[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 16, 1996
.1535 
[English]
The Chair: Welcome. This afternoon we have the Canada Safety Council with us. We have from now until 5 p.m.
Our usual procedure is to listen to you and then ask questions, so the more you talk the fewer questions you get. I'm going to leave that as your option.
Mr. Emile-J. Therien (President, Canada Safety Council): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, thank you for providing the opportunity for the Canada Safety Council to appear before the committee regarding the comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act, commonly called the YOA.
At present, there are fewer pieces of legislation that elicit a stronger public response than the Young Offenders Act. It is indeed a subject that has sparked tears and anger from victims, charges of media overkill, and fear and confusion from members of the public. It goes without saying that teenage crime is a growing concern in this country.
[Technical Difficulty - Editor]
.1540
Mr. Therien: I'll just continue from where I left off.
Teenagers, not adults, receive disproportionate attention when crimes are reported. Whether perpetrator or victim, young Canadians are the focus of Canada's crime problems. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics youth court survey of 1992-93 cases heard in youth court for that period, murder accounted for 42 cases, attempted murder for 74, assault for 311. It should be noted that 16- and 17-year-olds accounted for well in excess of 50% of these cases. But these numbers pale into insignificance when compared to the 132,000 impaired driving incidents reported by police in 1992, or 61% of all Criminal Code traffic incidents. You are all aware that drinking and driving is a contributing factor in 1,800 motor vehicle deaths and 60,000 injuries each year in this country.
The Statistics Canada report on Canadian crime statistics for 1993, released last August, indicates that the number of crimes reported that year.... I should point out that this report was submitted to you last November, so it's a little bit outdated, but I think we're basically on the same....
.1545
Crimes reported last year decreased by 5% compared with the year 1993, and the number of reported violent crimes - that is, assault, sexual assault, attempted murder - decreased by 3%. Youth crime, which has gone down every year since 1991, dropped by 5% in that year. The 1994 murder rate fell by 6%, to its lowest level in 25 years. The actual number of homicides, 596, was down from the 630 reported in the previous year.
Fewer crimes are being committed across this country. Rates are down in most provinces and in the biggest cities. Canada is not becoming a more dangerous place to live. It is a myth fuelled by political expediency, emotion, and media hype that crime is on the rise.
Although growing fears do not match the facts, fear itself is a fact. The fear of crime has greater potential to destroy our communities than crime itself. Canadians afraid to walk on the streets will end up creating the very thing they fear; that is, abandoned, dangerous streets and neighbourhoods. We must never allow this to become a characteristic of our communities. It is incumbent on the Canada Safety Council and other organizations with important interests and constituencies to present and interpret the facts as they are; namely, that Canadians still live in a very safe and civilized society.
The solutions to the problem of youth crime are complex and must involve both improvements of the law and measures that deal with the underlying cause of the crime; that is, poverty, unemployment, racism, poor self-esteem, and so on. They must respond to the needs of children at risk before they ever become involved in the criminal justice system.
The Canada Safety Council is in agreement with the proposals contained in Bill C-37, which was passed by the Senate last June. In our opinion, the amendments reflect the important principle that serious young offenders should be treated differently from minor or first-time offenders. The amendments place heavy emphasis on custody as a last resort for non-violent offenders, stressing the effective use of community-based measures and responses that involve rectifying or changing one's way. The legislation provides that when a youth court commits a young person to custody, it must give reasons why any other disposition, for example community service or restitution, would not have been adequate. The legislation also makes links between public safety, rehabilitation of young offenders, and crime prevention.
Unfortunately, when the justice minister, the Hon. Allan Rock, announced proposed changes to the YOA in 1994, only his get-tough measures made the headlines. What was largely overlooked was his proposals that would significantly reduce the number of young offenders sent to jail by forcing judges, probation officers, and social workers to find alternative sentences for non-violent crimes; in effect, proposals that could dramatically tip the scales of justice towards rehabilitation and away from custody.
Over 35,000 young offenders are held in detention centres in Canada each year, at a cost of up to $300 per day. Experts estimate that number would fall to 15,000 if non-violent offenders were not put into custody. In addition, it must be remembered that the prison environment exposes these offenders to seasoned criminals and will actually exacerbate the recidivism problem.
