[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, September 25, 1996
.0807 
[English]
The Chair: We're back in our hearing room in the basement.
I want to welcome Professor Jean Trépanier, who is a lawyer and a professor in the School of Criminology at the University of Montreal.
We are very much looking forward to hearing from you, sir. I understand you have a brief. We'll hear that and then we'll be asking questions.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Prof. Jean Trépanier (École de criminologie, Université de Montréal): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the committee members for receiving me so early in the morning. I hope I'll be able to keep you awake.
[English]
The Chair: Oh, you're expecting an awful lot. We had a rough day yesterday, a long day.
[Translation]
Prof. Trépanier: You've already received my brief, which I sent you almost a year ago, in October of last year. I would like to begin by recalling certain points. With respect to the statistics included in the brief, I have checked to see to what extent statistics that have come out in the past year might have altered the trend outlined in the report. I must say that, on the whole, they have not altered that trend at all.
The first question that arises in my view is: what is the problem? Why are we here today wondering whether the Young Offenders Act should be amended? It is a fact that many people in Canada feel that juvenile delinquency is constantly increasing. This feeling is very widespread among many of our fellow citizens.
.0810
What do the official statistics tell us about this? The official statistics, those of the police departments, indicate that the crime rate in Canada is currently declining for the fourth consecutive year, that violent offences in particular are also falling, that, as regards young offenders themselves, the rate of youths who are charged by the police has once again declined for the fourth consecutive year. This past year, 1995, the drop was very small indeed, but there was nevertheless a drop.
So we may well wonder whether there is an immediate danger. Is it as necessary to legislate on the basis of the idea that we have a major problem on our hands? Let's be very clear. Juvenile delinquency is obviously a problem and I certainly do not want to downplay it. That's very important. However, we may ask ourselves whether there has been such an increase that it is necessary for Parliament to intervene in any particular or special way.
Of course, one may still wonder whether the official statistics faithfully represent the phenomenon of delinquency. We know very well that the answer to this question is no, first of all for the reason that many victims do not report crimes to the police and, second, because, in seven of10 cases investigated by the police, the latter are unable to identify the offender.
This means that the official statistics on juvenile delinquency paint a picture that does not include all cases, those in which the victims have not reported offences to the police and all those that the police have not investigated, in other words all those in which we don't know whether the offence was committed by a youth or an adult. Consequently, a highly significant selection is made that is reflected in the official statistics.
We can therefore ask ourselves whether other measures would enable us to obtain a more accurate picture of the current situation with regard to delinquency. I would say that surveys on the number of victims are probably the best way to form a more representative picture of the actual situation.
A survey on the number of victims is a very simple matter. In the same way as public opinion polls are conducted on voting intentions or the type of soap used or on television watching, a representative sample of the population is asked: Have you been a victim of such and such a type of offence over the past 12 months?
What the victim surveys show us in Canada is that, over the few years these kinds of surveys have been conducted - for example, we can compare the surveys done in Canada in 1988 and 1993 - there was not an increase, but rather a decline in the victim rate. Our fellow citizens less frequently report that they have been victims of criminal acts than they have previously.
In the United States, if people were asked whether they felt that the crime rate was increasing in the United States, virtually everyone, I believe, would obviously say that the crime is rising there. However, what do the victim surveys that have been conducted tell us about the U.S. Department of Justice? Over a 20-year period from 1973 to 1992, the victim surveys in the United States showed a decline, not an increase, but rather a decline in the victim rate among the U.S. population for all offences except those in one class, car theft.
.0815
These surveys therefore give us a completely different picture of the perception that citizens as a whole have, one that, it must be said, is entirely different from certain official statistics. We may well wonder then about the origin of this perception that many people have that delinquency is constantly increasing and that parliamentary action is necessary.
I would say that the problem is attributable to a great extent to the media. I don't want to accuse the media. This isn't at all a charge I am making. However, an observation has to be made. The increased media coverage of certain events, in particular certain shocking crimes - there are crimes that are very shocking indeed - certainly makes them much more visible than previously.
I remember, for example, a murder that was committed a year or two ago in a small grocery store here in Montréal. A video camera filmed the murder of the owner. I don't know how many times that murder was shown on television. It goes without saying that technologies that did not exist previously are being used, with the result that we are seeing in our living rooms things that perhaps used to occur, but of which we had very limited knowledge.
Our perceptions are essentially based on the visibility of events, such that those we see more than we did previously seem to us to be more important. Nor should it be forgotten that, as a result of the radio and television ratings race and the competition for higher circulation among newspapers, events that attract readers and audiences are reported as often as possible. Obviously, in this context, many people get the impression, groundless though it may be, that delinquency is on the rise.
When an election is under way, what do citizens do? They ask the various candidates what they intend to do to protect them. The various candidates feel they have to give their fellow citizens a sense that they are taking up their responsibilities. I believe this phenomenon occurred in particular during the last federal election campaign, when the Young Offenders Act became a real political issue, with the result that various parties made commitments with respect to the Young Offenders Act.
So the question arises: if the problem is not increasing delinquency, should Parliament intervene and amend the Young Offenders Act in these circumstances? My answer would be no. I believe the Young Offenders Act should not be amended and, in a moment, I will give you the overall assessment that was made by the Jasmin Committee in Quebec.
I don't want to talk about the technical amendments on any particular point, but, by amending the Young Offenders Act in such a way as to make it considerably harsher, Parliament would very unfortunately confirm many citizens' false impression that the situation is dramatic. Parliament's intervention alone would confirm that impression, whereas it seems to me that a false impression should not be confirmed.
That is one of the reasons why it seems to me we should not change the thrust of the Young Offenders Act.
.0820
Now one point has often been raised: how is it that Quebec seems to be more satisfied with the Young Offenders Act than the other provinces? It is a fact that, over the years, we have heard fewer recriminations with respect to the Young Offenders Act in Quebec than elsewhere.
Let's be quite clear. The difference is not one between Anglophones and Francophones, but rather between Quebec and the other provinces. Consider, for example, the positions taken by the daily The Gazette with respect to the Young Offenders Act: they are entirely consistent with the positions generally heard in Quebec.
I had the privilege of being closely associated with the task force that was instructed by the Government of Quebec to study the implementation of the Young Offenders Act in Quebec, the task force that was chaired by Judge Jasmin. I in fact drafted the report. Like all the members of the task force, I was surprised to hear during all the hearings that we held just how great a consensus there was here in Quebec that the Young Offenders Act was a good statute.
How is it then that so much dissatisfaction is expressed elsewhere in Canada?
I raised the media issue a moment ago. I believe that, among all the reasons, there is one that we tend not to emphasize and that should not be forgotten, and that is the change that occurred in the legal age for criminal matters in 1985. Prior to that year, the age was fixed at 16 in six Canadian provinces, at 17 in two provinces and 18 in Quebec and Manitoba. For many provinces, the legal age was raised from 16 to 18 in 1985, which, among other things, had two consequences.
The first, of course, is that new resources had to be found to deal with youths 16 and 17 years of age who had previously been considered as adults under the act.
