I urge you to start at the community level, talking to your boards and provincial governments, because we're going to be the legislative arm, not the enactment arm. I think there are barriers at the community level for groups wanting to be involved in alternate measures. They see alternate measures as not being tough enough. It's the ``not in my backyard'' syndrome: I don't want any juvenile delinquents shovelling my driveway or doing this type of activity.

What barriers do you see within your own organizations to us getting you more involved in alternate measures? You say you want to do it, but I see all types of barriers to you doing it.

Please just respond. I'll give you lots of time because I know I said some controversial things.

Ms Morris: To take your last example in terms of alternatives, it's my experience that it's not the same across the country.

Mrs. Barnes: That's true.

.1145

Ms Morris: There are alternatives where I come from, which is Quebec, where young offenders work with our custodians in terms of programs. They go to the YMCA and make restitution by working in programs there. So you cannot say across the board that there are no alternative programs, because depending on the province, there are.

I agree that we would like fast-tracking for young offenders who commit violent crimes - after all, we don't want them continuing to commit violent crimes while they're waiting - but young offenders who get involved in property crimes should not be left aside. I have had experience with students who were involved in that kind of crime and were almost immediately assigned community work in the province of Quebec, and that made a big difference because they were dealt with on a very speedy basis.

In terms of your example about the fist fight on the school ground and the police coming, I think we can all find examples of that kind of thing happening, but to me that is not the norm. After talking to teachers across the country, I think our schools have developed a set of programs that will deal with violence in ways other than calling in the police, and I outlined them earlier. I think that's what we're doing.

You also raised the question of fear and concern on the part of teachers, and I would be less than honest if I pretended that wasn't there. It is there and you all know why. We're all told to be careful in terms of touching students and meeting with students with doors closed, and for good reason. A significant number of teachers and administrators are charged every year with certain accusations. So that does exist, but I don't think it exists hand in hand with the situation that we're talking about. The whole question of concern on the part of educators regarding safe schools is a serious one and a commitment.

Mrs. Barnes: Would anybody like to add to that?

Ms Durkin: I think you could take what you've said as fair comment in some limited applications, but you have to understand that there is a gap between what the educator finds in children and what they can do about it. I'll mention a particular case that is under consideration in the province of Quebec at this moment. Some young people were identified at the grade 2 level as being youngsters who required particular consideration and a definite program to offset tendencies that they had begun to exhibit, but there were no social services to provide the programs. The school had to continue to offer these young people education as best they could within the limitations of their behaviour.

So there's a feeling of helplessness, I think. As a parent representative, you can stand outside the school and see the difficulties they have to deal with.

If we're genuinely concerned about the Young Offenders Act and its acceptability to the general population and so on, I think the federal and provincial governments must come together and decide where they can best fill the role that is there to be filled and to develop programs that will meet the needs of young people in the school system.

.1150

At the same time, I would urge this particular committee to consider some of the activities within the general community that is advocating the removal of section 43. It would seem that there is support coming from the federal government to agencies that are advocating such a change, while the federal government will not recognize that there is a problem where individual rights are being exercised within a collectivity like a school.

This is a very serious problem. I think that until we can come to grips with it, these things are not going to sort themselves out.

Mr. Grant: With regard to alternate measures, I feel very strongly about alternate measures as the most important starting vehicle for establishing a multi-level group within a community. Within our own area we have education, police, youth services, probation and justice. We sit on a committee that does deal with the issues of alternate measures and looks for solutions for youth, including community work and other ways, and also looks for solutions for parents, to help them through parenting groups and things like that.

We feel certain that alternate measures are very important for the first-time offender and that there should be more of them. It should be broadened and it should be the way we go. Putting these things through court and criminalizing youth early on is not a solution. It's only going to harden them and make it more difficult to help in the rehabilitation process.

We've reached out to the community, to employers and to businesses, and asked them to help us with alternate measures. They have provided community work in non-profit organizations where youth can assist. We are utilizing that.

Mrs. Barnes: I just wanted to add that often second-time offenders are in breach of conditions from the first offence. Second-time offenders aren't necessarily hardened criminals. I just point that out because a lot of people think that...you get into this ``three strikes you're out'' mentality and you shouldn't.