The Young Offenders Act must recognize the public's need for safety and the important principle that serious offenders should be treated differently from minor or first-time offenders. For this purpose, any program focusing on alternative punishments such as community service, which allows young offenders to assume responsibility for their actions and build self-esteem, merits serious consideration as an alternative to juvenile prison, a very expensive form of housing, with high recidivism rates. Without question, this will enhance community safety and reduce the incidence of youth crime. Bureaucracy and vested interests must not be allowed to derail this legislation.
The Canada Safety Council sponsors national community and crime prevention campaigns. I think you've all received a copy of our manual. This is a manual for our 1995 campaign, which was held last November. In that theme a strong emphasis is placed on crime prevention through social development: CPSD. Crime prevention through social development uses targeted, long-term programs in order to alleviate the combinations of social and economic problems that can increase the risk of criminal behaviour.
.1550
CPSD addresses a wide range of risk factors connected with crime through the efforts of various social development policies, programs and services already in existence, such as social housing, education, health, income security and social services.
Whatever measures are used need to be focused on specific at-risk individuals and must operate in coordination with other initiatives at the same time in order to address the multiple problems experienced by at-risk youths.
It is not unusual to find the life of an at-risk youth characterized by unemployment, poverty, family violence, learning problems in schools and substance abuse.
Until Canadians buy into social development oriented crime prevention programs, indeed, the next generation of Canadians might find its well-off citizens living in the high-security enclosed and gated communities that are becoming increasingly popular in the United States.
Crime prevention through social development is taking place in Canada at many levels and in many communities. In some cases, the groups or organizations acknowledge that they are in fact doing crime prevention. In many cases, however, crime prevention is not a formally acknowledged goal or outcome of the program or project.
There are many ways in which communities can work to prevent the factors associated with increased risk of criminal involvement from impacting the lives of young children. The Young Offenders Act is a very important piece of social policy legislation. The current review must be driven by the realization that education and employment will do more to prevent or reduce crime than all of the prisons in this country combined.
Appended to our presentation is something prepared by the Church Council on Justice and Corrections. It's called ``Ten Things We'd Rather Not Know About Young Offenders''. I think it's quite revealing. I hope everybody read it.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Now we have ten-minute rounds, starting with the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Madam Chair, I will definitely not be using my full ten minutes on the first round.
I have a question about harmonization. The new Minister of Justice in Quebec is about to modernize the present system for young people. Will that lead to some changes?
We know that the federal government administers all penitentiaries for long-term sentences. Will the new legislation that the Quebec government is about to pass cause any problems in harmonizing the federal and provincial justice system?
[English]
Mr. Therien: In response to that question, I think what Quebec is doing is to be admired, and I only hope the federal legislation mirrors it perfectly. I think it's a good case for harmonization. I think the Quebec model for juvenile offenders, if I can call it that, is probably the model for Canada and the rest of North America.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Do you intend to convince the government of Canada to follow the Quebec's government's example and to extend the Quebec model to the other provinces?
[English]
Mr. Therien: I can't comment on that. I don't know what the intentions of the federal government are after this.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: We have taken note of that.
Mr. Therien: Thank you.
Mr. Asselin: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank you for your presentation. Did you say this is the same report that you filed before?
Mr. Therien: Yes, it is, Jack. I think we filed this last November when we were due to appear before Christmas. We were advised by Miriam that we would be on. I'm sorry I didn't update it a bit.
.1555
Mr. Ramsay: On page 1 of your brief you say the number of crimes reported last year decreased by 5% and the number of violent crimes reported decreased by 3%, of course referring to YOA offences.
Mr. Therien: No, referring to all crimes.
Mr. Ramsay: Is that all crimes? Are you saying the incidence of these crimes was reduced or just the reporting?
Mr. Therien: Well, based on the Stats Canada report, I think they get their information from the.... I just forget the.... I would say it's the actual number of offences.
Mr. Ramsay: Would that include YOA offences as well?
Mr. Therien: I'm not sure if they are included, but I think we say in here that YOA offences are down 3%, if I remember correctly.
Mr. Ramsay: That's the point I'm getting at, because some of the documentation I have read says as high as 80% to 90% of offences created by young offenders is never reported. Would you support that?
Mr. Therien: Well, not serious offences; probably minor ones. And I'm not sure if I'm actually correct in saying that.
Mr. Ramsay: I was amazed when I read that. If I'm conservative and take that lowest figure of 80%, that's an enormous percentage. So when we're looking at the statistics, can we really rely upon them when we're examining the question of youth crime?
Mr. Therien: We have to establish a reliable database, and we have to rely on the statistics that are being made available. I'm sure Stats Canada must get those from the respective police forces or whatever. That's the database we must work from.
