EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 16, 1996

.0934

[English]

The Chair: Welcome. This is the resumption of our review of the Young Offenders Act and the Canadian youth justice system.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses today. From the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime we have Steve Sullivan. From Victims of Violence International we have Robert McNamara, vice-president; Victor Desroches; Theresa McCuaig; and Carole Maheux-Leduc.

Welcome.

You are our only witnesses this morning, so to a certain extent I'm going to leave it to you as to how long you want to go in your presentations, but remember there will be questions from all three parties after. We'd all like an opportunity to pick your brains.

Who will be presenting first?

Mr. Steve Sullivan (Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime): I'll go first, Madam Chair.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

.0935

Mr. Sullivan: I'd like to thank the committee for allowing us to appear today to discuss the youth justice system. We've waited a long time to appear, and although this may not be the issue we'd like to appear on today, it is an important one nonetheless.

We also take this opportunity to congratulate Madam Chair on her position. We look forward to many more appearances before her committee.

Before beginning, I must question the wisdom of the timing of these hearings. I understand it is at the request of the minister that phase two is taking place after the passage of Bill C-37. While one could suggest that these hearings may have been better placed before Bill C-37 was drafted, that's the way the minister wanted it.

Having said that, I wonder if these hearings might not be better postponed so the committee could have more time to examine the impact Bill C-37 has had so far and will have in the future.

While it was only passed five short months ago, I can tell you Bill C-37's effects are already being felt by at least one family I know of. In 1992 16-year-old Isaac Deas stabbed 16-year-old Jesse Cadman to death because, in short, he didn't like Jesse's hat. Deas was transferred to adult court, convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for ten years. That conviction took place in 1993, two years before Bill C-37 was passed.

However, the British Columbia Supreme Court recently heard Mr. Deas' appeal, and because of the new provisions under Bill C-37, Mr. Deas is now eligible to apply for parole after serving seven years, a reduction of three years.

As you can well imagine, the Cadmans are at a loss to understand this and wonder if this was the intended effect of the bill. If it was not, as I suspect, perhaps they will receive an apology from Mr. Rock on behalf of the federal government, similar to that which Mr. Gray gave the female prisoners from the Prison for Women.

That is one of the real effects of Bill C-37, so it's not entirely academic to say it makes sense to wait and see the effect of recently passed legislation before embarking on a process in which we may see more legislation come about.

Given that the committee has had several important pieces of legislation before them that have been waiting for over a year, this process should be postponed. This is in no way meant to suggest that this exercise is not an important one, only that we want it to be done right. However, we are at the mercy of the committee when it comes to what issues and bills are given priority.

While our brief, which I believe you all have a copy of, attempts to address many of the issues this committee will be considering, I'll make my oral presentation brief.

Someone listening to this presentation may leave with the notion that we actually raise more questions than we answer. While we do have some suggestions for change, we also have some broader issues for the committee to consider during their study.

When discussing the young offender justice system and the YOA specifically, we must remember to keep a couple of things in mind. When we talk about the YOA and how it is more of a rights-oriented piece of legislation, we must not lose sight of the fact that the YOA is also there to protect potential victims.

Given that the majority of the victims of young offenders seem to be other young people, we must decide whose rights come first. Young people have a right to go to school without fear of being bullied. They have a right to walk down the street without fear of being ``taxed'', or swarmed. They have a right to say no and to be respected. Their rights are every bit as important as those of any person accused of a crime.

There has also been much discussion about whether or not the youth crime rate is rising. Some say it is simply reflective of the fact that police are charging more youths now. The bottom line is we do not have any real measure of youth crime, since much of it is never reported and police still do not charge every youth they come into contact with.

Whether the crime rate is the same as it was when the YOA was first passed really is not the issue. The issue is whether it has gone down since the YOA's introduction. If it hasn't, one must question its overall effectiveness.

While some may be tempted to simply blame the media for sensationalizing youth violence and creating a false public perception about the amount of youth violence, we do not accept that. There is no doubt that murders committed by youths are vigorously reported around the country, but I don't want to live in a society where two youths beating an elderly woman to death is not a major news story. It's when those kinds of stories become commonplace or routine that we have to begin worrying.

We must not do society a disservice by assuming they accept what they read and hear in the media without question. If someone gets outraged at a violent crime committed by a youth, it does not mean they want to see all young offenders in prison locked away forever. The public deserves more credit than that.

Having said that, I feel I must comment on the fact that many of the solutions about youths turning to crime will not be found in the justice system. The YOA is a reactive tool. Even the best alternative measures programs can only affect a young person's life once he or she has broken the law. Frankly, that may be too late for too many youths.

.0940

While we are not the first to say it, much of what must be done will take place before the child enters a courtroom door. In short, early intervention is the key. Many of the answers we are looking for may lie outside the realm of the justice committee. Relying on this committee to come up with the answers may be an indication that we are going about this the wrong way. This is not meant as disrespect of the committee, its abilities or its intentions.

While the Juvenile Delinquents Act was heavily criticized for many reasons, the philosophy behind the legislation was not all bad. Compared to the more rights-oriented YOA, the JDA took more of a parens patriae approach to dealing with young people.

Simply giving young people the same rights we give adults is not going to solve the problem. If the purpose of the exercise is to recognize that young people are not adults, then let's not treat them as such.

If one of the purposes behind the YOA is encouraging youths to accept responsibility for their actions, then we must question the emphasis on technical rights that may teach youths only how to avoid responsibility. We've identified a definite conflict between these two competing interests in the declaration of principles of the YOA.

Probably one of the best examples of this, and the most frustrating part of the YOA for many law enforcement officers, is section 56 of the act. This is a section that sets out what a police officer must cover with an accused before taking a statement. If the committee has not seen a copy of the long sheet that an officer must cover in order to ensure a statement taken by a young person is admissible in court, I suggest you get a copy. It is our contention that the adult system sets out more than enough protections for a young person.

We've found another example: the increased use of lawyers since the YOA's introduction. Their presence and instruction can often create an uncomfortable situation for parents who are encouraging their child to accept responsibility for his actions. A lawyer may be more inclined to emphasize the young person's rights. Once again, there must be a balance, but if a parent in this situation feels left out of a process that should be encouraging their presence, we have a problem. This is an issue that must be examined.

Some possible solutions are providing training to defence lawyers who deal with children so that they understand the purpose of the YOA, or the creation of a system of duty counsel to handle the youth justice system.

At the other end of this is the parent who takes no interest in his or her child. Parents' responsibility for their children does not end when they reach high school. This comes down to an attempt to make a parent take responsibility for the child. Two suggestions that the committee may want to consider are making parents who can pay for their child's legal fees do so, and giving judges the power to order mandatory family counselling. Teaching children about respect and accountability may begin with teaching their parents about it.