But there is more. Many members of the public considered that a 17-year-old who committed a crime was an adult criminal, not a juvenile delinquent. Accordingly, the reaction was that he had to be tried in adult court and sent to prison because someone who was perceived as an adult criminal had to be treated as an adult criminal.
When the newspapers report shocking crimes such as attempted murder committed by a 16 or 17-year-old today, the public wonders how it is that youth is tried in juvenile court. The idea that people have of a 17-year-old youth is still coloured to a certain degree by the fact that he is still perceived as an adult criminal.
.0825
The studies that have been done on attitudes state that it takes a certain number of years before those attitudes are altered in any marked way. From this standpoint, I would say the major change made to the legal age for criminal matters cannot be absorbed by the public over such a brief period of time.
In Quebec, the legal age has been fixed at 18 since 1942. The population of Quebec has thus had 50 years to adjust to this perception that 16 and 17-year-olds are not adult criminals, but rather young offenders. That 50-year period has also made it possible to develop a system of resources with a tradition of intervention and personnel training, with the result that the majority of educators in our youth rehabilitation centres today have university training.
I believe that these factors are important in grasping the degree to which people here in Quebec are satisfied with the actions taken and with the Young Offenders Act.
Does this mean that there are no problems with respect to the Young Offenders Act? I certainly would not say that there are no problems. What I would say is that the most significant problems, the most serious problems, are those stemming from the enforcement of this statute rather than those concerning the content of the statute itself.
Here are a few examples. There are the waiting times for intervention. In one study we conducted in three Quebec cities - Valleyfield, Joliette and Montréal - we noticed that the time that elapsed between the day on which the offence was committed and the day when the judge rendered his decision on the measure to be taken varied with each city. The average period of time - and I mean average, which means that some were shorter and some were longer - varied between five and nine months, depending on the city.
When such waiting times exist and we realize that an adolescent perceives the passage of time differently than an adult, one wonders what the actual impact might be of a sentence handed down to a youth nine months after he has committed an offence. Time will have had its effect. Quite unfortunately, the adolescent will have had the time to rationalize his actions and so on, so that the meaning and effectiveness of the intervention and of the judge's sentence are questioned.
Second, in that same study, we noted that, in every other case, neither the father nor the mother attended the court hearings, either when the trial was conducted or at the very important moment when the judge sentenced the youth.
In a context in which the parents must be seen as the first persons responsible for the education of their children and in which, as the Jasmin Committee has clearly indicated, parents must be made partners in the interventions that are taken, certain practices and attitudes must be changed.
Another factor is the victims. From a review of the statistics, we realize that the sentences handed down to youths are very rarely centred on the victims. Furthermore, when we meet victims, we realize that they say, among other things, that they are poorly informed, as a result of which many of them feel that their contact with the justice system is often an occasion to be victimized a second time.
.0830
I certainly do not mean that we would solve the victims' problems by punishing delinquents further. Quite on the contrary, I believe that young people must be made accountable for their actions by having them meet with the victims and offer them a kind of compensation. This kind of approach would be broader in scope and have a much greater educational aspect than increasing punishment which, as the studies tell us, has no dissuasive effect.
You know better than I, since more or less public pressure is being put on you, that many people believe the act should be more punitive, that youths should be punished more and that sentences should be increased.
I would like to raise two points on this subject. First, some research shows that those of our fellow citizens who demand harsher sentences are, on the whole, highly ignorant of the sentences that are indeed imposed by the courts and that, when they are informed of the actual nature of sentences, they generally prove to be in agreement with the sentences given.
Second, the studies available to us cast considerable doubt on the possible repercussions of dissuasion. Youths may perhaps think about the probabilities of being arrested by the police, but the greater probability of receiving a harsher sentence seems to escape them. It should be said that, in any case, little is known, on the whole, about the judgments that are rendered. How can little known judgments be dissuasive?
With regard to dissuasion, you have to put yourself in the youths' shoes. We shouldn't ask ourselves how we would be dissuaded, but rather how youths would be dissuaded.
We ultimately see that, when a youth wonders whether or not he is going to take a particular action, he tends to underestimate the likelihood of being caught. He feels that, in any case, even if the courts can impose strict penalties, they won't apply to him because he won't be caught.
And even if youths fairly assess the probability of getting caught, we all know that many victims do not report crimes to the police and that, in seven cases out of 10, cases are not investigated by police. A youth who considers these research data and the official statistics can very easily conclude that the probabilities seem to suggest he won't be caught.
I will close by saying that it seems to me less essential and crucial to change the act itself than to review its implementation. I believe you have the Jasmin Report before you, a more than 200-page report that considers the whole set of problems that arise in the statute's implementation. It seems to me we should direct our attention more to this aspect.
The implementation of the act obviously falls within provincial jurisdiction. It therefore seems to me that the role the federal government could play would be a role as a facilitator or peer enabler. It could lead the provinces to get together, examine the problems they encounter in implementing the act and share the effective solutions they have found.
.0835
I would recommend that greater emphasis be placed on compensation for victims and that this matter be mentioned in the statement of principle in section 3 of the act. Lastly, it seems essential that there be assurances that the public is well informed on the delinquency statistics.
Furthermore, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics clearly stated this concern when the most recent crime statistics were published in 1995. Statistics Canada clearly indicated that it hoped these data would be well known to the public and that the public would become aware of the situation of which our fellow citizens unfortunately have a false perception.
I'll stop here for the moment, Madam Chair, to give you the opportunity to address any questions you may wish to consider.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Trépanier.
Mr. St-Laurent, ten minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Thank you for that very interesting presentation. I would like to know your opinion on a somewhat holistic approach, an approach that would precede the youth's appearance in court. Could this assailant-victim approach, this meeting in which the two parties would take the time to discuss compensation, resolve one of the concerns raised in your statement and that we also share?
Given the consent of all parties, how you view the possibility that a young offender might take part in such a process? It goes without saying that this approach would be very difficult in certain circumstances, such as in the case of a rape, and would perhaps be something to avoid in that situation. Rather the term used is crimes against property, such as an automobile theft or breaking a window in a convenience store, but not armed assault. If the parties so wished, why not? I would like you to tell us about the opening that could be created and about the consequences that could result.
Prof. Trépanier: I am entirely in favour of that approach. To a certain extent, attempts of this kind have been made here in Quebec as part of the Program of Alternative Measures in cases where no legal proceedings have been instituted, in which youths have not been brought before the courts. However, this practice has not been followed frequently enough, financial consideration perhaps having something to do with it. This is unfortunate.
I believe this is entirely consistent with what I recommended a moment ago, that much greater emphasis should be placed on victim compensation measures.
I agree with you that a clear distinction must be drawn between cases that lend themselves to this sort of measure and those that do not. There must be no harassment of victims who do not want to attend a meeting with a young offender, but you should not necessarily consider no as meaning no.
.0840
For this type of intervention, it is important to have people who are well trained in mediation and who are able to give assurances to a victim who says he does not want to meet the youth that his decision, if he maintains it, will be respected, but who will tell him that, in many cases, victims are ultimately happy with the settlement that is reached. Yes, it can be excellent.