Mr. Ramsay: That's the question, though. How can we rely on that database if it's accurate that 80% or higher of the incidences of crime are not reported?
Mr. Therien: I'd probably defer that question to members of the committee. We go with the flow, with the statistics that are published by the government. We must rely on those. As to 80% of the cases not being charged, I don't know where that information comes from.
Mr. Ramsay: On page 2 you say Bill C-37 contains proposals that will significantly reduce the number of young offenders sent to jail, that alternative sentences for non-violent crimes will be used. Can you tell me where in the YOA or where in Bill C-37 are alternative measures limited only to non-violent offenders?
Mr. Therien: I don't have a copy of that bill in front of me and I can't be specific, but there certainly is reference in there to it, at the discretion of the judge.
Mr. Ramsay: Are the alternative measures limited only to non-violent offenders? The question is does it exclude violent offenders from alternative measures?
Mr. Therien: Historically the act has always allowed for violent young offenders to be referred to adult court at the discretion of the judge, and that's my understanding of the act now. I don't think there's any significant -
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but that's not my question. I'm asking whether or not, from your interpretation of the YOA as well as the amendment, Bill C-37, they exclude violent offenders from alternative measures.
Mr. Therien: I'm not sure. I can't answer that offhand.
The Chair: Perhaps I can assist. Section 4 of the Young Offenders Act is the section that deals with alternative measures, and it sets out the criteria under which alternative measures can be considered under subsection 4(1). That might help you.
Mr. Ramsay: Bill C-41 of course has the same provision, which is alternative measures, but that also fails to exempt violent offenders. Would you recommend to this committee that violent offenders be exempted from alternative measures?
Mr. Therien: I can give you a pretty good example of a violent offence. A young fellow in Windsor, Ontario - am I free to use his name? - Kevin Hollinsky, was originally charged with impaired driving and other offences, which were eventually reduced to more serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario. He was a young offender at the time and was given an alternative sentence at the discretion of the judge. If you recall, I think that impaired driving fatality resulted in the death of his two lifelong friends.
.1600
If you saw the results of that alternative sentence.... I think, as a nation, we should stand up and applaud it, because I think it is very significant. I think his contribution to society in terms of what he did, in terms of speaking to high school groups, plus 300, or whatever it was.... The main thing was that he addressed 9,000 high school students over a period of six months on the implications of impaired driving. For that boy to come out of prison would not, I think, have served any purpose whatsoever.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay, but look at impaired driving and the consequences, whether it's simply an accident or death.
Mr. Therien: It's still a Criminal Code offence.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but the intent is entirely different from that of someone who deliberately assaults, rapes or murders someone. The intent is different. When someone climbs into a car who has had one drink too many, there is no intent to kill or injure anyone in most cases of which I'm aware.
Mr. Therien: Not in all cases.
Mr. Ramsay: Well, then if it was proven that the intent was there.... Perhaps you could tell us about this particular case to which you referred. Was there an intent to kill?
Mr. Therien: In that particular case, I don't think there was an intent to kill.
Mr. Ramsay: Then I would suggest that this is quite a bit different from someone who deliberately plans and who, with intent, commits a violent offence against another person or their property.
To focus, then, would you recommend to this committee one way or the other as to whether or not a violent offence with intent should be excluded from alternative measures?
Mr. Therien: I think it should be left to the discretion of the judge.
Mr. Ramsay: So you would leave alternative measures available for violent offenders?
Mr. Therien: Yes, in certain cases.
Mr. Ramsay: This means that people who commit assault, rape, or sexual assault might never see the inside of a courtroom?
Mr. Therien: That's quite possible.
Mr. Ramsay: You favour that?
Mr. Therien: I don't necessary favour it, but there may be circumstances that justify that.
Mr. Ramsay: You would recommend to this committee to provide for courts to administer those kinds of sentences by law ?
Mr. Therien: Yes, at the discretion of the judge and the court.
Mr. Ramsay: I see.
Near the end of your report you say that the YOA is a very important piece of social policy legislation. I take exception to that, to some extent. I consider the YOA to be a piece of justice legislation. The only objective of any justice legislation is to protect the public, to provide a deterrent or a fair and just penalty for whatever has occurred, and of course rehabilitate when possible. Would you disagree with that?
Mr. Therien: I don't disagree. That should be the intent of any piece of legislation.