Along these same lines, the committee should consider section 7.1, which addresses the issue of a parent or other adult taking responsibility for a child who is released on bail. While it is an offence for a person who undertakes such a responsibility to not live up to their end of the bargain, this section is rarely used. We encourage its use so that people who do this are not simply doing it so the child is released from prison only to return to the very activities that got him thrown in jail in the first place. Isaac Deas's father undertook this responsibility and Jesse Cadman was murdered at 1 a.m.

Alternative measures for young people is something that we support, but we do recognize the limitations. The problem lies not in the idea but in the implementation. It comes down to dollars, which some provinces simply do not want to spend. Without meaningful programs the effectiveness is lost.

Much of the reason for the rate of incarceration of young people being what it is, I suspect, is the lack of alternatives. While few hold the protection of society in higher regard than we do, we do not support the incarceration of non-violent young offenders who do not need to be there. Sometimes the tricky part is distinguishing between the two, but when that distinction is made there should be different options available.

Our support for the lowering of the ages for young people is conditional. The only rationale we see for lowering the age of the YOA from 12 to 11 or 10 is the lack of other options for dealing with children that age who do break the law, and there are some. We understand that the solution here lies in provincial child welfare legislation, not in the YOA, but short of meaningful intervention to deal with these young people perhaps the YOA is better than the status quo. This is an area the committee may want to consider.

As for lowering the maximum age to 17 or 16, it would certainly remove a large number of cases from the youth system, but if we lower the age to 17, would we simply be having the same conversation next year? The point is that we have to draw the line somewhere. However, the committee may want to consider a system that sees 17-year-olds who commit less serious offences remain in youth court and those who commit more serious offences transferred to adult court.

.0945

In closing, it is our proposal that one of the most serious issues this committee must look at is what we do when we have a youth who comes from a poor home environment, does his time, and is simply returned to that same environment. How can we then ask why this youth is back in the courtroom? The solution to the problem of youth crime often lies in solving their problems. While it's not an excuse, if his home environment is part of that problem, why send him back?

Please understand that everything I have said and everything in the brief must be interpreted with the assurance that the public's right to protection is always number one. If that means that a youth's rehabilitation comes second, then so be it. It is rare, fortunately, that we do encounter a youth who is too dangerous to release, but when we do we must ensure that the measures necessary to deal with that person do exist and that we're not afraid to use them, as much as we may not like doing so.

I'll now turn this over to Robert McNamara of Victims of Violence.

Mr. Robert McNamara (Vice-President, Victims of Violence International): Thank you, Steve.

I'd like to start by apologizing to the committee for not getting my brief to you in time to have it translated. I was a little rushed. There is a mistake in the brief. It deals with Sylvain Leduc. The case is before the courts. The wording should be ``alleged killers''.

With me today is Theresa McCuaig, the grandmother of Sylvain Leduc, who was murdered last fall here in Ottawa, and Sylvain's mother Carole. Carole will not be participating today; she's here to keep us company. Also with us is Victor Desroches, whose young daughter Melanie was brutally beaten to death in Kemptville.

Victims of Violence is a national organization founded in 1984 by parents and families of murder victims. The organization is not government-funded nor are we any part of any united appeal for funds. Our funds to operate the organization come from the community by way of the collection of coins or through the sale of T-shirts and other products.

Victims of Violence provides direct support and assistance to families of murder victims and missing children, and to other victims of violent crime.

The goal of the organization is to provide education and to seek legislative reform that would provide better protection to society. Affirmative community response and support to date provides assurances that these goals are attainable.

It is difficult for many of us who have children or for people who not long ago were young people to imagine just what kind of kid can murder a person or beat someone up for a baseball cap, but these kinds of things are happening and we think the problem seems to be worsening.

Most people can say that when they were youths they broke the law. Maybe we drank alcohol when we were too young or were in a fight at school. These kinds of crimes pale in comparison to what kids are doing today, such as bringing weapons to school, doing drive-by shootings, or sexually assaulting somebody with a curling iron to the point of flesh falling off. Why are these kids so violent?

It is not a surprise that many young offenders are the victims of some kinds of abuse, such as physical, sexual or emotional. Bad parenting is often a factor. Many of these kids have trouble in school. Television and movie violence is often cited as another cause of youth violence. Peer pressure is no doubt a large influence in group crimes. Drug and alcohol abuse often play a role. But none of these things can excuse or justify breaking the law to the point, for example, of sexually torturing young people and brutally beating people to death. They may just help explain the behaviour.

While more resources need to be put forth to deter kids from crime in the first place, youth who commit these horrendous crimes actually need - and you may not like the words - to be punished. There has to be a better balance between those youths who committed crimes or made mistakes who can go on alternative measures and those who have committed crimes of such violence that they cannot be allowed to walk our streets.

You have our recommendations with our brief. Please go through them. As Steve said earlier, we too would like to be back before this committee again to perhaps talk about section 745, DNA data banks and high-risk offenders, which are high priorities on Victims of Violence's list.

.0950

With that, I'd like to pass it over to Victor Desroches, who would like to make a few comments.

Mr. Victor Desroches (Representative, Victims of Violence International): First of all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you and to talk to you about my case.

During your consultation session, you will be hearing an awful lot of advice and recommendations from experts. They will be using all kinds of selective statistics to convince you not to change the Young Offenders Act. Theresa, her daughter and I are here to put a face on those statistics, the true statistics of young offenders' crimes.

I have entitled my presentation, which is very short, ``A Plea for Justice''. I hope you will see how and why I'm saying that.

On July 9, 1993, in broad daylight, in a public park in a small town just south of here called Kemptville, Ontario, my daughter was brutally and savagely beaten to death by a very disturbed 14-year-old. He had just turned 14 that day. She had been his classmate since kindergarten. This boy had very serious psychological problems and he took out his anger on my daughter by viciously hitting her on the head with a crescent wrench 68 times - not once, not twice, not 10 times, but 68 times.

A year later, despite strong psychiatric evidence that rehabilitation could take up to five years with no guarantee of success, a judge rejected our application to have the case transferred to the adult court system, primarily because of the special weight and consideration given to the age of a young offender. He was just turning 14. The young offender subsequently pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was given a maximum sentence of three years of closed custody and two years of open custody. I know that has recently changed, but not by a hell of a lot. It's now four years of closed custody for second-degree murder.

