[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, June 3, 1996
.0805 
[English]
[Technical Difficulty - Editor]
...or that an otherwise bright, articulate kid from a supportive home is caught vandalizing property. The answer may be learning disabilities.
In a 1994 report of the Summit on Learning Disabilities, a number of disturbing findings came forth. For instance, 50% of students in special education programs have learning disabilities, and 35% of students with learning disabilities drop out of school - twice the rate of their non-learning-disabled peers. Also, 50% of juvenile delinquents tested were found to have undetected learning disabilities.
Further, Barbara Macrae noted in a 1984 article published in the John Howard Society of Ontario's newsletter that:
- While a direct causal link between learning disabilities and crime is still speculative, an
accepted relationship between academic failure, juvenile delinquency and adult criminality
does exist.
- Thousands of children with learning disabilities and learning problems continue to work their
way undetected through our school system each year. Many, of course, do not make it and
become part of that growing statistic of those who have failed in the school situation. They drop
out because they are embarrassed and frustrated by their inability to keep up, or they are
removed because of the behaviour deviations which usually accompany the learning disability
or problem. Many of these children eventually find their way into the juvenile justice system.
This does not mean that every youngster with a learning disability or learning problem who
doesn't get treatment will become a delinquent. Nevertheless, case histories and the literature
make it clear that failure to recognize significant learning disabilities and problems can set in
motion a devastating series of events which can cause the child to be referred to the juvenile
justice system.
LDA Ontario has always maintained that early identification of learning disabilities, coupled with appropriate intervention, is paramount to answering the question of where we go from here. As well, the institution of a program of regular in-service training for all appropriate personnel is important to ensure that young offenders with learning disabilities do not go undetected and/or untreated. Further, the establishment of alternatives to custody programs across the country is particularly significant for young and/or first-time offenders. It is expected that the benefits of this program will be evident to this committee, as it is noted that a visit has been scheduled to an alternative-to-custody program in Galt, Ontario.
.0810
In summary, LDA Ontario supports a coordinated effort involving schools, the juvenile justice system, community organizations and parents to support a program of identification, intervention and education. The investment of time and money now will go a long way towards a brighter tomorrow for all of us.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
We'll start with ten-minute rounds. Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you very much for your presentation this morning and for being here.
From the viewpoint of the group you represent, what is a learning disability?
Ms Sharon Bell-Wilson (Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario): The actual technical definition of a learning disability is a neurological dysfunction affecting the central nervous system that impacts on one's ability in a host of activities, whether it be in reading, in coordination, in mathematical ability... The list could go on. That's the technical definition.
Mr. Ramsay: I see.
Out in Alberta, where I am from, there have been instances where, at the entrance level of university, many of the grade twelve graduates have been declared by people within the university to be illiterate. They have to be retaught some of the basic fundamentals that ought to have been garnered in their high school education.
Would that fit into the category of learning disabilities that you're talking about? Of course this always comes as a questioning of the educational system at the pre-university level. To what extent would the learning disability you've referred to in your brief this morning touch upon that particular area?
Are we seeing children being graduated from grade twelve when they can't properly read and write, dissect and take apart a sentence, write a paragraph well and so on? Is that the result of the educational system itself or is that a make-up or perhaps a combination the educational system as well as learning disabilities of those involved?
Ms Bell-Wilson: It's probably a combination of a number of factors. Usually with a learning disability, if it is dealt with in the most effective manner, its characteristics should be identifiable in a child probably during the first two or three years in school, so in fact in grade one or grade two, at six to seven years of age.
You will find that many times learning disabilities might be dismissed as a behavioural issue: ``This child is simply acting out. This child is not motivated. This child will grow out of it.'' Again, it's a question of whether or not the teacher is observant enough of some of the characteristics.
If they are seeing a number of characteristics of learning disabilities in an individual, that student should be assessed by a registered psychologist who is familiar with learning disabilities to determine whether it is a learning disability.
It can start very early. One of the more unfortunate things that has happened is that many students, as I mentioned in my report, have gone through the school system undetected for years, and they become increasingly frustrated because they don't know what's wrong and no one else seems to know what's wrong, and then they just say forget it.
.0815
Mr. Ramsay: Do you know what percentage of young offenders fall into the category of illiteracy for one of the two reasons you've mentioned? In other words, they've fallen out of...or that they're simply illiterate, perhaps because of a learning disability or because of the educational system failing them.
Ms Bell-Wilson: As I said before in my report, what we know about identified cases of young offenders with learning disabilities is 35%. That seems to have been a fairly consistent percentage.
The range, depending on some of the various studies out, is that 60% to 80% of young offenders have learning problems, whether an actual learning disability a literacy issue, an attention deficit disorder, or some other form of special need. That's a very high percentage either way, whether it's 35%, whether it's 60%, whether it's 80%.
Mr. Ramsay: Inasmuch as the educational system is the first system outside the home that has jurisdiction, if I could put it that way, over the child, and early detection is determined at that level within the educational system, from what you have said this morning it seems to me that is where an awful lot of attention should be paid, because these signs become evident in that area. If it is an educational problem rather than a criminal justice problem, then the resources should be directed in the area before they reach the point where they're committing crimes and endangering the property and lives of others. Would you agree with that?
Ms Bell-Wilson: What you have suggested certainly does seem to be the pattern. If it is not detected and no program has been developed for the student or the young child, with no particular guidance and no awareness, again, that they do have an actual problem, they become very vulnerable to acts of violence, acts of criminal behaviour, so you end up with them in the juvenile justice system at a later point. But to suggest that is a responsibility in the education area... I would certainly not disagree with you, and certainly our association has been active on both fronts, not only on the justice side but on the education side.
Mr. Ramsay: What percentage of children going through primary education run into difficulties? Do you have that figure?
Ms Bell-Wilson: We have some statistics for Ontario, obviously, that probably put it somewhere around 50,000 to 80,000 identified. That figure may well be just in Toronto.
Again, we're back to the issue of how learning disabilities are detected. What particularly is happening in Ontario, for example, where you no longer are having as many classes set aside for students with special needs as there used to be, is you're going to have a situation where you have a classroom of thirty students. If we follow our 10% figure of at least 10% of persons having learning disabilities, there are students in that class of thirty who have learning disabilities, and they may be different learning disabilities. In the midst of everything else going on in that classroom it's putting a lot on the teacher to be able to identify that these three students may have learning disabilities, these three students may have something else, and these five may have something else.
.0820
Mr. Ramsay: What's the answer, from your point of view, if three students out of thirty are identified as having learning disabilities? What should be done within the educational system to address that?
Ms Bell-Wilson: If you noticed, at the end of my presentation I talked about identification, intervention and education. The education has to be twofold: we're not just talking about education in terms of a program of education for the student with learning disabilities; we're also talking about a program of education for those who have responsibility for teaching all students, whether they have learning disabilities or not, to be able to identify and recognize learning disabilities. The same type of in-house service we are suggesting for all juvenile justice personnel would also be appropriate for all education personnel. It would have to be mandatory.
The Chair: Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): Thank you very much for your presentation.
I wanted to clarify a few things. We're not talking about a situation where someone isn't good at something - he or she didn't learn math skills very well, or wasn't paying attention; we're talking about children and adults whose numbers or letters are actually transposed, so this would appear to be 91 to some people rather than 19. Is that correct?
Ms Bell-Wilson: That's one of them, and another one obviously would relate to sequencing. We think of such things as birth dates, or left and right. That's actually a very common learning disability, particularly in adults, where they have great difficulty distinguishing. It's a whole sequencing problem that involves remembering any type of series, or being able to understand any type of series of things.
Ms Torsney: I didn't mean to laugh, but in our family we have a joke - right, no the other right - because many of us in our family seem to have difficulty with left and right. People can be quite intelligent, well read and literate but still have perhaps numeracy problems. They may have taught themselves the trick of how to transpose numbers back in the other direction. Is that correct?
Ms Bell-Wilson: We recently completed a video that focuses on adults with learning disabilities in the workplace. In that video, we also identify some of the more famous persons with learning disabilities. You hear such names as Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill, Leonardo da Vinci, and the list goes on. All of them would certainly fall into the category of highly intelligent people, yet they did have learning disabilities.
Ms Torsney: So we obviously need to teach those children who have learning disabilities tricks to figure out how to resequence things or how to recognize what the problem is. It's a tool to turn things around for them.
Ms Bell-Wilson: One of the things we talk about, particularly with adults - and it's also very true with children - is a wonderful word called ``accommodation''. You recognize that a child has a learning disability and accommodate, depending on what the learning disability is. For example, if reading is a problem, you may need to have someone read for them, or use taped material. If it's a visual or perceptional situation, you may have the child sit closer to the board and repeat the instructions, or what has been said, to ensure that there is a level of comprehension.
It's not a question that persons with learning disabilities cannot learn. It's simply that they learn differently.
Ms Torsney: Of course there's the famous case right now in the United States of someone who is severely dyslexic who's at the top of his class at Yale law school. His mother reads the lessons to him. He got his place at Yale law school because it accommodated his testing methods so he can read his answers in, and things like that. He is a brilliant scholar but cannot read a sentence.
.0825
Ms Bell-Wilson: It's interesting that you use that example. In our video, which I just mentioned, one of our adults is indeed a lawyer. He did indeed have his mother go through his lessons with him and is certainly one you would consider to be highly intelligent. He's a lawyer. I'm not. There is no problem there.
Ms Torsney: On page 2 of your presentation to us, ``Where to Go From Here'', it seems as if a lot of the things that you have identified are training issues. You've identified that there's a lack of record-taking, that there's obviously a problem where people aren't recording things they need to, or that there is a loss of paper trail. There's poor special educational support within school and the juvenile justice system. There is split jurisdiction in Ontario and lack of consistent knowledge of appropriate strategies for dealing with young offenders. So those people are not trained. I think that's what you mean.
Ms Bell-Wilson: Yes.
Ms Torsney: So whose responsibility is this?
Ms Bell-Wilson: I think it's not a question of singling out to say the responsibility is here or there. It is the responsibility collectively. So wherever the situation occurs, the responsibility, particularly on the education side...
I don't care if it's the teacher or the parole officer. They both need to have an education. They both need to have an understanding and therefore be in a better position to work with the young offender, if this is the progression that they have made, to ensure that they won't turn into an adult offender.
Ms Torsney: But wouldn't you be advocating that the biggest kind of support, to prevent more kids from entering into the young offenders system, must be in the schools?
Ms Bell-Wilson: Certainly the schools have a responsibility, but, as I indicated in some of the statistics I gave, we have a large percentage of students who drop out. So to say that it's all of the school...well, what happens to the child who leaves the school?
Ms Torsney: Why do they drop out? Because they have a learning disability.
Are teachers in masters' and bachelors' programs in education not learning about learning disabilities?
Ms Bell-Wilson: Obviously again I can speak only for Ontario, but I don't get the impression that is mandatory.
Ms Torsney: Oh. Is it something that's covered in most professional development days that teachers are taking across the country?
Ms Bell-Wilson: I do not get that impression either.
Ms Torsney: And you're telling me that our correctional facility workers certainly are not trained either?
Ms Bell-Wilson: No.
Our association, at both the national and the provincial levels, has done training, but again this was several years ago. As in any place else, there has been turnover. So whoever might have heard something five years ago may not be a part of the system now. So you have someone else in who hasn't a clue. This has to be something that is a built-in program, so it always happens, not just once every five or ten years.
Ms Torsney: Maybe that's something for our committee to look at as well, in terms of what's happening at Queen's and U of T and all the different teacher training facilities, to find out why that's not a mandatory subject.
The Chair: The University of Windsor.
Ms Torsney: The University of Windsor. Of course. I'd say Hamilton, but we don't have a teachers facility. Why that's -
Ms Bell-Wilson: I know it's available, but the issue is whether or not it is mandatory. I know that in my own education background, even in terms of working on my bachelor's degree in psychology, I had a particular interest in learning disabilities and certainly had a placement. That was something that I chose to do, and if I had pursued a master's in education, that would have been required.
.0830
Ms Torsney: Do you think that in our school system today it might be a good thing to go and test all the children who are at the bottom levels? How would you determine that, if you were to do it? Would you go in there and test perhaps the kids who were scoring in the poorest 20% or the poorest half of the class to determine if they have some issues? I guess there could also be some issues with children who are at the top half who've figured it out themselves.
Ms Bell-Wilson: Again, if you wanted to do the right thing, so to speak, you would probably want to look at all of them, because of that range you just suggested.
A child may be very highly intelligent, and that's one of the reasons our association certainly never equates intelligence with a learning disability. The two have nothing to do with each other. You may have a child in the gifted class with a learning disability, so some aspects of their needs are going to be served, but on the other hand some aspects of their needs are not going to be served.
That child perhaps should be tested to determine if indeed there is a learning disability, as well as the child who is scoring well below expectations for his or her age.
Ms Torsney: Do you know of any tests currently in our school system?
There's that whole debate about whether you test well or whether you've learned material well. There are lots of children who seem to understand the material, but when it comes to taking a test or writing an SAT or an LSAT type of test, they have problems testing. I know when I was at university we had lots of multiple guess questions, and that was always frustrating for some students who just didn't do those very well.
Are there any tests that we administer to young people in the schools to counterbalance those kids who just either can't write it on paper or don't do multiple guess well? Are there different things that would help detect those who score better or worse in other things or who may have learning disabilities?
Ms Bell-Wilson: Well, the actual learning disabilities assessment should involve much more than written. It would look at how you do a number of things to determine if there is indeed a learning disability. It would not all be writing. There will be some talking, too, to find out how you comprehend things, how you understand things and then how in turn that comes back out. You're right; it would not be all on one's ability to score well on a test, multiple choice or otherwise.
That's one of the reasons this assessment is usually done by a registered psychologist who is familiar with learning disabilities. I know that for the time being there are still a number of schools that do in fact have a psychologist on staff.
Ms Torsney: For the time being?
Ms Bell-Wilson: I don't know what the financial future of education is, so I say ``for the time being''.
The Chair: Ms Torsney, we'll get back to you.
Ms Torsney: Okay.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, five minutes.
Mr. Ramsay: I'm wondering about the definition of a learning disability. I never could understand algebra. Is that a learning disability or is it simply because my teacher didn't approach it from a point of view I could understand?
Look at the phonetic system of learning to read, over the whole system. They taught me the phonetic system and they taught my wife the whole system. Now my wife is a schoolteacher, and yet she has difficulty spelling. How do we identify a learning disability as opposed to simply the approach being taken by the educational system?
You'd better believe we're stigmatized by not being able to understand, because I thought I was stupid and I had the marks to prove it. Yet all I needed was a teacher who could get to my level of understanding and then bring me forward. There was some reason I wasn't understanding what the teacher was saying, while all around me the majority of students were understanding, at least to a greater degree than I was.
.0835
There are the definite problems like the one Ms Torsney pointed out, where they interchange the lettering and the words then come out backwards. There is no question about that type of learning disability. But just because I fall behind in algebra and am not doing well, does that mean, from your definition, there's a learning disability?
.0840
Ms Bell-Wilson: It means there could be. What we speak of is that where the case is shown as dyscalculia, which is a form of a learning disability... One of the things to remember about learning disabilities is that it is very unlikely you are talking about one thing. The reversal of letters, dyslexia, which is of course probably the most common learning disability, is usually not the sole learning disability. There are probably at least seventeen different learning disabilities, which all have wonderful names that begin with the letter ``d''. Don't ask me to pronounce all of them, because I'll probably have problems.
What we're talking about in the case of learning disability is the evidence of several. Anybody could have difficulty with math. But if it is difficulty with math coupled with some other difficulties and deficits, it may be an indication that there is a bigger problem, that being a learning disability.
Mr. Ramsay: Not only did I have difficulty with algebra, but I had difficulty understanding some of the government's approaches to the criminal justice system. I wonder if that's a disability as well.
Ms Bell-Wilson: I'm not going to comment on that one.
Mr. Ramsay: When we're looking for answers, of course, the criminal justice system and this committee cannot deal with a failing of the educational system across the country. This is often what I see emerging. If we want to address the preventive end of the justice system, then it must start outside the justice system. As you're indicating, at least a percentage of youth entering the justice system can be identified anywhere from grade three to grade six. So what is being done in the educational system to address that? What would you recommend to this committee that we do? What recommendation to the justice minister or the justice department can we make that will affect that particular area where the signs begin to emerge that a young person, if the problems aren't corrected, may eventually end up in the young offender system?
Ms Bell-Wilson: Again, the approach has to be twofold, not necessarily just zeroing in on the educational system. Granted the educational system has a responsibility. If that responsibility, for whatever reason, is not heard and the student falls through the cracks, as is so often the case, then there has to be a responsibility also at the justice level, where unfortunately this youth has now ended up, for whatever reason. If records are available that may have identified a learning disability, these should be made known to the court for developing a program or designing a program that will address the learning disability as well as the sentencing that will occur.
So yes, there's education, but there's education in education and there's education in justice.
The Chair: Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): In your list of recommendations you indicate the split jurisdiction in Ontario is a problem in serving young offenders. Could you elaborate on what that problem is, and more importantly, what the solutions may be?
Ms Bell-Wilson: Again we're talking about where the jurisdiction lies.
.0845
With the justice system or with the court system there is one set of rules. In the education system there is another set of rules. It would be nice if everyone was on the same page, as it were, again as a way of ensuring that youth with learning disabilities do not fall through the cracks, whether it is falling through the cracks in the education system or falling through the cracks in the justice system.
I don't know if that's the kind of response you're looking for.
Mr. Maloney: I see here that we have two disciplines, justice and education. You say that they aren't meshing.
Ms Bell-Wilson: They're not meshing.
Mr. Maloney: How can we get them to mesh?
Ms Bell-Wilson: In my previous response I was talking about the education of those responsible for educating or treating. That should be made consistent and something that everyone who is working with children, whether it's in education or in justice, should have.
If you don't know what you're looking for, and if you don't know what you're looking at, you're not going to be able to identify or to treat. You're going to miss, and the price is going to be paid by a lot of people.