Mr. Ramsay: Tell the committee why you feel the YOA is a piece of social policy rather than a piece of justice legislation?
Mr. Therien: It is probably a combination of both. As for whether it is a piece of social or judicial legislation, I don't know if there's a difference. I can't answer that; I'm not a lawyer. They must cross over at some point.
Mr. Ramsay: But you consider the YOA to be social policy?
Mr. Therien: Yes. It impacts on our kids.
Mr. Ramsay: Rather than a piece of justice legislation?
Mr. Therien: Sure it is. It's got to be a combination of both.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay, I'll come back. Thank you.
Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): There was a figure raised. It was said that 80% of crimes go unreported. I would suggest that when you're moving into the area of more serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter and sexual assault, these types of crimes are reported. What is your view on that?
Mr. Therien: This is what I was trying to tell Jack earlier. It was that the serious crimes are reported.
A voice: That's it?
Mr. Kirkby: Yes, it's your turn.
The Chair: I'll be the judge of that. Go ahead, Mr. Knutson.
.1605
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Is there anything wrong with the law in Ontario regarding child protection?
Mr. Therien: I'm certainly not an expert. I've a superficial knowledge, a peripheral knowledge of it.
Mr. Knutson: I want to ask a question about age. When an 11-year-old commits a crime in my community, the person who runs the Children's Aid Society says that unless that 11-year-old is in need of protection, is being either abused or neglected in a fairly severe way, it's not a matter for the Children's Aid Society.
Under Ontario child welfare legislation, the police say their hands are tied. All they can do is take the kid home.
Given that 1-year-olds can commit some quite serious offences, what would your recommendation be regarding the age limit?
Mr. Therien: I think the age limit should remain the way it is now. I refer to the fact that few of the serious crimes.... In this we say that over fifty are committed by 16- and 17-year-olds. Possibly 80% of the serious crimes I referred to are committed by 16- and 17-year-olds. I find 11 to be awfully young.
Mr. Knutson: Would you accept that social agencies should intervene earlier and that oftentimes we can determine that 7-, 8-, or 9-year-olds are on the path to becoming serious criminals? If you accept that, then with what tools might we intervene if we're not going to lower the age in the Young Offenders Act?
Mr. Therien: There are programs that could be implemented in the schools. Certainly teaching staff could identify kids they think deviate from the normal classroom type of behaviour. I think that's one way.
Mr. Knutson: They can identify them.
Mr. Therien: Yes, this is what I'm saying. Can they identify them at the moment?
Mr. Knutson: That's what we had as evidence before Christmas.
Mr. Therien: I wasn't sure of that.
Mr. Knutson: I forget the organization that gave testimony that kids can be identified very early.
Mr. Therien: I was going to ask you if in fact they can.
Mr. Knutson: Well, according to some testimony they can.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that these kids can be identified. You would have to put some law in place that would allow you to intrude. I take it that you don't think it's the Young Offenders Act, but that it should be some provincial piece of legislation.
Mr. Therien: Prior to the age at which the Young Offenders Act kicks in.
Mr. Knutson: So we should look to the province -
Mr. Therien: Because you're really talking about child welfare acts, which are provincially run, and the minister.
Mr. Knutson: Yes, and the current acts in Ontario allow intervention only where the child is in need of protection.
Mr. Therien: In need of protection, yes.
Mr. Knutson: That definition doesn't include basic juvenile delinquency. So in Ontario, anyway, we don't intervene under the age of 12.
Mr. Therien: Under age 12, until the act kicks in.
Mr. Knutson: Yes. I just wondered if you had any difficulty with that.
Mr. Therien: Well, I certainly have difficulty if you're talking about reducing the age and there are children who fall under the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Knutson: Sorry?
Mr. Therien: I think that the age has been established for a long time, and I would find charging kids who are 10, 11, or 9 to be socially unacceptable.
Mr. Knutson: Even if the end justifies the means, if it gives you a tool to intervene?
Mr. Therien: But possibly there is a need for early intervention programs.
Mr. Knutson: But not the YOA? It's not an appropriate tool for early intervention?
Mr. Therien: No.
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): I try to remove myself from application of the YOA and modifications to it, but unfortunately I have very clear evidence of a young offender living on my street, in the case of the Toope murder.
Mr. Therien: This was in Montreal?
Mr. Discepola: Yes.
Mr. Therien: I know what you're talking about.