There may be a very educational measure for young offenders. There may be young offenders who will tell you that they would far rather do a few days' detention than to meet the victim. It may be a good idea to explore this route further. The criminological studies seem to show that this is a promising road that has been inadequately explored.
The Jasmin Report moreover clearly recommended, both with respect to alternative measures, which is the approach you seem to favour, and in the context of court-ordered measures, that much greater emphasis be placed on these compensation arrangements. Particularly in the context of alternative measures, we must consider a form of compensation, where this is possible, which includes a form of reconciliation between the victim and the assailant.
Mr. St-Laurent: I believe I heard that young offenders underestimate the impact of their actions and the likelihood they will be caught. Should the schools play a more active role, toward the end of primary school or the start of secondary school, with regard to the information that they give to youths to enable them to better assess the possible sentences and the consequences of their actions?
Prof. Trépanier: The role of the schools is a delicate matter. Many schools tell us that we expect them to do everything and that they cannot play all roles in society.
Having said that, I believe that, yes, there are things that could be done in the schools. At one point, I know that, in certain communities, police educators went into the schools, met with students on a class-by-class basis and gave them information. Without any doubt, this is a very promising arrangement.
However, I believe that the role of the schools should go very much further, but in an entirely different area. For example, it seems to me that codes of conduct must exist within schools whereby clear messages are sent to students. For example, it should be stated that no violence will be tolerated within the school.
I remember one youth who told me how things went in his physical education class, in which he had to play football or hockey. The teacher not only tolerated very hard body checks in which youths got hurt, but, when a youth came to complain to him saying that he should not tolerate it, the teacher answered that he was making a man of him. I find this is an indecent message from a teacher who, on the contrary, should not tolerate this kind of behaviour.
There are a number of things to which the schools should be asked to pay particular attention. I don't mean the schools never do so, but they do so to varying degrees. I believe the schools should play a very important social role.
Mr. St-Laurent: You referred a moment ago to the way a young offender, or any other person who is not an adult, perceives time. We spoke of the elapsed time between offence and sentencing. That's what we must talk about since waiting times have already reached five to nine months.
.0845
Yesterday, we met with some very interesting people. Among other things, in one institution, the members of our committee and our hosts took the time to talk with five persons who had committed serious crimes, three murders and two rapes. So it was a fairly serious discussion. These people expressed a quite similar concern to your own. They mentioned that, for a juvenile delinquent, a two- year sentence could be equivalent to eight years for an adult. What is your opinion on this subject, even if you perhaps began to answer this question in the first part of your statement?
Prof. Trépanier: I don't know of any studies that have assessed the mathematical proportions, but that seems to me entirely plausible. The notion of time among youths is indeed entirely different. Of course, that is not the question you were asking.
However, if you are implicitly asking what the ceilings, the maximum sentences imposed under the Young Offenders Act should be, you must at the same time ask the question concerning objectives and measures. The option adopted here in Quebec has been to emphasize youth rehabilitation first and foremost. On this point, we can also ask ourselves whether what it is impossible to do in two or three years at most could be done in more time. The answer is no.
We must also consider what will happen if we extend sentences too far. In 50 percent of cases in Canada, youths who appear in juvenile court are youths of 16 or 17. Some are already 18, having committed their offence just before turning that age. The rehabilitation centres that take 17-year-olds in, for example, have programs designed to handle them when they are 17 or 18, sometimes 19 and, in exceptional circumstances, 20.
If the term of their stay is extended, these rehabilitation centres will say that they cannot keep a youth who arrives at the age of 17 or 18 until he is 21 or 22 because their programs are not designed on that basis. The most likely consequence will be that the centres will feel that the youth will have to be transferred to an adult custodial facility at some point. It must not be forgotten that there are currently waiting lists for Quebec rehabilitation centres. The centres in question are going to say - the question has already been raised in the Jasmin Report - that, when a youth is transferred to an adult custodial facility, that custody will undermine the impact of efforts made at the rehabilitation centre. We must therefore conclude that, since they have waiting lists, they will give priority to youths who will not eventually be transferred, youths who will not be held in custody for as long a period. Consequently, youths who have reached 18 years of age during their long custody period will immediately be transferred to prison.
That would be one undesired, truly undesirable, but nevertheless foreseeable consequence of considerably extending the term of custody. Instead of trying to do a humane, positive and educational job with respect to these youths, we would be sending them to penal institutions that are nothing other than crime apprenticeship centres, places where they will be introduced to criminal networks.
.0850
Mr. St-Laurent: Indeed.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Laurent.
Mr. Ramsay, you have ten minutes.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sir, for your presentation this morning.
You asked what is the problem with the act and why are we here. Then you went into considerable detail to suggest the crime rate within the youth population is not what we may think it is. I'm confused about some of the things you've said here on this issue. I just want to make a comment on this.
We only have ten minutes, so I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you. On this issue of the rate of crime, if we do as you suggested and survey people to see how many have been victimized to determine the rate of youth crime, of course we're overlooking the number of offences committed in the area of drug use and even drug trafficking. We were at an institute yesterday that deals specifically with youth who have gotten into difficulties because of drug and alcohol use. This would not show up. There is also information from experts who have submitted briefs to us indicating, I think, that they've interviewed these young people and have found they have committed 20 offences for the one offence they were eventually incarcerated for.
So at least from my point of view, we're receiving some confusing information in that respect, and I don't think your presentation helped me very much this morning on this. It didn't clear it up. You may wish to comment on that.
The question I want to ask you is this. I do so because of the legal training you have and the respect we have for your legal mind. What is wrong with the federal government once again exerting its traditional authority for children under 12?
[Translation]
Prof. Trépanier: I'll address the first questions you asked, then the question of the lower age limit.
First, you emphasized, and this is quite correct, that the victim surveys do not include questions on drug use. You are perfectly right for the simple reason that these are what are often called victimless crimes.
However, certain offences are committed that are somewhat related to drugs, as in the case of a person who commits a break-in in order to finance his drug habit. This drug-related delinquency, such as breaking and entering, will be taken into account in the victim survey, but it is entirely correct that drug-related matters do not appear in the victim surveys.
We must also see that drug-related offences account for only a very small percentage in the official statistics. When we look at the statistics of the juvenile courts in Canada, we see that there is a very small percentage of offences under the Narcotics Act or the Food and Drug Act.
Furthermore, as regards the youths who were interviewed and said that they had perhaps been sentenced for few offences, but that that was nothing compared to everything else they had done, we can see that, not in the victim surveys, but in the self-reported delinquency surveys, in which youths, not victims, are interviewed. A sample of youths is taken from different schools and they are asked what offences they have committed over the past 12 months.
.0855
One of my colleagues at the University of Montréal, Professor Marc LeBlanc, has conducted self-reported delinquency surveys among youths in the schools here in the Montréal area over the years. He has come to the conclusion that, since the 1970s, since he has been conducting these surveys, there have perhaps been minor changes in the nature of certain offences, but there has been no noteworthy increase in the total number of offences.
Thus, once again, the self-reported delinquency surveys conducted among youths confirm the conclusions that we may draw from the victim surveys.