Mr. Maloney: Turning to another area, most of your suggestions would appear to require good resources, which cost money. How can we reconcile this with the cutbacks we are seeing in government, both provincially and federally? We have a problem here that is going to take money to fix, but the philosophy of the government of the day is to cut back.
Ms Bell-Wilson: I guess the question that has to be asked is, what is important and what are the priorities? What we may be looking at is redeployment of resources to those areas that are viewed as priorities.
When you think about youth, about the future, and about what that represents, that strikes me as being a priority. It may be more of a priority than some other areas. So rather than asking how we are going to get more money when there is no more money, how are we deploying the money or the resources that we have?
Mr. Maloney: Your specifics on youth offenders who have learning abilities are quite startling and significant, but we've also indicated that there are people who lead normal lives who also have learning disabilities. Do we have any statistics on that? Looking at the whole picture... We've focused on youth offenders. Why does that look like the whole spectrum of people with learning disabilities? Is this a wide problem?
Ms Bell-Wilson: Well, learning disability itself in terms of percentages... As I said, that's 10% of the general population. So if you take 10% of the population of Canada, that's your number. Obviously, not all of those are either juvenile or adult offenders. Many, as you say, do lead - I hate to say this - normal lives that are free of any difficulties or have certainly come to terms with their learning disabilities and have proceeded to cope very well.
What are the reasons for that, compared to the percentage for whom things don't quite work out? There are so many factors. So many studies have been done. I have been able to find some going back as far as to the mid-sixties that talked about whether it is social factors or social problems, be those economic, emotional, psychological, neurological, or whether it is the environment or some biochemical they're not getting. Some have better diets than others.
.0850
The list of various ``causes'' of why one child goes one way with a learning disability and why one goes another way is probably the most hotly debated topic among experts in the field doing research into learning disabilities. I don't think anybody can narrow it down and say it's this, and this is why this happens and this is why that happens.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, you have five minutes.
Mr. Ramsay: Would you say the majority of individuals suffering from learning disabilities know right from wrong? Are they capable of determining this?
Ms Bell-Wilson: Again, some of the research and statistics we have seen suggest, particularly for those who are in the juvenile justice system or who are entering the juvenile justice system, their learning disability seems to be primarily in language and reading. Are they aware of what's going on when they are brought before the judge? They may not be.
Mr. Ramsay: That's not my question. My question is do they know before they feel something, before they attack someone, that this is wrong.
Ms Bell-Wilson: They may not.
Mr. Ramsay: They may not know it is wrong.
Ms Bell-Wilson: They may not.
Mr. Ramsay: What percentage, would you say, of young offenders do not know what is right from wrong?
Ms Bell-Wilson: They may not perceive as we would that stealing a car is wrong.
Mr. Ramsay: Do they know it's against the law? Would they understand this concept?
Ms Bell-Wilson: That would depend on how it's explained to them.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you mean there are young offenders who are 15, 16, or 17-year-olds who are walking the streets and living in our communities and they don't know it's wrong to steal a car?
Ms Bell-Wilson: Again, they may not perceive it the same way we do.
Mr. Ramsay: But that's not the question. Maybe I'm asking you something I shouldn't be because of the nuances of the question. I did not understand algebra and perhaps had a learning disability in this area. But I always knew right from wrong and I knew the rules. I knew the rules my mom and dad set up within our home. I knew what the law was. I knew it was wrong to take another person's property. I understood this. Are you saying that because individuals have learning disabilities they do not know right from wrong?
Ms Bell-Wilson: There would be cases where that is true. I will not try to speculate and say what the statistics are, but we certainly have had information suggesting this would be true in some cases.
Mr. Ramsay: What percentage of those with learning disabilities do you feel would fall into the category of knowing right from wrong?
Ms Bell-Wilson: I would not be able to speculate on it.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay, that's all.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That will bring this hour to a conclusion.
I want to thank you very much for your presentation, Ms Bell-Wilson. We hope to be able to incorporate it into our final report. Thank you.
Ms Bell-Wilson: Thank you for having me.
The Chair: We'll just take five minutes to allow our next witnesses to take their place.
.0854
.0900
The Chair: I think we're all set to resume.
I want to welcome the Honourable Charles Harnick, Attorney General of Ontario, and the Honourable Robert Runciman, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services for Ontario.
Those who know me well know I never miss a chance to mention Windsor. Present in the room are three graduates of the University of Windsor faculty of law: Mr. Gallaway, Mr. Harnick, and myself. So even if on no other level I can tell you you're very welcome here today, on this level I certainly can.
Having said that, our usual procedure is to listen carefully to your presentation and then to ask questions. I already know there are a lot of questions because not only have we had a little bit of an advance copy of your presentation, we also read The Globe and Mail. You proceed on your time.
Hon. Charles Harnick (Attorney General of Ontario): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I understand we have an hour to spend together.
The Chair: Yes, although this is fairly flexible. Sorry, we have an hour and a half.
Mr. Harnick: So we have an hour and a half?
The Chair: We have until 10:30.
Mr. Harnick: All right. I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in this review of the Young Offenders Act.
In our statement, the Solicitor General and I will focus on specific changes the Government of Ontario would like to see made to the Young Offenders Act. In doing so I would like to put my comments in the following context.
It is a maxim of a democratic society that not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done. It is my submission on behalf of the Ontario government that the Young Offenders Act currently fails on both counts.
Simply put, justice is not being done. There is no justice when because of a birth date, a simple arithmetical number, a young offender can avoid the full sanction of society, a society becoming increasingly enraged by acts of violence. I am talking about real examples, far too many examples where young people under the age of 18 commit murder, manslaughter and sexual assault. This is the truth facing Canadians today.
.0905
I suggest to this committee it is this particular truth that should be the starting point of your deliberations - a truth that young people are committing heinous crimes; a truth that the Young Offenders Act is currently ill-suited to act as a deterrent and thus keep communities safe.
The truth is that justice is not being done, nor is it seen to be done. Justice is not being done when simply because of age, 16- and 17-year-olds who commit adult crimes can escape the consequences of their actions; actions that far too often result in irrevocable harm or even death to far too many victims; actions that tear families apart and burden them with horrible memories; actions our government believes deny the privilege of any of these offenders to be tried in any form but that of adult court.
Equally unavoidable is the perception that justice is not being seen to be done. The perception of the community at large is that young people are not being held accountable for their criminal acts. Whether it involves petty theft, vandalism, or intimidation, far too many Canadians believe young people are not being asked to answer fully for their deeds - not by their families, and certainly not by the justice system.
It is my submission that none of us in this room can afford to allow this perception to continue. We cannot afford to have the justice system held in disrepute. We cannot afford to have the justice system held up as a root cause of the problem.
The justice system is the last resort. People appear there when all else has failed, such as family values, education, social services, etc. The legal system should be viewed by the public as part of the solution, not the problem. Respectfully, let that too be a starting point in your deliberations when you compose your final report.
In preparing our remarks today, my colleague and I read the submission the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Justice, made to this committee. Mr. Rock spoke eloquently about the issues surrounding youth crime and the questions this committee must ultimately attempt to resolve.
It may surprise you to learn that my colleague and I agree with much of what Mr. Rock had to say. We agree with the fundamental premise on which this review is based. We agree our collective objective is a justice system for young people that achieves two goals, accountability and effectiveness. To quote Mr. Rock:
- First is accountability, in the sense that young people, like all other Canadians, are responsible
for their conduct and understand that there are consequences for their actions. And
accountability involves a sense of justice to the victims who have been harmed. It involves
discouraging reoffending and taking steps to ensure it does not happen again. But the second
objective must be effectiveness, effectiveness in the sense of an integrated strategy involving
both the courts and other resources to reduce the amount of crime committed by young people
and to achieve personal and public safety and security.
First, I would like to present the committee with some background. In Ontario we spend a considerable amount of our justice system resources on youth crime. Our province has the highest percentage of Canada's youth court cases. Federal statistics show in 1993-94 we had 43% of the national total, 50,008 cases out of 115,949 cases. We had 47% of the country's total for violent youth offences, 11,004 out of 23,374.
If I could digress for a moment, Mr. Rock made the point that it is a small segment of young Canadians who engage in crimes of violence. I ask you to reconcile his comments with the fact that in 1993-94 there were more than 11,000 violent offences in Ontario alone involving young people. His comments and the truth are irreconcilable.
.0910
In addition to violent crime, Ontario had 42% of the total for youth property offences - 25,000 out of 59,138 offences. In 1994-95 my own ministry statistics show a full 20% of charges received in our provincial criminal court, excluding provincial offences, involved young offenders. Of the 515,978 total Criminal Code, Narcotic Control Act and Food and Drug Act offences in 1994-95, young offenders were involved in 105,284 of the charges.
Our experience reflects the steady increase in youth crime and charge rates in Canada. For example, eight years after the Young Offenders Act came into force, youth crime rates for serious offences had doubled. These rates had been holding steady over the four years before the Young Offenders Act was enacted. I suggest that this is a revealing statistic. It is clear that the Young Offenders Act has not been tough enough to be a deterrent to violent crime, despite the numerous amendments made over the years.
As I said in the beginning of my presentation, I am here to make recommendations about specific changes our government believes are essential to restore what little faith is left in the Young Offenders Act. Our proposals fit into Mr. Rock's framework and will ensure an appropriate response to the grievous problem of youth crime.
.0915
Our first recommendation is that a young offender be redefined as a person 15 years of age or under. Until the passing of the Young Offenders Act in 1984, the maximum age for young offenders in Ontario under the Juvenile Delinquents Act was 15 years old. For the purposes of criminal law, 16- and 17-year-olds were considered adults.
The former age limit made better sense. It is consistent with our society's view toward adult responsibility. A 16-year-old can legally drive, work, get married and have a family. If, as a society, we accept a young person's ability to make serious choices such as that, then we must accept that 16-year-olds have the moral capacity to understand the consequences of doing wrong and should be held accountable for their actions.
We recognize the changes made under Bill C-37. They were welcome, but they do not go far enough. The presumption of transfer for 16- and 17-year-olds charged with murder contains the possibility of the offence being tried in youth court. That is unacceptable to our government. It is unacceptable to the community at large. It reduces the element of deterrence. Our recommendation is a far more honest and open response to the intent of the legislation. It is more consistent with the standard expected by the public.
In speaking about a clear and consistent standard - a standard expected and even demanded by the public - we suggest that this committee also give thought to allowing prosecution in extraordinary cases where a young person under the age of 12 is alleged to have committed a serious crime, such as murder.
There have been incidents in other jurisdictions where children as young as nine and ten have knowingly committed heinous crimes. At the very least, we should consider a criminal law response in such situations to supplement the social service response that presently takes place when a child commits a heinous act, such as murder.
Equally, as Mr. Rock correctly pointed out, the public also wants accountability. People want accountability from young offenders for their actions and also from the parents of young offenders. How then can this desire for accountability be reconciled with the reality that the act tends to absolve families of young offenders from financial responsibility for the actions of their offspring?
There are many instances where youths charged with offences have sought financial help from legal aid but were turned down because they or their families were assessed as being able to afford legal advice. Yet many of these same young accused go to court and ask the court, under section 11(4), to appoint a lawyer for them. As you know, the court is currently compelled to comply.
.0920
It is a situation that must change, for it is the antithesis of the accountability Mr. Rock believes must be incorporated into the act. We recommend amending section 11(4) of the act to require youth court judges to give proper regard to a legal aid program's eligibility standards before appointing counsel on request.
We would urge this committee not to stop there but to further assess the role of parents. We believe the act should be strengthened in this regard. From our own end, we are reviewing the possibility of making young offenders and their parents liable for action in civil court. For example, civil liability could be invoked to compensate victims of crime.
We believe there must be civil accountability by young offenders and their parents. In many situations civil judgments can be obtained against young offenders for damages. Realistically there is little chance that these judgments can be satisfied.
At the recent federal-provincial-territorial conference a number of provinces, led by Manitoba, suggested we should have legislation at the national level imposing civil liability against parents who can satisfy judgment and then let it be the responsibility of the parents to deal with their children.
We would also ask your committee to consider such efficiencies as easing the evidentiary straitjacket laid down in section 56. In our view, section 56 makes it too easy to have voluntary statements ruled inadmissible because of a technical violation.
For example, it requires a waiver of a young person's rights to be in writing or on video. Written statement forms used by police can be long and complicated. The failure of a young person to sign the form in one of many spots makes the waiver useless, even though the statement was voluntarily given.
Let me make it clear that we understand the need for section 56 to protect the rights of young people and to avoid any chance of admitting into evidence a statement that was not given voluntarily. We are not suggesting that this principle be diminished, only that the court be allowed more flexibility in dealing with truly technical violations of the section. What we want to see is the court deal with the crime, not with technical legal bickering.
The recommendations I have made call for major changes to the act. My colleague will be suggesting others.
Major changes are needed to restore the public's faith in how we handle youth crime and young offenders. The Young Offenders Act should be viewed as a strong deterrent to youth crime. Until this is the case, we have forsaken the rights of victims and the safety of our communities.
As it now stands, statistics show that the Young Offenders Act is a licence for young offenders to commit serious, violent crimes. While we suggest major changes, our recommendations are consistent with the basic and fundamental principles of justice. They point to the need for flexibility, clarity and perhaps most importantly accountability, both in an individual and societal sense, in how we deal with the issue of youth crime.
As fellow legislators, I urge you to weigh your obligations to Canadians carefully. Listen to what they are telling you. They want safer communities; they want youth crime dealt with. Above all, they want real changes to the Young Offenders Act.
I met this morning Tom Ambas, who I understand will be appearing before this committee on Thursday. Tom Ambas has a petition with over 500,000 names on it. I urge you to listen to what Ontarians are saying.
As a plug for my own riding of Willowdale, North York's council wants the federal government to get tough with children who commit serious crimes. ``If you're old enough to commit a crime, you're old enough to pay for it'', said Mayor Mel Lastman, who Wednesday asked for council's support in his motion urging the federal government to change sections of the Young Offenders Act. That's my mayor speaking. I take that very seriously. Certainly it reflects the opinions of the people in the riding of Willowdale, which I represent.
I urge you not to deny the public the justice they seek. Call on Mr. Rock to make the changes we are outlining.
We have listened to people from communities all across Ontario. We ask you to do the same.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Runciman.
.0925
Hon. Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, Government of Ontario): I will be continuing from where my colleague left off. I want to begin by properly framing my comments.
As committee members are well aware, the past decade has seen a steady increase in concern about youth crime. Much of that concern has focused on the Young Offenders Act.
Because of the widespread concern and the political volatility of this issue, it's important to point out that the Ontario government isn't coming new to it. Many of the concerns the Attorney General and I are outlining today were presented to the federal government 14 years ago by the William Davis government.
In 1982 the current Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, then the Provincial Secretary for Justice, Mr. Norm Sterling, wrote to the Honourable Robert Kaplan, the federal Solicitor General of the day, outlining Ontario's concerns regarding the proposed Young Offenders Act and expressing deep distress that such dramatic changes were introduced without consultation with the country's largest province.
I will make copies of Mr. Sterling's letter available. I sincerely hope that members will find the time to review its content.
I emphasize that it's a fourteen-year-old letter that very accurately forewarns the federal government of many of the problems we're now living with. Tragically, virtually all of the concerns and recommendations were ignored. Hopefully history will not repeat itself here.
I see the results of earlier failures to consult and the ongoing reluctance to respond adequately to escalating public concerns in the victims of young offenders, like the teenager who was stabbed in the stairwell of his school or the convenience store clerk who was shot in the back of the head with a sawed-off shotgun. I see it in the eyes of the relatives of people who are victims of young offenders.
Some of those people have appeared before this committee, and one is here today. They represent hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions and written briefs calling for stricter penalties for young offenders.
I see it in the tears of the family of the eighteen-year-old who was beaten to death with a baseball bat. I see it in the mother who mourns her sixteen-year-old daughter, shot while she held a younger infant in her arms. I see it in the grief of the parents of a young man killed in a foolish teenage quarrel. I see it in the death of a young man stabbed when he attempted to help a young woman being attacked by a gang of thugs. I see it in young lives cut short by the savage attacks of young criminals.
As you know, those people, those victims, are just the tip of the iceberg. In Ontario in 1994 we admitted about 2,100 young offenders to secure custody for crimes of violence. That included 42 youths submitted to custody for murder, 782 for serious violent offences, 325 for weapons offences, 176 for importing or trafficking in drugs, and 145 admitted for violent sexual offences.
Crime statistics, as we all know, can be notoriously unreliable. But what is clear and unassailable is that we convicted 2,100 young people of crimes of violence in this province. Of that number - again this is a clear and unassailable fact - only 21 cases were transferred to adult court, at the most about half of the homicides.
That's the tip of the iceberg. It is a frightening menace to the safety and security of Ontarians.
Youth violence threatens the very framework of what we value in our society. My staff recently met with members of a large police service charged with investigating youth crime. They were told that young offenders say the act is a joke. ``No one takes it seriously, we can play until we're eighteen'' was a common theme. The officers said that they see young offenders as unremorseful and very disrespectful to parents, teachers, the police, and the public. The courts simply reinforce their negative attitudes. As one officer said, ``These kids walk into court smiling and they walk out laughing''.
According to police, the worst attitude appears among children under the age of twelve. They describe these youths - you cannot call them offenders, because the law does not permit it - as knowing that they are untouchable.
Recently, as I'm sure all of you are aware, an eleven-year-old was allegedly involved in the rape of a thirteen-year-old girl. The police say he knows he cannot be charged. He told them he's too young, he's untouchable, the law does not see boys or girls as criminally responsible until they are twelve.
.0930
I believe this review must put a stop to young people seeing the Young Offenders Act as nothing more than a joke, as a mere inconvenience to their criminal activity. The review you have undertaken must result in change, significant and immediate change. Ladies and gentlemen, as they say in sports circles, it's time for us collectively to ``walk the talk''. I would suggest the very first step in that walk, the starting point of your deliberations, must be to strengthen the sanctions contained in the act to deal with serious crime.