Ms Pierce: I respect your comments that at some school boards the schools are closed at 4 p.m. and are not available in the evening. But in many school boards we're trying to look at a community approach to schools, that schools really are a part of the community.

One of the things our association on a national level is trying to do to encourage the school boards to be more involved in community activities is that we've joined in a partnership with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police as well as Human Resources Development Canada on the community safety initiative. We can profile to boards some innovative programs that are happening across the country to deal with youth.

Unless we deal with it in a comprehensive manner.... A lot of the difficulties relate to the issue of youth unemployment and youth not having anything else to do. They don't have access to community services or play basketball at midnight, for example. We're trying to encourage our schools and our school boards to develop policies that reflect the needs of the community.

One of the things we want to stress is that you can't dictate this at a national level. You try to say, these are the ways we'd like to go - now you find a community solution. I think a lot of the points we're trying to make with regard to early identification, rehabilitation and prevention are that we can only find solutions at a community level. School boards and the schools are probably the only constant in a lot of these children's lives, so schools have to play a major role in working with the other community partners.

I'm sorry if our brief didn't give that tone, but that's the approach we're very supportive of in terms of trying to deal with the issue of youth crime and youth justice. It's not an isolated incident once a youth is charged; it's an issue we have to deal with from the time children are very young and enter the school system and are identified as having difficulties.

The Chairman: I'm wondering if you could answer the questions as succinctly as possible because we ran over the time again.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

.1155

We're very aware that when children leave home, they go to school. Often from that time on they spend more time under the supervision of teachers and their school authorities than they do at home.

So it's very important to realize the school plays a very significant role in this whole area of authority figures and guiding children, recognizing the problems that develop that should be dealt with on a behavioural basis and reporting them beyond the authority of the school when those situations arise.

I just want to comment that from my understanding of what you refer to on page 4 with regard to fast-tracking, it has to do with serious offences. I agree very much with what you're saying. In fact, we hear not only from individual citizens across the country but also from police officers and prosecutors that the impact of the consequences of a young offender's actions is completely reduced when the consequence of that action follows six, seven or eight months after the violation of the rule or the law.

I support the idea of fast-tracking the serious offences - not all of these offences, but the serious offences. If we're going to adhere and support the idea they have to be accountable and responsible for the consequences of their actions, then that is very essential. I support that.

You talk about alternative measures. We've wrestled with that in Bill C-41 - the definition of alternate measures. Could you tell us what you mean when you refer to alternative measures?

Mr. Grant: We are referring to diversionary programs that go away from the courts. It doesn't go to court. It goes toward a community committee that will take a look at the offence and the situation and try to set up something for the youth so they can carry out some community service work or get some counselling to help them deal with what they did that led them to make the decisions they did.

Quite often we also look at providing some support to the parents. Sometimes the youth are dealing with issues of anger. They don't know how to control their anger and they need training in anger management. We recommend that as one thing. They have esteem problems. We ask for some counselling in that area. The parents are sometimes at loggerheads with the youth. So we want parenting support for them.

Part of the process of the alternate measures involves asking the youth, himself or herself, what it is that they feel they need to make them more productive and help them survive a little better. That's how we view alternate measures.

Mr. Ramsay: You referred to the early identification of offenders. Would you tell the committee what you mean by that? Perhaps you can be specific by giving examples of what you refer to as early identification of offenders.

Ms Durkin: When a student is not functioning well in a school setting, when they have difficulty with their peers, when they are not learning effectively, when they exhibit tendencies that would lead people to assume that if they were to continue they would inevitably lead to more destructive behaviour, these can be - if I am not mistaken - assessed by the classroom teacher and reference can be made to a psychologist or whoever who can confirm the diagnosis. When a child has dysfunctional behaviour, it's very easy for the school to recognize there's something wrong.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

.1200

Mr. Regan: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little about this issue of force, which is related to the Young Offenders Act, and how it works in the schools.

From what you said, I have the impression that either all of you or some of you are in favour of legitimate restraint but not corporal punishment. I would like to have a better idea of what you mean by legitimate restraint and to know whether or not you all agree on this issue.

Ms Durkin: We do not support corporal punishment in any form whatsoever. However, as I said earlier, there is the issue of an individual's right being exercised within a collectivity, which means that should a child behave in such a way as to infringe on other children's rights, we support the notion that a teacher can remove a child from a situation that is causing difficulty for other children as long as there is no force involved but it is done out of restraint. That is what we want.