Mr. Discepola: One of the conditions in the discussions around our community has always been what is so magical about turning 18 and not turning 18 and how just one day can make the difference in whether you will be tried in adult court or not.
Do you you feel that the age should be fixed and etched in stone as it is now, or should more flexibility be given to the judge in extending the custody of the child?
.1610
I don't believe they should be put in adult court by any stretch of the imagination. Even though we look at the Quebec model as a very good model, I want to point out that in Quebec there has never been one. When an appeal has been made for the accused to be tried in adult court, the Quebec system has never allowed that to happen.
In this case of the two murders, one of them in particular has already been tested by psychologists and we have been told that the possibility of reintegration of this child is next to impossible at this stage. He was 13 years old, so when he is 16 years old he'll be back out in my community. Why can't we have more flexibility? Why would you be against giving more flexibility to judges? Also, there is the point that would see the judge having flexibility, at the time when the youth has served his sentence, to again have a re-examination to see if the person can be reintegrated back into society.
Mr. Therien: In answer to that question, I guess I'm familiar with that case because I get The Montreal Gazette every morning and it was well covered in it. You're talking about very young children. That case was not referred to adult court, right?
Mr. Discepola: They aren't young kids. If you look at them, one of them was a football player. They're young in age, but they're big kids.
Mr. Therien: I know what you're saying, but I really don't have an answer to that.
Mr. Discepola: I'm asking you, are you fixed on the age? Should the judge have more flexibility in determining whether they should be tried in adult court or not? Just because they're 18 years less one day, it doesn't make them any less guilty.
Mr. Therien: I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. Discepola: You have no opinion?
Mr. Therien: No.
Mr. Discepola: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Discepola, thank you.
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): Just to expand upon the age criteria and the suggestion of flexibility put forward by Mr. Discepola, what would you do in the case of the lower limit, by which children 11 years old and under are excluded from the Young Offenders Act? What do you do with a child who's a chronic shoplifter, who chronically commits crimes of public mischief, such as throwing stones into windows and things of that nature, since they cannot be brought under the Young Offenders Act? Do you feel the court should have flexibility on the reverse, in certain exceptions, to bring that child under provisions of the act through an application to a judge?
We have the example of these young kids in Britain - they were 10 years old - murdering that 2-year-old child. Those are perhaps extreme situations, but what about more frequent situations where there are crimes of public mischief or minor theft?
Mr. Therien: I don't know how many 8-, 9- and 10-year-old kids are chronic and are going out and shoplifting every day. I don't have a fix or a handle on the number of kids below the YOA age, as I call it, who are out there really indulging in some type of behaviour that is abnormal. I really don't know the numbers on that. But if you look at the incidence of serious crimes, the majority of those crimes are committed by 16- and 17-year-olds. So I think what I'm essentially saying is that age is probably a factor in the seriousness of the particular crimes that these kids commit.
Mr. Maloney: But we're not always dealing with serious crimes. We're dealing with crimes.
Mr. Therien: Yes, less serious ones.
Mr. Maloney: Minor crime eventually leads to serious crime. Would you agree with that statement?
Mr. Therien: Yes, very much so. I would agree with you on that.
Mr. Maloney: Would it not be better to do something at the minor level before we get to the serious crime?
Mr. Therien: Are you saying to nip it in the bud at that time?
Mr. Maloney: Yes, that's the idea.
Mr. Therien: I think the earlier question was whether or not this should come under the YOA or whether it should still be a provincial matter or provincial concern. I think it should be a provincial matter of concern.
Mr. Maloney: Turning to alternative measures, one of the concerns in the area that I come from is the concept -
Mr. Therien: Where is that?
Mr. Maloney: It's down in the Niagara Peninsula. It's the feeling that sentences in juvenile court or youth court are a joke. I get this from high school principals, from the children themselves, from the police officers. A lot of this relates to alternative measures. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Therien: I think it might be a matter of opinion as to what a sentence is.... I agree with you that if you see some of the high-profile crimes committed in this city by youthful offenders, people will say it's a joke. The maximum is three years, am I right?
.1615
We're looking at a piece of legislation that came into existence at the turn of the century. I think it has basically served Canada and society fairly well, but it has evolved. In the current piece of legislation, we're in a review of the legislation that was successor legislation to whatever the original name of that act was.
Mr. Maloney: The Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Mr. Therien: It has served us quite well.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Now we go to five-minute rounds. Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I am somewhat surprised to see that in 1996 there is a drop in youth crime. It is well known that youth crime is due chiefly to family problems.