Many of the people involved in the youth justice system are concerned that young offenders convicted of very serious crimes spend relatively little time in custody, even those treated as adults and tried in adult court. The transfer of serious offences to adult court does not solve the problem of inadequate sentences for young offenders. It is not a sufficient remedy for the deficiencies of the act.
For example, last summer a Toronto judge sentenced a youth convicted of a particularly horrifying murder. The murderer, who was sixteen at the time, killed an innocent man whose only crime was that he didn't have any money in his pocket when he was mugged. This was a serious case and it was treated seriously by the youth justice system. The killer was sentenced to eight years in jail last July. In July this year he is eligible for day parole. In July next year he is eligible for full parole.
You can imagine the response of the relatives of the victim to that information. Unfortunately, that case is not unusual.
In July this year a young offender who was convicted and sentenced in a drive-by killing will be eligible for day parole, about eleven months after he was sentenced. In July of 1997 he will be eligible for full parole, less than two years after sentence was imposed.
Amendments to the act proclaimed last December attempt to address that situation, but they don't go far enough. The very first step must be to put real teeth in our system for dealing with young offenders who show blatant disregard for the laws that must govern us all. If we fail to do so, we fail the test. We fail the people we all represent. We fail in meeting our responsibilities as legislators and ministers of the Crown. Ultimately we also fail young people, for we are not giving them a clear and consistent message, a message that they will be held accountable and that their criminal acts will not be tolerated. A law held in contempt is not a deterrent.
We believe the act also needs to be revised to underscore the responsibilities of parents for the acts of children, as the Attorney General referred to earlier. The declaration of principle in the Young Offenders Act states that parents have responsibility for the care and supervision of their children, but it contains no practical measures to enforce that responsibility. We believe this is a serious shortcoming. We believe parents should be responsible for what their children do. The act should include sections clearly establishing the financial and moral responsibility of parents.
The Province of Manitoba is contemplating legislation to clarify the civil liability of parents. We support this initiative and we believe the Young Offenders Act should incorporate those ideas.
Our next recommendation speaks to the need for rebuilding public confidence in the act. From the perspective of ensuring that justice is seen to be done, and from considerations of public safety, the identity of serious criminals who happen to be less than eighteen years old should not be protected. Ontario would like the legislation changed to permit publication of the names of youths convicted of serious offences. The obvious question is whose rights should we be protecting? The answer, equally obvious for us, is we should be protecting the victims and their families, not serious criminals.
I'd like to turn now to issues involving the final stage of the justice system, which deals with what happens when the sentence is handed down.
Three provisions of the act cause great operational problems and a lot of unnecessary expense: the options the court has available for youths ordered into custody, the arrangements for transferring young offenders to adult facilities at appropriate times, and the provisions for keeping adequate records of young offenders.
.0935
Without going into great detail, we want the act changed so that decisions about the level of custody appropriate for any offender are made by correctional officials, as is done in the adult system. They know the resources and programming available for individuals, and it gives us greater flexibility in using increasingly limited resources.
We want to amend the provisions dealing with the placement of young offenders in adult facilities. As matters stand now, a young offender convicted of a serious offence committed at age 17 might still be in a youth facility at age 24. It is not good practice to mix these young teenagers convicted of minor offences with older men convicted of more serious crimes. We want to leave those decisions to the experts in the correctional system. It's time to let the experts do their job instead of being held in a straitjacket by legislation.
As for record-keeping, this is simply a mess of red tape. Everyone who's familiar with these sections of the act agrees they desperately need to be changed.
That brings me to the last topic on sentencing, which is diversion - the idea that we should direct more young offenders away from the formal court system and away from correctional institutions. We agree with Mr. Rock that we should find ways to avoid jail time for young offenders involved in non-violent crimes, both for the good of the offender and for the good of the system.
The cost of dealing with young offenders plays a part in these considerations. Our total provincial spending on custody and programs for young offenders is about a quarter of a billion dollars a year. It costs us close to $100,000 year to keep a young offender in secure custody. It would be cheaper to put them up right here in the Chelsea for a year and send them to private school than it is to keep them in youth facilities.
By comparison, the cost of community supervision of young offenders is $5 to $6 a day. It's obvious which we prefer, but the present legislation makes it difficult to get the full benefit of these alternative measures.
In our view - and I believe Mr. Rock and others have expressed similar points of view - before we can divert young offenders to alternative programs, we need to make some fundamental distinctions between serious crimes and non-violent offences. A teenager convicted of shoplifting or vandalism must be dealt with appropriately and meaningfully by the justice system. However, the system must build in the flexibility to allow that offence to be treated differently from a serious crime involving violence.
All of us want a system that offers the potential of reduced incarceration for minor offences. Equally, all of us want a system that increases the severity of sentences for violent crimes.
I left this subject to near the end to underscore the major difficulty we face in implementing diversion programs, and that is the almost total lack of public faith in the Young Offenders Act, which my colleague alluded to earlier. It's difficult to argue for diversion of minor offences when the public has no confidence that major offences will be dealt with properly.
We must ensure the system allows for distinctions to be made in the courts, even in dealing with less serious offences, between those offenders who show true remorse and those who view the act as a joke. It's the only method by which to develop public trust that young offenders will be dealt with appropriately in every instance. Our government supports diversion on that basis.
However, we believe it's our responsibility, not that of the federal government, to decide how the federal contribution to the cost of young offender programs will be used.
In his submission to this committee Mr. Rock said his government wants to renegotiate the federal-provincial agreements respecting the federal government's contribution to the youth justice system. His desire is to have these funds directed almost entirely to alternatives to incarceration, especially for non-violent offenders.
The difficulty is that the federal contribution to the cost of young offender programs, as a percentage of the total cost, has been steadily decreasing. Further, federal contribution levels promised in the past have not been maintained. The federal government originally promised to contribute 50% of the costs of young offender programs. That contribution was capped in 1989, and the federal contribution is now about 30% of the actual expenditure levels.
In the last five years since the cap was imposed, Ontario has received about $200 million less than the original commitment would have provided. This fiscal year we're receiving about $45 million short of the original promise.
.0940
Given that history, our government wants to be perfectly clear on this point. It is the province's responsibility to administer young offender programs. It is our responsibility to determine the manner in which the funding is allocated. We intend to assert that prerogative to develop a made-in-Ontario system that meets our needs and our perspectives.
Madam Chair, those are the main points I wish to make. Taken together with the changes proposed by the Attorney General, they amount to a major overhaul of the youth justice system.
You might reasonably ask if all this is really necessary; if the system is really that bad. Fourteen years ago, when my colleague Norm Sterling stood before a similar committee and warned that Ontario's youth justice system would be damaged by the legislation that became the Young Offenders Act, some of the committee members accused him of being an alarmist. Today we know his warnings were not alarming enough. Everything he cautioned your predecessors about has happened: overcrowded youth courts, increased numbers of kids being institutionalized, massive red tape, and a system that cannot rehabilitate minor offenders, cannot deter serious criminals, and cannot protect the public.
Members of the public have little confidence in the youth justice system, and they are right. The Young Offenders Act as it exists today, even with the amendments proclaimed last December, is inadequate. It doesn't protect the public, punish the guilty, or deter crime. You've heard that message from most of the people who have appeared before you. They echo the sentiments of millions of Canadians who recognize the system simply doesn't work.
This committee has an opportunity to begin correcting that situation. You have an opportunity to fix a system that badly needs fixing. I wish you well in your deliberations and every success in that endeavour. Thank you for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.
Mr. Ramsay: I want to thank you very much for appearing before our committee and for the presentation you've given.
I'm a member of the Reform Party. We have some basic concerns about the YOA. We have four or five considerations concerning this, and you've touched on at least three of them. We would like to see the lowering of the minimum age from twelve to ten, at least; the publishing of the names of violent young offenders, particularly repeat violent young offenders; and of course the business of holding parents financially responsible for the criminal actions of their children when negligence on the part of the parents contributed to the offences.
You've touched on those four. What I'd like to ask you is this. Back when we had the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, there was an offence within it of contributing to the delinquency of a minor or a juvenile. Not only did that give the police a tool to protect children, but it was a protection for the parents.
Would you consider and would you tell the committee today if you would like see the re-establishment within the act of an offence of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile by an adult?
Mr. Runciman: Mr. Ramsay, it's not something we have considered, although as a private member in opposition I had a number of parents approach me on that, and police officers who believed it would be helpful. It's not something I have given enough consideration to, but certainly in the feedback I've had from the public, which is limited, I'll grant you, and from at least two retired police officers, they indeed believe it would be helpful.
One police officer in particular, who had difficulty with one of his own children, felt very frustrated that he couldn't deal with that particular situation, because as you indicate, this section had been removed and there was no real latitude there for him if the child decided that - in this case it was a girl - wanted to go out on her own and live a life that he felt was going to lead her down the wrong path. He was frustrated as a parent with respect to the very severe limitations on what he could or could not do.
.0945
Mr. Harnick: Certainly the other aspect of that is that we know - and I've heard it at crime forums all across the province - that because of the leniency that is perceived to exist in the Young Offenders Act, particularly in the area of drug-related crime, it's very easy for an adult to get a young person to do their dealing for them. If you go into areas where they have a drug problem, you'll hear from business people in those areas, from people who live in the areas, often around schools, that it is a major problem. The perception is that the worst that will happen is that they will get caught and nothing else will happen to them. Young people have been taken over to do the dealing for adults quite simply because the penalties are so lenient.
Mr. Ramsay: When we were in Atlantic Canada, I asked a witness a similar question and it was suggested by members of the committee that there are parallel charges under the Criminal Code that would deal with an adult involving youth in crime, whether it's an adult with a 15-year-old girl out with liquor in the car...
[Technical difficulties - Editor]
.0950
Mr. Harnick: As I said in my remarks, the court system is the end of the line. It's the part of the process when schools and families and churches and social services have all tried to assist but have failed. At the end of the line a charge ensues and you are before a court.
If the end of the line is not part of the solution to the problem, by at least creating a deterrent, then the system is failing. That's what I believe is the problem today.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Mr. Harnick, I'd like to start right at the beginning of your page 1. When you refer to the fact that 16- and 17-year-olds who commit adult crimes can escape the consequences of their actions, are you suggesting to us that 17-year-olds who commit a murder are escaping the consequences by serving ten years?
Mr. Harnick: The fact is that they're not serving ten years. As my colleague Mr. Runciman pointed out, in a couple of examples where people have been given eight-year sentences, they're back out on day parole in a year and in two years they're freely back into society.
What does that say, number one, to deterrence and, number two, to victims?
Those are the perfect examples of where this system is failing and where I hope you will be reporting as much as providing recommendations so that will stop being the way of the world.
Mr. Gallaway: If I accept that logic and extend it one step further, are you telling me that adults who are convicted of crimes should not be allowed out on parole? If you were sentenced to eight years, perhaps you'll be out in four and a half years. Are we to extend that logic to that level?
Mr. Harnick: I don't know that you're comparing apples and apples.
I believe - I hear it often - that people in communities are concerned about early parole, they're concerned about how fast parole is available for a violent offender, but we at least have things built into the system, such as dangerous offenders. Now we're going to have the long-term offender. So at least we're addressing those problems in the adult world.
What we're not doing in the youth world is creating a system in which there's real deterrence for violent crimes, and the statistics tell that story.
Mr. Gallaway: You also make note of the fact that because of a birth date, a simple arithmetical number, a young offender can escape the full sanctions of society. You make the point that people can marry and can work... Would you apply the same logic? It seems to me as if you're encouraging or you're saying that it's commonplace in society or that as governments, at whatever level, we are in some way tacitly acknowledging that it's quite acceptable for a 16-year-old to marry or to work and, as a result of that, we're going to treat 16-year-olds as adults. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Harnick: No. I think it stands to reason that when you get to being 16 or 17 years old... When you compare the numbers from moving away from the Juvenile Delinquents Act into the Young Offenders Act, the increase in violent crime by 16- and 17-year-olds is staggering. In the province of Ontario we have 11,000 cases a year that involve violent crime of young offenders.
That's too much, and what I'm urging you to do is to create a young offenders act that has a very strong element of deterrence in it so at the age of 16 and 17 young people will understand very clearly the consequences of their actions.
In the province of Ontario, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, we have had too much of an increase of violent crime by 16- and 17-year-olds. If you will review the statistics that move us from the Juvenile Delinquents Act, in which 15 was the age limit, to the Young Offenders Act, you will see that the increase in crime at that age is staggering.
.0955
I'm just asking you to figure out a way to reduce the 11,000 cases every year of violent crimes, to put into the system strong deterrents so young offenders are not thumbing their noses at the law because the consequences of breaking it are so insignificant to them.
Mr. Gallaway: You have raised a point about the act that preceded the Young Offenders Act. Actually there were very few statistics kept for that act, because it was administered on a county or a regional basis and record-keeping was not the science it is today. In fact the increase you refer to in statistics on charge rates reflects a harder line taken by the police and more importantly a more precise record-keeping system than what existed prior to the Young Offenders Act.
Would you not then concede that in fact it is possible the increase you referred to is a result of better bean counters?
Mr. Harnick: That's not the issue. The issue isn't bean counting. The issue is 11,000 violent offences every year in Ontario. This is almost half of all the violent offences in this country. I say to you this is something I don't want to live with. It is something creating unsafe communities. It is something putting a huge burden on victims, and we as a collective group of legislators must work together to reduce those numbers. I say the first step in doing this is to put some deterrents and some teeth into the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Gallaway: I think we all agree on this. But I'm saying to you, is there an increase in crime?
Mr. Harnick: Whether there's an increase or an insignificant decrease, there are still 11,000 violent crimes, or thereabouts, occurring in this province. I'm basing that on your statistics.
Mr. Gallaway: Yes.
Mr. Harnick: Those are the latest federal statistics available to me, and are for the period of 1992-1993 or 1993-1994. This is the best I have by way of statistics. I don't have to compare this with what might have been going on 10 years before or what might be going on 10 years from now. It's just too high.
Having 11,000 violent young offenders in the province of Ontario on an annual basis creates unsafe communities. On behalf of the mayor of North York, my mayor and the people of Willowdale I represent, I am urging that we do everything we possibly can collectively as legislators to try to create a system where we're deterring violent youth crime.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Runciman, you suggested we should put 16-year-olds convicted of violent crimes into adult systems and allow the administration of those systems to put them where there is a place available or where programs are available. Now, are you aware the low-end age of people in the federal penitentiary system, for example, is somewhere around 35 or 36 years old? Do you really want to put 16-year-olds in with 35-year-olds?
Mr. Runciman: I think this is a question of management of the federal system. You have the flexibility and the latitude to move people around. You can have units within a federal institution designed to handle specific age groupings, if you will. So I don't see this as an insurmountable problem at all.
With respect to statistics and what the Attorney General was saying, I do have a statistic here. It is the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics data for 1994. You probably have it in front of you, but in case you don't, it says that youth violent crime has more than doubled, 124%, since 1986. So this is the statistic that has been gathered during the life of the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Gallaway: I have statistics here suggesting the youth homicide crime rate is decreasing. In fact it has decreased 3% between 1992 and 1993. I don't want to get into a statistical argument -
Mr. Runciman: We looked at this as well, and we've looked at the adult side. There could be other answers to this as well in terms of trauma treatment. Because of trauma treatment advances, we are now able to save lives in cases that perhaps would have been deaths 10 years ago.
.1000
Mr. Gallaway: Now, you raise the issue of young offenders, those being perhaps 12 years old, involved in car theft rings. We've heard this from other witnesses about 12-year-old young offenders involved in drug smuggling and drug crime. For example, you suggested the age be lowered. At some point, would you in fact agree to charging an 11-year-old who has been involved in a drug-running scheme? Would you take into account that perhaps an 11-year-old is easily influenced, or would you punish him?
Mr. Runciman: I'm not going to suggest a yardstick today with respect to what would justify a charge for someone who is 11 years of age. I don't think we are suggesting that either. But we think the courts should have the flexibility when dealing with a particularly heinous crime to have the opportunity available to at least consider charges being laid against someone under the age of 12. All we're really proposing here is to provide the latitude for the courts to make this kind of decision.
Mr. Harnick: Just to be very clear about what I said, I said at the very least we should consider a criminal law response in such situations to supplement the current social service response when children commit heinous acts and they're under the age limit.
Certainly I don't know the magical answer and I don't suggest anybody in this room knows the magical answer. But what we do have today is a situation where children 12 and under usually come in an indirect way before the law and before an aspect of the justice system at the policing end. There is a social service response, but the justice system response is lacking. I think we have to use our imaginations a little bit to see how the justice system can be used to supplement what the social service system is doing.
Quite honestly, I don't have a magical answer. Nor, I suspect, does anyone. But I believe it is an area demanding immediate and important study.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway. We'll try to get back to you.
Mr. Ramsay, you have five minutes.
Mr. Ramsay: Professor Bala appeared before our committee and he too recommended the age limit be reduced to 10. What he gave to me was a warning, although others on the committee may have interpreted it differently. It was a warning to the committee and a warning to the justice system and to the justice department that if a 10- or 11-year-old commits a murder - according to Professor Bala, this hasn't yet happened in Canada - there is nothing the justice system can do. If the parents wanted to take this child and put him in a program in the United States or any other program and claim to the social services department the child is being properly looked after, there is not a single solitary thing that could be done about it. But there would be considerable negative response across the country.
So I look at page four, where you state your first recommendation is that a young offender be redefined as a person 15 years of age or under. We're recommending in our party that the age come down from 12 to 10. You have no minimum there. Would you offer the committee an idea of how low you'd take that?
Mr. Harnick: I think that appropriately, the justice system must have a way to respond to each situation that comes before it. What we now have is an arbitrary figure preventing the justice system from responding in conjunction with social services. I don't think, quite frankly, there is any magic number. But I think the justice system has to be reviewed so it supplements the social service response. In other words, if the Children's Aid Society is going to go in and take custody and control of a young child because of a severe problem with anti-social behaviour, then I think we have to have a justice system that can provide a response that supplements what the Children's Aid Society is doing.