I now come to the main question you raised: what would prevent Parliament from once again exerting its authority for children under 12?
To that, I would say...
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I'm sorry, but, with respect, that wasn't my question. My question is: In your view, what is wrong with the government re-exerting its authority for children under 12 in the area of criminal law?
[Translation]
Prof. Trépanier: If you are asking me the question, ``What is wrong?'', I would say that other means would perhaps be preferable. There are certain situations involving serious behaviours in which youths of 10 or 11 are involved where it is very important to be able to intervene. That seems to be essential.
A few months ago, for example, a number of youths were arrested for sexual assault in Toronto, I believe, and the case was very widely reported in the media because one youth apparently told the police officer: ``I'm still only 12; you can't do anything to me.''
If that youth had been arrested in Montréal, the officer would have been able to answer: ``You're completely wrong because the Youth Protection Act allows us to intervene. I'm going to make a report to the Director of Youth Protection.'' The provincial Youth Protection Act makes it possible to intervene in cases where a youth displays serious behavioural problems, and all the necessary measures may be taken.
In essence, in the case of the youngest youths, serious youth protection measures may often be preferable. We perhaps tend to imagine that every reaction to an offence must necessarily be a reaction involving prison. However, I don't think every reaction must necessarily be of a penal nature in order to be appropriate. What is necessary, however, is to be able to intervene.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: If I could just add to that, a legal system is also an educational system. Every one of the young offenders who we saw in the institutions that we visited yesterday was at one time 10,11 years old. They didn't suddenly just cross that line and become young offenders. When the federal government changed or abandoned - and I use the word ``abandoned'' knowingly - the children under 12 in 1984, they also abandoned society. That's the feeling, that's the impression we keep getting.
In Quebec you have the Youth Protection Act, but that act is not instituted and authorized under the criminal law head. So, inasmuch as the federal government has abandoned the former responsibility that it had under the Juvenile Delinquents Act that dealt with children well under the age of 12, what it has done is it has left parents without that educational system that is part of the legal system, the one in which we say to our children, from the time they become rational - from seven or eight years of age - that this is the law and this is how it affects them. We have denied parents that right.
.0900
The Chair: Your time is coming to an end, Mr. Ramsay. In fact, you are over time now.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. I'll just finish off by saying that there is only one province that has done what Quebec has done. What we're hearing is that the provinces are waiting for the federal government to establish a standard across the country that will fill the gap that the Youth Protection Act in Quebec has filled, at least in part.
Perhaps you could comment on that.
[Translation]
Prof. Trépanier: I believe we all agree that intervention is necessary in cases such as this.
The question is whether it is necessary that this intervention be of a penal nature or whether intervention more centred on child protection may be adequate, as is the case in Quebec.
Here in Quebec, there has to date been clear satisfaction with the way in which we have proceeded. This could also be done in other provinces. When we intervene in youth protection, we know how to tell the youth that, if he has behaviour problems, behavioural difficulties, one of the symptoms of those problems is the fact that he's breaking the law. The fact that the federal statute applies starting at age 12 does not exempt youths under 12 from complying with the Criminal Code. We are sending this clear message to youths.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: And that applies to Quebec only.
[Translation]
Prof. Trépanier: Yes, that is correct.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, you might want to direct some of your comments to the Attorney General of Alberta.
Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Ramsay: And Ontario.
The Chair: Alberta. I'll give you the documents, you can read them, and then you'll have more information on it.
Go ahead, Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Thank you, Professor Trépanier. You have made a very strong case against the need for extensive amendment to the Young Offenders Act, and you've also made a strong case on the fact that whatever youth crime we do have, it's not due to weaknesses in the Young Offenders Act, but to other matters, to other things.
But our mandate is not simply the act. Our mandate is the entire youth justice system and the application of the act. And here there may be grounds for strong recommendations by this committee.
For example, here in Montreal, we started a few years ago with the development of strong youth police squads, then all of a sudden they were cut back. As a matter of fact, I don't even know if they exist any more. I remember that we had a very effective youth squad in my area of NDG. There were four or five police specially trained in dealing with youth, and in doing a lot of preventive work on the street with youths. That's been cut back.
We could use more resources in the schools to deal with crises, problems, or problem youths, not only in Quebec, but everywhere in Canada.
We could use more effective family crisis intervention, what with the continuing breakdown of the traditional family. Single-parent families, mothers who are working, have a hard time dealing with their youths. They could do with a lot more help. That might have some impact on crime and on youths who are confused and committing offences.
.0905
In other words, while you recommend against the extensive amendment of the act, do you not believe that there are solid grounds on which we could make recommendations that would deal with other parts of the justice system with the application of the justice system with preventive measures, with such things that I mentioned, specialized police units, more and better trained probation officers, family crisis intervention, special counsellors in schools to deal with the youth that bothMr. St. Laurent and Mr. Ramsay were referring to make sure that we lower the crime rates even lower?
You point out that the rates have declined for four successive years. That's true, but there's still too much youth crime.
What is your view on that? As I say, our mandate is not simply the amendment of sections of the act but the entire youth justice system and the causes of youth crime.
[Translation]
Prof. Trépanier: Thank you, Mr. Allmand, for that question.
I believe there is room for a great many recommendations, but because of the limited time allocated to me, we will probably not have the opportunity to examine them all. I could simply comment on two or three of them, but you can read the Jasmin Report, whose numerous and varied recommendations could perhaps give you some inspiration.
Among those recommendations, we find matters of personnel training which are absolutely essential. Better trained personnel is needed at all levels. You mentioned the police forces, for example. I would like to cite the example of an arrest that was poorly made recently because the police officers became agitated and lost their cool. More thorough staff training is thus required, and not only for police officers.
I also believe that the creation of youth police forces is an excellent idea. Some research has shown us that decisions made by these police officers, when they are dealing with youths in difficulty, are appropriate. Instead of punishment, they resort to less formal measures such as warning parents, which is often a good thing.
For a warning to be taken seriously by a youth, it need not always be given by a judge. A warning given by a police officer, if properly done, may have just as great an educational value as if it were given by a judge.
With regard to prevention, I believe that we are touching on an extremely important issue. All too often, prevention programs do not achieve the results expected of them. Some programs, however, have often been cited as successful programs. I am thinking, for example, of the Perry Preschool Project, a U.S. program whose primary objective was not delinquency prevention.
This type of program was part of the anti-poverty programs instituted in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, the purpose of which was to give youths from under-privileged backgrounds better chances in life. In this program, children were taken to school before grade one age, and that is why it was called the Perry Preschool Project. They went to school at the age of three or four, were supervised and received kindergarten training that enabled them to be better prepared to go to school and subsequently to avoid failing or dropping out.
.0910
A supervisory framework was thus provided for children and also for parents, who were taught how to take adequate care of their children.
When this program ended a few years later - these children are now 30 years of age or more - evaluations were conducted which demonstrated the program's success. Although the initial objective was first and foremost to fight poverty through better schooling, we should note that the youths who went through the program are not unemployed as often as others and carry on economic activities that contribute much more to the state than the amounts invested in the program.