I know lawyers from the Department of Justice have spoken to us about this. I think it's very hard for us to define restraint, just as it's hard for the Department of Justice to define force. But I do think this is a very key, central issue. It's causing a lot of difficulty. This reconciliation of individual rights within collective rights is something the Department of Justice must tackle.

Ms Morris: Certainly, the Canadian Teachers' Federation is opposed to corporal punishment. In terms of restraint, if I can personalize it, I had an experience last year where a student was physically attacking another student on the playground, viciously kicking this student in the stomach. I was the teacher on duty and I rushed over and separated them. I could not let him go because had I let him go, he would have gone after this student again and he had already drawn blood. I had to physically restrain this student until help came. He was a big student and I ended up being quite forceful but I had no choice. I had to do that for the sake of the other children on the playground.

That happens. It doesn't happen on a regular basis and in my 20-some-odd-years of teaching it hasn't happened to me every year either. So we are opposed to corporal punishment, but sometimes restraint has to happen for the good of all of the other students in the school.

Mr. Grant: We encourage the training of teachers in non-violence, crisis intervention techniques and certification of teachers in those programs so they can deal with non-complying students. We encourage the development of crisis response teams so we don't have any teacher standing there in isolation, trying to deal with a physically aggressive, violent student. We try to make sure that doesn't happen and that there's a response mechanism in every school to deal with that. By doing these kinds of things, we make teachers feel more comfortable and more confident that they're supported. As much as possible we do not want to see a situation where a teacher is isolated with someone who is physically very aggressive.

Mr. Regan: The last group before us talked about the Quebec system and the success it has had with a very different approach than in other provinces. I wonder to what degree you've studied or are aware of the process in Quebec and how it differs from other provinces and if you have any comment on that.

.1205

Ms Durkin: They may have met with success in alternative measures. However, as I indicated before, regarding the lack of social services to the schools, they're failing to meet the needs of children in Quebec schools.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to follow up a little on this business of corporal punishment.

If my child was sent into your school and you spoke out against the policy of corporal punishment...I'd have a great deal of concern if someone assaulted my child, just as you've described, and that assault might have been deterred if they'd known there was a strap in the principal's desk. I have a great deal of concern about that.

Back in my day - I grew up in Saskatchewan and the strap was there. It was very seldom used but we knew it was there. When the teacher was out of the classroom - this was a one-room classroom we first went to - we used to sometimes sneak in and open his drawer and have a look at that strap. It was there and it represented something to us. It represented authority. It represented a number of things.

When I look at the policy and the programs that have been brought forward, supposedly in the interest of public safety, people are now saying we should be examining these programs from the point of view that they have endangered public safety.

When I hear you would not want the children in your class to know there's a strap in your desk and that you are willing to use it in extreme cases, then you're telling me there is a possibility someone might not assault my child or anyone else in that school if they were aware of that deterrent.

It's a little like the whole question of capital punishment. I was at a meeting one day and they asked, how do you respond to the parents of the victims of Bernardo when they say they still do not favour capital punishment? My response to that was, well, the question is this: how would you feel if you thought capital punishment had been here in this country...if there had been even a 1% chance that it might have deterred Bernardo from murdering those two innocent children?

I have some concerns there. I'm not dogmatic on this issue but I surely have some concerns about it. We never really had problems in my school. We never saw the police ever come into our high school at any time.

Mrs. Barnes: I have point of order here. How is capital punishment of adults relevant to the changes in the Young Offenders Act, Mr. Chairman? Let's hear it from the witnesses, maybe.

The Chairman: I think we'll just allow Mr. Ramsay to complete his comments and question if he has one, because I think he's getting into the area of corporal punishment. Whether there's a link, we'll find out.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the door has been opened to this issue. I think it's an important issue. I'd like to hear the views. They have expressed their views and I've made my point. If you feel there is absolutely no deterrent effect in that, if that's your view, I'd like that on the record.

Ms Pierce: I have just a quick comment. I don't think assaulting a child prevents the child assaulting someone else. Corporal punishment is assault.

Schools have worked very hard over the last number of years to look at alternative measures to develop programs, peer mediation, conflict resolution, to show children there are other more appropriate ways of responding to their anger and their conflicts. Some of these programs are very effective.