During our year-long agony with the Young Offenders Act it became very evident that our daughter's life, her dreams, her future, her rights and all that she meant to us did not mean anything. Under the Young Offenders Act the offender, his rights, his freedom and his rehabilitation are simply considered more important. How can rehabilitation of a youth be more important than another child's life? How can we devalue life so much in our society? Three years for second-degree murder - is that all the lives of our children, your children, are worth? How can you call this justice?

Those three years are spent in what I regard as the best private school system in the country, with specially trained teachers, the best psychiatric help and the best recreational facilities. The judge in our case made a big thing about the recreational facilities for these youngsters. All this is at the taxpayers' expense. When most of our kids must attend large, overcrowded schools, with scarce individual attention and very little psychological help, is this fair? Is this justice?

The injustice of the Young Offenders Act doesn't stop with the trial. Last fall my wife and I learned that the law provides for mandatory review of a young offender's case when the sentence is greater than one year. Why? We are dealing with a convicted murderer. Why spend more money bringing him all the way back to court - it was 300 miles one way - just to have a judge review his progress or lack thereof after only one year in jail? Couldn't this money have been better spent on violence awareness and prevention programs at our school?

I'm not going to read everything. I just want to close.

In one and a half years the young man who killed my daughter will be 18, and for all intents and purposes he will be free, free to start a new life. My daughter will not have that privilege. She will not have a second chance. Her parents and brother will not have our daughter and sister for the rest of our lives. I'm sorry, but we've been handed a life sentence.

.0955

On behalf of Melanie, Sylvain, and all of the thousands of innocent victims of violence in Canada, I implore you to change this cruel and unjust act as proposed by Rob here in his briefing. Please give us back justice. Do the honourable thing. Please reinstate some basic values, common sense, and a true sense of social responsibility in our justice system. Don't wait for another victim, another innocent young kid to be murdered. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desroches.

Ms Theresa McCuaig (Individual Presentation): Good morning. My name is Theresa. I am Sylvain's grandmother.

When Sylvain lay in his coffin, I promised him I would do the best of my ability to make sure other youths like him, his friends, would not have to die like Sylvain did. I will work on that promise until I die. I will not let you rest until changes are made, because we desperately, desperately need to make changes.

I have written this letter to the Minister of Justice, who met with us. I had no idea it would end up on your desk today and I've been asked to read it for you. So I will do that. It's a little long, but I hope you'll bear with me because it comes from my heart, my daughter's heart and our entire family.

On October 25, 1995, my life was changed forever. It was the day my daughter called me to say that my...grandson, Sylvain, was dead. ``He was beaten...by a gang'', she said. My knees buckled, and for a moment I passed out. I screamed this horrible, unbelievable news to my husband who screamed back, ``Oh my God no!'' We immediately drove to her home - it was the longest ride I've ever taken. We held each other's hand for support. As we drove on it was so strange, all the highlights of his short life flashed before my eyes: his baby years, his youth, his teens, his joys, his hurts, his beautiful face, his sparkling blue eyes, his perfect [white] teeth, his wonderful smile. I refused to believe it. ``This can't be true, this can't be true''... My gut was shaking violently. My mind was racing. Oh, my God, how will his brother Dan deal with this? How will my daughter, who loves her sons so much, go on? How will we survive this? If this is true, I want to die with him. Finally, we arrived. The press was there. My heart sank [because I knew] their presence confirmed what my mind kept denying. I entered her home, and held my daughter and Danny in my arms, we cried, we raged, we prayed together.

The realization that this was really, really true hit me and I knew that our lives would never be the same again. Why? Why? Why?

The little part I'm going to tell you now is not in here. Sylvain was totally innocent. He was where he should have been, in his home, watching a movie with a friend. People say to me that it was too bad, the wrong place at the wrong time. I tell them to go to hell. I say he was in the right place at the right time, where he should have been, in his home. Four black youths came in and kidnapped him for no reason at all because he happened to be home. They were looking for the two girls. He was not part of this gang.

I just wanted to make that clear to you. He and his friend were totally innocent.

.1000

I will continue:

The most painful thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies naked and cold in a morgue...

My grandson was in the morgue for three days. I was frozen to death; I could not warm up. I was in a hot tub for three days. I couldn't stand it until I knew he had clothes on him.

My heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a special and sacred place situated just below my stomach. Some call this ``Intestinal Fortitude'' - I call it my soul. It is there that love, hope, hate, courage, faith, humour, anger, compassion, happiness, conscience and God dwell. It is the part of me that will leave my body when I die, with all its life experiences and memories. It is that which I will present to God - my spirit and soul. The horrible murder of my grandson has made my soul very sick. At times it is numb, other days it is like jello. It has lost its desire for living. It doesn't care much about everyday things anymore. It has lost its zest for food, sex, enjoyment, travel, books, etc. There is an emptiness there, a hole that will never be filled. My grandson left this earth with a part of it.

Regrets...hate, revenge and madness now fill my soul. There is nothing to soothe it. Horror and fear also live there. Sylvain's murderers have done this to me. I cannot watch T.V. anymore as any form of violence reminds me of his death. When reading newspapers, I find myself feeling sick for all the other victims and their families. I have days filled with rage when I want to kill. My mind cannot handle this rage, and it controls me by giving me terrible migraine headaches. I am given intravenous medication to cope with this pain. I now hate bedtime. When all is quiet, I cannot stop my mind from imagining the pain and horror Sylvain suffered before dying. I must take sleeping medication to dull these horrible pictures. Sometimes they work. Usually I'm up and down throughout the night. I feel so [terribly] guilty because I wasn't there to save him.

I receive psychiatric care but I find it difficult to speak of Sylvain in the past tense. It takes so much energy to get there. I find it all so hopeless. I feel like a dead flower that's been trampled upon. I feel like I've been robbed.

Today I find myself backing out of any area where youths are gathered. This isn't right, but I cannot help it. Gut reaction is stronger than common sense. I must lock my doors and windows day and night now. I never feel safe anywhere anymore as some of [these people] are still at large. I do not know their names or what they look like; they are protected. The Young Offenders Act makes sure of that. I never know who is coming [to my home]. I cannot stay alone, even in my own home.

Here's another little part that's not in this letter. Some people were never charged. There were 11 people in that apartment when my grandson was beaten to death. Nobody helped him. Nobody made a 911 call or did anything to save his life. Not all of those people went to jail.

We have been threatened right up to last week by people 14, 15, 16 years old. They're bigger than my husband. They walk around with baseball bats. They patrol our house continually. We live in fear constantly. These are children who are doing that to us - children.

.1005

I will go on:

Friends and family stay away. They fear saying the wrong thing. I know they also fear hearing horrible details, but who can blame them? We feel so isolated. Only Victims of Violence can understand our pain. I cannot allow myself to go crazy or suffer from depression. I must be strong for my [other] children, husband and family. I must not fall. I cannot hear music anymore. What was at one time soothing to me, now tears at my soul. It reminds me of Sylvain. Blood and rage rush to my brain when I hear the word forgive. I cannot, and will not.