It should also be noted that these youths on the whole were much less involved in delinquency as youths and as adults and that, in all, they cost the state less than many other youths and contribute much more than others, as a result of which the Perry Preschool Project is a classic example of these successful programs on which it is often said we should draw.
In these times of budget cutbacks, it is clearly not always easy to find the necessary funds to invest. However, it must be considered that this is an investment for the future, and an investment for the future requires us to invest money today. We all know, of course, that these are relatively expensive programs, even though they are cost-effective in the long run.
Mr. Allmand: Thank you.
Prof. Trépanier: You're welcome.
[English]
The Chair: I want to clarify something that we might have misunderstood over the last couple of days. It is that I understand - and correct me if I'm wrong - that the Youth Protection Act in Quebec defines youth or young people as from birth to the age of 18, rather than 16, as it is in Ontario and I think most other provinces. Is that correct?
Prof. Trépanier: Correct.
The Chair: I also understand that under the Youth Protection Act the same person is responsible for the management of the act in the province of Quebec as has responsibility for management of the Young Offenders Act within the province. In other words, it's one official, not two officials.
[Translation]
Prof. Trépanier: I will answer by saying that the Director of Youth Protection, the person responsible for enforcing social interventions under the provincial statute, is also named as the provincial director within the meaning of the Young Offenders Act. He thus wears both hats, if I may use that expression.
That said, however, services are organized differently depending on the location. In places where the population is not dense enough to allow a specialization of tasks, first line interveners perform two functions. In very densely populated areas such as Montréal, for example, certain interveners are specialized in child protection, while other specialize in young offenders.
I would like to mention, however, that we have often tended to use the interveners responsible for young offenders for other duties such as probation, assessments or the protection of youths with serious behavioural problems.
[English]
The Chair: The systems are linked somehow.
Prof. Trépanier: Exactly.
[Translation]
And I believe it is very important that there be links between the two systems.
[English]
The Chair: I'm more familiar with the Ontario Child Protection Act, because I worked with it. Under it there is an ability for the Children's Aid Society or other child protection authorities to intervene in the life of a child, or to find a child to be in need of protection, if he or she has a serious behaviour problem, if there are facilities or services available for them and if the parents aren't prepared to get a grip on the situation.
.0915
I did not understand, until I just looked at a document, that in Quebec it's essentially the same task. As I understand it, in Quebec a child can be seen to be in need of protection if he or she has a serious behaviour problem and if the parents won't deal with it.
Prof. Trépanier: Exactly.
The Chair: But that second requirement is there.
Prof. Trépanier: If the parents will not or are not able to, more or less. You can find it in section 38 of the Youth Protection Act.
The Chair: For my friend Mr. Ramsay, I'll point out that in the province of Alberta there is no ability for the province to intervene based just on a serious behaviour problem. They define a child as being in the need of protection not based on their behaviour but on either the absence of care or the presence of abuse. So that perhaps will clarify our little argument here.
Professor Trépanier, thank you. We very much looked forward to having you here today. You've been very helpful.
[Translation]
Prof. Trépanier: I thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for agreeing to receive me so early this morning. Thank you.
.0916
.0924
[English]
The Chair: We have before us now Claudine Laurin, a member of the administrative council of Regroupement des organismes communautaires autonomes jeunesse du Québec. With Ms Laurin we have Sylvie Gagnon, administrative secretary, and Jacques Pector, consultant.
Welcome. We anticipate that you will have a statement you wish to make. Then we'll ask questions after that.
.0925
[Translation]
Ms Sylvie Gagnon (Administrative Secretary, Regroupement des organismes communautaires autonomes jeunesse du Québec): Good morning. My name is Sylvie Gagnon and I work for the ROCAJQ. The ROCAJQ is the Regroupement des organismes communautaires autonomes jeunesse du Québec. Our federation represents 26-member organizations in 10 Quebec regions. It was founded in 1991. This year was our fifth anniversary. Last weekend, we brought together 140 youth interveners and delegates from the Regroupement's organizations for a series of thematic activities. Our federation reaches out to adolescents, young adults and youths from five to 12 years of age.
Our practices are varied. For example, there is support for initiatives of youths excluded from the job market and activities resulting from youth projects such as a music room, a youth newspaper and a cartoon project. There is also an important aspect, which is street work to reach out to those who do not deal with institutional resources. In day-to-day practice, the interveners deal with youths who are taken in hand under the Young Offenders Act or youths who have spent time in rehabilitation centre. Our activity is therefore highly diversified and tailored to the youths' actual situation.
In addition, we at the Regroupement handle issues on which the organizations have decided to pool their efforts. This year, one of the priority issues was the Young Offenders Act. If you would like any further information on our work, our address and telephone number are on our brief.
The individuals who will now speak are Jacques Pector, who is a member of the board of directors of a member organization in Montréal called l'Entre-Gens, and Claudine Laurin, who is a delegate from another organization called Bureau de Consultation Jeunesse. They will take turns outlining the essential points of our arguments. I will then give you our Regroupement's recommendations on this matter.
Mr. Jacques Pector (Consultant, Regroupement des organismes communautaires autonomes jeunesse du Québec): Good morning. I'm going to try to outline the essential points of our brief. We are not legal scholars, but rather first-line social workers. Consequently, we essentially work with juvenile delinquents and youths who are under protection. When we say youths, we are essentially talking about adolescents.
What strikes us in the various statutory reforms is that adolescence has no legal status. Street children are discussed without any distinction being drawn between the social situation of adolescents and that of children. Our brief begins by noting a common feature of all Western societies: that juvenile delinquency is not on the increase in our societies. Of course, there are times more violent acts, patricides or crimes against the person, that become media sensations, but, on the whole, all the research in Belgium, France and Quebec shows that juvenile delinquency is not on the rise.
On the other hand, the socio-psychological reality of adolescence is a confrontation with limits, with transgression and, as Marc LeBlanc of the Montréal School of Criminology emphasized in one of his reports last year to the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, minor juvenile delinquency is a form of delinquency with which we as practitioners deal regularly.
We think it is important to work on the socialization processes that are particularly specific to adolescents. We could consider all factors relating to the phenomenon of gangs. People often talk about the phenomenon of gangs, but it is not often said that only two percent of those gangs are involved in criminal activity. People forget to say that the process of socializing adolescents is achieved through the formation of social groups and that this formation is not necessarily criminal, far from it.
From that point, we could discuss the entire issue of police harassment which was raised by the Solicitor General of Canada during an investigation of street children in Montréal and Toronto and in other cities, but also in rural areas. All manifestations of the formation of youth social groups are immediately subject to police harassment. The last speaker had a great deal to say about formation.
.0930
With regard to the situation of adolescents in our society, it is important to note that a massive deinstitutionalization of a large number of youths is reflected in statistics on runaways, drop-outs and minor juvenile delinquency. These youths are involved in a process that is extremely significant for us, one that leaves no room for these youths in society, a lack of space for socialization where they can experiment with a certain number of things that are not necessarily punishable by stays in the various institutions for the treatment of crime.
In our brief, we talk about this passage of adolescence which is the passage from childhood to the adult world. This creates a kind of dialectical tension that is felt between youth assistance and legal protection. This relation, this balance that must be struck between assistance, education and protection, as well as penalties for offences, is not easy to establish.