Nowadays, the divorce rate is growing all the time. Unemployment also creates problems in families, and as a result, young people decide to do certain things that lead them toward crime. Young people have problems at home and at school, and this causes them to commit acts of gratuitous violence. Young people also become members of gangs.
I think it would be better if your council and all governments whether try to find out why young people are committing acts that youth court judges and lawyers recognize as criminal in nature.
I think that sending a young person to jail or to a penitentiary for five years amounts to teaching him or her why the other inmates are there. A young person learns about the mistakes the others made and develops ties with groups inside the prison or penitentiary. When they're released after five years, they will be seen as criminals and rejected by society.
Their friends will be on the inside and they will engage in the same activity as the criminals they met in prison. They know why they are there, they know what mistakes they made and why they were caught. They will try to engage in the same activities again without making the same mistakes.
Provincial and federal governments should establish a system similar to the parole system within prisons. Young people should be able to continue their education in a specialized area, suited to their needs. In addition to an educational program, there should be cultural, sports and community activities for young offenders. To achieve this end, we need to have some agencies to look after these young people.
It would also be a good idea to have psychological services or social workers within the polyvalentes (comprehensive schools) and cegeps. Often these young people are abandoned and ostracized by teachers because they are having learning difficulties related to psychological or family problems. The difficulties may simply stem from alcohol or drug abuse.
They may do something, just like the driver you referred to earlier who had had three beers. He proved that someone, after drinking three beers, has a blood-alcohol level higher than 0.08% and may be found guilty of killing someone and thus of committing a criminal offense.
A young person who uses drugs under pressure from his friends may commit an act of this type. We have to look at why young people make mistakes of this type. We have to look at the context and try to determine whether the young person is a criminal who is likely to commit further offenses.
.1620
Because society took care of him, he might come to regret his mistake and understand why he made it. It would save the government a lot of money.
However we tend, and society tends, to blame a youth who made a mistake. Very often, it is a mistake that he made without even having really thought about it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Did you want to comment?
Mr. Therien: I think I agree with him. Criminal behaviour among young people is rooted in family violence, learning problems in schools, etc. The member said it's not the time in the life of that young person to throw the baby out with the bath water. Rehabilitation sure works, and I agree. There are alternatives to prison.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): You've come on an interesting day, because this morning we heard from Victims of Violence, which, as you may be aware, is a group that deals with those people who are survivors of some of the most horrific crimes. You've given us a presentation that is much more detached. I find it interesting because you're talking about crime prevention through social development, and I think we all agree here that crime prevention is essential.
This morning we heard from people whose children and grandchildren were -
Mr. Therien: [Inaudible - Editor]
Mr. Gallaway: Yes, it was quite horrific.
Because this committee is charged with dealing with the Young Offenders Act, we can't affect social policy, much of which falls within the domain of the provincial governments. If we start and examine what I'll call - and I don't want to be crass about this - these top-end crimes, these extreme crimes of violence, I would really be interested in knowing what your group would recommend in terms of dealing with these types of situations, these types of convicted young offenders.
Mr. Therien: I think there was a mother who appeared before you today and I heard her on CBC radio. It's quite startling, and you really feel for her as a victim. I think you were referring to the Leduc boy.
Mr. Gallaway: Yes.
Mr. Therien: You feel for these people, but you also realize that the reality of the world is that the people who committed that crime were also young offenders. I'm pretty sure of that in the Leduc case. I think it's a very delicate issue on both sides.
Mr. Gallaway: This may be an incorrect assessment of the public mood, but there are certain opinions in this country that would suggest that the whole issue of young offenders' crimes is not a social phenomenon but simply a matter of criminal justice. I think it's interesting that in the ten points you've presented, you note that young people can't vote, can't drink, etc. There are a number of things. In Ontario they can't drive now until they're virtually 17.
Mr. Therien: They're not our points.
Mr. Galloway: Yes, I understand that.
Yet at the same time we want to treat them as if they were adults. Having regard to the fact some of these people commit crimes that -
Mr. Therien: They're pretty heinous.
Mr. Galloway: Yes, they're beyond description. Do you have any recommendation as to what we do, not necessarily from a justice point of view; i.e., lock them up and send them away for some indeterminate period of time? Where else, then, as legislators who are dealing with a piece of legislation that is criminal in its purview, can we turn?