It is so difficult [for me] to stay focused and attentive. Like a robot, I cannot concentrate. My mind wanders constantly. We attend all court sessions because it is important to me that everyone knows that my grandson was wanted, needed and loved. I'm also hoping for justice. I am enraged to learn of all the rights these young offenders have. I fight the urge to throw up when I attend court. I have never seen a tear, regret or remorse. Rather, they seem to bask in the limelight. This horrible crime was committed by youths who were on probation at the time, when bail was denied. How is it that they [had the right] to appeal? They are allowed to waste our time and money - legal aid is free.

By the way, ladies and gentlemen, my daughter and I have just been denied legal aid, but these kids can have it.

They are allowed to waste our time and money - legal aid is free. I am stunned to learn that no one advises Welfare or Family Allowance when a youth is sent to jail. We, the taxpayers, pay for their room and board and legal fees while these cheques continue to be sent to the parents.

The Chair: I would ask people who have cell phones to please turn them off, out of respect for the witnesses who are appearing. Thank you.

Go ahead. I'm sorry about that.

Ms McCuaig: I would like to explain something else to you that is not in this letter.

Sylvain died on October 25-26. On October 28 my daughter was called by the welfare office, who told her that since her son had died, they were cutting her cheque, which would be mailed to her on the 30th for the month of November. Baby bonus called to say they were cutting her cheque for November. Ladies and gentlemen, not a month's grace to bury her son? Nothing. The compensation people will not help us, even though she does qualify for emergency help. I hope some day one of you will have to call there. You will see how we're treated like dirt over the telephone. These people are sick. Where's the body? Can you prove this child is dead? We only called for an application. Then we were told there's a two-year waiting period for help. We have asked welfare; we've gone everywhere. We are now at the begging stage.

The funeral has added to Carole's costs. Unfortunately, our child had a deadbeat dad. We cannot rely on him. We have no income coming in other than family allowance, which has been cut in half.

When you bury your child, it's the last time you're going to see him. You want to make sure you're buying something nice for him to wear. Right? They said, we don't pay for that, that's your problem. Our family took up a collection. It was to buy Sylvain an urn and some proper clothing. Had it not been for that...

Carole had moved into this home - yes, it's expensive - but the two girls who lived with her had promised to stay for a year and she would have them in her care. Welfare would pay her for keeping these girls. They all moved into this expensive home to accommodate them all. Fifteen days later this tragic, horrible death of her son happens and of course everybody moves out. She's left with the $900-a-month rent, she's left with the hydro bill, and people tell us there's no help for us. I go to court and I see these children with free legal aid...recreational... As Victor put it so well, the Hay institution - I want to live there, it's so nice. They have mental health and medical health... What is there for the victim? Nothing. This is not right. This is not right. I am enraged.

.1010

To continue with this:

I am enraged that deals are made without our permission, opinions, or knowledge.

Do you know that once your child dies, the police own the body? They do what they want. They deal with the alleged offenders and make deals, and we have no say in that - it's only our child. We're not allowed in there. That's totally unacceptable.

...we are not advised of court dates unless we inquire. Victims don't count. I am enraged that sixteen-year-olds are not tried in adult court. Kidnapping, torture and murder are not crimes of children. I am enraged to learn that the maximum penalty for these brutal crimes is three years in a deluxe-type ``kiddy'' jail. It is no wonder that today's youths have no fear.

There is a serious lack of respect for victims' families. Those of us who suffer the loss of a child need to be told all the facts [about the] child's death properly and with dignity by qualified people. We are left to hear the horrible details in a courtroom without any warning. The names of young offenders should be made public so that we can protect ourselves from them. How many crimes is a youth allowed to commit before he or she is finally punished? Five? Six? Seven? This is not acceptable. These offenders have life after life. My grandson does not. It is no wonder that couples who suffer the murder of a child get divorced. They live daily with the injustice and rage which cause them to be bitter and mean to one another. Some can't take it and leave to mourn alone. It gives me the shivers to know that these youths will be released in no time to rejoin their gang. I am told that the cost for medical, funeral, legal and penal services will exceed well over one million dollars. That is a high price [to pay] for one night of horrific events caused by a group of teens. Why are we, the murdered child's parents, are not allowed at the pre-trial? Why is it that victims who have been put into great financial difficulties over these crimes do not receive immediate help? The wait for Compensation for Victims of Crime is...two years.

The Young Offenders Act in my opinion is far too lenient. Youths are not afraid today of going to jail. From what I have seen, they love the limelight and notoriety. The deluxe jails they are sent to surely are not frightening. Youths often take responsibility for crimes committed by their adult partners in crime. They know full well that they may commit up to six or seven offences before they are sent to jail, and so adult gang leaders use them. At one time, society closed its eyes to youth offences. Youths then were usually charged with petty theft, joy riding, drinking under age, etc. However times have changed drastically. Youths are now committing extreme acts of violence, including murder. Baseball bats, knives and guns are now their favourite working tools. Pimping, pushing, and prostitution are the trend. They have discovered that working in gangs is more profitable as it allows them to control, own, intimidate and lead younger teens. It gives them power in our society. These are very dangerous people who have no respect for the law. They terrorize the public and very often kill for the thrill of it.

We must regain control of our communities and towns. If we don't, I predict that in five years we adults will not be courageous enough to walk the streets at night. We must send a strong message to these youths. That society is sick to its stomach with young offenders and that it will no longer put up with violence. Drastic changes are needed to give us, the victims, rights also.

.1015

Sylvain is gone, nothing can bring him back. We cannot let his death go by as just another statistic. Rather, let his death be incentive enough to make the changes we so desperately need to the Young Offenders Act. The money we now waste on legal and penal costs would go a long way in creating youth centres.

Hopefully when Sylvain presented his soul to God, he was able to say [that he suffered this] to protect the Earth's future children.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. McNamara: After listening to this, I'd just like to point out that when the committee hears about young offenders and when they're dealing with young offenders, a lot of the time they think of sweet young 16- and 17-year-olds and crimes.

With the alleged killers in Sylvain's case, we're not talking kids; we're talking 17-year-old drug-dealing, pimping punks who have committed a most heinous crime upon a girl. They beat Sylvain. The other young boy didn't live. I hope you keep that in mind too when you think about who young offenders are and what pain and suffering they cause Canadians across our country.

The Chair: Thank you all for a very articulate presentation. We will now go to questions from members of the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I find your testimony very touching. You told us about the pain you suffered because of the loss of a loved one and because of the inhumanity of the system.