These are issues that affect all Western societies. Should attempts be made to strengthen prevention and social assistance for these youths or to step up repressive measures? We think it is important to reflect on this whole issue in light, in particular, of the U.N. conventions calling on each society to become involved in education and socialization in a perspective of youth enfranchisement and independence.
The thrust of our brief is thus to emphasize the legal void, the legal non-status of adolescence, which contradicts all the principles of psychology, education, socio-psychoanalysis and psychosociality. It is the very negation of a certain number of improvements in knowledge that have been made largely by numerous writers, psychoanalysts and socio-psychoanalysts, and that are not here in evidence.
Thus, in our view, there is a legal void which has had certain consequences. I heard the last speaker, who talked about programs for the prevention of delinquency among children, emphasize the very particular dynamics of adolescents in our society in which collective ritualization no longer works. Consequently, adolescents must try, at their own risk, and at times in very depressed states, to grow up and become responsible adults.
You can't educate children by force. Education, the transformation of behaviour, is done on a voluntary basis. Since we have observed that there are problems in the entire management of youth protection programs developed in recent years, we are seeking a more comprehensive, holistic approach to youths than action on a by-program basis, the consequences and effects of which are fairly limited.
Ms Claudine Laurin (Member, Administrative Council, Regroupement des organismes communautaires autonomes jeunesse du Québec): I want to talk to you about repressive measures as opposed to the strengthening of preventive measures.
We should perhaps also take into consideration the credibility of institutions in youths' eyes, the representation of the value of the institution. What is the point in strengthening the act when the fact that there is a legal void is a factor in denying youths a legal space when they are in rehabilitation centres.
In 1989, we prepared a special file on the rights of youths in rehab centres, copies of which I have brought here today, and, in 1996, we can observe that the rights of youths in rehab centres are in virtually the same state. This is the behaviouralist approach, where the institution itself does not respect a code of life, as a result of which the entire system of penalties on the inside is not understood. If the ground rules are not established in advance, it is difficult for a youth who has spent time in these institutions to understand the rules of a society when no rule has been observed inside the very institution where he has just been living.
.0935
The measures are often quite inconsistent, depending on the contact that a youth may have. Perhaps we should first look at the credibility of the courts. As a woman, I can tell you that I have serious doubts about the credibility of the legal system. A youth has the same media vision as I may have as an adult. Perhaps we should try to strengthen rights, certain ground rules regarding our measures before imposing them on the other side.
There is also the issue of police visibility with respect to harassment. This definitely undermines the credibility of police action. There are youth police officers in Montréal. I believe this is good initiative, but roles should be well defined.
The actions of youth police officers should be defined because a youth police officer does not even know himself whether he should act as a normal police officer who deals with the community as a whole, with all the obligations that that entails, or whether, as a youth police officer, he can go as far as mediation. That depends a great deal on the individual who may or may not go as far as mediation depending on his knowledge and training.
However, youth police officers are not all police officers who act in less formal ways because this is not defined in the context of their intervention. If a clearer definition is not given to their role, which must be different from that of a traditional police officer, there is a risk that we will make this good initiative fail.
In this respect, it would be a good idea for us to build the legal system, at least as regards youths, and to ensure that the ground rules are observed in the institutions that house young offenders. In our special file, we said there was no mechanism for supervising the institutions. There should be supervisory mechanisms that would make it possible to bring certain institutions into line.
We now come to our recommendations. We oppose any effort to make the Young Offenders Act tougher because the pubertal crisis of adolescence is clearly a community responsibility.
Our recommendations are as follows.
First, considering the strong upward trend in repression and control and the catastrophic state young people are in today, we strongly recommend that the general scope of any more repressive measures that would reinforce the negative social image of young people, who would then become scapegoats, not be underestimated. That can be done without a high political cost given their status as non-citizens. For example, they do not have the right to vote. The risk in seeking sentences that serve as ``examples'', which incidentally are ineffective, is that undesirable negative effects will result.
Second, we must improve access to legal and social services. For example, we must reduce the waiting time for intervention and support community integration projects.
Third, we must clearly separate the legal aspects from the social aspects. A partnership between the legal and social systems is a necessary and desirable part of a dialectic between two cultures that stand in conflict or opposition but do not have to merge by mutual consent.
Fourth, we must support community development in legal information on the rights of youths and strengthen the role of defence counsel and family-court mediation, clearly identifying the specific responsibilities of each party. The judge, the real keystone of the system, is affirmed as the protector of youth rights, bearing in mind at all times a judge's duty to educate.
Fifth, we must support youth counsellors who work to educate young people in legal procedures before and after punishment. Community youth agencies have to establish the link between youth, lawyers and the court by building relationships of trust with young people without treating them like children. It is important to understand the meaning of the punishment: many young people in youth facilities do not understand why they are there.
.0940
Sixth, we must ensure that the institutions that handle youths comply themselves with the applicable legislation. There is still much to be done to give youth a say in the entire process, particularly at the time of punishment.
Seventh, because there is no individual freedom or defence of the individual without an examination of procedures, we recommend the creation of advisory committees made up of youths, lawyers, social workers and community counsellors. These advisory committees would study the specific procedures and general usage of legislation pertaining to minors.
Eighth, we must fight any rights that are not accompanied by guarantees or responsibilities as they result in youth being treated like children.
Ninth, given the current high rates of recidivism, we recommend an evaluation of institutional placements. Placements are in crisis because of the way they work (failure to comply with the law, undue extension of placements, failure to listen to the youth, confusion between legal and social considerations, etc.) and because of the obscure nature of their educational role.
Tenth, we recommend support for socialization opportunities that will enable young people to again take responsibility for their actions. Many researchers and practitioners today say that young people do not internalize the law (that is, prohibitions, limits) as a moral obligation. What some people call the end of guilt.
Many judges, lawyers and youth counsellors report that they are dealing more and more with young people, and in some instances very young people, who convey the impression they are above their actions and have no fear of punishment. If they are required to develop rules, they will more readily understand the need for those rules.
In the same vein, we believe it is important to strengthen the young person's social personality against egoism and self- centredness. The idea is to combat a strong feeling of powerlessness and depression in adolescence that often leads young people to act out regressively.
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. St-Laurent.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you for your very interesting presentation.
Before asking you a question, I would briefly like to tell you a few things. Yesterday, we went to Portage. You probably know the place. While having lunch with the inmates there, we had occasion to josh around a bit with the young offenders who are there for all sorts of reasons, which you probably know better that we.
My attention was attracted by a young girl who had been sent there for engaging in prostitution. So I asked her a few questions about how she had come to be there. She told me that she was 18 years old, but that she had been there since last June. She told me that, until she was about 17, her mother and father had never denied her anything. She admitted they were perfect parents. However, at one point, they began to say no and things took a turn for the worse. She gradually began committing a few minor offences, then got into drugs and prostitution and ultimately wound up at Portage.
Then I asked her what would have happened if her parents had continued to say yes, and she answered that she would have asked for more and would have wound up there anyway. And I can tell you that she was convinced of it.