.1625
Mr. Therien: Sending them to adult prison condemns them to a future life of criminality, and at some point they do come out. If you ever thought they were criminals in the past, we're certainly convinced in our own minds they will be criminals on leaving prison. That's a real dilemma.
I understand the public outcry. They think the sentences are not harsh enough. They think the justice system is a joke. They think these kids can do anything and walk away. We're sensitive to that. But the reality of it is they're kids. They're our kids. We're responsible for them - everybody in this room. If we're going to abandon them to a system that's pretty cruel....
Does one form of punishment justify another form of punishment? I'm not so sure it does.
Mr. Gallaway: I know your association appeared before this committee about fourteen months ago. I'm not suggesting it's exclusively our duty or our obligation, but how does one go about selling the idea so Canadians can buy into social development oriented crime prevention programs? How do you sell that message?
Mr. Therien: About a year ago in the United States they used to laugh about midnight basketball. I think you're all aware of it. Keeping kids busy: a lot of jokes were made about that. It wasn't a very serious matter to a lot of legislators in that country. When people actually looked at it, keeping some of these kids with no life skills.... Their educational skills were nothing. At least it kept these kids busy. A lot of people in the United States really see the benefit of that type of thinking.
The kids were not at home with their parents. Most of these kids who were involved in midnight basketball were lucky to have one parent, let alone two parents. It sure kept them busy. Something as simple as that is now being identified as a major deterrent. These kids were roaming the streets, joining gangs, and getting involved in other criminal behaviour.
A lot of simple things like that could be done. As for how you sell the Canadian public on it, that's your job, the provincial government's job.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Madam Chair, I'm not getting much help in terms of suggestions to us. We are supposed to be making recommendations after the end of our tour here on what changes, if any, we should be making in this legislation. So I guess I could just ask a couple of questions.
Mr. Therien: I have a question for you. Are changes in order? Has this act served us so badly since 1901?
Mr. Ramsay: This act was changed in 1984.
Mr. Therien: I realize that. Has it served us so badly in the twelve years since?
Mr. Ramsay: Ask the victims who appeared this morning.
I ask you this question. Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, before it was changed in 1984, there was a charge for contributing to the delinquency of juveniles. Do you feel we should reinstitute that charge under the Young Offenders Act, so it would be an offence to contribute to the delinquency of a juvenile?
Mr. Therien: I'd like a definition.
Mr. Ramsay: The definition that was there under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Mr. Therien: What is the definition?
Mr. Ramsay: Back in those days, when I was a policeman and enforced that act, if an adult was checked in a vehicle with a 15- or 16-year-old girl and there was liquor in the vehicle, that was interpreted by the courts as contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Therien: If you look at prostitution and look at pimping.... I'm not sure how the laws affecting prostitution are written, but certainly pimps can be charged. Am I correct?
Mr. Ramsay: Would you recommend to this committee -
Mr. Therien: Yes, I probably would.
Mr. Ramsay: - that the contributing charge should be returned, so there's some degree of accountability for people who lead young people into crime, or into delinquency?
Mr. Therien: I think you'd have to have very clear parameters for how you make that interpretation.
.1630
Mr. Ramsay: But you'd recommend that we take a look at that?
Mr. Therien: I think I could assume from that you may, in your own mind, put a spin on parents and say that they've been bad parents, the child has turned out badly, so they should be charged. Is there this implication?
Mr. Ramsay: Back in the days of the enforcement of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, there were some parents who were charged with contributing to the delinquency of their children, yes, particularly in cases of child neglect -
Mr. Therien: Child neglect, yes.
Mr. Ramsay: - and that kind of thing. In fact, the Criminal Code is very, very severe. It contains some very, very severe statements about anyone who, within their own home, conducts certain acts in the presence of their children.
Mr. Therien: My kids are no longer teenagers; they're in their twenties. But if I had a 17-year-old and I was encouraging him to go and do things of a criminal nature, I would expect I would have to pay the piper at some point. If that's the attitude of your question....
Mr. Ramsay: What about disclosure? We discussed disclosure this morning. I've always been concerned about a justice system that's based upon withholding information from the public. This concerns me, particularly when it comes to repeat violent offenders. How do you feel about full disclosure for repeat violent offenders, say, after the first or the second offence? Should full disclosure be authorized?
Mr. Therien: You're referring to young offenders? I would have a problem with that.
Mr. Ramsay: What problem do you have with that?
Mr. Therien: I think they're basically children. Legally, they're recognized as children. I think it would be very, very unfair.