Schools are trying to take a leadership role in saying that hitting a child, regardless of who does it, is not appropriate in a school setting. That is why our association came out very strongly in opposition to corporal punishment.

.1210

Ms Crossman: I would like to add that in 1995 it's not like the days you're talking about or the days when I was in school. A lot of these troubled youths come from homes where there are no rules; there are no role models.

What we're trying to do is model better behaviour in the schools and we don't feel you do that by fault, which I agree corporal punishment is. They get enough of that at home. We're trying to model positive behaviour.

Ms Durkin: I think, Mr. Ramsay, that there are those of us who look backwards to more simple times with some regret for what some would say was the loss of the security that there was in society at the time. However, I think this committee should note that our schools are coping with all of the social changes that are taking place in society and that they have to be mindful when they put policies in place that there is a serious fractionalization in values in that community. Therefore, easy solutions don't recommend themselves at this point. I think the people who have come before you this morning are trying to put their case to you for schools to be able to continue to educate children in the best possible environment. I think, on my part anyway, that we're asking for your cooperation in seeing to it that the conditions are there that will enable this process.

Ms Morris: I certainly agree with my colleagues that you don't deal with violence by using violence. I don't have a strap in my desk drawer and I don't know a teacher who does, nor do I know at this point a principal who does.

One of the things I feel we really have to do is look at what are the roots that cause children to be violent and to be angry in the first place. That's part of what we're talking about when we talk about early identification, at what is causing this anger or this extreme violence, because anger and violence can run the gamut. There are many levels of violence and/or anger. What are the root causes and how do we deal with those? Early identification is a part of that, and Maybelle spoke about that earlier. Alternative programs dealing with causes and anger management are other ways to deal with it, but using corporal punishment is not, in our opinion, a way to deal with violent youth.

Certainly a number of programs that we have outlined - I said this in my opening remarks and I'll say it again - require resources in order to be effective, financial resources that translate into human resources.

Ms Torsney: It's my observation that when people talked about wonderful times in the past, when there was authority and things were very clear and everything was so wonderfully organized.... Of course, we've seen the Mount Cashel inquiry and prosecutions, and we've seen all kinds of abuse of authority when authority was absolute and parents just absolutely trusted everybody and children had no rights or need to be respected. There are some other sides to the story.

We heard earlier this morning that a long time ago 12-year-olds didn't rape 8-year-olds. Maybe we just didn't hear about them. Maybe they weren't reported, and so we can't base our information on anecdotes that we experienced or know about.

There was a strap in my school, by the way. The kids who got hit with it were the ones who were indifferent: oh, you just put this hair across your hand, it's no big deal, you whip down there. I, on the other hand, who was reasonably good, was petrified.

I want to know more about two things from you. I need to know about what information you share amongst your members. Is there a manual or best practices guide, or are there examples about great programs that are going on in different schools, that other schools might adapt. I know there are some really good examples going on where there's intervention, there's peer mediation, there are kids resolving issues, they're learning great skills. These kids are going to grow up to be good parents, well-functioning members of our community and good spouses. Maybe that will help break the cycle, because if we just keep focusing on the end of the pipe, I just don't see where we're going to get anywhere.

.1215

The other thing I wanted to hear more about was the concept of a public defender or someone who would help resolve these cases and how you see that evolving. I'm really interested in it because we might just get the cases resolved quicker, but we might have some downsides in terms of attention to detail for each and every child and how their cases are different.

Earlier, we had somebody advocate that there be a child advocate who was charged to go out and look for alternative ways to deal with this. We saw the Hollinsky case in Windsor, which I am sure some of you know about, where the community decided here's a better response, and even the Crown appealed. There's supposed to be a jail sentence when you cause the death of others in our community when you've been drinking and driving, and yet the parents and everybody got together and said no, we're going to make good out of this.

Could you talk about the public defender? Do you have such a manual on how schools and parents and all the members of your association can learn about the rest of what is going on?

Ms Crossman: On the first part, what we're pleading for or asking for is that any changes made are enabling, because a cookie-cutter approach will never work. I think that's where we have run into difficulties in the past, and to me the success of any new directions that boards or teachers or home and schools move in requires that they be community-based. As in the example you cited, it must come from within the community or they won't take ownership and it won't work.