.1005
I don't know the magical answer or way that should take place, but the justice system as it stands today is hanging out there with nothing it can do to supplement the social service response, and I think that's wrong. It's also wrong because as children get to be ten and eleven and twelve years old, they understand, because they're at school and they're proceeding with an education, that what they're doing is wrong. They also understand there are no consequences to it.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, the old Juvenile Delinquents Act of course did not have a minimum. It started from about seven or eight years of age.
I'd like to move on to one other point before my time runs out. It's this question of punishment being a deterrent. We've had witnesses appear before this committee not only in our review of the YOA but also on other bills, and they very strongly state that punishment is no deterrent, that increasing the punishment for an offence is not a deterrent. What is your response to that?
Mr. Runciman: Clearly, we disagree. Certainly in many instances the current act is not providing a deterrent. Police will tell you that is an everyday occurrence, and we've seen some particularly tragic crimes committed in this province in just the last year where there's been a very clear indication that there was clear cognizance of the act and the implications or the lack of implications for the perpetrator or perpetrators. We believe that has to change. There has to be a clear and significant deterrent for a youth committing a particularly violent, serious crime. That's not there now.
As the Attorney General has indicated, we've travelled this province for the last three years, listening to people concerned about public safety, and this is their number one concern, without a doubt, right across the province; and I suspect that is reflective of the rest of the country. Canadians generally believe the deterrent component of the act as currently structured is simply inadequate and doesn't do the job.
The Chair: Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: Mr. Runciman, I'll just draw to your attention that on page 12 you've identified that all of us want a system that offers the potential of reduced incarceration for minor offences and we all want a system that increases the severity of sentences for violent crime. I'd just like to put on the record that I want fewer crimes committed in the first place and I want fewer people to be victimized. So it's with a little stress that I don't see the Minister of Education here, or the Minister of Social Services.
I think Mr. Harnick gave a ringing endorsement for the work of children's aid societies across the province, and I'm sure that will come up at the cabinet table when you make some budget decisions. Of course in education we're seeing in school boards across the province that the people who are being cut out of the education system are the psychologists, the speech pathologists, the people who work with children who have disabilities; and we heard this morning that those are the children who sometimes get into conflict with the law because they have few options and they're not part of the mainstream society. So I think it's terrific that you're going to recommend increased funding for those areas and more effective work in those areas to prevent fewer children from coming into conflict and fewer people from being victimized by these kids.
But I wanted to ask you, Mr. Harnick, because you're a lawyer - you grew up during the old JDA - when did you learn about the JDA or the YOA?
Mr. Harnick: I can't tell you. I can't pick a date for you. But what I can say -
Ms Torsney: Grade five, grade six?
.1010
Mr. Harnick: What I can say is this. I appreciate the fact that you've gone over the recent budget we've delivered. That was the day Ontario turned the corner, when we indicated that we will have more money available for child care this year than ever before in the history of the province and that we will soon have an increase of $20 million in funding for children with learning disabilities.
I very much appreciate that you've taken the time to look at our turnaround budget and that you're endorsing the fact that we're putting money into those very services to protect and help children.
We have $5 million in our breakfast program, as you're aware from your reading of our budget -
Ms Torsney: In what grade are they teaching people about the YOA, Mr. Harnick?
The Chair: Have some order; let him finish.
Ms Torsney: Maybe he could answer the question.
Mr. Harnick: I can't answer the question as to what grade people are learning about the Young Offenders Act. What I can tell you is there is an obligation, which I believe parents, teachers and principals try to meet, to teach children right from wrong and to teach the proper values children need in the course of growing up.
Look, I'm not here to tell you I'm an expert as an educator or as a social service person, but my wife is a teacher, and I do know that is a prime function of her job, and you're aware of that. As we try to do the best we can to instil those values in children, we have to know we have a justice system that is also providing the deterrent.
I was very careful in my paper to indicate to you that the justice system is the last response. It's what happens when social services, the health system and the education system don't provide the significant benefits we hope they will, or when the family values aren't there. At the end of the line the justice system must be there as a solution.
What I suggest is that in so far as violent crime is concerned, we must have a Young Offenders Act that provides deterrents.
Ms Torsney: Mr. Harnick, your presentation, though, is premised on the fact that all these young people who are educated by the schools and educated by the parents and are completely well versed in the Young Offenders Act are thumbing their noses wilfully because they understand all provisions and all clauses of the act.
I suggest to you - and I don't need a comment - that it is not necessarily true that they're all there.
I have another question for Mr. Runciman.
Mr. Harnick: Well, let me comment on that -
The Chair: Mr. Harnick, please observe at least the niceties of the chair having control here. I think she wants to get her question in so that you can answer both of them at the same time. So would you just do that, please?
Ms Torsney: Mr. Runciman, I want to be very specific about the cases you've identified on page 9 and page 10. You mentioned that the youth justice system did not deal with these two murders appropriately. I want to ask you very specifically, were these cases tried in the youth system or in the adult system? I'll remind you that the youth system does not have parole.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Torsney.
Mr. Runciman: One, I clearly -
The Chair: Mr. Runciman, please. Mr. Harnick has an answer that he wanted to give first.
Mr. Runciman: Oh, okay.
Mr. Harnick: I just very briefly want to say you can ask me questions... I've played this game before, because I've sat in a chair very similar to the one you're sitting in and had the opportunity to ask the questions.
You can ask me when do young offenders know about the act, are we teaching it and is all of this really necessary? What I can tell you is this. At the end of the day, what I learn is what the public, particularly in my riding and around this province, is telling me. What the public is telling me is that 11,000 violent offences a year is something they want this committee to address. I hope you'll do that.
The Chair: Mr. Runciman.
Mr. Runciman: I believe one was in youth court and one was in adult court. I did point out in my presentation that it was treated seriously and the sentence was a serious sentence.
I just wanted to have two minutes to -
Ms Torsney: But they both got parole. I don't understand that.
The Chair: Ms Torsney, just a moment.
Go ahead.
.1015
Mr. Runciman: You raised an important issue earlier with respect to the education system and all these issues. I just wanted to indicate to you that there is a range of programs provided through my ministry and with the cooperation of Education, the AG's office, and Community and Social Services.
I won't get into details, but we have a police and school partnership. We have a VIP program - values influence peers. We have a violence-free school policy. We have a safe school task force. We're working with Crime Stoppers in school. There is a school watch program. We have a youth mentoring program in the school system. We have a Partners in Community Safety program, called PICS. We're working with Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving. There's a whole range of areas I can give you details on that we provide and that we are improving upon as best we can at the provincial level.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, five minutes.
Mr. Ramsay: You know, we hear expressions of the mentality that's been directing our justice system over the last 20 or 25 years. We hear it from some of the witnesses and from some of the members of our committee. And it's failing. In the eyes of the people it's failing. In my eyes it's failing.
There is the very fact that - and I didn't know this before - back in 1982, as the current Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, then the provincial justice secretary, indicates on page 7 of your brief, there was no consultation with the Province of Ontario when the federal government made the decision to move from or to make amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act to the Young Offenders Act. It's hard for me to comprehend why that would occur.
I want to ask you one specific question about alternative measures. You indicated in your brief this morning that you do not believe alternative measures should be available for those who have committed a violent offence. Of course, I and my colleagues and my party, and I think many colleagues in the House, agree with that.
I would ask you about Bill C-41, which was an amendment to the Criminal Code that provided for alternative measures for adults. Of course, we were very concerned that there was no exemption for violent offenders. In fact, Mr. Nunziata stood in the House during the debate and pointed out that a person could commit rape and never, ever appear in court because of that lack of exemption in Bill C-41.
Could I get your comment on that area? We see that not only are alternative measures not there just for non-violent offences under the YOA, but also that this principle has also been introduced into the Criminal Code for adults under Bill C-41.
Mr. Harnick: We are trying in Ontario to deal appropriately with all of the cases that come before us, and that demands an evaluation of the appropriate way that every case can be dealt with. We don't intend to decriminalize or avoid the prosecution of offences. What we have to look at is our ability to continue being able to prosecute all of the serious crime that comes before us and deal appropriately with all other matters.
You're well aware, no doubt, of the problems we've had in Ontario. I believe it was in 1990 that 70,000 cases, many of them very serious, were jettisoned from the system because we couldn't comply with charter obligations to try them within the appropriate period of time. We don't want that to happen again; therefore, we're taking a look at appropriate alternatives. It becomes very important, but it is not something we want to do to the exclusion of prosecuting very serious crimes. We look at dealing appropriately with lesser crimes so that we will have a better ability to ensure the proper prosecution of all serious offences, so that we don't get involved in an Askov problem again. That's the direction we're moving in as we try to develop a more modern and efficient system.
.1020
Mr. Ramsay: It seems to me you would have some concern with legislation, either for adults or for young offenders, that automatically grants them the opportunity for a non-court resolution of a violent offence they've committed.
Mr. Runciman: Yes, we do; and we pointed out in our submission that until you deal in a meaningful way with the serious offence side, we will have great difficulty with undertaking initiatives and diversion with respect to minor offences, because we just don't have the confidence of the public.
Certainly that's the view we are expressing here today. I want to stress this is not an attack on the federal government, a criticism of the federal government. We are here conveying views we have heard, both Charles and myself, and our party and now government, over the past number of years. These are changes we believe the overwhelming majority of Ontarians want to see occur, and that's why we're here today.
The Chair: Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Harnick, you've quoted impressive statistics on increasing youth crime, increasing violent youth crime. You've also stated the justice system is the last resort and that people appear there when all else has failed, such as our education and social services. Have our education and social services failed us, and will that continue with the cutbacks in education and social services we're seeing - necessarily, perhaps? How do we reconcile -
Mr. Harnick: You can make this as much as you want a partisan political cat fight. That's not why we're here. We're here to work together and provide ideas for how we can make the justice system better.
.1025
Mr. Maloney: That's precisely the point.
Mr. Harnick: I'm not here to dwell on what you keep describing as cuts, because, as I pointed out, appropriate social services exist in the province of Ontario that have in fact been enhanced in terms of dollars' worth. If you really want to get into that political cat fight, I suggest to you that you're on thin ice, because your government reduced transfer payments by 43% and at the same time you reduced your own spending by 1.3%. I don't think that's fair, but I'm not going to dwell on that.
I'm saying that at the end of the line we have - and we will always have, because we won't have a perfect world - situations in which there are people who want to break the law, for whatever reason. The education system does the best it can to teach young people the values they should be taught, and we hope they're learning those values in their own homes.
We have programs to enhance the ability of parents to deal with that, such as proper day care, an increase in money going into those programs, and all of the programs my colleague just enunciated. I'm going to be attending a VIP program ceremony on June 11 at the Willowdale middle school, which has been a big proponent of the VIP program.
I don't think that educational facilities are failing. They're doing the best they can. But there will always be people who are going to break the law. I'm saying we must develop a justice system that enhances the work they are trying to do - a system that builds into it the kinds of deterrents they are asking us to develop. Our educators and our social service people are asking us to develop a system that enhances the work they must do. That's what I'm asking you to help us with, and I know we're going to work together to do that.
Mr. Maloney: With the suggestion that we reduce the age willy-nilly to 16 years and over in defining an adult, how do you reconcile this with the approach we take for the graduated licence, drinking age and the right to vote for youth? If we don't recognize them as adults willy-nilly in one situation, how can we do it in another?
Mr. Harnick: Again, I don't think you're comparing apples and apples - you're comparing apples and oranges. We're trying to create a more responsible society by building deterrents into the Young Offenders Act to make it appropriate to community standards that exist.
After all, that's what we're here to do - we're here to take the recommendations. My colleague and I are bringing you the recommendations of communities all over Ontario. We're trying to build the caution into the Young Offenders Act that we have in the areas of graduated licences. We're trying to build in the deterrent.
.1030
I think it's terrific that young people are told today that if they have anything but a zero alcohol limit they're going to lose their licences and won't be able to drive their vehicles any longer if they have graduated licences. That's deterrence, and I'm asking you to work together with us to develop a young offenders system that builds in that deterrence.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Runciman, you indicated in your presentation that you'd like to build a made-in-Ontario system with respect to a young offenders program. Could you briefly elaborate on what you have planned for your made-in-Ontario youth offenders program?
Mr. Runciman: We certainly want to have more latitude with respect to programs developed within our system. We think that can be very effective for young offenders, and can certainly be cost-effective for taxpayers.
I think you're probably aware that we are looking at the concept of strict discipline. I appointed a task force last fall that is due to release its report, I believe, within the next week or two. It will make recommendations along those lines for how to approach this whole issue of strict discipline in the Ontario system, both on the COMSOC side, which is responsible for the 12- to 15-year-olds, and the corrections side, for the 16- and 17-year-old group.
Again, through the limited ways we can at the provincial level, we hope to try to send out the message that being sent into a corrections facility is not going to be a cake walk of Nintendo games in a relaxing atmosphere for repeat offenders and violent offenders.
At the same time, we're going to recognize that the endgame here is to put people back on the streets who are not going to continue to commit crimes. We're not going to be increasing our recidivism rate, since hopefully at the end of the day we're going to be able to have a much lower recidivism rate as a result of the initiatives we hope to announce some time later this year.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Ramsay, five minutes.
Mr. Ramsay: I don't have any further direct questions, but I'd just like to make a comment. Perhaps you can respond to it.
As we have dealt with a review of the YOA over the last number of weeks, two things have emerged very clearly. First, we must focus more attention upon the early detection and preventative aspects, and I commend your government for putting more resources into that social end of it.
You indicated clearly in your brief that when all of those systems fail - when children go through the family, the church, the educational system, and other functions such as girl guides or boy scouts, and the need to obey the law has still not been engendered within them strongly enough to keep them from committing offences - they have to know that the consequences are there. So we're looking at the two ends of it - the early detection preventative measures, as well as what to do with the 5% to 8% of violent young offenders who don't respond to those measures and become dangers to society.
We have to be able to reassure the public that the justice system is there to protect them. Until now, there has been a decrease in the confidence of the majority of the people we've talked to all across Canada who come out to the meetings we attended. They have indicated that they have a lack of confidence in the justice system and of course the Young Offenders Act in doing that.
In the adult system we see the thinking behind legislation that automatically opens the doors to offenders after serving just two-thirds of their sentences. In spite of the fact that the authorities indicate the likelihood of reoffending is high, they go out onto the street and recommit rape and murder. Melanie Carpenter and Mrs. Salter from Edmonton are some of the latest victims of that kind of thinking and that kind of legislation. I think we do have to take a look at what has been happening to our justice system over the last 25 years and these kinds of changes are reflecting the common sense of the majority of the people across the country.
.1035
I thank you for your brief and I thank you for the recommendations you've made. The four recommendations I've seen in your brief are exactly what we're recommending to the government and will probably be in a minority report at the end of the day, when we've completed our work.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Harnick, I wanted to discuss briefly some remarks you made in an answer, about building into a society a caution or deterrence factor for young offenders who have committed violent crime. I think we're failing to distinguish here between violent crimes and non-violent crimes. Based on the evidence in your brief, I think we can agree that about 80% of violent crimes in society are committed by adults and 20% of violent crimes are committed by people who are not adults.
The other thing I'm hearing from people, and I think we've heard it in this committee on numerous occasions, is that the present law dealing with adult offenders is not deterring adults from violent crimes. In fact, the rate remains the same.
I want to ask you, if we follow your suggestions, why should we put so much stock in adult law deterring young offenders when in fact all the evidence suggests adult law does nothing to deter adult offenders?
Mr. Harnick: I don't know that I agree with you the justice system doesn't create deterrence. I think people understand we have laws and if you break the laws there must be consequences. That, in and of itself, is deterrence.
I don't know what experts you're listening to. I don't believe the justice system doesn't build in deterrence. If that's what you're telling me, I think what you're telling me is very dangerous, because you're saying we have a justice system that does not work. The whole fundamental foundation of the justice system - and I'm now looking at what Mr. Rock told the committee - is accountability. If we don't have that accountability, what you are saying is the justice system doesn't work because we have a criminal law system that doesn't create deterrence. I don't believe that. I don't believe that for one instant. We would have anarchy in our community, which we don't have.
A statistic that concerns me in the province of Ontario is that young people make up just over 10% of the population, yet 20% of the criminal cases that exist in this province are young people. That's a disproportionate number of offences being committed by young people. That's why I'm pleased this committee is dealing with these tough issues, to try to resolve the problems that are systemic and that must be resolved so we can have safer communities.
Mr. Gallaway: If we were to accept your arguments that deterrence is the principal factor in sentencing, what role does punishment have in sentencing and what role does rehabilitation have in sentencing?
Mr. Harnick: When you say deterrence is the key factor, you know, and you touch on it in your question, there are two major components to the justice system and to sentencing. The first is deterrence - deterring the offender from ever doing that again, and in addition, deterring all others inclined to commit that offence by seeing the penalty that someone who did commit it has paid.
The second aspect of sentencing is rehabilitation. My colleague certainly touched on a number of areas where we believe there has to be greater flexibility within institutions so we can ensure that rehabilitation component is available to young offenders.
.1040
Mr. Gallaway: If deterrence is what I will call the paramount or primary factor in sentencing, if we look at other jurisdictions, such as the United States, where more stringent sentences are being passed, for example with respect to murder and drug offences, why are we not seeing a decrease in those jurisdictions? What's the difference?
Mr. Harnick: I am not a criminologist and I can't answer what's going on or what might be going on, as you preface it in your question. I think it's dangerous to try to do that and to deal with generalities.
What I come back to is what I believe is the foundation of this whole debate that we're having. The foundation of it is that we listen to our constituents. My constituents and constituents all over this province, at opportunities I've had to travel the province and meet with community representatives, have told me - and the Solicitor General has been very specific - that the number one concern they have when dealing with the safety of their communities is young offenders. I think that we as legislators have to be responsive to what the people are telling us, because that's where the truth and the real answers lie.