I worked for five years as a correctional services officer in a prison environment at the Sept-Îles provincial detention centre. There I observed that 80 percent of the clientele of a detention centre consists of people who have been unable to control their hyperactivity. We talked about this with the inmates and we are all convinced of this.
.0945
I hear this everywhere I go. Since I am correctional services critic, I visit a lot of penitentiaries across the country. In many cases, the situation is the same. The remaining 20 percent are what I call ``the incorrigibles''. These are our cases at present.
Mr. Pector, you mentioned that one of the major problems currently in society is the lack of space we give to youths. Let's be honest: we also lack space for adults. Space is lacking for everyone at the moment.
What is your position on the theory I just advanced on hyperactivity, on the, I would say, virtually inevitable need among certain persons to act as delinquents and with respect to your statement that there is a shortage of space?
Mr. Pector: You were talking about the family environment, which is a blood relationship environment. We are talking about the absence of a socialization space for youths. Youths need to experiment with forms of socialization outside the family, beyond the family dynamic, whatever it may be.
Adolescence means growing up, growing. It also means transgression and experimenting with the limits of what is prohibited. It also means building a social personality, which is generally done outside the family.
So the reference to the youth's social transition, the identity transition, is a reference to social spaces where youths can experiment outside their family with a certain number of socialization practices that they cannot engage in in another educational institution such as school, where the organizational system obviously already imposes rules.
This is in relation to a whole series of thoughts by a number of psychologists and psychoanalysts on the crisis of authority in our society. If there is a crisis of authority, rules and prohibitions are no longer interiorized. So there are moves toward radical actions such as prostitution and drug addiction, which are symptoms of these crises of authority.
To limit the damage, these youths must be permitted to find spaces where they can plan and put together projects for which they are responsible, which have a meaning for them and which encourage them to interiorize rules. That's what I included in the notion of an absence of socialization space.
Mr. St-Laurent: I see.
Ms Laurin: I want to add something to your remarks. You said that poorly controlled hyperactivity was involved in 80 percent of cases. I would like us to look at that specifically as it relates to youths. All the studies, including those conducted by the institutions, show an over-representation of the cultural communities among young people throughout the legal apparatus. So I believe that something more is involved than uncontrolled hyperactivity. Perhaps we should consider why there is an over- representation of the cultural communities.
I simply wanted to interject this point concerning over- representation.
Mr. St-Laurent: It's good that you point it out. It's an interesting point. Some cultural communities simply have not adapted to our legal system and there is no better example of this than the one I'm going to cite.
Where I work in Sept-Îles, more than 80 percent of the prison population was aboriginal. However, these are not more criminal people. They were not necessarily imprisoned for murder. When we look at the crime rate, we see that it's not the aboriginals who commit the most murders or serious crimes. Let's be honest.
What you say is interesting because it is a fact. Where I come from, because I am not perfectly familiar with everything that goes on elsewhere, the gangs are often ethnic, not always, but often.
You spoke of the comprehensive holistic approach. What distinction do you draw between the holistic approach and the one we're used to working with, which I would call the standard overall approach? What do you mean by the comprehensive holistic approach? Do you want to include society, the legal system and so on in that? How do you see that?
.0950
Mr. Pector: Quite often... I was referring to management by program. Management by program concerns the limit of the consequences of certain highly categorized misdeeds. The comprehensive approach means trying, not conceiving of delinquency as a personality defect or behavioural problems, but seeing it in a conflictual relationship with a context, a family environment, a social environment. It's a matter of conceptualizing delinquency with adolescence.
We wish to point out that we are not talking about criminal gangs, which represent only two percent of all groups. Rather we are talking about trying to work with the young person as a whole, that is to say to view him in context and try to work on the responsibility of the various players that work with him, who are in contact with him and with the social institutions, the family, school and police, but also with peer groups in the immediate socio-cultural environment. This involves cultural expression, music, creativity and ultimately anything directly related to his social reality.
Mr. St-Laurent: The present legal system was first built for adults. We then built a little apartment beside the house in which we wanted to establish a system for youths and so on. Among the standards set for adults, there are some that do not necessarily correspond to the needs of youths.
Witnesses have come here, including Mr. Bastien, whose point of view was particularly interesting. He said, among other things, that the present system was not well suited to youths because it went a little too fast in certain cases, and he mixed in with that the need to live with lawyers. Let me give an example. If you plead guilty at the outset, a mandate from legal aid is required in most cases, which pays more. If you plead not guilty, the case is closed and the amount paid is a smaller one. Ultimately, there is the financial interest of the professional and that of the offender.
A youth who is taken into custody must appear in court within 24 hours, as the law requires, and choose between two options. As Mr. Bastien argued, this may go a little too fast for a youth. Within 24 hours, his life has been turned upside down. He is dealing with a monster he knows nothing about at all and on terms that he had never even imagined, that he may perhaps have seen on television. So there are a whole host of things that he must take in in a few minutes.
Someone comes to explain it to him. The boy no longer trusts his parents or anyone else. And here comes a perfect stranger who, in three or four minutes, has to convince him of something other than what he is prepared to admit because, in many cases, he has been caught red-handed. We've realized that, in 90 percent of cases, he ultimately pleads guilty a little later.
Based on all these aspects and examples that I have just cited, would it be your view that there is a need to allow a period of reflection and consultation, not simply with social workers, but with people more specialized in relations with young offenders, before the youth is required to choose whether to plead guilty or not guilty, even with the aid of his lawyer? Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow more than 24 hours so that the youth can meet with people who share to a greater extent his own ideology.
Mr. Pector: Yes, that's true. You are quite right to say that, once he is snapped up by the system, he's submerged and doesn't really understand the issues he is facing. It is true that 24 hours is a very short space of time to take in a lot of contradictory information and make a choice.
.0955
Lawyers are generally submerged in cases. They have 10 cases in court in the morning. There is a whole dynamic that completely submerges the youth and does not help him understand the punishment he is going to receive in any case.
With respect to waiting times, it's rather the question of the support that is provided that should be examined in all this. As street social workers, we generally intervene here through mediation. We establish relations between the youth and the lawyer on the basis of the knowledge we have of his situation. We generally try to calm down the lawyer so that he takes the time to explain to the youth the rules, the type of punishment and the consequences, which takes more than two or three minutes.
Generally speaking, our work is precisely to establish this type of mediation. Should the time period be extended? That remains to be discussed, in my view.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Laurent. I know it's difficult. You get interested in a line of thought and then the Wicked Witch of the West comes in and tells you that your time is up.
Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Sometimes this is a very frustrating exercise for members of the committee - certainly it is for me - because you come and you spend a lot of time, but we really don't get an opportunity to share your experience. I have ten minutes with you, as I had with Professor Trépanier - ten minutes to look at the balance between the protection of society, the deterrent effect of our laws, and the question of rehabilitation, to see if there's a proper balance and to explore that. So I get time to ask maybe two questions and he takes up the rest of the time. That's the last I see of that wisdom and understanding and knowledge to which we should be having access. So sometimes it's frustrating, but I guess that we have to do our best with the ten minutes that we have as committee members to explore your concerns and the understanding and the wisdom that you bring to this whole issue.