Ms Pierce: One of the things in terms of best practices that Maureen already alluded to.... When our two associations hosted a conference and tried to profile some of the programs that are happening across the country, unfortunately that is just a one-shot occurrence. We have been trying to gather information on what's happening with different boards in different schools across the country, but we just don't have the resources to develop a manual.

We have put forward joint submissions to the justice department to help us financially do that because we do find, similarly to best practices in schools and teaching, that it's very important to share the information so that one board doesn't have to invent it all the time. So it would be really very helpful to profile some of these innovative programs.

We are attempting somewhat to do that through the new community safety initiative, which I've mentioned. One of the projects we've asked for funding under that is to help profile some of the community things that school boards are doing with other social service agencies. That's one way we're trying to provide that information to school boards.

We can look at new technologies as well in terms of sharing the information.

Ms Morris: In terms of teacher organizations, most of what's done is done provincially and shared among the provinces. Almost every single teacher federation has done a study of some sort on the nature of violence in the schools that they deal with and has developed strategies. One that comes to mind almost immediately is the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario. They have done some very significant work on the issue of violence and strategies and best practices, which has been shared across the country. So there is work happening.

We, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, have a program that we run with the Roy C. Hill Charitable Foundation. It is called the Roy C. Hill Awards, and teachers submit projects that they've been running for at least a year in their school. Many of those projects over the last few years have been projects focusing on strategies that are successful in dealing with violence in schools, on the playground, in the corridors, etc. - strategies and best practices. So there are things happening.

When those projects receive certain levels of awards, they are published in a booklet that is sent out across the country to teachers and to school boards and parents. So some things are happening.

Ms Torsney: Fred and Maybelle had a comment.

The Chairman: We're a minute over and we're going to run out on our speakers' list. Can you keep your comments very short? They're getting long again.

Mr. Grant: In New Brunswick we also have a best practices document that is put together by the New Brunswick School Trustees' Association, the government and the school administrative group. It was distributed last year and we're presently in the process of updating it for this year. We're doing that by district. We're looking at what are best practices according to the teachers.

.1220

We're also looking at the other side. That is, what kind of training and skills do you need to make it work? Which of these best practices would you like to see at your school level? Each school is a community in itself.

Ms Torsney: Ms Durkin was going to comment on the public defender.

Ms Durkin: Oh. I'm not sure I indicated that I was prepared to do so.

I think the motivation for this particular idea arises from the fact that we would prefer young people not to deal with a court setting if it can possibly be avoided.

Ms Torsney: More along the advocate line.

Ms Durkin: Yes.

The Chairman: We're out of time. We're three minutes over on a five-minute round.

Mr. Ramsay, five minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: In your brief on page 3 you express your feelings about the possible reduction of the age lower than age 12. You say this is only a partial, and perhaps not the most effective, solution. Do you feel that what amounts to criminal acts by children under 12 should come...? Whether or not it's dealt with by the justice system, do you feel the justice system should have authority to deal with those types of offences, assaults, the kind of situation that happened in B.C. recently?

Mr. Grant: We feel there should be a uniform procedure across the country with regard to dealing with youths under the age of 12 who are involved in criminal activity, but we do not want to criminalize youths under the age of 12. We simply feel we need to look at proactive measures and have a uniform way of responding to the youths under the age of 12 so we can get to them earlier.

Mr. Ramsay: My research - and it's not by any means exhaustive - indicates that nowhere in the literature read to date is there any reference to a rising youth crime rate prior to the introduction of the Young Offenders Act, when we had the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, that allowed the justice system to deal with any criminal offence committed by anyone over the age of seven or eight. It's also not evident that public demands or concerns initiated the process of change to the Young Offenders Act.

Back in those days - and when I was a policeman we used to enforce the Juvenile Delinquents Act - we used to deal with all those criminal offences, and we had authority to do so. Most of it was handled informally. Most of it never resulted in incarceration. It was dealt with in the best interests of the child.

Right now we have cases in Alberta where young offenders under the age of 12 have stolen car after car after car, and the police can't do anything about it. They really can't even arrest them to take them home.

Do you feel that the law enforcement agencies and the other components of the justice system ought not to have authority to intervene in those cases?