Mr. Gallaway: We want to avoid generalities, and certainly the public at times deals in generalities.
Mr. Runciman, what is Ontario doing to correct the myth, perhaps, that nothing can happen to those under 12 who commit serious crimes at this point?
Mr. Runciman: What are we doing? I don't think it's a myth in terms of what the public view as being the real response. I don't want to get into specific cases, but if someone is involved in a very violent act and they are being perhaps made a ward of the Children's Aid Society and provided with counselling treatments and so on, and they scoff at the justice system and its inability to deal with those kinds of individuals, I don't think that by and large you are going to get much acceptance from the public that that is an appropriate response to a violent criminal act. Certainly that's the feedback we're getting: that the mechanisms currently available for a particularly heinous crime are not sufficient to address public concerns.
Mr. Gallaway: I'm referring to people under the age of 12.
Mr. Runciman: So am I.
Mr. Gallaway: Do you believe that the Ontario child welfare legislation, then, is adequate to deal with someone under 12 who commits crimes of violence?
Mr. Runciman: Again I'm not an expert in the field. I know cases that have been brought to our attention, certainly recent cases as well, but there is generally a feeling that this is indeed inadequate in terms of how we can respond. That's why we have proposed that some latitude be afforded the court, so that there is at least a possibility that particularly difficult crimes can quite possibly be handled through the justice system as well.
Mr. Gallaway: That being the case, if the court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction with respect to those under the age of 12, what will Ontario do to provide secure facilities for these people who you otherwise would suggest are criminals?
Mr. Harnick: That's why we are looking to this committee, after you hear the public across the country, to deliberate and hopefully come up with some mechanisms to begin to deal with a problem that people have identified, where there is a hole in the system and where other areas of our social services are asking for the justice system to be part of that process and to facilitate and work together with the social safety net that we have in order to be able to deal with this abhorrent behaviour in a better way and a way that is more complementary with other parts of the system.
.1045
The Chair: As chair, I'm going to take a moment to ask one question of my own, something I don't often do.
Having worked in the system in Ontario, and having listened now as we've been hearing experts in Ottawa from nationally based organizations, and also on the east coast, it seems to me that one of the things that seem to be loud and clear, and it flies in the face of some of the suggestions you've made, is that in fact the Young Offenders Act is quite flexible. It's flexible enough on the front end to assist in diverting people out of custodial situations who shouldn't be there and to handle those kinds of circumstances, which I know the Province of Ontario is concerned about, not just because of expense but for reasons of prevention of crime and that sort of thing.
That having been said, some judges to whom I've spoken are saying the act's flexible enough but there's no place to put these kids - there's no assurance when they're sentencing that they have a place to put them - and that crown attorneys are taking a harder line now, not just in Ontario but in other provinces. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Runciman: Perhaps we both can.
One of the suggestions we've made in our submission is to remove this distinction between secure and open-custody facilities. That would certainly give us a great deal more latitude in administration within the youth correction system, in movement and our ability to do risk assessments and other kinds of assessments so we can ensure young offenders are put in the appropriate type of accommodation and receive the kinds of services necessary to address their particular situation. We don't have that latitude now. That's what we're encouraging you to take a good look at.
The Chair: I don't mean to be argumentative, and I think this is one clear area where provincial governments and federal governments have to work together, but if there's one point of agreement that seems to be emerging across the country, it's that we are spending far too much money on the hard end of the system, putting people in custody - whether it's secure or closed custody, Mr. Runciman - and far too little money on prevention and identification of problems at an early age. Unfortunately, what I don't hear you responding to - and maybe it's the way I phrased my question earlier - is the issue of policy in Ontario, or in any other province, which would allow you to use the flexibility of the Young Offenders Act to come to grips with kids who are in for the first time or the second time, kids who are involved in minor property offences.
I'm looking at statistics here which say that of the 80,000-plus offences committed in the province of Ontario in 1992, only 6,200 were committed by youths, and 4,200 were level one assaults. Level one assault is school yard pushing. That's bopping your buddy on the head. That's coming into the system.
I appreciate that in 1992 you weren't the government, but you are now. I know those proportions bear out even today.
Could you not use the Young Offenders Act as it exists? Could you not direct your crown attorneys in a certain way? Could you not make sure your provincial benches are full of judges, you have enough people there to come to grips with these things, and the programs are available for the judges to use?
Mr. Harnick: Certainly there are adequate numbers of judges and there are adequate numbers of crown attorneys. They screen cases. They will use, where available, a diversion program. I think the Solicitor General indicated in a very loud and clear way the need to do better with minor crime and to be able to take those cases out of the system and deal appropriately with them so we can do a better job in dealing with serious violent crime that jeopardizes the safety of communities. That's what I think this review is all about. Certainly that's what people are telling us all over Ontario.
.1050
I don't think we're at loggerheads with that. We want to deal with the area of youth crime in a way that protects communities but also offers the right kinds of procedures for less serious crimes - that provides the alternative we're looking for but permits us to deal with community safety at the same time.
The Chair: Thank you.
I got my gavel back here, so we'll rise for five minutes.
Thank you very much for taking all that time to be with us. We appreciate it.
.1050
.1055
The Chair: We have now, from the London Citizens' Committee on Youth Detention, Brian Kellow, Margaret McGee, Doris Miller and Margaret Sullivan.
I welcome you. I know you have some things you want to say first, so if you would like to go ahead and make a presentation, then we'll follow up with our questions after.
Mr. Brian Kellow (Chair, London Citizens' Committee on Youth Detention): Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is Brian Kellow. I am chair of the citizens' committee that is looking into, and has been looking into for the last four years, conditions for young offenders in the London courthouse. But I also have a day job. I'm an English teacher, a simple labourer in the vineyards of education. Imagine my reaction to the Byzantine labyrinth of ministries and bureaucracies involved in the management of young offenders in the London courthouse.
The courthouse is, I think, owned by the provincial government assets board. The courthouse is administered by the Attorney General. Because of legislation passed in 1990, offenders in the cells are supervised by private employees employed by the London police. Phase one offenders, as I'm sure you know, are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Phase two offenders are looked after by the Attorney General.
There are so many players in the management of young offenders through the justice system that when you are a simple labourer in the vineyards of education, it takes two or three years to find out who can say yes to anything or who can acknowledge responsibility for anything.
The problems began in earnest in January 1990 with Bill 187, which assigned responsibility for court security to the municipality. There was no increase in the police budget. The police were expected to provide security for youth with their existing staff. They're processed through the cells in the courthouse basement, a facility used to detain adult offenders.
Can we turn on the overhead projector? I want to show you the situation in the basement in the cell block for just one section. You can see the upper left is where the adult male cells and the bullpen are. The supervision is over to your left. There are the adult female cells and the bullpen.
Those six cells you see there were in fact designed for one person. We know sometimes up to28 young offenders are put into those six cells. What makes it even more complex is that phase one offenders must be kept separate from phase two, and males from females. If we have a female young offender in there, we have enormous overcrowding in the other cells. They are four feet by six feet.
As you can see, there is no privacy. The smell of urine is pervasive, and although the police do their best, I know there is insufficient supervision.
You can see right beside the youth detention block is the client interview room, with clients on one side and lawyers on the other. Again, there is no provision whatsoever for separation of phase one offenders from phase two offenders or even for separation of youths from adults. So one of the things that occurs is cigarettes and so forth get passed from adult offenders to young offenders, all of which is of course in violation of the act and all manner of international resolutions and charters.
.1100
That's the physical situation. I think we can do without that now. Thank you very much.
You want to say something. Go on.
Ms Margaret Sullivan (Member, London Citizens' Committee on Youth Detention): This is where the municipal guards are, who are hired by the police to watch the young offenders. They're in the camera, in the cell block. There are two guards down there, one of whom is responsible for taking any prisoner from either the adult or the young offenders cell block to the courtroom. So at many points during the day there is one guard to watch all of the cameras, including the one in the young offenders cell block.
Mr. Kellow: The predictable occurred. I have a list of incidents and it isn't comprehensive. On February 1, 1990, a young offender was placed with an adult member of the Outlaws gang, and membership in the Outlaws gang was discussed. In April 1990 a young offender passed her bra and shorts to an adult male. On April 8, 1991, a young offender made another young offender drink toilet water from his shoe. On October 5, 1994, a degrading sexual assault occurred. In January 1996 a young offender punched another young offender in the head and face and ripped off his clothes. Three or four weeks ago a young offender appeared late in front of the judge, a justice. His lawyer apologized for being late, but they had been at the hospital getting his arm set in a cast after it was broken in the cell block.
The Young Offenders Act stipulates that young people are to be kept separate and apart from adults. It's not occurring in the London courthouse to anything like the degree it should. We think it violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Canada is a signatory, which reads: ``Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.'' The practice is abusive of youths. It devalues them rather than meeting their needs.
Let me explain to you what has happened to try to improve these circumstances. Judge Genest termed the violations of the Young Offenders Act and community standards an instance of child abuse. He ordered youths out of the court cell. But what on earth do you do with them if you order them out of the cells? We had one youth held alone in a locked room for several hours with no toilet. Another youth was placed alone in the back of a paddy wagon in the dark for hours on end. On July 17, 1991, the Ontario Court of Appeal stayed charges against three youths because of the nature of the conditions under which they were held in detention. The John Howard Society attempted to resolve this issue by contacting the police and the ministries involved in the government.
It is very difficult, as I indicated at the outset, to determine where accountability and authority lie. It is the Attorney General who can say yes to changes in the physical plant, but it is Community and Social Services that has to say yes to the provision of a worker to work with youth in the courthouse.
This citizens' committee was convened in June 1992. We have met with all manner of politicians and committees. We met in Ontario with the previous NDP government and with the then Attorney General. We met with the Minister of Community and Social Services. We have met with bureaucracies till we are blue in the face. There's a lot of finger pointing going on, an awful lot of people saying somebody else is responsible for it, and of course there's no money.
.1105
We have a bunch of recommendations in our brief. I won't bore you with them, but you should read them. They're important.
One of the things we would like to see is legislated accountability for the housing and supervision of young offenders awaiting court. Somebody needs to be absolutely responsible for what goes on with those young people while they're awaiting court.
A second-floor detention room in the London courthouse had been reserved for 12- to 15-year-old youths awaiting court appearance. What happened, after we had fought for two years and driven down to Toronto, the centre of the known universe, for God knows how many meetings -
An hon. member: Windsor is the centre of the universe.
Mr. Kellow: The old centre of the universe.
Anyway, we came down here to I don't know how many meetings. All we managed to get after two years' worth of letter-writing and thumping our fists on the table and jumping up and down was a $10,000 renovation to a second-floor room. That we got from the Attorney General.
From the Ministry of Community and Social Services we got the promise, and ultimately the implementation, of one youth worker from the detention centre - the close custody detention centre for phase one offenders - to work in that room with the youth. That worker was withdrawn last November. That meant the phase one offenders who were waiting in that room for their court appearance went back downstairs to the cells. So after the better part of four years of agitation we were exactly where we had started.
We need that second-floor room reopened. We need community and social services to provide a worker for that room. Ultimately what we need is the construction of a separate facility for young offenders as soon as possible, within the courthouse precinct. We need all those facilities staffed by individuals with expertise in the management of adolescents in crisis.
That may in fact be the critical point of this whole situation. It is not appropriate to hold especially phase one young offenders in a cell block unsupervised and not managed by youth workers. As I understand the Young Offenders Act, and I'm sure I don't understand all of it, by any means, we are to hold these young people accountable for what they do, but we are still to treat them appropriately as children. It is not appropriate for young offenders to be held in a cell block beside adult offenders. It is not appropriate for young offenders to sit in a quiet room where they can be recruited by an adult offender for membership in a motorcycle gang.
I guess what I'm saying to you ultimately is you can do whatever you think is most appropriate with the legislation itself; and to be honest, I don't have a lot of argument with the legislation. I have a profound argument with the way that legislation is being implemented in the courthouse of London, Ontario. We must do something about that situation, not only to protect the lives of those young people but also to protect our community. If we permit abuse of young offenders to continue while they're in the care of various government agencies, we will be creating adult offenders who will be immensely more difficult to deal with.
The Chair: Thank you.
Were there any other opening comments from your group?
Ms Sullivan: I just want to say that as well as in London, we have heard unofficial rumours this is going on in Kingston. They don't have the proper holding facilities. I say that just so you know it is not only London; it's not just a regional problem. This is likely across the province.
The Chair: Thank you.
We'll start with Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.
.1110
Mr. Ramsay: I want to thank you for appearing before the committee. These are serious concerns.
I look at the seven recommendations you have presented. First of all, Mr. Kellow, you said it takes two to three years to determine who can say yes, in other words, to get an answer to a question. Does it really take that long?
Ms Sullivan: Actually it's more than that, because we still don't have the answer.
Mr. Ramsay: Then what you're saying is you don't get any answers. Who are you asking the questions to?
Mr. Kellow: Anything that moves.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kellow: We have asked the senior bureaucrats with the London courthouse itself. We have spoken with the senior bureaucrats of COMSOC in London. We have spoken with the people in charge of the Goderich correctional facility. Certainly in the days of the NDP we spoke with the Attorney General, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the chair of the management board.
Who else have we spoken to? I can't remember all of the people we've spoken to. Go ahead, Margaret.
Ms Margaret McGee (Member, London Citizens' Committee on Youth Detention): We just very recently met with two of the justices from the Family Court in London, who really knew very little about what we have described to you about the conditions in the holding cells in the basement. This was news to them. They are now aware, and we are now hoping to meet with the London Bar Association to see if we can, in some way, do this.
We are determined that we are going to do something about this, because we worked too hard to get the youths out of the basement holding cells up onto the second floor to see it all destroyed. With the conditions in those holding cells, something is waiting to happen that could have really serious repercussions in which a youth will be able to sue all levels of government.
It looks to us as if there are so many players in this that if you wanted to sue, you could sue a large number of people, likely the federal government as well, because it's ultimately in charge of the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Ramsay: The administration of the Young Offenders Act falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Have you contacted the Solicitor General or the Attorney General about these matters?
Ms McGee: Yes.
Mr. Kellow: Yes, all of them. Most recently I sent a frank letter to Messrs. Harnick and Tsubouchi, to which I have yet to have a response. The letter was sent early in March. I can't even get to meet with them. I can't even get a response to my letter, not even an acknowledgement that it has been received. It's very frustrating.
Mr. Ramsay: First of all, have you identified areas where the provisions of the Young Offenders Act are being violated?
Mr. Kellow: Absolutely.
Mr. Ramsay: What have you done with that evidence?
Mr. Kellow: We've presented it to all the people to whom we have spoken. The brief you have in front of you has been given to all of those other players as well. We have told them about the contact between young offenders and adults. We have told them about the contact between phase one and phase two. We have told them about the assaults that have taken place in the cell block.
I think Margaret put it well. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Mr. Ramsay: Are the conditions under which the young offenders are being held in violation of the Young Offenders Act?
Ms McGee: Yes, they are.
Mr. Kellow: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Have you documented those conditions?
Mr. Kellow: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Are they here, within the brief?
Mr. Kellow: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Have you received any correspondence whatever from any of the authorities you've referred to?
Mr. Kellow: Two binders' worth. I had to get a new binder last week to hold the material.
.1115
Mr. Ramsay: There are no responses here.
Mr. Kellow: No, there are not.
Mr. Ramsay: I'd be interested in knowing the responses of the provincial authorities, if they are in breach of the law.
Mr. Kellow: There has been no response from the provincial authorities specifically directed at what we consider to be a breach of the law.
Mr. Ramsay: Have you had a legal opinion on what you consider to be breaches of the law?
Mr. Kellow: Only very recently have we begun to discuss that option.
Mr. Ramsay: Then who is determining whether it is a legal breach of the YOA?
Mr. Kellow: We are.
Mr. Ramsay: So it's in your opinion that there are violations under the Young Offenders Act?
Mr. Kellow: Yes, but also in the opinions of a variety of other people involved in the system for young offenders.
Ms McGee: We have a very large committee. We have a lawyer on our committee who deals with youth. He has advised us on a number of things. I think we are on fairly safe grounds in saying that there is contravention here.
The previous NDP government acknowledged through the Attorney General that they were wide open to be sued if something really serious happened. They admitted that. But we lost our momentum with a change of government, and this government has not responded at all to our concerns.
Mr. Ramsay: I would think that any government would respond. The onus would be upon them to respond immediately if the laws are not being abided by, if the laws are being violated.
Was there any recognition by either the NDP government or the present government that there was in fact a violation of the YOA in how the young offenders are being housed?
Ms McGee: Certainly not by the present government. The previous government did. We had both the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Attorney General visit the facility with us to see exactly how the youth were being held. We got support from them for the second-floor facility. There was hope even at that time that we were going to be able to have another facility in there for older young offenders, but that's all gone by the wayside now.
Mr. Ramsay: Have any members of your committee visited the facility?
Mr. McGee: We've all been there.
Mr. Ramsay: And you've been there under various circumstances?
Mr. Kellow: Many of us have been there two or three times, and we've visited the closed-custody detention centre as well. In fact, it is very much in our plan for us to visit all of those facilities over and over again. Part of our strategy is to make a damn nuisance of ourselves, because that seems to be the only way in which we can get people to pay any attention to the problem.
Ms Doris Miller (Member, London Citizens' Committee on Youth Detention): I might indicate that I was a member of the public institution inspections panel, which is how I got in with this group. That was in 1991.
When we visited the cells, it was early in the morning. That was one of our first visits, and it left a lasting impression on all of us. We had read in reports of previous public inspection panels of the problem in holding the young offenders in this situation. When we did our tour of the facility, it was early in the morning, so we were spared some of the great difficulties that occur with increased occupancy over the day. But I would say personally that at that point it was the worst place I have ever been in.
At that time of course there were individuals in both the adult cells and the young offender cells. It may help if I put a face on this.