It is obviously difficult to find a solution that would prevent such horrible incidents in the future. That's why you stressed prevention and deterrence in your brief.

You also stated, quite rightly, that people like you who have to deal with such a horrible situation should, in the interest of respect and human dignity, be able to get some support from government agencies to help them cope.

In your presentation, Mr. McNamara, you say that you think the YOA is a reactive tool.

Even the best alternative measures programs cannot have an impact on the life of young offenders once they have broken the law. It is too late for the offender and it is too late for the victim.

You also say that a number of the solutions you are after could come from outside the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and that relying solely on the committee for solutions may be an indication that we are taking the wrong approach to the problem.

.1020

I'm wondering what the right approach would be.

[English]

Mr. Sullivan: Actually, I think you're referring to my presentation. In the presentation we did say that the fact that we're relying on the justice committee may be an indication that we are going about this the wrong way. We talk about early intervention, because the best protection we can have as a society is for these kids not to commit crimes in the first place, and once they do to change their behaviour.

If we're going to talk about early intervention, we need to talk about when these kids are very young. The education system comes to mind, as well as social skills for their parents and those kinds of things. To be frank, I don't have the expertise to talk to you about it specifically, but I think it's safe to say that those are the kinds of measures that are really going to answer a lot of these questions in the long run.

The justice committee traditionally deals with legislation like the YOA. The fact is that any kind of legislation like that is reactive; it can only come into play once the crime has been committed. The other measures occur long before that, and that's why I say that relying on this committee to answer those kinds of problems may not be the best way to go about it.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Are you suggesting that this committee harmonize its work with that of other agencies involving crime prevention? Do you have any concrete suggestions as to how to go about achieving this harmonization?

[English]

Mr. Sullivan: I would assume that you're going to hear from other witnesses who perhaps can provide the kind of concrete suggestions you want.

I'm only familiar with a few parliamentary committees. If there are committees that deal with educational concerns, for example, you may want to hear from them or collaborate with those kinds of committees. A lot of this will be provincial. Other committees probably have a little more expertise in social skills for parents, social services, and educational services. That's not to say that this committee isn't equipped to handle these things, but committees that hear from witnesses like that on a regular basis may have the background and traditionally the expertise to deal with it a little bit better.

Mr. McNamara: I think there's one thing this committee can do in dealing with the Young Offenders Act, and that has to do with the minimum age. If the social service agencies in this country are not going to look after these young people, somebody has to step in, perhaps by abolishing the minimum age. Some people may not agree with this. When I start talking about that I'm not talking about throwing kids in jail or locking kids up, but having a system where if...

For example, in my brief I talk about a 9-year-old boy and an 11-year-old boy in Regina who kidnapped an 8-year-old boy and another young victim. They brought them up to a flat roof above an office building where the 8-year-old had been, tied them up with a bicycle chain to an air conditioning pipe, and left them there for two hours. Then when they came back, they beat those two young boys, made them ride naked on bicycles, and made them perform sexual acts on each other, including oral sex.

The 9-year-old and the 11-year-old were caught by the police and all the police could do was bring them home. Something is wrong there. They might be forwarded on to social agencies, but I think there can be a point where the police can step in and actually do something besides just bringing them home.

[Translation]

Mr. Desroches: You are quite right to say that the situation is very complex. But don't you see that the Young Offenders Act is making things worse? Young people know about the Act, whether they are 18, 16 or 17 years old. In the case of horrible crimes such as murders, what difference can it make whether young people are about to turn 18 or 17? The value of human rights does not change overnight, and the Young Offenders Act simply makes the situation worse.

.1025

You are wondering what you can do to help. Yes, you should harmonize your work with that of other committees, or you should do your job as well. Your job is to amend the Act to make it fair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses who have appeared today to give their testimony. I'm grateful that you're here.

I don't know if there can be any more stark testimony to this committee than what has been given here. We sit here every day...and I look at the pictures on the walls, pictures that represent the leaders of some of the governments that have run the country for the last 25 years or more. I recall Pierre Goyer's statement - it was quoted in an article in the Reader's Digest some time ago - from when he was the Solicitor General back in 1971. He indicated that there was going to be a shift of emphasis in the whole penal system towards the rehabilitation of the offender rather than a focus on the protection of society.

I, and members of my caucus and members of the party that I represent, have felt for some time that we don't need further testimony to deal with the Young Offenders Act. I think the jury is in. I think we know what has to be done. It's whether or not we have the will to do it, whether the government of the day has the will to do it.

I believe the traditional role of the justice system has been so altered over the last 25 years as to have destroyed its purpose and its role. The justice system cannot be expected to deal with dysfunctional families. Other programs of government that have the resources must address those issues. What I question is why those four individuals who came into a private home and beat a young boy to death after kidnapping him were on the street in the first place if they were engaged in illegal activities such as pimping and prostitution and drug trafficking. I know why, and all you have to do is talk to any police officer on the street and you'll know why. It's because their hands are tied, because the rights of those individuals have been emphasized over and over again to the point where we have difficulty dealing with them because they come under the shield of the YOA.

I would like to ask this question, which I ask to many of the witnesses who appear before our committee but to which I seldom get an answer, and it is simply this. What do all of you feel is a fair and just penalty for someone who wilfully murders an innocent person? What do you feel is a fair and just penalty for such an act?

Mr. McNamara: In my case, my brother was murdered. He was 30 at the time.

I don't think you can pin it on one number. I don't think you can take, say, 15, 25 or 30 years, or capital punishment. What the government has selected, for example, is 25 years to life for adults killing, but the reality is that they get out at 15 years. So from a victim's point of view when we talk about sentencing, I think we would just like to see the truth said. When you say you get 10 years in jail, you get 10 years in jail. If a young offender is going to do five years, it's five years. It's not two years in open custody, a year in a halfway house and two in closed custody. It's five years. And I think that seems to be the problem from our perspective: just tell us the truth.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you think, then, that five years is a sufficient penalty for a young offender who has wilfully taken the life of an innocent person?

Mr. McNamara: I think the option should be open to the sentencing judge, the person who hears all the testimony.

.1030

For example, in the testimony I've heard so far with the alleged murderers of Sylvain, 25 years isn't enough. Fifty years wouldn't be enough for some of them. But in other cases, with the sentencing judge who hears all the testimony, maybe five years would be enough.

Mr. Ramsay: As legislators, we pass laws that tell the courts what to do under certain circumstances. I would like some direction from the witnesses we'll be hearing, including yourselves, and some direction from the public, not just from the special interest groups, many of whom come from components of an expanding criminal justice industry. I'd like to hear from people like yourselves as to what direction you think we should be giving the courts when it comes to the courts making the decision as to the extent of imprisonment or the penalty for someone who has deliberately and in a premeditated manner taken an innocent life. That's what I would like.