Mr. Ramsay: We're talking about 16- and 17-year-olds.
Mr. Therien: I know you're talking about that. You're talking about children, 16- and 17-year-olds.
Mr. Ramsay: I consider them to be young adults.
Mr. Therien: Having been a parent, I consider them to be young adults and children. Even in their twenties, they're kids at times.
Mr. Ramsay: So would you extend that law into the twenties?
Mr. Therien: No, not at all.
Mr. Ramsay: Well, if they're children, why wouldn't you?
Mr. Therien: If they're violent offenders -
Mr. Ramsay: I'm trying to follow your reasoning. If they're children, why wouldn't you? At the age of 20, why wouldn't you recommend extending it to those people who are still children at 20?
Mr. Therien: Well, legally they're not children at 20.
Mr. Ramsay: But we're talking about changing the law.
Mr. Therien: I'm saying at 20 they're -
Mr. Ramsay: Would you recommend that?
Mr. Therien: I don't know. I'm not sure.
Mr. Ramsay: If a 20-year-old is considered to be a child, as you've indicated, would you recommend -
Mr. Therien: I didn't say that. I said, as a parent, that kids in their twenties can still be construed as children. It was a bit of a joke. It has nothing to do with a legal answer.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. No further questions.
Mr. Therien: Is there anybody here who is a parent with 20-year-olds?
The Chair: My baby is almost 30 -
Mr. Therien: Well, there, is he still a kid at times?
The Chair: - and I can't get her to move back from Vancouver.
Mr. Therien: That's what I was referring to.
The Chair: Are there any other question?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I would like to ask you about some television programs that young people tend to watch because they are violent. There are also electronic games, including Nintendo games, etc. Today there are some specialized discs that are full of violence. What is your opinion about this? Should there be representations made to prohibit certain programs which incite young people to violence?
[English]
Mr. Therien: The question is do television violence and other games showing violence have impact on the behaviour of teenagers? I don't know if they do, because the jury is still out in the United States and even, I think, in Canada. I think we will definitely have to come to some conclusion as to whether violence in television and other media actually has an impact on behaviour. I don't know.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Do you have any other questions, colleagues? Go ahead.
Mr. Knutson: In terms of statistics, you make the point that the actual numbers are not as serious as many people think they are. The murder rate is going down.
There's one view that says because of the basic demographics of the country right now there are proportionally not a lot of young people. When you actually factor this in, the youth crime problem is more serious than raw statistics would have us believe. Given the trends, and with the smaller group now, if they continue with this echo generation of the baby boomers' children, as they hit the teenage years we're in for a serious youth crime problem.
.1635
Mr. Therien: I've heard this argument. I think it is probably demographics. I don't know what segment or proportion of the population would fall under the jurisdiction of the YOA - 10% or 12% of the population, or whatever. I've heard that. I think they've used this argument in the United States. When they've seen a decrease in crime, they've said the demographics are no longer there and there are fewer people in their twenties. I think I'm sensitive to this. But I think we've got to look at the statistics as they are. That's the reality of the stats as we see them. They are the numbers.
Mr. Knutson: But on the reality of stats, if your teenage population is, say, cut by a third compared to what it was twenty years ago and your crime statistics are cut by a sixth, then for my money your crime rate is actually going up and not down. So just look at some numbers.
Mr. Therien: We're just putting off the moment of truth. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Knutson: I'm saying what do the statistics tell us in a broader sense if we factor in demographics? Are you saying you don't know or you don't understand?
Mr. Therien: I don't know. I really feel when you factor in demographics...I don't know. I don't know the answer. I think you would have to look at our prison populations and find out. I think the age of our prison population varies probably between early twenties and maybe 35 years old. I think I'm correct on that. I think as we get older we tend to -
Mr. Knutson: Commit fewer crimes.
Mr. Therien: - commit fewer crimes, exactly.
Mr. Knutson: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Therien: There is no question about it.
Mr. Knutson: Most crimes are committed by younger people.
Mr. Therien: Yes. That might be the other side of your question. It might balance out with your concern. I'm not sure.
Mr. Knutson: I'm saying if, when you factor in demographics, the crime rate is actually going up and we have a larger segment of young people coming through - the baby boomers' children - then we're in for a more serious problem in about five to ten years down the road.
Mr. Therien: I know. I understand.
Mr. Knutson: Okay. That's all.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Are there any other questions? No.
Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr. Therien: Thank you.
The Chair: We're adjourned.