Mr. Grant: There are other alternatives at the community level in terms of health and community services and mental health that can respond to children under the age of 12 who are at high risk and who are acting out this risk. There are other youth agencies that can deal with that without putting it in front of a court of law and criminalizing it. I think it should be dealt with in another way than expanding the Young Offenders Act to include children under 12.

Mr. Ramsay: Then you're of the opinion that regardless of the nature of the offence, such as the one in B.C. where it resulted in an assault upon another person, it has to be handled informally.

.1225

Mr. Grant: Yes. There are other measures within the community, within child protection and health community services and mental health agencies, with psychologists and psychiatrists, that would help deal with youths at risk. There are clinics. There are other resources that can best deal with that.

Mr. Ramsay: You feel that serves the ends of justice.

Mr. Grant: Yes, I do.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. MacLellan, five minutes.

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think there are two aspects that are very important here. One is dealing with violence in the schools. The second one is the identification of children at risk. I think they are two separate issues.

I know the first is very important. I don't have a great idea of what you go through in the schools today, but I know it's not easy.

The second one, as far as society is concerned, is probably the more important one. Psychiatrists and psychologists tell us that the most important time for dealing with children at risk and keeping young people from becoming children at risk is the day they're born to their third birthday. Unfortunately, we just don't get children in a social setting until they get to school. It makes school the first real frontier. It's important, if we can, to deal with it.

Do you have support from your departments of education on identifying these children? Do teachers feel they have the experience to be able to deal with this? Do you have a procedure or follow-up, with Children's Aid, for instance, in what you find so that the information you get on who are the children at risk isn't lost and the children go on their own way and teachers theirs?

Do you feel there should be a course, a master's degree or a combination of education and child social work, that could deal with this? Where do we go from here on these issues?

I know I only have five minutes, but any information you give me on those points I made I'd appreciate.

Ms Morris: What's happening more and more in schools is that there are councils of teachers within the schools. These councils meet on a regular basis. They discuss situations, in particular, students who they have identified as needing support. There are normally procedures, although not always, depending on the province you're in, and there are normally follow-up procedures.

It's not working the way it should. One of the reasons it's not working the way it should is lack of resources. If the school makes a recommendation that the child and the family need social services support, getting the social worker into the school is not easy. There aren't enough social workers to go around.

So it's a hit-or-miss type of thing right now, but those are the kinds of alternatives we are talking about when we talk about alternatives.

If in the schools we identify someone who we believe to be at risk in grade 1 or 2 or 4 or whatever, and we develop with the school boards and with the parents a procedure that works, then there needs to be the availability of follow-up resources within the community. It is breaking down there.

Mr. Grant: It would be very helpful if the committee wanted to look at redistributing some of the $140 million they spend on youths so that it goes directly as seed money to school boards so that we could begin to maintain our resources. We're struggling with a diminishing financial base. We're constantly trying to reinvent and reorganize so we can handle things. If some seed money were to go to school districts so we could deal with this, it would be very helpful.

Mr. Damien Solomon (Assistant Director, Professional Development Services, Canadian Teachers' Federation): One of the ways in dealing with the early identification, as Mr. MacLellan identified.... I have heard psychologists on this. In fact we had a psychologist, in the keynote address at our conference in 1994, talk about that early age, when you can spot whether kids are going to be inclined to be antisocial and come into conflict with the law.

.1230

What we should be doing, then, is making services available for counselling for parents, because the kids won't get into the school, even when they get early childhood education, until they've passed that age. We need to focus on the parenting skills, provide services to the parents so that the parents themselves, if they're trained to detect these tendencies, can have resources available to help them conquer them.

You're right that when they get to the school system it's a little late sometimes. As Ms Morris mentioned, those services are not always easily available. So that's something you might want to think about.

Mr. MacLellan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your comments today. I think a school's organization shows the importance of early recognition of high-risk individuals. We heard this in the hearings of the amendments to Bill C-37. The schools certainly can play an expanded role with the youth of this country. Hopefully our committee can in its hearings come up with recommendations that are advantageous to everyone, and can, in the end result, help the young people of this country. Thank you very much.

With regard to documents, there was a reference made to the New Brunswick Teachers' Association documents. If you have copies of those, please send them to the clerk for distribution.

Mr. Grant: Yes.

The Chairman: As well, that booklet by Roy C. Hill, if you have a copy of it, might be nice for us to take a look at. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m.

;