I don't want to lay that on you as a responsibility, but if you care to offer anything to this committee and put it on the record, I would appreciate it.

Ms McCuaig: In our case, there were three adults involved. There were 11 people there. We're not quite sure yet who did what to whom. We know that the three adults beat Sylvain terribly, horribly. We do not know today how many times the other youths hit Sylvain also. But from where I am sitting, the young ones delivered him to the killers on a silver platter. They put garbage bags in a storage room to put the bodies in there after. It was their intention to kill all four of them and leave them there in this storage room in garbage bags.

Now that is cold, premeditated murder. I don't care how you read it. The adults, fine, they can get up to 25 years, hopefully, if 745 doesn't get them off. Anyway, we are hoping the adults will serve the 25 years.

If I were a judge, for anyone who was included in the kidnapping, assaulting and torturing of my niece with a curling iron, I would give them 7 to 10 years in jail.

A strong message has to be... What you people don't seem to understand is that in Ottawa right now there are about five groups of - I'm sorry - black youths who are seducing children to join them by showering them with gifts and so on, parties and free drugs.

Once they are in, they are made to be slaves. They are branded with lighters. They wear the mark. Nobody's to touch them. They belong to these people. They're being used as prostitutes and to sell crack. If they do not meet their quotas, they're beaten. You will hear of it soon in the paper.

This is happening. This is really dangerous. They're using the little ones to do this because, hey, nothing's going to happen to them when they get to court. They can commit up to 8, 9 or 10 offences, because they're only going to get probation. ``We'll see you tomorrow morning, because they're going to let you out tomorrow and you can continue your work.''

They operate out of their parents' homes because they're too young to rent a room. They're going to live with Mom and Dad and do what they say. The kids are scared.

I've met with children in schools. They came to the law. They're telling me they're scared now. They want their law changed because they are scared to be taken into these gangs and made to do things. If they talk, they'll beat them to death.

So it has to change. This magic age of 18 is what they're going around saying. You can do anything you want until you're 18.

It has to be changed to 16. At least, let's protect society for two years. If a young offender knows that when he's 16 he will go to the big jail, he will think twice about joining gangs and so on. They're just abusing it now. They are. And adults are using kids for that.

I have offered you some suggestions in writing for how maybe we could change society and what is needed. I'm not going to go through them right now, but if you have a chance maybe you could read them.

.1035

Mr. Desroches: I'll be very brief. The question is very good. What is that magical number for murder? Let's disentangle the small, petty stuff from serious and violent crimes, such as murder and rape. I'm going to ask you the question, reverse the role.

You are the father of a daughter who was viciously murdered. What do you think should be a sentence? I'll say to you, no year, nothing can replace her, sir, but let's be realistic. We have defined in our system, in the adult court system, as Rob said, 25 years. It's murder. I sound like a broken record, but murder is murder. Why differentiate the sentencing because it was committed by a person 18 years old less a day?

I would like to add that at the time of sentencing, if the person, the murderer, does not get treatment, he stays in the system for as long as he's not fit to come out and be productive in society.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Mr. McNamara: I'd like to add to that. I tried to figure out where this magic number 18 came from. I was looking back through some of the old committee minutes. It was during the Juvenile Delinquents Act that the number varied province to province. For example, in Ontario the majority had the age of 16. Quebec and Manitoba had theirs at 18 and British Columbia at 17.

The committee decided they'd put it at 18 so it would be fair across the country. With the Charter of Rights, everybody would be equal. It would be the higher number. They put in another one of these safety valves this committee is famous for. If there was a serious crime, you could be transferred to adult court.

We had a case in Barry's Bay with the death of Ann Marie Bloskie. A young man, six weeks shy of his 18th birthday, stalked this 16-year-old girl, crushed her head with two dozen blows from a rock, raped her corpse, buried her in a shallow grave, came back, raped the corpse again, and he didn't qualify to go to adult court. I don't know how much more serious you have to get. This sicko - this was before C-37 - spent three years in closed custody. He's out on the streets now and we don't know who he is.

There's something wrong here. They talk about rehabilitation, but I read some of the testimony from the professionals. I believe it's the penal institute in Quebec. It would take years upon years to help rehabilitate this guy, but our justice system throws him in for three years, bang, you're out, you're rehabilitated. I don't think that's right. What I believe should happen, and what Victims of Violence believes should happen, is we should lower the age to 16.

The adult system nowadays has all the mechanisms to deal with all types of crimes. You can get sentences from alternative measures up to 25 years in prison. But the key we've noted is maybe to extend the 18 to 21 so people from the age of 16 to 21 would be housed in their own institutions. They would not be put in with the adult population, but they would be subject to adult sanctions in our Criminal Code.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Ramsay, that's the end of your time; not forever.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to our witnesses. I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. McNamara since he's appeared before the committee before.

Mr. McNamara: Mr. Ramsay's friend.

Mr. Gallaway: I appreciate that as someone sitting on this side of the table we can't say we understand your situation. It's quite clear we can't begin to comprehend what you have been through or what you're going through at this time and the types of scars that are with you. It was very moving testimony this morning and I know we cannot begin to understand your situation totally. We can hear it. We can at one level understand it, but we can't experience it - and we don't want to.

.1040

I want to try to move this away from perhaps the anecdotal to your recommendations, because I think they have some merit, but I would like to look for some clarification.

Recommendation number one regards publication of names of young offenders. You make the recommendation that their names be published if they've been convicted of an offence involving violence. An offence involving violence concerning a young offender can be anything from a school yard scrap to the most horrific of crimes.

Mr. McNamara: Sure.

Mr. Gallaway: I want to know if your recommendation is across the board or if you would in fact limit it to certain specified types of criminal behaviour.

Mr. McNamara: I purposely left it broad just so I wouldn't cut out anything in the violence category.

If two kids get into a fight in the school yard and one has a bleeding nose, that is violence, but the news cameras aren't going to be there the next day filming little Johnny, who gave somebody a bleeding nose. I left it open so I wouldn't be counting anybody out in the violence category.

The second part is on the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act. Parents in this country should have the right to know who the drug pushers are and who their kids are associating with. If the kid three doors down from you has been arrested 14 times for pushing crack, you should have the right to know that.

Mr. Gallaway: So you would leave the door open on any crime involving violence.

Mr. McNamara: Yes.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay.

Ms McCuaig: May I say something?

Mr. Gallaway: Yes, certainly.