When we went through that facility, there were foul language, smoke, lack of direct supervision, and overcrowding. There was one young girl, perhaps 14 or 15 years old, in the cell. In this very violent environment she was acting out the part that was appropriate to her environment. She was a tough young street kid and she was going to show us.
.1120
That afternoon we visited the juvenile detention centre on Oxford Street and that same young gal was there. The difference in her attitude and her behaviour was incredible. She was responsible, she was polite, and she was well-behaved, because she was in an environment where that was what was expected of her and where she was responsible for her behaviour.
Of course, theoretically I had been aware of the influence of environment on behaviour but it had never hit home for me until that experience in those cells. This is the reason I got involved with this group and have continued here for the past five years. I will continue until we can do something about this situation.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway: In dealing with the review of the Young Offenders Act, one of the problems we're constantly encountering is the division of power between the federal and provincial governments. I don't know if you were here to listen to the comments of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of Ontario, but I think you've raised in a very profound way that difference between lines of authority.
You're calling for accountability in dealing with young offenders in the phase before they enter the system; although they have been charged their cases haven't necessarily been disposed of. Yet in terms of those who have been sentenced, we just heard the Solicitor General's call to allow those who operate the jails and the penitentiaries in this country to determine where young offenders will go. He made that recommendation.
Having heard that, what hope do you have for a change being made at the front end of the system, knowing that the Province of Ontario, through Bill 187, has already entered the field and legislated with respect to how young offenders will be dealt with on their entrance into the system?
Mr. Kellow: I don't know how much hope we have. I guess all I can state to you is that we will constantly agitate and constantly try to bring things to the attention of all manner of individuals. One of the cards we haven't played and don't want to play is the media card, for the simple reason that it's ephemeral; it would make a difference for a day or half a day, but that would be it.
I suppose one of the things we can do is that if we jump up and down long enough and make enough noise, we can speak to some of the people who are in authority and appeal to logic. If we can appeal to the economic and cost-cutting side of things, if we can solve some of these problems at the front end, it will be a whole lot cheaper than trying to solve them at the back end. What we're saying, in no uncertain terms, is that one of the major contributors to making a front-end problem a back-end problem is the way in which young offenders are detained before they even get into court.
Do you want to say something?
Ms Sullivan: One of the things I was going to say was in regard to the comment made by Mr. Harnick about reversing the process of putting the kids into a category so that it would be determined afterwards, on the basis of their crime, as opposed to before. Getting rid of secure versus open custody is just asking for trouble.
One of the things our committee is trying to do is race the time bomb before a child is killed in the care of the justice system. Something will happen so that these conditions will be changed. These are 12- to 15-year-old children. I'm not saying they're angels. They're not. A lot of them have committed crimes and a lot of them are not very nice, but they come out of there a lot worse.
.1125
They're not separated into open and closed custodies. They are separated within the cells between male and female, but they're not necessarily separated from each other visually. With six cell blocks in the basement, you can have one of each offender. There are different types of offenders: open and closed custody, male and female, and phase one and phase two. That's eight different groups. You can't separate them in that cell block. What you're doing is creating a school of crime while these children are in the care of the Canadian justice system.
Regardless of whose responsibility it is and regardless of who is accountable on paper, they are not taking that responsibility or that accountability, and it is jeopardizing every level of government from municipal to federal. Everybody will have a problem if a child dies in that cell.
Mr. Gallaway: Let me just quote a couple of other things. I don't think I'm taking anything out of context.
Mr. Harnick said they want youth crime dealt with - and I know Mr. Kellow, as an English teacher, would never end a sentence with ``with'' - they being the public. He said don't deny the public the justice they seek. What you've described to us is a system that certainly doesn't reflect justice. Specifically what are you asking this committee to do? Is it just to make a recommendation that our involvement with the young offender begin as soon as that individual is charged?
.1130
Obviously what Mr. Harnick is saying is that if the public of Ontario wants profound changes in the way we deal with young offenders, I detect, from what you have said this morning, that you don't form part of his public in what you're saying to us.
We are a committee that has to make recommendations. What specific recommendations do you want us to make?
Mr. Kellow: You've asked a number of questions. First of all, as to the public of Ontario demanding that something be done, I don't think the public of Ontario has any idea of the way in which the justice system processes the young offender. I think the public of Ontario are aware of one or two sensational cases, and they leap up and down and scream for reform. I think it would be completely inappropriate for any legislative body to respond to that kind of alleged thinking.
In terms of what you can do, clearly you know best what it is you can do. You understand the separation of powers and responsibilities a whole lot better than I do. But surely there is some way in your legislation that you can stipulate that there be a single accountable agency for young offenders, a single accountable agency to process young offenders from the time they get turned over from the police to the time they are released back into society, as it were, so that various advocacy groups can keep an eye on the situation and know where to go when we require improvement.
We honestly have this incredible rat's nest of conflicting bureaucracies in the same building, in the same cell block. Of course, when you have so many players, everybody blames everybody else and then no one's responsible. Surely that could go into the legislation.
I don't know if you can tie transfer payments to that kind of thing. I doubt it, but you might be able to do that. Could the federal government through the Young Offenders Act intervene through funded programs that could be made available? Could the federal government through young offenders legislation intervene in terms of grants of money for capital expenditures, i.e., a detention centre, or a cell block? Could the legislation say that from time to time the federal government can come up with a million dollars to pay for a separate facility, the justification being that we'll spend $1 million now and save $60 million over the next few decades if we can keep those young offenders out of adult crime? There are those things to consider.
Mr. Gallaway: Dr. Miller, you indicated that you were part of a public inspection panel.
Ms Miller: That is correct.
Mr. Gallaway: My riding is just down the road from London, another centre of the universe.
Ms Miller: [Inaudible - Editor].
Mr. Gallaway: Public inspection panels are somewhat of an anomaly. They are a vestige from the past. Did you find that any of your recommendations, whether made with respect to this facility or other facilities you inspected, were in any way acted upon?
Ms Miller: No, I don't think they... Well, one of the recommendations, which was to have the second floor facility reopened, was acted upon. But it was interesting, when we were given access to the previous report, as is done with each panel, to look back and see what has been reported, especially for the facilities you had to inspect, namely the ones where people were being held in custody, that the responses were simply that they received the report and were looking into it. In fact, I went back and looked at reports subsequent to our committee. As you know, in 1993 the act was repealed, so we couldn't come right up to date, but it was still a concern after that.
.1135
Our panel felt so strongly about this that we asked the media to come when we presented our report to the judge. We also asked to meet with Judge Genest, and his suggestion was that we continue to push on this and to keep involved after our panel was disbanded. I represent the panel in that respect.
What happened previous to our panel was that money had been set aside in the courthouse to renovate the second-floor room, and it was sitting empty. I believe at that point there weren't washroom facilities available for individuals kept there, so they were in the cells.
Subsequently, as Brian indicated, for a brief period of time the phase one offenders were held in that second-floor room. That seemed to work rather well except that adequate funding was not provided. It was really done on an interim basis. The youth facilities that were providing staff members were not getting extra money to do that, so they had to take their workers away from their usual jobs and put them in that facility. But it seemed to work reasonably well on an interim basis.
In fact, when we went through the courthouse with the previous Attorney General and looked at that room, we were all quite impressed. It looked very much like any other office building room. It was clean, there was no graffiti on the walls, and it was obvious that the individuals were respecting where they were being kept. They were being supervised appropriately by individuals experienced in dealing with adolescents of that age. So it seemed to work well on an interim basis, but unfortunately that was also lost.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Ramsay, you have five minutes.
Mr. Ramsay: I am concerned about the instances described on pages 8 and 9 of your report. How was this information or evidence gathered? Has it been verified? Who verified this?
Ms Sullivan: It was reported to us, I believe, by the Family Court Clinic.
Mr. Ramsay: By whom within the Family Court Clinic? Was an investigation ever conducted to verify what you have indicated on pages 8 and 9?
Ms Sullivan: An investigation by...?
Mr. Ramsay: By anyone. You put this in your brief to us.
Ms Sullivan: That's correct.
Mr. Ramsay: Some of these incidents, according to what you say here, are criminal offences.
Mr. Kellow: We get reports of the offences from a variety of people. They could be CAS workers or people from the detention centre who escort kids to the cell block and see them through their court cases. They sit in the cell block until their court case is called, so they could be in there for six or seven hours. When the kids are finished in court, then the COMSOC worker from the youth detention centre picks the kid up and takes the kid back. It is frequently that worker and/or that person's superior who tells us of an incident.
The sort of thing you're suggesting is that in cases of crimes or alleged crimes being committed, charges should be laid. The kids do not lay charges because the person who has assaulted them is likely to be the person beside them in the detention centre later that day. Do you see what I mean?
Mr. Ramsay: Aren't any of the people who are reporting these occurrences to you reporting them to the authorities to have something done about them? I'm looking for the verification of what you have indicated is happening. You're quite sure of these facts; otherwise, you wouldn't put them in your brief.
.1140
Mr. Kellow: Oh yes, we're sure.
Mr. Ramsay: Where is the verification of it coming from? Is this not being turned over to authorities to investigate?
Mr. Kellow: But that's exactly the nature of the problem. Number one, there's nobody to turn the information over to. Number two, the kids, even the ones who are assaulted, will not cooperate with the police in having charges laid.
One of the really interesting things that happens in this situation in the cell block is that if there is an assault, as we've documented here, those persons in charge of the cell block then call the police. The police come into the cell block to sort it out and to lay charges. As soon as they attempt to lay charges, the victim of the assault clams up, because the victim of the assault is likely to meet the perpetrator of the assault somewhere else in the criminal detention system.
Mr. Ramsay: For these examples that you have included within your brief, has that happened? Has there been a police investigation to substantiate what you have indicated here? Anyone who is just hearing rumours is in a difficult position. Has it been substantiated and then turned over to the proper authorities? If a worker, a staff member, sees an assault take place, then that is compellable and acceptable evidence in a court of law.
Ms Sullivan: But there's never anybody there.
Mr. Ramsay: Then how do you know -
Ms Sullivan: There's nobody there to supervise these kids.
How do you know? When the child turns up in front of the judge with a broken arm and the lawyer apologizes for the delay in the court, that is proof. And that was told to us by a judge. We could go to the hospital and confirm records there -
Mr. Ramsay: Why not turn it over to the police to investigate?
Ms Sullivan: Because the police can't do anything when the young offenders will not admit that anything has happened. They ask, ``Gee, you have your arm broken. How did that happen?'' The answer is ``I fell''. How do you press charges on the basis of that?
Mr. Ramsay: In the third paragraph on page 7, under number 1, you state that it was a female youth who supplied you with most of the information as to what had occurred. Was that an individual who was present at the time in the cell with other young offenders?
Mr. Kellow: She was watching from the other side of the cell block.
Mr. Ramsay: She was incarcerated herself?
Mr. Kellow: Right.
To verify some of these things further, when a ward of the CAS is involved in one of these incidents, the CAS itself investigates, and then they tell us.
It's hard to explain this in straightforward, rational terms. We're not an accountability body; we're just a bunch of people who make noise. So sometimes people volunteer stuff to us because they want something done about it, and sometimes we have to go digging for it.
The question of whether or not these accounts are actually true is to some extent moot. There are so many players involved, investigating and recording so many incidents, that it wouldn't be possible even for us - and keep in mind that we're just folks - to go through and investigate virtually every one of these by ourselves. We can't do that.
Mr. Ramsay: No, but you can turn that evidence and that complaint material over to the proper authorities for investigation.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, we're at seven minutes or so.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. We'll come back to it.
Mr. Maloney: This is obviously a problem of overcrowding.
How old is this courthouse?
Mr. Kellow: It dates from 1970, I think.
.1145
The Chair: I can tell you they got theirs and Windsor didn't get one. At least they have a courthouse.
Mr. Maloney: On any given day, how many youth offenders who are in custody appear in this facility?
Mr. Kellow: It varies. Mondays are really heavy because of the numbers who are picked up by the police over the weekend.
Mr. Maloney: But what is the really heaviest?
Mr. Kellow: The first number we had was 28. We were told by someone who asked not to be quoted that on one occasion two weeks ago 35 were held in those six cells. Even if it's 28...
Mr. Maloney: What size an area do you draw on - just the city of London? Do you go to St. Thomas as well?
Mr. Kellow: It's London, Sarnia, St. Thomas.
Mr. Maloney: All the way from Sarnia?
Mr. Kellow: Yes. There is a video remand system. This is a little complicated. One of the reasons youth are held in the cell block for so long is that many of them have to remain there time after time only to appear in front of a justice and then have their case remanded. So one of the things the NDP Attorney General looked into was a video remand system whereby the kids could appear in front of a justice from the detention centre, especially in places such as Sarnia, because otherwise the kids have to be transported from Sarnia to the detention centre in London, then to the courthouse, then back to the detention centre, then back to Sarnia.
So video remand makes some sense, except the kids don't use it. They don't use it for two reasons. First, there's no facility in this dead rat of a courthouse for video clients to have a private consultation with their lawyer. The second reason is that if the kid's being held in a detention centre... A lot of them will say at the very least, if you don't go for the video remand, then go to the courthouse; you get a day out. You get to be transported, and you can purchase cigarettes.
Ms Sullivan: And you can purchase cigarettes and alcohol and various other things from adult offenders, who they see in the interview room with their lawyers; and sometimes, in direct violation of the Young Offenders Act, they're left alone unsupervised with adult offenders in this interview room: before lawyers get there, after lawyers leave, before the green-jackets, the municipal guards, are there to pick them up.
Ms Miller: Another point was made by Justice Campbell. He indicated that in the unified family court, which seems to be working fairly well in setting this up, apparently there were supposed to be 5.8 judges, and four were appointed to see if this would work. His point was that a young offender who wants to plead guilty can't get time to plead guilty. So I was interested in the Attorney General's comment that plenty of judges are available, because according to Justice Campbell, individuals who want to plead guilty can't even get time to do that, and according to Justice Marchand, the priority on her calendar will be for the actual trials and bringing in witnesses and so on; she couldn't make room to squeeze in these young offenders who wanted to plead guilty. So the fact that there aren't sufficient judges to handle the cases in an expeditious manner also increases the exposure of these young offenders to this situation in the cell block.
Mr. Kellow: I could say something further here. Dr. Miller was talking about our submission conversation with the justices of the unified family court, who are people who are very concerned about this problem. Clearly, because of their position, they cannot know a whole lot of what is going on. One of these great flashes of revelation occurred to me while I was talking to these people, and it is that we have this huge complex of a justice system, the process for young offenders, and the various players don't know what the other players are doing. My guess is that this committee of just folks knows more about all of them than any one of them knows about the rest of them, because they just don't know what the other hand is doing. It's astonishing, sir.
.1150
Mr. Maloney: You've made reference to this problem existing in other centres, specifically the city of Kingston. Do you have any networking with the John Howard Society or whatever - more than Sudbury or St. Catharines or Cornwall?
Mr. Kellow: We're working on those issues. We have had some contact with the child advocacy group, and we are clearly working on networking with other groups in other centres.
We're not a John Howard committee; we're a citizens committee. As far as I know, there are no other citizens committees. I wouldn't wish it on any other community anyway.
The Chair: I thank you for coming today. Your insights - and I know you know this - if I can call them complaints, and I don't mean to diminish them in any way by calling them that - are primarily directed to administration, which is provincial. But it is very important for us to hear from you - because we can see practical consequences to federal-provincial problems, which we think are part of our mandate - and, in particular, to hear how things are going at such an important level, which is the level at which young people are brought into the system and how they're dealt with.
I seem to be going on a lot today.
Anyway, Ms Miller, the comments you made about the difference in the deportment of the young woman when she was being held in a detention cell from that when she was in another situation where there were different expectations of her behaviour were very interesting to me, and I think to my colleagues as well.
I thank you very much for taking the time and the energy to be with us. We really appreciate it.
We're now going to hear from someone you all know very well, who's been sitting behind you nodding his head. He is Dr. Leschied from the London Family Court Clinic.
Mr. Kellow: Thank you.
The Chair: If you want to hear what else we're going to hear, then I invite you to stay.
.1152
.1205
The Chair: I am very happy to welcome Dr. Alan Leschied from the London Family Court Clinic.
As is my wont, Mr. Ramsay, I will tell you that Dr. Leschied is from Windsor, and his brother and I were law partners in the past. But that's not how he got here.
Mr. Ramsay: I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that, Madam Chair.
The Chair: You're just supposed to register it and remember that Windsor is the centre of the universe.
Dr. Leschied, the floor is yours.
Dr. Alan W. Leschied (Assistant Director, London Family Court Clinic): Thank you very much. As I said to the chairperson before my presentation, I apologize to the committee for not having copies of my submission to you beforehand. Copies will be made for you.
I would like to speak about some of the specific issues I would like this committee to consider, and I look forward to your questions.
I am certain that this committee has heard submissions throughout the country that crime in general and youth crime in particular continue to be amongst the major preoccupations of Canadians. In a recent study carried out by the London Family Court Clinic, along with the University of Toronto, we identified that as many references to youth crime have appeared in the media over the past ten years as were reflected in Canada's major newspapers over the entire history of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, from 1908 to 1984.
At this point it would not be an understatement to suggest that youth crime, some of the misperceptions related to it, which I am going to speak about later, and a fear of young people have come to dominate the thinking of many individuals in our country. Through my work at the London Family Court Clinic, I have had the opportunity to travel extensively throughout our country speaking on crime-related matters, and in particular on youth crime matters. Again, it should come as no surprise that there are some communities in our country that are seemingly immobilized because of their fear and concern with respect to youth crime.
Before I speak about the issues, I'd like to talk a little about where I work. The London Family Court Clinic is a children's mental health centre partially funded by the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. For the past 22 years we have provided services to the youth court under both the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act.