You have indicated in your presentation to the committee this morning that we should be looking at the credibility of institutions and we should be looking at the credibility of the courts and the justice system. I think that that's a healthy observation, and that we should not simply say that all is well and that the crime rate, although it has been going up for many years, is levelling off and we can relax.
We went into the institutions and we saw why we must not relax and why we must always remain on guard and do whatever we can to enhance the balance between the objectives of the criminal justice system, which are to protect society and create a deterrent if this is possible and, of course, to rehabilitate the possibilities of our young people.
When we were in Atlantic Canada we had a professor appear before us whose message was this: until parents begin to teach values and ethics as well as discipline within the home, unless these values are taught in the home and reinforced at the various levels within our society, we're going to go nowhere.
I heard an echo of that in your presentation this morning, so I'd like you perhaps to comment on that. The observation was made by, I think, Professor Carrigan from Nova Scotia. What do you think of that observation?
Secondly, you deal with young people aged from five to twelve, and I suppose older than that. Do you feel that you have the proper authority to intervene with parents, who are the key ingredient in this whole area? Do you think that you have the proper authority in order to intervene when the signs indicate that intervention is justified?
.1000
[Translation]
Mr. Pector: I should point out to you that we essentially work with youths from 12 to 25 years of age. Sometimes we work with younger youths, but we mainly work with youths who are in a crisis of adolescence.
The crisis of adolescence is related to the transmission of values and, more precisely, as the word ``crisis'' indicates, an upheaval in values. This notion of crisis is fundamentally important.
The youth is experiencing a conflictual relationship with his family and with the entire ideology and values that it is attempting to transmit to him. We work with youths who come from all social environments. I would not want to underestimate the entire problem of poverty which comes into play, but we also work with youths from the middle and upper classes who are in a crisis of adolescence. I would tend to say that 50 percent of youths in our society are experiencing a radical crisis of adolescence.
Adolescence is marked by the radicalism of revolt, which is transitory, which occurs during a very specific time and which is not the expression of a pattern of delinquency.
Family mediation is essential, whatever the problem the youth is facing, because it enables him to express a certain number of views and, which is important, to express his own reality.
We intervene on a voluntary basis. We consider that no educational or socialization process can take place by force. That is why we intervene before and after the legal process occurs.
We intervene before the legal process in an attempt to recreate a dialogue with the family and to enable youths to grasp their rights and responsibilities in the family.
Our work also consists in helping parents who are often at a loss with regard to this phenomenon which they must deal with. It should not be forgotten that, in our society, the family is confronted and that youths have sources of information outside the family.
The family isn't what it was 50 or 60 years ago. The mass media, schools and friends are much more important to adolescents than the family. A gap has been created and our work is to try to breach that gap with youths.
They don't reject all the values that their family has transmitted to them because they do so out of confusion, in a revolt against every form of authority and, as the saying goes, they throw out the baby with the bath water.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: Do you feel there is sufficient authority in Quebec for adequate intervention with parents when the signs and evidence justify such intervention?
[Translation]
Ms Laurin: I don't think it is a matter of having authority that is strong enough or not, since we are working with the parents. We don't need authority. As my colleague said, the parents themselves are often at a loss when dealing with the crisis. They themselves will go seek support. It's not a question of having the authority or strictly a question of values and discipline. As I emphasized earlier, people from the cultural communities are over- represented in the prisons.
I don't think this is strictly related to a system of values and discipline. The entire system suffers from a lack of understanding when it comes to working with the problems of adolescence and this crisis of adolescence.
The idea is not to cast blame on or assign responsibility to the family, which would perhaps be a little too easy and would be to disregard a completely different factor. If we came back to the holistic approach, we would precisely have to take into account the entire set of these factors.
.1005
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: My wife and I have four children. If someone knocked on my door and said that my child has a problem, and this is it, I could close the door and say that I'll look after my own problem, thank you, in spite of the fact that my children need help and I need help dealing with them.
The point I'm getting at is that there are many parents who will seek help. All conscientious parents seek the information and help of agencies in the best interests of their children. But there are many who don't, and they don't want someone sticking their nose into their family business, their private affairs. In cases like that, do you feel there is sufficient authority to intervene with the parents and tell them not to close the door in your face because you have the right and the authority to be there because of the government's concern about their child, and then give the evidence that indicates that their child needs assistance? Do I make my question clear to you?
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, maybe I can clarify that this group of witnesses represents a non-governmental organization. They have no statutory authority at all to do anything.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I understand that.
The Chair: For the witnesses, I think where Mr. Ramsay is going with this is that he wants your opinion of the Youth Protection Act and whether it gives enough authority to the government to intervene where it absolutely has to. I turned the clock off for that.
[Translation]
Mr. Pector: We work on a voluntary basis. When we deal with dangerous situations or where the youths' development is in danger, we work with government social services.
Our work is also done in cooperation with the existing authorities, in certain cases in accordance with the Youth Protection Act. The process of reporting or referring to the Director of Youth Protection occurs regularly if we see that the youth is in danger or that authoritarian intervention by a social institution is necessary. We can do that. We do it in situations such as those you mention.
Our work is not strictly limited to this area. As I mentioned a moment ago, it extends to many other areas. If we know that a youth is in danger, we clearly refer him to the service that has authority in the area. There is a whole process in Quebec.
The advantage we have over the average citizen is that we can jump the waiting lists. That's a real advantage. We can make a judgment as to the urgency of the situation. Since we generally have personal contacts in the social services, we know whom to call, how to call and how to work with lawyers or interveners in the institutions. The referrals are made very quickly. Something happens immediately; there is no need to wait six months. It happens quickly. That's an advantage in a job such as ours.
[English]
The Chair: I'm afraid I've let the two parties go overtime, but do you have a question,Mr. Gallaway?
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Because we're in Montreal and because I have a lot of nerve this morning, I might even ask a question in French.
[Translation]
You noted that two aspects are involved: the legal aspect and the social aspect. The court is the cornerstone of the legal aspect.
.1010
I would like to know what provisions we should make in the act to include a system that integrates these two aspects. We have still not finished our study. We have heard the Minister of Justice for Ontario talk about his philosophy of punishing young offenders and say that the act should be harder on youths. How can we include these two aspects in the new act?
Mr. Pector: A balance must be struck in any protection system. Increasing penalties and sentences against juvenile delinquents would give the impression that society is sending a message to youths. That message would symbolically reinforce their exclusion from society; they would get the feeling that the boom has been lowered on them again, whereas they are aware that they have a certain number of problems and that society cannot help them through repression. I can testify to that.
I have worked with young prostitutes in the streets of downtown Montréal for 15 years. I have worked with many youths who have run away from institutions. They feel that this type of repressive service beats them down more than it helps them. Sending this kind of message would be a tacit confirmation that society is not there to help them.
[English]
The Chair: I want to thank you for appearing before the committee today and for giving us the benefit of your experience and your views.
We'll rise for a few minutes while our next group gets together. I remind everyone that the next session will be in camera because we have judges appearing.
[Proceedings continue in camera]