Ms McCuaig: When people were charged with murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, etc., their names did not appear in the paper. I'm speaking now of when they were charged.

They were not all charged. They were loose on the streets to come and make threats to our family, serious threats. We did not know who to look for. We didn't know who they were or what colour they were.

I have a large family. Everybody lives behind locked doors now. They're scared to go to the mall. They're scared to go out because they don't know who these people are. They could be living next door to me.

If a young offender is charged, let's say, with manslaughter or murder, put his name in the paper so the neighbour knows. Geez. If he's found guilty in court, well, fine, he was found guilty, and if he wasn't, he wasn't found guilty, but he's been charged. I think a few parents would wake up, too, and say ``Holy geez! My son is doing this?''

Mr. Gallaway: You have been threatened, then. Have the police intervened? Do the police help you?

Ms McCuaig: If I commit a crime tomorrow, they're going to write in the paper ``Theresa McCuaig has been charged with attempted murder'', so the whole world knows. I should be ashamed of myself, hopefully. It will certainly tell my neighbours to protect themselves, because this girl could commit murder.

Just make the public aware. Protect them. We don't know right now who's coming at us.

Mr. McNamara: The gang that is allegedly involved in the murder of Sylvain Leduc is called the Ace Crew. They're a bunch of young offenders. I would like to know who the members of that gang are. Our community should have the right to know. If I had a 15-year-old son, for example, I would not want him associating with any member of the Ace Crew.

Ms McCuaig: That's right.

Mr. McNamara: But I don't know who they are. He has friends. How am I too tell? I need the information.

By denying the public information, you're putting the public at risk. The safety of the public should be number one. One of the primary goals of anything to do with the justice system is protection of the public. By failing to publicize names, you're doing a great disservice to Canadians. You're putting Canadians at risk. Theresa is at risk, and that shouldn't be happening.

Ms McCuaig: One of the youths is charged at the moment. Three months prior to this happening he was charged with hitting a man on the head with a gun and stealing his wallet, $40, his watch and a pack of cigarettes, on Nelson Street in broad daylight. He ran, and just then a police officer arrived on the scene and arrested him right there.

.1045

If that had been put into the paper, maybe my little nieces who are involved with this gang would have said, oh, gee, they're starting to put our names in the papers now.

Mr. Gallaway: I want to talk about recommendation three, which deals with the minimum age as it applies now. You've recommended that the floor of 12 be removed and that there be no specified age. That would then mean, in certain cases of what you call ``violent crime'', or chronic recidivism, that charges could be laid. Do you know if there is any real evidence that would support that, or is this simply...?

Mr. McNamara: I believe if you look at the submission by the Edmonton police, you'll find testimony from them dealing with recidivism in terms of 10- and 11-year-olds. I know, from anecdotal evidence - talking to police officers - there's this 11-year-old kid in Toronto who has stolen and smashed up I don't know how many cars. The police get him and bring him home. Something has to be done. This kid is going to kill somebody. But the Young Offenders Act says you have to take him home to mommy and daddy.

Mr. Gallaway: Mr. McNamara, in terms of the case you're referring to in Toronto, of the chronic auto thief, among other things, he started out at about eight or nine. He obviously knows how to hot-wire cars and get them moving. When does this become a justice matter, and where do we make the difference between a person who comes from a home that's hopelessly non-supportive...and when does it become a criminal matter? Where is the line to be drawn?

Mr. McNamara: I think we should have faith in our social agencies in this country. I know they're doing a good job. But there comes a point when stealing a car, to me, is a crime, and comes under the Criminal Code. This kid is stealing cars. If nobody is going to do anything about it, it falls back to our justice system. As representatives of the justice system, you have to stop him. If no one else is going to stop him, the laws of the country have to be obeyed. Something has to be done.

Mr. Gallaway: What would you do with a 9-year-old who has a chronic penchant to steal cars? What's an appropriate sentence for that person?

Mr. McNamara: I don't think we're looking at sentencing such as closed custody or anything, but I think something has to be done. I'm not the expert on that, but maybe the judge who hears what's going on...and if there are recommendations from the experts in this category. Maybe this kid would have to go to a class for an hour a day to learn about what he's doing wrong. I don't know that part of it. I just know that somebody has to do something. This can't continue. He's breaking the law. I believe the last people who can deal with him are those in the justice system.

Mr. Gallaway: I'll move on to your fourth recommendation regarding the keeping of records, namely, that a young offender would have a criminal record, I presume for life.

Mr. McNamara: Yes.

Mr. Gallaway: What would you do with the 9-year-old who steals a car and comes from an absolutely rotten background, an absolutely rotten family? Let's assume he's removed and put into a foster home and his life is turned around. Would you saddle that child with a criminal record for the rest of his life?

Mr. McNamara: I don't know if I'd use the word ``saddle'', but I think from a lot of the testimony you've heard before this committee in the past, you've learned that they start off at a young age and the crimes start to escalate, and escalate, and escalate, until when they're in their thirties and forties they're into big-time crime. I think to throw away part of that record, to dismiss it, is wrong, because the tracking of people is very important. But I'm not talking... Police keep the records; social agencies would have them.

I don't want it to be like a big black mark against him, but I think we should keep the records.

.1050

Mr. Desroches: If you were a 12-year-old and you knew you would have that record for the rest of your life, would it not perhaps go just that little inch toward convincing you to smarten up and not do it? Right now there's nothing.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Gallaway.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye, five minutes.

Mr. de Savoye: In your 5th recommendation, Mr. McNamara, you say that the parents of young offenders should be held economically responsible for any and all compensation and restitution to the victim whenever feasible.

What would happen if the parents of the young offender are too poor to pay? Shouldn't governments assume responsibility for paying the compensation, so that we avoid creating two categories of victims, those where the parents of the young offender are rich, and those where the parents are poor?

[English]

Mr. McNamara: It's again whether the parents have money or not, of course. But if my son breaks a window, I believe I should pay the owner of that house whose window was broken if I can afford it. I should buy him a new window. My son broke it. I don't believe I should totally ignore my responsibilities as a parent and make his insurance company pay for the window my son broke so that all of our insurance rates go up because of my son. I have to accept some of the responsibility for my son, too.

I point out here that of 13,000 violent offences, there are in our country only eight compensation dispositions. For property offences - for windows, for stealing, and for breaking and entering - there were 41,000 dispositions and only 217 were made to pay compensation.

In Theresa's case and in Sylvain's case, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in Ontario will get around in two years to maybe giving her $3,500. I know of a case - and I've told the committee before - in Peterborough of Robert Land, whose young boy was shot to death with a shotgun, was blown apart. He buried his son thinking that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board would pay for the death of his son. It cost $6,000. He got $3,500 and is being sued by the funeral home to recover the costs that are missing.