Specifically, we provide assessments under section 13 of the YOA and also provide clinical support for secure custody and detention facilities in southwestern Ontario. We are also involved with violence prevention programs in the secondary school system. We have produced, with the support of Health Canada and a number of community agencies, a curriculum document for schools on the variety of ways educators can implement violence prevention as part of the academic curriculum. As well, we provide support for child victims of assault, primarily sexual assault, for those children who have been victimized and must appear as witnesses in court.
So we see the full spectrum. We see children before they've committed crime, in the high schools through our prevention programs. We see the victims of crime who have to testify in court against their alleged perpetrators. And we see the young people after they have been formally identified as guilty of an offence.
In addition to the clinical work we provide, the Family Court Clinic has been extensively involved in research and evaluation issues related to all aspects of the services we deliver. Of interest to this committee will be our involvement in research related to young offenders.
Recently we produced for the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario an extensive review of research in the area of prediction and assessment of youth at risk for committing crime. Specifically, we reviewed the vast number of studies that have been carried out in the area of effective treatment of young persons. Therefore, I wish to base my remarks not only on our direct involvement with children and families, but also on our research. I also wish to provide this information to the committee in the context of the myths that have evolved with respect to youth crime.
The first myth I wish to share with this committee relates to the perception that youth crime is a seemingly random event, that we do not seem to appreciate the nature and circumstances of young persons at risk for committing crime.
Our appreciation of the prediction of youth at risk rests on our ability to make predictions, and hence provide an opportunity to assess meaningfully those characteristics that differentiate youth who may commit crime from those who have less probability of committing crime.
It will come as no surprise to this committee that in the main, young persons come in conflict with their communities as a result of an inability to be socialized into pro-social attitudes and values. Research in North America, Britain and Australia suggests that the means by which children are socialized in their culture plays a primary role in understanding those children at risk for committing crime. The primary means by which children are socialized are vested within families, peers and schools.
.1210
For example, a number of the children who we see at the family court clinic and who may be charged with violent offences have themselves been victimized or have been exposed to long-term violence between adults within their home. A child is most likely to be victimized by someone they know, not by someone they don't know.
I am certain this committee is aware of the cycle of violence that unfortunately characterizes many of our families. Hence to appreciate the concern with respect to youth violence we need to appreciate the nature of family violence more deeply, and the modelling effect on our youth of the exposure to violence. In essence, rehabilitation with violent youths needs to consider deeply the role that families play, and indeed that the media play, in modelling and rewarding that violence.
The second myth I wish to discuss with this committee rests in the misperception that there is little of a rehabilitative nature we can do for chronic and violent young offenders. It is easy to rest in the belief that we can do nothing, that young people will grow out of their anti-social values, or that the vast majority of young persons involved with the law will find their way into the adult criminal justice system.
However, we now have a well-founded set of standards that can act as guiding principles to direct the nature of programs, thereby making them more effective. There are no secrets about what those ingredients are for effective programs. They rest on a systematic implementation of factors related to effective service that have been identified within the research literature.
This committee may be aware that Canada locks up one out of every three young persons who proceed through the youth courts. This 34% incarceration rate places Canada amongst the leading nations in rates of incarceration of young offenders per capita. Only the U.S. and Great Britain lock up more young persons of young offender age than we do. We depend heavily on the deterrent effect of higher numbers of young people placed in custody for longer periods of time.
The literature in the area of deterrence and sanctions is very clear. Simply, the nature and circumstances of the majority of youth who are involved chronically with crime do not necessarily respond to the deterrent effect of incarceration or incapacitation. Indeed, there is considerable literature in this area that suggests deterrence can actually act as an increasing or criminogenic effect by challenging youth to be caught. It is part of the game playing people sometimes comment on in youth committing crime to see whether or not they can get away with it.
Risk-taking is part of adolescence. Risk-taking is a particular characteristic of many youth who are involved with crime. Deterrence has little or no value within the lives of those young people who are chronically and persistently involved with crime. Hence, as our neighbours to the south would attest, placing increasing numbers of youth in custody for longer periods of time does not have the desirable effect of increasing community safety. We need to do something else.
This is why this committee needs to consider seriously the commitment through the YOA of encouraging the implementation of effective strategies through rehabilitation. While I appreciate that Bill C-37 went a considerable distance in placing rehabilitation within the declaration of principles, there is still ample room within the declaration for both court decisions and government policies to insist on the implementation of programs that are not consistent with literature in the area of effective service.
This brings me to the third myth I wish to share with the committee, and that is the myth that out there somewhere exists a silver bullet of intervention that will be a quick fix for chronic, persistent, and violent offenders.
Currently the fashion is to talk about the importance of boot camp. Manitoba, Alberta, and now Ontario are anticipating embracing the concept of boot camp, notwithstanding the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence to support the effectiveness of those boot camps. Indeed, as I reviewed for our committee on the strict discipline task force in Ontario approximately two months ago, close to 100 evaluated studies have now been produced concerning boot camps in the United States; produced by independent evaluators. Policy-makers in our country try to seize on something that will act, again, as a quick fix. Boot camps are simply not a quick fix.
.1215
It seems ironic that within the declaration of principle, Bill C-37 attempted to place the rehabilitation of youth as a goal that is consistent with community safety, yet discussion and implementation of programs that are counter-indicated by the research in this area continue to flourish.
The fourth and final myth I wish to share with this committee looks at the belief of the Canadian public that the YOA is simply soft on crime. As indicated earlier, Canada invests considerable importance in custodial disposition. Excluding Quebec, 34% of all of the youth involved in the criminal justice system in Canada end up in some form of custody for varying lengths of time.
The data provided through the court clinic as well as from Professor Tony Doob of the University of Toronto suggests that for similar types of offences a youth has a higher probability of being placed in custody than would an adult with a similar offence history. Yet the perception remains within the Canadian public that we are not yet tough enough on youth crime.
I wish to point out to this committee the faulty logic that lies behind that perception. This misperception is that if only we provide enough incapacitation, fine-tuned with the nature of the offence the young person presents with in the context of the criminal background, somehow we will provide the specific deterrent that will increase community safety. I wish to share with this committee that in reviewing the considerable body of literature on effective intervention, this logic simply does not hold when the test of considering that logic against the yardstick of effective service is used.
I would like to briefly offer this committee some directions for consideration. First, Canada invests 80% of its young offender funding in housing young persons in a variety of custodial facilities; 80% of transfer payments goes towards custody. This committee needs to give serious consideration to supporting the reallocation of funding to programs, consistent with research in the area of effective service, that may not necessarily embrace the continuing reliance on custody. There are a variety of community-based alternatives that have demonstrated themselves not only to be more effective but also to be cost-efficient.
This committee needs to give serious consideration to endorsing and supporting those programs that can meaningfully promote community safety. This is in contrast to the ongoing reliance on custody facilities that in many respects have, as our previous speaker indicated, become schools for crime for many low- and moderate-risk offenders placed there.
In a recent study we did at the clinic we looked at 634 young offenders placed in open custody. Of those, two-thirds were low-risk offenders, which meant that going into those facilities, they had very low probabilities of reoffending. Do you want to know something? Half of those two-thirds of low-risk offenders were at least moderate-risk, and some came out high-risk, at the other end of the system. So one conclusion can be that our system is actually criminogenic in nature, just by the very fact that we house so many low-risk offenders in open custody.
The second consideration I wish to share with this committee rests with the literature on prediction and early identification of children at risk for being antisocial.
You are now in a province that, while considering implementing a boot camp philosophy within custody, is also giving direction for funding cutbacks that will take away opportunities within education to address the needs of high-risk learners. Such high-risk learners are characterized by having some form of learning disability, speech or language disorder, or some kind of challenge to their ability to socialize in meaningful, prosocial ways. The irony of this situation is too apparent to ignore.
We now possess the ability to make early identification of such high-risk learners in order to interrupt the cycle that leads for many to later antisocial behaviour. The Family Court Clinic, along with Dr. Paul Steinhauer of the University of Toronto and with funding through the National Crime Prevention Council, has recently submitted a model of early identification and prevention for children and families at risk for becoming anti-social. This report was released this past weekend in Prince Edward Island. It's entitled ``Preventing Crime by Investing in Families''.
What this simply suggests is that there is a model that exists for early identification and prevention which can serve as a gold standard, if you will, in providing communities with direction on how to implement policies and programs consistent with the literature in the area of prevention of crime. Here, the best prevention techniques support families in a variety of ways that relate not only to educational opportunities through identification and programs like Head Start, but also concentrate on maternal nutrition during pregnancy, community support for high-risk infants, providing socialization and recreational opportunities within high-risk neighbourhoods, and addressing issues related to poverty.
.1220
In conclusion, I realize that there is much in this presentation to consider, and I appreciate the committee's attention. What I wish this committee to appreciate overall from this submission is that there are serious issues at stake relating not only to the needs and circumstances of high-risk youth and families but also to the safety and security of the communities in Canada. We can do better than we're doing now. I believe that is what the Canadian public is demanding: not simply justice, but also safety.
I believe the Canadian public in part is in need of education related to what effective programs are, if not simply increasing sanctions. I believe that the overriding myth that, other than placing youths in incarceration, there is little to be done to interrupt the cycle of crime needs to be addressed seriously. This is not a hopeless exercise. There is much in research and past experience to guide this committee in its deliberations, and I trust this will lead to meaningful input regarding young offenders policy in our country.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thanks, Dr. Leschied.
Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: I simply don't agree with some of the conclusions you've arrived at. I guess that this will not be an unusual phenomenon as we go across the country.
Let me just tell you where I have some problems with what you've presented to the committee this morning. Yet I want to thank you for what you have submitted, because it surely will be part of the mix that we'll be considering as we go forward.
You suggested that deterrence has no effect at all and you say there's evidence to suggest that deterrents, because they perhaps create a challenge, induce youth crime.
Dr. Leschied: Do you want me to clarify that, Mr. Ramsay?
Mr. Ramsay: May I ask the question? If I have misstated you, then I didn't hear you right or I misunderstood you.
If that is true, if the deterrent has no impact, then why not raise the minimum age to 14 years or 16 years? Maybe we're going in the wrong way. Why not go in the other way, so that the violent offences committed by the 11-year-olds and the 10-year-olds where the justice system has no power to protect society from them in terms of actions taken after the fact...? If what you're saying is right, why not raise the minimum age?
Dr. Leschied: If I can address the issue you brought up before, which is why deterrence doesn't work, it was stated in the context of the young offenders whom we see coming back time and time again. Simply putting them back in custody for increasing lengths of time is not in itself an effective response.
Eight percent of the young people who are 12 to 17 years of age come before the youth court. By definition, 92% of the young people are law-abiding citizens, in part because of values, but also because of deterrence. They know that if they get caught, something will happen. For the 8% who come to court and the smaller percentage who keep coming back time and time again, simply locking them up without providing some kind of human service, some kind of anger management program, a special educational program, a special life skills program... Without that as part of what goes on in the core process, simply reprocessing those kids through custody in a deterrent fashion is not what works.
That's what I was stating.
Mr. Ramsay: The facilities we have visited so far have not produced evidence that rehabilitative programs are not being provided. There have been suggestions that perhaps a sentence of two months for a violent offence doesn't give any rehabilitative programs sufficient time to make an impression upon the young offender.
What are we to do? What are we to recommend to our justice minister with regard to the violent offences being committed by these 8%? Are we to say, don't keep them in jail for a longer time, don't keep them incarcerated for a longer time; turn them loose into society even though the likelihood of them committing another violence offence is high? Is that the answer?
Dr. Leschied: The answer is to give direction to the minister to be sure that there are standards by which effective programs are delivered, which can be delivered in institutions. They can be delivered as effectively outside of institutions for some young people. Those should be a prerogative of those who deliver the services. It's not enough just to house kids.
.1225
I visit a lot of young offender facilities, and frankly for some of them it's enough to get three meals a day - ``three hots and a cot'' is what it's referred to - and sometimes that's what constitutes custody. That's not good enough. We need to deliver programs to the young person, if they are to be in custody, attached to why they're in trouble in the first place.
Mr. Ramsay: I don't have, and I don't think anyone on the committee would have, any disagreement with you. But what about the suggestion that perhaps a young offender should be sentenced not to a term of imprisonment but to a program of imprisonment?
Dr. Leschied: I can give you a specific example. Sometimes specialized programs don't exist within the young offender system but they do in the mental health system. So we will ask the judge in our assessment to place a youth in custody but give them a temporary release so they can actually reside in the adolescent unit at the London Psychiatric Hospital, where they have, for example, a sex-offender-specific program that isn't a part of the mandate of the custody system but is within the mental health system.
We try to be creative in how to use the Young Offenders Act in order to gain access to that kind of program. That kind of creative thinking is really exciting to hear, and that's the kind of thing we try to do. But I will say some judges are really uncomfortable with that.
Mr. Ramsay: You use terms such as ``a quick fix''. I haven't talked to anyone who believes in quick fixes, because it is very difficult to change patterns of behaviour. That is the challenge any rehabilitative program has before it, whether it is for young offenders or it is for adults. It is changing a person's behaviour.
When you use terms such as ``quick fixes'', forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you're setting up a straw man and you're knocking it down. I don't think anyone thinks there is a simple approach to the solution of youth crime. Young offenders who have come to us with an upbringing where they have fallen through the cracks, whether in the educational system... And we heard some of that this morning. We've heard it before. Dr. Carrigan, who appeared before our committee in Halifax, pointed out that until such time as the parents begin to teach values and ethics in the home and we have those values and ethics reinforced within our educational system and at all levels of society, we're heading towards a brick wall. That's what he indicated to us, and I think he's absolutely correct.
When we look at the proper role of the justice system, the traditional role of the justice system, I think it was pointed out fairly clearly by the Solicitor General and the Attorney General that after all other programs of society have failed and someone goes forward and commits a violent act, the role of the justice system is basically to do three things: first, to protect society; second, to have a deterrent effect; and third, to look at the possibility of rehabilitation of that individual by providing sentences and penalties.
For me to hear you argue as you do that deterrents have no effect and may even challenge young people to offend indicates to me that either you are wrong or I am wrong, and maybe we should be looking at eliminating the concept of a deterrent.
Dr. Leschied: Two points, Mr. Ramsay. One is that deterrents alone, for those kids who keep recycling themselves through the justice system, aren't enough. The sanction, the deterrent, needs to be accompanied by a human service or program, an educational or rehabilitative program that is part and parcel of what the justice system can offer. ``The deterrent alone'' is what I meant to say, if I wasn't clear enough. The deterrent acts very effectively for 92% of young people.
The second point is when I mention the phrase ``quick fix'' it relates to what I fear happens when something becomes fashionable, whether it's called a ``boot camp'' or a ``scared straight'' program. Somehow the public seizes on that, that maybe it's the thing we need to be doing next. We have to be careful about that. That's what I mean.
.1230
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, and we're speaking about alternatives for the justice system. Otherwise, the committee wouldn't be doing the 12-year review. So inasmuch as people look at those alternatives and governments implement those alternatives, the final...
It's like Dr. Shamsie said to our committee the other day. He said he didn't care what works. He cautioned the committee that any changes that are going to occur must be done on the basis of scientific evidence and fact. He said that if boot camps work, he supports boot camps. If caning worked, he would vote for caning. But any changes that we're contemplating must be based upon scientific evidence and fact. So if the boot camp does not work, then we're going to know about it.
I would like to know what you would recommend for that 8% of young offenders, particularly the violent ones. What would you recommend that the committee consider in terms of how to ensure society is protected from them?
Dr. Leschied: What I would want the committee to consider is that, as Dr. Shamsie would say, there is good scientific evidence to look at certain specific anger management programs, and that kids are helped to be sensitized to the victims of crime as part of their stays in detention or custody, if that's necessary. Use those programs that have shown themselves to be effective, not things that are not effective.
But I would challenge Mr. Ramsay with this: concerning boot camps, which have not shown themselves to be effective, why do they have such appeal? Why are we so seduced, almost, into believing that boot camps need to be a part of the range of services when they've never shown themselves to be effective?
It's part of my role in my knowledge and experience of 19 years in the youth justice system in Canada to say that some things work, some things don't work. Let's invest our energies in those things that are effective.
Mr. Ramsay: How is my time doing?
The Chair: You're out, but we'll get back to you, I have no doubt.
Mr. Ramsay: All right.
Mr. Gallaway: Thank you, Dr. Leschied, for coming.
I hear talk about science and facts here. We had Mr. Runciman, who made the statement that the public has little confidence in the youth justice system. The public is right: it doesn't protect the public, punish the guilty or deter crime. Do you care to comment?
Dr. Leschied: If you were a business person and you were looking at the outcomes you got from the investment you had in the system we have now and you knew that there was a reoffending rate in custody that hovered, after a year, around 80%, you'd wonder what you were producing, wouldn't you? That's exactly where we reside now. So in some respects Mr. Runciman is right, and the public shouldn't have confidence in the current system.
But here's where I'd challenge the public's perception of what Mr. Runciman leads to: we need more deterrence; perhaps we need more incarceration; we need to lower the age so that more people go into the adult criminal justice system, where there's even less opportunity to be availed of educational rehabilitative services.
That logic doesn't flow. We can get more confidence into the public's perception of justice by making the community safer. We do that by offering the services that are consistent with community safety. That's based upon the research, the evaluation, the things that work and the things that don't work. Frankly, the increasing spiral of custody rates is one of those things that isn't getting us anywhere.
Over the last 15 years the U.S. has been pursuing a custody system for youth in some states whereby there is more money spent on the youth justice system than on the youth education system. I'm sure you'll hear that lots if you haven't heard it already. The U.S. is not any safer for it, by the way.
There's something wrong in the logic that is brought about by that kind of thinking. So I would challenge either Mr. Runciman or the public to say that maybe our logic isn't correct here.
Maybe it's not more, right? Maybe we need less of some things and we need some things that are differently delivered than what we've gotten used to doing.
My mother used to grow African violets. She used to always think that if they were dying she would water them. If they were dying, she'd give them even more water. That was until I said to my mom that maybe she was watering them to death. That's the analogy.
Mr. Gallaway: That's an interesting analogy.
We'll move on then. Either Mr. Harnick or Mr. Runciman recommended that we examine the whole, which we have been doing, issue of lowering the age and that the model that was presented by the Province of Ontario this morning is to give judges discretion to decide whether a young person, under the age of 12 presumably, should be brought into the system. What is your comment about those who suggest we lower the age?
.1235
Dr. Leschied: My comment would be, to what end? Do we introduce younger people into a custody system that is already contaminating in the way it delivers services? Or if we bring 11-year-olds, because of who they are and what they've done, into a system that can somehow mobilize human resources to be sure the programs are in place, it is a great idea. Maybe those kids aren't being well serviced as they are now.
We invest a lot of confidence in the children's aid system and the children's mental health system. But maybe the existence of young people who commit such heinous crimes is evidence the system may not be fully operational. So if the justice system were to be an adjunct to deliver those services, this would be terrific. If the purpose is bringing those kids into a system where custody is going to be the sole means of responding to what they do, I'm not sure where you're going to be.
Mr. Gallaway: You've talked about this group of repeat offenders, especially those who have been convicted of violent crimes.
Dr. Leschied: Yes.
Mr. Gallaway: Incarceration or being held in custody does not deter them. Do incarceration or fear of punishment in general have any effect on those young people who are in the system for the first time?
.1240
Dr. Leschied: For low-risk offenders, as we say, who aren't terribly committed to a criminogenic lifestyle, the spectre of custody or more court processing really does have some effect. But you know those kids probably didn't need to be processed to begin with. This is where the diversion programs and community interventions really come in.
What really escalates the cost of our system is that we have this tendency to bring in those kids. We widen the net, in other words, by bringing in those low-risk offenders who shouldn't really be there and who have learned their lessons. We bring them into custody because we think maybe the public has a perception we're too soft on crime, etc.
We should leave those guys out of the system. With them, we should use alternative measures such as community service orders and things that really are effective for low-risk offenders. We could then take those resources we've been investing in kids who don't need them and really concentrate on those high-risk, violent offenders. There are many good programs in existence. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. They exist. They're effective. They are delivered in many different ways in many very good programs.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Harnick had, I could say, almost a fixation on the number 11,000, which he kept quoting as being the number of violent crimes committed by young offenders in the province of Ontario during the most recent year for which they have statistics.
Do you believe crimes of violence are increasing among young offenders, or do you believe there is a lower tolerance among the police?
Dr. Leschied: This is a great question, Mr. Gallaway. In Ontario, for example, we have the zero tolerance policy in the school boards. I can tell you that in the London community the shoving that used to go on on the playground and used to be resolved in the community is now processed through court. I would be suspicious of those spiralling violent offences because what violent offences in data capture is everything from simple assault, which is the shoving match on the playground, to murder, the most heinous of violent crimes. There is no way to differentiate those.
But I can tell you about one really distressing phenomenon. This is the number of young women coming through the system who have committed violent crimes. Actually, Mr. Ramsay was part of a TV show we did last Wednesday night in London. The London chief of police, Chief Fantino, revealed some data showing that in the last five years the single largest increase in the rate of violent crimes was in crimes by young women. Now, it still is relatively small in proportion to all violent crime, but it's distressing. There's obviously something going on there.
But the zero tolerance stuff with the boards of education and how it's managed really have artificially inflated this data.
Mr. Gallaway: Your first point was that the media has referred to youth crime more in the last ten years than it ever did prior to the Young Offenders Act.
Dr. Leschied: Yes.
Mr. Gallaway: Why do you think this is the case? Do we have children in society who are in fact worse than they were some twenty years ago?
Dr. Leschied: You just never know. And you never know why the media feeds on this.
But do you know what is really fascinating? Again, Professor Doob at the University of Toronto did a very interesting study. After we went through and just looked at all the crime reporting, he itemized and chronicled what crime stories are being covered. Two-thirds of all the crime stories covered relate to violent crime with kids. Yet violent crimes by young persons represents between 10% and 12% of all crimes committed.
Little wonder the Canadian public believes there is an incredible increase in violent youth crime. If they read the papers, the primary means of gaining information, they would believe violent crime is out of control. But coverage is disproportionate to how youth crime is represented in the general offender population. So you need to be mindful of this.
Mr. Gallaway: I'm also interested in conviction rates. I have read stories that have said, for example, if you're a black male in the District of Columbia you have a 92% probability of at some point being charged with something. Yet the rates of conviction are no higher among this group than among the white population.
Do you believe that what appears in the media to be a wave of youth crime has in fact more to do with zero tolerance than it does with what is actually happening?
Dr. Leschied: Frankly, I think zero tolerance in processing cases that two years ago would never have been processed through the courts has a lot to do with it, and this is just in our jurisdiction. We get a lot of the section 13 referrals - we get all of them from London. We're seeing kids who are first offenders, really very low-risk criminogenic guys who have a charge of assault because they were in a fight in a playground.
.1245
That's not to condone that, by the way. But we as a society have decided to change our response to it, so we process them through the court as opposed to resolving things in the community and the schools with the principals and things. I think there's something lost by that.
Mr. Gallaway: I realize there are differences in police forces in terms of training, but do you think our police in Ontario are well equipped on average to...I'll call it ``blind note'' a particular act as to whether it should go through the court system as opposed to being resolved in the school or the home or elsewhere?
Dr. Leschield: That's a great question. We had a committee in London looking at how much discretion a police officer uses when called onto the school grounds. While police basically have discretion now, almost everything they're called about for a young person over the age of twelve they will charge because the policies around education in Ontario suggest that they do. Because violence has gotten such media attention, we process those cases through the court. So I would say that while discretion still resides with an officer, police are tending towards charging as opposed to not charging.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway, we will get back to you.
Five minutes, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: I don't believe we're too far off in our perceptions of what ought to be done in this area, as you go forward and clarify some of the things you've submitted to the committee.
We have sentencing circles, and not only that - we have community programs or community circles that I suppose follow the same principle. They have the offender admit the offence and face the victim. We had a former judge who worked in sentencing circles in Saskatchewan appear before the committee, who told us very clearly that the two- or three-hour period when the offender faces the victim and members of the victim's family and the community is a very emotional experience. It lays the groundwork for the healing process to take place on both sides, not only for the victim but for the offender as well, because he has damaged himself as well.
Yet we have heard other people before this committee who say that the shame, the remorse or the pain of all that ought to be avoided, that the young offender should not be subjected to the shame that even disclosure to the news media might bring. So I have some real concerns in those areas, and perhaps you could comment on this.
I want to point out that 42 people, if the statistics are right, will be murdered in the next 12 months by young offenders. That is a horrifying statistic. I don't care whether it is high or low. It is still a horrifying statistic that society has to deal with one way or another.
Perhaps that's why the whole term ``quick fix'' has come into existence and is being used. I don't think it's being properly used, and with due respect I don't think it's been properly used by you today, certainly not from my understanding from people in authority who are grappling with this problem. We don't believe there is a quick fix, not on this committee. Otherwise we wouldn't be taking six to eight months travelling across the country seeking an answer. I don't believe there is such a thing.
Anyway, I'd like to ask you this. Under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act the courts had access to treatment alternatives. When the change occurred to the YOA, they were left with increased sentencing options but fewer treatment options in terms of sentencing. I think that's what you're talking about.
If I understand what you're saying, the police had quite a thick file on the 11-year-old who was accused of this terrible assault. On a number of occasions there was evidence that he had violated the law. Those were signs to the police and to society that this young person needed some kind of help, the kind of rehabilitation you're talking about, yet they were not able to do a thing about it.
.1250
They were able to turn him over to the Children's Aid Society without process through the criminal justice system. Under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, he may have ended up in the same place, with the Children's Aid Society, but not after due process - after a juvenile court judge examined all the circumstances and determined that was in the best interests of the offender as well as in the best interests of society. We don't have that now.
If we had reduced the age, this young boy would have been able to get the assistance and the attention that he didn't get until he'd committed this very serious offence.
How would you recommend that we address those circumstances and those factors that are now evident within our justice system?
Dr. Leschied: I wish to make two points. The first is, to go back, if I left you with the impression that I believe in a quick fix, I do not.
Mr. Ramsay: No. That's not what I thought.
Dr. Leschied: Secondly, as the Ministry of Justice will be aware, the family court clinics were very much at the vanguard of wanting to see the consent to treatment section, section 22, taken away. We don't think young people who are before the court should have discretion to be able to make treatment decisions. We came into conflict with a number of people about that, but I think we agreed a lot.
If part of the purpose of the youth court system is to make available appropriate treatment programs for young people, then those should be within the purview of the court and not that of the young person before it. So we agree with that.
I haven't thought through the issue of how low the minimum age of accountability should be. I will simply say that if any access to service is facilitated through the justice process, then it needs to be examined.
By the way, I think it's unfortunate that our youth justice system is being used for that. But if that's a mechanism by which we can deliver appropriate services to children at risk, then we need to look at that.
The Province of Quebec has a youth protection act whereby young people can be afforded treatment programs within the provincial jurisdiction without always having to resort to the federal young offenders act. We need to look closely at why and how Quebec can do that and why and how the rest of the country can't seem to figure out how to do it.
Unfortunately, provincial laws in some respects try to excuse themselves from providing services rather than to find permission to provide those services.
Mr. Maloney: I wish to deal with confidentiality in dealing with youth offenders. There's a feeling out there that perhaps we've gone overboard with trying to protect the youth offenders. I'd like your comments on whether it's a good thing or a bad thing or whether perhaps there's a compromise -
Dr. Leschied: I think there's a compromise that's been reached, and it is that there's limited access to young offender files where knowledge is required by an education system to be aware of the presence of a person who may be a risk to those around them. That's the principle with the safety of the school, for example. The principal may need to be aware of who is in the atmosphere.
I can support that as long as that information is dealt with responsibly by educators.
I still have problems where a young offender's name may be published in a newspaper, where the publicity and labelling effect of knowing that you're a young offender may actually have a criminogenic effect. The good old labelling theory research always says that you tend to become who they say you are. If you're told often enough that this is who you are, then you're going to fulfil that obligation.
That's what the underlying principle of confidentiality is, and it seems to be a good one. But I also believe in limited access to information. If a young person is even a rehabilitated sex offender who may have a moderate risk of reoffending, then if my child is in that school, I think I'd want the principal to know that so they can take due precautions.
Mr. Maloney: What about the teachers? Where do you draw the line?
Dr. Leschied: I remember talking about this in the consideration of Bill C-37. We went back to how, as a responsible professional, a teacher should be able to manage that information. Where it broke down on the OSRs in Ontario was that there was too much access to information and it wasn't dealt with responsibly.
So with educational professionals, teachers and principals, it makes sense, but it has to be done professionally.
.1255
Mr. Maloney: Looking at the school situation, I'm told by school principals the student body knows a certain individual, so why have confidentiality when it's all over the school in any event but the neighbour next door doesn't have that appreciation?
Dr. Leschied: Can I give you a more immediate example? There's a young person we assessed. He was a very serious sex offender. As a matter of fact he got three years in secure custody for his offences. He was from an area north of London. He came to court in London. He served his time on this charge. He also attended the adolescent unit sex offender program at London Psychiatric Hospital.
When he was released from LPH, he took up an apartment two doors down from a day nursery. He had been a pedophile. He was still a pedophile. It was a great personal crisis because several of those known at the clinic had children at that day nursery and we knew this young person, although he had worked to rehabilitate himself, was still going to be a risk and he was going to live only two doors down from there.
So we were challenged with how much to release to the immediate neighbourhood. Of course we couldn't release anything. But do you not think that neighbourhood knew about that young person's presence within a week? They did. It's just a network of how things happen.
I think it's a real dilemma. It's a real personal and professional dilemma. Access to records is a really difficult one when you think about it on a personal basis. We advocate limited access for professionals who are responsible for the information.
Mr. Maloney: Again, there's a public safety issue: the rehabilitation of the individual and his right not to be stigmatized, as opposed to -
Dr. Leschied: In cases where a young person continues to be at moderate to high risk to reoffend even though they are released some information needs to be shared so the larger community can be maintained safely as well.
Mr. Maloney: What are your comments on these diversion programs right from the beginning, when a youth comes into the system who could be diverted to perhaps a community tribunal as opposed to even going into the court system?
Dr. Leschied: I have really been a strong advocate for pre-court diversion, absolute diversion for some low-risk offenders - shoplifters, those who are first-charge - things of a nature where the court process doesn't help them access an appropriate program, because that can be done directly through a CSO or an alternative measures program and those are incredibly effective. An evaluation of the St. Leonard's Society program in London showed 94% of those kids, once they went through there, never darkened the doors of a courthouse again. But then by definition, as low-risk offenders they didn't need a whole lot to stay out of the system, so it's good we didn't over-process them.
So I think pre-charge diversion would be a really important goal to work towards. In Ontario we don't have that support. I'm not sure where that's at in the rest of the country.
Mr. Maloney: Who do you think should be making the decision on pre-court diversion - the police?
Dr. Leschied: The police, at the request of the crown attorney, can review and then parcel out those kids who don't need the court process.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: You have made reference to low-risk offenders and you spoke earlier about how instances of the pushing in the schoolyard situation are now moving into the system, which increases the offences. When I went to school, if I pushed someone in the schoolyard and it had to come to the attention of the teacher or the principal, we got hauled in and it was dealt with summarily and informally. Now that's not happening. The reason that's not happening, many say, is the rights being granted to the youths under the charter. The teachers and the principals aren't going to intervene because they don't want to end up in court and put their jobs on the line. They're simply saying, I'm calling the police about this.
I don't think it's because zero tolerance is emerging in the minds of the people. A scuffle is a scuffle. We know this occurs naturally from time to time. It's not acceptable, but we expect the lowest level of authority to deal with it. They're no longer dealing with it.
As I mentioned earlier today, at meetings all across the country where we say parents should be held at least financially accountable when their negligence contributes to the delinquency of their children, the parents stand up and say, that's fine if you will return the authority to us to raise our children, so when we tell them they have to be in by nine o'clock or ten o'clock, they don't come back to us and say ``We have rights. Our teacher has told us we have rights and you can't infringe upon those rights.''
.1300
That's undermining the authority of the parents, the authority of the principal and the authority of the teacher. It undermines the authority of those people who traditionally have kept our children out of the system.
Do you have any comments?
Dr. Leschied: I just have a question. What kinds of authority are parents looking for that they don't experience already?
Mr. Ramsay: I gave the example of where the mother wanted her fifteen-year-old daughter to clean up her room, they got into a fight and the daughter went to the social services, who gave her her own apartment and $800 or $900 a month. That undermines the authority of the parent.
Dr. Leschied: Interestingly, when that issue was brought up last Wednesday night when we had that call-in show in London, the parental authority issue quickly became the corporal punishment issue. If the issue is whether parents should have access to corporal punishment as a means of raising their kids, all I can say is -
Mr. Ramsay: But that's not my question to you today.
Dr. Leschied: Well, that's why I'm asking you what you mean. What parental authority are we looking for? What authority do parents need to have that they don't have now?
Mr. Ramsay: So that their fourteen- or fifteen-year-old son does have a curfew that he has to abide by.
Dr. Leschied: And what authority would a parent need to have to impose that that they don't have now?
Mr. Ramsay: That's not the question. The question is the youth now believes he doesn't have to abide by the authority of the parent.
Dr. Leschied: What can a parent do so it could be vested in law that parents now have the right to raise their children the way they want to?
Mr. Ramsay: Let me give you this example. We always hear it, many times. The parent finds the young boy with a chocolate bar he snitched from the store while they were down there. What would happen? The traditional story is the parent takes the son back down, returns the chocolate bar, pays for it and apologizes. What would happen if a lawyer appeared on the scene on behalf of the young son and said ``You don't have to do this. You have rights''?
Dr. Leschied: I'm not sure I'm in a position to really respond to -
Mr. Ramsay: But that's the issue.
Dr. Leschied: That's the issue - too much access to rights for young people, too quick access to legal opinion?
Mr. Ramsay: And it has undermined the authority of the parent, the father to take the son down and leave him with a lesson that will carry him through the rest of his life.
We had one of the members from the Liberal side stand up and tell that very story in the House of Commons; he talked about the good it did him for the rest of his life. He's an adult now and he will always remember that, as he indicated to us.
The fact of the matter is we've undermined the authority of the principals to deal with the rough-housing that occurs in the schoolroom and in the hallways. We've undermined the authority of the discretion of a peace officer, and I can speak with a little bit of authority on that, because I was one for fourteen years.
Our job was to keep the kids out of the formal system to the greatest extent we could. Only on the most serious of offences were they taken into court, because we didn't have the right to make the decision. It had to come within the proper jurisdiction in order for a judge to make the decision as to what should occur.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, maybe you could let Dr. Leschied comment, because we're over time.
Dr. Leschied: I'm not sure there's much I can respond to, other than just to take what you've said. It's a concern I hear quite frequently. Parents and principals don't feel they have the authority they used to. Is it a general dynamic of the culture that young people now are vested with so many rights that parents don't feel they can be effective any more?
Do you want to know something? I'm a parent, and I have no problems administering authority to my children at all. I don't think I've been undermined as a parent at all by the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Ramsay: It's the same with me, but -
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, please let Dr. Leschied finish.
Dr. Leschied: The fact that some people feel that way is more perception than reality, frankly, as far as I'm concerned.
The Chair: Thanks, Dr. Leschied. We really appreciate your contribution today. I know you're back this afternoon with another panel, the multi-disciplinary round-table, and I hope we'll have another opportunity to hear from you.
Dr. Leschied: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I just want to point out that Dr. Leschied also brought with him a book of readings that he has edited, along with Peter Jaffe and Wayne Willis from the London Family Court Clinic. We will certainly make this available for circulation to our committee members.
Thanks again.
Dr. Leschied: Thank you.
.1305
The Chair: We're going to break until 1:45 rather than 1:30 in order to get ourselves back on an even keel. We are adjourned until then.