I think the parents of the killer, if they have the money, should help to bury Sylvain. Why should I? Why should all these other taxpayers be paying for the acts of criminals when the criminals themselves can afford it?

For example, I was talking to Theresa earlier today. There were 14 lawyers in the courtroom yesterday. Who's paying for this? We're paying for this. If the parents can afford it, they should be paying for their own lawyer.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Would you go so far as to recommend that the government provide more reasonable compensation for victims and then recover these amounts from parents who can afford to pay?

[English]

Mr. McNamara: Well, I tell you, it sounds good, but we fell into this trap in Ontario. They add on a victim fine surcharge. The fine is put on by the courts in Ontario. That money went down into the black hole of general revenue in the province of Ontario. Victims didn't see a cent.

.1055

In a lot of cases, victims don't want money. What I would like to be able to see is that a victim - Theresa or any family member of a murder victim - has the opportunity to get free psychological help, perhaps. That might be a start, instead of them having to pay $350 an hour to help. I think of poor Debbie Mahaffy. It's another case, but the troubles and the pain that she's getting through and the expenses that came out of her pocket...

Sorry. I get mad sometimes at how unfair it is. I don't want to take a lot of what young offenders have away from them, but I think the system could be a little bit more balanced to help the victims.

This reminds me of something. Victor was talking about recreational facilities. There is one thing that has always stuck in my craw about recreational facilities. I see nothing wrong with basketball or a lot of the games that they're playing, but the one I don't understand is weightlifting. You're just building up a bigger, badder punk in a lot of cases. Let them take jazzercise.

The Chair: Ms Bethel, five minutes.

Ms Bethel (Edmonton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't imagine this will take that long.

Mr. Sullivan, you have suggested that one of the most frustrating parts is what a police officer needs to cover with the accused, and that there should be changes to section 56. What should that include, in your view?

Mr. Sullivan: In discussions with police officers, they often have expressed the fact that it is very difficult to get an admissible statement from a youth. Our contention is, simply, that we should repeal section 56 and provide young people with the same rights we give adults as far as the taking of statements would go, with perhaps the addition that a parent or a guardian could be present if necessary.

It's a long sheet that the officers have to go through. You may have seen it.

Ms Bethel: Yes, I've heard about this.

Mr. Sullivan: I think it's really unnecessary. The protections that we provide to adults are more than enough for youths as well.

Ms Bethel: If we added a parent to the -

Mr. Sullivan: That's in the legislation already, and I don't see a problem with keeping that.

Ms Bethel: You talk about your support for lowering the ages for young people and about it being conditional. I kind of understand where you're coming from. The most serious issue, of course, is the poor home environment. What alternatives can you offer? Also, what kind of support do you have from the provinces, since it is child welfare? Coming from Alberta, where they are privatizing child welfare, it seems to me that it would be quite a patchwork.

Mr. Sullivan: I don't have any specific expertise in child welfare, but my understanding is that it's very difficult for a social worker to go in and take a child from a home if it is unfortunately necessary. I think in a lot of these cases it may be the best thing for the child, at least temporarily, but it's very difficult because of the legislated requirements that are part of the process.

When I say conditional...if we're going to leave it the way it is - and this is a provincial responsibility, obviously - and if the provinces aren't going to strengthen child welfare legislation, then the status quo isn't acceptable, because we do have 11- and 10-year-olds committing crimes. Very often they're doing it for older people, since the older youths know they're not going to be punished because they can't be touched by the YOA. If we're just going to leave it the way it is and if the provinces aren't going to do anything, perhaps the YOA in some measure - again, without throwing the youths in jail - may be the best thing we have to offer. Preferable, of course, is a strengthening of the child welfare legislation to give it some teeth.

Ms Bethel: I guess my question really relates to what work you have done with the provinces in order to get this point across, because it can't be dealt with just by the YOA.

Mr. Sullivan: What work specifically? When we hear of cases, we write letters and that kind of thing. As far as meeting with provincial governmental committees on this is concerned, we haven't had the opportunity to do that as of yet.

Mr. McNamara: We're a charity. We're out here to help people like Theresa and Victor and Carole. We're not about running around talking to government agencies - except for this one.

.1100

Ms Bethel: The last question I had was about some clarification on recommendation four. I'm new to the committee and I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say that all provisions of the Young Offenders Act regarding young offenders' records should be amended to reflect that of adults in terms of restitution and compensation.

Mr. McNamara: On restitution and compensation?

Ms Bethel: You say in recommendation four that you'd like to see all provisions amended to reflect those for adults.

Mr. McNamara: What I'm doing there is basically saying that if you commit a crime and you have a record, we don't throw it away; we keep it.

If you talk to the Canadian Police Association and the Ottawa police and the local police and even the corrections people, a good sense of whether a person is going to reoffend is his past criminal record. If he has a long history of committing the same offences, you're pretty well guaranteed that he is going to commit the offence again.

No matter what the crystal-ball gazers in the prisons say, the best thing to check for recidivism is a past record. If you wipe out everything that a young person has done before age 18, when they become an adult and you don't count that in, you're not getting a full picture of who that individual is.

Ms Bethel: Do you mean for all young offenders or just the more serious ones?

Mr. McNamara: All of them. I don't see what the big problem with having a record is. A record is a blemish on your character, but I'm sorry, you committed that crime. You are accountable. If you don't want a record, don't do the crime.

Ms Bethel: Thank you.

The Chair: We have another subcommittee meeting coming in here.

Mr. Ramsay, I'm going to owe you five minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: You're going to owe it to them.

The Chair: Yes. We have another meeting coming in here now, so we have to rise.

Just before we do, a very clear problem you've pointed out is that the YOA is one statute that deals with part of the problems you address, but the government also has a new task force on youth, which can be contacted through the office of Mr. Bevilacqua. I don't want to tie his hands. I don't know what the parameters are of what that task force is doing, but there may be an opportunity for you to have some input there, and it might be helpful.

Mr. McNamara: Madam Chair, I have a question for you. We've been here today and you've gathered evidence from other groups, but you've already done legislation on young offenders. Is there going to be new legislation on young offenders or are we here wasting our time?

The Chair: It's not my view that you're here wasting your time. I think the undertaking by the minister was that there would be a review and that there would be a report to the government from which they would consider new legislation.

Mr. McNamara: So we can be expecting new legislation?

The Chair: I don't know. You certainly can be expecting a report from this committee, which I would anticipate would result in some action from the government, obviously depending on what the recommendations are.

Mr. McNamara: Thank you.

The Chair: I want to thank all of you for your attendance today and for your excellent presentations.

This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page